The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20112395.tiff NORTH L25 ---------,„..,,,,,,.,„,„,.,,,,,,,,,.. Ili North EIS . 25 information . cooperation. transportation ., __ [.. .,b Envirollffienta . .., . _ are._ ,.... ,. 7 - . _ -nY: _ ..�•v .•. Ate. •-•-• ifip8Ci �..�.� .� �� - r - 'l►d.6.�•._�`.L.'n•. —..,........44v - tilEt . liPt• Stateffiellt .„v.. 4._ _•• _ tr I . • \ araire. iti.4.. ! 4e-° -.-- ` '•'�..- � , "! re-- 11 .� \ .:r ` mil? 4 \ ` _ <a) 4, \ . . L z; '�' t • 44----- "'......„... i _ _1'401-!'-'A;Sice'Y.7:�w...~ ..„,4yjhi.�.I.rA. • . _i :i`r ��t r-.Lief 'WWI. 4.• • 'r�II, d ,ti wilt .sici ` �'� • i g•w74�r•�v�r �7 p • J^ • 1 . 4.,� 'c t %n(�' , -;. . . '.s,-•a{^t•='&'T�• i•�ti' ;•' ., I''toP �•y .fib -i .\ r 1• .Fat :. . • •.�.. • �- �• t,' •• ,t�q. • • lj+< �a •!•#y 11tii • t� - Irr ...+rf.4rtj •ft ... . .. a -711y`�7`7.�^'.,i, -:u�c, 4( a .p . �!'. .....A.,‘• :Me'G �' ,.,.,. '� %. ,r4 ,••. . - ,, Sd: _ - 411 E• 7: \ •L• �4• . 7 ell . It Yu • •• ' 4 1 s .: _ .• J�Lt •�' ,! •• - 1;1 1 : I 1/4 VOLUME 2 of 3 2011 -2394 .........l.. 2011 -2395 DOT U.S.or IIIMPIRMINIES Deportmen• of Tran:po'tot on Federal Highway 41-11 vAdministration August 2011 . . _ „, . . . . . . _ . • APPENDIX C �' .- -:--Y ,ttct.. :"+ti: Yom,,' arse- a a ...-. ' -re—,.`_ - ; I _�, - iVM�MI a - _ __ :C '` ill s., - . 1. I j . , SuppeTent & , ,, . . Resource Iriformation f _ _ ._ • Land Use • Envronfflenta Justice • \ oke Vap s p NORTH 1-25 • VVddhfe Technical Report EIS E Addendui 11, information . cooperation . transportation . Boogca ASSe5ST8nt • Bcyce & Pedestrian Fac tes • N oRrx 1-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Land Use • • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Memorandum LAND USE CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS Prepared by: JE JACOBS August 2011 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation. transportation. Table of Contents Page No. 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Land Use Planning In The Regional Study Area 5 2.1 Local Government Planning 5 2.2 Local Government Comprehensive Plans 6 2.3 Regional Planning 17 3.0 Existing Land Use and Zoning 19 3.1 Corridors 19 3.1.1 US 85 Corridor 19 3.1.2 1-25 Corridor 23 3.1.3 BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor 27 3.1.4 Connector Corridors 29 3.1.5 Corridor Zoning 32 3.2 Facilities 33 3.2.1 Commuter Bus Stations 33 3.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit Stations 35 3.2.3 Commuter Rail Stations 39 • 3.2.4 Commuter Rail and BRT Maintenance Facilities 42 3.2.51-25 Interchange Upgrade Locations 43 4.0 Future Land Use 48 4.1 US 85 Corridor 48 4.2 1-25 Corridor 50 4.3 BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor 50 5.0 Environmental Consequences 52 5.1 No-Action Alternative 52 5.2 Package A 53 5.3 Package B 58 5.4 Preferred Alternative 64 5.5 Mitigation Measures 72 Appendices: Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts Evaluation Appendix B: Land Use and Zoning Maps Commuter Bus Stations Appendix C: Land Use and Zoning Maps Bus Rapid Transit Stations Appendix D: Land Use and Zoning Maps Commuter Rail Stations Appendix E: Land Use and Zoning Maps Commuter Rail and BRT Maintenance Facilities • Appendix F: Land Use and Zoning Maps Interchange Upgrade Locations Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. List of Figures Page No. Figure 1: Regional Study Area 4 Figure 2: Transportation Planning Regions/Metropolitan Planning Organizations 18 Figure 3: North 1-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Existing Land Use 20 Figure 4: North 1-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Future Land Use 49 Figure 5: Induced Growth Impacts—No-Action 54 Figure 6: Induced Growth Impacts—Package A 59 Figure 7: Induced Growth Impacts— Package B 63 Figure 8: Induced Growth Impacts— Preferred Alternative 71 List of Tables Page No. Table 1: Summary of Comprehensive/Land Use Plans 7 Table 2: Generalized Zoning Classifications 32 Table 3: Component A-T1 Compatibility 55 Table 4: Component A-T2 Compatibility 56 • Table 5: Component A-T3 Compatibility 57 Table 6: Component B-T1 Compatibility 61 Table 7: Commuter Rail Component Compatibility 66 Table 8: Express Bus Component Compatibility 67 Table 9: US 85 Commuter Bus Component Compatibility 68 • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation transportation_ 1.0 INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum describes the existing land use conditions and potential impacts from transportation improvements within the North 1-25 regional study area (see Figure 1). Included in this memorandum is an overview of planning activities in the regional study area, including local government and regional planning. General descriptions of the existing land use and zoning follow for the corridors proposed for improvements, including US 85 along the eastern portion of the regional study area, 1-25 in the central portion, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad/Longmont North Metro Connection, and connector corridors throughout the regional study area. Following the corridors, descriptions of existing land use and zoning are provided for the proposed commuter bus stations, bus rapid transit stations, commuter rail stations, maintenance facilities, and 1-25 interchange upgrade locations. Following existing conditions, a general overview of the future land use along the affected corridors is provided. Following the existing conditions sections is an analysis of potential direct and indirect land use impacts from the proposed improvements, including the No-Action, Package A, Package B, and Preferred Alternatives. Potential mitigation measures are summarized at the end of this memorandum. There are two appendices included with this memorandum. Appendix A contains the complete indirect impacts evaluation. Appendices B through F contains land use and zoning maps for the commuter bus stations, bus rapid transit stations (express bus under the Preferred Alternative), commuter rail stations, maintenance facilities, and 1-25 interchange upgrade locations under evaluation. • Existing and future land use information was obtained from municipal and county land use maps, 2002 to 2010 aerial photographs, comprehensive plans, and land use projections from the metropolitan planning organizations. It is important to note that development and conversion of agricultural lands to employment, commercial, and residential uses have already occurred and is occurring rapidly in the regional study area, particularly along the 1-25 corridor. Therefore, descriptions of existing land use contained in this section should be considered in a general context as specific land uses may have changed. Similarly, station and interchange zoning is based on 2004 to 2010 municipal and county information, which also has been changing rapidly, and should be considered in a general context. Zoning is only described generally for the transportation corridors because of complexities with a large regional study area and a large number of jurisdictions. • 3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 1: Regional Study Area III I I LEGEND I I -El ---- L . Regional Study Area ..�'" I ,`.. 0 Cities & Towns '�� --� ; �- w Study Corridors i 85 "./ Highways --set----elanjj K., /, i `'� Arterial Roads ('- ! ; Pierce , \' I City Boundaries . Fort Collins I ,, _, County Boundaries ; I r �� / ar; , I 257 1 I v flrinath 4 ` I Sabvfance faun' 1 I I 1 I 287 I ,� , I Lucerne ' I _,. - ti • I I \ Greeley i ' Lovcldnri 1 Gada�Ci, , 34 i I --1--rat j I .*trthas, I o 85 t.I I /1. ...r /. • r / I Mead ( I •a r :II,,,;II. i l b ;�. tLL I F , ongniont I '' '11 i you o 1 ` / fN�srme ! Wm). tilurlCk r�-e- ` r si J' / A 1 lla mo I I ,rr lair \\,../ GsHur:* I I o Erie ii ' 0 Valmont r ' alIWanc�+tr+n !1Boulderb . _ alaiiiieI t 'Sight.1 7 • .1 �• Superior_ j a i c a-e •�.. J r 'r®,. ' '�� a — _ I •\ acar. icdt+l O EdslaKe r m `� r .S. rrj I - - - _ t2:7 v�!;hala,, %� i - 1 . 36 / I r ' �� C"") O Morntcr / I / - i .1. ir \ - • fl I I —P � ' - - - - 1 - - I Den er, 70. ' — - -'�, - I 0 2 4 6 8 10 ti --s 1� ,lir/ it - -r _ �.re. I I Miles North �' '-� e I A • 1 �i. mot. 1 4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation. transportation. 2.0 LAND USE PLANNING IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA Land use planning in the regional study area is primarily undertaken by municipal and county governments. In addition, three regional transportation planning agencies are responsible for transportation planning in the regional study area, which incorporate land use projections. 2.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING The North 1-25 regional study area covers an approximately 70-mile stretch of the 1-25 corridor north of Denver and includes the parallel corridors along US 85 and the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection. The regional study area includes rural unincorporated county lands as well as urban municipal lands. Land use planning for unincorporated lands in the regional study area is the responsibility of six counties: Larimer, Weld, Boulder, Broomfield, Adams, and Denver. Both Broomfield and Denver are combined city/county governments. Most counties have coordinated intergovernmental agreements with many of the municipalities within their boundaries that address urban growth boundaries and development approval processes, important factors affecting land use planning. There are 38 municipalities along the three primary transportation corridors where improvements are being considered. With the exception of some smaller rural municipalities, most all of these municipalities have full time planning staff to address local • land use and zoning issues. Rural municipalities that do not offer planning services typically rely on the planning services of their respective county. From north to south, municipalities along the US 85 corridor include Greeley, Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, Platteville, Fort Lupton, Brighton, and Commerce City. Municipalities along the 1-25 corridor from north to south include Wellington, Fort Collins, Timnath, Windsor, Johnstown, Mead, Firestone, Frederick, Dacono, Erie, Broomfield (city/county), Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn, and Denver (city/county). The BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor includes Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, Longmont, Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono. In some cases, annexation of interchange locations or other desirable development properties has resulted in municipal boundaries extending some distance from core urban areas and the resulting planning area crossing two of the North 1-25 transportation corridors. For example, Berthoud and Fort Collins have annexed land along 1-25, but their core urban areas are along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor. Although the regional study area encompasses the towns of Pierce, Ault, and Eaton north of Greeley, for the purposes of the EIS the northern terminus is Greeley. Figure 1 depicts the existing county and municipal community boundaries in the North 1-25 regional study area. County boundaries are generally considered fixed and do not change much over time, although Broomfield County was recently formed. Occasionally, a combined city/county government such as Broomfield or Denver may annex additional lands, but the boundaries of the larger counties such as Larimer, Weld, Boulder, and Adams remain fixed. Conversely, the influx of new people and businesses moving into the regional study area has caused municipal boundaries to expand rapidly into unincorporated county lands. For example, municipalities such as Erie, Frederick, and Firestone in southwest • Weld County along the 1-25 corridor have annexed a substantial amount of lands into their towns in just the last five years, whereas in the previous 50 years, very little annexation occurred. Municipalities that have development constraints such as floodplains, foothills, 5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • closely neighboring municipalities, or require voter approval for annexations typically annex at slower rates. Also, rural municipalities farther from primary transportation corridors or urban centers (e.g. Gilcrest and Platteville) generally annex at slower rates. 2.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS A summary of local government comprehensive plans within the North 1-25 regional study area is provided in Table 1. General descriptions of the plans and related transportation elements are provided below. The descriptions are organized into county or regional plans that apply to large areas and municipal plans for specific lands along each of the three primary transportation corridors. In general, the plans were reviewed and summarized for relevant future land use goals and policies. Nearly every municipality has established or desires some type of growth management boundary. Most define growth boundaries where urban-level development is planned to occur. Others also include an expanded growth management area where the community desires to have a role in land use planning to coordinate compatible adjacent land uses, open space, or rural land uses that act as community buffers. In all cases, cooperation with their respective county and intergovernmental agreements are necessary for comprehensive land use planning along community boundaries. County Land Use Plans Adams County Comprehensive Plan, 2004. Adams • County has established three priorities in its • comprehensive plan: 1) work more closely with local Adams county governments, 2) provide opportunities for higher-end Comprehensive Plan residential development and job and tax producing January 2004 development, and 3) coordinate with local governments for public facilities and services. To meet these priorities, the county has placed an emphasis on rad stwklaa attracting high-quality commercial growth in the E-470 corridor and Denver International Airport areas. ""` IAA limnn Ses' Abate Revitalization of older commercial and industrial areas ral vdmisa :mamas Scot in the southwestern portion of the county to preserve M1Py4 jobs and take advantage of the existing infrastructure is important for enhancing this area as a gateway to the county. Other land use elements include the desire to Na ,..,--..:mla! establish community separators and preserve existing agricultural areas, while allowing complementary levels =X Neat bor of rural residential development. The county also ,,..aa.a Staz Sew CC ICni promotes a program for transferring development rights from important open space, wildlife, farmlands, and floodplain lands in the county and identifies specific � w receiving areas (locations where the development rights can be applied). • 6 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information. cooperation_ transportation. Table 1: Summary of Comprehensive/Land Use Plans Jurisdiction Plan Year County Plans Adams County Comprehensive Plan 2004 Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (2nd Edition) 2010 Broomfield City and County Comprehensive Plan 2005 Denver City and County Comprehensive Plan 2000 Larimer County Master Plan 1997 Weld County Comprehensive Plan 2008 US 85 Corridor Municipal Plans Greeley 2020 Comprehensive Plan 2010 Evans Comprehensive Plan 2010 Gilcrest Comprehensive Plan 2003 Platteville Comprehensive Plan 2000 Fort Lupton Land Use Plan 2007 Brighton Comprehensive Plan 2003 Commerce City Comprehensive Plan 2010 1-25 Corridor Municipal Plans Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan 2008 Timnath Comprehensive Plan 2007 Windsor Comprehensive Plan 2007 Johnstown Area Comprehensive Plan 2006 • Mead Comprehensive Plan 2009 Firestone Master Plan 2008 Frederick Comprehensive Plan 2004 Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2005 Erie Comprehensive Plan 2005 Thornton Comprehensive Plan 2007 Northglenn Comprehensive Plan 2010 Westminster Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2008 update BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor Municipal Plans Fort Collins City Plan 2004 update Loveland Comprehensive Plan 2005 Berthoud Comprehensive Plan 2007 Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan 2003, as amended • 7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation transportation. Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, 2010. This second 0 edition of the plan incorporates the many individually adopted elements into a more cohesive document. Since the initial *I; Comprehensive Plan of 1978, the philosophy of the plan has changed very little. Growth should be channeled to ;.. Boulder County If Comprehensive municipalities, agricultural lands should be protected , and :��.. F Plan preservation of environmental and natural resources should '' ' be a high priority in making land use decisions. The county ; Goals. Policies, f' Maps uses Community Service Areas to manage land Element development. The service areas are boundary lines drawn • , .. 1 around a municipality within which a city expects to accommodate future growth . There are service areas for the Boulder Valley, Louisville, Lafayette, Superior and Broomfield. Non-Urban planned unit development (PUD ) regulations guide growth in service areas. The county also 111. has a transfer of development rights program with designated sending and receiving areas. Larimer County Master Plan, 1997. Larimer County identified a number of guiding principles for land use. The county does not intend to provide urban services and therefore, the county believes the preferred location of urban land uses is within municipal boundaries where urban levels of service are available. Urban-type density development is encouraged in one of the county's many growth management areas. The county emphasizes annexation of existing development by the municipalities, and does not create disincentives for annexation of land within growth management areas. Transferring development rights and designated receiving II areas is a tool the county uses to manage rural versus urban development issues. Larimer County also places a priority on land use planning around the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, noting that land use decisions need to not only protect the safety of persons and property, but also prevent interference with the present and planned operation of the facility. Weld County Comprehensive Plan, 2008.Weld County makes private property rights and 1 lir it ". .1- a respect for agricultural traditions its top guiding $ f principles, along with providing fair procedures • _•__ and regulations for addressing land use changes. , . The county also values its diversity of geography, a • ' _ » � n f• � �� demography, economy, and culture. While the i IpAg z- ;,, • county places emphasis on its agricultural history f - — and current agricultural economy, it recognizes 1ar . _ that future growth will require conversion of some - ., agricultural lands to other uses. Weld County has - �•"��`; ,.` been experiencing record-setting population and "}" ' ' _ . - - development growth in recent years, particularly b c I°_ .,_ C- ' ' 1' u in the southwestern portion of the county through . , - - S.. '_ 'tpwelopc the 1-25 corridor. The county has adopted a -- _ �-_ __ ¶ Satan". �. ir- ... Mixed Use Development ( MUD) code as part of * IC"" Siliwkii Z'fs`r"ti1,017, fuvi:: tu`° "I" its comprehensive plan that allows urban-scale development within unincorporated county lands. The county currently has one MUD area along the central portion of the 1-25 corridor in the vicinity of Longmont, Frederick, III Firestone, and Mead (referred to as the 1-25 MUD). Another MUD is currently proposed along the 1-76 corridor, north of Hudson called the Southeast Weld MUD. 8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts Ill information cooperation transportation Denver Comprehensive Plan, 2000. In 2000, the Denver City Council adopted Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 which establishes a vision for Denver's future that is summarized as "A city that is livable for its people, now and in the future." Detailed plans prepared by various City departments are adopted as supplements to the Comprehensive Plan . These include the Parks and Recreation Game Plan , the Pedestrian Master Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan , as well as Blueprint Denver. Blueprint Denver, the primary document which guides land-use in the city and county of Denver, provides a long-range plan to manage growth within the Denver regional area . It addresses development, transportation needs and environmental quality. The vision for Denver in 2020 is organized around the premise that growth should be directed to areas of change, while the character of neighborhoods in areas of stability should be preserved and enhanced . Denver has identified the 1-25 corridor within City/county limits as an area of stability from north of the interchange with 1-70 to approximately Park Avenue West. In this area , Denver's goal is to maintain the character of the area while accommodating new development as well as redevelopment. From Park Avenue south and east, most of the downtown core area and the US 85 and Brighton Boulevard corridors are identified primarily as areas of change. In this area, the City's goal is to channel growth where it can best improve access to jobs, housing , and services with fewer auto trips. Additionally, both the 1-25 and US 85 corridors are identified as locations for regional rapid transit and the associated infrastructure. City and County of Broomfield - 0 Comprehensive Plan, 2005. `"'AND 5COMPI HENSOI OF T Pt ELD 7MS C(ANPRFNFISll'f Il.t.1"1.4‘11 In l i..I.r......w.NAP _ .,. r ' Unlike most of the communities • in the 1-25 corridor to the north , �. ~ a J ::-,;•.-..-..-;:-......r. �■ .i III � IFQMU Broomfield has developed much n . 1 . . . .,.._.7 _-.�- of its land area. As such, the I - r City/County has identified areas ` - --_. of change where new --i _ �w""� development and redevelopment 2.-_== is likely to occur and areas of f .4 . — — - E stability where maintaining the y�,, �' 9� mom---- existing fabric is important. TheJr ) ' 1 � H c=-= _ ♦ largest areas of change are , 1 . - .1 4, 4 . . -- located along the 1-25 corridor, J j north of the 1-25 and C-470 - 4. , (.bw...p interchange. The City/County c . . . , ." ° " " " ° ' " " " ' has also developed a "Green Edge" concept whereby a greenbelt is preserved around the City/County to protect environmentally constrained lands, steep slopes, creek corridors, and to buffer growth in adjacent communities. The City/County has also adopted a limit on annual residential building permits to manage growth . Broomfield plans to focus commercial and retail uses within its City/County limits along the 1-25 corridor. 0 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation transportation. US 85 Corridor Municipal Land Use Plans 111 City of Greeley 2060 Comprehensive Plan, 2010. Greeley's plan seeks to anticipate and promote a balance of land use types within the City's Mid-Range Expected Service Area to create an adequate supply and distribution of land uses. Land use densities and mixes that support the use of mass transit, walking, and other forms of non-motorized travel are important. The City has identified characteristics and development objectives for Neighborhood Development Districts within a one square mile area and Community Development Districts within a six square mile area. Density and land size characteristics are defined for residential, commercial , industrial , parks and natural areas, and public uses. The City of Greeley also prepared the University of Northern Colorado Study Area Neighborhood Plan 2004, which seeks to preserve the existing neighborhood character, upgrade physical improvements, pursue creative partnerships to fund infrastructure, and support neighborhood stability. City of Evans Comprehensive - - - ,.. __ - Plan, 2010. Evans has identified = -J!7ege„ i four goals to guide growth and - ` " L, l �� W 1 development, the first being to - — ,� ;.. `'"" �� l �,..r. provide orderly and efficient _. ; N f ' 0.77- _ ` 'r _ I growth patterns. The City seeks _ =� . �` � -- to have an efficient and safe __4L.. -- }=--`-I' "' ` transportation system that _ "" addresses current and future / a mobility needs and balances -- s • dependency on the automobile --.,. i �.,,.. �� with other means of travel , _ including transit, bicycle use, ' ` and walking Evans envisions - _ � Mop �. . a--'-- a== Future Land Use Plan several activity centers along 4 ---- - -- „ - * 37th Street, with one at the — '' intersection with US 85. The City has established a growth boundary, with priority growth areas to the west of the South Platte River, and two areas of long-term growth to the east and southwest. Town of Gilcrest Comprehensive Plan, 2003. Gilcrest desires to maintain its rural small town atmosphere and establish an identity that is separate from other nearby towns. The Town's goals are to minimize pressure to convert farmlands to urban densities and encourage infill development. Gilcrest plans to create a commercial center at US 85 and Main Street to support existing local businesses and to attract new business. The Town maintains an urban growth boundary that forms approximately .5-mile perimeter from the existing sanitary sewer facilities. City of Fort Lupton Land Use Plan, 2007. US 85 bypasses the central Fort Lupton commercial district where the City plans to promote and revitalize the older core area of the community. Fort Lupton acknowledges development constraints to the west of US 85 because of the South Platte River and its floodplain , and seeks to limit growth in this area to take advantage of recreational opportunities. The City wants all annexation to be contiguous with current City limits and does not intend to annex outside its 2020 growth limits. The City III also encourages expansion of mass transit connections to Denver International Airport, metropolitan Denver, and surrounding communities. 10 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information. cooperation. transportation.Brighton Comprehensive Plan, 2003. Brighton ftnghttx. Cp nprel cooperation desires to maintain a small town identity and not Figure 4: Land Use Plan The Freestanding City become a large sprawling city or suburb. The City . . , - ..,� looks to maintain or create strategic and economically .r. viable agricultural areas and an open space system on its borders, and to be orientated towards �-•��: � .# community centers, rather than linear strips. Urban �'`' rirr p service areas (growth areas) have been established i � based on existing City services or adjacent areas where extension of services may be financed by ^: { ": developers. Renewal and preservation of the core :F • • downtown area along US 85 and Bridge Street (SH 7) !toj . _\ ! ala is a While the US 85 corridor through ✓ - y_ ,_Y priority. g w ; 11 ;\ •a ; Q Brighton is designated for commercial , employment, � , «t ` ci kr d and some residential uses, it is an important gateway __ — -,-. -- for Brighton and maintaining open space along the �-- •�-y sr,- - - -__ norIISeecer corridor is a priority. Much of Brighton's growth is - a— a-- __ "' .?= • s-- N^®F110HTO directed east, between US 85 and the 1-76 corridor. .�_ .�-- or-- West of US 85 is the South Platte River and ^� hies o� -- — — associated floodplains where the City desires to focus recreational , open space, and agricultural uses. Commerce City Comprehensive Plan, 2010. Commerce City is actively working towards the development of a balanced commercial, residential , and industrial land use pattern . The City wants to upgrade the image of its commercial corridors, and improve the quality of industrial land uses while lessening the industrial impact on surrounding land uses. The US 85 corridor merges with the 1-76 corridor, just south of 120th Avenue in the Commerce City area. The City has identified three potential activity nodes through this corridor, at the cross-streets of 104th Avenue, 96th Avenue, and 88th Avenue. Commercial development is encouraged in these areas, with major residential areas adjacent. The City also seeks to construct structures and landscaping on the shoulders and medians of US 85 to enhance the visual aesthetics of the community. 1-25 Corridor Municipal Land Use Plans Town of Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan, 2008. One of the Town's top priorities is to manage growth within three distinct boundaries; existing Town limits, a planned growth area where the Town will be able to provide services, and a larger growth management area where the Town wants to pursue intergovernmental agreements with Larimer County and Fort Collins concerning growth. Wellington plans to use these growth areas as part of a strategy to extend Town boundaries with greater predictability regarding the rate, location, type, and character of growth . The Town also desires to prevent becoming a suburb of Fort Collins by creating open space buffers. An area of auto-oriented commercial development has been identified at the Wellington/I-25 interchange, near Cleveland and 6th Street. 11 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation transportation. Timnath Comprehensive Plan, 2007. The Town of F •ur.b: Futuh • - Us. '1•n III Timnath desires to maintain its small town character and —.- - - has prioritized a "Right to Farm" resolution . The Town has established a growth management area which identifies 1 --- II �-- 1 — appropriate locations for future urban-level development and I L has established a residential setback for the 1-25 corridor. f The downtown area is planned to have a balance of social , retail , civic, residential, and open space facilities. Timnath - views the 1-25 and Harmony Road interchange (on the east r side), Main Street, and the southern portion of CR-5 as the - -1 core economic areas for the community. Collaboration with i if _-- Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins, the Town of -- -_ Windsor, and other surrounding municipalities regarding development compatibility and preserving community -. F; separators is important to the community. =yi,i. Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan, 2007. Windsor plans to annex all lands within its growth management area • . �"` and only annex lands outside for compelling or strategic !' F reasons. The Town desires to have agreements with Weld , r �� r 1 ,� : - - _ , - . =' County and surrounding municipalities to ensure that all new - e _� ' '" development can be reasonably served withpublic utilities. Arm 1� .. k -,..-. .,..- Efficient and effective extension of public services and - " - ISM - 0 facilities is an important land use goal for the Town . Clustered _ �'a .4" �� residential developments are preferred over typical sprawl ,` J s 1!�" L'a . development patterns. Windsor seeks to preserve the historic ' nature of its core downtown area while promoting it as a Ityp; commercial focal point. Industrial areas are encouraged in the III , „ - — ---- .• eastern and southeastern portions of the Town to lessen the - ,. a . . impact on the downtown area and where traffic generation .. . ` and environmental impacts would be the least. ' ' • } _ r r=osf. nnvpsoa co , -= _=__;A t ��u rsr:�i�r Johnstown Area Comprehensive Plan, 2006. The Johnstown plan identifies three areas of interest: 1 ) the _ • Johnstown urban growth area where actions taken by the �� Town or others will influence the Town , 2) the Johnstown planning area where properties are eligible for annexation, ----y i and 3) the Johnstown service area which includes the j I 1 existing Town limits. The Town desires a wide variety of - . •residential densities in appropriately planned locations and j-- • 1 a t TI has identified standards for estate, 1 low, medium, and high -wr density developments. The 1-25 and SH 60 interchange is } ! ' ' l considered an area for regional commercial uses (highway- , ij oriented development), whereas the downtown area is y : �� I _ : ' ,.� considered more for destination commercial uses with L••! L 0 specialty retail and pedestrian-oriented development. \ Lm e 12 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 E1S Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation. transportation. • Town of Mead Com rehensive Plan 2009. Mead desires to create and sustain a p , community with a small-town atmosphere . The Town currently does not provide many services, but intends to create a coordinated system of public services and utilities that can be operated in a cost-effective manner. The Town believes that not all subdivisions should be provided with municipal or sanitation district sewer service, but all should have potable water systems. The Town seeks to diversify its tax base through commercial development along SH 66, 1-25, Welker Avenue east of CR 7, downtown , and other future regional arterials and collector streets. A plan to revitalize the downtown is also proposed . Firestone Master Plan, 2008. Firestone bills itself Firestone Master Plan Map '' as "a community in motion , seeking to maintain its r small town feel while taking a comprehensive " _ approach to land use and development issues to y - _ assure a high quality of life . The Town supports r ''`- ; l ill r 1 -_ , urban development within municipal limits and - establishment of urban and municipal growth � _ -- boundaries. Urban growth boundaries represent r...- ,..- 7;:_,- . ,.. . �c -_ the extent of annexation and municipal growth r .. J. .. -. )-i- --- boundaries are proposed to preserve agricultural :.L _ . ; community separator areas. The Town is looking - = . — to plan mixed use or commercial nodes at major - ........ - cross-street locations surrounded by residential '" - \ , i , . areas. Higher density residential uses are being III planned on the western side of the Town closer to the 1-25 corridor. ;-JE- R_ E - _ Mr- 0117,-- �•.._ Rp.DI Pam Maaar Mai May Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan, 2004. - . I . i i . . •TOCo/tow...taw Pie WN0FFREDERICK The Town of Frederick anticipates "=-- `w= growth with the intention of ~!=~-- --`�•maintaining a small town sense of (.. e ...-- w •— �.rte— a .�. community and of using various b r ��__ measures for managing growth at 11~ �, __ r . av the Town's edges. Frederick's i 7 . I """'" - - IpN . guiding principles are to create a - 1--- Fontana balanced community, embody a -, I ' x , j% village concept, create a job and `j 'y % -'► _ % �p housing balance integrate open s A`� • . a ,, space, address community p '7/ - '� , . - 1 ' i . connectivity, improve the ( Er* (Iacono°no %2 downtown core, enhance neighborhood and community T ' identity, and seek high quality design . The Town desires to grow in a connected pattern and encourage infill development in the core downtown area . The Town participates in an 111 intergovernmental agreement with Firestone, Dacono, and Weld County regarding growth management. The land use pattern envisioned by the Town includes a strip of employment- based uses along the 1-25 corridor surrounded by mixed use and residential uses. 13 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation transportation. City of Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2005. Dacono envisions future • development to be concentrated within a growth boundary and serviced by adequate public facilities. The City seeks to balance future land uses to ensure economic sustainability. Dacono recognizes that as development along its southern boundaries intensifies, the historic City center along SH 52 will extend further south to Colorado Boulevard (CR 13). The City seeks to create a center that has a mix of retail , commercial, residential, and civic uses. Dacono views the 1-25 corridor as an area of primarily employment and commercial uses, with residential uses to the east. The City is also planning a gateway center at the southwest quadrant of the 1-25 and SH 52 interchange and a mall at the northwest quadrant of the 1-25 and CR 8 interchange. Town of Erie Comprehensive Plan, 2005. Erie recognizes the importance of conserving and enhancing its historic small town character. The Town encourages a compact pattern of urban growth while promoting high quality design and development. Vitality of the core downtown area is viewed as important to creating a "center" for the community. Erie has identified three gateway areas for special consideration requiring a higher level of review including Leon A. Wurl Parkway (CR 8), SH 52, and County Line Road/Arapahoe Road . The Town envisions the 1-25 corridor as containing mixed uses adjacent to regional commercial uses . City of Thornton Comprehensive Plan, 2007. - • Thornton describes its desire to transition from a Future `�, ndU ate "� Map bedroom community to a full service community. I i -. -'i rw� l_- i i • The City has been expanding into unincorporated areas of Weld and Adams Counties and desires to ensure development approved by those - tatUt' ""� ' z i counties in its planned growth area is consistent. Si - Annexation and intergovernmental agreements 1111 are important tools to controlling and defining m7_ growth . The City occupies a long stretch of the 1 1 �i , _- 1-25 corridor on the east side north of the 1-25 andIII - - � - US 36 interchange. Land uses along the 1-25 t—y■ corridor are focused on commercial and mixed - `' � Y ear 1.� .r �� w.....Rr. uses, while addressing compatibility with scenic n: .. ^mfrs. — �` • ■ vistas from eastern properties to the mountains. :mar ., w Ft.b 11.OIM1.F.4.. • ,.1 ..euhti.aEw. '&nary'w ..TT'legatos _I.1..'U. sWlY.11i:P(i c.I :EEC V)Y:VO Y�,� prm.l6..r 9W .w.I �Wl.n..Y.1YleVI M.l.f.rM IF.�.rM. v r.....Yw.rrlw.�..r 1......#,I L 11... •. ....r.�.rF.r..�rw Tr�� a ° _, W.. . . ...W. • 14 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation transportationIII . City of Westminster Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2008 update. Westminster has adopted a I . City of Westminster commitment to quality for a variety of principles `: including a choice of desirable neighborhoods, `_ convenient connection to the metro area , and a ` •�,. 144th Ave.—enssustainable economy. The City has an urban growth ..,- - > 190th Aw. boundary that was defined in cooperation with the g gs ,20th Ave. Denver Regional Council of Governments. F " rrw-. Westminster is approaching full build out of its growth '� � ' 120th Ave. w 3 - , " ' -"�rn' �� 112th Ave. boundary. As such , the City seeks to balance 108th Ave. t.. .1.. ,. 4:5- , community resource needs while maximizing %1 - 6 • c , . . t 104th Ave. development and redevelopment potential of ,. y - µ:Vi " � b. ,00th Ave%trt . remaining lands. The City seeks to promote mixedrthr > I 92nd Ave use development at key transit facilities including „; a _ - : 8811iAVe their North 1-25 District Center at 140th Avenue. The E$ n .• 80th Ave. City seeks to promote the 1-25 corridor for Y �1 ' . 72nd Mt commercial uses where companies seeking regional access can locate. ® __ City of Northglenn Comprehensive Plan, 2010. Northglenn desires to create a full service community with a regional activity center. The City is surrounded by other municipalities and III unable to expand within a contiguous area. As such , Northglenn seeks to maximize use on the existing land within its borders, balancing the needs of developers and property owners The City views the northwest quadrant of the 1-25 and 104th Avenue interchange as a regional activity center, with mixed uses farther north along the corridor to 120th Avenue. The City has both existing and planned residential land uses directly adjacent to the 1-25 corridor. Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor Municipal Land FORT COLLINS Use Plans Downtown STRATEGIC PLAN Fort Collins City Plan (Comprehensive Plan), 2004 February 17.2004 update. One of the City's principles for growth is to promote a compact development pattern within a well- _ -^ • _ 0.. - defined boundary. The desired urban form would be ._ r - ` 'b .—. achieved by directing future development to mixed-use �..^12 .: , ate, ' l` _ neighborhoods and districts while reducing the potential = ' 2 __4 . for dispersed growth not conducive to pedestrian and ii; . \,� ,} . .. et transit use. Fort Collins utilizes subarea plans to address individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges. .y ., : ' •.. Along the BNSF corridor, the City has made it a priority �.4.' ft�i ' ,,.��...St r t N .RR{. s.. to protect and manage the downtown retail and r.„, entertainment district and to use energy from the core to 1 II leverage and attract new development. Along the 1-25 corridor, Fort Collins desires to maintain agricultural and A.MONITr 4 industrial uses, while minimizing impacts to residential uses through a '/4 mile setback. 15 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation transportation. Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan/Land Use Plan, 2005. Loveland has prioritized III maintenance of the BNSF corridor as a core downtown area , an activity center, and historic district. Along the 1-25 corridor, Loveland is looking to establish a regional activity center at the 1-25 and US 34 interchange. The Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport along 1-25 provides an important regional transportation role and protecting it from incompatible land uses is a priority. The City also seeks a flexible plan for its growth management area through use of intergovernmental agreements with adjoining jurisdictions. An additional component of the City's plan is the establishment of community separators to preserve the community character and identity of Loveland. Berthoud Comprehensive Plan 2007. The Town of Berthoud strives to maintain its small TownolBerchoud, Colorado town atmosphere with rural surroundings and a DRAFT5LAND US`E`' PLAN vibrant downtown core. The Town desires a � ' .411 well-defined edge that quickly transitions to ==��`` '=b� agricultural and very low density residential -=— = uses. The Town has also annexed land along -- _ ,- 1-25 and looks to that area as well as downtown . , t. ,: , as important commercial nodes. A subarea -� •I -- — plan for 1-25 envisions employment uses r_ ifs 4 �_-.� adjacent to 1-25, surrounded by residential uses -" - - -_ - . to the east and west. The Town has a growth — _ : �- 4. _`'� `____ management area where it plans urban-scale '" :- - - development, future annexations, and public services . Berthoud also has a cooperative __ _ . III planning area and a community influence area ,.2. . .. .. .V*��_ - as other means of balancing urban , rural , and :- . �n_ non-developed lands. Creating communityCb separator areas are an important outcome of '"`�` these planning processes. Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan, 2003 (as amended). Longmont uses a Comprehensive Plan Map three-tier planning process to guide • --+° �7 growth and development: a municipal . dit ,. . ` k _ __ service area , the Longmont planning -- area , and the St. Vrain Valley planning -� a r •• • Sy. - 1 _--- area . In general each tier successively - - i _ : . • m � - r the _ surrounds previous tier, with the '�;� a % • , municipal service area forming the core. 1 ,, - -- L� .1 � ` ' .-_��' - _ � y = -- _ Within the municipal service area , the --, ' - - - City employs p Y_. '' ;� �� — p ys neighborhood planning a- ,�� •_ - N ,� r __ areas as the basic unit for planning land � . '?' !rF -' � . � ' . - "� use, social , and services. Land use u ' rL. - i = r ,-, ' 1I emphasis is on urban design within the �� r:_- .� planning areas. Longmont also places emphasis on creating and promoting mixed use activities along major gateways such as SH 119, SH 66, and US 287. Development along these corridors should also maximize access and orientation to St. Vrain and Lefthand Creek greenways. • 16 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation transportation. 2.3 REGIONAL PLANNING Regional land use planning in the study area primarily consists of incorporating land use projections into long-range regional and statewide transportation plans . The state is divided into fifteen transportation planning regions, of which five are metropolitan planning organizations, based on geographic similarities, common transportation corridors, population , and socio-economic cohesiveness. Every four years, each region prepares a regional transportation plan based on the regions needs and priorities. The planning regions incorporate land use projections obtained from local governments into the plans, such as the location and timing of residential and commercial (employment) development. The North 1-25 regional study area bisects parts of three transportation planning regions including the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), the Upper Front Range (UFR) planning area, and the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Figure 2 depicts the relationship of the North 1-25 regional study area to the planning regions.County/Regional Land Use Plans Northern Colorado Regional Communities -25 Corridor Plan, 2001. This guidance NOPff -t �P�N GUI,O ISO document was prepared through a municipal and 911712 county partnership for a 32-mile segment o f 1-25, F, . � from County Road (CR) 58 north of Fort Collins ' r 4!� =. ; 1 DE to 2 miles south of SH 56 near Berthoud. The -4th ` A participating jurisdictions included Fort Collins, Loveland, Windsor, Berthoud, Timnath , Pie-GrIONAI, Gok-mAL 'n-' Ir �- Johnstown, and Larimer and Weld Counties. The preferred vision for the corridor consists of concentrated mixed-use activity nodes to support alternative modes of transportation and reduce land consumption . Larger employers and industrial uses are preferred to be clustered in a campus-like setting adjacent to activity centers or integrated with other uses into activity centers. River corridors, natural areas, and agricultural lands, where opportunities exist, would be preserved and maintained and development set back to protect long-range views. The preferred vision seeks to create a strong visual and physical connection to current and future transportation systems, to other development, and to 1-25. Single family detached residential development is discouraged within a .25 mile of 1-25 to minimize noise and visual impacts. The plan supports a continuous north/south road system set back .25 to .5 mile from 1-25 to provide efficient movement of local traffic between activity centers. DRCOG 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan (2035 MVRTP). Bringing communities together to enhance the region's quality of life is the plan's most important goal. 2035 MVRTP identifies six core elements and multiple strategies that characterize the desired future development for the metropolitan area. The most essential of the six core elements is the "Extent of Development". This element defines a regional growth boundary that defines where urban development will take place in the region over the next 25 years . The boundary contains 750 square miles of urban development, which is intended to achieve a 10 percent increase in the region's overall density between 2000 and 2030. The urban growth boundary will not exceed a maximum of 770 square miles in 2030. The transportation element of the plan assumes completion of the beltway system, including E- 470 and the Northwest Corridor. • 17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 2: Transportation Planning Regions/Metropolitan Planning Organizations III , I LEGEND ' L_' i Regional Study Area ,r __ — C) I '�. a Cities & Towns !•�� r ••.,- ., eV r I \ d^I� Study Corridors i i i 85 Highways 287 i (----- \ Arterial Roads • .L../ I \ i I pre., \ City Boundaries I I \ - , County Boundaries I F c _ —_ \. / Upper Front Range Planning Area 1 257 DRCOG boundary , I 1 a .," n I:, 1,,. S' ver,Y%r_I. North Front Range Metropolitan j I Planning Organizations s 287k I 1' ,�.e're F. I I I, I I 370, r I 263 ---I •__ 3er-LaLit4 I i 60 85 •/ L.I = 9 h , _ . i I �- /" 0/ : j 1 O / I I I 1 _ _ i66 I i1 1 I i) , , i I I I •� i Iv r v L 'IlfSfl dle L . . i o :rn, iI 1 1 1117 0 �i_g14-7 I l 'Irlll'C,'I rll) I \ i 1. l I ?a4'r'tCn ISMS %. I 1 ,�.� 7II 'irl.l+� CD _ I1H . 'fYl �i 93 ! 1, -_,..1— r - -/ I I cs\36 / ! J' o\ 287 `' / i ' I. \ , i — — 72 i/11, n , i_ — — — — I — — 17"N 1 j- i -iMIMIi Miles Norcn _4 \ 4� 1III 18 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation. transportation 3.0 EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING 3.1 CORRIDORS This section summarizes existing land use for the US 85 corridor, 1-25 corridor, BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor, and feeder bus connector corridors. Zoning information is only generally described for the corridors because of the large size of the regional study area, the number of jurisdictions affected (30 or more), and the complexity and variation of zoning definitions and districts within each jurisdiction. Existing land use information was obtained from municipal and county land use maps, 2002 to 2004 aerial photographs, and comprehensive plans. It is important to note that development and conversion of agricultural lands to employment, commercial, and residential uses is occurring rapidly in the regional study area, particularly along the 1-25 corridor. Therefore, descriptions contained in this section should be considered in a general context as specific land uses may have changed. For simplification, land uses have been generally categorized into agricultural, residential, commercial (including retail, industrial, office, etc.), and open space/parks. Figure 3 depicts these generalized existing land uses. Overall, existing land use consists primarily of agricultural lands which make up approximately 65 percent of the entire regional study area. Residential land uses make up approximately 17 percent of the regional study area and are concentrated around the municipalities. The largest areas of residential development are found surrounding • Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley, Longmont, and throughout the Denver metropolitan area. Approximately 8 percent of the land is commercial use including office, industrial and other employment areas. Open space, parks and other protected lands make up another three percent of the land use. The remainder of the lands are vacant, unknown, or surface water. 3.1.1 US 85 Corridor This section generally describes existing land use along the US 85 corridor, from the City of Greeley in the north to downtown Denver in the south. There are two major linear features that parallel US 85 through this corridor that influenced how land has been developed: the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks that closely parallel US 85 to the east and the South Platte River along the west side. As a result of the UPRR, heavier industries and commercial uses tend to be concentrated on the east side of US 85, adjacent to the UPRR tracks. Conversely, the downtown areas of rural municipalities such as Gilcrest, and Platteville are concentrated to the west of US 85 closer to the South Platte River. Evans, La Salle, Fort Lupton, Brighton, and Commerce City are the exceptions and have their downtowns to the east of US 85 and bisected by the UPRR corridor. Furthermore, the US 85 corridor, particularly south of La Salle, has a number of oil and gas developments that include access roads, pipelines, wells, or other related facilities. • 19 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS lig Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation transportation. Figure 3: North I-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Existing Land Use III _ _. LEGEND 0 Cities & Towns /\/ Highways �-- -.. V Jlington 'N Regional Study Area A'. • ! 85 ^, Study Corridors ;/tV it `'�� "/ Arterial Roads P1C,C \• I - •�ra • L �+ Existing Land Use 2005 ' `;. 1 ` • / I "'Fort Collins „ . '• Agriculture late;-. ��._� r=• • • Ault • 14 '._ � y � . •Employment Area 14 -- 4;,. 257 tr.Open Space/Parks ;• - • • Eaton • ..le Jr'IaI4P • - . , Residential r ■ Surface Water I 287• i ...Li,. ' ,— a _ ;Wuidsa mg Vacant i ' . • t b 1 • 1 r as F '` `Greeley • i 1 _ �+ . J' G serCiyf -.Loveland.. - 34 - I II :a- -- •A • ■ fl. . is— •-' Evans ' 1 1 ', • Lae , i' 1p Carnpica : Johnstown BerthOWf e w. .ar• Q rVtll�Iken 85 ' 56 ILI , I / . • Gilcrest III I . /'� 4_ . . lrneac•• • a,► - r I Iv Longmont • . /• - - ile 1 D • • 1 t %/ ,1653.? 0 ,r 111 rcestone s `• / 1 l r� / ,� iu I Nlwot t •hedanck .• s 4' 1 � a y -acono fon Lupton / • Q Gunbarrel . • I 0 _ . Er:e• I • .. 0. I : to i. .thlment _ r• ti • 4Wattenberg r _ 1 . • , .a� 7 Eow5wlle Brighton . • �'S'�• Ø J • 1' eeast:ake -- - Broomfield .S Henderson !i \ \ 3 _ tr ': 1a 93 • N turtllylerm 36 ..... .,.-• ^ Ih-unit n s /,/' • v •+ at /. . . . r . 72 \' - • • I ' ' •A••/ / I 'i- - 1 , '.Denver 70 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 . , • iii — L. ' Miles North / 1 ill 20 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation transportation. • Another major feature that influences land use along the US 85 corridor is the presence of large tracts of agricultural land . In the north end of the corridor, long stretches of agricultural lands act as community buffers between the towns of La Salle, Gilcrest, Platteville, and Fort Lupton, giving the area a distinctly rural character. South of Fort Lupton , there are fewer agricultural land uses separating the cities of Brighton , Commerce City, and Denver, leading to a more urban character associated with the growing Denver metro area. Within the towns and cities along US 85, land uses follow a typical pattern of a commercial core area associated with downtowns, surrounded by residential uses. Primary transportation corridors are also usually lined with commercial and industrial uses, as well as some residential uses. US 85 from Greeley to Evans Beginning just north of downtown : . • �:x = Greeley, land uses along US 85 are mostly employment-related , interspersed -- �_ • '=-t -- $�� with residential blocks on the west side -t- of US 85. There area number of industrial uses on the east side of US 85 , " that take advantage of the UPRR tracks _ for transporting goods. Moving south into the core of downtown Greeley along US 85, a mix of commercial and retail land uses dominate the corridor, with " • `° iy= �• = • adjacent municipal and county J ` t�,�� h �► _ ;r. - government uses to the west along Looking north at US 85 corridor through downtown a 9th and 10th Streets. A few blocks south , Greeley the core downtown transitions to the University of Northern Colorado campus and residential areas. Commercial and employment land uses reemerge south of 22nd Street and continue through the US 85 and US 34 interchange south through the Town of Evans. Evans has a commercial core concentrated along the US 85 and UPRR corridor with residential uses to the east and west. US 85 from Evans to Platteville South of Evans, the corridor transitions to agricultural land uses and small towns. US 85 forms the main street for the Town of La Salle, which has mostly commercial and business uses on the east side of US 85 and a mix of residential and commercial on the west. From La Salle southwest to the Town of Gilcrest, the US 85 corridor passes though a 5-mile stretch of agricultural lands with a few homesteads and agricultural-related businesses. In Gilcrest, there is a strip of commercial and retail land uses on both sides of US 85, with the residential core of the Town to the west. On the east side of US 85, there is a narrow strip of commercial properties located between the UPRR tracks and US 85. East of the UPRR tracks are agricultural lands. South of Gilcrest, there is another 5-mile stretch of undeveloped agricultural lands with a few homesteads and agricultural businesses. Platteville, located 5-miles south of Gilcrest, has very similar land use characteristics to Gilcrest, with a commercial strip on both sides of US 85, a narrow strip of commercial uses east of US 85 (between US 85 and the UPRR tracks), and the bulk of the residential core to the west of US 85. In this area , the South Platte River is located less than 1 mile to the west of US 85 and constrains development of the Town to the west. At the south end of Platteville, US 85 surrounds the historic Fort Vasquez Museum, located in the US 85 median . 21 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation transportation. US 85 from Platteville to Brighton III After Platteville, there is an 8-mile long - stretch of agricultural lands with • - ,_ . . _ r scattered homesteads and agricultural - businesses until the City of Fort Lupton . _ _ US 85 bypasses around the western ; . edge of Fort Lupton , with access to the ;� ; • jN ��a ._ • - - Town from the SH 52 and US 85 _ . -. . .; .:� , . - =� - • , r . _ �� . - _- _- interchange. The South Platte • - . `�� 3 `? ~` ' L., River parallels US 85 immediately to the west '' `fa . � ,` 1b"4 . in this vicinity. With limited access to :, �: L US 85 and development constraints to - may, . w. the west along the South Platte River, t commercial strip development is not as Looking north at US 85 corridor through Fort Lupton predominant along US 85 through Fort Lupton . Rather, residential and agricultural properties, and Lone Pine Park are the main land uses adjacent to the east side of US 85 through Fort Lupton . Between Fort Lupton and the City of Brighton , the US 85 corridor passes through another 5-mile stretch of agricultural lands interspersed with a few businesses and homesteads on the east side of the road . To the west of US 85, the South Platte River closely parallels the roadway only leaving enough land for smaller agricultural properties and a gravel mining operation . As US 85 enters the Brighton area , commercial and business uses along the corridor increase. Through the core of Brighton along the roadway, residential uses are concentrated to the west of US 85, while commercial uses are located to the east between the roadway and the UPRR tracks. 0 US 85 from Brighton to Downtown Denver Agricultural uses dominate the corridor south of Brighton , but become _ -- - interspersed with a patchwork of ponds _ . tr.' . » _ ' _ from former gravel mining operations ", . ..�,. r -�.; -. ii raw along the South Platte River to the west • - , of US 85. Through this area there is an . increase in conversion of agricultural ,� 7 a ' - - lands to residential uses as development in the Commerce City area t I.. expands northward . As US 85 makes its `4; . . , 9 way into central Commerce City, = - � " industria l and commercial uses that the , .; . 2 ' ' i a ('� City is known for increase substantially. Looking northeast from Denver Union Station toward From this point on into the central Commerce City Denver area and along the combined corridors of US 85, 1-76, US 6, and SH 2, land uses are mostly industrial and commercial with only a few small pockets of residential properties. Ill 22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation. transportation. 3.1 .2 I-25 Corridor This section generally describes existing land use along the 1-25 corridor, beginning at the Town of Wellington in the north to downtown Denver in the south . The 1-25 corridor can be generally defined as encompassing the interstate , as well as the interchanges and frontage roads serving the interstate. Land uses are rapidly changing along the 1-25 corridor, particularly south of Harmony Road where agricultural lands are being converted to commercial and residential uses rapidly. Land uses typically are driven by interchange locations where commercial uses are centered , and stretches between interchanges where agricultural and residential uses are more likely to be accessed by frontage roads. Furthermore, the 1-25 corridor, particularly south of SH 119, has a number of oil and gas developments that include access roads, pipelines, wells, or other related facilities. 1-25 from Wellington to Harmony Road Near the Town of Wellington , land surrounding the 1-25 and SH 1 interchange has not been commercially developed. Land use is mostly agricultural surrounded by residential . To the east of the interchange, the area is characterized by rural residential and to the west is the Town center and higher density residential . Traveling south from Wellington , land use is mostly agricultural for approximately 7 miles with a couple of larger residential • ?tr. '_ • developments interspersed adjacent to - - ; - 1-25. Approximately 3 miles north of the ' .- F, 1-25 and Mulberry Street (SH 14) 11 `'�= ` interchange is a large employment center where the Anheuser-Busch Brewery is located . South along 1-25 at -1/ the 1-25 and Mulberry (SH 14) interchange in Fort Collins, land use is Looking north along the 1-25 corridor through comprised of commercial properties, Wellington surrounded by residential development. Traveling south from this interchange, land uses are primarily agricultural with a few commercial properties. Just north of the 1-25 and Harmony Road interchange , the corridor is bisected by the Cache La Poudre River and numerous ponds remain from former gravel mining operations. The 1-25 and Harmony Road interchange includes a mix of commercial and agricultural uses. 23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation transportation. 1-25 from Harmony Road to US 34 III Current and former gravel mining operations _ and agricultural lands continue to dominate u �-.Ys� _ _ �:R.. f.> Ja � . south along 1-25 from Harmony Road until just _"_ .� north of the 1-25 and SH 392 interchange, . where the Fossil Creek Reservoir is located on - - -- the west side of 1-25. At this interchange, there __ - _ ��`-.. _ ---. ,.,.. 4 is a mix of hotels and retail development, • surrounded by mostly residential land uses to ---- the southeast. Farther south of this location _1 i1 along 1-25, more commercial and employment is:- \__. 1. - uses appear with the Fort Collins-Loveland Airport just `' Municipal p p west of I-25 and the Looking south from the 1-25 and US 34 interchange Budweiser Event Center to the east. There are (recent development has already changed the area a number of airport-related and other businesses mixed among agricultural uses through this part of the corridor. As I-25 nears Loveland and the interchange with US 34, commercial and business land uses increase. This interchange is developing into a major center for these types of uses. 1-25 from US 34 to SH 119 Just south of the 1-25 and US 34 _ Wiz. _._ _ _ - _ • - . -. interchange, land uses revert back to '"— 'r agricultural until 1-25 crosses over the Big --- _.- III Thompson River. This area contains a ' number of ponds from former gravel mining . \r - operations to the east and west of 1-25. To :� the west, directly adjacent to 1-25 is the Big _,"` Thompson Ponds State Wildlife Area . Agricultural lands dominate south of the Big .. - . ---11.001 Thompson River for approximately 2 miles to the 1-25 and SH 402 interchange. There are Looking north along the 1-25 corridor just north of a few commercial uses on the east side of SH 119 (St. Vrain State Park to left) 1-25 at this location , including the well-known Johnson's Corner truck stop. Just south of this area agricultural lands are interspersed with a few commercial properties and a campground , before returning to larger tracts of agricultural property farther south along 1-25. Agricultural lands dominate for the next 7 miles to the south , with only a few homesteads, interchanges, and a motocross course in between . Higher density residential developments appear south of CR 38 to the west of 1-25, with lower density residential properties to the east. As 1-25 approaches the interchange with SH 66, low density residential properties are located west of 1-25 and a business park occupies the northeast quadrant of the interchange . The 1-25 corridor passes through another 2-mile stretch of agricultural lands south of SH 66 until it crosses the St. Vrain River drainage and the Town of Firestone. To the northeast of this crossing a large scale residential community is being developed. There are numerous ponds from former gravel mining operations to the east and west of 1-25 through the drainage, and on the west directly adjacent to 1-25 is the St. Vrain State Park. About a 1/2 mile south of the St. Vrain River is the 1-25 and SH 119 interchange that includes a collection ofIII commercial uses in all four quadrants, as well as residential properties in the southwest quadrant. There is also an active gravel mining operation to the northeast of the interchange. 24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation transportation. • 1-25 from SH 119 to Northwest Parkwav/E-470 South from SH 119, commercial properties are adjacent to 1-25 on the east side for about 2 miles, with mainly agricultural uses to the west. There is another strip of commercial properties _'°"� Cr about 1 mile farther south on the west - � f::: - side of 1-25 just north of CR 18, with low ` _ •" ` '' J _ ~sec.•. 'eW . r f ' 1t density residential properties adjacent further to the west. To the southeast of 1-25 and CR 18 is another area of ,tyct. . s; rte. commercial properties adjacent to 1-25 extending about a 1/4 mile south . From ar_ y _— . this location south to SH 52, land use is Looking north along the 1-25 corridor just north of mostly agricultural. Recent development SH 52 (note recent site development on right) has transformed the 1-25 and SH 52 interchange area in to an employment center with commercial development in the southwest and southeast quadrants. Farther south is a large auto salvage yard located on the southeast corner of 1-25 and CR 12 . On the same side of 1-25 just past the salvage yard is the Colorado National Speedway, which is surrounded by agricultural properties. Agricultural land uses again dominate south of CR 10 for the next four miles to the 1-25 and SH 7 interchange where another large employment center is being developed with commercial uses. Commercial uses extend south from SH 7 to the 1-25 and Northwest Parkway/E-470 interchange where more commercial uses are currently being developed . 25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation transportation. 1-25 from Northwest Parkway/E-470 to Downtown Denver III Land use south from Northwest T . Thom, . - Parkway/E-470 to just north of the 1-25 and - - 120th Avenue interchange has been changing rapidly. A mix of commercial, retail , 1-.:--.: " _ :1 and residential properties are being ►. ,• _ i . ; � ` , -2-__.-_- - developed parallel to 1-25 on both sides of f_. = '.' T. - ' • -- - - _ - lc the highway. Just south of 136th Avenue on " -'.-- ^r�. the east side of 1-25 is a golf course and -� • .i large residential area . Farther south is the ,,., 1-25 and 120th Avenue interchange where i _ hotels are located in the northwest quadrant, a ? . 't- _ municipal facilities and hotels in the Looking north at the 1-25 and 104th Avenue northeast, a large RTD park-n-Ride facility in interchange the southwest, and a medical complex in the southeast. South of 120th Avenue and to downtown Denver the land is almost entirely built out with commercial , retail , and _ . _ _ � . _ ,. - . residential properties, with only a few ? � Tr. .,. - -. - � -. undeveloped parcels remaining . Residential _ p r • ! er-4 ' .. properties back directly onto 1-25 on both - -_ sides of the highway south of 120th Avenue ..... .. -"-A _ •- interspersed with a few commercial - = _ . .;� . 1= "" _ • properties until the 1-25 and 104th Avenue _ t-, interchange. At this location , large • commercial and business properties i3 v�, t ' , dominate the western side of the Looking south from 1-25 and 1-70 interchange interchange, residential uses are to the toward downtown Denver northeast, and a large cemetery is to the southeast. South of 104th Avenue residential properties • -- - ,t'± • :=� _ -- s --__-_ , again abut to 1-25 on the west side of the - ._ - •-• ` �� highway and commercial properties are on - � the east side. Farther south , there is a larger -4a _ area of undeveloped lands in the southwest quadrant of the 1-25 and Thornton Parkway , . _ interchange. There are a few residential properties spaced around this vacant land `" . n until the 1-25 and 84th Avenue interchange where commercial dominate all properties Looking north at the 1-25 and E-470 interchange four quadrants of the interchange. (commercial development has occurred since this Residential properties dominate south of this photo was taken) interchange on both sides of the highway until the 1-25 and US 36 interchange. From this location south to downtown Denver, development along the 1-25 corridor is mostly related to large interchanges (US 36, 1-76 , and 1-70), railroad yards and service facilities, and larger commercial and industrial properties. III 26 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • 3.1 .3 BNSF/Longmont cooperation transportation. NSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor This section generally describes existing land use along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor, beginning north of downtown Fort Collins, south to Longmont, east toward Firestone, and south to Thornton . In the north , the BNSF corridor is closer to the Front Range foothills than either of the other transportation corridors considered in this study. Development constraints can be more prevalent in this area with an increased number of streams, open space and parks, and existing residential and urban centers. The northern part of the corridor is more developed than the northern portion of either of the 1-25 and US 85 corridors Land use is characterized by urban centers surrounded by suburban residential and neighborhood centers with undeveloped lands separating towns and cities. BNSF from Fort Collins to Loveland Beginning northwest of downtown Fort Collins and one block west of College Avenue (US 287), the BNSF corridor follows Mason Street, a multi-modal - _ �� ,--- - transportation corridor. Because of its _ , • ,„ t - . , re, :-; - proximity to downtown , land uses along ;low � ' •, ir-: .- �- Mason Street are mostly commercial . and businesses with a few residential -- wivb '• properties interspersed along the street. y• % ,, Local government facilities are JPL' • - Arliptn �T concentrated at the north end of the r 1► • , Mason Street corridor. Farther south on ""� t# 1 Mason Street, just past Laurel Street, ' g ' a - the corridor traverses through the Looking north at BNSF (Mason Street) corridor on left eastern edge of Colorado State and US 287 in center through Fort Collins University (CSU ). For approximately % mile, land uses through this area are generally associated with the CSU campus with offices, classrooms, parking , and recreational facilities. South of the campus area, the corridor transitions to some undeveloped properties and larger commercial uses. South of Drake Road until Harmony Road , residential uses dominate to the west of the BNSF corridor, with commercial uses to the east. Mason Street ends at Harmony Road , where the BNSF corridor begins to move away from the urban area of Fort Collins and toward residential and open space lands. Just south of Harmony Road, the BNSF corridor crosses over Fossil Creek and its associated system of open space and trails. At this location , the BNSF corridor veers slightly to the southwest away from US 287 to parallel Taft Avenue/Shields Street. Land uses through this section are mostly associated with large tracts of open space and agricultural lands which separate 27 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 US Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation transportation. the communities of Fort Collins and Loveland . As the BNSF corridor - approaches West 57th Street, it veers • back to the southeast toward the US 287 corridor. Here residential land uses . increase as the corridor approaches , • - -�- Loveland . Residential uses dominate on w T - :: both sides of the BNSF corridor through %r 'i ': . �� , . 4 _ • T • - IP.46 / 4 this area , with Lake Loveland to the - ipft : west. Similar to downtown Fort Collins, • - j , the BNSF corridor is located _ one block 11 west of the core Loveland downtown - . I area paralleling the one-way couplets p Looking north at BNSF corridor through Loveland with of Cleveland Avenue and Lincoln Lake Loveland on left. Avenue (US 287). Here, land uses along the BNSF corridor to the west are primarily residential , with a few commercial uses interspersed . East of the BNSF corridor is primarily commercial uses. Around 1st Street, the BNSF corridor again curves to the southwest where it crosses the Big Thompson River and passes by ponds from former gravel mining operations and recreational facilities. BNSF from Loveland to Longmont South of Loveland , the BNSF corridor passes though undeveloped and commercial areas. South of SH 402 , residential uses appear to the west of the corridor, with undeveloped and commercial uses to the east. Agricultural land uses increase as the corridor continues south past 28th Street and SH 60, just north of Berthoud. There are a few small and mid-sized subdivisions interspersed among agricultural properties in this area. Residential uses increase as the corridor approaches Berthoud , where the BNSF corridor bisects the Town core. Land uses to the west of the BNSF corridor through the downtown are mostly residential and to the east are commercial . South of the Berthoud main street, Mountain Avenue, mostly residential uses line both sides of the BNSF corridor. As the BNSF corridor heads south from Berthoud, there is a stretch of primarily agricultural land that extends for approximately 61/2 miles to SH 66, just north of Longmont. This stretch has some low- density residential uses spread throughout, but is mostly agricultural land . As the BNSF corridor crosses SH 66 and the northern boundary of Longmont, land uses abruptly change to residential on both sides of the tracks and continue on into Longmont. There are a few churches, recreation facilities, and vacant properties, adjacent to the corridor, but residential uses dominate. Just north of East 9th Avenue, there is a large commercial property, near where the tracks veer to the southwest. The corridor continues to pass through residential neighborhoods, passing by Collyer Park, located on the west side of the tracks. Residential uses continue until 3rd Avenue where the land uses change to industrial , commercial , and undeveloped lands. This area, just north of Ken Pratt Boulevard (SH 119), is a core industrial area along the St. Vrain River. There are ponds from former gravel mining operations, as well as Longmont's primary sewage treatment facility located here. The BNSF tracks split at this location into east and southwest branches. 28 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation transportation. Longmont North Metro Connection The Longmont North Metro Connection provides a connection from Longmont _ southeast toward Thornton, where thees Latr1/4ir `= corridor would connect to the proposed - . _ - FasTracks North Metro rail line near : r'► • SH 7, east of 1-25. East from the Sugaral-M Mill property, land uses along SH 119 r~ are primarily agricultural with R subdivisions and commercial f "" Y � �r �`�,.�� •�,�_ �_ interspersed . There is a recreation property with baseball fields south of 1' •t *,..�.�:. .. SH 119 and east of County Line Road . Farther east along SH 119, there are Looking northeast from the US 287 and Ken Pratt residential uses to the north and Boulevard intersection toward where the BNSF tracks commercial uses to the south. SH 119 branch crosses the St. Vrain River west of WCR 7, where there are a number of ponds from former gravel mining operations. The corridor turns south at WCR 7 where there are additional ponds from gravel mining as well as current gravel mining operations. Land uses along WCR 7 are primarily agricultural with a few farmsteads located adjacent to the road. East of the road and north of CR 16 is a large lot subdivision . South to WCR 10, agricultural lands are interspersed with a few large lot residences. At WCR 10 the corridor veers away from WCR 7 to the southeast along the Union Pacific Railroad's former Dent Line, the proposed FasTracks North Metro. The UPRR crosses 1-25 north of WCR 8 with agricultural land uses dominating to the end of the corridor at SH 7. 3.1.4 Connector Corridors This section generally describes land use along eight connector corridors which generally are perpendicular to the three primary corridors in the study area (US 85, 1-25, and the BNSF). Harmony Road/Weld County Road 74 from SH 257 to US 287 West from SH 257 to 1-25, land uses are mostly agricultural with a few farmsteads adjacent to the road. On the northwest corner of SH 257 and County Line Road, a large residential development being constructed . West from the 1-25 and Harmony Road interchange, there is a mix of undeveloped agricultural lands and commercial uses adjacent to Harmony Road . Agricultural lands diminish as the road leaves the interchange area and is replaced with developed lands. There are a number of large subdivisions set back from Harmony Road interspersed among the commercial properties. There are also a few retail centers along this stretch . 29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation. transportation. SH 257 from Weld County Road 74 to US 34 111 South from WCR 74, there is a mix of agricultural lands and large lot subdivisions. These land uses continue until just north of SH 392, where the road crosses Windsor Lake on a narrow causeway. South of the lake, residential and commercial uses dominate associated with the Town of Windsor. The corridor jogs to the east along SH 392 through Windsor's downtown commercial _ r -. =; '' - .� = ---- • • district. East of the downtown , } commercial uses give way to residential e - - uses. There is a cemetery on the southwest corner of SH 392 and SH 257 where the corridor again jogs to the south along SH 257. South of SH 392 , there are mostly commercial uses to the east of SH 257 and residential uses to the west. SH 257 crosses over the y '• Cache La Poudre River drainage which - .dal 41. has a number of ponds from former Looking west along US 34 just east of 1-25. gravel mining, as well as residential uses. South of the river, SH 257 veers to the southeast following a drainage through rolling terrain until it intersects with US 34. Land uses through this stretch are agricultural and oil and gas development. US 34 from Greeley to Loveland/US 287 West from Greeley, land use along the business loop portion of US 34 is primarily residential near the core downtown area . As 10th Street continues west past 23rd Avenue, land uses become more typical of commercial/retail strip development. This continues west until a number of large subdivisions begin to dominate the corridor around 50th Avenue. Development gives way to primarily agricultural lands interspersed with only a few subdivisions and commercial properties until the interchange with 1-25. At the interchange , large regional commercial centers are being developed in the northwest and northeast quadrants. Commercial uses dominate on the north side of US 34 west of the 1-25 interchange, but quickly revert to agricultural lands interspersed with a few commercial and residential uses. As the corridor approaches Loveland, agricultural lands diminish and are replaced with a solid mix of commercial and residential uses. Commercial uses dominate as the corridor approaches US 287 and the downtown Loveland area . SH 60 from US 85 to 1-25 This corridor is characterized by primarily long stretches of agricultural lands between US 85 and the small rural Towns of Milliken and Johnstown . SH 60 crosses the South Platte River drainage east of Milliken and has a few subdivisions interspersed among agricultural lands. The roadway serves as a central commercial corridor through Milliken and Johnstown . West of Johnstown , land use is again primarily agricultural with a few residential parcels. 30 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • SH 56 from I-25 to Berthoud information. cooperation. transportation. Land use along this stretch of road is almost entirely agricultural with a few homesteads adjacent to the roadway. Commercial and more dense residential development begins as SH 56 enters Berthoud , where it forms the main street for the Town . SH 119 from 1-25 to Longmont At the 1-25 interchange, SH 119 contains mostly strip commercial development, but quickly changes to agricultural uses, as well as undeveloped lands associated with former gravel mining operations. Here the roadway crosses the St. Vrain River drainage and then passes several subdivisions setback from the roadway. Farther west there are a few recreational and commercial uses adjacent to the road before it again crosses the St. Vrain River. Near this crossing , there are several large former industrial properties on the outskirts of Longmont. SH 119 parallels the St. Vrain River until the intersection with US 287 where more typical strip retail development dominates. SH 52 from Fort Lupton to Niwot West from Fort Lupton , the corridor crosses the South Platte River drainage and is primarily used for agricultural purposes. There are a , ,; :�-� � .� _; , ^ T ..,---,i � . — number of homesteads interspersed v M .r- ,.1 - among the agricultural lands adjacent � ��° ~ u�,.-�" to the roadway. West of CR 17, the corridor passes through Dacono and l • • ,, ; .;,� ,� Frederick. Through this area, r . w ~ agricultural lands are quickly being ' " ' "' • converted mostly to residential uses. " Commercial uses are interspersed rfget_ J among subdivisions near the Towns Looking west along SH 52 just east of 1-25. and then dominate at the interchange with 1-25. Open space separates subdivisions west of 1-25 as SH 52 enters Boulder County to Niwot. E-470 from 1-25 to Denver International Airport Land uses are rapidly changing along this corridor from agriculture to large subdivisions and employment and commercial centers. East from 1-25, there are a number of newer large subdivisions between interchanges. New commercial development is occurring at the interchanges with York Street and Colorado Boulevard and a few locations in between . E-470 crosses over the South Platte River further east and then crosses the US 85 and 1-76 corridors. Land uses in these areas are also rapidly changing from agriculture to residential and commercial centers. From 1-76 south to Pena Boulevard and Denver International Airport, there are still long stretches of agricultural lands. 31 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • 3.1.5 Corridor Zoning Because zoning varies by municipal or county within the jurisdictions, there are more than 100 distinct zoning classifications in the study area. Most of these categories are similar in nature and can be grouped into common categories. For example, Residential One (R1) in Evans and Residential Low (RL) in Fort Collins both represent a low-density residential zoning classification. For the purposes of this analysis, both are grouped into the low-density residential classification. A summary of these generalized zoning classifications in the North 1-25 regional study area is provided in Table 2. Table 2: Generalized Zoning Classifications Zoning Classification Description Rural Residential Generally includes residential areas developed at a density and character compatible with agricultural uses. Low-Density Residential Generally includes large lot residential uses. Often protects rural character and uses. Single-Family Residential Generally allows for small-lot, suburban, one-family residential developments. Medium-Density Generally provides for a mixture of medium-density/multi-family housing Residential types including, but not limited to triplexes, fourplexes, and attached wall townhomes. High-Density Residential Generally includes a mixture of high-density housing types including, but • not limited to condominiums, stacked flats, garden apartments, and apartments. Mobile Home Residential Generally intended to allow for developments where spaces are either sold or rented for the placement of a manufactured home in a park-like setting, where the homes are used as seasonal or permanent residences. Mixed Use Generally designed to accommodate a variety of land uses including, but not limited to residential, commercial, office, and open space. Business/Office Generally designed to accommodate professional or financial services, research and development, or corporate offices. Commercial Generally refers to areas for the development of commercial, business, retail, and/or service uses. Industrial Generally includes areas for the development of research, light or heavy industrial, warehouse, and/or distribution centers. Planned Unit Development Generally a versatile zoning mechanism allowing for land development of any nature (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.)either as a single use or in combination, through total integrated project planning. Agricultural Generally includes farming, ranching, and other agricultural related uses. Residential development where compatible is often allowed. Open Space/Conservation Generally established as a conservation district to preserve the environment and natural character of the landscape within the district. Land within the district may be used for trails and passive, active, and developed recreation. Public Generally recognizes all publicly owned lands in a jurisdiction (federal, state, or local government). • Specialized Generally covers other special districts such as economic or business, residential enclaves, or conservation. 32 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation transportation_ Zoning classifications for the three transportation corridors vary. In general, all corridors have large stretches of land in between the municipalities that is zoned by the counties as agriculture, low density residential, or open space. The US 85 corridor has the largest stretches of land zoned agriculture, followed by the I-25 corridor and then the BNSF/North Longmont Connection corridor. The majority of county zoning is agriculture and low-density residential, although there are enclaves of land zoned medium-density residential spread throughout the regional study area. Within the municipalities, there is a mix of parks and open space, industrial, commercial, and higher density residential zoning. Commercial zoning is usually adjacent to transportation corridors or urban centers and surrounded by residential zoning. 3.2 FACILITIES This section summarizes detailed existing land use and zoning for the commuter bus stations, bus rapid transit stations, commuter rail stations, maintenance facilities, and 1-25 interchange upgrade locations. Existing land use information was obtained from municipal and county land use maps, 2002 to 2004 aerial photographs, and comprehensive plans. It is important to note that development and conversion of agricultural lands to employment, commercial, and residential uses is occurring rapidly in the regional study area, particularly along the 1-25 corridor. Therefore, descriptions contained in this section should be considered in a general context as specific land uses may have changed. Similarly, zoning is based on 2004 to 2006 municipal and county information, which also has been changing rapidly, and should be considered in a general context. Appendices B through F contain • land use and zoning maps for the stations, maintenance facilities, and 1-25 interchange upgrade locations. 3.2.1 Commuter Bus Stations A description of the existing land use and zoning at each proposed commuter bus station area is provided below. Maps are provided in Appendix B. Greeley Commuter Bus Station The proposed commuter bus station site is on the northwest corner of US 85 and D Street and is currently occupied by an auto salvage yard, mobile home park, and rural residences. The area east of US 85 is undeveloped but is occupied by a large colony of prairie dogs. Surrounding land use to the west is aggregate mining adjacent to the Cache la Poudre River. To the southwest land uses are a mix of residential, light industrial, and commercial. To the northeast and southeast land use is industrial. To the east land uses are agricultural and open space. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, the City of Greeley and Weld County. The City of Greeley zoning for the proposed station site is conservation district and medium intensity industrial. Surrounding zoning includes both the above, as well as, medium and high intensity industrial, low and high intensity commercial, high density residential and PUD. Weld County zoning for the surrounding area includes low density residential, industrial, business commercial, and agriculture. • 33 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • South Greeley Commuter Bus Station The proposed station site is northwest of the US 85 and US 34 interchange on the southwest corner of 26th Street and 9th Avenue, and occupies a parking lot between commercial uses. Businesses surround the station site in all directions except to the north and northwest. To the northwest and west, land uses are dominated by residential areas and about 2000 feet northwest is a school. Near the intersection of US 85 and US 34 to the southeast is a small residential development. Large tracts of commercial businesses extend east and northeast. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, the City of Greeley and Garden City. The City of Greeley zoning of the proposed station site is commercial high intensity and surrounding zoning includes commercial high intensity, medium intensity industrial, low and medium density residential, and mobile home residential. Garden City has jurisdiction over a small tract to the south of the proposed station but this area is not zoned. Evans Commuter Bus Station The proposed station site on the southeast corner of US 85 and 42nd Street is on a vacant lot. The site is flanked on the east by a subdivision and storage lot and on the west by US 85. Commercial land uses dominate to the west and north and the South Platte River is to the south. To the east are single family residences with some multi and two family units, small industrial buildings adjacent to the railroad tracks, and commercial establishments, likely industrial/farming supply stores. • City of Evans zoning of the proposed station site includes residential commercial and single family residential. Surrounding zoning includes commercial high intensity, low industrial intensity, and single family residential. Platteville Commuter Bus Station The proposed station site is located on the northwest corner of US 85 and SH 66 on a vacant lot. Development is concentrated along the western side of US 85. Adjacent uses to the lots consist of three small warehouses on the north, two commercial businesses on the south, and a school to the west. Uses to the south of the sites are low and high density residential. Farther to the north are public parks and high and low intensity residential. West of the site is the South Platte River and undeveloped open land with adjacent agricultural uses. All uses to the east beyond US 85 are agricultural land. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Platteville and Weld County. Platteville does not have zoning but they have adopted a comprehensive plan for their jurisdiction. Future land use designations include commercial, low, medium, and high density residential, vacant/undeveloped, public/semi-public, park/recreations. Weld County zoning for the area west of the South Platte River is agriculture. • 34 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information. cooperation. transportation. Fort Lupton Commuter Bus Station The land uses within the proposed station site on the southeast corner of US 85 and 14th Street (CR 14.5) are an industrial truck yard and a gas station with a convenience store. The site is adjacent to the eastern right-of-way of US 85. Beyond US 85 to the northwest and southwest land uses consist of industrial, agricultural land, and the South Platte River. Land uses immediately surrounding the site in all directions to the east consist of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Fort Lupton and Weld County. Fort Lupton zoning of the proposed station site is light industrial, and surrounding zoning includes heavy industrial, heavy and general commercial, low and medium density residential and mobile home, and parks and open space. Isolated parcels to the northwest and northeast are zoned as agricultural by Weld County. 3.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit Stations A description of the existing land use and zoning at each proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) station area is provided below. Maps are provided in Appendix C. South Fort Collins Transit Center BRT Station The proposed station site is located southwest of US 287 and Harmony Road, adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks, northwest of US 287 and West Fairway Lane. The site is on an undeveloped parcel owned by the City of Fort Collins. The proposed station site is • surrounded by a mix of uses including commercial, isolated small open areas, large lot residential and single family residential units. To the east is US 287. To the west, land uses are mostly single family and estate/rural residences and some smaller parcels with undeveloped agricultural land. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Fort Collins and Larimer County. The City of Fort Collins has zoned the proposed station area as a commercial district and the surrounding area as commercial, Harmony Corridor, low density residential, and public open lands districts. Larimer County zoning for the surrounding area includes farming and residential. Harmony Road and Timberline BRT Station The proposed site is on the southwest corner of Harmony Road and Timberline. The site includes a commercial building and its parking lot east of Timberline. The western portion includes a parking lot in front of a movie theater. The station would share parking with the movie theater. Surrounding land uses in all directions include a mix of residential uses including large lot and high density, commercial, public open lands, and small parcels of undeveloped land. Fort Collins zoning for the station site is within the Harmony Corridor District, and zoning for the surrounding area includes low density mixed use neighborhood, low density residential, urban estate, employment district, and public open lands. • 35 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • I-25 and Harmony Road BRT Station The proposed station is located on the northwest corner of 1-25 and Harmony Road at the site of a park and ride lot and open space designated for the future expansion of the park and ride. The majority of the surrounding area is undeveloped land. To the northwest is open space land with lakes and ponds. Adjacent to the southwest is Harmony Road beyond which is agricultural land. Directly to the south is a gas station and convenience store, nursery with a lake and pond, and a small developing subdivision. To the east is 1-25, graded areas, and agricultural land. A small group of houses within the Town of Timnath are located to the northeast across 1-25. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under three jurisdictions, Fort Collins, Larimer County, and Timnath. City of Fort Collins zoning of the proposed station area is public open land. Fort Collins zoning for the surrounding area consists of urban estate district, public open lands, and the Harmony Corridor District. Larimer County zoning includes commercial and farming, and Town of Timnath zoning surrounding the proposed station site includes old town residential, two family-multi family residential, and commercial. Windsor BRT Station The proposed station site is located just southeast of the 1-25 and SH 392 interchange, between 1-25 and a subdivision. The site is within an undeveloped parcel adjacent to 1-25. East of the site is a residential area and to the west is 1-25, agriculture land, and the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. To the south is agricultural land. The Town of Windsor zoning for the proposed station area is light industrial. Surrounding • zoning is under the jurisdiction of the Town of Windsor and Larimer County Windsor zoning includes general commercial, general commercial PUD, residential mixed use and limited industrial. Larimer County zoning includes residential, estate, multifamily, commercial, airport, tourist and farming. Crossroads BRT Station There are two sites proposed for the station, referred to as the northeast and southeast sites. Northeast Site (Site 0). The proposed station site is northeast of 1-25 and Crossroads Boulevard in the area occupied by the Budweiser Events Center. The station would share parking with the Events Center. Surrounding land uses include a mix of agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses. To the south is Crossroads Boulevard with a small commercial area. I-25 is adjacent to the west next to agricultural property and the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. A developing commercial center is located to the northwest, immediately north is agricultural land, and to the northeast is a developing residential area and golf course. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Loveland and Windsor. The City of Loveland zones the proposed station area as Larimer County Fairgrounds and the surrounding area as developing industrial, business, and resource. Surrounding zoning by Larimer County includes agriculture and airport, and Town of Windsor includes general commercial and limited industrial. • 36 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation. transportation. Southwest Site (Site M). The proposed station site is southwest of 1-25 and Crossroads Boulevard on agricultural land, south of the Great Western railroad. To the north of the proposed station site is agriculture and open land but commercial/business sites are developing. 1-25 is immediately adjacent to the east beyond which is a new commercial center. The south and southwest are developing with new office buildings, a small commercial center, and residential tracts. To the west are Equalizer Lake and Houts Reservoir. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Loveland and Larimer County. Zoning for the proposed station area is Larimer County Airport. City of Loveland zoning for the surrounding area includes gateway, developing industrial, business, and resource, and Millennium and Twin Peaks additions. Larimer County zoning includes airport. US 34 and SH 257 BRT Station The proposed station site contains an existing RTD park-n-Ride on the northwest corner of US 34 and SH 257, at the junction of the US 34 business loop and bypass. The station would share parking with the existing parking lot. Agricultural lands surround the site in all directions. Zoning in the areas surround the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Greeley and Weld County. Zoning for the site and lands to the northwest and southwest is Greeley industrial medium intensity. Lands to the east are Greeley PUD and to the southeast are industrial low and medium intensity. Two parcels north of the site are zoned Weld County agricultural. • West Greeley BRT Station The proposed station site is located on the southeast corner of US 34 (Business Loop) and 83rd Avenue and is largely surrounded by undeveloped agricultural land. Immediately to the west is 83rd Avenue and agricultural land. To the northwest is the intersection of US 34 Business Loop and 83rd Avenue is also agricultural land. To the north is agricultural land and to the east is a subdivision. To the southeast are agricultural land and a residential area to the east. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, the City of Greeley and Weld County. The City of Greeley zoning for the proposed station site is commercial low and high intensity. Surrounding zoning includes low and high density residential, low intensity commercial, and PUD. Weld County zoning in the surrounding area includes agriculture. Greeley Downtown Transfer Center BRT Station The proposed station site is located in downtown Greeley between 9th Avenue and 8th Avenue on 7th Street in a commercial area that includes a motel and associated parking lot. The proposed station site is an existing transit center and would be used as a bus stop only. Adjacent to the east is US 85 and to the west is 9th Avenue. To the north the site is bound by 6th Street and on the south by 10th Street. The site is surrounded by urban development with the exception of a park to the west Beyond this park are commercial and residential areas. To the north uses are typically mixed with commercial and residential. To the northeast, east, and southeast the site is bordered by commercial uses, the railroad tracks, and beyond that are • industrial uses. To the south and southwest land uses are typically commercial with residential units becoming more prominent approximately four blocks away. 37 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation transportation. • Greeley zoning for the proposed site and surrounding blocks is commercial high density. Land to the east of US 85 is zoned industrial light and medium density. Surrounding zoning includes PUD and residential medium density to the north and residential high density to the southwest and northwest. Berthoud BRT Station The proposed station is located on the northwest corner of 1-25 and SH 56. The surrounding area is occupied by agricultural land with a few isolated residences. 1-25 borders the proposed station to the east and Highway 56 borders the station to the south. The proposed station is located within the City of Berthoud. The area is not zoned but the City has adopted the 1-25 Sub-Area Land Use Plan which designates a number of land uses for the area. These land use designations include: mixed use, employment, high density residential, open space, flex/office residential, general commercial, medium density residential, neighborhood commercial, and a potential park site. Firestone BRT Station The proposed station site is located on the east side of 1-25 approximately .5 mile south of SH 119. The site is occupied by commercial and agricultural lands. The majority of the surrounding area is agricultural. However, areas to the north, northeast, and east are developing rapidly with residential and commercial uses. To the south is a commercial site and additional agricultural land. Immediately adjacent to the west is 1-25 and further west is mostly agricultural land with sinle family residential neighborhoods and commercial uses to • the northwest. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Weld County and Firestone. Weld County zoning for the west portion of the proposed station site is business commercial and PUD. Firestone zoning for the east portion of the proposed station site is employment center. Zoning for the surrounding area includes business commercial, PUD, and mobile home residential. Town of Firestone zoning for the surrounding areas includes regional commercial and employment center. Frederick/Dacono BRT Station The proposed station site on the west side of 1-25, .5 mile north of SH 52, is entirely within agricultural land and the surrounding land uses are mostly agricultural. To the west are a few rural/estate residential units but to the north and south is agricultural property. Adjacent to the east is 1-25 and beyond that to the northeast, east and southeast is agricultural land. The Town of Frederick zones the proposed station area as single family residential and neighborhood commercial. The Towns of Frederick, Erie, and Dacono and Weld County maintain zoning for the surrounding area. Town of Frederick zoning includes single family residential, neighborhood commercial, business light industrial, industrial, PUD, business district, and public established district. Town of Erie zoning includes, regional commercial. Town of Dacono zoning includes commercial residential, light industrial, and residential. Weld County zoning includes agriculture. • 38 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information. cooperation transportation_ 1-25 and SH 7 BRT Station There are two sites being proposed for the station; referred to as the northeast and southwest sites. Northeast Site (Site E). The proposed station site east of 1-25 and .5 mile north of SH 7 consists of agricultural land and the surrounding area contains almost all agricultural land. Adjacent to the west is 1-25 and agricultural land with a rural/estate neighborhood. Development in this area is occurring rapidly and a large residential development is being built in this vicinity. The City of Broomfield zoning of the proposed station site and all surrounding areas is PUD. Southwest Site (Site C). The proposed station site located on the southwest corner of the 1-25 and SH 7 interchange is located on agricultural land in Broomfield. The surrounding area consists almost entirely of agricultural land. A small mobile home park with about 50 units is located farther east. Adjacent to the north is SH 7 beyond which is agricultural land. To the south is agricultural land and to the west are agricultural land and a rural/estate residential neighborhood. The City of Broomfield zoning for the proposed station site and all surrounding areas is PUD. 3.2.3 Commuter Rail Stations • A description of the existing land use and zoning at each proposed commuter rail station area is provided below. Maps are provided in Appendix D. Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Commuter Rail Station The Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center station is proposed for two different parcels, each located near the intersection of Mason Street and Cherry Street, just west of US 287. The parcels are located at the north end of the Mason Street transportation corridor where the BNSF railroad tracks lie along the middle of the street. The northern site (Site A) is a vacant lot. The southern site (Site C) contains a parking lot. Land uses surrounding the two station sites to the south, southeast, and east are typically commercial downtown and light industrial. To the west, land uses consist of low to high density residential. To the north is a recreational area with ball fields, open space, and trails. To the northeast is a mix of commercial, industrial, and open space. Both sites are zoned in the Fort Collins downtown district. Fort Collins zoning of the surrounding area includes the following districts: downtown, transition, community commercial, community commercial Poudre River, commercial north college, community commercial north college, neighborhood conservation buffer, neighborhood conservation medium density, river downtown redevelopment, low density mixed use neighborhood, employment, industrial, limited commercial, and public open lands. • 39 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • Colorado State University (CSU) Commuter Rail Station The proposed station platform would be located adjacent to South Mason Street between University Avenue on the north and West Pitkin Street on the south. Immediately surrounding the platform are school facilities and businesses. All surrounding areas to the south and west are developed with uses related to CSU including buildings, parking lots, and manicured fields. To the north, northeast, east, and southeast are large areas of single family residences. Fort Collins zoning for the proposed site is the same as all of the CSU campus: CSU zoning. To the north and along US 287 (North College Avenue) parcels are zoned community commercial. Not far from the site to the northwest and east blocks are zoned neighborhood conservation. South Fort Collins Transit Center Commuter Rail Station The proposed station site is located southwest of US 287 and Harmony Road, adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks, northwest of US 287 and West Fairway Lane. The site is on an undeveloped parcel owned by the City of Fort Collins. The proposed station site is surrounded by a mix of uses including commercial, isolated small open areas, estate residential and single family residences To the east is US 287. To the west, land uses are mostly single family and estate/rural residences and some smaller parcels with undeveloped agricultural land. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Fort • Collins and Larimer County. The City of Fort Collins zones the proposed station area as a commercial district and the surrounding area as commercial, Harmony Corridor, low density residential, and public open lands districts. Larimer County zoning for the surrounding area includes farming and residential. North Loveland Commuter Rail Station The proposed station would occupy an area developed with commercial establishments and parking lots to the southwest of the intersection of 29th Street and US 287. Land uses surrounding the proposed station include single family residential adjacent to the west and Lake Loveland to the southwest. To the east and northeast is mostly commercial development and to the south is single family residential development. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Loveland and Larimer County. The City of Loveland zones the proposed station site as business and Orchard Town Homes PUD. Surrounding zoning includes high density residential, established low density residential, developing business, Fox Point Estates PUD, 25th Street office, Evergreen Meadows North addition, and established low density residential. Larimer County zoning is farming. Downtown Loveland Commuter Rail Station The proposed station is located northwest of North 4th Street and Cleveland Avenue (US 287) adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks and is surrounded by industrial and commercial downtown uses. Other surrounding uses are residential to the west, north, and east and commercial along US 287. Industrial uses continue to the south for a short • distance followed by commercial and residential areas. 40 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information_ cooperation. transportation City of Loveland zones the proposed station area as heavy industrial and zones the surrounding area as heavy industrial, developing and established business districts, low density residential, developing industrial, developing resource areas. Berthoud Commuter Rail Station The proposed station site is located within an existing industrial area on the northwest corner of old US 287 and Mountain Avenue (SH 56), between the BNSF railroad tracks and US 287. Adjacent uses to US 287 include multiple family residential, commercial business, and open and undeveloped Larimer County land. Surrounding land uses to the southwest and northwest are mostly mixed density residential with limited commercial and industrial downtown uses. To the northeast land uses consist of industrial and commercial businesses. Adjacent to the southeast of the SH 56 and North 3rd Street intersection also is industrial and commercial, but beyond this approximate one block area is a concentration of residential development with single family and mobile homes. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Berthoud and Larimer County. The City of Berthoud zoning for the northwest proposed station area is industrial and remaining is single-family residential. City of Berthoud zoning for the surrounding area includes limited industrial and industrial, commercial, unit development, and one family, multiple family, limited multiple family, and mobile home. Larimer County zoning in the area includes farming. North Longmont Commuter Rail Station • The proposed station occupies agricultural land north of SH 66, between US 287 and North 115th Street adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks, and includes a rural residence and a number of associated buildings, silo, an unnamed ditch, and trees. To the northeast and northwest is undeveloped agricultural land and rural residences. To the southwest is a single family subdivision and to the southeast are developing single family homes. Zoning of the areas surrounding the proposed station site are under two jurisdictions, Boulder County and Longmont. Boulder County zoning of a small area of the proposed station area is agriculture, while the larger City of Longmont portion is PUD commercial. Boulder County zoning to the north of Highway 66 is agriculture. Longmont zoning to the south consists of PUD residential and commercial, estate residential and low and medium density residential. Longmont at Sugar Mill Commuter Rail Station The proposed station site north of Sugar Mill Road occupies an industrial site with vacant land. Land uses to the northwest and northeast consists of industrial uses, extensive residential development, and the Fox Hills Golf Course. Immediately southwest of the proposed station location is a wastewater treatment plant. Other uses to the southwest and southeast consist of undeveloped land, the St. Vrain River, and agricultural land. To the south is industrial land and the sugar mill. Both the County of Boulder and the City of Longmont have zoning designations in and around the proposed station location. The County of Boulder zones the proposed station • area as general industrial. Boulder County zoning for the surrounding area is general industrial. City of Longmont zoning includes residential low, medium, and high density, estate residential, residential PUD, commercial, and public. 41 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • I-25 and Weld County Road 8 Commuter Rail Station The proposed station site is located on the northwest corner of 1-25 and WCR 8 on agricultural land. The proposed station is surrounded by agricultural land in all westward directions and is bound by the BNSF railroad line on the north. Immediately east is 1-25 and agricultural land. Weld County zoning for the station area and surrounding areas is agriculture. The Cities of Dacono and Erie zone the surrounding area as commercial district and planned development, respectively. 3.2.4 Commuter Rail and BRT Maintenance Facilities There are two locations proposed for a commuter rail maintenance facility; one in Fort Collins and the other in Berthoud. There are also two options for a BRT or commuter bus maintenance facility; one in Fort Collins and the other in Greeley. Only one maintenance facility for each would be required. A description of the existing land use and zoning at each proposed maintenance facility site is provided below. Maps are provided in Appendix E. Fort Collins Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility The proposed site is located on the southeast corner of Vine Drive and Timberline Road on agricultural land. The site area is largely surrounded by agricultural land. Immediately to the south, southwest, and east is agricultural land. A small construction yard also is located to the south. Immediately to the north is Vine Drive, beyond which is agricultural land with single rural residences. A small developing residential area is being built to the northeast. • To the northwest across Vine Drive. and Timberline Road is an established apartment complex and developing residential area with agricultural land beyond. To the west and southwest is a mobile home park, industrial, commercial, and vacant land. Zoning is under the jurisdiction of Fort Collins and is low density mixed use and industrial. Land surrounding the proposed site is Larimer County industrial to the south and west, Larimer County farming to the north and industrial and Fort Collins low density mixed use to the east. Berthoud Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility The proposed commuter rail maintenance site at the southwest corner of CR 46 and old US 287 is located on an active agricultural field. Surrounding land use to the northeast, east, and southeast is mostly agricultural. To the south is a manufacturing/industrial area that extends to SH 56. Immediately adjacent to the site to the west are the BNSF tracks beyond which to the west and southwest are single and multi-family residences. To the northwest is agricultural fields and rural residences. Zoning of the proposed site is Town of Berthoud industrial. Land to the east and north is zoned Larimer County farming and to the south are more industrial parcels. Land to the west is zoned Berthoud single family. Fort Collins BRT Maintenance Facility The proposed BRT maintenance site would be located at the north end of Portner Road, • just north of Trilby Road on a site with commercial and undeveloped land. The site is surrounded by a mostly urbanized area. The built environment surrounding the site is dominated by residential development with agriculture. To the northeast, east, and 42 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation transportation. southeast, residential areas range from low to medium density. To the northwest, west, and southwest, most of the land is developed with single family and rural residences, but tracts of undeveloped land are located to the southwest. The proposed maintenance facility site is zoned Fort Collins employment. Property to the north is zoned public open lands, to the east and south is low density residential, and to the west is Larimer County farming. Greeley BRT Maintenance Facility The proposed BRT maintenance site is located west of the intersection of 31st Street and 1st Avenue on an undeveloped parcel. The alternate site is occupied by a small commercial building and a vacant parcel. All uses to the north and east consist of undeveloped land and industrial buildings. To the northeast are developing commercial and residential sites. To the west is a commercial area and to the northwest is the SH 85/US 34 interchange. To the southwest and south land uses are primarily residential with scattered commercial areas and agricultural parcels. To the southeast land uses include agriculture and an auto salvage yard. Zoning of the proposed maintenance facility site on the north side of 31st Street is City of Greeley industrial medium intensity. The site located on the south side of 31st Street is City of Evans two family residential. Land to the north and northeast is zoned by Greeley as industrial while land to the southeast and southwest is zoned by Evans as residential. • 3.2.5 I-25 Interchange Upgrade Locations A description of the existing land use and zoning at interchange upgrade locations is provided below. Maps are provided in Appendix F. SH 1 Dense residential development interspersed with commercial development within the Town of Wellington is located to the west of the 1-25 and SH 1 interchange. To the east development is sparse and consists of rural residential units adjacent to the freeway and agricultural land further east. The Town of Wellington does not maintain zoning for Town areas but it does have performance districts in the general vicinity of the interchange. To the east of the interchange in Larimer County, the area is zoned as open space. Mountain Vista Drive The 1-25 and Mountain Vista Drive interchange is largely surrounded by undeveloped agricultural land. A small nursery is located to the northeast with agricultural land beyond. To the immediate southeast and southwest is agricultural land and a subdivision with approximately 350 homes is located farther to the southwest. To the northwest are agricultural land and the Anheuser Busch brewing facility. Fort Collins zoning for the area surrounding the interchange is industrial, employment, and low density mixed use neighborhood districts. Larimer County maintains jurisdiction over • areas zoned farming and open space. 43 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • SH 14 The northeast quadrant contains remnant undeveloped agricultural land with industrial, commercial, and multifamily uses. Immediately adjacent to the intersection in the southeast quadrant are commercial uses with undeveloped agricultural land beyond. The southwest quadrant contains a large commercial complex immediately adjacent to the intersection with currently undeveloped agricultural land beyond. Farther west along SH 14 is a subdivision. The northwest quadrant contains a small commercial area with agricultural land adjacent to the freeway. Zoning of areas surrounding the interchange within Fort Collins includes industrial, employment, and urban estate and low density mixed-use residential. Areas in Larimer County jurisdiction are zoned industrial, commercial, multifamily, and office. Prospect Road The majority of areas surrounding this interchange are agriculture. The northeast quadrant contains a small subdivision and agricultural land. The southeast quadrant contains a rural residential tract and a small commercial center adjacent to the freeway. Agricultural land and the Cache la Poudre River are located within the southwest quadrant. Immediately adjacent to the interchange in the northwest quadrant is agricultural land with a subdivision and a commercial center located to the north. Zoning surrounding the interchange is under the jurisdiction of Fort Collins and includes low density mixed-use neighborhood, employment, industrial, commercial, and public open • lands districts. Larimer County zoning includes commercial and farming. Harmony Road In the northeast quadrant is an open aggregate mine, a small canal, a retail area, and residences within the Town of Timnath. To the northwest immediately adjacent to the interchange is a small commercial area, beyond which is agricultural land and a few small lakes. To the southwest there is a nursery next to a small lake. The yard of the nursery appears to contain a large number of machines and a few out buildings. Within the southeast quadrant along Harmony Road is agricultural land with a few rural residences, and south along 1-25 is an aggregate mine. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under three jurisdictions, City of Fort Collins, Town of Timnath, and Larimer County. City of Fort Collins zoning is public open lands district. Town of Timnath zoning includes commercial and old town residential. Larimer County zoning includes farming, tourist, and open space. Crossroads Boulevard This interchange is located north of the 1-25 and US 34 interchange. Most of the area around the interchange is in agricultural use or vacant. To the northeast of the interchange is the Larimer County Fairgrounds, a subdivision with a golf course, and agricultural land. In the southeast quadrant there is mostly agricultural land with a commercial center, church, and a large distribution center. To the southwest there is mostly agricultural land, Houts Reservoir, Equalizer Lake, and a small subdivision. To the northwest is Fort Collins- Loveland Municipal airport, commercial, and undeveloped areas. • 44 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation. transportation_ Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under two jurisdictions, the City of Loveland and Larimer County. City of Loveland zoning includes developing industrial and developing resource, the Larimer County Fairgrounds PUD, and the Millennium Addition. Larimer County zoning is airport zone. US 34 The quadrants to the southwest and southeast of the interchange are largely agriculture. Within the southeast quadrant are a few scattered rural residences and a mobile home park. To the northwest immediately adjacent to the intersection is a strip retail center and beyond this lay vacant land, Equalizer Lake, and Houts Reservoir. Immediately adjacent to the interchange on the northeast is a new mixed use development, railroad tracks, and vacant land. Zoning of the area surrounding the interchange are under three jurisdictions, the City of Loveland, Town of Johnstown, and Larimer County. Zoning for Loveland consists of business, developing resource, Millennium Addition, and Gateway Zoning under Larimer County is farming, commercial, and tourist. Johnstown zoning in this area is designated PUD Commercial District. SH 402 The areas surrounding the interchange are mostly in agricultural production. The eastern quadrants contain a number of rural residential units, and a small commercial site is located • to the east along Valley Block Lane. The western quadrants are also largely in agricultural production. Within the southwest quadrant there is a feed yard and farther from the interchange in the northwest quadrant is a small subdivision. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange is under the City of Loveland, the Town of Johnstown and Larimer County. Zoning for Johnstown consists of PUD for commercial, residential, and mixed use districts, and Larimer County zoning consists of farming. County Road 52 Land uses surrounding the interchange are largely agricultural and vacant land to the west and southwest. A number of rural residential units associated with the agricultural land are located in all quadrants. Within the southeast quadrant there is an industrial property with a truck yard, a hotel, and campground. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under two jurisdictions, the Town of Johnstown and Larimer County. Zoning for Johnstown consists of PUD for Business, and Larimer County zoning in this area includes business, commercial, and farming. SH 60 The majority of the area surrounding the interchange is in agricultural production. The only uses in the southwest and southeast quadrants are rural residential homes. Within the northwest quadrant there is a small industrial/manufacturing area and a distribution center. To the northeast is agricultural land but east along US 60 is Johnstown Reservoir, which is surrounded by a residential development. • 45 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation transportation • Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under two jurisdictions, the Town of Johnstown and Weld County. Zoning for Johnstown in this area consists of PUD, PUD for mixed-use, and gateway district and Weld County maintains jurisdiction over agricultural zones. SH 56 The interchange is completely surrounded by agricultural property interspersed with rural residences. A ditch splits the southwest and southeast quadrant and a dirt bike track is located within the southwest quadrant. The City of Berthoud does not have zoning in the area surrounding the interchange location but has adopted a land use plan for the 1-25 Sub-Area. Land uses designated by the plan include: mixed use, employment, high density residential, open space, flex/office residential, general commercial, medium density residential, neighborhood commercial, and potential park site. County Road 34 Immediately adjacent to the interchange in the northeast quadrant is used as a fence supply company. Agricultural land and scattered rural residences and Holt Reservoir are located in the southwest quadrant. The area surrounding the interchange is under the jurisdiction of Mead. Mead does not have specific zoning for the area but defines specific areas to be annexed and uses for • those areas. Annexation areas include the Donaldson Annexation (high density residential), C.J.K Annexation (open space, general commercial, medium density residential and medium high density residential), Raterink Annexation (open space, business park, general commercial), Denver Canadian Inc. Annexation (very low density residential), and Annexation 1-25 #1 and #2 (commercial). SH 66 Within the northeast quadrant adjacent to the interchange is a large commercial/industrial complex. The southeast quadrant contains mostly agricultural land. The southwest quadrant contains agricultural land and Foster Reservoir. Adjacent to the intersection in the northwest quadrant is agricultural land and Highland Reservoir Number 1. Beyond the reservoir is a low density residential development. The area surrounding the interchange is under the jurisdiction of Weld County and Mead. Weld County zoning within the area includes: agriculture, PUD, and commercial. Mead does not have specific zoning for the area but defines specific areas to be annexed and uses for those areas. Annexation areas include: Hilgers-Schmidt-Rademacher Annexation (business park), Fosters Ridge Annexation (business park), Sekich park Bus Filling 5 (general commercial), Rademacher Annexation (business park), and Sanborn Annexation (business park and medium high density residential). SH 119 The southeast quadrant contains agricultural land, two residential developments, and a commercial site. The southwest quadrant immediately adjacent to the interchange contains • a strip retail center and a light industrial/manufacturing area, a mobile home park, a new subdivision, and vacant and agricultural land. The northwest quadrant contains a truck stop 46 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation transportation. nearest the intersection, an aggregate mine, and farther northeast is the St. Vrain State Park. Northeast of the interchange is an office complex, truck stop, retail, and aggregate mine. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under two jurisdictions, the Town of Firestone and Weld County. Firestone has zoned the area Del Camino Junction Business Park, Del Camino Central, commercial; and Weld County zoning is agriculture, business commercial, mobile home park, and PUD. County Road 20 The area surrounding the interchange is mostly agriculture with a few scattered rural residential units. The northeast quadrant contains a distribution center There is no access from 1-25 to CR 20 at this location. Proposed improvements include re-aligning the frontage roads and underpass for CR 20. Zoning designations for the Town of Frederick consist of PUD, PUD for business light industrial, industrial, and residential, residential and estate district, and industrial district. SH 52 Most of the area surrounding the interchange is in either agricultural production or is being developed for commercial uses. Two looping frontage roads are on both the east and west side of 1-25. The northeast quadrant contains all agricultural land. The southeast quadrant • contains mostly agricultural land but has a small office building. Adjacent to the interchange to the southwest is a truck stop, beyond which are a series of commercial/light industrial sites and agricultural land with a few rural residences. The northwest quadrant between the frontage road and 1-25 is a park and ride and a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintenance yard. Beyond the frontage road are vacant agricultural land and some rural residential units. Zoning of the area surrounding the interchange is under three jurisdictions, Town of Dacono, Town of Frederick, and Town of Erie. Zones in Dacono include: commercial residential, light industrial, and residential. The Town of Frederick has zoning for PUD, residential, commercial, and employment. Town of Erie zoning designations within this area include regional commercial. County Road 8 The area surrounding the interchange is mostly in agricultural production. Within the southeast quadrant is a construction yard with equipment and parked vehicles and agricultural land. The northeast quadrant contains either vacant or agricultural land. The northwest quadrant next to the interchange contains an aggregate mine operation beyond which is vacant agricultural land. The southwest quadrant contains vacant and agricultural land adjacent to the interchange and further to the west is an auto salvage yard, a stock/feed yard, and in the southern portion of the quadrant is a smaller stock/feed yard, and rural residences. Zoning of the areas surrounding the interchange are under three jurisdictions, Town of • Dacono, Town of Erie, and Weld County. The land under the jurisdiction of Dacono includes residential and commercial districts. Zoning designations in the area managed by the Town of Erie include planned development. Weld County zoning in the area includes agriculture and town. 47 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation. transportation. • 4.0 FUTURE LAND USE This section generally summarizes the future land use for the US 85 corridor, 1-25 corridor, and the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor based on municipal and county comprehensive plans and other planning documents (as described in Section 2.2). Also, it is important to note that development is growing and rapidly changing land use in the regional study area, particularly along the 1-25 corridor. Therefore, descriptions contained in this section should be considered in a general context about future land use visions. For simplification, land uses have been generally categorized into agricultural, residential, commercial (including retail, industrial, office, etc), and open space/parks. Figure 4 depicts the North 1-25 regional study area generalized future land use based on this information. Future land use will change drastically from the existing land use depicted previously. Residential land uses will make up the predominant land use at approximately 34 percent of the regional study area more than doubling the amount of land occupied. Agricultural lands will be reduced by half and make up approximately 32 percent of the regional study area. Approximately 15 percent of the land will be in commercial use. Open space, parks and other protected lands will also increase to 16 percent of the regional study area as communities and non-governmental organizations make efforts to protect open lands that were previously agricultural.The remainder of the lands are vacant, unknown, or surface water. 4.1 US 85 CORRIDOR Review of future land use designations along the US 85 corridor are anticipated to generally • remain similar to existing uses. Some conversion of agricultural lands to commercial and residential uses should be expected, but not as much as along the 1-25, BNSF corridors, or east-west corridors. The UPRR and South Platte River that parallel US 85 through this corridor will continue to have a major influence on how land will be developed. Heavier industries and commercial uses will continue to concentrate adjacent to the UPRR tracks, and the downtown areas of rural municipalities such as Gilcrest, and Platteville will continue to be concentrated to the west of US 85 closer to the South Platte River. The South Platte River will generally constrain the westward spread of these towns. Downtown Greeley will continue to be a commercial center with the addition of mixed use commercial and residential infill projects. Small towns south of Greeley along US 85 including Evans, La Salle, Gilcrest, Platteville, and Fort Lupton anticipate little to moderate growth. For these communities, maintaining their small town feel and preserving large tracts of agricultural lands between each community will be a priority. The smaller towns hope to encourage more commercial uses in their respective downtowns, creating unique or historical destinations for locals and tourists. It could also be anticipated that the smaller towns will add residents by allowing smaller or medium sized subdivisions to be built on agricultural lands surrounding the core downtowns or along the outer edges older subdivisions. Although with current county development policies, particularly in Weld County, there remains the possibility of large-scale developments being constructed on unincorporated lands adjacent to or in between the towns. • 48 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts 0 information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 4: North I-25 Regional Study Area Generalized Future Land Use LEGEND ,/V Study Corridors /\/ Highways 4 . `,` .N „'• � plf�q�o� /\/ Arterial Roads / ' :•. • • i3� Regional Study Area / l4 _►i • I •'\ L.o Cities & Townsqq, t Fig,: \ Future Land Use 2035 I Fort rullirisr` 4 i - '• • Agriculture I Employment Area j • (3 257 .� .1 1a , Open Space/Parks j , litia01 . • (T. _v _I II Residential ! ` •1 Surface Water I , el,ii:. 392 1 L. Vacant/Unknown I it " - ; 1 •—...1. I likiltk ..C ;� r •w, at. — 263 ,� _ r • Lm:eland Ilk ED — I - + r I 41b-le • } ' 1 i ,a IlE ip le . 60 i ,! 0 i 25 / IIIII +1 •` I • V 66 I" i . ' I :. • 7w Lrrngnuni Ills1 N , _ • I „/: Ari PesjillA" ! . Ara • " 1 cc:41 APIA •it,al, _ m ,g,A / almoi 4;4.. _ ,:---mt lit NI 1.1) i ,r • '1 4 6qulrler1 _ , r 7 Zimpou a '_, r 7• :�.I'!r PALr s-. " ti I 4,40 trill'!" P� 4• ..mil li. ` •.oenv �r a. o ` . • i,1 Alla 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 M ( ' 1 N ' I Miles North III arrA„ 49 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation_ transportation. • As the US 85 corridor approaches Brighton and the Denver metropolitan area, density of residential and commercial uses will continue to increase with infill projects and eventually there will be little unincorporated lands separating the cities of Brighton, Commerce City, and Denver. Major commercial areas can be expected at the US 85/C-470/l-76 interchange area and south toward Denver where there is easy access to the Denver International Airport and downtown Denver. 4.2 I-25 CORRIDOR Based on future land use designations, land uses have been and will continue to change rapidly along the 1-25 corridor, particularly south of Harmony Road where agricultural lands are being converted to commercial and residential uses on a regular basis. Land uses will continue to driven by interchange locations where commercial uses are centered, and stretches between interchanges where residential and other commercial uses are more likely to be accessed by frontage roads Most of the communities along the 1-25 corridor will encourage commercial development along 1-25 to take advantage of the highway system, visibility, and easy access. Residential uses will be generally set back farther from 1-25, although there will likely remain stretches of residential and agricultural lands adjacent to 1-25. At the north end of the study area in Wellington, moderate growth is anticipated and the area will generally continue to have moderate density commercial and residential uses adjacent to 1-25. South of Wellington at the SH 14, Prospect Road, and Harmony Road interchanges in Fort Collins, existing agricultural uses will likely be converted into commercial uses to take advantage of • access. At the US 34 interchange, agricultural lands are already being converted to commercial uses and this trend is anticipated to continue. South of US 34, there are long stretches of unincorporated agricultural lands without convenient access that will likely remain agricultural until such time that a system of frontage roads or east-west cross roads provide access for development. Farther south, towns along 1-25 such as Mead, Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono in the central portion of the corridor will eventually grow toward each other so that there are no unincorporated lands separating them. As with towns along the US 85 corridor, these towns desire to maintain agricultural lands and open space between each town, but there remains the possibility of large-scale developments being constructed on unincorporated lands adjacent to or in between the towns. From this area south into the Denver metropolitan area, most all agricultural land uses adjacent to 1-25 will likely be converted to commercial and residential uses, with some land set aside for open space or recreation. 4.3 BNSF/LONCMONT NORTH METRO CONNECTION CORRIDOR The BNSF railroad corridor through Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont has more development constraints than the 1-25 and US 85 corridors because of an increased number of streams, open space and parks, and existing residential and urban centers. The corridor is also more built out than either of the 1-25 and US 85 corridors. Therefore, existing land use patterns characterized by urban centers surrounded by suburban residential and neighborhood centers are likely to continue into the near future. Based on future land use designations, likely future trends will include densification of the • existing land uses in the urban centers and some conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses between the urban centers. Fort Collins is approaching build out and will not likely see large scale conversion of lands to new uses. Much of the currently 50 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information. cooperation transportation. undeveloped land between Fort Collins and Loveland is dedicated public lands such as natural areas and open space and not likely to be converted to other uses. Some conversion of agricultural lands to commercial or residential uses along the north side of Loveland City limits can be expected, but most lands within City limits along the BNSF corridor are already developed. The largest areas of undeveloped lands that are not protected as open space are south of Loveland, to the north and south of Berthoud. This area is likely to see more conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses. At the south end of the corridor though Longmont, most of the lands are already developed and likely will not change substantially, with the exception of the Sugar Mill property along Ken Pratt Boulevard. In this former industrial property, Longmont proposed a mix of commercial and residential uses that can take advantage of regional transit improvements. East from the Sugar Mill property along SH 119, future land uses would likely be similar to existing, with more commercial and residential development replacing agricultural uses. South along CR 7, more residential uses can be expected interspersed among the former and current gravel mining operations and major cross streets such as SH 52 and CR 8, where commercial uses may tend to concentrate. As the Longmont North Metro Connection joins with the Union Pacific corridor and traverses southeast toward Thornton, much of the existing agricultural lands will likely be developed into residential uses Only at major cross streets will there be a densification of commercial uses that require access and other infrastructure. • • 51 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The following section provides a summary of potential direct and indirect land use impacts from the No-Action Alternative and the three build alternatives. Direct land use impacts were evaluated by comparing the alternatives to existing land uses and considering whether or not the alternatives were compatible with existing comprehensive plans and zoning. It is important to note that, in many cases, comprehensive plans and zoning have not been updated by communities to reflect either of the two build packages or the Preferred Alternative. The methodology was used to determine compatibility with existing land use, existing zoning, and comprehensive plans. Indirect land use impacts, in particular induced growth, were evaluated through a process using a local expert panel. The panel consisted of municipal planners from Dacono, Firestone, Fort Collins, Frederick, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, Mead, and Windsor. Also on the panel were representatives from two large developers who have projects in the area, and agency representatives from NFRMPO, DRCOG, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and CDOT. The panel convened in October 2006 during which current induced growth research was described, along with the current "drivers" of growth. The panel then provided input on potential induced growth patterns for each corridor based on the three alternatives. The insights offered by the local expert panel remain valid for the Preferred Alternative because it is a combination of Package A and Package B. Conclusions regarding induced growth in this analysis were primarily based on the input provided by the expert panel. The complete indirect impacts evaluation is provided in Appendix A. • 5.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Growth would continue to occur largely on undeveloped agricultural land at the fringe of the study area's urbanized areas in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans, pending the availability of infrastructure. However, this low-density, dispersed pattern of development could eventually become constrained by increased congestion, increased travel times, and existing access issues hampered by a lack of interchange improvements. As a result, development could decrease in quality (e.g., highway-oriented strip commercial or warehouses would likely occur at interchange locations due to access limitations rather than coordinated, master-planned developments) unless market conditions are strong enough to warrant investment from the private sector in strategic locations to facilitate specific developments. As major roadways such as 1-25 become more congested, development would likely be pushed towards outlying areas to avoid this congestion. This would hasten the conversion of agricultural land as market forces push towards the path of least resistance. This may also be the case for many of the east-west and alternate corridors (e.g., US 34, SH 7, SH 52, and SH 402) in the study area. The more dispersed development pattern that would occur in response to the No-Action Alternative would result in greater land consumption and a broader potential impact to the study area's environmental resources. The continuation of leap-frog type growth practices in southern portions of the study area east of 1-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands and potentially impacting sensitive lands such as wildlife habitat. The extent of this impact would depend upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the • protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. 52 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation transportation. Due in part to the limited availability of transit, development intensities are unlikely to increase substantially over those which exist today. However, more focused development could occur towards the southern end of the study area where transit enhancements and highway improvements are already in place (FasTracks/I-25 widening). Potential induced growth impacts for the No-Action alternative are illustrated in Figure 5. 5.2 PACKAGE A In general, proposed improvements along existing highway and railroad alignments, such as 1-25 and BNSF, would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way for these alignments has existed for many years. While in some locations residential and commercial development has subsequently encroached to within close proximity of these alignments, they have been planned with the knowledge of adjacent transportation uses. This is particularly important when considering residential uses adjacent to existing transportation corridors, where there may be a perceived incompatibility with land uses. Entirely new transportation alignments or access points along existing alignments, such as interchanges and transit stations, are where direct land use conflicts would be more likely. Component A-H1: Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 60 • Safety improvements along 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are predominately agricultural. Similarly, upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 1 and Mountain Vista Drive would be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 80 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component A-H2: General Purpose Improvements: SH 14 to SH 60 Adding one additional northbound and southbound general purpose lane on 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60, plus auxiliary lanes between Harmony Road and SH 60, would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are predominately agricultural and commercial. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 14, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, SH 392, Crossroads • 53 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation transportation. III Figure 5: Induced Growth Impacts — No-Action LEGEND --Growth already constrained by -- substandard interchanges. Regional Study Area ,�- --Lack of interchange improvements oral 0 Cities & Towns IV wellington would limit development opportunities /�/ Highways 4' •.' • and reduce quality of development. _ Ai 1„ --Private sector may contribute to �� Study Corridors . t1 a . . improvements that facilitate "./ Arterial Roads i development opportunities. Future Land Use 2035 ! Fort Collins d , / Agriculture :. �N• ; _� tkot It I�q t _ I . •t , Employment Area I— j . 4 - Open Space/Parks I ' 7,. iliblir' • timn,i I. Latnnikiii e. r iSmesunce Residential ! ,,, At Surface Water S� •, tu_etne \3921 Vacant/Unknown '. ' �� d� vial • �, C ' _ .�� .�e it- 8111--- ---- imPiiit• - _ - k i 77 Loveland• — 34 IL. . i till! ` Worsening congestion on I-25 may trigger :, • I �; t. a - �% more development along east-west corridors ! ' — . ' 60 85 p ....and � go •� tiAldhken where there is less resistance. ! 56 V r) e • 4 / ! ` .t • Gdc.c: . ® . -. --Current development patterns would I 44, III likely continue (e.g.. dispersed and i — Mew' j --Development would be more less centralized.) — i dispersed due to reduced _ 1 Plattevdl. p --Development would likely be more 66 .w. 101131 I11 1 service levels. market driven as opposed to iv I pigtnont �' --May make rural areas more mimunicipal preferred. i!' • ' ' ' ^, �l • attractive to growth sooner. --Unlikely to see substantial increase - in density of existing centers. •• � 1 ^ voum�r . s jt Firestone 4 1. . e a•_NeVil► ` � hawk / ' / , • -•'ii ' Gmhnncl I* Ilbri:r diA ec. • Valmont a -aI ,� I I le i , 1 • •Wanimtxrg ! iiy t3oulder= . $ ��. 0'�/ , 1 • a' Cit. , •j•_ . , - I. i • Louisville i(� L " - • (*Into,' : b • 7 • Scpencre v'�" a 5 - �� I _. a < < • tFastlakc� .r.,mLeld �� - -� llendet �n `r , • ‘'' lenta 1, ♦13444 North enr f Development focus may shift toward south '+4 / where infrastructure and capacity along 1-25 \ A ' 7...a has already been improved. � • - . y , Si\ f ./ A iU i 1 It •' Denve/illt„„,, 0 2 4 6 8 10 .rl�nn.�' , t ttttttttttt.� >..�t_ tttttttttt� Miles S. ��l■ IMM 54 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation transportation. Boulevard, US 34, SH 402, WCR 52, and SH 60 would be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 421 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component A-H3: General Purpose Improvements: SH 60 to E-470 Adding one additional northbound and southbound general purpose lane on 1-25 between SH 60 and E-470 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are mostly commercial and agricultural, with a few residential enclaves. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 56, WCR 34, SH 119, SH 52, and SH 7 would generally be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related, although there are still some areas zoned agricultural (i.e., near SH 7). The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 233 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades: E-470 to US 36 This component also includes improvements under the No-Action Alternative as described in Chapter 2 Alternatives of the DEIS. Upgrading structures on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. • There would be four acres of Table 3: Component A-Ti Compatibility additional right-of-way converted to a transportation Commuter Rail Existing Zoning? Comprehensive use. Station Land Plan? Use? Component A-T1: Fort Collins Yes Yes Yes Downtown Commuter Rail: Fort Collins Transit Center to Longmont Csu Yes No Yes A double-tracked commuter rail South Fort Yes Yes Yes line using the existing BNSF Collins Transit railroad track plus one new Center track from Fort Collins to North Loveland Yes No Yes downtown Longmont would be Downtown Yes No Yes mostly compatible with existing Loveland land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Berthoud Yes No No However, there are a number of North Longmont Yes No Yes residential developments that have encroached near the alignment that could create some incompatible uses (e.g., a residential use next to a railroad use). Table 3 depicts the compatibility of the proposed new commuter rail stations associated with this component. The locations are in core urban areas and were selected during the station alternatives process based on local government and community input and therefore, • would not likely create major land use incompatibilities. Zoning in many of these areas, however, has not been updated to be consistent with the comprehensive plans, and many of these locations are not currently zoned for transportation uses. At the proposed Berthoud Station, it was not envisioned as a transit center in the local comprehensive plan. 55 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • The Fort Collins commuter rail maintenance facility would be compatible with existing land use and the comprehensive plan, although current zoning does not include transit facilities. The Berthoud commuter rail maintenance facility would be compatible with existing land uses, but is not included in a comprehensive plan and current zoning does not include transit facilities. The three feeder bus routes from 1) Greeley to Windsor to Fort Collins, 2) Greeley to Loveland, and 3) Milliken to Johnstown to Berthoud would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Local mass transit opportunities are desirable to communities along these routes. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 160 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. Component A-T2: Commuter Rail: Longmont to FasTracks North Metro A new double-tracked commuter rail line, extending from Longmont along a new alignment parallel to SH 119 to WCR 7, then south to the existing UPRR line and connecting to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station, would have some incompatibilities with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. From Longmont to the existing UPRR line, A-T2 is an entirely new mass transit alignment that local governments generally have not previously envisioned in their comprehensive planning or zoning. Existing land uses are mostly commercial with some residential along SH 119, and agricultural and residential uses along WCR 7. Incompatibilities would be the greatest adjacent to existing residential uses. • Table 4 depicts the compatibility Table 4: Component A-T2 Compatibility of the proposed new commuter rail stations associated with this Commuter Rail Existing Zoning? Comprehensive component. The Longmont Station Land Plan? location is in a core urban area Use? and was originally selected Longmont at Yes No Yes based on local government and Sugar Mill community input and therefore, I-25 and WCR 8 No No No would not likely create major land use incompatibilities. The 1-25 and WCR 8 location is in a non-urban area that is mostly agricultural and therefore, would be incompatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The feeder bus route from Firestone to Frederick to Dacono to Erie would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Local mass transit opportunities are desirable to communities along this route. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 153 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. Component A-T3: Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver and DIA Commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Nearly all of the • communities along the corridor envision US 85 as a multi-modal transportation corridor. 56 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 5 depicts the compatibility of Table 5: Component A-T3 Compatibility the proposed new commuter bus stations associated with this Commuter Existing Zoning? Comprehensive component. The locations are in Bus Station Land Plan? core urban areas and were Use? originally selected based on local Greeley Yes No Yes government and community input South Greeley Yes Yes Yes and therefore, would not likely to Evans Yes No Yes Platteville Yes No No create major land use Fort Lupton Yes Yes No incompatibilities. However, many of these locations are not currently zoned for transportation facilities and some are not specifically referenced in comprehensive plans. The 17 commuter bus queue jumps on US 85 associated with this component would generally be compatible with existing land use, zoning, or comprehensive plans since US 85 is an existing transportation corridor. The commuter bus maintenance facility in Greeley would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 14 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. • Component A-T4: Commuter Bus: Greeley to Denver and DIA Commuter bus service only along E-470 between US 85 and DIA would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans because the service would use existing travel lanes. There would be no additional right-of-way required for this component. Package A Indirect Effects There is little difference in indirect effects from induced growth along the 1-25 corridor between the build packages since highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges are common to all alternatives. Under the No-Action Alternative, development activity along 1-25 might shift more toward the south to the Denver metro area where there is a greater concentration of newer infrastructure (interchanges). Under the build packages, improvements to existing interchanges could stimulate some growth, but not as much as completely new interchanges were proposed. Under Package A, commuter rail would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the study area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont). This shift would help municipalities realize plans for downtown redevelopment and would increase the overall density and footprint of these urban centers. As the end-of-line for the commuter rail alignment, Fort Collins would likely attract a somewhat larger portion of urban center growth than stations located mid-alignment. As a result, the rate at which environmental resources would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the study area could be slowed because growth pressures would likely be concentrated more at the existing urban centers. This would be the case particularly along the 1-25 corridor where substantial agricultural lands, several floodplains, and a number of other resources exist. Increased • densities along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor would likely have a limited impact upon natural-resource related environmental resources, as the corridor is nearly built out and most growth would occur in the form of infill and redevelopment. 57 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • Longmont would likely become a focus within the study area due to its central location, its direct connection to the FasTracks system and the commuter rail, and its close proximity to DIA. Overall, the combination of these factors likely would increase the density and size of Longmont, strengthening its role as a major center for the north Front Range. Outside of established urban centers, commuter rail could help municipalities realize plans that otherwise would not be feasible—for example, the City of Longmont has plans for transit-oriented development along the proposed alignment at SH 66. Without commuter rail as a catalyst, this area would likely develop at typical suburban densities with a limited mix of uses. Smaller communities in the southern end of the study area, such as Frederick and Erie, could see impacts that extend beyond the immediate station area. These impacts could come in the form of an increased demand in service levels as former low-intensity commercial and industrial uses are redeveloped at higher intensities. Feeder bus routes along east-west corridors designed to serve commuter rail stations could also stimulate increased levels of development as roadways become more congested. As a result, underused lands along these corridors could begin to be redeveloped as higher intensity residential uses become more desirable in close proximity to established employment centers and transit lines. Potential induced growth impacts for Package A are illustrated in Figure 6. 5.3 PACKAGE B Package B consists of four highway components and three transit components. Direct • impacts are described by component. Indirect impacts are more regional in nature and therefore are described for the entire package at the end of this subsection. Overall, proposed improvements along the existing 1-25 highway alignment would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way for this alignment has existed for many years. While in some locations residential and commercial development has subsequently encroached to within close proximity of this alignment, they have been planned with the knowledge of adjacent transportation uses. • 58 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information. cooperation transportation. Figure 6: Induced Growth Impacts — Package A LEGEND Some increase in end-of-line development would occur. ~ Commuter Rail •,- 0. "/ Highways / `\ 'i p'h Existing residential uses along Harmony /\/ Arterial Roads /A' Corridor (e.g., mobile home parks) may L.J Regional Study Area 287 / �� 4 be converted to higher intensity uses. u Cities & Towns j 4 ',7 • -� • Larger Urban Areas Enhanced i • 4fleeder bus routes may shift by Commuter Rail .,� number of people who live i • % V 2' :f and work in different Future Land Use 2035 i • communities. May also Agriculture I -- . .: allow for increased development r 1'.iFve,at I: i ,` as east/west roadways become Employment Area : "287 a more congested. Open Space/Parks S alla .1 it Residential I 1ST II ' C L if' ' -... Surface Water . . ... • LV I' t- ' Arra ,.u, y- 2§31 Vacant/Unknown . T?' Ili • •• '' 'C ,'r e Loveland • ' *bans r I au: . • I I 'am; m : •.I t:;ton ' . / 6, "" 85 ; $,,,,,ud g �e, •• '.�1•syrs'it.- . r / Commuter rail would facilitate the intensification b ` • i 0 of existing urban centers, supporting municipal . ® • . plans for redevelopment (downtown Ft.Collins, • Mason Street Corridor, 4th Street/downtown Non-urban stations would help j s mom �,►' realize plans for more urban Loveland, 29th Street). if _,�r,�. I development that otherwise ' '� s„ wouldn't occur (e.g., Longmont/ L►on r,ront Hwy 66, Erie/Frederick.)rail connections to north and south (FasTracks) and connections to ra.�� ' "' " I ; DIA/southern communities would ,�- ; reinforce Longmont's role as a major - ' .■ t r.rt-:,,:;'l, hub for the region. An overall increase in ;I .nI, ,t- • �• `� development would occur as a result. ' 'T I fit t ;►'''' I. " fiat pi. •Ltro:aw• rrct li:ptrn . ,.. • ixnbwxwe1 ^;�.vp wj �1 1 ' 11 war l �iA � rair,,r,' c_ ,r • •I' I i haw130ulflerl - -• _ - , S ` .•. . / • . 'W i. ..C 15'ayett'e I ' • ln:rsmlle _ r 7 �. ' • ' :iwltu • .p / f .' .i - t ;/ J • ` - t • V."14"..*.r •HF.nrjp n N rtr�x:. tua:; w 4 r_ it i itire° habiligiv, ...._ At -la J / wFE] v aamI!fr litlienver f 0 I 117 ,,, ./. I. • 3. 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 ` \� �� Illk t r�r Miles North 59 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • Component B-H1: Safety Improvements: SH 1 to SH 60 Safety improvements under this component are the same as those in Package A, Component A-H1. Therefore, potential land use impacts associated with this component would be the same under either Package A or Package B. The right-of-way for this component would convert approximately 81 acres of mostly agricultural use to a transportation use. Component B-H2: Tolled Express Lanes: SH 14 to SH 60 Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 60 would have a similar affect on land use as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Component A-H2. Additionally, upgrades to eight existing interchanges would be the same as Package A, Component A-H2. Therefore, potential land use impacts associated with this component would be the same under either Package A or Package B. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 480 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component B-H3: Tolled Express Lanes: SH 60 to E-470 Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between SH 60 and E-470 would have a similar affect on land use as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Component A-H3. Additionally, upgrades to • five existing interchanges would be the same as Package A, Component A-H3. Therefore, potential land use impacts associated with this component would be the same under either Package A or Package B. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 281 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes: E-470 to US 36 Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 could create some land use incompatibilities. Most of the corridor is lined with commercial uses and improvements would be compatible with this use. However, there are also residential uses adjacent to 1-25 between 128th Avenue and US 36. In these locations, additional right-of-way needs would require converting residential uses to transportation uses. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at 144th, 136th, 120th, 104th, and Thornton Parkway would be compatible since land uses and zoning are already mostly commercial- related. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 50 acres of mostly commercial and residential land to a transportation use. • 60 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation. transportation. Component B-T1: Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins/Greeley to Denver Bus rapid transit (BRT) from Fort Collins along Harmony Road and from Greeley along US 34, south along 1-25 to 120th Avenue would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. These corridors have been identified by local communities as important multi- modal transportation corridors. Table 6: Component B-T1 Compatibility Table 6 depicts the compatibility of Bus Rapid Existing Zoning? Comprehensive the proposed new BRT stations Transit Station Land Plan? associated with this component. Use? Stations along 1-25 would be South Fort Yes Yes Yes located in the median. Only the Collins Transit stations at Fort Collins and Center Harmony Road Yes Yes No and Timberline Greeley are located in y berline core urban areas. The other 1-25 and Yes No Yes stations are located on or adjacent Harmony Road to agricultural lands where future Windsor Yes Yes Yes development is proposed. Also, Greeley Yes Yes Yes a number of the locations are not Downtown currently zoned for transportation Transfer Center uses, and in one case, not West Greeley No No Yes US identified as a transit center in the SH 25 and Yes No Yes SH 257 local comprehensive plan. Crossroads Yes Yes Yes • The Firestone site is zoned both Berthoud Yes Yes Yes planned unit development (PUD) Firestone Yes Yes/No Yes and residential. Only PUD allows Frederick/ No No Yes transit facilities. Dacono 1-25 and SH 7 No No Yes The BRT queue jumps on US 34 associated with this component would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans since the roads are existing transportation corridors. The BRT maintenance facility in Fort Collins would generally be compatible with existing land use and the comprehensive plan. Current zoning for the site does not include transit facilities. The BRT maintenance facility in Greeley would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 17 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Component B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit: Fort Collins to DIA BRT service along 1-25 from 120th Avenue to downtown Denver would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans because the service would use existing travel lanes. There would be no additional right-of-way required for this component. • 61 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 E15 Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • Package B Indirect Effects There is little difference in indirect effects from induced growth along the 1-25 corridor between the build packages since highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges are common to all packages. Under the No-Action Alternative, development activity along 1-25 might shift more toward the south to the Denver metro area where there is a greater concentration of newer infrastructure (interchanges). Under the build packages, improvements to existing interchanges could stimulate some growth, but not as much as if completely new interchange locations were proposed. The introduction of BRT along the 1-25 corridor would represent a less permanent appearing improvement in transit than commuter rail and as a result provides less incentive for transit oriented development (TOD). Review of case studies nationwide supports this thesis: BRT- related TOD is much more tenuous than TOD associated with rail. As a result, under Package B, growth would continue to be market-driven and to occur in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans. Growth would continue to be focused along the 1-25 corridor, which would function as a "Main Street" for the North Front Range. Communities west of 1-25 would continue to expand towards the east—spreading—rather than shifting in their concentration. Interchange improvements along the 1-25 corridor would also improve access and reinforce this pattern. As a result, downtown infill and redevelopment efforts in established urban centers (Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, and Loveland) could be hampered. Some concentration of growth could occur near BRT stations along the 1-25 corridor. The more dispersed development pattern that could occur in response to Package B would • result in greater land consumption and a broader potential impact to the study area's environmental resources. The continuation of non-contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the study area east of I-25 would further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands and potentially impacting wildlife habitat. The extent of this impact would be dependent upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. The location of the BRT stations (e.g., center median versus alongside the highway) and the distance of the stations from any associated development would limit the likelihood that they would attract substantial new types of development. However, some increase in density and the rate of growth could occur in the surrounding station areas. Feeder bus service along SH 52 would connect tri-town communities (Frederick, Firestone, Dacono) to the FasTracks Station at Niwot or Gunbarrel and to the BRT at 1-25, reinforcing existing patterns of employment and housing (employment to the west and housing to the east) and limiting the ability of the these communities to shift away from being bedroom communities. As the FasTracks end-of-line, Longmont could experience some intensification in development within its urban center. Potential induced growth impacts for Package B are illustrated in Figure 7. • 62 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 7: Induced Growth Impacts - Package B LEGEND Interchange improvements remain — an important factor. L__J Regional Study Area ,...--- ` •� ►+ o Cities & Towns ,.:•464 �i Olin443n N /\/ Highways /a ' ■ r• i/ • .� \ AV Study Corridors / �1 , �► • .\ /\/ Arterial Roads I �� , Piece ' � Future Land Use 2035 D- �l • a,s - ., p - \ � 1 Agriculture .• 'I t 2 ' , Ault •1— _ r. Employment Area , • TO ,, 2 A �l Open Space/Parks I 1111 " moll • .f; 1 1� , Residential �� Iii ,t' Surface Water j ► ` �N Vacant/Unknown I L , i t a Ian I 414.34) - _ fir. . •x. ! o , • - :Ylirla1I:Ity in I . Loveland r all • _ • ` , , 14 1 -Evan; J / 1 i ' , II i " �hr"'�"' Northern communities already growing Efforts to intensify existing downtown lig i ' 60 . • •y towards east would result in more centers would not be supported. i_, 1-y'.' : , I ;. �, ,t ; r /- • : dispersed development as opposed ii to a more concentrated pattern. all Development more focused ■ "il '25 on 1-25 corridor which serves / , / Ii • w yea" 1 as a regional "main street." 1 --Feeder bus connection to 9I -ants' FasTracks FasTracks would reinforce • tri-town area as a series of I — I ,LID'ngn ont 6 ! bedroom communties. /t • • t _ , Longmont would experience 1 it r --Employment concentration some increase in development , j ,!' , .•, cd, I t would remain west of 1-25. as FasTracks end-of-line as ,� a ' ■■ A�� f t t t /� well as an increase in through traffic triggered by station '�'"''�' r I 1I 1 - ` r locations. - 'T AIM' -E., . 1 .CIiIII kr, Lupin-, • , f ..o It'�ti.�i P h. t t i11�►S rs 4 •. jrill I a•gr ` Watt -i :!lt .1 • T II Boul(ler5 - -- y - . •,/ _ , •,ti I r /a0. C • .Vie I0I a 4 'r• e a ^S •`1 _ � r ■ir \. ?� 3 J .all . e • lea Iakef Y a a 'i'I171 HSIrI i'• 3 I ��% •i` a --BRT stations may support h Alt ei t •A slight increase in density. --Not likely to attract substantial II ci { f n•tort _a r le new types of development. ' El�;. --Access to stations a challenge with more dispersed pattern •is i already established to the east. A rD•nv'..' 70, r I 771 Oil i tit 1Ilis - ,_ I . Al /0 2 4 6 8 10 /‘\1 1 Miles North Er III kir MEL_ kik 1 63 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • 5.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Preferred Alternative is a combination of components presented in Packages A and B and includes multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. Under the Preferred Alternative 1-25 would be widened with general purpose lanes and Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) and substandard interchanges would be reconstructed or upgraded to accommodate future travel needs. Express bus service would operate in the TEL to connect northern Colorado communities to downtown Denver and DIA and utilize existing, expanded and new carpool lots along the highway. Commuter bus service along US 85 would connect Greeley with downtown Denver with stops at the communities along the route. The Preferred Alternative also includes commuter rail transit service from Fort Collins to the anticipated FasTracks North Metro end-of-line. Service to Denver would travel through Longmont and along the FasTracks North Metro Corridor. A connection to Boulder would also be made with a transfer to Northwest Rail at the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. In general, proposed improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way for these alignments has existed for many years. While in some locations residential and commercial development has subsequently encroached to within close proximity of these alignments, they have been planned with the knowledge of adjacent transportation uses. This is particularly important when considering residential uses adjacent to existing transportation corridors, where there may be a perceived incompatibility with land uses. Entirely new transportation alignments or access points along existing alignments, such as interchanges and transit stations, are where direct land use conflicts would be more likely. • I-25 HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1-25 highway improvements consist of interchange improvements at 20 locations, two new TEL between SH 14 and US 36, and two new general purpose lanes between SH 14 and SH 66. Direct impacts that may result from implementation of this component of the Preferred Alternative are described below from north to south. Indirect impacts are more regional and are therefore described for the entire Preferred Alternative at the end of this section. Overall, proposed improvements along the existing 1-25 highway alignment would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of way for this alignment has been existing for many years. While in some locations residential and commercial development has subsequently encroached to within close proximity of the alignment, they have been planned with the knowledge of adjacent transportation uses. Improvements along 1-25 between SH 1 and SH 14 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are predominately agricultural. Similarly, upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 1 and Mountain Vista Drive would be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related. Adding one additional northbound and southbound general purpose lane and one additional northbound and southbound TEL on 1-25 between SH 14 and SH 66 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of • 1-25 are predominately agricultural and commercial. 64 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation. transportation. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 14, Prospect Road, Harmony Road, SH 392, Crossroads Boulevard, US 34, SH 402, LCR 16, SH 60, SH 56 and WCR 34 would be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related. Adding one additional northbound and southbound TEL on 1-25 between SH 66 and E-470 would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Land uses along this section of 1-25 are mostly commercial and agricultural with a few residential enclaves. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at SH 119, SH 52, WCR 8, and SH 7 would generally be compatible since land uses and zoning are mostly commercial-related, although there are still some areas zoned agricultural (i.e., near SH 7). Adding one additional northbound and southbound TEL on 1-25 between E-470 and US 36 could create some land use incompatibilities. Most of the corridor is lined with commercial uses and improvements would be compatible with this use. However, there are also residential uses adjacent to 1-25 between 128th Avenue and US 36. In these locations, additional right-of-way needs would require converting residential uses to transportation uses. Upgrades to existing 1-25 interchanges at Thornton Parkway would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans. • The right-of-way requirements for the 1-25 improvements component would convert approximately 670.5 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. South of E-470 right-of-way requirements would no longer include agricultural lands but instead would consist of some residential in addition to the commercial lands. It should be noted that this total of right-of-way acquisition also accommodates improvements related to the express bus component which would run in the TEL. Express bus stations along 1-25 would generally be located in right-of-way directly adjacent to that acquired for other highway improvements. Commuter Rail (Fort Collins to North Metrol A commuter rail line along the existing BNSF alignment from Fort Collins to Longmont would be mostly compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. However, there are a number of residential developments that have encroached near the alignment that could create some incompatible uses (e.g., a residential use next to a railroad use). The alignment extending from Longmont along a new alignment parallel to SH 119 to WCR 7, then south to the existing UPRR line to North Metro Denver (Longmont/North Metro Connection)would have incompatibilities with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. • 65 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information. cooperation. transportation. • Table 7 depicts the compatibility of the proposed Table 7: Commuter Rail Component Compatibility new commuter rail stations Commuter Rail Existing Zoning? Comprehensive associated with this component. Station Land Plan? Most locations are in core Use? urban areas and were selected Fort Collins Yes Yes Yes during the station alternatives Downtown process based on local Transit Center government and community input and therefore, would not CSU Yes No Yes likely create major land use incompatibilities. The 1-25 and South Fort Yes Yes Yes Collins Transit WCR 8 location is in a non- Center urban area that is mostly agricultural and therefore, North Loveland Yes No Yes would be incompatible with existing land uses, zoning, and Downtown Yes No Yes comprehensive plans. Loveland Zoning in many of these areas, Berthoud Yes No Yes however, has not been updated North Longmont Yes No Yes to be consistent with the comprehensive plans, and Longmont at Yes No Yes many of these locations are not Sugar Mill • currently zoned for 1-25 and WCR 8 No No No transportation uses. The commuter rail maintenance facility located at LCR 10 in Berthoud would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and the comprehensive plan. The right-of-way requirements for this component would convert approximately 204.5 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. EXPRESS BUS (FORT COLLINS/GREELEY TO DENVER/DIA1 Express bus from Fort Collins along Harmony Road and from Greeley along US 34, south along 1-25 to 120th Avenue would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. These corridors have been identified by local communities as important multi-modal transportation corridors. • 66 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information cooperation. transportation. Table 8 depicts the compatibility of Table 8: Express Bus Component Compatibility the proposed new Express Bus stations associated with this Express Bus Existing Zoning? Comprehensive Station Land Plan? component. Stations along 1-25 Use? are generally within existing South Fort transportation right-of-way and Collins Transit Yes Yes Yes often are additions to existing Center park-n-Ride lots. Only the stations Harmony Road Yes Yes No at Fort Collins and downtown and Timberline Greeley are located in core urban 1-25 and Yes No Yes areas. The other stations are Harmony Road located on or adjacent to Windsor Yes Yes Yes West Greeley No No Yes US 34 agricultural lands where future and Yes No Yes development is proposed. Also, SH 257 a number of the locations are not Crossroads Yes Yes Yes currently zoned for transportation Berthoud Yes Yes Yes uses, and in one case, not Firestone Yes Yes/No Yes identified as a transit center in the Frederick/ No No Yes local comprehensive plan. Dacono The Firestone site is zoned both 1-25 and SH 7 No No Yes 1-2planned unit development (PUD) W and No No No WC and and residential. Only PUD allows Downtown Yes Yes Yes transit facilities. Denver • DIA Yes Yes Yes The express bus stations proposed as part of the Preferred Alternative are off to one side of the interstate as opposed to the BRT stations proposed under Package B which are located within the median. Location of the stations next to one side makes the stations more likely to attract new development because the development will be located directly adjacent to the stations. Median located stations reduce the amount of developable land within the distance typically associated with prime TOD opportunities, which is typically understood to be between 0.25 and 0.5 mile from the station. It should be noted however that substantial TOD is not generally expected when associated with express bus stations unless additional developmental incentives exist such as active promotion of TOD from the local jurisdiction. The express bus queue jumps on US 34 associated with this component would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans since the roads are existing transportation corridors. The bus maintenance facility in Greeley would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way requirements for this component are discussed along with the 1-25 highway improvements component above and would result in the conversion of mostly commercial and agricultural land to a transportation use. Express bus service along 1-25 from 120th Avenue to Denver Union Station would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans because the service • would use existing travel lanes. There would be no additional right-of-way required for this component. 67 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • Express bus service along E-470 between 1-25 and DIA would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. There would be no additional right-of-way required for this component. US 85 COMMUTER BUS Commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and Denver Union Station would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. Nearly all of the communities along the corridor envision US 85 as a multi-modal transportation corridor. Table 9 depicts the compatibility of Table 9: US 85 Commuter Bus Component the proposed new commuter bus Compatibility stations associated with this component. The locations are in Commuter Existing Zoning? Comprehensive core urban areas and were Bus Station Land Plan? originally identified based on local Use? government and community input Greeley Yes No Yes and therefore, would not likely South Greeley Yes Yes Yes create major land use Evans Yes No Yes incompatibilities. However, many Plattevilple Yes No No of these locations are not currently Fort Lu ton Yes Yes No zoned for transportation facilities and some are not specifically referenced in comprehensive plans. In addition to the five stations listed in this table the US 85 commuter bus will also make stops in Brighton, Commerce City, and downtown Denver. These stops will not include additional parking or infrastructure and therefore would be compatible with • existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The 17 commuter bus queue jumps on US 85 associated with this component would generally be compatible with existing land use, zoning, or comprehensive plans since US 85 is an existing transportation corridor. The commuter bus maintenance facility in Greeley would be compatible with existing land use, zoning, and comprehensive plans. The right-of-way requirements for the commuter bus component would convert approximately 18.4 acres of mostly commercial and agricultural land and some residential land to a transportation use. Preferred Alternative Indirect Effects There is little difference in indirect effects from induced growth along the 1-25 corridor between the build packages since highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges are common to all packages. Under the No-Action Alternative, development activity along 1-25 might shift more toward the south to the Denver metro area where there is a greater concentration of newer infrastructure (interchanges). Under the build packages, improvements to existing interchanges could stimulate some growth, but not as much as if completely new interchanges were proposed. Under the Preferred Alternative, commuter rail would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the project area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and • Longmont). It should be noted, however, that since no commuter rail construction is planned for the first phase of construction, this growth shift is not likely to occur in the 68 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts • information. cooperation. transportation. immediate future. This shift would help municipalities realize plans for downtown redevelopment and would increase the overall density and footprint of these urban centers. As the end-of-line for the commuter rail alignment, Fort Collins would likely attract a somewhat larger portion of urban center growth than stations located mid- alignment. As a result, the rate at which environmental resources would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the project area could be slowed because growth pressures would likely be concentrated more at the existing urban centers. This would be the case particularly along the 1-25 corridor where substantial agricultural lands, several floodplains, and a number of other resources exist. Increased densities along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor would likely have a limited impact upon natural-resource related environmental resources, as the corridor is nearly built out and most growth would occur in the form of infill and redevelopment. Longmont would likely become a focus within the project area due to its central location, its direct connection to the FasTracks system and the commuter rail, and its close proximity to DIA. Overall, the combination of these factors likely would increase the density and size of Longmont, strengthening its role as a major center for the north Front Range. Outside of established urban centers, commuter rail could help municipalities realize plans that otherwise would not be feasible—for example, the City of Longmont has plans for transit-oriented development along the proposed alignment at SH 66. Without commuter rail as a catalyst, this area would likely develop at typical suburban densities • with a limited mix of uses. Smaller communities in the southern end of the regional study area, such as Frederick and Erie, could see impacts that extend beyond the immediate station area. These impacts could come in the form of an increased demand in service levels as former low-intensity commercial and industrial uses are redeveloped at higher intensities. Some recent information from RTD confirms these conclusions on the induced growth effect of commuter rail. In 2007, RTD conducted a survey of over 25 experts in the fields of economic development, transit, and land use planning from cities around the United States. A conclusion of the survey is that investment in transit redistributes growth and also can attract new growth to the region under certain conditions However, the amount of new growth is a minor consideration in overall regional growth patterns (RTD, 2007). RTD additionally in 2007 studied the effect of its current light rail transit (LRT) lines on development patterns. It was found the LRT service is providing an impetus for redevelopment/revitalization of land near stations and allowing for a greater mix of land use types and densities. The report states that development along the LRT system at that time (consisting primarily of the southwest and southeast lines) is extensive: 9,635 residential units, 2,214 hotel rooms, 2.5 million square feet of retail, 2.6 million square feet of office space, and 2.4 million square feet of institutional space (including medical, cultural, and convention uses) had been built or was under construction. These development projects are within an approximate half-mile radius of LRT stations (RTD, 2007). RTD is currently planning, designing, and constructing the FasTracks system (a transit • expansion plan to build 122 miles of new commuter rail and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit, and enhanced bus service across the eight-county district). In anticipation of 69 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • rail service, many communities have demonstrated a proactive approach to update their local plans to promote higher density, mixed-use transit-oriented development (TOD) near FasTracks stations. The introduction of express bus along the 1-25 corridor would represent a less permanent form of transit improvement than commuter rail and as a result would provide less incentive for TOD. Review of a limited number of case studies nationwide supports this thesis: TOD related to express bus type service is more tenuous than TOD associated with rail. Some limited concentration of growth could occur near some express bus stations along the 1-25 corridor. Such development would depend upon the type and proximity of adjacent land use activity. At stations located in areas with development, some limited higher density growth patterns due to the express bus station might be realized. Feeder bus routes along east-west corridors designed to serve commuter rail and express bus stations could also stimulate increased levels of development as roadways become more congested. As a result, underused lands along these corridors could begin to be redeveloped as higher intensity residential uses become more desirable in close proximity to established employment centers and transit lines. Induced growth impacts for the Preferred Alternative are illustrated in Figure 8. • • 70 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts ill information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 8: Induced Growth Impacts - Preferred Alternative LEGEND Some increase in end-of-line development would occur. ^/ 1-25 Corridor: Commuter Rail /\,/ Highways ,= i+ N 1Hn , on Existing residential uses along Harmony "/ Arterial Roads !�' Corridor (e.g., mobile home parks) may L. Regional Study Area - ;/�> >" fid be converted to higher intensity uses. � � � a 0 Cities & Towns .. - LLarger Urban Areas Enhanced Fort ( ollins '�• .: : • fl'eeder bus routes may shift by Commuter Rail ! �. number of people who live ! . ► il. 'I. Irv X2,57 4 and work in different Future Land Use 2035 I communities. May also Agriculture I -- Tun-lath!' . • Y. allow for increased development a , r ■ (Severance as east/west roadways become Employment Area 1287 iii , A more congested. Windsor Open Space/Parks ,; . Sr ; Residential t; Surface Waterkik • F Vacant/Unknown T-7_ Loveland NI r ,' • i }__ , ' -E•-• '.f Interchange r la • I la Sane . • improvements fJohnstown ,.,-,m��nn . .._ along I-25 !a� • % 60 a • ,`. may stimulate :Bet gild �.,� t Y�rtiPLlhken • ; • I ;• , /' •• / some growth - Commuter rail would facilitate the intensification l • - - r• , c, (,; 0 of existing urban centers, supporting municipal I • plans for redevelopment (downtown Ft.Collins, j iitiP • Non-urban stations would help Mason Street Corridor, 4th Street/downtown !gri.. mead_.....,,,, realize plans for more urban Loveland, 29th Street). 2' r� development that otherwise Ismompimmii ' Si t ' wouldn't occur (e.g., Longmont/ Lrongrnont Hwy 66, Erie/Frederick).rail connections to north and is • south (FasTracks) and connections to • ' • Vollmar • _IDIA/southern communities would __reinforce Longmont s role as a major • rr<,;tr�, I o ,. hub for the region. An overall increase in N� wo- IF •(t • rrc 1 Highway improvements development would occur as a result. - Iv I ��/; = .�' ' i, - ' planned for Phase 1 f!� Dacono. Fort Lupton • ; . 52 t pe- ' Gunharrel ,l� �'.j 1,i ! may prompt more ,, ��p•�r ' 4k q Jr..':� dispersed development .LA ' Valmint �. PI�1 ar . I t 1• in the near term. -Ill. w � t We.,enh.r : I *' �,. • Boulder; ' : # C t'a?ayet;e!I Effect of commuter rail may be • l°'""''°e - - - : " mous, I. i • 7 \ ,� - Express bus stations stretched out over time since p \• SupenU; - '�` E-470 I .�, f ,� ® / : i may support slight commuter rail construction is not •�- 3a •- -c •yl�� , , r3 n • • t' increase in density. • ir t .,� Henderson planned in the first phase. • BrooTt.eld • - - Because they are Qr.• � " ' N' ,h nn ,.� side-running, express 36 iii ' -- bus stations are more 2$7 . A ' gilio,.•'-+ likely to attract new /.' development than the 'Ds BRT stations assumed ti et ,!,; /i as part of Package B. .i ' a ,' Denver " - ' • 70 ; A . ... war = 10MI1J III �an 1 r 71 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS Land Use Conditions and Impacts information cooperation. transportation. • 5.5 MITIGATION MEASURES There will be no mitigation measures required by CDOT for the build packages. While this analysis identified a number of incompatibilities between proposed transportation improvements and land use, particularly with current zoning and in some cases comprehensive plans, actions to address these incompatibilities are the responsibility of local municipal and county governments. It is important to remember that most incompatibilities are simply the result of comprehensive plans and zoning not being updated to reflect the results of this study. Once the Preferred Alternative is formally identified in the Record of Decision, CDOT will encourage the local governments to address the incompatibilities through their existing land use processes. Typical processes local governments use to address land use incompatibilities include public involvement and visioning, amendments to comprehensive plans, and zoning changes. • • 72 • Appendix A Indirect Land Use Impacts Evaluation • • Appendix A THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. • • • Appendix A : Indirect Land Use Impacts NORTH 1-25 EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. • NORTH 1-25 • Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts EIS information cooperation. transportation Appendix A Indirect Land Use Impacts 1.0 Introduction In accordance with Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, this chapter provides an overview of indirect land use impacts that could occur as a result of the No-Action, Package A, Package B, or Preferred Alternatives currently under consideration. As defined by CEQ, indirect impacts are "caused by the action and occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). This appendix contains: • A discussion of population and employment trends; • A discussion of the various forces and constraints that affect land use and how they apply in the regional study area • A discussion of potential land use impacts associated with transit; and • The results of an expert panel convened to discuss likely land use impacts associated with each package of build alternatives and the No-Action Alternative. • 2.0 Regional Study Area Population and Employment The North 1-25 EIS regional study area falls in portions of Larimer County, Weld County, the City and County of Broomfield, the City and County of Denver and incorporated municipalities including, but not limited to: Fort Collins, Loveland, Johnstown, Berthoud, Windsor, Timnath, Erie, Greeley, Longmont, Westminster, Thornton, and Broomfield. The regional study area has been experiencing rapid growth in population and employment in recent years, which is projected to continue. Year 2005 and 2035 population and employment forecasts provided by the NFRMPO and DRCOG reflect the planned growth in the regional study area. Data comparing current and forecasted future population and employment within the regional study area are detailed in Tables 1 and 2. The regional study area is expected to see a 62% increase in population from 2005 to 2035 from approximately 1.4 million to 2.2 million, while employment is expected to increase by over 70% for the same time period. The distribution of projected population and employment growth within the regional study area are illustrated in Figure 1 and 2, respectively. • A-1 NORTH 1-25 EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts • information cooperation. transportation. Table 1: Regional Study Area Current and Projected Future Population Jurisdiction 2005 2035 Change % Change Wellington 3,771 5,479 1,708 45% Fort Collins 158,253 218,776 60,523 38% Windsor 16,997 34,608 17,611 104% Loveland 73,643 136,174 62,531 85% Berthoud 9,828 18,266 8,438 86% Johnstown 6,712 23,752 17,040 254% Longmont 74,329 99,758 25,429 34% Firestone 9,007 29,056 20,049 223% Frederick 4,775 14,161 9,386 197% Dacono 3,888 11,530 7,642 197% Erie 13,306 48,225 34,919 262% Broomfield 46,492 92,041 45,549 98% Thornton 105,655 141,477 35,822 34% • Northglenn 35,491 38,274 2,783 8% Eaton 3,727 3,875 148 4% Greeley 84,403 164,693 80,290 95% Evans 18,263 28,321 10,058 55% Fort Lupton 10,407 35,712 25,305 243% Brighton 23,011 69,918 46,907 204% Commerce City 27,852 46,889 19,037 68% Denver* 191,847 269,861 78,041 41% Larimer County* 8,396 15,607 7,211 86% North Weld County* 12,190 37,511 25,321 208% South Weld County* 10,491 41,705 31,214 298% Source: North Front Range MPO, DRCOG Asterisks(*)indicate municipalities whose boundaries extend beyond the limits of the regional study area. Population numbers reflect only those portions of the municipality which fall within the regional study area. County populations reflect only portions of the county not addressed as part of other jurisdictions • A-2 NORTH 1-25 • Appendix A:Indirect Land Use Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation. Table 2: Regional Study Area Current and Projected Future Employment Jurisdiction 2005 2035 Change %Change Wellington 747 1,163 416 56% Fort Collins 94,766 121,271 26,505 28% Windsor 5,980 11,119 5,139 86% Loveland 36,884 78,845 41,961 114% Berthoud 3,090 8,773 5,683 184% Johnstown 819 6,656 5,837 713% Longmont 28,506 33,796 5,290 19% Firestone 1,045 4,953 3,908 374% Frederick 586 2,690 2,104 359%, Dacono 219 1,181 962 439% Erie 1,022 3,476 2,454 240% Broomfield 30,082 71,315 41,233 137% • Thornton 21,028 41,820 20,792 99% Northglenn 8,833 11,498 2,665 30% Eaton 1,020 1,662 642 63% Greeley 51,717 101,686 49,969 97% Evans 3,437 7,430 3,993 116% Fort Lupton 3,163 15,453 12,290 389% Brighton 8,219 12,917 4,698 57% Commerce City 26,608 30,938 4,330 16% Denver* 212,379 320,128 107,749 51% Larimer County 1,403 6,608 5,205 371% North Weld County* 3,182 19,566 16,384 515% South Weld County* 2,947 24,202 21,255 721% Source: North Front Range MPO, DRCOG. Asterisks(*)indicate municipalities whose boundaries extend beyond the limits of the regional study area. Employment numbers reflect only those portions of the municipality which fall within the regional study area. County populations reflect only portions of the county not addressed as part of other jurisdictions • A-3 NORTH 1-25 EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts . information cooperation transportation Figure 1 : Regional Study Area Future Population Growth Distribution LEGEND _, _ _ _ ; Regional Study Area O Cities & Towns 'N\ri Study Corridors 'a Highways Arterial Roads a r r County Boundaries t 7 IL "1 l t City BoundariesI Jot 2005/2035 Population 1 I, J (Summed in Project Area) 1 — 1 tie i I sun i an XXX,XXX 4� __ 1 2005 Population I "="' 1-- 2035 Population ; . \ -. /i A ww, i i • 11141-t 1X17/, i ar i Witt r 1 i , ftll 1 1 1711 .fi AMP Oslo 0 writ 1.4 ems* I da 1 i IL/Y; .� alr 11.1'f i,►■JI�I MMI 1 1 fr gag l / y LM r�l r 1M.AP r N, ant te �; ' Iyl7i ._ _ �•LIMO }' : NS �� a 1uuu QIW 117-_!if,Mt Fli w Mel t 11.214 11 li r , _ ;1 / Ii lt7 - N\ . . .' IWNIWWWI , Wl aola 1i', .► RCN 11nw _ • . - ' ' r , • 4 • -4 . • 2 4 6 8 10 • _ • Ina,irr�i !11 a _l >' Miles North ` \ !, r 1 i • A-4 NORTH I-25 Ill EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts information. cooperation. transportation Figure 2: Regional Study Area Future Employment Growth Distribution (EGENL) _ L _ _ _ ; Regional Study Area - - - -,.., t J Cities & Towns .,. \` Study Corridors �'' / j 147 r ma Highways f , Arterial Roads a . arilair- County Boundaries t'""''"' `i'p1110 City Boundaries 2005/2035 Employment ' -.14111 „d (Summed in Project Area) in , I t reek 1 xxx•xxx I a SW t j 2005 Employment = °"' t "'" ® t 2035 Employment �- \ ® 1 • ' �tr lliur 1 US r �1 r , -;, t mai Iwti ' `- 1 II 0 . kap 1 trni -r- ft/ r.41,--, 1llrl `.a s.w, t 1 NV I Lrrr r� i r I I areit 'r 7M [ t74M /� ! a(s r 11ifttf rile ♦ 5,---- ; iy�r / � ft W tii-tffll. . ... ti - irP „.„,„-,;-._ . . _: : -. , Ma , I.172 fattlin".xis . iff \ - --rN---N.%%.3---NN.-. r slain 1 Wei / - - r MrtY I/ ` lAM1 70.g1 , V V • �i 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles North rtl�t� '� A-5 NORTH I-25 EIS Appendix A:Indirect Land Use Impacts • information cooperation transportation. 3.0 Corridor-Specific Population and Employment Given the large area included within the regional study area, projected increases in population and employment were estimated within proximity of each of the three primary north-south corridors: US 85, 1-25, and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)/Longmont North Metro Connection. Although improvements under consideration within each of the corridors vary, population and employment have been calculated based on a defined distance from each of the proposed transit improvement stations/stops within the corridor. These corridor-level summaries are provided for the purposes of illustrating where the largest concentrations of population and employment are projected to occur within the regional study area. The eight connector corridors described in the previous section are encompassed within the influence area of each of the three primary corridors and are therefore not called out separately. Projected increases in population by corridor are outlined in Table 3. The BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor had a significantly higher population base in 2005 than either the 1-25 Corridor or the US 85 Corridor within ''/-mile, with approximately 83,000 people. In contrast, the 1-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor had approximately 44,000 and 41,000 people within 1/2-mile, respectively. As a result of its more limited 2005 population base, the 1-25 Corridor is projected to experience the most significant rate of population increase, with an 88 percent increase within ''/-mile by 2035. This contrasts with the more limited rate of increase projected for the BNSF and US 85 Corridors, with an approximately • 24 percent and 51 percent increase projected during the same timeframe. Table 3: Current and Projected Future Population Increase by Corridor 0.5 mile radius 2 mile radius 4 mile radius 2005 2035 2005 2035 2005 2035 Corridor Pop Pop % Inc Pop Pop % Inc Pop Pop % Inc 1-25 43,536 81,764 88% 223,878 429,502 92% 507,632 874,955 72% BNSF/ Longmon 82,763 102,934 24% 285,764 380,904 33% 441,863 670,230 52% t North Metro US 85 40,687 61,517 51% 219,597 371,710 69% 544,884 870,282 60% Source: North Front Range MPO, DRCOG;Population and employment have been calculated based on a defined distance from each of the proposed transit improvement stations/stops within the corridor. The BNSF also had a significantly higher population base in 2005 within 2-miles (286,000) than either the 1-25 Corridor or the US 85 Corridor, with approximately 224,000 people and 220,000 people respectively. The 1-25 Corridor continues to see the greatest increase in the rate of population growth of the three corridors with a projected population increase of 92 percent. The rate of increase for the BNSF and US 85 Corridors remains significantly lower, with increases of 33 percent and 69 percent, respectively. At a 4-mile distance, projected increases are more evenly distributed between the BNSF and 1-25 Corridors, with • A-6 NORTH I-25 • Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts EIS information. cooperation transportation. projected increases of 72 percent and 52 percent, respectively. Increases within the US 85 Corridor are midway between the other two corridors, with a projected increase of 60 percent. Projected increases in jobs by corridor are outlined in Table 4. Consistent with 2005 population figures,jobs within 1/2-mile of the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor are substantially higher in 2005 (67,000) than in the 1-25 or US 85 Corridors, which had 32,000 and 40,000 jobs, respectively. Consistent with 2035 population projections, the 1-25 Corridor again sees the highest percentage increase in jobs within a 1z-mile (301 percent). The BNSF/Longmont North Metro Corridor is projected to have the slowest percentage increase (16%), although the total number of jobs will be higher than in the US 85 Corridor, with 77,000 jobs projected versus 52,000 jobs. Table 4: Current and Projected Future Job Increases by Corridor 0.5 mile radius 2 mile radius 4 mile radius 2005 2035 2005 2035 2005 2035 Corridor Jobs Jobs % Inc Jobs Jobs % Inc Jobs Jobs % Inc 1-25 31,942 128,233 301% 91,043 274,382 201% 207,582 444,491 114% BNSF/ Longmont 66,765 77,266 16% 147,970 174,201 18% 218,473 315,452 44% • North Metro US 85 39,678 51,586 30% 130,340 205,850 58% 358,099 540,632 51% Source: North Front Range MPO, DRCOG;Population and employment have been calculated based on a defined distance from each of the proposed transit improvement stations/stops within the corridor. Within a 4-mile radius, jobs are projected to increase from between 18 percent (BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor) to 201 percent (1-25 Corridor) by 2035. Total jobs in 2035 are projected to be highest along the 1-25 and US 85 Corridors, with approximately 274,000 and 208,000 jobs, respectively. Despite a substantial increase over 2005, the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor is projected to have much smaller employment base than either of the other two corridors 174,000). At a 4-mile radius, total jobs are fairly evenly distributed between the 1-25 and BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridors by 2035, at 444,000 and 315,000, respectively. The US 85 corridor is expected to have the highest number of jobs with approximately 541,000 jobs projected. This is predominantly a result of extremely high growth in the area between E-470 and downtown Denver. • A-7 NORTH I-25 EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts • information cooperation transportation. 4.0 Factors Affecting Growth The North Front Range has experienced a tremendous amount of growth in recent years and this trend is projected to continue throughout the planning horizon. The magnitude of this projected growth is illustrated by population and employment figures contained in Tables 1 and 2, which indicate that population in ten of the twenty-four municipalities located within the regional study area is projected to increase by more than 100 percent by 2035. In addition,jobs in thirteen of the twenty-four municipalities are projected to increase by more than 100 percent by 2035. Factors affecting growth vary depending upon the location within the regional study area. Therefore, for the purposes of discussion, an overview of factors is provided for the three primary north-south corridors and east-west connecting corridors. 4.1 1-25 Corridor Of the three corridors, the 1-25 Corridor has the highest potential for change. As previously discussed, this potential for growth translates into a projected population increase within a 1/2—mile radius of nearly 60 percent more than the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor and nearly 30 percent more than the US 85 Corridor. This distinction can be attributed, in large part, to a combination of factors, including: • Large supply of developable land; • • Easy access to 1-25; • Development pressures; and • Pro-growth political climate. Projected change in population and employment is most pronounced in smaller municipalities along the corridor. To the south, this includes Dacono, Frederick, and Erie, which are heavily influenced by their easy access to 1-25 and E-470 and DIA, and their close proximity to the Denver metro area. This proximity allows residents to live the more "rural" lifestyle many desire while still easily commuting to their jobs in surrounding municipalities. Residents are also attracted by the lower home prices and extensive amenities offered by many fringe developments that can be difficult to find in more established metro area communities. As a result, the bulk of recent growth in many of these close-in communities has been focused on single-family residences, reinforcing their role as "bedroom" communities. Despite this trend, many smaller 1-25 communities have placed an emphasis on balancing residential growth with commercial services and employment in their comprehensive plans. The implementation of these plans will likely be influenced somewhat by the recent influx of commercial services along the 1-25 Corridor south of SH 7 in the Westminster and Thornton vicinity which are served by new interchanges at 136th and 144th Avenues. The realization of community plans will also depend on the ability of communities to preserve lands designated for future commercial and employment indefinitely, in spite of potential pressure to convert these lands to residential uses more viable in today's market. • A-8 NORTH 1-25 • Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation. Dramatic growth is also projected in south Weld County (300 percent). This projection is influenced, in part, by current county development policies which support the continued urbanization of unincorporated lands adjacent to or in between the towns. The realization of these policies will be influenced by residential and commercial market demand, the availability of urban services in unincorporated areas, and on future annexation activities in the region. Further north along the corridor, growth becomes less influenced by the Denver metro area and more influenced by the growth of established urban centers such as Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins. Growth in these communities and in smaller communities such as Windsor, Johnstown, and Timnath has continued to occur along the 1-25 Corridor away from community centers located several miles to the west or east. As in the south, primary influences have been the availability of land and the desire of communities to secure key interchange properties for future commercial development. 4.2 BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor Potential for change within the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor is somewhat more limited than in the 1-25 or US 85 Corridors due to the following influencing factors: • • Established development patterns; • Limited availability of vacant lands; • Community separators; and • Limited access to 1-25. Three of the regional study area's major urban centers (Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont) are located along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor. As a result, vacant land is limited and much of the corridor has been built out for many years. Remaining agricultural lands located in unincorporated areas between communities, have in many cases been set aside as open space or under agricultural easements to maintain a visual and physical separation between communities. The BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor is also located several miles from the 1-25 Corridor and the access that it provides to the rest of the region. Despite these potential limitations, the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor is projected to continue to grow over the next thirty years. Population is projected to increase by 24 percent within 1/2 mile and by 52 percent increase within 4 miles, while employment is projected to increase by 16 percent within 1/2 mile and 44 percent within 4 miles. Due to the influencing factors described above, much of this future development will occur in the form of infill and redevelopment. This type of development is supported by community policies and regulations—particularly within the downtown core of these communities—and has begun to occur in some locations. However, without a significant catalyst, such as the introduction of a fixed-guideway transit system along the corridor, market demand for this type of development will remain far behind that of easily • developable "greenfield" lands along the 1-25 Corridor. A-9 NORTH I-25 EIS Appendix A:Indirect Land Use Impacts • information. cooperation transportation. 4.3 US 85 Corridor The US 85 Corridor also has high potential for change (51 percent increase) within 1/2-mile of the corridor and is fairly consistent with the other corridors within a 4-mile radius of the corridor (60 percent increase). Factors influencing the US 85 Corridor include: • Availability of land. • Distance to Denver metro area and other major population centers within the regional study area (Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont). • Proximity to DIA. • Proximity to Greeley's urban center. Although several of the factors influencing the US 85 Corridor are similar to those influencing the 1-25 Corridor, their level of influence and overall effect is different. For example, although the US 85 Corridor also contains a significant amount of agricultural land surrounding its small towns, current plans do not call for significant growth in these areas. Southern portions of the US 85 Corridor have been influenced by their proximity to Denver International Airport and the Denver metro area. As with the 1-25 Corridor, residential development in areas such as Brighton has increased dramatically due to the ability of residents to live in a more "rural" setting and commute to jobs in the metro area. Housing prices in these locations have also been a factor, as square footage costs are often significantly lower—allowing families to get a much larger house for their money. As numbers increase, residential development will be followed by an increased demand for commercial services. Greeley anchors the north end of the US 85 Corridor and continues to be influenced by both outward and inward (infill and redevelopment) growth trends. The city has continued to expand its bounds towards the west along US 34 as well as to the south and north. However, the city has also placed an emphasis on the revitalization of its downtown core and has begun to see some infill and redevelopment activity as a result. 4.4 Connector Corridors Harmony Road/Weld County Road 74 from SH 257 to US 287 The Harmony Road/Weld County Road 74 from SH 257 to US 287 Connector Corridor provides an east/west linkage between US 287 in Fort Collins and County Line Road east of the Town of Timnath. West of 1-25, potential for change along the corridor is moderate to low, as it is largely built out. In these locations, redevelopment would be necessary to create substantial change. Potential for change is higher east of 1-25, where the corridor is identified as one of the Town of Timnath's core economic areas within its Comprehensive Plan. • A-10 NORTH I-25 • Appendix A:Indirect Land Use Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation SH 257 from Weld County Road 74 to US 34 The SH 257 from Weld County Road 74 to US 34 Connector Corridor provides a north/south connection between County Line Road east of the Town of Timnath and US 34. Outside of the Town of Windsor, the corridor has a relatively limited potential for change. This is due, in part, to its distance from 1-25. US 34 from Greeley to Loveland The US 34 from Greeley to Loveland Connector Corridor provides an east/west connection between Downtown Greeley and Downtown Loveland. Potential for change along the corridor is highest east of 1-25. Influencing factors include: • Large supply of developable land; • Presence of major employment centers in Greeley and at the US 34/1-25 interchange; and • Community plans supportive of growth along the corridor. West of 1-25, potential for change is also relatively high, but is limited somewhat by the established pattern of growth along the corridor. In these locations, redevelopment would be necessary to create substantial change. • SH 60 from Milliken to 1-25 The SH 60 from Milliken to 1-25 Connector Corridor provides an east/west connection between the Town of Milliken and 1-25. Between 1-25 and the Town of Johnstown, potential for change along the corridor is fairly high, in large part due to the following factors: • Large supply of developable land; • Easy access to 1-25; • Pro-growth political climate. Further to the east, potential for change is limited by established development patterns in the Towns of Johnstown and Milliken. SH 56 from 1-25 to Berthoud The SH 56 from 1-25 to Berthoud Connector Corridor provides an east/west connection between 1-25 and US 287. Potential for change along the corridor is highest where it intersects with 1-25, as the Town's plan already calls for intense mixed-use development in this location. The potential for change further west is limited by the Town's plan, which desires a well-defined urban edge that quickly transitions to agricultural lands. SH 119 from 1-25 to Longmont The SH 119 from 1-25 to Longmont Connector Corridor provides an east/west connection between 1-25 and US 287. Potential for change is moderate, as there are a number of environmentally constrained lands along the corridor and a relatively established pattern of development. The highest potential for change lies in the redevelopment of several large • former industrial properties located on the outskirts of Longmont. A-11 NORTH 1-25 EIS Appendix A:Indirect Land Use Impacts • information cooperation transportation. SH 52 from Fort Lupton to Niwot The SH 52 from Fort Lupton to Niwot Connector Corridor provides an east/west connection between the US 85 Corridor and 1-25 and continues west to the FasTracks system. East of 1-25, the corridor is influenced by many of the same factors as the 1-25 Corridor and the US 85 Corridor and its potential for change in this is relatively high. This distinction can be attributed, in large part, to a combination of factors, including: • Large supply of developable land. • Easy access to 1-25. • Pro-growth political climate. • Distance to Denver metro area and other major population centers within the regional study area (Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont). • Proximity to DIA. West of 1-25, the corridor's potential for change remains relatively high as it passes through the growth areas of Erie and Frederick for many of the same reasons listed above. However, as the corridor enters Boulder County, potential for change drops dramatically due to the presence of existing open space corridors and agricultural easements designed to limit the potential for future growth. E-470 from 1-25 to Denver International Airport • The E-470 from 1-25 to Denver International Airport Connector Corridor is influenced by many of the same factors as the 1-25 Corridor and the US 85 Corridor. As a result, its potential for change is relatively high. This distinction can be attributed, in large part, to a combination of factors, including: • Large supply of developable land; • Easy access to E-470 and 1-25; • Pro-growth political climate; • Distance to Denver metro area and other major population centers within the regional study area (Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont); and • Proximity to DIA. • A-12 NORTH 1-25 EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts information cooperation transportation 5.0 Indirect Land Use Impact Research Each of the alternative packages currently under consideration as part of the DEIS have the potential for indirect land use impacts. In February of 2004, the project team conducted informal research regarding the indirect land use impacts of . • transportation projects. This research involved a s, review of case studies and literature that �"' addressed the relationship between land use and transportation projects. The impacts of several -- 1• ige;;;Vellij p p J p m types of transportation projects were considered in =; "" ''''` ''"'r' this research including rail improvements, bus S1 ;. • ' agit;. ' - rapid transit (BRT) improvements, commuter bus ' improvements, and non-transit transportation improvements . 5. 1 Rail Improvements Transit-oriented development in downtown Potential indirect land use impacts are generally Plano, Texas along the DART light rail line which connects the community to Dallas. most significant for rail transit. This is largely due to the fixed nature of rail stations and the higher • level of certainty this provides for municipalities and the development community in planning for higher-intensity development. Rail transit station locations are most supportive of transit-oriented development, which is commonly referred to as "TOD" . A TOD can be defined as: A higher-density, pedestrian-friendly form of development that is focused around a major transit access point. Elements usually include compact, mixed-use development (e.g. , several stories of residential or employment over first floor retail), and facilities and design that enhance the environment for pedestrians and encourage transit ridership. Much of the available literature on transit-oriented development indicates that TODs are most likely to occur within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of a light rail or commuter rail station , as this is the distance most people are willing to walk to reach a rail station . Densities are typically highest within 14 mile of a transit station , decrease slightly between 14 and 1/2 mile from the station , and drop off significantly in surrounding areas. Rail stations can also help strengthen existing urban cores by attracting new residents and supporting an overall increase in density which in turn supports existing businesses and attracts new businesses. Another effect of transit improvements on land use that has been documented is the role that the end of line station plays. Increases in population growth have been observed up to seven miles away from an end of line station . A-13 NORTH 1-25 EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts • information cooperation transportation. Aside from the impact of the transit mode, several other factors play into potential land use impacts. These include the: availability of vacant or underutilized land, surrounding land use context, environmental constraints, and circulation and access, among others. While rail transit is conducive to higher density and mixed-use land use patterns, a dramatic shift in land use patterns surrounding a rail station often requires a proactive approach on the part of local municipalities that goes far beyond simply deciding where to locate a proposed station. In many cases, these efforts are underway long before the transit line is actually in place. Communities that have been most successful in implementing TOD have employed one or more of the following tools: • Station area planning—this typically includes site-specific land use plans coupled with supporting polices and regulations designed to facilitate transit-oriented development; • Interagency cooperation—this may include ongoing conversations and agreements between local jurisdictions, regional planning agencies, transportation departments, and transit authorities; • Public investment—TOD development in "greenfield" locations as well as on infill parcels may be dependent upon the provision of utilities and other infrastructure enhancements to support higher intensity development, in other cases sidewalks, structured parking and other investments may be necessary; • • Neighborhood outreach—the introduction of TOD's within an established neighborhood can be controversial due to fear that increased density will bring increased traffic and crime. As a result, neighborhood outreach can be a critical component of any station area plan effort, helping to convey the facts and dispel any unfounded concerns; • Public/private partnerships—in addition to the above efforts, public/private partnerships are often used to implement transit-oriented developments near rail stations. Partnerships can include land swaps, tax abatement, and other incentives that reduce the gap between the cost of construction and the ultimate sales price of finished the units. Such incentives are often necessitated due to higher construction costs associated with intense development (e.g., structured parking, steel construction vs. wood frame). • A-14 NORTH 1-25 E15 Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts information cooperation transportation 5. 2 Bus Rapid Transit Improvements „it Studies are inconclusive on the impact of Bus • Rapid Transit (BRT) on land use and economic development, although if BRT has dedicated 4 k it lanes, it may be more likely to stimulate t ,, development. Also a factor in the ability of I , a- _. BRT systems to stimulate TOD at station locations; for example, if a BRT route travels along a surface street that is visible from and easily accessed from surrounding development parcels, opportunities for TOD are likely to be significantly higher than if the BRT route is a center-running system that travels in a • dedicated lane within the median of a divided highway. In the center-running scenario, the BRT is separated from surrounding * r ; development parcels by several lanes of high- it1: or IMO . yr wfur Or speed traffic. This configuration reduces the s'. , r •t rit physical and visual connection between the transit station and any surrounding • development, reducing the marketability and , r if _ appeal of TOD. As with rail transit, efforts to attract a more transit-oriented pattern of development along a BRT alignment will be enhanced by the Transit-oriented development along the proactive efforts of local municipalities, Orange Line (BRT) in Los Angeles, regardless of the BRT's location . California. The Orange Line, winch opened in 2005, provides express service between North Hollywood and the Warner Center. 5. 3 Commuter Bus Improvements Commuter bus stations are also fixed , in that they are typically associated with a park and ride facility; however, routes have more flexibility to respond to potential changes in ridership patterns over time. This potential route flexibility provides less certainty to municipalities and the development community regarding the longevity of a particular route. As a result, commuter bus stations are less likely to attract significant TOD. However, they may attract transit-adjacent development, which is likely to be lower in density than traditional TOD and may include a horizontal mix of uses (side-by-side) as opposed to a vertical mix of uses (multi-story). 5.4 Non- Transit Improvements Non-transit improvements include new highways, highway widening , and interchanges. Research revealed that though there is general agreement that there is a correlation between transportation and land use, there are major discrepancies about exactly what that A-15 NORTH 1-25 EIS Appendix A:Indirect Land Use Impacts • information cooperation transportation. correlation is. Some of the factors, other than transportation, that are found to influence land use change and economic development include distance to a major city, distance to another interchange, accessibility to other regional markets, interchange design, traffic volume, parcel location, timing and completion of construction, economy, public attitude, zoning, previous land use, land availability, and infrastructure. The impacts of highway interchanges are highly localized. Very little relationship was found between highway widening and land use changes, unless new interchanges were included. The extent of these impacts can vary greatly and are dependent upon a number of additional factors (such as those listed above) making it difficult to predict. While it is generally agreed that transportation investments and economic activity are positively linked, the nature of the relationship remains uncertain. The timing of land use impacts seems largely dependent on general economic conditions. Where capital is available and there is demand for new development in a city, greater impacts are likely to take place. 6.0 Expert Panel An induced growth Expert Panel was convened on October 31, 2006 to assist the Project Team in verifying existing projections and forecasting conceptual land use in the regional study area. The purpose of the Expert Panel was to get input on where future housing and employment growth could most likely occur based on the alternatives identified for the • DEIS. The insights offered by the local expert panel remain valid for the Preferred Alternative because it is a combination of Package A and Package B. Twenty-one participants attended the meeting, including representatives from: the cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont; the towns of Windsor, Dacono, Firestone, Frederick, and Mead; the NFRMPO, DRCOG, FHWA, CDOT, and several private development companies. Prior to the meeting a package was sent to invitees with information on the alternatives, the role of the expert panel, and future population and employment data. In preparation for the meeting, expert panel members were asked to consider the following issues when considering where future housing and employment growth could most likely occur based on the alternatives identified: • What are the political or physical restrictions to growth (Community boundaries/planning areas, environmental features)? • What areas will allow new job growth? • What types of employment or housing will develop? • Is rezoning to more transit-supportive densities being considered? • Is redevelopment anticipated within established areas of the corridor? • What restrictions do the provision of services (sewer, water, utilities) present? • What will the future land use be in the area with the No-Action Alternative? • What role will future transportation facility improvements (e.g., interchange upgrades, express lanes) play in the distribution of land use? • A-16 NORTH 1-25 • Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation. • What, if any, are the potential changes to land use or the location of employment and housing associated with completion of either of the transit alternatives (BRT vs. Commuter Rail)? At the meeting, a brief overview of the alternatives and the background material was provided to orient participants. A brief discussion of research on induced growth associated with transportation improvements was also provided. Facilitators then led the group through a discussion on each alternative and solicited feedback on potential changes in future land use patterns that could result under each of the three altematives. Due to the large scale of the regional study area, feedback was broad in nature. Feedback on each altemative is summarized below. 6.1 No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, the expert panel believed growth would continue to occur largely on undeveloped agricultural land at the fringe of the regional study area's urbanized areas in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans. However, this low- density, dispersed pattern of development could eventually become constrained by increased congestion, increased travel times, and existing access issues hampered by a lack of interchange improvements. As a result, development may decrease in quality (e.g., • highway-oriented strip commercial or warehouses would likely occur at interchange locations due to access limitations rather than coordinated, master-planned developments) unless market conditions are strong enough to warrant investment from the private sector in strategic locations to facilitate specific developments. Decreasing service levels along major roadway corridors, such as 1-25, may also result in the more rapid absorption of land in rural areas, as market forces push towards the path of least resistance. This may also be the case for many of the east-west and alternate corridors (e.g., US 34, SH 7, SH 52, SH 402) in the regional study area. Due to the limited availability of transit, development intensities are unlikely to increase substantially over those which exist today. However, more focused development may occur towards the southern end of the regional study area where transit enhancements and highway improvements are already in place (FasTracks/I-25 widening). Induced growth impacts for the No-Action Alternative as estimated by the expert panel are illustrated in Figure 3. • A-17 NORTH 1-25 EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts III information cooperation transportation Figure 3: Expert Panel Induced Growth Impacts—No-Action LEGEND -Growth already constrained by substandard interchanges. 'L (___._.___.___i Regional Study Area ..,�' --Lack of interchange improvements a Cities & Towns •S well,notn would limit development opportunities /�/ Highways • and reduce quality of development. a. T —Private sector may contribute to /�/ Study Corridors ._ IT �!i • I improvements that facilitate / / Arterial Roads • ` development opportunities. 41 Future Land Use 2035 Foci•6otlms a sar \ Agriculture i• ll: w re ;,,I, �1 t4IEmployment Area j• I ` Open Space/Parks j ii ' ' • '.� '- ,SEW n, r.,trri t Residential j ;: ` 't I =' ij • .F Surface Water t n ' �� L - 1 Vacant/Unknown j 1�" itt it 34 - �e — • r t � t �J I - - • • 1 ilit lnvPland, — ,• — :.� 34 • �� r"fit 'bar- •�/: ft isf(7w% • t t.sd 1 Worsening congestion on 1-25 may trigger 60 a / more development along east-west corridors pc�x,,►M 85 • where there is less resistance. Ø r1r. V d , r ' • ' % r • ` / mktn7 / • �; . i --Current development patterns would j i ' 0 • likely continue (e.g., dispersed and ! la ,, —Development would be more less centralized.) j . dispersed due to reduced —Development would likely be more ,, service levels. It market driven as opposed to I ' i v ' r rongmnnt S --May make rural areas more municipal preferred. �� ' - attractive to growth sooner. �, n —Unlikely to see substantial increase ./.44 ` ` ... in density of existing centers. % ■ A0. '' •, - 4 I / . a 1 / 4�NIwn:� . �• ,. ay , •I I I 4. 7 t%nel. irvt l!Atd. 5 1•l1 • 4. • 1 _ :ail .,,i- J.,. i ' :.Al rntn71 '. r , Eu�r.nllp Iv • dt 0011 . k$ . • . % ' Srfrf•.Vle !e. iii4 25 •• r41 �� / sr .ar _ / . P.r.a.dn1d • . 1 MD:{N CV. • .41•f , / a N.Development focus may shift toward south �`stt - r where infrastructure and capacity along 1-25 C T - .• r~i": -� / has already been improved. ' e f .M.- • ..t :Wit • Dern/--4- _ ® 1t / 0 2 4 6 8 10 - f al . Miles 1 f \--.."-- H--N\ .\ v. ❑.ar.rrw U• ir.v._.+e.w._eYr.n .w•..a ,.•y.7pp! ID A-18 NORTH 1-25 • Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation 6.2 Package A Under Package A, commuter rail would facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the regional study area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont). This shift would help municipalities realize plans for downtown redevelopment and would increase the overall density and footprint of these urban centers. As the end-of-line for the commuter rail alignment, Fort Collins would likely attract a somewhat larger portion of urban center growth than stations located mid-alignment. Longmont becomes a focus within the regional study area due to its central location, its direct connection the FasTracks system and the commuter rail, and its proximity to Denver International Airport. The combination of these factors would result in an overall increase in the intensity and size of Longmont, strengthening its role as a major center for the north Front Range. Outside of established urban centers, commuter rail would help municipalities realize plans that otherwise would not be feasible—for example, the City of Longmont has plans for transit-oriented development along the proposed alignment at SH 66. Without commuter rail as a catalyst, this area would likely develop at typical suburban densities with a limited mix of uses. Smaller communities in the southern end of the regional study area, such as • Frederick and Erie, may see impacts that extend beyond the immediate station area. These impacts will come in the form of an increased demand in service levels as former low- intensity commercial and industrial uses are redeveloped at higher intensities. Feeder bus routes along east-west corridors designed to serve commuter rail stations will also stimulate increased levels of development as roadways become more congested. As a result, underutilized lands along these corridors will begin to be redeveloped as higher intensity residential uses become more desirable in close proximity to established employment centers. Induced growth impacts for Package A as estimated by the expert panel are illustrated in Figure 4. 6.3 Package B The introduction of BRT along the 1-25 corridor represents a more modest improvement in transit than commuter rail and as a result provides less incentive for transit oriented development. As a result, under Package B growth would continue to be market-driven and to occur in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans. Growth would continue to be focused along the 1-25 corridor, which would function as a "Main Street" for the North Front Range. Communities west of 1-25 would continue to expand towards the east—spreading—rather than shifting in their concentration. Interchange improvements along the 1-25 corridor would also improve access and reinforce this pattern. As a result, • A-19 NORTH 1-25 EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts information cooperation transportation • Figure 4: Expert Panel Induced Growth Impacts—Package A LEGEND C Some increase in end-of-line development would occur. ^# Commuter Rail "/ Highways ..-- w /:, faro ° Existing residential uses along Harmony /\/ Arterial Roads ;�' • . Corridor (e.g., mobile home parks) may L.J Regional Study Area :/ -4 -! be converted to higher intensity uses. a Cities & Towns • _' Ire / 4-4 v Larger Urban Areas Enhanced It - a'pii '; Feeder bus routes may shift by Commuter Rail ., number of people who live I . = 2 .l s� and work in different Future Land Use 2035 i " communities. May also Agriculture I =_ • '� '� .,- , allow for increased development Employment Area ) as east/west roadways become i �`: 3 - al more congested. Open Space/Parks , Sir M % Residentialilk i I laSurface Water _ — '�'o"�T q ir . Vacant'Unknown ?7 l velar>fl , - elk a3 �. ' / • / • la . 1 f ' ifs..,' 111 _ t y i Commuter rail would facilitate the intensification l r ` In i of existing urban centers. supporting municipal i nr ,' � plans for redevelopment (downtown Ft.Collins, • Mason Street Corridor, 4th Street/downtown Non-urban stations would help w '•v',, a� realize plans for more urban Loveland. 29th Street). development that otherwise •j" t as wouldn't occur (e.g., Longmont/ • Itnnit e Hwy 66, Erie/Frederick.) rail connections to north and south (FasTracks) and connections to " Is DIA/southern communities would ros reinforce Longmont's role as a major - .. -1 � . jil ! hub for the region. An overall increase in :._ :"'•� r t. ! development would occur as a result. '� ' r ,r' ! -• ' ,', r . it , . • ,. sili ie 44 i . c ' p't As •• isal 8 'd10 'A ' 1• I Y _ • - tat � n .. ,, . . I - ;y(,a , `c ,..,r. * ` fl • as TOO P I 4 at: far. ' • ! fel '' kadia! r• le it - F71 lit: a / Illibt pd 0 2 4 6 8 10 /_ . \ Milk "rte I i Miles North �.- I ...jam J A-20 NORTH I-25 • Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation. downtown infill and redevelopment efforts in established urban centers (Fort Collins, Longmont, Loveland, Greeley) would be hampered. The location of the BRT stations (e.g., center-running vs. side running) and the distance of the stations from any associated development would limit the likelihood that they would attract substantial new types of development. However, some increase in density and the rate of growth may occur in the surrounding station areas. Feeder bus service along SH 52 would connect Tri-town communities (Frederick, Firestone, Dacono) to FasTracks Station at Niwot or Gunbarrel and to the BRT at 1-25, reinforcing existing patterns of employment and housing (employment to the west and housing to the east) and limiting the ability of the these communities to shift away from being bedroom communities. As the FasTracks end-of-line, Longmont would experience some intensification in development within its urban center, but not as much as under Package A. Induced growth impacts for Package B as determined by the expert panel are illustrated in Figure 5. 6.4 Preferred Alternative • There is little difference in indirect effects from induced growth along the 1-25 corridor between the build packages since highway widening and improvements at existing interchanges are common to all packages. Under the No-Action Alternative, development activity along 1-25 might shift more toward the south to the Denver Metro Area where there is a greater concentration of newer infrastructure (interchanges). Under the build packages, improvements to existing interchanges could stimulate some growth, but not as much as if completely new interchanges were proposed. Under the Preferred Alternative, commuter rail would likely facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the project area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont). It should be noted, however, that since no commuter rail construction is planned for the first phase of construction, this growth shift is not likely to occur in the immediate future. This shift would help municipalities realize plans for downtown redevelopment and would increase the overall density and footprint of these urban centers. As the end-of-line for the commuter rail alignment, Fort Collins would likely attract a somewhat larger portion of urban center growth than stations located mid-alignment. As a result, the rate at which environmental resources would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the project area could be slowed because growth pressures would likely be concentrated more at the existing urban centers. This would be the case particularly along the 1-25 corridor where substantial agricultural lands, several floodplains, and a number of other resources exist. Increased densities along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection corridor would likely have a limited impact upon natural-resource related environmental resources, as the corridor is nearly built out and most growth would occur in the form of infill and • redevelopment. A-21 NORTH 1-25 EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts III information. cooperation transportation. Figure 5: Expert Panel Induced Growth Impacts—Package B lk LEGEND Interchange improvements remain ' r Regional Study Area an important factor. L._� '� a Cities & Towns /� •i *oar. ��'••'•/�/ Highways •• ■ bc ...'� w Study Corridors 1 N 4� • \1 /N/ Arterial Roads ! ' , ` ` ,`•' Future Land Use 2035 I ',Mils .1 7 • i ' • �:fi ; t . Agriculture i• v.; a1 .. Employment Area r 'o al • Open Space/Parks • r , . 0 TV . I ; Residential 1 ,) i r Surface Water i II ; • '`..4•,• • sisi Vacant/Unknown I Sis t 't " Sits, .a_ i it ili a OIL " Or4. '- " i .• 1 i 15ill JP '+ ` • lovelarxl� •Ni - 34 '� 'i . i Ito *:Ns - K 1./ • 1, , �A ' • `Y' '".'„ Northern communities already growing Efforts to intensify existing downtown i� . - centers would not be supported. •r;; -«s>� 1 • . • . towards east--would result in more +. , ! ,f r- • "'• . dispersed development as opposed III 1 • ` to a more concentrated pattern • ` 4 ,• •, Development more focused • ,;')I-4 .• "' I i illon I.25 corridor which serves , or r as a regional "main street." ` ' i --Feeder bus connection to Nis _�0 • "y'^• FasTracks would reinforce fr 1. I tri-town area as a series of !` ""r:'"'r' bedroom communties. Longmont would experience Ill r --Employment concentration some increase in development r -� i , would remain west of 125. as FasTracks end-of-line as j �r "' well as an increase in through traffic triggered by station �� r �� i . . locations. i • r t trail :a J,t. r. 1 sij 4- i0 , `; ~ * ,,rHar.l km/ •4Iliae• •� It & . e Iii I_ 1 ' .1_,...- s. . ,,.., ., es pill -;: i r ,. • dr. a hllSs,'�/., . , ,... , , . .,•_ �r(" G� ' r } • • ` 11 ••BRT stations may support s 16 -"F�' �*r slight increase in density. ° — ' i i --Not likely to attract substantial • ;� new types of development. f • Access to stations a challenge ':' ' / with more dispersed pattern / u already established to the east. _� A ;IP � SD•:nvrj — �i7 /� An is• mi. _ 0 2 4 6 8 10 /__ I ' ' I Miles North t Ili A-22 NORTH 1-25 • Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation. Longmont would likely become a focus within the project area due to its central location, its direct connection to the FasTracks system and the commuter rail, and its close proximity to DIA. Overall, the combination of these factors likely would increase the density and size of Longmont, strengthening its role as a major center for the north Front Range. Outside of established urban centers, commuter rail could help municipalities realize plans that otherwise would not be feasible—for example, the City of Longmont has plans for transit-oriented development along the proposed alignment at SH 66. Without commuter rail as a catalyst, this area would likely develop at typical suburban densities with a limited mix of uses. Smaller communities in the southern end of the regional study area, such as Frederick and Erie, could see impacts that extend beyond the immediate station area. These impacts could come in the form of an increased demand in service levels as former low-intensity commercial and industrial uses are redeveloped at higher intensities. Some recent information from RTD confirms these conclusions on the induced growth effect of commuter rail. In 2007, RTD conducted a survey of over 25 experts in the fields of economic development, transit, and land use planning from cities around the United States. A conclusion of the survey is that investment in transit redistributes growth and also can attract new growth to the region under certain conditions. However, the amount of new growth is a minor consideration in overall regional growth patterns (RTD, 2007). • RTD additionally in 2007 studied the effect of its current light rail transit (LRT) lines on development patterns. It was found the LRT service is providing an impetus for redevelopment/revitalization of land near stations and allowing for a greater mix of land use types and densities. The report states that development along the LRT system at that time (consisting primarily of the southwest and southeast lines) is extensive: 9,635 residential units, 2,214 hotel rooms, 2.5 million square feet of retail, 2.6 million square feet of office space, and 2.4 million square feet of institutional space (including medical, cultural, and convention uses) had been built or was under construction. These development projects are within an approximate half-mile radius of LRT stations (RTD, 2007). RTD is currently planning, designing, and constructing the FasTracks system (a transit expansion plan to build 122 miles of new commuter rail and light rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit, and enhanced bus service across the eight-county district). In anticipation of rail service, many communities have demonstrated a proactive approach to update their local plans to promote higher density, mixed-use transit-oriented development (TOD) near FasTracks stations. The introduction of express bus along the 1-25 corridor would represent a less permanent form of transit improvement than commuter rail and as a result would provide less incentive for TOD. Review of a limited number of case studies nationwide supports this thesis: TOD related to express bus type service is more tenuous than TOD associated with rail. Some limited concentration of growth could occur near some express bus stations along the 1-25 corridor. Such development would depend upon the type and proximity of adjacent land use activity. At stations located in areas with development, some limited higher density growth • patterns due to the express bus station might be realized. A-23 NORTH I-25 EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts • information cooperation transportation. Feeder bus routes along east-west corridors designed to serve commuter rail and express bus stations could also stimulate increased levels of development as roadways become more congested. As a result, underused lands along these corridors could begin to be redeveloped as higher intensity residential uses become more desirable in close proximity to established employment centers and transit lines. Induced growth impacts for the Preferred Alternative are illustrated in Figure 6 7.0 Potential Indirect Land Use Impacts to Environmental Resources A variety of environmental resources could potentially be affected by induced growth within the regional study area. These resources include wildlife, threatened and endangered species, wetlands, farmlands, water resources, floodplains, and parks and recreation properties. A brief overview of potential impacts by package is provided below. 7.1 No-Action Under the No-Action Alternative, growth would continue to occur largely on undeveloped agricultural land at the fringe of the regional study area's urbanized areas in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans. The more dispersed development pattern that would occur in response to the No-Action Alternative would result in greater land • consumption and a broader potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources. The continuation of non-contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 will further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands and potentially impacting wildlife habitat. The extent of this impact would be dependent upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. 7.2 Package A—BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor Under Package A, commuter rail along BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor would facilitate a shift in growth towards urban centers within the regional study area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont.) As a result, the rate at which environmental resources would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the regional study area would be slowed. This would particularly be the case along the 1-25 Corridor where substantial agricultural lands, several floodplains, and a number of other resources exist. Increased densities along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor would likely have a limited impact upon environmental resources, as the corridor is nearly built out and most growth would need to occur in the form of infill and redevelopment. • A-24 NORTH 1-25 0 EIS Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts information. cooperation transportation. Figure 6: Induced Growth Impacts—Preferred Alternative LEGEND 1 Some increase in end-of-line development would occur. ~ 1-25 Corridor, Commuter Rail _ 0• -�•• "/ Highways w Bin• on A Existing residential uses along Harmony --"\-,/ Arterial Roads 4' • . Corridor (e.g., mobile home parks) may WRegional Study Area 1 JJ:1�, be converted to higher intensity uses. Q Cities & Towns ! . ge' i t , f. • Larger Urban Areas Enhanced* Fort '� • : ' Feeder bus routes may shift by Commuter Rail number of people who live lin )• = :fr and work in different Future Land Use 2035 i` ‘ - 257 communities. May also 'in nail - • it allow for increased development Agriculture -- i .••,scveratr j • as east/west roadways become Employment Area 1 Ir more congested. Open Space/Parks '-- I At Sr. Residential TA � I t '� t Surface Water 4 . _bt, . rii ' `"T t 263 Vacant/Unknown 9Y- , • (vat film 1 Loveland — — 4"li Bair ' �'� Interchange la Sully . / improvements ="' ,. i along 125 i .1 I it • . - t f.-Iti o9 . • til`.bllttiM, � ' may stimulate '• �• ' % some growth III Commuter rail would facilitate the intensification ` . GI l . of existing urban centers, supporting municipalFi �5 ` • plans for redevelopment (downtown Ft.Collins. el - Non-urban stations would help Mason Street Corridor, 4th Street/downtown lira rte.,; ba. realize plans for more urban Loveland. 29th Street). development that otherwise III wouldn't occur (e.g., Longmont/ Commuter rail connections to north and , rong• mom li I Hwy 66, Erie/Frederick). south (FasTracks) and connections to = • DIA+southern communities would rif :� *Alm. • t reinforce Longmont's role as a major •■ A A . • r au"- I. , hub for the region. An overall increase in I• N.00.- P •.t- +'« ' a t Highway improvements development would occur as a result. I �, = �'' I, ► planned for Phase 1 - � , w,f`3'.;1lihr� a). °,. ,r . Jr may prompt more A '.' I • T) --I dispersed development 1 Jo ti I in the near term. s� C, '3. ` Effect of commuter rail may be el �- -( �f • Express bus stations stretched out over time since '-- '- • ro.y�n,. • •,_ r' may support slight commuter rail construction is not •� �� r ` , increase in density. At i`1?: a • `trial, <4. planned in the first phase. - __ -- • tb•...1l.re, . • t , ""° ''"' -� • Because they are 93 I•,0 1r' . ' N APP' side-running. express es - • • t bus stations are more ' Er a / -\-14i ',: . , likely to attract new ' 2LI ' k ,• development than the la , , BRT stations assumed as part of Package B. Sank Denver I 1 Illbiht •• 0 2 4 6 8 10 L^, a Miles North 0 t'a-4 I A-25 NORTH 1-25 EIS Appendix A:Indirect Land Use Impacts • information cooperation transportation. 7.3 Package 8-1-25 Corridor Under Package B, growth would continue to be market driven and occur in accordance with municipal and county comprehensive plans. Growth would continue to be focused along the 1-25 Corridor, with continued expansion to the east. Some concentration of growth would occur near BRT stations along the 1-25 Corridor. The more dispersed development pattern that would occur in response to Package B would result in greater land consumption and a broader potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources. The continuation of non-contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 will further fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands and potentially impacting wildlife habitat. The extent of this impact would be dependent upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. 7.4 Preferred Alternative-1-25 and BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridors Similar to Package A, commuter rail along BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor under the Preferred Alternative would facilitate a shift in growth towards urban • centers within the regional study area (e.g., Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont.). However; under the Preferred Alternative this shift would be less drastic as 1-25 improvments would help to balance this shift between the two corridors. The rate at which environmental resources would be affected in undeveloped and suburban areas within the regional study area would still be slowed. Increased densities along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor would likely have a limited impact upon environmental resources, as the corridor is nearly built out and most growth would need to occur in the form of infill and redevelopment. Under The Preferred Alternative, growth would continue to occur along the 1-25 Corridor, with continued expansion to the east although not as drastically as under Package B. Some concentration of growth would occur near express bus stations along the 1-25 Corridor. The dispersed development pattern that would occur in response to the Preferred Alternative improvements along 1-25 would result in land consumption and a potential impact to the regional study area's environmental resources. The continuation of non- contiguous growth practices in southern portions of the regional study area east of 1-25 will continue to fragment remaining agricultural lands, reducing the long-term viability of the remaining lands and potentially impacting wildlife habitat. The extent of this impact would be dependent upon existing policies and regulations pertaining to the protection of environmental resources, which vary from community to community and from county to county. A-26 NORTH 1-25 • Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts EIS information cooperation transportation 7.5 Packages A, B, and the Preferred Alternative—Connector Corridors Harmony Road/Weld County Road 74 from SH 257 to US 287 Due to the largely built out nature of this corridor, potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth would be relatively limited, as most growth would need to occur in the form of infill and redevelopment and some areas have been set aside for open space. SH 257 from Weld County Road 74 to US 34 Due to the less intense pattern of development anticipated along this corridor, potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth would be relatively limited. However, they would be least under Package A, due to larger concentrations of growth along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor to the west. US 34 from Greeley to Loveland Potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth along this corridor would be highest east of the 1-25, where land is more readily available for development and the largest concentration is anticipated to occur. Potential impacts would be least under Package A, due to larger concentrations of growth along the BNSF/Longmont North Metro Connection Corridor to the west. West of 1-25 potential impacts are reduced by the more established pattern of growth. • SH 60 from Milliken to 1-25 Potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth along this corridor are relatively high due to the availability of developable agricultural land and the potential for dispersed growth. SH 56 from 1-25 to Berthoud Potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth along this corridor are relatively low due to a strong desire by the Town (as expressed in the Town's Comprehensive Plan) to maintain a distinct urban edge that transitions to agricultural lands. Potential impacts would be concentrated at the 1-25/SH 56 interchange where a major mixed-use activity center is planned. SH 119 from 1-25 to Longmont Potential impacts to environmental resources by induced growth along this corridor are relatively low due to existing protections on environmental resources north of SH 119 and the relatively established pattern of development in other areas of the corridor. SH 52 from Fort Lupton to Niwot East of 1-25, potential impacts to environmental resources are relatively high due to the availability of agricultural lands and the potential for additional dispersed growth. West of l- 25, potential impacts to environmental resources are relatively high as the corridor passes through the growth areas of Erie and Frederick. However, as the corridor enters Boulder County, the presence of existing open space corridors and agricultural easements provide • substantial protections to existing resources. A-27 NORTH 1-25 EIS •Appendix A: Indirect Land Use Impacts information cooperation transportation E-470 from 1-25 to Denver International Airport Potential impacts to environmental resources are relatively high in this location due to a large supply of developable agricultural land and a high demand for growth. • • A-28 • Appendix B : US 85 Commuter Bus — FEIS Package A and Preferred Alternative Generalized Land Use and Zoning • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • US 85 Commuter Bus - FEIS Package A NORTH 1-25 and Preferred Alternative EIS 0 Generalized Land Use and Zoning information cooperation. transportation. 1 - Greeley @EL �� . , GREELEY ZONING , . LEGEND , , . = �Q� ice, DEIS Proposed Station Area `� i85%t _ CD Conservation District civil.' , < --. CH - Commercial High Intensity Existing Land Use ''' - --. CL - Commercial Low Intensity Agriculture " `` ' IL - Industrial Low Intensity r;..:i • iy • `A ' • IM Industrial Medium Intensity Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area _� ! , • Open Space/Parks ,' 4r• i - IH - Industrial High Intensity f li `s, ,,c ' RH - Residential High Density Residential ,~ ' t - P D Planned Unit Development •4 . 1 - 4 i. „a - .,,, I WELD COUNTY ZONING • tJ yE + ' a2- '_.):'. - ,,. t'� iiiir* am A Agriculture ® 111' ;;. .,. . - P`U `e,4 �''�e __ R1 - Low-Density Residential �__."�' .. ► : art =+� 13 - Industrial R. , A --- _._.tt_� ;: i 4 4 '! ;1 IH r c ' Z 02, 13w 0 ,d.tbiliN '` PARK 21 < VI 0 m ‘: A or tialkidla C D D cz IM i bit t DgP i -lik CF;11 , , a ri RH _ . , 1).L. Ank 1,., aa : G s a litir l �� cat A ,, 1 is ill cc .... . ., ._ . , i 4aAlii kp �. iliellir .01P-- - ' ASTr : ern �� a ..s Q I C r +_ y ....rteCL IM '` �-�aiir ,f At I 3_ )• •4Z!- f� ,.`x .4,:3 RH a . .r1 -7-e!estes44714'01%1:;_:' 1 I.. ^ � t 1IL CH o . , . , fNl lidLossita ! \ , , . lik-. Ds i I i •111 '. •.- ; ; N . ' H S !! 0 060 ' . !! ii - North wilt , ' -1,44 UM - ' t to ; :d ' 'L - - January 2011 US 85 Commuter Bus - FEIS Package A NORTH 1-25 and Preferred Alternative EIS Generalized Land Use and Zoning information cooperation. transportation. 2 - South Greeley 1111 CRS y!►-fC" , i + i�.1� �,:T i �fretL , ',, ; Y.. .. }, , , , .. ,,,,,,„,.,,.. . , 34 , ii t LEGEND por... i° _ GREELEY ZONING F i% DEIS Proposed Station Area ,.... _ Q - C-H - Commercial High Intensity i�I'3 iI �� ,�, . _ t_ s R-M Residential Medium Density I: Existing Land Use J' -.. w �� 4_ ,�, t •' �, ,- R-L Residential Low Density ! Agriculture u �: - .. `,''a: " '.. .... - - do if;3 •I Y , a RMH - Residental Mobile Home illr As Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area , 1 .. �e � " - r. �" -s ' ,r• L- '� ; . ,•,�„p I-M - Industrial Medium Intensity ■ :1 Open Space/Parks �" . M ' 'i -'..i+ :.. I GARDEN CITY ZONING * Residential �, Ja �.� - _ , Iii! ...• as• �; No zoning a iy 1 r Cpl 4li r' -s � ;; . .,n,, a. iWI ! ,� . ., ....-.. 4 3.la 4triar 4 Pet am wiiINW4_ ell • il�- --�—. may. _ t CAT$4 41- 1 . L!,_ _,5 R �l�If , 20TH - z 1I •• . -.)Iv i _4 et '�: - -' S �ireWeirl �. • .` " erIllifr 4; .6. .• II ra+�. -,�_ Yr� �fl � � _ .rrr�r�,y.. 1r f , 4 '• Sorg� ir1,w' • rii .3r' s;,_a� `(jert- .,.yam _ 1 it r ar_ „.... irairstnii,ir, . , : a ‘'1 a .IL all""'I. AC I ?ilairgra I.- a re.. . .• -, t�..-.r•. r.l • 1 ! - r-f,,;,,'� - '! 'Ain= �t- eV 1-.a -,a ..Ill�:YI • glib_. ,.% ' �"it/� '4. . --r •a • It: a 4 MI la•-• la 4 .,. ,,, - coo ylor r rte.. a�z!ear r m 4 A.. - /. • osul f t rl �.' g'!R".I roll ...-. CIF 'l I / — . .ISMIC -•;� --- ,.`! : -►• jf�' -I M.i.r-i R M H ..- I r [a/ 41,4 ../ la ,. ., moike.,;itp.-- -• . _ T� t'Oal Iiille I_,.eill aliji N Salt !lin.I t 5, 4 ill . 1 C 111 F. ' ; iii pa ° , - ' 23RD ST r• , ► i cif et .. it 41 V, Ai. ' . ., t _ _ r.:7611 I _ . • a i_S.aL000 - ? ��fi. k 3 T al ska_ iiii.: ;f4 cai ,j , h_ ‘., . . 0) ._... •a,. +fir_ ''_1 ..4 a. a H ryl I ' c s I frl . .. ke ...r.... . 1/4_,.r T �• • itIP " .1{�....J.41 1 �. -!� _. , 1 1111041441i 4 41 . 'CDR L r11 dA 4 E . 4. .aia l i`' T. , . • i 4. ' te l' 1° -1 Fitp- ..-1r _ U.2• HST it ' -�• T..' i if 4' , , , . . „ , . :...,.. air l� r4 litiPH: ' , . „is - i - lit 4 C g ....C a H r• - a iki,�' I I. d I + I½ !N ,did( poi CITY 4. rg 71 iatiler .., "....„----,..., . ..,,a c . , '•wf' , / M �` �� TL rve AZ . .14 jilt _...--. . 0 Northtiiiiiiis„ * --,,. a �‘� January 2011 US 85 Commuter Bus - FEIS Package A NORTH 1-25 and Preferred Alternative EIS • Generalized Land Use and Zoning information cooperation. transportation 3 - Evans t LEGEND ill �. o s°uTH€ •TElDi EVANS ZONING 7,, DEIS Proposed Station Area m1' i Y° C-3 - Commercial High Intensity l j ?!r. ar O 5 q ' C 1 Commercial Low Intensity District t. Existing Land Use OR = n AR-1 - Single Family Residential District Agriculture e... ', _ _'- ri."ralli R-2 Two family residential district i Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area i' ca -t R-C Residential Commercial District a Open Space/Parks 1-2 - Medium Industrial District il Residential lit e• t . 'K ' }. s, . Si_ 1-3 - Heavy Industrial District 1 RMH - Residential Mobile Home District I Fr, t.A a „ v C -3 PUD - Planned Unit Development 1 _wit• itii . . ..• NI act iietylkii';‘s . S. t Fir li MEV imp qg Po lift Ir rir ' 1 p Hrn R -2 ' — w � - F1 is r ' i. RMFH ., a . a. n 24 I i le ,M 'Ss . I, R ', 1' �s If ff, & ' O ", i , �� tM On I ° . to , . V .a 6� Lc "4, 35TH ST t . ° % : '4st• ° air V R-2 * . t is o �.O rA 4 w� R .2 b "' i a ' V 4.,,,_,,...7V L r't;1 `. 36TH OR ° 36TH I. .: • •i 0 R - 1 a. •Y 43.. .. : .�A t h R M,H • i Aii a . �. µ g c ..1 ., . .,.. - - r • - au. laik '' . / 0 ' @Ali; . a 1 i . c: 1 2,1t sti .. Smiii . RC - J ST RD - O . �. H : R -2 t- Q . ,•, • 3.TH ..:, I 39TH S • C3 at 0 pinhic,2_- _ . _ . iss i , . 0 ' .', I Ili -'-* PU D 0 CV 0 ay 10.16 R- 1 CTHSTCT 185 0 k x w 41 STS o C -3elEVW 1 -2 L;1, R - 1 „i{Hip. t . �( • ' rin AZroc ` ' h �. ti A d� -4 a- - - - ifs IL_ el-d• D S pip. ' se % . PI* - LU RCi' .� i_ . -' t. fri a. 42ND W RD 5. an. = ==== - 43RD ST R-1 ' °J T 1 1. s• f.., Q , . l • , ; 4. .. � �OC _ 1� f 4 T. yr ,-'. eat' mot: = r North _ � � ,- - ;. •�"•�-• _ •,�. I SOT - January 2011 �2 US 85 Commuter Bus - FEIS Package A NORTH 1-25 and Preferred Alternative EIS Generalized Land Use and Zoning information. cooperation. transportation. 4 - Platteville III - 's_ i .Jl 'lee .I. s' •.:.tea+ an .a .. -. -- -- -- - - 7MMIIIW. i ,.Ii__a ier, in -. • ,L r2, r 1 LEGEND is u.a�tt. � ._ , : TOWN OF PLATTEVILLE ZONING ._:- r _ y.��[ ; 1I, i% DEIS Proposed Station Area k.L. A. •iS There is no zoning. B AMi_ WELD COUNTY ZONING i Existing Land Use ° A - Farming g Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area MARS l Il. ; • , Open Space/Parks O � r -,...444,0,______a: „_78_ a� Residential 3 ` _e. ~ '� Li tai and : l �"''V lie ' •• D • - AV 1 t . a' Apr A ' ,ri` si - T t' • to . �.�. !`.L"1!.]!JU W , S _ ' 1 . z^- y ry i9 . _ .. . ._ _ . ti ' ..' - > a. �' `. ,P•. !. `tl 1 _ a IN, a t w' • . r1, N T 4` 44 ti`:-‘). . Q 1 -ilk • ,} ,,' , elf "�_.. L , r �. r it' .YE5 n; a _ . . _ . _ . , . .... -i• . titi • ,� j J „ . • .... - .. . _ . -, I,_.. .- . ., . k ,,, : y ' LS�U'Y ' V ; t - �- ' .1.-, f • - el w; it :', 'tea,, . mow -�-- - _ r '••-w- 76.10 A At . " . 0 rri ATT ST Q W U , . .-,.. 4,..• , 1 , . .... . , -5; . _ P2&0 . I me .1 . g i /Cr , t • lf... -- ,,,.. .. • , . ... , . , f , • , 1 i :: ,..- • - •, .. , ‘, 3 1 } 77 it,. . * . - 0, ., 1 _ ,. . ,, . _, 1 ' North , January 2011 4odc.al Hitrrvay Admi,evunwn US 85 Commuter Bus - FEIS Package A NORTH 1-25 and Preferred Alternative EIS : : iiGeneralized Land Use and Zoning information. cooperation transportation. 5 - Fort Lupton .. - mi., _L..... SF • LEGEND i FORT LUPTON ZONING µ i% DEIS Proposed Station Area C-1 - General Commercial District Existing Land Use y C-2 - Heavy Commercial District I-1 - Light Industrial District Agriculture 1-2 - Heavy Industrial District Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area ! PUD - Planned Unit Development Open Space/Parks ? R-1 - Residential Low Density District Residential r `, R-1A - Residential Low Density District R-2 - Residential Medium Density District - I P - Parks and Open Space R-0 - Residential ' _ .y M-H - Mobile Home Park ` �~ - i WELD COUNTY ZONING r A Agriculture 1 -2 or 1 C-3 - Commercial peg •) �, �' I2 a , 1 . I e j iin ' . . tat ;111171t.il 0. . ,.,J1 • , lii ,., ..--rir, .. - - - - r r r% :.. 4 wow 14THtl ,110 / / ! r!/ - . .1,% +' A i ,. 14* 4'� 3 , • ' - - - p STAGE OR 0, Q 1'1 . .. r . . c,i . • , • _ . . . . _1 i L . , ,, ,,,,.., . . i . : . 1 . Wt.* , U11/1202, . 1 iCuRZO li t - 11 '0- IffNeUmus ;J: cVMD2 a ' "L C -2 ' • °lit" jam, .`. ,, e LErrostaremiwkit, triA •" Las o il[ R 2�� - -,. il ipo ;.„-: , 1; -4"."'' %on... Me; — 1 a ; R- 1 0 � i. �, I - 1 02. y , % l Si ::11CA F.'1 i I 4 mt., . gift 1 , f t Y fi C - 1,, F.. o• P ; vliiYrt-+1C•lJ"7 { maga /? R -1A ffis 42, . 4 :-Wt. •41.• I •;i2p3 .�i, oEre!'pe' a rim alla., � 0 CS /\ I1 • R -3 C--2 j :�► .: 1 North I ° ' R IC�m - - January 2011 0;..; • Appendix C : Station Alternatives 1-25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus— FEIS Package B and Preferred Alternative • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS 4-EIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information cooperation. transportation. 1 — South Fort Collins Transit Center (New) pparteof err,' .. ' l....• i - m .. as n 7/4 j. Elan. t:Mr =J Miler E st ,.....en. ._.- s6 .�/ -.Vo1'a .ell LEGEND E CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING iii DEIS Proposed Station Area C Commercial District POL - Public Open Lands District Existing Land Use o HC - Harmony Corridor District Agriculture RL - Low Denstiy Residential District , ,, Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area LMN Low Density Mixed Use Open Space/Parks C ' MMN Medium Density Mixed Use r , ; CC - Community Commercial District i.,_ Residential HC LARIMER COUNTY ZONING FA1 - Farming i4. 4i3 t ri - I FA - Farming f H Li � i 7 rw t i.• El - Residential m '1, + �Cf ..Plil D, OP ALP' If r K SINGTo N t 0 t 1• 13•?; ';y irri "Ira I - ,i ,;..A TOWHE ST Q _ _ 4 - _ s: HARMONY RD 'iH, BENTLEY RI,l h o• . ' i 1 �• 4 o UM' UD RMONY RD " ,r,,i. ii rl r ., .. . .....•. •. .„ , . it L--M Ntr .., f. t. , .. , Sir 3 ., :,4Ca FA HQ F , :Ititalkeill;3/4” • ibt-7.4 Al: N •. trr 0 t "I: [V= , i' ` , r .' ��.. i la ir as . P. I 7 1 a a a 8 :EA113 I ;. _ 4 - -�,Ser -. FA 1 c% ik '� t j - WOFAi•w Yt g .ti N .r piv, / Pt i 'Go FA1 �1 ile isi- cask.tip 0- NS .. ' , B ,,.....„st, I ,i),..... .. tut! .43 illk4 "R,:tgoit R Eiji I— 7114-, Illiglit °S.* mr. rii Ikea art': mstsp i . 11 ifilkke ElnaF 41•4 2446, vilitrate &el, \C:-. % - . i 6 rew4)''- ' '''' r 15Ar 011 Illk ^ • , i tu4 v. , —L.- f ;- . zw (Ili iskita ,1-- , -i-e.i NtHriczr./.1c- • 7:400 :.... , p \S- . . J % 4. POL , :b4 .;. / ar I '} ` �' ':: "get:fit,% • t� It' fai North ...€-G. ,p..."'FT';'''- t"! - el January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 125 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS FEIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information cooperation. transportation. 2 - Harmony Road and Timberline • „tit._ c.,...- 11.1 , Ia ."'r; ' `, CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING LEGEND <. %ii DEIS Pro osed Station Area Mt �; P0L - Public Open Lands District P I wEST - E _ E - Employment District Existing Land Use '" -� LMN - Low Density Med Use Neighborhood District Agriculture ..- ; • M`�,§ Y I. RL - Low Density Residential District•In I HO - Harmony Corridor District Industrial/Commercial/Retail Areti a • I a UE - Urban Estate District ,i Open Space/Parks - W ;y , v/ Residential iiiI .- o.__ . P �- T Sib A �1« °4ba1 WO* t7fl ll :j *9' , t 1` -r{7 , ,r M r 1111111 A a�,,.,.* - ■x : 41,, :,tc1 ' I ' RL .., RI p 1 4 r 11; , t Ili • 14? ts • �r; ;; h, , -r• � ; MAN a' tt:1t a C� it,4, ,,, i 14 4 r .l i � ' i'4 ,O — d t .� . '�'.1{ � t��\ \‘. . ! �U E metrit,„; , , '•..' ,-v r- `' ., I t -I�/' •`art al , P mot, - "shirr� �1 •. ,ECirf ST ? a Hen '- • •/ill ; 4' . I 4 401.1 r � y� • H HARMONY RD __� dip' OAKRIDG ••_ i :it /14N. • I' Alf: > •. . . EDR *it �R 4. 1. / -- 'Vie + ` t 4 ii , , iiii ii �'� ;t rr : s<: [ HC 1 111 1 - L lEIrr i II. i I1 kfilt I .. j / !it. � � �, _ it . TIM:E'WoOe i ___,I - etI - --- i , -- s!UW* :pi‘ . c _ - ',1if T o ' . RIDGE C--- .. ' r • ` SY 411116 1191 . : s fir ' y ��<it LF/w�� p E .REEK R-. L\ • '►'. , '* gripli at 41-4 -1 - - ° a, .. • .. Ill,: -Br , wile .... ? Vat- • a % 4. ' r-r %0 ''lib I 0� -r taatgi o2 \��r^p V O "* •,� i 4 1 4 II 52-1.- 7.1, „ate, . , a = a ; � ' � . LIMN 1 �� .1.4 MIN :Sr J - r ROCK c . op,,,.--- . vI ! -�, fy 'a .. _. -♦ r f• , r+a �i i• , ' yt f:+ MINA 4 $ STETSeN•C'EEK. • • ii. ' ,r ` �fk� "`•`'`9 *--.7.-- al NE 0 CS 050' t 700 - ams s t it. .410.1 *I:es.l , , �IPCA:t ,•_ I h,0,2 I North ' = i ' �,�a��,$• y'/' ■��a Pi January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 125 1- 25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS EIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information cooperation. transportation. 3 - I- 25 and Harmony Road . .44 liprp, • , LEGEND ,. `'`s` CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING �' It ii DEIS Proposed Station Area Ai'. • � " " �. C Commercial 'j POL - Public Open Lands District Existing Land Use ' a ' �. ( - ' ' HC - Harmony Corridor District Agriculture UE - Urban Estate District e. Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area w LARIMER COUNTY ZONING I Open Space.�Parks �witOM` -• C Commercial �l pf - • FA1 - Farming _, Residential • - 0 Open • • ./r P T - Tourist • 1 CITY OF TIMNATH ZONING • 0. ' `�" R-1 - Old Town Residential - R-3 - Two-family and Multi-family residential B Business 73 POL 4 - A COMM - Commercial I A - Agriculture t ;� C-2 - Community Commercial ; t i tiers j . v I r �. - -• 4; 1. I .. '+- • i ' - .�j J It / / � 111 '* ExrstinsrPhrll-n 'l• •s ©94IIIt with silos C,lk 1 s. i 1* r--1 ' .iliteisatia„. minitt. _•.ein. .. 68. - • • @---_, I __.--... „ .: , . , _ . 9 , . •rte r�r 1. . mil _ w I �i,. k COMM" . ,'lictil .1 trnifi ' _i , ,i . HC `L , d J. ' .- 1 S - 3 v t AN l t. ,/ . � � . i`: FA II _ -illW. . . ilLaatikiihelige. - I 1 il - - :/ L_, ; k,,,,_ �► ' Y 1. II 1 \.[ \ ' Nip . , ,.„ , , et ' % tb , . 1 1 North • I 1 ..all e, , 4 f l \' i,� ,,ypr �ra m .,. . January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS FEIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information. cooperation. transportation. 4 - Windsor rill --v r-a_ii - t _ ��..� • • LEGEND ! TOWN OF WINDSOR ZONING a iii DEIS Proposed Station Area GC General Commercial RMU - Residential Mixed Use Existing Land Use RMU GC-PUD - General Commercial Agriculture I L Limited Industrial Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area 25 LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Open Space/Parks Gre• _ , , C CommercialResidential El - Estate • FA1 - Farming r UI AP - Airport la . ifM - Multi-family WATER ;: ;°:: ntial µ a ris. .-\ \\ q�] - � . t • IL 1 S: ID $ • , il pits,. fir'! T ''� ';?9 i1 viii II C G . .� @ , _,, ., _ . Pp D irr-12 1 ,,, , . . . , . _ . I . 7 : it, -- - - --- . CD,.......-----. ID • „. , . . .,, . . , . 1GCS°-PUD ..cic,,,Ftt. $), 1,.._ , . ..x #-.77••• / # I ' , t , (k ___ _) t Als. �f4,, ,.. _ - , `. �, 'fix ..,$ \i( t`'� 1 ., •, - yam. •„ 4', Iv '� •i- E1 a 1 . Iii \0" . r r* � t I - L . ri, 4. a 141 . , ,_ . . l ,q r,,- t_, : • • r -,,, PI 11.RM ,U4P' -_1 L it �. ,. (tee, GC o I f: 1 f 1 Northlitz� `a ; - ,� li , ,. 4th" , .5 a .y 4 t '! i 1� fill )UI , o ea:, January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS . SEIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information cooperation transportation. 5 - Crossroads - Part_..:1 :-.. ,. a. II :. If" -- LEGEND CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING feel DEIS Proposed Station Area G gateway C• • - •A•S :lv• P 59 Millennium edition Existing Land Use AP � P-83 - Twin Peaks Addition PUD Agriculture B Developing Business Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area - !' - I - Developing Industrial Open Space/Parks DR Developing Resources. \ I i LARIMER COUNTY ZONING ' Residential AP - Air••rt lair t. lr i I - :n i i g fat ' DR tb , • 7 -- i '4' -L4 ,4 J s1 It ..J C. . • _ . I" . i -�s ts. ... -" Y• itr _ .• _ill • - 'Pr: N llit \ „ _ . �= 21J U r : P -59 . _ C. . - I - ` i -' !.tr .r - te !AtstJJ9' IC. - ___ • . ! ." ./' ,• _ " I n tl / . / :' ///! i-earn / , - - v ." Jr .TF rat ,- = .F f/d_.' f /#/r.6 !' • / !/ f1777777 ! fdiJS or-APi•f r r r / . r t - _ IlL , _ .. , .2 . - j _' �. _ -. ...r -s+rar......_-- - . a. , Y • ' - . . A AP , .,it AP0 Iii� P -59 • 71A, : . rem I North ■ iintti ; ■ .Oz ' -- i lUl -;:1":'. ::. CIFcdacI H OAd '" If ,iy� ,, c January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 125 I - 25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS FEIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information cooperation transportation- 6 - Berthoud 0 in iLEGEND , Ti ' ! At. - i - , .l, > ^ i CITY OF BERTHOUD ZONING 'Sr DEIS Proposed Station Area No zoning Existing Land Use CITY OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING '" \ °r•: SF-1 - Single Family Residential Agriculture i ,• ,, ' WELD COUNTY ZONING ..tIndustrial/Commercial/Retail Area I r� .. A- Ag riculture Open Space/Parks Residential il , A is . . i, , t ,,, I . - . _______iip _ . _ _ , , 1t _. , . - .-... _ . ,,,, y . . . , ._ - 25 • 5 No Zoning .; `. _f No 'Zoni - : , , _____1:„..IiiI , I I s‘r*:' *PI- giti - ^. . i • --a 1"-:::-.5-F-4-..,-:r.--:-.H.% r . . '...,Lail - 'I- •-‘14.S.' t le-7s" - . --- -: %iota/ 7:, 3-?ice". v- {C. ►• .�,,, 91- rI/! / . - I . / / / / • f.-.i I, ♦ t r. I. I �' Yi ' 1 - /'. _- - I ; f I .t S - ter. ! r. - - .! - , .e. �7 . N. f - i - • t, ,� , ,i. SF - 1 ,.\-, - % • p NoZonung • EAS 77 1 9 425 MO nor North A - 0 iiitigheu O7 I .2%4: �� January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS SEIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information cooperation. transportation. 7 - Firestone !' 1111%--- - - S'..r JFar...7-ACEIMID-=r.w gyp. L. ill- \. - -. LEGENDS r . . { ��-` - _ J WELD COUNTY ZONING iii DEIS Proposed Station Area M: �: . iMENININnt C 3 Business Commercial A - Agriculture Existing Land Use PUD - Planned Unit Development Agriculture R-5 - Mobile Home Residential Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area (�" f TOWN OF FIRESTONE ZONING N Open Space/Parks guy Q d C - Commercial Residential ' R - Residential 1,11 'ILILII ' , ._ it 4 , -414‘ i s. . ._ .. go _mar_ . ., . cwok r i P.' :. Pi odt _ . . __ . i SS " .• 119 - i Fir . 1 _ 1 i.e .. .:11, . . 41 . - _ - iik • . ri , . . • ,.. fr- nip .. t .,,_ • r de ` t , ;, ` � :f 4 ; , r ii T \ , . - S . ai / C ..eiTIL g , \ 4 4,4 kt ��', NA • a ■ p srt F •-5 c i' , PUD �. ti 'II ISM 1 MOM :r •t, r 'nip 4 25 itt-.r e t i. , : _ . , , , Iri A iX erC .3 R. Up /, , - A _ Ami .4 r PUD (1, o few a in 41 North Ill ■ ti N 92 January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 -25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS FEIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information cooperation. transportation. 8 - Frederick-Dacono III .. TOWN OF FREDRICK ZONING o n R-1 Residential District — Single Family r o CH52 - Mixed Use Hwy 52 District `. -• I - Industrial " +, C E Employment ,' i + .. • - . , . _ TOWN OF ERIE ZONING RC Regional Commercial ' — TOWN OF DACONO ZONING O. "itH RCI I ' CR Commercial Residential District 25 I-1 Light Industrial District R-2 - Residential District j' �, .ter • _ . iiiiiiiiCE 4 r . „ • - - . - ' , r _ A/ '" / J �. f / i� t Jr .•• • -4 r . // C 52 ; . J . - rte :/ .ter " • rJJ1 .far ' s / .r / ' i - y W inillt: U LAWRA©1? LAURA Cat? g r CR IM- .-I L ST _.i.__ _ - , - - ,ir A : grit It , .... _. 121 - I � . '• ter. ; II_ .s't,1, _•T �O In ai 440 i' .-: " :i...1 . • . - **11 , e \par -ii i 0 . 4 c1 — r � ,.. - . ` LEGEND - I aZfed DEIS Proposed Station Area Existing Land Use • i r RC Agriculture I: Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area 771 Open Space/Parks I • I North _ ; Residential • O:. January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 Allll 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS EIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information cooperation. transportation. 9 - I - 25 and State Highway 7 .,....... 7., lirlIPMPIIPPAMIMIIEWIPIPPlir LEGEND a•I CITY OF BROOMFIELD ZONING %ii DEIS Proposed Station Area PUD - Planned Unit Development Existing Land Use ;_';, ' _ Agriculture f l I I Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area ;t' i� x ........,---_ Open Space/Parks ., : Residential r" / //. lJ ^j . : / r Iiii ' ,.1 ,. . , e- e 1 . - . , . . ' ! d/ .r /.r/.t• / ."_, 1 i1, !Ft Jr - Qs i!, , e' ! . off ii ir, _• 1161111SISIWIlkel • • b allialir* , : .c. 1 • • . coke iiiik 10 w a ' . , i="•-•, :alk. .liq \ , ., :, .111 ., = • 1 -# ill _ • - •r '•• I lft 1•. iJrt I." . - r,1 f + ` I : • / V /• ii Oli 111; - - - - b - - - - - - - -' - r • CL /r .. - ` 7 i • ' - - • .. . - 7 -tom- T: r [ . Ni. , . /, ,. ....• '• ' r North f % rI-I January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 -25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS FEIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information. cooperation. transportation. 10 - US 34 and SH 257 • .. . . .. a LEGEND •. CITY OF GREELEY ZONING ft/ DEIS Proposed Station Area t;tt IM - Industrial Medium Intensity IL - Industrial Low Intensity Existing Land Use CH - Commercial High Intensity0 Agriculture PUD - Planned Unit Development Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area H-A - Holding Agriculture Open Space/Parks al WELD COUNTY ZONING Residential . A- Agriculture I 4 AW t . '0114e5k 1 F,4 e . ' +'PUD .- .ii L.r. _ _ • Existing Park-n-R4f Will be t4tllized On 1 a .r !�7 .a. . - � __ - PUD ,,.. 0 _z .�>- - _ • _ M -H A . :. • i - l F l; p . . _ re-e! 4:4 \ TOO I I North 0 c . �� '' January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 1 - 25 Bus Rapid Transit/Express Bus - EIS EIS Package B and Preferred Alternative information cooperation. transportation. 11 - West Greeley -=1lfars.s .-:r. �=w.apt r==�a.-Ai. - --- -�Ir. .. .-. :,.:.mss-. 2 Y _;, ricinamn_ EGEND `,�, CITY OF GREELEY ZONING ' C-H - Commercial High Intensity if? DEIS Proposed Station Area "_ C L Commercial Low Intensity %.„4 Existing Land Use PUD Planned Unit Development Agriculture .- -- -= R-L - Residental Low Density Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area Z --.. .. ��__ R-H Residental High Density -Open Space/Parks �____-_� _ _ C D Conservation District WELD COUNTY ZONING u ,. Residential • e. A - Agriculture II-L • A ` • rr4. I r , . sr- .11,. R- L R- H L.... e . „ti ie., - ifii., iir�ir�r�.. •__ 'a . .. ._-. - � - - .. . .. C . ;�,�cil► ) n ri mi Jet- I• ilk_ -_ ._. m o' /Z .-,' 5870 i. 4i0. . . - . - • . • - . 4 S. C =D i �.ict ,e • { 1 North 601halij ��:. ' January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 I - 25 Bus Rapid Transit- FEIS Package B EIS information cooperation transportation. 12 - Greeley Downtown Transfer Center • ra , rain ale"grin r I • zLEGEND -- �n�� CITY OF GREELEY ZONING iii DEIS Proposed Station Area • ; CH - Commercial High Intensity Existing Land Use I - CL - Commercial Low Intensity ty Agriculture .TST f ",� ,�: , RH - Residential High Density `,1 lPt IS-441;]tilliWite ] t_ RM Residential Medium Density Industrial/Commercial/Retail Area i , ' PUD - Planned Unit Development Open Space/ParksIer:if IL Industrial Low Intensity Residential 2ND STIM Industrial Medium Intensit 1/41EIA►r a nee r* ,', , ,H 3' o ST . D " . '� . _ ` I , RU r _ _ ag s • a 1 ; I . 4.401.1 I ill- R An .1E , I I 1 , , : • , -4.; a . - ter' c:.„` giii vi,..tl�!•r^ ft, 2 iii ' - - . RH V IL _ _ _ ,� _ a1i .. I P�U� i ► �� R1i . .. ,2„-- ,... . ,,,,,. ....,. . . .. , , . , 8 Lay: - -z. law • • y 7CAL ._.. if • " x • a'1g. i I), ) S ! • • • t --.1: it_ 1'3411 RA ' r 41 --,.> sika_ ' � • I ' • !' , . , 1� i • !:;N !EM + • - • r � ' I • •11 u ter ;� 1 till .f° �' f . ',`; 7TH ST , '`;t " rx, C A ., ! �. ,.1 r � '_ eili ,. - - . ""` 1 ( : s• ,. •J 4{1� � { . If . 11,1 -_ ' .X' I ¶ IlIili :1: '�i •;. 7: • ; !t- qgi' .b - • r A -4 1- 2iNiiiifn "C �a _ _ .� P' Sri, S • ' • , " 'R' 8S 'THST ii Si *. • !ITS '�'1 .N, . ••' ri , 1 i ,+..-.�- � F M �. _• _:ail III- i _" -� t LOTH 4.- ?qv-t._-'� i�, rr� . IttL Cj!H o , . ^ ,h-Iandr . E . , , 1 II,roc I,. i - , , 4 j p ;. _! RH � � : . a rt • i .- 1 1 w r>• ' y� jki w^- ,a�tJt• ' A 46 ' - • 4 • -114. e ., ' lArliff .-y . ]. Ijp t i.i ,�p� MM'r tT r:� >i j.'j 'f OWN- ii . risIgitT7i;gr-t:.2$ . ,.....: . • 'III= VA:1W; lab sr , I I r i nirill jpirsill - Ittp, . allII i is 'EIS VL - � *4111; t %sal l t y , _ >. r 1 utJ • iH Si -+ cifi 1:B tail ,-,:2-,.-„„*.:, elf in.,..- • n,iwtlitib lc, '-xi rT..avia, ' .. _ c...._ II . it..., 0 476 b0 • ' North g:- '. - i , __ r'T .I[ -Iff• � ,;,r1�:.�' • _ •.t► 11� i'' '3 .' !t ',. : air""'-• ��'' 1 1 i• C.. January 2011 Appendix D : Station Alternatives US 287 Commuter Rail—FEIS Package A and Preferred Alternative NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Station Alternatives NORTH 125 Mill US 287 Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS information cooperation. transportation. nd Preferred Alternative 1 - Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center Isis,_ 1 •1 `1� 7ial .f_. . 11.3 '- ` �> ' CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING LEGEND ' PINON ST 'L' DEIS Proposed Station Area L r , .•771 i D Downtown POL - Public Open Space Lands District Existing Land Use , : CN E - Employment District w Agriculture -�: I - Industrial Employment/Commercial/Retail Area T - Transition District Open Space/Parks C C,N CC Community Commercial District "I Residential i CCR - Community Commercial Poudre River District CN - Community North College District CCN - Community Commercial North College District - • 1 t NCB - Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District RDR - River Downtown Redevelopment District • - F . " -- F -'h "Ls.-' ",s. if NCM - Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District t . - ' LMN Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District -__ Ii ' ' . ' z-- ,"Ti ries POL .- ; PO 1C:CR ti_ P"OLD _ L M Ndivafra E ,. j] t -� SYCAIvI'ORE ''` � `•. in L M N ' ED ' II„ J�t41 �,••• -•--a: 'r.. r-� _M K; 0 _ �. _ , S.yi,!�� c •. �r y� ' Jt f t Q r NCB :UC-KINGHAM ST III kg - , ,,,,,,:,,, 1 /� ,.`1 cr 'Nem it fir ' lv" " I' 0•14.01r14 N . . . e. j. vim . �K4 r j} ,t'' t MAPLE ST '+ '- ''Yxj • ��o4ea • • tip ,et4 - - „ t ,.- yy ; 3 allr MIA, ;tl. _clip" �'i fa t► ` ' fN9B - ® , - T i- irf ,w - _ r- ! R R ts.__(.- � ' • `!%*111AI° , :' a - ' .fie tz\if. !� 6'Y� �'". . .. St3- 1- - t•1{- (J�.1 h. . / ••h_-� . . N C.ms f. _ !14 atr.. 11111W '4r1. t. -a1.a.1' mss° r' 1K•t e ` 4IIIIM till • llifBisi - _ _ w x• . .T ,.o" P O L I ti<4 p� A l �.;e "444.PZ 't � � • r�.__ y , . r �"` _ Er ION l' 't' pull J G R, i Wilt. r , {T .: 4 id r Lt�.a . •s.'.a a Ilb .11W L. � . - _ .. .4 . H _ or. c OAK ST ' ' ►- _ w•" ulalicitra z,- Arey r= t o y., Ui U:It; '� l!s 26_fi lr '�. �t. — ' to-, Q '•"1.-4 .7 -) 'wear Am-- “ �y��e `OLtV %ST_ P� b' 94 Atte _ � w � �/�j �, . t rile* y ,: ,w relit: oflr'sPrirv. lar• O wart +�stu. tare N • Miter: MAGN o L A $T - _ } 'Why,. -- 1 �� , • I , rea•: t't.c f Z . .,... j x,,71 S r. �!rr ti a U to . �+r !' w .•. d Wt • r, Z North fr ~/ �1 1� - Q� At^ eg -o .» NCI • y J 't r�Y . =t, + � N C" 7 �N JJ , ,- III . l' -.It; .. 'Ifs r1t 'Y..v '. .. 4. till 03`I;d January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS and Preferred Alternative information cooperation transportation. 2 - Colorado State University • ; - . It-f' s .1`r_ Millrinrott IMIS s t•III - a L_ Y �Qi 11 -.--V-1- r ,,, 2 - r} �'►,�n a zica1 ►- T Jar Tr ,l`' ' M ® i r '• .r �" •: :` ,� " ,,, N C M + . t LEGEND _ _._ = i • • M a r t4 P" R;.Al • fJ• DEIS Proposed Station Area ;fir ;;'"''- ' a de,: , :'' tin! -1 rstti�',n*sir - ' 'S 'it -r�- ,r se ' Existing Land Use F �` ''� �' - '' CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING 11 Agriculture -� • i t . '_ = �' r� CSU Colorado State University i Employment/Commercial/Retail Area a r�, ri�E.sT _ • ..r �, .• , ,,,, C•C Community Commercial District Open Space/ParksP. IC �. • HMN - High Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District v, Residential - ;� =err i NCB Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District +� �.it ,;., v R .F _ :a. • a t w • ., , NCL - Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density District ' V-- ' e h R C - Commercial District •AN ilia" r 'tit" Panic; • E. kit' .- : '- -• LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District _a- . 4 i,,,,r _ .......t.i ll i' ft _ . 0 L n tN �•( Q, ,•�ei �t sCa �l s �I i. . ire 11 !q r;. gel 1 ii NORTH NORTH � ' 1 - L . I r II !� '�1ri k -A Is O r Cma ' ti. , t }•Iii". /'� i �•� , - J / • �� i ~r4. :.. _ ' �� mg �� i.. •_�- N e M srat • h NO : � APE DR M vim'• o • Lri C ST ST �l� d J. IMIal kr jil V :id.-irict' S if ....,_,,4 jr:-. 1 • ktillt p . Jit.;, ,t,,,,,ria II 41 lialtis I \ \ n &SR'S.* *Wee a 4 . g dirlillait.11.111 NW 11 o t - UNIVERSITY ;Jr t * •Ti- . t • ; l p • -b' li•�• '' [ G FIE-. � � '11141iM 'Cluj 1 cat , , . , ., .SOUTH �� *s• . It •� li 4.•3 i e e - . . 1:� .1 3� .A [30.1A . ,._,4 , . �% ,.....„ , _ Ed WA of ',�' .i , , , . ,. ,__ ; C3 r � a-. _ _ _ ..„ ,„„,„...... I a . i . . k. ` . _ :Allip •. el' Vining ItPill • _ r Ors i .. . 7 4 A 1 ig: pagra-iai , 11 �--� `"�air 4 �:, �l rme ' Lis.--• ... a •.1- LU A- � - i ,,, r W 7 U W emrs--------m-P si,--- - iii-ii.„-- :47-, :-J-. it-z ... . , _ - .00,-1- z LT--killliPt" t I-. , ;(9 : 7 . . . , gp .... , • ... HMN - - : � Hi 0 teen t..si 1 iris a3 `ii & , r° t no 11.4 13+S LYtJ 0 I! �'}O"'M Er al � 4 r trig=Gtr - Cif - i E r C I.:3:Wei /i 'sass f,. s �� ;' r ' lirre I , fa.? ? 'Pitt t.4i acri%1- Attire le' l Feb, Iu o .. , r... ' ^. A !,1! _ice ;,,,,, mlii . NOfth r 1 a ... - a - sr 'k ��. a III cake. I Meiji s' SIC O_i January 2011 _. Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS ap nd Preferred Alternative information cooperation. transportation. 3 - South Fort Collins Transit Center ptiff LIMN Md -.: ``'21x71? , + -' :n. ta _R !' lip LEGEND ' • r , : 11:- -Pr— CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING oNTST f I DEIS Proposed Station Area o ?`o E h *� ii C - Commercial District ji Existing Land Use HER STW :. { ° f POL Public Open Lands District HC - Harmony Corridor District r Agriculture Q 4 RL - Low Denstiy Residential District IIII Employment/Commercial/Retail Area E o • p Open Space/Parks ` C LARIMER COUNTY ZONING � �+ f Residential Ast _•r ' .- r : . FA1 - Lamer County - Farming �rt CI . ,�. / : . .� � FA Farming - � ^ - El - Residential J r r�rg, • - • ,d +tit .hiss' u,; } • H, i f �,° ,. y . - ° tI t � MMN ( � `' I g o goal'' • 11 +4 1 � . -'1 _ '' * , 6 o HC e a oc is .- p �# • -z. . . ,iir, .. RLe3 i • BENTLEY c f`' -Ala' • 44114•- • • La . • alitins/ . t•.fYw�mnr�t�. I uMy.�laTi�C al ,'s l ' --a1•'�.r • # F *'1.: . ;llr °� Q __ LI �� E 1 o « se- . N , Bt. ELCECI . O 9 oxiitie 4, ti • �� .e- t l ;� rrtir .� gi �i 1tiati4 11'Jai!_� jilt t �1 - 1 WO FAIRWAY BA . g .~R'L �. � flit FA1 ( I ) - .,,op.A.t 0 ksipa ; Ls 1., - ,iprimit • sa is sc. .. _ - .1_, , • A 10":"*. i i 4r4 ay . It ' nr. inVilinT, PIE ABBEY RD ,., - t I i '1 • '� .1.� -eIfe; -mil tt,:. . �•?/ ki iri _ ;et- , lq: i E.? , 1 ! _ ti • gillit - at i --A - [7\1 ,.404Thit‘ei 7, r Fit 1 ' Z\ V.,. . AA., : t a 1 p.—a 4n m4.. North L�Lip III 0 C Gs eb ' January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS and Preferred Alternative information cooperation. transportation. 4 - North Loveland 11, _ _ 1 I ■ . • SS ■ ■- LEGEND �- CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING D `• .0:0„-4 DEIS Proposed Station Area F�� B Developing Business District P-13 - Planned Unit Development - Orchards Townhomes Existing Land Use d, P-75 - Planned Unit Development- Fox Pointe Estates PUD Agriculture P-27 -25th Street Office Complex Pil . Employment/Commercial/Retail Area P-37 -Evergreen Meadows North Addition Open Space/Parks , Rte -Established Low Density Residential i ,, R3 -Developing High Density Residential District Residential r. a � _ _ • _- _ _ t �_• ; ,• • ,►� Rae -Established High Density Residential District �"i 'S C _ ' # \." ` ` LARIMER COUNTY ZONING • t ,s,; _ -11:-.." r t A - Farming tea. • R3e �- 1 'ice ems - d R l , ��' ` / V j • �+ �P�, o > i R1 n 5h a . :' _ R�it � -1� o w i . • /. c v •'� U O •. - � • � ST �� z F S 33• D . J o � • .�+ ' ? F O r3)d. A E-* iVil- 1i._+^ ' c+ a 4„palit� �f Q34 oc 1 It y t . I. .- Y Sete► O , i '' . s HoNIA[;� t_*! i .s • v.. S. p _ a PL M — 'E It c‘27 Sir ` B pL. w 0 .. ST `fire I _i �r mr1 ` h. y - i - r , _ I r • / . ". ZIiii � r • p _ 13 y_.,. ,y aA� .-- . t� .S R -3 rt' Q 27TH ST gpir re tp,-,_*....._ ilk rs Cr- 1r - 4,--,A . ;- R1e _ k il I • :1 : '0,4116 R 1 e �4, aN A. viterthl iii 1 R1 e 7 R2 (14?1 r13)lxl IIB • • Q Nom LA R2u Ilattr3 - --.. whir, 'tr.-seas;ft ≤� . • 15:04 °. gif - . —.f' oTH , Q CITY OF LOVELAND Noun - Be - Established Business Di • ' WI ,__ R3e - Established High Den �f January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 4141 US 287 Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS information cooperation transportation. and Preferred Alternative 5 Downtown Loveland -•• r LEGEND CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING 'L' DEIS Proposed Station Area '_ Be - Established Business District l:1 tor— I - - - Existing Land Use 8R3e - Established High Density Residential Districtlie Agriculture In i„, B - Developing Business District 96 DAC - Downtown Activity Center ;fit Employment/Commercial/Retail Area • R1e - Established Low Density Residential District '� Open Space/Parks Pt sR3e it P-57 Finley's 2nd Edition 4;-4, Residential f i* ,. N I Developing Industrialri t'}::gr. as DR - Developing Resource ' apt r LARIMER COUNTY ZONING L3CQ - 5TH A - Farming e ,., in. .i.j . .. ...psi:. Bd - fit*• Ills !S ,> B. . / . INA" 6:11•• , - .. Mi J • ',. ." - taoQT -•gy m. •_ ,„i .._.,_. ...:_-_ - -_,,, - ?FM ii . . • sr At. mg • • "*Ir at : er - les. „,tiiR1 •a __ ti . • .�� ,,.• ,� w' ' r'. T R�3•le'. , �.- W=12TH ST ` a A; te . +us. • 0.4, `.4 ,.� :l�/l• w:•f 1 -.11,-tag, ,� IC F71::- .. prri lit p. , . ic, n , .,,, w 1J g r `+.+lS' • .-- _ Ql}`m Q OTI ST HIGH N o �'� I 0 - , ` ` 6ARNEStr1t, Z•v ,.• _ E IITH� �. r R3e �, ., ~ERNES CO es . .a it lira _,, ii { 1 zr v rlfTH ST _ > � . E 1 NTH ST r �Y � • .will, 1 paqy •;�'. ! . . y !Q w • Q a • �� 3.3.. r�� . `� 0. . . - , •I "E 9TH ST • =� 9TH S{T.-�„yez- ._ 110:i t , Q�itlr�i7 1bit _' 41N {lam • • . 1t (F IF f 1- t111 a W WAWA ' err•41% Ilia; 6 H ST ..rte '_• --a owntown L-• eland 4441. CRE- '. . 4 s slt.tol ,, ee i t : 5'.11 0 F Q, $ .•i .D.., ;1 1at I �: • �n+(ir4 : ett '' i 1 a a/ tit _0 yJ V• -111:. .11{ � ��i Y -•i— = W 6TH ST �_ • QiGVr� w o J sot r . �'-- �If i� _ E 5TH S yM+'P rii Z •Jlllt' .• .: q.:. r. $ M liii• �� Q 111k . I � � !', .'�a, x . ° -p, n P ': Q w1 G"7 3RD We .`= _ '° M ' D . L-__! . wflW uS_ _ r z > r(� „,'7�1V, '� - w 3' ' "E 3R •D . wie , .tt,..,:i1;L� . 2S. _ r B R3 -4•dam Er2ND•ST { 1 1I .FiNi , W 2N o us Aso !. , it "Iilhe .ill I MO °TrNorth }.�? v � v? tLe '+ .++M.� � `en.•1��.y - _ P; , :.owe i. J • Ir NTT - - el January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS and Preferred Alternative information cooperation transportation. 6 - Berthoud III, .. ., Elis_ LEGEND L1 ` CITY OF BERTHOUD ZONING ' DEIS Proposed Station Area : M-1 - Limited industrial Existing Land Use M-2 Industrial Agriculture R-1 - One family R-2 - Limited Multiple Employment/Commercial/Retail Area R-3 - Multiple family • Open Space/Parks R-5 - Mobile Home IIIII Residential R-3UD - Unit Development C-2 - Commercial PR ligteK -1g., ,��, . zawszM�,:1 ; LARIMER COUNTY ZONING is. c kL s ue"-►& st FA1 - Farming aciftift R - 1 R - , ails ^Et M _2 . _ F- NKLI _ ". MIMI W 1 IS 3 am i s °Lk_It r. r � �( l TURNER A' et :'•- l,»-. % t` Tat UNE' AV TURNER ' ' .I� _ w r ° •' .x . it it' +0 / e C ' - - :Mit t I at fir t't. I ././7/77-7/// MASS C•HUSETTS '' torY4 a-� j %pry1. ki - r •r / i �, �T� -r{ - . R?- 1 iilliaL _ ' -Jo*r� - _. E C -2 C -2 . wl[ A ttii , fi ie�►r ._...l ' R -.._ 4b , R — 1 13743-4• �� r , , , o R - 1 Rat1s `� poR -3IR !atiJD „ Ai I ItR57R- •OLORADOA -5 @Gagsmga, iiiitit.3 •-irelniwn w_ . Yo w ", at n _At?!I . ,7 .2- at IOWA AV 0 al 0-I lit: o NE• ' SKA AV Q r y �® IOWA �lt,�x .'�1�Zl ' ��c it is r , e • nli ti. .J" — — •. .4, :. 1•, �)• iiii:..nXitZflAVtalati. ). DOUGno ,,,,,..141. . 0 •e0 ,700 / \IlMb - - - - , i 1 North . • r 4 - - _- !IL- ... � .. _. 4. ••• , . f . •t . idnikeLi ^^t:• w�c'Jer^3d,4on.'.b January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS information cooperation transportation. end Preferred Alternative 7 - North Longmont I , LEGEND LONGMONT ZONING ,-#74 DEIS Proposed Station Area PUD-C - Commercial Planned Unit Development Existing Land Use PUD-R - Residential Planning Unit Development Agriculture R-1 - Residential Low Density EmploymentlCommerciaURetailRrea R-2 - Residential Medium Density R-3 - Residential High Density Open Space/Parks E-2 - Estate Residential _ Residential . __ CR - Commercial Residential I , Y BOULDER COUNTY ZONING ; - • Ag - Agricultural 0 WS Ag ° n ° m ° nt�� .r' / // /// / / / // //f / • I/ / // /// / 1 // fI • " ! / / / //// / J f / J .. f// // // //J // / / I - '. --- - 1 / / I/ / // // // / / f .' / f / / // /// // I/ .' I 4O III a !/ / / / 1 / / / / i / / / I ! - 4 , LJ i T // / /// // //// !._ i .. . . 1 / /- Unincorporated Boulder oulder r. ss _ P r. R =2 R _3 2 Longmont MUw1EO- RD AV l I P. :I ti .t vii` �* I .. I, '' fir LS - ilr der r. Fr. ' -. L. , R-1 . ... f _ rF�-1at - PtJD - R r — W till iiiiiiilitC11. ,16 CIL. ‘,41,431 lit (..- sin IP •-4.1 II I_Lej .74: Vire ' .e.itilk . piii.01:1 te#1•V .3, .41 . • 23 tx D Ave it '4R 2 ' '4th 4 SS A., ,lilt , • �.� PUD -R 11 i ! f 1 'Sr, f, _ -- j %lirre.�, 1 +"I, • -. ID stn 1 @:D - C I r` fr14 PUD - R As_ - �r R_3 a ,ice ', i` �,: -` � 1�p. il �� •• _� 41 ay. • -.), r• :I ; '‘• i —• In' .0 ! till % Al 1.- _ 3 2 ST AV r •LL • Int 7 s • 0 ii. i sil i: lb ' it .."*" i .ir ,:i. c. our, si A ... . i , .... a , , , kJ 4 -4 , .„.. it i tItsurn- iiz i. '' °� • • b' o R,vcea r Northiel. La x ' , ^ t''�a w":. :3,_. di i January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS . information cooperation transportation. and Preferred Alternative 8 - Longmont at Sugar Mill • ow -chop _ , ,- eon" 4 ea % Os./ia'zaaa4 c ► I. i 7i7,,-1:417.1214 _ — - _ _�_.-: _ E • a pt - .1 LEGEND 4 o BOULDER COUNTY ZONING le. !i DEIS Proposed Station Area —‘41F - -_ • i a'•. • a GI - General Industrial 0 Existing Land Use r l ' Is •Y . r • `'� i CITY OF LONGMONT ZONING . it Agriculture a p A tii ga .f {'i R1 - Residential Low Density r lM • Employment/Commercial/Retail Area top i� , r � 9 Density e. M + c R2 Residential Medium I Open Space/Parks X R3 Residential High Density Residential � 1. . . % : rt1alPlanned Unit Development ik `� Onik . . f C - WO ,t, �_ tits. 1= �4� E E2 - Estate Residential D T. C Af1T !O a `r �'u. # 4 R 1 �� •—. ` �ti� @ -t! P - Public °� P U D R` •: . s • `` �� ;it • f s,#„' i\\Ai - BLI - Business Light Industrial �n a t S.t4 t * 411 tIJ Z ,.‘---..-- . . . co 14 ,• ^: .0., , _ t GI -ih,General Industrial 411‘; teIF ,HI.- Ilia'sallti API,-10•Itil fslei all a► ,* Qa r _ • J. {r • MI m nil. 4, - 4 "� 4 - � k l. v442PgRK Rp . - filliAll *CH liliell ( BD'. .,,- . arm e - F • i)im d j , \ 14 - . G 1 r(I L) . j r SW RMIIL RD �G I,( '�,. .. _ L� g LI Net VW,VTP � 1 •�'•. y* - .. - . -�- . t y . A -�.• 03„1,4 - ._ , :..._ . .. _ ._ i .r. ....,„. , 7 . . ..„.. ,. _ . _, is G I ( B.) , ., liri-s; -, :41. 3 .. .7 - .. d--4.-- - - frirewra- icla •Ipt - - %;- . • • Vii~1' •kr Kee .' 9/ ' -T I •� I �`-., , • - f _ • g ,r -`- _m.4--. - -•-- 1 ��1 y 1 • is .• • t , 1 North 1 ft ' ' ' January 2011 Station Alternatives NORTH 1-25 US 287 Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS information cooperation. transportation. nd Preferred Alternative 9 - 1- 25 and County Road 8 • w LEGEND 1, - CITY OF DACONO ZONING C-1 - Commercial District y mid t0 DEIS Proposed Station Area CITY OF ERIE ZONING it Existing Land Use t PD - Planned Development Agriculture Employment/Commercial/Retail Area �` t WELD COUNTY ZONING l IOpen Space/Parks �f A Agriculture Residential . ` 4 J - - - ., 1 f, 1 ' — -.st i I lit PalliWirirr # dbite% .4 II ! _ �i! _- _ . y��N'y�]Ir*Sry.'�^.{(1\`� _ _ _..I / .r i-- -. r i dly'. - - -r . — — - - 2 5 :r - ll - - . C - 1 . . / , 411/4, I ,//I. r tie / //At/ N _ _ t .. / / / ! / / / . - - Air - - - '"i /// I/I ///. _ _ 4 I / !/ III / /// / /I 1// ///II=f% / / / / I / // /// : _ - - • -s --- - - . - / / / / // / / / / / /I / /I/! / // ... - ` - - ---- -- • r/IIIII //I //II//II//I .,- _ - - - _-. . - _ // / / I/ I / /I / /// / I/I /// - e ,. I I/ // I / / / s / // // / / / // // / / IIf I/4r. ..e et: t< -stir / II / Ii -fl- - . / / / / / / // t r / 1 • - - `► / I/, _ ii I A 4. - --. ''''L - t. 'I / / !art. \,, . ;1I/ / \Al g tit 1; ' J - - - - t 1 ; e. / J • 111 '-- - ,. ! / / 1 if- / i 8 .- 'ti .: `:I . t • a C q \ !.. .. I , . iii'\ ,, 1 _ - Ni .. ...1:-4)7 ,,,/ . PD p [ � `4 x' ' . `r r Wit! 0 / ‘ ` ' F..• - . Ili , ` . • I i .. , Noah ! . , ,r,. - . � _- _ - i January 2011 Appendix E : Operation and Maintenance Facility Commuter Rail—FEIS Package A Potential Sites • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Operation and Maintenance Facility NORTH 1-25 • Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS Potential Sites information cooperation. transportation. County Road 46 and US 287 - Berthoud ,... - LEGEND 4 . • I,, di TOWN OF BERTHOUD ZONING -- R-1 Single-family Existing Land Use R-2 - Limited Multiple Agriculture R-3 - Multiple Family Employment/Commercial/ M-1 - Limited Industrial Retail Area 7 A C le M-2 - Industrial 'in Open Space/Parks - LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Residential FA1 - Farming Maintenance Facilities 1. Potential Operation and I. Maintenance Facility i I. II ti. _f IV' s& • ,- _ s i riii1 i1 ' 2 Nip i .• R-1 M _2TS FAQ] III _, . , tie '11 . : .... 0 --. - _„,,amga, : . _ . ,... a 4-,A: ria g- i ' I = R 2 I H -- ikapro, R - 1 , R -3 _ SUNNYW• •D PI ` ¢ „Lit at r_---,,•� ..... - I1sa - -- �' Sr _ t �S, G. _ innlIFEr .y�,y{�r�� r '. a -+Rir' cry I .'i r.4Calla • 1. 11 I1. R -1 , ,_ ra,,,,, : R -2 , R-3 e5a , ,� it ' - i tar lit . - ..:-. a.% ..r ...1 ... : . ' .<1 -i "I's r �r - ,.. w is M.- . is . Ali AI, si.:llnttl s.r dirt � -��. _ ..gypa- . - ��; January 2011 North Operation and Maintenance Facility NORTH 1-25 Commuter Rail - FEIS Package A EIS Potential Sites information. cooperation. transportation. Portner Rd . and Trilby Rd. - Fort Collins LEGEND CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING Existing Land Use E - Employment LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Agriculture RL Low Density Residential Employment/Commercial/ P 0 L POL - Public Open Lands el Retail Area UE - Urban Estate Open Space/Parks • ----I• L LARIMER COUNTY ZONING a Residential - FA1 Farming -i FA - Farming Maintenance Facilities ,y Edd / _ QPotential Operation and r F= — - _ , Maintenance Facility �• E4ri ` y .tom A'� _' r 7- �At ' 9i. ' • r ar r� so.� ��'y� :Y � `i-�_�'i- .i'44 �� I Existing Local Transit yy 0 lip 7!74 {r' 4l p� any ii Facility ,._. :_____ _ i----- . *I ll k� Q School District Bus Site L _ ''S a ?� I1 N ...:,,a► DMI - ;' _�, . i' ini—f li ,r - Ii li db ' }.}-- .. ,,'.iiic -to4,gri i Rimy! . 4 -I . ._ i, . f-ri t }. i a '� 7 .• ( �y�aY�i`i� a � � t 4;.4 _414' *� ,•r^ t` i `.� Q �'1 .• '.--1-- -51 fr- 's, w PD'4; . I I .: ,,o-4S, ; S �7J -s-sw �«s' ia FA1 w1 , , �, . ,4. tiaD to sitIII i la: it \e -It IlippotA _ FA - 1 1 t 47w n . .. . . - . ; - t I • Is •• TRILBY RD . . am AIWA = s .. .. . _ _ . _ 7. ti 4. R2 � ' • � . . A.t - � 4sE. -44=41 1 _:-/ y -.0„i . e, .s 1 i5i41 : � r ! '' 17Vit is :z: : iil .''1 'c PliFt .• of !FA1 (w) RL iA. - itt' :rniAlt.....1 ......- 4 . t . 0, Lea , _ ,T . . , . ._ ._ _ _ . . „ A1.... • ; y : PO L \‘ zikkteig . c - . . o4 611211 Hilln, . , 1 i a ••-••• \.. !IP 425 .SO ler.ilgtellil I: it (-4 IA Mg . COM //,,,,, i January 2011 North Operation and Maintenance Facility NORTH 1-25 0-1111111 0 1-25 Bus Rapid Transit - FEIS Package B and EIS Preferred Alternative Potential Sites information. cooperation. transportation. Vine Dr. and Timberline Rd. - Fort Collins [LEGEND Existing Land Use :„ ; MMN Agriculture - LM N I 1. Employment/Commercial/ Y�iall . o Retail Area ,. .' i 4p Open Space/Parks It 'i -t-N . _. , I al Residential p Maintenance Facilities 1J Potential Operation and IIIM Maintenance Facility etl- •H' w , ‘ . P I� lik ii: t az11I U �J�, '' ' r "fee ' 7 LMN 'le it{ P :._III - o R "'VINE DR„ „.. . .._.__ + , 9 I t ►•,j titj c a' i It . . Rfs riff , ,a i LMN v. I BRIlJ t � , i-it M' LMN . ti tight{{ • n fi CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING i' LMN - Low Density Mixed Use MMN - Medium Density Mised Use �... , CC - Community Commercial E - Employment NTERNATIONAL BIND 5is LARIMER COUNTY ZONING II FA1 - Farming IliE I ". Industrial , h i i, . C- Commercial ..M0 0 - Open - c .,:-,. so 1 700 ill B - Business - a aims- al wrivai .. ._ 7\1 r� , January 2011 Nor h Operation and Maintenance Facility NORTHI25 1 -25 Bus Rapid Transit - FEIS Package B and EIS Preferred Alternative Potential Sites information. cooperation. transportation. 31st St. and 1st Ave. - Greeley --t+...,. - -s- - SOS •„a.f '} ' ...--c- r LEGEND . Existing Land Use - ii • .4C-H Agriculture R - M Employment/Commercial/ , ; _, _ Retail Area ' J Garden City dir Open Space/Parks ; �, � ,� �_ Unknown Zoning, `SIIII Residential --- --- - , , __ Maintenance Facilities -,. ' - [ ' ', , '"/' , ,,`, • s. , I t L-el-it:fL a,r • t it Q Potential Operation and z - Maintenance Facility t'4 i t_ • - 1 ' . • Tom.....;"i , t � . '_:. tit.„400 Alternate Site - �' ; �I =.c ' MF i ♦ . ' Igo -3 31ST ST _ _��_ '_ oi , C RC • RMFH vr. icletit,3, . , war* .‘,„4/t- : 4,... R -2 -it. it - aes re jlgfr � : ! 4,as _� ' •Mil IT , Iil irk mow{ 4. 71:.4%Y�` i1 11. . . _` s ' . ' std • •:RM.FH :, .: _ x 'fly : 0- .--- . - - f j -• R -2 . ,, r t ;. ...,.... . 4, / r/.. r. n_______--/... .-;0,Ng*- ifi R - 1 d.r a -ark • �. -� f it 37TH :.- i' Fee." RC CITY OF GREELEY ZONING R'� I-M - Industrial Medium Intesity RAM Elf .� • ' f $v- ,piste'. C-H - Commercial High Intensity f • el R-M - Residential Medium Density RC 1 _2 : , , , ; >'., CITY OF EVANS ZONING R C-H - Commercial High Intensity : Wit', • 0 : • R-C Residential Commercialt. r. 1L ,; -: RMFH - Residential Manufactured Housing PU D et -• RMH - Residential Mobile Home O{t�' R-1 -Single Family Residential �$• , R-2 - Two Family Residential • w. r .. PUD - Planned Unit Development -1 WELD COUNTY ZONING '-q, - .7f Fel :M ,.roo AW Agriculture 4 ,N �f January 2011 N rth • Appendix F : Interchange Upgrades FEIS Package A, B, or Preferred Alternative NORTH 1-25 • EIS information. cooperation. transportation. • e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A B or Preferred Alternative EIS g >• > information cooperation. transportation. 1 - State Highway 1 LEGEND nce; District #5 TOWN OF WELLINGTON ZONING Zoning Boundaries '" . . Performance District #1 Existing Land Use Performance District #2 •Employment I Performance District #3 r Residential / r: LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Agricultural Thimmig Annexation ' PD,#1 . _ o - open Space • Park/Open Space , "`' " ri Vacant land � .1 --• := • ��, iluti,iwLsor;4 "Ay - "L _ N 111' FRANKLIN pV 1L-' ,4- • IR . Sne a t . • - e District #3 •. r.---7, - - ntireitir.' - rj 11. 114 - GARFIELD Z 9ir& I • I 11111L ,_a i'I �iI IMP b, l -s 4i.1"III r1111 .1 '�_y1"ow lion 4 uI to * - illigalkag - - ._d1lL.. �. c.-- IMI1m iHS t l it ri 1 p Riling 11111' -�i ": P; _QI � ~ .� . �,..,� - 1��MCKINLEY AV - �� i r _• 1hr! . N7 ^-r^ -r, meta- f_ 111111 ,� ROOSEVEL•T AV Ja , ylii ispill,' erformance District #3 ` .sr � .I Coal Creek`Performance District' • ° - , Fifa a MR.. -_. s , '� �� LINCOLN__ 1 II ff■ • )1/2.... .4_ , I. 17) III KENNED"raV r sir- KENNE Y V aWbilit iItr , ill o MI , H MILT o NI = LS ' iil w MIS' :'1as ma - 111 25 tes ,� � NE sr" ACKSoN -T -• 4i mu , ! . O TY ER @g`-' . { fa., ,:,y At \�� ■•■ '_y6► 21i4gaa v� I � 4 L MAE�, ilk atria ' t L. as. .., : �XELDER .�,r1,✓�+�1� �� ■ 1 lill IlltIF- _ ..-- JEFFERSON AVr VN Cottonwood Park Annexation 0 ► 1 North NM O'3. January 2011 Interchange Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A , B , or Preferred Alternative EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 2 - Mountain Vista Dr. 11 It I l i rat , we Lt. �F.�aI 'S4 ��! / _ • - LEGEND p rii1 • can CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING Zoning Boundaries r - I - Industrial District Existing Land Use -.' E - Employment District Employment : . �. ' LMN Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District fi Residential ;- r UE - Urban Estate • • WELD COUNTY ZONING Agricultural . - Park/Open Space ' FA1 Farming 1. el I ' i . 0 - Open Space — O Vacant land 0 1 / 1, �. i � . ., Apo : . r4.,;., t . il . «.f ,¢„ r r . f , Y fp t r F- . 1 1111' I _. L-� �, s i MOUNTAIN VISTA DR=_ • J Ilip , t' it li I I. ; i• , , I 1, iu ' C" r. ti . lot 1 i —a n. E FIV ��6".S.1l 614_=.. II WWII 1 M 1 ....c .. .. -• : . - t , -In i LNi`aistra.147 ' 4 L M N IV Q4 .. , N. ' ? Mil 1ll1a1•, - r , �. glA�� . ►,�, 25 t a 'iatii�atilliif (0111 �, ,� j stil Z\ z 'S� a • , ` _ 1 , sl North -i , P a i . I r:� aiiii - lIl ..:::::. Ir tea! ____ . ._____ _ ___ 0.:. i January 2011 pg Interchange U rades NORTH 125 FEIS Package A B or Preferred Alternative EIS 0 information cooperation. transportation. 3 - State Highway 14 ,- Jae , 1 it I LEGEND " CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING Zoning Boundaries , �? ra t ' ' I - Industrial District Existing Land Use Q �•K•• �' �• I UE - Urban Estate District r :i. a C - Commercial District dr Employment _{ II - r• LMN Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District a Residential I I , ; g E - Employment District Agricultural • • IS • - LARIMER COUNTY ZONING -- de Park/Open Space i' .�;;, , �� ►' I Industrial C) Vacant land i- C Commercial i 1 s , 0 , i� M1 - Multifamily r y 0 - Office , i i. �I I 1 F , al'• tia• 1 - :Cif ais r , t ` ' � Ili II a I I a - 11 i. ! I flilllill . n 1 ,1, I f • • I 1 . - '''' ' ` f 't -,as •,— r r C C ge • , . _ II / I ! •Aril"), • a , 14 Afri ' t illilli I % 1 al-sr-r l'-—• . / A , r •. - -.., . ! . 1 xj ,_,_: i ' ill , i. .431 • 4:g• • - .. a a , t ( • . . 1 00 i,lif !• , - - ' i - .. . :t __* r r • a ' •� f. a , , 41l e Ili III _ - .�. .. lirit. . I I. Iti ii. :•;r I a yAil • a x� ��. • �� -� s �' t41 r a - 1 f - .: -. .. ..* - 4tiesii i _ � yi:ars •i s . f.... . A $1 " 1 :: -A t"A iv-- "\c7.. . • -.I I a. 1 . .-`� • �� ti MB'a - ia. "% T f . � F" r - ':rJt�_ .� �;• I ;"...., , , / - . , 'r,r. 3 u t� I. • 6 _. ( /� . , ellaillii0“ . _rst., r . i s ., , _ . . , si._ _ _ . . _ ... . . .. . ., _ , ,` .' _ . , , ,,. -t -� ate- ' . i _ _ ,_, \ ..,‘ . .h f `I .` � +.. , ,,„.. . . I , • . .. Ai ti I 0 . . . IL* . 1' I UE,i.\ ' . rMl //�\ • Iti i ' I North • " ! e January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A , B , or Preferred Alternative EIS information cooperation. transportation. 4 - Prospect Rd . III g il "fluggos - I' - it SilliniM I \1."tt�: LEGEND . �:rit■ I Zoning Boundaries - ` I't ' '1. Existing Land Use - _. • . • .�.. "1 Employment r . > , Residential = 0 y (3 � R_ I SUE Agricultural - / a \ de Park/Open Space , ~,. ` Vacant land C , I a t• 11104 FA - .. it - ' it `♦ IIP i 4 ',IL, t1/4 . .., :. . .„_ . _ . , . . mei U E FA`1 poi. • . , . , „. . . ... . AL , FA _ ,. - \,, , • FA . + r PROSPECT RDillir. . i .. . , 0 ✓ • ♦ ' - f , I ♦ rte,h: FA` �� , •• • y// 1 f �, -rte- -« 4 T , ..., r• ' i y I � . .. 't' 1 .. 1 .4 i i 410 1 .� ;‘ . - . -ir, 1 .. , ,,,jL. ` 1 1rr ( ..., I ' Ili I, # , , c. , Z . , s • 1- `/ i -.ail.. !:P±1/4 N, '♦ { 1 I ,t , I, i • 'li/ Iii P I4-4 • j > t ./'• \ g FA1 . 4 . . , 1 ,iso . , i f fir Al _ . - �, ` . 1 -'i . " - CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING S '' 5 LMN Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District i ,;./1":-41.4-,.. � .. • c, . E Employment District y ,' i , ',I 1 - Industrial District � l,i, : . ,�.. , C - Commercial District- ` 4 POL - Public Open Lands District �. ,f . \ , , UE Urban Estate - '• sl . LARIMER COUNTY ZONING .. C Commercial ' FM Farming North . 1111s Ste{ 'iae`"9r - - 1 w 11P w a i _ • s-_ January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 PETS Package A B or Preferred Alternative EIS information cooperation. transportation. • 5 - Harmony Rd . �' ' N«� 4.;,\ I . •> AO C. i' . - 'amp, .. LEGEND l,, FA1 a CITY OF FORT COLLINS ZONING i' POL - Public Open Lands District y Zoning Boundaries � " ',�'. • � . . __ P " TOWN OF TINMATH ZONING Existing Land Use t' �4.. d. - s. - Employment r r ' A Agriculture L I B - Business Residential , s :f ', Comm Commercial Agricultural ilk • 25 C-2 - Community Commercial I `' R-1 - Old Town Residential Park/Open Space k POL O Vacant land A LARIMER COUNTY ZONING f, I 1 . :,. \ FA1 - Farming C - Commercial , T - Tourist r i Il x� 0 Open n . 7 Yei .4% i 441 li la ,_ .rte 1I 14N . .8 : , , , „it, .. wag" -5! . ‘ i, i. ,, ice''' l�, 48 1 . i 1 y �Q • r il- ` th •Sites 1 �_ _ + r 68 HARMONY-RD - _- - _-• FA1 = _ - I f? ;, �� __ �ti — LII____, 'rN•. , , ,a1 •tii:..1,:. .., : ..:4 lb- 1 0. 2 k • al III \ c, 3 ' • , IPA , • r .. i s;,. .. . ight lig'? ' ij \ , w.illa�� '4 _a HC ' : t,,tr;.,(... ili. . ,. . 11,,., I' - F-daii • ._ .. , ., . .,. .. , _,. . _ :. ., ..,,, . _ ., i . ,, ,, i , ... • :,1 t 4. , I , iir l 9 I _ -- cl '• \,•. ,, 'c',, ..i:\:rri - \ T ` a. 4 ,. \Lc. ' , ' ., .. ' i iii . . . . . . { r .. itt . 1 .1 -..- \ . v.i. ' . It. , \ , \ \ . . \ 40 , a”. StO • \ ; , \ I i North T.-"Sr"-7-- - 4,-' \Ili.; i I . �` t 3 t fa% , January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A , B , or Preferred Alternative EIS information cooperation. transportation. 6 - Crossroads Blvd . • s.. :__. , _ _ __ : LEGEND , Mr( N CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING Zoning Boundaries B - Developing Business I - Developing Industrial Existing Land Use DR - Developing Resource Employment 1 I ,. : P-74 - Larimer County Fairgrounds PUD Residential ' , - • . P-59 - Millennium Addition • - rf "', It P-83 - Undefined Agricultural - - • \r � ' . LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Park/Open Space AP - Airport Vacant land 25 I-L - Light Industrial T - - ' - - -.. .i_..:•Pi�' - RR_r P-74 • : 7 pr- , , -. - .J AP iv S r v . �i: -11.111 CROSSROADS BLVD • i 1 t, o �o B re 0 . .., - rr DR Al E 1( , 7 ill le 1 : 1 1'�: 1 P-59. ' P-83 \ Iiii - P-59 c. 1 ' 1 North III._ i..:::::::. /C„lli P3::, ' • January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A B or Preferred Alternative EIS 1 information cooperation. transportation III 7 - US 34 ( l of 3 - West) a LEGEND iii , Zoning Boundaries • !I Existing Land Use AP ° N1le Employment e Residential .?" �:, Agricultural M „Ai, - 'TIII Park/Open Space t Qi1 C) Vacant land " 1,: f,.;Z: g, :• ‘ :.... Ulf 3 t. . 0: ______ _________________,. %:. Mt -Vs'. .;-, P_45' at P'12 rr # # • 4 ..11 ,,t.We I ------:14 * it: ....i • - r f,r �� 1 .v yew... i 9 �/e t r _ _ - - _. Mk - ,1 t IL . . . Li / -.1-‘ * . • T r" �1 4 ,-- Ce -e-Allipin 34 ' -- - a _ - 0 la illt____: -.L. .4.111111111110111, , liplirles. . IIRIP It - - .gip ... 0 i . .. . ... .. • CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING B - Business FA I - Industrial P-12 - Gateway PUD P-45 - Rocky Mountain Village II PUD LARIMER COUNTY ZONING B - Business AP -Airport - ' ' aaie eagrA_. ------- • T - Tourist FA - Farming 4r II ' "i .+lCdet3S r t nta_rs 3 1 : ' -1 , - •14 t J //�\\ 7 a% �-I 0 , I ., I 1 North .r " : . t r- t or a. . January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A , B , or Preferred Alternative EIS information cooperation. transportation. 8 - US 34 ( 2 of 3 - West) III i \_____ LEGEND ' i� CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING Zoning Boundaries DR B - Business AP DR Developing Resource Existing Land Use . • , = I - Industrial Employment P-12 - Gateway PUD Residential P-59 - Millennium Addition PUD Agriculturalese_ LARIMER COUNTY ZONING I C - Commercial 4 Park/Open Space I - AP - Airport O Vacant land T - Tourist PKa� -. . / AP i FA - Farming 4,7.: TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING . 25 ..,. -- ft • "' PUD-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial District . . .. . P-n•ina Ann x i n : e .�� - z .. . it ---' ___ - . . MC•WHINNEY'BDB ( P- 59 1 --- .. ! FOXT RAAI�DR. . .-- r II . . ''<iligir": *\:#:4 ° , . .. milliamilist.,.. . . ‘ ... . - 0 0 134 _FAii, f 1 fe - .-- a i oy 1 ,' I `.-.�aa..-...: . L , Pending i . - Annexation11111111111 is. , 1 • I M FA ',. �' I I N. :;\ �, .,i rt. . . is . IE ' .1.14:q_14 r Ipil .r4 In , ?As 1 ) It ! UD_R I AM ISO I rLx. 17. 1 ^Y/ ��_ • - s � F 4 North v' i — rte:. January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A B or Preferred Alternative EIS 1 information. cooperation. transportation. III 9 - US 34 (3 of 3 - West) LEGEND CITY OF LOVELAND ZONING B - Business Zoning Boundaries DR - Developing Resource Existing Land Use P-59 - Millennium Addition PUD Employment LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Residential C - Commercial Agricultural AP - Airport I Industrial T - T — Park/Open Space Tourisst Vacant land FA - Farming f TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING - ' 1r 1 PUD-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial District r • ; Pending Annexation r s I A. - I P-59 FA • • st �, ` 0 ii:. : ... .4A, ____ - . i -- ---- a ---r1/4.__ . _ __ __ _ ___ __ _ 1. . .- -„ _ t- -wig** =A lies 31-4, DR : - - - t • , ii* lit y,Y - - 1 . _ �� . . .1 -, .. ,. .. .. _ . . . . v • . . i... •. ki , ; 1 . \ _• _ - PUD-C • •tea' ' ni :. ,, • '-•-•;:-'.-- \ . x: r • . �f tr '` ` • 1. 1 T . - - 1- it t 1 -R V'\`/ J . SI ' t North ,11f� I I -I «� set ;,"'? OAdrn1i,� tatron• January 2011 Adrr n tfm.on p �Interchange U rades NORTH 125 FEIS Package A , B , or Preferred Alternative EIS information cooperation transportation. 10 - State Highway 402 III LEGEND ---, �! '` ; ;► «� TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING Zoning Boundaries _ PUD MU - Planned Unit Development Mixed Use District ; !-.4 ; . PUD- 0 PUD-C - Planned Unit Development Commercial District Existing Land Use " . • PUD - Planned Unit Development District Employment PUD-R - Residential Planned Unit Development District Residential LARIMER COUNTY ZONING Agricultural FA - Farming B - Business ir Park/Open Space _ O Vacant land------r---------- _ 4a , , _ . , _ , A _ .. • ,.. ,. A- - FA ._ `tit . � ::. I ~.b - , B • , �. • _ ' . - 4.14 7 ° to i .I' '` '' PUD-MU , Ill- 402 r �.. _ _ - - _� t �; - 1' 1111 ` !• p + • In t2 #4 - t a t 1 11 / \t‘He. t:. FA Alt i• • 3 _. . .; \ . , . fir. 1 : f ti • 1 . - -• — . \ ., ' — l� "' FA - <.' ma , 'ce .e-- 1, ' North Masai aim • ti,**Mif s -_ . . 0 ' January 2011 , e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A B or Preferred Alternative EIS 0 information cooperation. transportation. 11 - Larimer County Road 16 rIMMIIINNIMi' ILEGEND TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING Zoning Boundaries PUD-B - Planned Use Development Business District e., Existing Land Use ' LARIMER COUNTY ZONING ,,'i «.4 Employment ION '-- , B - Business `'+ Residential ' FA- Farming ` FA C - Commercial Agricultural \ 4p Park/Open Space • Vacant landAI i iiiiiii IrN, - •• 1 • F alliriSIMirrHr I a. ,.�� E ' i fr. B 4W •o ' _ W MDIP 41 CA, 'L.. ru tt \ - 1 t , . 4 0 ._ . . , ,. _, , _ - - . I ii - • _ � _ ,, ilk L . ... _ \ \ I. - ..., _ . .. . ... . : x PUD-B s \ FA --�- — — fi. F - I f y;4 ii.eir .. att.� . At 't- - • a ' • `... ..� t t , • 4 OA t. r... *Ill tat ® Y--. I 0 .:S !SO 1 700 t� CAT 7l �� January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A , B , or Preferred Alternative EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 12 . . - State Highway III g y 60 LEGEND . , I'i,. TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING • H- Zoning Boundaries r i Gateway - Gateway District Existing Land Use PUD - Planned Unit Development District Employment E? . ' PUD-MU - Planned Unite Development Mixed Use District WELD COUNTY ZONING Residential _ A - Agriculture Agricultural ' I[ •_= ..s. , �'f 1 11 Park/Open Space - 3 - • O Vacant land '- 25 • i `' • - •�.,. noon b I PUD-MU LONGS II _ �,. y�� as es[Q • , • • Ilan it + Q G t W r r+ k I. W {•rt 2 .— � , Z ate, . '" r O CC rick C34t . -_ irk .r lihk- r '. . / : 1 ; c . V. II1. t�,0ift- yimurr G�V p,Rt'l i . ' P4 P PUD:i r z ' ti; 14 j Pi Y J . glib ill' .7-.; I ) . . _ 4 _ - ...1 1 7 t 'l I • , * • , I Pilk _ - . . _. . t- . Ill - . . ' A A 4 . ' ' a , , _ . - - -.J e y . _ - . .. - , . fa.• a�pc�t 77 .40 r ` 1 North ' • : . 4 • lit x,t ••:;:_ �ifetl r I�H w` Ac;,°.`,'.., January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A B or Preferred Alternative EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 13 - Highway 5 6 at LEGEND �- it TOWN OF BERTHOUD ZONING Zoning Boundaries ' , No Zoning Existing Land Use A , 1 TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN ZONING If Employment • j SF-1 - Single Family Residential '# Residential • WELD COUNTY ZONING ' • iI A - Agriculture Agricultural -" Ar Park/Open Space " . • Vacant land " ' •s l . . r : \ • k ,� ' :., it ,, . .• + ? r v4. •r - C N o Z o NING ` 011NO ZONING o a t. A1 44 t ( v .. / s• Alis� f ss,• 0 I ct' • . / ..-46.------; e. !I e l —-:�. at • - - „ f!/ • ` l . li SF-I - ,� NO ZONING �.,.. - . 1W: ...71er ott it :- 711-S-. Pr- ri 'rg'!' 4 tt I 11 NO ZONING $ III I I North - Cities to Determine et January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A , B , or Preferred Alternative EIS information. cooperation. transportation 14 - County Road 34 • ._ _ _ ,_ a , , v C1J C ,.. .. LEGEND ......ar� _ i 14 . _ ,'.' '� }_ MEAD ZONING — _ - C.J.K Annexation Zoning Boundaries 4. — Raterink Annexation Existing Land Use _ "` "1 Denver Canadian Inc. Annexation Employment 1-25 Annexation #1 � 1-25 Annexation #2 Residential f�• (' A WELD COUNTY ZONING - Agricultural I A - Agriculture Agriculture . '# Park/Open Space (i,, ill Vacant land I • aw , .. i V . A. C.J.K Annexation - � • . . . . __ Raterink Annexatio • n . diairi.. .1. i , sU r ' ...ill illt s • i 1-25 Annexation #1 1: . . ._ 4 ''' A 1-25 Annexation a '- • • - 5 _-- . { • `SIN EE(CT,4t 1111 moo? _� >~ Denver Canadian Inc�An__A_ation ,�- -.-. �� oafs ) II li t♦r�r r L 7d '. f _ c 0 .23 000 '-- / � I- J 1 North i • • O-. January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A B or Preferred Alternative EIS information cooperation. transportation.• 15 - Highway 119 LEGEND w : T ti : "iii-k" r TOWN OF FIRESTONE ZONING Zoning Boundaries , v • �' y • C Commercial Existing Land Use �,r i R Residentialil ip Employment WELD COUNTY ZONING ,f Residential 1 ;4 ,� �, A Agriculture - ' '> C-3 - Business Commercial --11 Agricultural . _- - _ 1 PUD Planned Unit Development le Park/Open Space A R-5 - Mobile Home Residential CP Vacant land ilt:74 , r A 7 --- ' . ._ . .• ' I ell 0.. , ., r - . r.,_ ,„. „,... ,.. ,. . _„„ ,,. ., . _ r,„..,.... . , .. ._, • .. �• `\ acX " ,• , ,, .. ., i , „N.__ . i , .. , . . .. .r `I .. , . , . . . : I, . .....,,. ___ "+ �, itir • ; 046 II.i' .. • M1 0 .2 .. ri , i. , , i , 119 ilF ---, . _ a �� ,— , , ' i i.,-.. / . _ „. . i • -• . ,•_•• .. . r Illi ,.it ;•- . . , , I I,/ .. 4 , ,, ... _. _ ..ii el f ii! PUD fi '• ° ... . Is , . . . . .: , • I I *at I"; ' : "(1141 , - i 7 ... , _ (' Lai tiiIi t4101.111 ,� =PI _ .. . .. . . . Y C-3 ..4t a �,7MtII /11 MO .. 604 raj r r . . 4,, its i)'i111 •I11I//11 - ? j, r, /" PUDit -I ,gn E` 1111/II1I� `4 Y q/ ', _ � ,� , , ' : : o 10 ,:rii i L :: R 4 its t j iii ansa 1/ ? Mt I •-' `-_l ' ' r tie. Il BMW :� 1 11 II s � � 7 _ r 'rt,• A c . A PUD �, r v�l.� �: ,_ ilk :s • 0l49€) Q A •, _1 .: ( � , r • PUD F..1 o .n NO 6 i North / i I `� ,. • o a . V;r1.7M '3 January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A , B , or Preferred Alternative EIS information cooperation. transportation. 16 - Highway 52 III t ., LEGEND - . K TOWN OF FREDRICK ZONING Zoning Boundaries � t R-1 - Residential District - Single Family ?,. Mixed Use Hwy 52 District Existing Land Use i CH52 ° I I - Industrial Employment - ;,•r. C-E - Employment District Residential K> IX I TOWN OF ERIE ZONING .. Agricultural •r • . .; RC Regional Commercial Park/Open Space _- _ TOWN OF DACONO ZONING .4_,..„ R-2 - Residential Vacant land R-1 . , . 1, 25 ` CR - Commercial Residential I-L - Light Industrial 1 ,i • j . I ' -alhe • r i .,' /l�arwJ 1y _ fete ... - . * ._ igunsie: ' • ,,,,,‘ , - 4.1 , / i ji I. -• s \ -. -. . .may I 1 . N . l- li III .. ritlys.4 t , ., ... . 9-,; itil ti, It; 1...z..t: \tit, , , . , 1 - 52 - - .,,z,H • s I el a _ 1 - IAURA CT KURA Y _ i . IMPERIAL ST '' C R r j � � I � L t 1i ES'A. ;. ' alltill i3s <4, cil - `-. .. ,_ > _. , 11�11 jr� Ilbtets + if, - i - .. 1 (V tli l ' hi ,� CR - t; ' I • I • If , _\ • lall a RC C 'l P R-2• I. 1 ' 7 North III r. inow — ,s----,_...........,:aisk,....- • fa :. I January 2011 e Interchang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 DEIS Package A B or Preferred Alternative EIS g >0 > information cooperation. transportation. 17 - County Road 8 LEGEND . li ir 1 �II � WELD COUNTY ZONING Zoning Boundaries A - Agriculture \ :Existing Land Use : r TOWN OF DACONO ZONING Employment R-1 - Residential District Residential \ - - C-1 - Commercial District Agricultural 4 TOWN OF ERIE ZONING 4 Park/Open Space PD - Planned Development c Vacant land A ; , . is . - R 9.) ,4 - R-1... . 1 , , .. • .._ _..., , . , . . _ . ,_ ._ . c . . tL \. ; I : N. . . . . . . . . . . . .., „„G: . , ., . \. . . . , Ge0 \ 1 \I , - - wits f• I . t - - i ., z r. 1- -'� ..�.. I , ir:::., r s, ❑Fit. f �? tt illVii' if rm. "-t . .-- --.------------1-\___ , 1 ei,,• , , err ' . ity ,/ / . \ \.... / t 0 • trat A i d / i I •' . - B . t N ��f • + { 1 North , I I 1 L M. .pOT l :;"` el_ . • January 2011 I, e Interc ang Upgrades NORTH 1-25 FEIS Package A , B , or Preferred Alternative EIS information. cooperation. transportation. 0 18 - State Highway 7 LEGEND CITY OF BROOMFIELD ZONING Zoning Boundaries PUG - Planned Unit Development Existing Land Use Employment Residential -' . � • 'AY* II .; Agricultural 4 ' . ;I I' It Park/Open Space _. - '11 I �'./ • t 1 IlI Vacant land - ' .i . _ . ' j ! i ri 4,04-44,,c, _ _ ., • PUD _ f 1 .. 72T {{ - .s r Jam. ; . III 't 41.41/ , tl: 4.• \ \ ` t • it 0,004, 1 it ti `Y op Ifilikirs NI 1 C7 ; 1 It ' • e. i v• • �.' yr' --- v' - -; .. - •-rA •fir \, , A V.-ft, ' , q Y / et . • T _. 1 4 North it 4.as 4 • wrap - e3: ' January 2011 • N oval I-25 EIS , information. cooperation. transportation. Environmental Justice • 411 • NORTH 1-25 EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Technical Memorandum ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE • Prepared by: JACOBS August 2011 • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Introduction 1 Regulatory Background 1 Existing Conditions 2 Minority Populations 2 Low-Income Populations 3 Additional Data Sources 7 Minority-Owned Businesses 10 Specialized Outreach 12 Political Context of Specialized Outreach Efforts 12 Specialized Outreach Activities 12 Input Received through Specialized Outreach 15 Environmental Consequences 16 No-Action Alternative 17 Package A 18 Package B 27 Preferred Alternative 31 • Conclusion 40 No-Action Alternative 40 Package A 41 Package B 42 Preferred Alternative 42 Mitigation 43 References 44 • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. LIST OF FIGURES Page No. Figure 1 Census-Identified Minority Populations 4 Figure 2 Low-Income Populations Identified Using Census and HUD Data 6 Figure 3 Minority and Low-Income Populations and Services Identified through Additional Data Sources 9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 County Minority Populations 2 Table 2 County Low-Income Populations 5 Table 3 Additional Data Sources 7 Table 4 Business Survey Distribution to Major Employers 11 Table 5 Community Events 14 Table 6 Small Group Meetings 14 Table 7 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-H1: Safety Improvements 18 Table 8 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-H2 and A-H3: • General Purpose Lanes 21 Table 9 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail 25 Table 10 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus 26 Table 11 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H1 Safety Improvements 27 Table 12 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes 29 Table 13 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit 31 • Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011• EIS Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. INTRODUCTION Environmental justice is a public policy goal of promoting the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the decision-making for transportation. Satisfying this goal means ensuring that minority and low-income communities receive an equitable distribution of the benefits of transportation activities without suffering disproportionately high and adverse effects. Achieving environmental justice requires both analytical techniques as well as the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. This technical memorandum is prepared in support of the North 1-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). The analysis that follows documents the presence of minority and low-income populations, minority-owned businesses, and important community resources and connections in the regional study area which serve these populations, and evaluates the potential for impacts to these populations and resources. The special efforts that were made to involve minority and low-income populations in the decision making process are also described. REGULATORY BACKGROUND Environmental justice was first articulated as a national policy in 1994 when President • Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 (E.O. 12898), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. E.O. 12898 required federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations in the United States. The purpose of E.O. 12898 is to ensure that federally-assisted projects do not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. For those projects that do, E.O. 12898 requires actions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such effects. E.O.12898 was enacted to reinforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which states, "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Subsequent Orders at the federal level, including Department of Transportation (DOT) Orde 5610.2 Order To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (U.S. DOT 1997) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Order 6640.23 Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (FHWA 1998), have further defined the obligations of outlined in E.O. 12898. On May 13, 2007 the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a circular titled Title VI Guidelines for FTA Administration Recipients (FTA C 4702.1A). The purpose of this circular is to provide recipients of FTA financial assistance with guidance and instruction necessary to carry out Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and comply with the requirements of DOT Order 5610.2 and the DOT Policy Guidance Concerning Recipient's Responsibilities to • Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons (70 FR 74087, December 14, 2005). Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information cooperation. transportation. On May 27, 2005, the Colorado Department of Transportation issued CDOT's Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects— Rev. 3 to assist in interpreting environmental justice mandates. The guidance outlines the process for environmental justice analysis, including data collection, public involvement, impact analysis, and mitigation requirements. The analysis that follows has been prepared in accordance with this and all other applicable guidance for addressing environmental justice. EXISTING CONDITIONS The area evaluated for the presence of minority and low-income populations, minority- owned businesses, and services important to minority and low-income communities consists of the regional study area for the North 1-25 project (Figure 1). East-west boundaries extend from US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line to approximately 3 miles west of US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line. North- south boundaries extend from Wellington to US 6 in Denver. The regional study area spans portions of seven counties and includes more than 35 communities. Minority Populations The identification of minority populations begins with the analysis of 2000 Census data at the block level. Minority populations are comprised of ethnic and/or racial minorities. As defined in FHWA Order 6640.23, a minority is a person who is Black, Hispanic, Asian • American, or American Indian or Alaskan Native. The 2006 FTA circular includes multiracial persons as a separate category of minority persons having origins in more than one of the Federally-designated racial categories. It is important to note that 2000 Census data does not list Hispanic as a racial category. Instead, Hispanic or Latino heritage is considered an ethnicity; a person of Hispanic of Latino origin can identify with any racial group. To avoid double counting, the total White, Non-Hispanic population of a geographic area is subtracted from the total population to generate the total minority population. The percentage of minorities is then compared to county averages. Table 1 shows the percentage of minority persons in each county. These percentages serve as the thresholds by which regional study area census blocks are compared. Any blocks with a higher percentage of minorities than the respective county are evaluated for disproportionately high and adverse effects and are selected for outreach. These blocks are shown in Figure 1. Table 1 County Minority Populations County Population Minority Percent Minority Adams 363,857 133,357 37 Boulder 291,288 47,776 16 Denver 554,636 266,639 48 Jefferson 527,056 79,640 15 Larimer 251,494 31,335 12 Weld 180,936 54,363 30 Source: HUD, Federal Year 2006 Income Limits; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. • Note: Broomfield did not become a county until 2001 and was not included in the 2000 Census. 2 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011• EIS Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information cooperation. transportation. Approximately 27 percent of the census blocks within the regional study area (5,709 out of 20,778) have a higher percentage of minority persons than the respective counties. Of these 5,709 blocks, 1,112 (or 20 percent) contain very small populations. For example, there are 60 blocks with two people, one of which (or 50 percent) is a minority. The census block with the largest total population is associated with the Colorado State University (CSU) Campus in Fort Collins. This block contains 4,124 persons, 584 (or 14 percent) of which are minorities living in university housing. Similarly, the block with the greatest total population in Boulder County has a total population of 1,302 persons, 670 (or 51 percent) of which are minority students living in university housing. In general, minority students are not permanent residents with critical social and community ties. As shown in Figure 1, the remaining minority populations are primarily located in and around urban areas within the regional study area, although some are scattered throughout the regional study area. Low-Income Populations For purposes of privacy, the census block group is the most detailed level of data that displays income information. FHWA Order 6640.23 defines low-income as "...a household income at or below the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines." A different threshold (e.g., US Census Bureau poverty threshold or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant • income thresholds) may be used as long as it is not selectively implemented and is inclusive of all persons at or below the HHS poverty guidelines. • 3 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice • information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 1 Census-Identified Minority Populations LEGEND ^t, Study Corridors "/ Highways .v /\/ Arterial Roads ' \' \� 85 .-f i 287 /I/ I �� Regional Study Areai ale City Boundaries �" Pierce , a Cities & Towns I . Fort Collins ` Census Identified Minority Populations ! - - �- Ault ,�; 14 (Census blocks with a higher 257 1 percentage of minorities than i \ the county). j _ _•....-, Timhatt. a. Eat° i Jc•:crr,rice l Sources U.S.Census Bureau,2000. 287 -�Jimdcor 1 - - - _ Lueern ' '3922' 1 + Greeley 1 't 34 j Garden CI i Loveland =', 34 . r __ -- Eva.; ...#7,ed1;tiNli._ / La aallr C3mpron Ti loS Li III Berth O Mllikpa 85 ti 1 i Giicrc. W t /1 / Ir,M , t . / ._J._ _. R1att_•;di.. 66 . I I' - Longmont • lone, i. Volkhar. i, iFrrco tea I I VNiwof aFredcrick i t• A °Da:Oh 0 Fort Lupt• S "t . Gvaborrcl i \‘ // 1 i 0 Eric • _ earn oat 1 '-1 a 'u+a tte r.b r 1 P ("Boulder i + \1 {•` 0.. r. J3 Brighto ' E<;G / J/ a15er ' , /.. QEa.Wka Men- � /4 ooe held __ : '`�\ - _ .ice . w V '� ' ', 41\j,_::: �'\ :, 'fr., • n . / / 36 287 , 1 �! ; ' / •\, ..�j r c /Ll Denyer-, qv fN ' WAIF/0 2 4 6 8 10 /\ /_t, { ' I Miles North •--- h 4 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011• EIS Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. CDOT's recommended approach in determining low-income populations is to derive the low- income threshold from a combination of census average household size data and the income thresholds set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the distribution and allocations of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. HUD thresholds are developed for counties (or in some cases, Metropolitan Statistical Areas [MSA]) by household size up to an eight-person household. The thresholds are based upon household income as a percentage of median household income. In this case, households earning less than 30 percent of the Median Family Income are considered low-income. These thresholds are then adjusted to reflect the average household size for each county in the regional study area. Table 2 shows the percentage of low-income households in each county. These percentages serve as the thresholds by which regional study area census block groups are compared. Any block groups within the regional study area with an average household income below that of its respective county will be evaluated for disproportionately high and adverse effects and are selected for outreach. These block groups are shown in Figure 2. Table 2 County Low-Income Populations Low-Income Number of Number of Percent County Threshold Households Low-Income Low-Income Households Adams $22,560 128,290 25,626 20 Boulder $27,322 114,793 28,266 25 • Denver $21,453 239,415 71,000 30 Jefferson $21,966 206,256 31,313 15 Larimer $20,990 97,128 22,213 23 Weld $17,887 63,197 12,953 21 Source: HUD, Federal Year 2006 Income Limits; U.S. Census Bureau,2000. Note: Broomfield did not become a county until 2001 and was not included in the 2000 Census. As shown in Figure 2, low-income populations are clustered around US 287 in Lafayette, Longmont, Loveland and Fort Collins; along US 85 in the Greeley Area; along SH 119 in Boulder; and along 1-25 in Fort Collins and the Metro Denver area. It is important to note that in rural areas census block groups are often large and can be miles long. This census geography typifies many of the census block groups in the Greeley area, which extend well outside of the regional study area. These block groups may contain low-income households that do not live in the regional study area. • 5 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum: Environmental JusticeIII information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 2 Low-Income Populations Identified Using Census and HUD Data I,, LEGEND Al Study Corridors /� ; c / Highways ��4'- II Wellington '�.` /./ Arterial Roads ‘ 85 t Regional Study Area ;n ai7 � �•N. Or City Boundaries �" , 0 Cities & Towns I Foit Collins ,_\, / 4 Low-Income Populations Identified Using ! A, ,.�'I \—Ft - -' Census and HUD Data ' Sources U.S. Census Bureau. 2000, HUD, 2006 I , - TimnaM O Eato • I Scvaranee t 2871 s r Luccm 1 1392. I Greeley i 34 _ al4s- 263 Loveland Gar• . ! - a 34)•---e-•1• 1 �, Lo Sun / Campion oF �Johnatov—Thn Be Nilikin v/:l`I, ' ` 'IIIll 1 itTy j el . Mend / '♦s yl Tattevplc I Longmont I .r. lone. . / Vollm Jr 0 Or firestone / Niwot 87 WFreckrick I -----7-- I - i_- 52 .=0 aMcono Fortlupt• I Gunbarrd I Eric 0 ttcnbcrq r /;\V 7 NBoulder i / i.�n cac NWI , a \14, S,,art‘N. Ft. r i r t ur `• I.' cd a Eactlakc ' 1,14 i . oom Id \` 93 I �:_ v. ,Na _- • 36 2879. ►� i orn /' 1 • - , '��`� • - ✓� / • • C -- ■ F YS,V / - ^,�� / r••11 Iè Denver/ gy i a: %pi 0 2 4 6 8 10 .�� j1 %" I r I Miles North , . i 6 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information coopera:ion. transportation. Concentrations of low-income households are also located in single-family homes, apartments, and mobile home parks in Longmont along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line, south of Greeley along SH 85, and in Gilcrest and Brighton along SH 85. Additional Data Sources Census data alone is too broad to accurately represent the social and economic make-up of the households within the regional study area. For this reason, additional efforts were made to identify minority and low-income populations and services in the regional study area. These efforts included contacting local planners, non-profit organizations, health and human services, chambers of commerce, and housing authorities. Contacts that yielded information about minority and low-income populations are listed in Table 3. Locations of minority and low-income populations and services identified by these contacts are shown in Figure 3. Contacts also provided suggestions for public meeting locations and places to post project information. More detailed information on public involvement activities is provided below, under Specialized Outreach. Table 3 Additional Data Sources Source Date Source Date North Central Migrant Education Program 2/26/04 Town of La Salle • Catholic Charities of Greeley y y Salud Family Health Center in Brighton 6103/046/03/04 CareBoulder ,HousingEmergenc, Inc. Famil Assistance 8/11/05 8/11/05 Fort Collins Human Rights Office 6/04/04 Casa Vista 8/11/05 FISH of Broomfield County 6/08/04 Crossroads Safehouse 8/11/05 Brighton Housing Authority 6/11/04 El Comite 8/11/05 Fort Collins Neighbor to Neighbor 6/11/04 Fort Collins Home Program 8/11/05 North College Business Association 6/11/04 House of Neighborly Service 8/11/05 Loveland Housing Authority 6/15/04 OUR Center 8/11/05 Urban Renewal Committee of Greeley 6/16/04 Vineyard Christian Fellowship 8/11/05 Fort Collins Housing Authority 6/17/04 Disabled Resource Center 8/12/06 Human Services of Loveland 6/21/04 Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 8/12/06 City of Fort Collins 5/17/06 Erie Food Pantry 8/12/06 City of Greeley 5/17/06 First Call Service Center 8/12/05 City of Longmont 5/17/06 Foothills Gateway, Inc. 8/12/06 City of Westminster 5/17/06 Fort Collins Food Distribution Center 8/12/06 Town of Eaton 5/17/06 Fort Lupton Food Pantry 8/12/06 Town of Fort Lupton 5/17/06 Fort Lupton Salud Clinic 8/12/06 Town of Garden City 5/17/06 Island Grove Community Center 8/12/06 Town of Gilcrest 5/17/06 La Familia Center 8/12/06 Town of Wellington 5/17/06 Mental Health Connections 8/12/06 Town of Frederick 5/18/06 Northside Aztlan Community Center 8/12/06 Adams County 5/19/06 Planned Parenthood 8/12/06 City of Loveland 5/29/06 Respite Care, Inc. 8/12/06 Town of Ault 5/29/06 Rocky Mount SER, Brighton 8/12/06 • Town of Brighton 5/29/06 The Mission Fort Collins 8/12/06 Town of Johnstown 5/29/06 Weld County Senior Nutrition 8/12/06 7 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Eligibility for the Free/Reduced Lunch Program was obtained from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Regional study area schools where 50 percent or more of students are eligible for the Free/Reduced Lunch Program were evaluated. Within the regional study area there are a total of 88 schools where 50 percent or more of students are eligible for the Free/Reduced Lunch Program. The majority of these schools are located in Adams County (32 schools), Denver County (17 schools), and Weld County (16 schools). Specialized outreach efforts (described under Specialized Outreach below) identified the potential for a Hmong population, an Asian ethnic group from southern China and southeast Asia, in the northern communities of the regional study area. Analysis of 2000 Census data and community resources revealed that Hmong populations and persons that speak primarily Asian/Pacific Island languages are predominantly located in the Metro Denver Area with small populations in Longmont and Fort Collins. In none of the regional study area census tracts does more than 3 percent of the population speak primarily an Asian/Pacific Island language. Consultation with community leaders in the North Front Range revealed that the Hmong population consists of five clans with patriarchs. Hmong community leaders indicated that they would be more responsive to project mailings than community or small group meetings. Based on this information, project flyers were translated into Hmong and distributed to key community locations as described under Specialized Outreach. • • 8 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. Figure 3 Minority and Low-Income Populations and Services Identified through Additional Data Sources li ,i LEGEND ^, Study Corridors /\,/ Highways -/' WNlnpton \ •�_ • /\/ Arterial Roads i __i N. `•�87 • ,orl Regional Study Area �� S N. City Boundaries / pi"" • \ v Cities & Towns I Fort Cdllins '‘ j / 4 Planner Identified Minority Populations ntrl \-7 i de Planner Identified Low-Income Populations j 2571 : k * Community Facilities Serving Minority or i Timnath aSeverance Enci Low-Income Populaions I j 287 R LVC¢fn t 139 I 6 Sources U S.Census Bureau, 2000. HUD. 2006: Colorado Office of 1 Economic Development and International Trade- Minority Business S Office. 2005. Communications with Local Planners ! - Greeley' s. I '\ Garden C -\ I Loveland -- • 34 IEvan:• / i _ La Sall Campion in5t0 /' 0 60 Li Berthou 0 Nilik to 85 % • 6 ' r / I �l<roGt I — / I / Me0 /• /' -=__-j_, . - - Rhttcvalt i I I I Longmont I L ' lone le / I_ , knarp I / , �Firc�tope4ol I _ ./ Niwot arcdorick I r 1 I 7e,Z----"r • � �Dacon° Fort laptop1 -1 `521 1 � - ----- • �Gunbarrcl la Erie f Olfaioom j 76 O 1 •- Wattenberg I a s.Boulder I t . Wayne* ``wail _ ' T .. _. . L 1.2u - ilk iii" Brigh. I 7 s1/4 fr-4 ` `• o fl Id QEaeelake Htn• 4! S :/ \ `/, 9.3 % • North cnn_ -, ��•/ \` 0T'h 36 287 i omton ' / / \ // 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 S 1 / 0 I I Miles North --- I \\ '4.--"•---\ i N 9 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Minority-Owned Businesses Minority-owned businesses were initially identified through the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office. In all, 56 minority businesses were identified through this resource. To ensure adequate identification of minority-owned businesses and gather more specific employment information, a business survey was distributed to businesses along the following key roadway/rail corridors in the regional study area: ► 1-25 ► BNSF ► US 34 from US 85 to 1-25 ► Harmony Road (US 68)from US 287 to 1-25 ► US 85 from Greeley to Denver ► SH 119 from Longmont to 1-25 ► E-470 to DIA Mailing addresses were obtained from parcel data and were extracted for first, second, and • third tier businesses from the roadway. Using this method, surveys were delivered to 1,297 businesses. In addition to parcel based mailings, surveys were hand delivered and mailed to targeted locations within the regional study area. Targeted locations were identified using a combination of census data, field observation, and input received from small group meetings. An additional 100 surveys were distributed in the following targeted locations: ► Longmont: east and west sides of Main Street between 3rd (SH 119) and 6th Avenues. This area was selected because (1) it may employ/serve the Collyer Street neighborhood, which has been identified as both a minority and low-income area, (2) the area surrounding these businesses contains higher than average populations of minorities, (3) businesses are located along the Feeder Bus Service line being evaluated in the DEIS, (4) participants of the small group meeting in Longmont identified this area as one with a concentration of businesses that serve minorities. ► Fort Collins: east and west sides of US 287 between Vine Drive and Conifer Street. This area was selected because (1) it may employ/serve the Andersonville, La Colonia, and Buckingham communities, (2) the area surrounding these businesses contains higher than average populations of minorities, (3) businesses are just north of a commuter rail station site that is being evaluated in the DEIS, (4) participants of the first small group meeting in Fort Collins identified this area as one with a concentration of businesses that serve minorities. Additional locations were selected based on census data and field observation (e.g., business names were in Spanish). These include: • ► West side of SH 85 frontage road between 37th and 39th Avenues in Evans. ► West side of SH 85 frontage road between 42nd Avenue and the Platte River in Evans. 10 Final EIS NORTH I-25 • August 2011EIS Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. ► East side of SH 85 between 4th Avenue and 1st Street in La Salle. ► West side of SH 85 between 4th and 6th Streets in Gilcrest. The project team also identified major employers in the vicinity of the regional study area. Project information and business surveys were delivered to the locations listed in Table 4. Table 4 Business Survey Distribution to Major Employers Employer Location Agland, Inc. Greeley, CO Aims Community College Greeley, CO Burris Company, Inc. Greeley, CO Hensel-Phelps Construction Greeley, CO North Colorado Medical Center Greeley, CO Roche Constructors Greeley, CO RR Donnelley& Sons Greeley, CO Weld County School District 6 Greeley, CO Bella Romero School District 6 Greeley, CO State Farm Insurance Greeley, CO Super Walmart Greeley, CO • Swift&Co. Greeley, CO Stinton Dairy Greeley, CO Meadow Gold Dairy Greeley, CO Eastman Kodak Windsor, CO Metal Container Corporation Windsor, CO Hall-Irwin Construction Eaton, CO Business surveys were distributed in both English and Spanish between December and March of 2006. Of the more than 1,400 businesses surveyed, 175 (13 percent)were returned. The analysis that can be derived from a survey is only as good as the response. Some responses were incomplete or left unanswered. Results of the survey are summarized below. Only those responses that were answered properly are included. The complete survey is contained in Appendix A. Of the businesses surveyed, 17 percent are minority-owned. Approximately 113 businesses reported having full-time minority employees. For 35 of these businesses, more than 50 percent of their full-time staff was comprised of minorities. Approximately 87 businesses reported having part-time minority employees. For 68 of these businesses, more than 50 percent of their part-time staff is comprised of minorities. Minority-owned businesses in the regional study area provide a variety of services that range from food and clothing to automotive and insurance services. Seventeen percent of the minority-owned businesses surveyed have been in their current location for 15 years or • more. 11 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Approximately 25 percent of businesses surveyed (minority- and non-minority owned) reported transportation concerns. Many cited long commutes and heavy congestion along 1-25 and other roadways; others indicated a need for transit along roadways. Of minority- owned businesses, seventeen percent reported transportation concerns, including long commutes, high fuel prices, and the need for public transportation. When asked what mode of transportation most employees use to get to and from work, 74 percent of businesses surveyed reported that all of their employees use a vehicle. Only six businesses surveyed reported less than 50 percent of employees using a vehicle to travel to work. None of these businesses were minority-owned. SPECIALIZED OUTREACH As recommended in Appendix B of CDOT's Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects—Rev. 3, specialized outreach to minority and low-income populations was conducted as part of the North 1-25 DEIS public involvement process to gather comments and concerns regarding the project. Political Context of Specialized Outreach Efforts Some of the public involvement and specialized outreach activities associated with the North 1-25 project occurred during a local and national immigration debate, as well as during an electoral campaign where immigration was one of the key issues. Many members of the • Hispanic/Latino community may have considered public meetings as a low priority event or may have been hesitant to attend public meetings for fear of persecution. Declining participation in planning processes has already been noticed in Colorado. For example, at recent planning meetings and public events for unrelated projects in Silverthorne and in Aspen, there were no Hispanic/Latino participation, even though there are known Hispanic/Latino populations in these towns. The project team made every effort to inform and involve the Hispanic/Latino community throughout the project: community leaders were identified to build trust and guide public involvement efforts, small group meetings were held in local communities after regularly scheduled events, informational booths were set up during cultural events and activities, local print and electronic media was used to announce meetings and provide information about the project, flyers were posted in key community locations, and project information was hand delivered to major businesses. It is important to consider that participation by the Hispanic/Latino community may have been hindered by the political climate in spite of these efforts. In general participation in small group meetings was low (several meetings had less than ten attendees). In addition, the multiple attempts that were made to distribute information and organize small group meetings in Greeley were met with resistance by the local community. Because of this, fewer small group meetings were held in minority communities than had originally been anticipated. Specialized Outreach Activities While it was expected that minority and low-income populations would receive project • information through the general public involvement program, additional efforts were made to ensure an increased level of awareness and participation in the project. These efforts 12 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice information. cooperation transportation. included working with community leaders and liaisons, targeted distribution of project information, Spanish translation, the use of Spanish language media, attendance at cultural and community events, and holding small group meetings. The project team identified local community liaisons to assist with specialized outreach activities. As leaders in their local communities, liaisons were asked to provide project information to their local communities and communicate any concerns or issues to the project team. Community liaisons also provided guidance on effective outreach strategies. Specialized outreach included Spanish language newspapers, newsletters and mailings which announced upcoming meetings and described the project process. In addition, information in Spanish was posted to the project website throughout the project. A Spanish language translator was available at the project public meetings to answer questions. Project fact sheets and flyers about the project and upcoming public involvement activities were delivered in both English and Spanish to many locations throughout the project where minority and low-income populations might have access to them, including: - Adams County Housing Authority - Greeley Assembly of God (Commerce City, CO) (Greeley, CO) - Ault Public Library - Greeley Planning and Zoning (Ault, CO) (Greeley, CO) - Brighton Housing Authority - Hudson Public Library • (Brighton, CO) (Hudson, CO) - Broomfield Planning Department Lincoln Park Library (Broomfield, CO) (Greeley, CO) - CARE Housing - Longmont Public Library (Fort Collins, CO) (Longmont, CO) - Clinica Campesina - Loveland Housing Authority (Lafayette, CO) (Loveland, CO) - Commerce City Community Planning - Neighbor to Neighbor (Commerce City, CO) (Fort Collins, CO) - Cross Community Coalition ( - OUR Center Denver, CO) (Longmont, CO) - Dacono Public Library - Rodarte Center (Dacono, CO) (Greeley, CO) - Denver Community Development - Salud Family Health Center (Denver, CO (Longmont, CO) - Denver Development Services - Sunrise Community Health Center (Denver,CO) (Greeley, CO) - Eaton Public Library - Urban League of Metro Denver (Eaton, CO) (Denver, CO) - Firestone City Hall - Weld Chamber of Commerce (Firestone,CO) (Greeley, CO) - Fort Collins Aztlan Center - Weld County Housing Authority (Fort Collins, CO) (Greeley, CO) - Fort Collins Communications - Weld County Planning and Zoning (Fort Collins,CO) (Greeley, CO) - Fort Collins Senior Center - Weld County Social Services (Fort Collins, CO) (Greeley, CO) - Fort Lupton Public Library - Windsor Severance Public Library (Fort Lupton, CO) (Windsor,CO) • - Fort Lupton School Library Windsor Town Hall (Fort Lupton, CO) (Windsor, CO) - Glenn A.Jones Memorial Library - Women, Infant, Children (Johnstown,CO) (Fort Collins, Longmont, Greeley,CO) 13 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. The project team also identified and attended local cultural and community events to distribute information about the project, answer questions, and gather comments. Fifteen events were attended between 2004 and 2006. These are listed in Table 5. Table 5 Community Events Date Name of Event Location 6/05/04 Berthoud Day Berthoud, CO 8/24/04 and 9/17/05 Frederick Miners Day Frederick, CO 8/07/04 and 8/13/05 Loveland Art in the Park Loveland, CO 9/11/04 and 9/10/05 Celebrate Lafayette Lafayette, CO 9/18/04 Greeley Fiesta Greeley, CO 8/14/05 and 8/13/05 Milliken Beef-n-Bean Day Milliken, CO 12/01/04 Hispanos Unidos de Greeley Expo. Greeley, CO 08/05/05 Greeley Farmers Market Greeley, CO 9/16/06 Mexican Independence Day Longmont, CO 9/30/06 Bridging the Immigration Divide Longmont, CO 9/30/06 Community Development Resource Fair Adams County, CO The project team contacted approximately 42 Hispanic/Latino community and church leaders throughout the project. Hispanic/Latino community leaders were offered information • about the project and the opportunity for small group meetings. Small group meetings have been held in the locations listed in Table 6. Table 6 Small Group Meetings Date Name of Group Location 11/04/04 Loveland Housing Authority Loveland, CO 8/06/05 Greeley Farmers' Market Greeley, CO 8/13/05 Greeley Farmers' Market Greeley, CO 7/28/05 Windsor Farmers' Market Windsor, CO 1/23/06 Aztlan Fort Collins Town Hall Meeting Fort Collins, CO 3/14/06 Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision Larimer County, CO 9/21/06 El Comite de Longmont Longmont, CO 9/21/06 A New Image, LLC Brighton, CO 10/25/06 Templo Betel Fort Collins, CO 11/11/06 Agua Viva Baptist Church Loveland, CO 11/19/06 Holy Family Catholic Church Fort Collins, CO 10/26/10 Longmont Public Library Longmont, CO To more specifically focus on impacts to low-income and minority populations, a public meeting was held in Longmont in October 2010 to discuss Preferred Alternative impacts specific to Longmont. Specialized outreach was used to encourage attendance of these • populations at the meetings. This outreach included providing project and contact information in Spanish, personally visiting and delivering meeting notices to locations targeting these populations, and providing a translator at the meeting. 14 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. Input Received through Specialized Outreach Input received through specialized outreach centered on community needs and concerns regarding the proposed improvements. Participants indicated repeatedly that transit service between Longmont, Loveland, Denver, Boulder, and southwest Weld County was needed. Congestion on 1-25 limits access to businesses and participation in cultural events in Metro Denver. Most residents from Greeley, Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont would be willing to drive to access transit service to Denver. Participants expressed general concern about the cost of the alternatives and how alternatives would be funded. Participants disagreed about the impacts of tolling. Some felt that public transportation should be open to all and that tolling would exclude citizens. Others preferred tolling because it provided revenue for construction and would ease congestion. Participants indicated a need for transit options to reach important community facilities (local schools and churches), regional employment centers (DIA and the Denver Technical Center), and commuter cities (Cheyenne, Fort Collins, Greeley, Longmont, Loveland, and Denver). It was also pointed out that much of the minority community does not work typical business hours and may hold multiple jobs. For transit to be effective, it would need to be flexible, affordable, accommodate persons with disabilities and bicycles, and operate on weekends and evenings. • In a meeting held in Brighton, attendees indicated that there were negative feelings toward transit because it is unreliable, provides limited service, and requires lengthy wait times. In addition, transit was not deemed feasible for those with construction jobs who are required to be in several locations throughout the day. While some suggested that bus service should be provided along US 85, most felt that more lanes are needed on US 85, SH 7, and 1-25. Other than Brighton, participants generally felt that transit alternatives would enhance employment opportunities and increase access to shopping, cultural events, and services for minority and low-income populations throughout the Front Range. Many participants also preferred transit to highway widening because they considered it a cheaper, safer, and a less stressful option. Most participants said that existing transit does not adequately serve minority and low- income communities. Some underserved locations identified by meeting participants include the OUR Medical Center (Longmont), new development east of SH 119 in Longmont, Casa Vista residential subdivision (Longmont), St. John's Church (Longmont), Casa Esperanza (Longmont), Bill Reed middle school (Loveland), Centerra (Loveland), and the Holy Catholic Church (Fort Collins). Participants preferred options that included transit to these destinations. Participants also identified key community facilities, minority and low-income neighborhoods, and minority-owned businesses throughout the regional study area. These include the Pullman Center(12th and Garfield in Loveland); Wal-Mart (Loveland); Loveland Lake Park; Wynona Elementary School (Loveland); the Hispanic neighborhoods of Cherry • Street, Buckingham, La Colonia, Andersonville, Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park, and 15 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Cloverleaf Mobile Home Park (Fort Collins); Hispanic businesses along US 287 north of Cherry Street in Fort Collins; and Hispanic businesses along US 34 east of US 287 in Longmont. Participants also preferred options that included transit to these destinations. Participants were concerned about immigration policy. Hispanic or Latino populations may not use public transit if they have to show identification or are distrustful of authority. In terms of the highway options, some indicated that they avoid using 1-25 because they feel that Hispanic/Latino drivers are pulled over more frequently by the State Highway Patrol. Input received through specialized outreach helped the project team understand the community resources that are important to minority and low-income communities. Meeting participants identified key community facilities, neighborhoods, businesses, underserved areas, and important relationships between communities (social, familial, employment). These resources would be given special consideration throughout impact analysis. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The following section provides a summary of potential impacts to minority and low-income populations from the alternatives being evaluated in the Final EIS. The environmental justice analysis evaluates each alternative to determine whether there is a potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority or low-income populations when compared to populations that are not minority or not low-income in the study area. • According to CDOT's Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects, Rev. 3, a disproportionately high and adverse effect is defined as one that is: (1) Predominantly borne by a minority and/or low-income population, or (2) Suffered by the minority and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non- minority/non-low-income population. A disproportionately high and adverse effect means the totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to: ► Bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death. ► Air, noise or water pollution, or soil contamination. ► Destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources. ► Destruction or diminution of aesthetic values. ► Destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality. ► Destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services. ► Vibration. ► Adverse employment effects. • ► Displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations. 16 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011• EIS Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation, ► Increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community. ► The denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of FHWA programs, policies, or activities. Supporting technical documentation and other analyses prepared in conjunction with the Final EIS were reviewed to determine whether the build packages and each of their components would have any adverse impacts on all segments of the population, including minority and low-income population groups. If no adverse impacts were expected for a resource, then no further environmental justice analysis has been undertaken with regard to that particular resource. If, however, adverse effects were identified for a resource, additional environmental justice analysis was done and is described below. Note that impacts to natural resources (i.e., flora and fauna, geology and soils, wetlands) have been assumed not to have any direct impacts or indirect effects on human populations. Refer to Chapter 2 Alternatives of the Final EIS for detailed descriptions of the alternatives under evaluation. No-Action Alternative Given the relatively limited scope of the No-Action Alternative, impacts would be less substantial than the impacts described below for Package A, Package B or the Preferred • Alternative. However, certain adverse effects on minority and low-income residents in the study area would arise as a result of transportation needs unmet by the No-Action Alternative. These would include the direct and indirect effects on communities from traffic congestion and impaired mobility, including an increase in air emissions and noise, longer travel times, traffic queues at key interchanges, neighborhood traffic intrusion, deteriorating safety conditions, and lengthened emergency response times. These impacts would be experienced by all segments of the population. Safety improvements at SH 1 and SH 392 would benefit the minority and low-income populations in these areas. While these improvements would provide some relief, traffic congestion would continue to result in traffic queues and delays for travelers. Unlike Package A and the Preferred Alternative, and to an extent Package B, the No-Action Alternative would not provide local communities with the accessibility benefits associated with transit services. Low-income populations are often dependent on transit service and would particularly benefit from the provision of new transit services along US 287 and US 85. The noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 101 residential receivers between SH 14 and SH 60. Sixty-nine of these receivers are residences concentrated within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, a community with minority populations in the southwest quadrant of the SH 392/1-25 interchange. Noise impacts would occur at all 69 residences and would range in intensity from 66 dBA to 77.5 dBA; however no residence would experience more than 3.3 dBA over existing conditions. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. These receivers would also be • impacted under Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative. The 32 impacted residences not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision represent a combination of minority and non-minority residences. Many of these are scattered along North 1-25 and are 17 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation transportation. not part of a neighborhood or community. Because of the noise impacts to the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, there are more low income and minority communities that would be impacted by noise than non minority and low income. However, the increase in noise level is very small and would not be noticeable to most people. There are no plans in the No-Action Alternative to do any noise mitigation for these impacts. Package A Component A-HI: Safety Improvements. For this component, safety improvements have the potential to impact minority and/or low-income populations at two locations: near the SH 1/1-25 interchange in Wellington and north of the SH 14/1-25 interchange in Fort Collins. There are minority and non-minority populations west of the SH 1/1-25 interchange, low- income east of 1-25 (from County Road 56 south to SH 14), and low-income and minority populations north of SH 14 on both sides of 1-25. Minority populations would benefit from interchange improvements and signalization at SH 1. The carpool lot in the southwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange would be located across 6th Street from a single-family neighborhood of approximately 39 homes, which is approximately 37 percent minority. This location would be a benefit to these homes. Although conveniently located, there would be some traffic, noise, and activity associated with the lot that could disturb adjacent residents. The four residential displacements associated with this component are located between • SH 1 and SH 14, along the east side of 1-25. They are widely distributed on rural parcels that are not part of an established had neighborhood. Three of the homes are located in low-income areas. Table 7 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-H1: Safety Improvements. Table 7 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component A-HI.: Safety Improvements Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements; One residential property displacement; minimal minimal traffic impacts from carpool lot. traffic impacts from carpool lot. 12 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number 49 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of impacts reduced to 6 after recommended of impacts reduced to 35 after recommended noise abatement. noise abatement. Components A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes. These components have the potential to impact minority and/or low-income populations in four locations: ► SH 14/1-25 Interchange. In the northeast quadrant of the interchange, the Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home Park and adjacent single-family neighborhood are identified as having a concentration of minorities and low-income households. A small single- family neighborhood that does not contain minority or low-income populations is located in the southeast quadrant of the interchange. • 18 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011• EIS Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice information cooperation. transportation. ► SH 392/1-25 Interchange. In the southwest quadrant of the interchange, the Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision is identified as having a concentration of minorities. A newer single-family residential subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant and does not contain a concentration of minorities. ► LCR 16/1-25 Interchange. The Johnson's Corner RV Park and a few single-family residences are identified as having a concentration of minorities. The Johnson's Corner RV Park allows short and long-term stays. There are no non-minority populations in the vicinity of the interchange. ► SH 119/1-25 Interchange. The River Valley Village Mobile Home Park and a small single-family residential neighborhood abut a strip of commercial properties in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. These residences are located in a census block with a concentration of minorities. There are no non-minority populations in the vicinity of the interchange. These four locations are the only areas with concentrated populations. Between these locations, scattered residences are contained within large rural census blocks that extend outward from 1-25 (up to a mile). Nineteen residential displacements would occur between SH 14 and E-470 (14 between SH 14 and SH 60 (A-H2), and five between SH 60 and E-470 (A-H3)). Of these, three are located in census blocks with minority populations and 16 are located in census blocks and • block groups that do not contain minority or low-income populations. In general, displaced properties are dispersed along 1-25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established neighborhood. The social analysis identifies the potential for impacts to residents within the Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home Park in the northeast quadrant of the SH 14/1-25 interchange. Census data indicate that this community contains minority and low-income populations. Impacts would include a new access configuration for residents of the Cloverleaf Community. Existing access is provided from an unsignalized intersection along SH 14. New access would be from a re-aligned frontage road that would be signalized to provide safer and more direct access for the Cloverleaf Community. A carpool lot with 150 spaces would also be constructed across the street from the community. Some residents may consider the proximity of this lot a convenience. Others might find the added pavement and increase in local traffic and activity disruptive. However, the area surrounding the interchange is highly urbanized and dominated by transportation facilities. The carpool lot would not considerably alter this setting. The Mountain Range Shadows subdivision in the southwest quadrant of the SH 392/1-25 interchange consists of three census blocks that contain minority populations. To accommodate highway improvements, the frontage road would shift approximately 15 feet closer to the community and 1-25 would be relocated approximately 30 feet farther from the community. For all alternatives, noise impacts would occur at 69 residences within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision; however no residence would experience an increase of more than 3.3 dBA over existing conditions. In March 2006, the project team • met with residents of the Mountain Range Shadows community to gather input on the SH 392 interchange design and frontage road configuration. To minimize impacts to the 19 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information cooperation transportation. community, the project team suggested relocating the frontage road behind the community. Residents were concerned with this approach and indicated a strong preference for the proposed configuration. As a result, the highway would be moved approximately 30 feet east of the interstate, resulting in two property displacements from a neighborhood that does not contain minority populations. At the Johnson's Corner truck stop and café, existing access would be replaced so that customers would have to travel east on LCR 16 to the frontage road, circle around the property, and enter at the south end. A consequence of this configuration would be the displacement of a single minority residence that would otherwise be isolated by the new access road. Near the Johnson's Corner RV Park, 1-25 would be widened to the east. As a result, access to the park would not change and no displacements would occur. Improvements near the SH 119/1-25 interchange would include a realignment of the northbound off-ramp. Residents of the River Valley Village Mobile Home RV Park would experience short-term, construction-related impacts including, noise, dust, detours, and traffic delays. No long-term impacts would occur. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of twelve businesses between SH 14 and E-470 (eleven between SH 14 and SH 60 (A-H2) and one between SH 60 and E-470 (A-H3)). Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include • equipment storage, car sales and service, warehouse, food sales, gas/convenience, and home and RV sales. These businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that these businesses have any particular connection to a minority community or provide employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority population group. The noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 757 receivers between SH 14 and US 36 (A-H2 and A-H3). Sixty-nine of these receivers are concentrated within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, as discussed previously. Proposed mitigation would reduce the number of impacted receivers within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision to 39, an improvement over the No-Action condition. The remaining impacted receivers not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, are located in both minority or low-income populations as well as non-minority and non-low-income populations. These receivers are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. The visual analysis (Section 3.14 Visual Quality) determined that new retaining walls 15 feet and greater in height and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions. A total of 31 retaining walls (18 for Component A-H2 and 13 for Component A-H3) would be distributed along 1-25, affecting minority and low-income populations as well as non-minority/non-low-income populations. New bridges proposed at US 34 would impact visual conditions for all segments of the population. Noise barriers constructed to mitigate noise impacts at Mountain Range Shadows would also change the visual environment for • homes adjacent to the highway, affecting views to the east. However, some may find the visual barrier to the highway an improvement over the existing condition. 20 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011• EIS Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. According to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis (Section 4.9 Construction Impacts), impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be temporary in duration, would not be concentrated in areas with minority or low-income population groups, and would be offset by the overall benefits from added shoulders and sidewalks. Table 8 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes. Table 8 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-H2 and A-H3: General Purpose Lanes Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements; access 16 residential property displacements. revision. No known displacement of businesses owned by 12 business displacements. minorities or of special importance to minority populations. 82 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number 52 residences impacted by traffic noise. No noise of impacts reduced to 52 after recommended abatement recommended for these impacts. noise abatement. Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls would impact residential areas; retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions. result in a high effect on visual conditions. • Component A-H4: Structure Upgrades. Structure upgrades are limited to minor bridge rehabilitation and maintenance activities. No roadway widening, bridge widening, or interchange upgrades would occur. Impacts to minority and low-income populations south of E-470 would be the same as those discussed for the No-Action Alternative in Section 3.2 Social Conditions. Components A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail. Minority and low-income populations are distributed along the BNSF alignment with concentrations in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. One hundred and sixty populated census blocks and 50 block groups are adjacent to the BNSF rail line. Of these, 50 census blocks have higher than average populations of minorities and 21 census block groups have higher than average numbers of low-income households. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 35 residences (18 for Component A-T1 and 17 for Component A-T2). For Component A-T1, 16 of the 18 residential displacements (88 percent) would occur in census blocks or block groups containing minority or low-income populations. All of these would occur in Longmont, in minority and low-income neighborhoods adjacent to the BNSF corridor. The additional commuter rail tracks plus the displacements would exacerbate the existing barrier effect of the existing BNSF corridor, so would not result in a new impact to an established community. No residential displacements associated with Component A-T2 are located in a census block or block group with minority or low-income populations. • Commuter rail would improve access to the following community facilities that were identified through specialized outreach efforts as being important to minority and low- income populations: 21 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. ► Bill Reed Middle School. This school has a high concentration of Hispanic/Latino students. Existing transit to the school is limited. The school is within 0.25 mile of the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail would benefit school-aged children. Although the school is currently located in an urbanized area, an increase in noise and vibration would be expected. The commuter rail option would benefit these students by providing service to the school and alleviating a long bus ride for many students. ► Impacto De Fe. This largely Hispanic church in Loveland, with a historic presence, is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► Salud Family Health Center. This health center is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail would benefit persons along the Front Range who are uninsured or underinsured and in need of medical care. ► St. John's Church. This church is located approximately one mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► OUR (Outreach United Resource) Center. This medical center is located approximately one mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail • would benefit families in need of medical care. ► St. Joseph's Church. This church is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► The Pullman Center. This community center is located less than one mile from the Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community events and activities. Because commuter rail would operate in an existing rail corridor, minority and low-income neighborhoods in Berthoud, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland would not be newly divided nor would existing access or travel patterns change. Local residents frequently experience delays when traveling across the BNSF rail line. These delays would become more frequent and would be experienced by all segments of the population. Several neighborhoods in Fort Collins would benefit from close proximity to transit stations. These include Martinez Park (minority and low-income), Historic Fort Collins High School (minority), and Troutman Park (minority). Residents of these neighborhoods would be able to reach the transit station by foot or bicycle. Transit stations in north and south Longmont would improve mobility for minority and low-income neighborhoods, connecting residents to cultural events and employment in Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder, and Denver. Property values would likely increase near station sites. Over time, this could make housing less affordable for existing residents. Minority and low-income residents on Atwood Street would lose street parking between • 3rd Avenue and 8th Avenue. Although some access revisions would occur as a result, all homes would retain access to their properties from their driveways and/or alleys. For example, some residents in this area appear to use street parking instead of the alley (i.e., 22 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011• EIS Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information cooperation, transportation. alley is fenced off) or driveway (i.e., driveway is used for storage). These residents would have to begin using their driveway or access their property from the alley when street parking is no longer available. Loss of street parking in this area would not affect OUR Center because this facility currently has alley access and on-site parking. The proposed maintenance facility at East Vine Drive and North Timberline Road would be adjacent to the northern portion of the Collins Aire Park (a mobile home park that is both minority and low-income). This community would likely experience an increase in activity and visual impacts as a result of the new facility. However, such land uses are consistent with the area, as industrial, rail, and airport uses are in close proximity Feeder bus service would connect minority and low-income populations in Fort Collins and Loveland to populations and services in Greeley, increasing the level of interaction between these communities. Similar benefits would result from feeder bus service between Berthoud, Johnstown, and Milliken. Feeder bus service along US 34 would improve mobility for Hispanic/Latino residents in apartment complexes adjacent to the highway as well as provide access to key community facilities, such as Wal-Mart and a regional bus line that provides service to Mexico. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 16 businesses for right-of-way acquisition. Fifteen of these would occur between Fort Collins and Longmont (Component A-T1). The remaining relocation would occur between Longmont and • FasTracks North Metro (Component A-T2). Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include food sales, rail related, lumber, investment services, automotive, warehouse/storage, equipment/machinery, and manufacturing. None of these businesses were identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. However, due to their proximity to minority populations along the BNSF rail line, these businesses most likely provide employment for minority persons. The requirement of passenger trails to blow their horns at at-grade crossings would increase noise in all neighborhoods adjacent to the commuter rail alignment. The noise analysis identified a total of 2,192 residential noise impacts along the commuter rail corridor. Of these impacts 1,495 would be moderate impacts and 697 would be severe impacts. Approximately half of the impacts would be in Longmont. Most of the noise impacts would occur in census-identified minority or low-income areas. However, it is estimated that with the implementation of Quiet Zones (and noise walls located outside of Longmont), potential impacts to all residences along the BNSF corridor would be eliminated (see Section 3.6 Noise and Vibration). The vibration analysis identified impacts at a total of 40 residences within 111 feet of the nearest track. Of these residences, 26 are in Longmont and 14 are in Loveland. To mitigate for vibration impacts, special trackwork at certain locations and the installation of Tire Derived Aggregate (shredded tires) beneath the tracks would eliminate all potential vibration impacts. An increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized • increases in air emissions. Minority and/or low-income populations at five of the nine proposed station sites (Downtown Fort Collins Transit Center, Downtown Loveland, Berthoud, North Longmont, and Sugar Mill) would be affected. According to the air quality 23 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation transportation. analysis prepared for this project (Section 3.5 Air Quality), emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proximity of the station sites would be beneficial for the nearby populations, especially those within walking distance. The visual analysis (Section 3.14 Visual Quality) concluded that the introduction of retaining walls, noise barriers, and new bridges would have a high visual effect to residents adjacent to the rail corridor. Overall, retaining walls would impact 14 residential areas with concentrations of minority or low-income populations and 7 residential areas with non- minority/non-low-income populations. Retaining walls would be constructed on the east side of the rail (where new track would be laid) between Mountain View Avenue and 21st Street in minority and low-income portions of the Clark Centennial and Lanyon neighborhoods. Twelve residences immediately adjacent to the proposed track also would be displaced from these neighborhoods. Retaining walls and noise barriers would shield residences from the existing rail line, lessening the visual impacts of the railroad. As described in Section 3.6.4.4 Rail Noise and Vibration Mitigation Evaluation, noise barriers will be considered if quiet zones and/or wayside horns are not feasible and reasonable. Fourteen of the 16 potential locations for noise barriers are adjacent to minority and/or low-income populations. While these would reduce noise levels for the surrounding communities, they would alter the visual landscape primarily affecting minority and low- income residences adjacent to the BNSF rail line in Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. However, these same residences would benefit the most from the noise barriers. • The North Loveland, Downtown Loveland, Berthoud, and North Longmont stations would have a high visual effect on the surrounding community because they would require relocation of a business or residence and the station would impede views from the east to the mountains. Minority and/or low-income populations would be affected by three of these stations - Downtown Loveland, Berthoud, and North Longmont. Adverse effects would occur to two historic properties between Longmont and FasTracks North Metro (A-T4). Both of these properties would be acquired for right-of-way purposes. Adversely affected properties include the Old City Electric Building (5BL.1245) and Colorado & Southern/BNSF Depot (5BL.1244). Both of these buildings are in Longmont adjacent to the BNSF rail line within areas identified as having minority and/or low-income populations. The Old City Electric Building is designated by the City of Longmont as a local landmark. Loss of these buildings could negatively affect community character and cohesion for both low-income and minority populations as well as non-low-income and non- minority populations. According to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis (Section 4.9 Floodplains), impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be temporary in duration, would not be concentrated in areas with minority or low-income population groups, and would be offset by the overall benefits from added shoulders and sidewalks. The additional commuter rail track, operational traffic impacts, right-of-way fencing, noise, vibration, and visual impacts would negatively affect minority and low-income • neighborhoods and community cohesion in Longmont. These impacts could reduce property values in minority and low-income areas, except for the areas within walking distance of the two stations, where property values would likely be increased. In addition, 24 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. two stations would serve the community of Longmont: SH 66 in the north and SH 119 in the south. Residents along the commuter rail alignment in Longmont would have to drive or take a local bus north or south to access the rail and would be unable to stop to access services between SH 66 and SH 119. Comments received at a meeting with El Comite de Longmont (a Latino community organization in Longmont) in September 2006 indicated that these residents feel that there would be no additional community division resulting from the commuter rail. According to El Comite, minority and low-income communities in Longmont rely heavily on local bus service. Underserved areas that are important to the minority community include the OUR Center (medical clinic) and Casa Vista (a minority neighborhood between SH 119 and County Line Road on Quicksilver). A station at the Sugar Mill location would support these areas and connect the Casa Vista neighborhood to the northern part of Longmont as well as Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder and Denver. Table 9 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-T1 and A-T2: Commuter Rail. Table 9 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-Ti and A-T2: Commuter Rail Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations 16 residential property displacements (all in 19 residential property displacements (none in • Longmont); improved access to Front Range Longmont); improved access to Front Range communities, community facilities, and services; communities, community facilities, and potential degradation of community cohesion in services; travel time delays and out-of- Longmont; travel time delays at at-grade crossings. direction travel at at-grade crossings. No known displacement of businesses owned by 16 business displacements. minorities; displaced businesses most likely provide services and employment for minority persons. Approximately 2024 receivers impacted by rail noise Approximately 231 receivers impacted by rail levels. However, with the implementation of noise levels. With the implementation of mitigation measures, there would be no noise mitigation measures, there would be no noise impacts. impacts. Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at five proposed station sites; emissions populations at four proposed station sites; would not exceed NAAQS. emissions would not exceed NAAQS. Retaining walls would impact 14 residential areas; Retaining walls would impact 7 residential sound walls would result in a high effect on visual areas; sound walls would result in a high effect conditions at 14 locations; commuter rail stations on visual conditions at two locations; would have a high effect on visual conditions at three commuter rail stations would have a high locations, effect on visual conditions at one location. Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus. The provision of commuter bus service would benefit minority and low-income communities along US 85. Bus stations in Greeley, South Greeley, Evans, Platteville, and Fort Lupton are all located in minority and/or low- income areas and would expand employment opportunities and services to these populations. Commuter bus service would improve regional connections between US 85 communities. Service to DIA would improve access to the airport over the No-Action • Alternative. Limiting the number of stops would benefit residents that travel between communities on a regular basis. 25 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Construction of queue jumps, bus stations, and maintenance facilities would require the relocation of five businesses. Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include a convenience store, welding, and professional services. Impacted businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. However, due to their proximity to minority populations along US 85, these businesses most likely provide employment for minority persons. Site visits indicated numerous businesses that appeared to be minority-owned (e.g., company name and signage was in Spanish). None of the businesses identified during site visits would be directly impacted by the commuter bus components. Employees and business owners would benefit from the improved access that would be provided by commuter bus service. An increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Impacts would primarily affect minority and/or low-income populations at four of the five proposed station sites (Greeley, South Greeley, Platteville, and Fort Lupton). According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project, emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed NAAQS. Table 10 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus. Table 10 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components A-T3 and A-T4: Commuter Bus • Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations One property displacement; improved access to No property displacements; improved access to communities along US 85. communities along US 85. No known displacement of businesses owned by Five business displacements. Displaced minorities; displaced businesses most likely businesses provide services and employment provide services and employment for minority for all populations. persons. Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at four proposed station sites; populations at one proposed station site; emissions would not exceed NAAQS. emissions would not exceed NAAQS. Benefits of Package A. Package A would provide overall improvements in the operation of local and regional transportation systems. Other benefits associated with implementing Package A would include: ► Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction of the facilities as well as their ongoing operation and maintenance (refer to the economic analysis in Section 3.3.2.2 for more specific information) ► The provision of shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel ► Safety and emergency response times would improve • 26 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011• EIS Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. ► Transit components would improve access to community facilities, provide broader opportunities for employment, facilitate participation in regional social and cultural events, promote interaction between communities, and stimulate business activity ► Minority and low-income populations are concentrated around transit improvements and would benefit from the transit-related components. Package B Component B-H1: Safety Improvements. Safety improvements under this component are similar to those associated with Package A, Component A-H1. The potential for impacts exists in the same two locations as under Component A-H1: near the SH 1/1-25 interchange in Wellington and north of the SH 14/1-25 interchange in Fort Collins. Impacts would be the same as those identified in Package A for Component A-H1. Table 11 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component B-H1: Safety Improvements. Table 11 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Component B-H1 Safety Improvements Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Three residential property displacements located One residential property displacement located east east of 1-25 on rural parcels between SH 1 and of 1-25 on rural parcels between SH 1 and SH 14; • SH 14; minimal traffic impacts from carpool lot. minimal traffic impacts from carpool lot. 12 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of 49 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of impacts reduced to 6 after recommended noise impacts reduced to 35 after recommended noise abatement. abatement. Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes. Adding one additional northbound and southbound tolled express lane on 1-25 would have a similar effect on minority and low-income populations as adding one general purpose lane in each direction under Package A, Components A-H2 and A-H3. Interchange improvements for these components are also the same. Because many of the direct and indirect impacts associated with tolled express lanes are similar in nature to those of general purpose lanes, the following discussion focuses on the differences between them. Twenty residential relocations would be required between SH 14 and E-470 (15 between SH 14 and SH 60 [B-H2] and five between SH 60 and E-470 [B-H3]). Four of the 15 displacements between SH 14 and SH 60 (B-H2 and B-H3) are located in census blocks with minority populations and eleven are located in census blocks and block groups that do not contain minority or low-income populations. None of the residential displacements between SH 14 and E-470 are located in census blocks or block groups that contain minority or low-income populations. In general, displaced properties are dispersed along 1-25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established neighborhood. Although no residences would be displaced between E-470 and US 36 (B-H4), approximately 10 garages would need to be acquired from condominiums adjacent to 1-25 • near 120th Avenue. None of these would be from areas with minority or low-income populations. Neighborhoods in this segment extend east and west of the highway and have 27 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation transportation. developed around the interstate. Residences immediately adjacent to the highway would experience an increase in traffic and traffic related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). This would affect all segments of the population. Numerous neighborhoods and apartment complexes abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn and Adams County would also experience an increase in traffic and traffic related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). These neighborhoods consist of both minority/low-income and non-minority/non-low-income populations. Impacts would be largely limited to first- and second-tier homes and would not result in a deterioration of the overall neighborhood. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of 15 businesses between SH 14 and E-470 (13 between SH 14 and SH 60 [B-H2] and two between SH 60 and E-470 [B-H3]). Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include equipment storage, car sales and service, warehouse, food sales, gas/convenience, and home and RV sales. These businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is noevidence to suggest that these businesses have any particular connection to a minority community or provide employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority population group. Financial access to tolling is an issue that often emerges when addressing the impacts of • express lanes. To use the new tolled express lanes, tollway users would be required to pay for their travel. Limited studies have been conducted regarding the fairness of new toll facilities and their implementation remains controversial. Equity studies conducted on express lane projects implemented in California and Texas reveal that economically disadvantaged drivers use express lanes voluntarily and are not necessarily excluded, although more frequent use is often exhibited by higher-income drivers. The studies revealed that low-income drivers approved of the express toll concepts, similar to opinions of higher-income households. Most users, even those from higher-income households, choose the express lanes judiciously when they need to benefit most from reduced congestion. A general discussion with minority and low-income residents at a town hall meeting at the Northside Atzlan Community Center in Fort Collins (January 2006) indicated mixed feelings toward tolled express lanes. While some supported the tolling concept, others felt that tolling would exclude citizens with lower incomes. Free travel lanes, access points, and frontage roads would be maintained along 1-25. In addition, bus rapid transit (BRT) and vanpools would be available to all 1-25 commuters. The noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 779 receivers between SH 14 and US 36 (B-H2). Sixty-nine of these impacted receivers are concentrated within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision. Noise levels would increase at all of the 69 residences; however, no residence would experience an increase of more than 3.3 dBA over existing conditions. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA generally are not noticeable by most people. • 28 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. Proposed mitigation would reduce the number of impacted receivers within the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision to 39, an improvement over the No-Action condition. The remaining impacted receivers not part of the Mountain Range Shadows subdivision, would impact minority or low-income populations as well as non-minority and non-low-income populations. These receivers are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. The visual analysis (Section 3.14 Visual Quality) determined that structural impacts associated with Components B-H2 and B-H3 would result in a high effect on visual conditions. Structural impacts include new retaining walls 15 feet and greater in height and new bridges. A total of 28 retaining walls (19 for Component B-H2 and 9 for Component B-H3) would be distributed along 1-25, affecting minority and low-income populations as well as non-minority/non-low-income populations. New bridges proposed at US 34 would impact visual conditions for all segments of the population. Noise barriers constructed to mitigate noise impacts at Mountain Range Shadows would also change the visual environment for homes adjacent to the highway affecting views to the east. However, some may find the visual barrier to the highway an improvement over the existing condition. Noise barriers would also be constructed in several residential areas from E-470 to US 36 (B-H4) along 1-25: Thorncreek Parkway, Community Center Drive, Badding Reservoir, and Brittany Ridge. Residences adjacent to the proposed barrier at Community Center Drive are • considered low-income. The visual analysis determined that sound walls would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding community and would reduce the visual effect of the highway. Table 12 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes. Table 12 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4: Tolled Express Lanes Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Four residential property displacements; access 16 residential property displacements; acquisition revision at Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home of 10 garages Park. No known displacement of businesses owned by 15 business displacements minorities or of special importance to minority populations 278 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number 346 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of impacts reduced to 168 after recommended of impacts reduced to 295 after recommended noise abatement. noise abatement. Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls would impact residential areas; retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would retaining walls(> 15')and new bridges would result in a high effect on visual conditions. result in a high effect on visual conditions. Components B-TI and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). No residential displacements would occur under Components B-T1 or B-T2. Feeder bus service would provide benefits • similar to those described under Package A for Components A-t1 and A-T2. However, BRT would improve access to some community facilities in Longmont over the No-Action Alternative and Package A, and would improve access along 1-25 similar to the Preferred 29 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. Alternative. In Longmont, the feeder bus line would run east along SH 119 and north along US 287. Frequent stops would provide more direct service than commuter rail to Casa Vista, Salud Family Health Center, St. Johns Church, the OUR Center, and Hispanic-owned businesses along US 287. Construction of the BRT station in Firestone would require the relocation of one business. This business provides services that include a home center and RV sales. This business was not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that this business has any particular connection to a minority community or provides employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority population group. An increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Impacts would primarily affect minority and/or low-income populations at three of the 12 proposed stations sites (Harmony Road and Timberline, Firestone, and Greeley Downtown Transfer Center). There are no residential populations in the immediate vicinity of six of the proposed station sites. According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project, emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed NAAQS. Impacts to the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility at 31st Street • and west of 1st Avenue in Greeley would be the same as those identified for Package A, Components A-T3 and A-T4. BRT stations in Windsor (southwest of the SH 392/1-25 interchange) and Firestone (southwest of Firestone Road) would have a high visual effect to the surrounding community. The station platforms would be 20 feet wide by 300 feet long, with a pedestrian overpass, parking, bus bays, kiss-and-ride, lighting, and landscaping. The station in Firestone would require one business relocation. This relocation would change the visual landscape for travelers, affecting all population segments including minority residents of River Valley Village Mobile Home Park and adjacent neighborhoods west of the Firestone Road interchange. Table 13 summarizes environmental justice impacts for Component B-T1 and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit. • 30 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information cooperation. transportation. Table 13 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Components B-Tl and B-T2: Bus Rapid Transit Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations No residential property displacements. No residential property displacements. No known displacement of businesses One business displacement. owned by minorities or of special importance to minority populations. Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at three proposed station sites; populations at three proposed station site; emissions would not exceed NAAQS. emissions would not exceed NAAQS. Station platforms and overpasses would Station platforms and overpasses would result in visual impacts to the surrounding result in visual impacts to the surrounding community in two locations. community in two locations. Benefits of Package B. Package B would provide overall improvements in the operation of local and regional transportation systems. Other benefits associated with Package B would include: • ► Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction of the facilities as well as their ongoing operation and maintenance (refer to the economic analysis in Section 3.3.2.3 for more specific information). ► The provision of shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel. ► Safety and emergency response times would improve. ► Transit components would result in moderate improvements in mobility and would improve regional connectivity. ► Minority and low-income populations are concentrated around transit improvements and would benefit from the transit-related components. Preferred Alternative 1-25 Highway Improvements This component has the potential to impact minority and/or low-income populations in six locations. Between these locations, scattered residences are contained within large rural census blocks that extend outward from 1-25 (up to a mile). Below are descriptions of the six minority and/or low-income locations: ► SH1/I-25 Interchange. The Wellington East neighborhood, located in the northwest quadrant of the interchange, is identified as having a concentration of minority • households. The residential area southwest of the interchange also includes minority households. 31 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. ► SH 14/1-25 Interchange. In the northeast quadrant of the interchange, the Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home Park and adjacent single-family neighborhood are identified as having a concentration of minorities and low-income households. A small single- family neighborhood that does not contain minority or low-income populations is located in the southeast quadrant of the interchange. ► SH 392/1-25 Interchange. In the southwest quadrant of the interchange, the Mountain Range Shadows Subdivision is identified as having a concentration of minorities. A newer single-family residential subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant and does not contain a concentration of minorities. Although the interchange itself is a component of the No-Action Alternative, general purpose lanes will be included as part of the Preferred Alternative. ► LCR 16/1-25 Interchange. The Johnson's Corner RV Park and a few single-family residences are identified as having a concentration of minorities. The Johnson's Corner RV Park allows short and long-term stays. There are no non-minority populations in the vicinity of the interchange. ► SH 119/1-25 Interchange. The River Valley Village Mobile Home Park and a small single-family residential neighborhood abut a strip of commercial properties in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. These residences are located in a census block with a concentration of minorities. There are no non-minority populations in the vicinity of the interchange. Safety improvements from SH 1 to SH 14 would require the relocation of these residences, • as compared to the four residences affected by Packages A and B. These residences are all located in low-income areas along the east side of 1-25. Twenty total residential displacements (including the three for the safety improvements) would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative highway component. Of these, six total displacements would be located in minority or low-income identified areas (three in census blocks with minority populations and three with low-income populations). The remaining residential displacements are located in census blocks or block groups that do not contain minority or low-income populations. In general, displaced properties are dispersed along 1-25 in large rural parcels that are not part of any established neighborhood. Although no residences would be displaced between E-470 and US 36, approximately 10 garages would need to be acquired from condominiums adjacent to 1-25 near 120th Avenue. None of these would be from areas with minority or low-income populations. Neighborhoods in this segment extend east and west of the highway and have developed around the interstate. Residences immediately adjacent to the highway would experience an increase in traffic and traffic related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). This would affect all segments of the population. Numerous neighborhoods and apartment complexes abutting 1-25 in Broomfield, Thornton, Westminster, Northglenn and Adams County would also experience an increase in traffic and traffic related impacts (noise, visual, air emissions). These neighborhoods consist of both minority/low-income and non-minority/non-low-income populations. Impacts would be largely limited to first- and second-tier homes and would not result in a deterioration of the • overall neighborhood. 32 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information cooperation. transportation. The proposed improvements would require the relocation of ten businesses as a result of the highway component. Assessor data indicate that these businesses provide services that include equipment storage, car sales and service, warehouse, food sales, gas/convenience, and home and RV sales. These businesses were not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that these businesses have any particular connection to a minority community or provide employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority or low-income population group. For the highway component, the noise analysis identified impacts to a total of 679 Category B land uses (residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic areas, playgrounds, active sports areas and parks) and 161 impacts to Category C land uses (developed lands, properties, or activities like commercial uses). With the implementation of noise mitigation (including Quiet Zones and noise barriers), 181 residential (Category B) noise impacts would be eliminated. Twenty of the mitigated receivers are located in Wellington East and 30 of the mitigated receivers are located in the Mountain Range subdivision; both of these neighborhoods comprise minority communities. Other mitigated receivers are scattered along North 1-25 and are not part of a neighborhood or community. Noise impacts would affect both minority and low-income populations, as well as non-minority and non-low-income populations along 1-25. • Visual impacts to low-income and minority communities associated with the highway component of the Preferred Alternative would result from replacement and modification of bridges and interchanges, new retaining walls, new noise walls, and the addition of carpool lots. Overall, the reconstruction of existing bridges and interchanges would not have a noticeable visual effect on minority and low-income communities along 1-25. The number of retaining walls increased in the Preferred Alternative to minimize and avoid right-of-way impacts. The visual analysis finds that structural impacts associated with highway component of the Preferred Alternative would result in a high effect on visual conditions. Structural impacts include 99 retaining walls that are 15 feet and greater in height. Eighty-five retaining walls would be 15 feet in height or less, resulting in a moderate visual effect. These retaining walls would be distributed along 1-25, affecting minority and low-income populations as well as non-minority/non-low-income populations. Of the seven noise walls proposed to mitigate noise impacts for the Preferred Alternative, four would have moderate visual impacts on low-income and/or minority communities. These four noise walls include a 10-12 foot wall located at SH 1 and 1-25 (near the Wellington East neighborhood), a 12 foot wall located south of SH 392 and north of CR 30 along 1-25 near the Mountain Range Shadows community, and a 14 foot wall on the east side and a 10-12 foot wall on the west side of 1-25 near Community Center Drive, both of which would impact the Stone Mountain Apartments. Five new carpool lots are proposed as part of the highway component. Two of these carpool lots would have minor visual impacts to low-income and minority communities: a new lot • located in the southwest quadrant of the SH 1/1-25 interchange near Wellington East, and a new lot located in the northeast quadrant of the SH 14/1-25 interchange near the Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home Park. 33 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH I 25 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. To use the new express lanes included in the highway component, tollway users in single occupant vehicles would be required to pay for their travel. Impacts as a result of tolled express lanes are the same as those described for Package B, Components B-H2, B-H3, and B-H4. Table 14 summarizes environmental justice impacts for the highway component of the Preferred Alternative. Table 14 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Highway Component for the Preferred Alternative Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations Six residential property displacements; access 14 residential property displacements; acquisition revision at Cloverleaf Community Mobile Home of 10 garages. Park. No known displacement of businesses owned by 10 business displacements. minorities or of special importance to minority populations. 284 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number 395 residences impacted by traffic noise. Number of impacts reduced to 168 after recommended of impacts reduced to 330 after recommended noise abatement. noise abatement. Retaining walls would impact residential areas; Retaining walls would impact residential areas; retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would result retaining walls (> 15')and new bridges would in a high effect on visual conditions. result in a high effect on visual conditions. • Commuter Rail Minority and low-income populations are distributed along the BNSF alignment with concentrations in Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont. One hundred and sixty populated census blocks and 50 block groups are adjacent to the BNSF rail line. Of these, 50 census blocks have higher than average populations of minorities and 21 census block groups have higher than average numbers of low-income households. Construction of the commuter rail would require the relocation of 31 residences. Of the 31 residential impacts, 14 would occur in census blocks or block groups containing minority or low-income populations. All of these would occur in Longmont, in minority and low- income neighborhoods adjacent to the BNSF corridor. Given the total amount of comparable housing stock in this area, no effect on local or regional population distribution or housing demand would be expected. Commuter rail would improve access to the following community facilities that were identified through specialized outreach efforts as being important to minority and low- income populations: ► Bill Reed Middle School. This school has a high concentration of Hispanic/Latino • students. Existing transit to the school is limited. The school is within 0.25 mile of the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail would benefit school-aged children. Although the school is currently located in an urbanized area, an 34 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation transportation. increase in noise and vibration would be expected. The commuter rail option would benefit these students by providing service to the school and alleviating a long bus ride for many students. ► Impacto De Fe. This largely Hispanic church in Loveland, with a historic presence, is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► Salud Family Health Center. This health center is located approximately 0.5 mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail would benefit persons along the Front Range who are uninsured or underinsured and in need of medical care. ► St. John's Church. This church is located approximately one mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community participation in church events and activities. ► OUR (Outreach United Research) Center. This medical center is located approximately one mile from the proposed Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Access to commuter rail would benefit families in need of medical care. ► St. Joseph's Church. This church is located approximately 0.5 mile from the Fort Collins Downtown Transit Center. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community • participation in church events and activities. ► The Pullman Center. This community center is located less than one mile from the Downtown Loveland Transit Station. Access to commuter rail could facilitate community events and activities. Because commuter rail would operate in an existing rail corridor, minority and low-income neighborhoods in Berthoud, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Loveland would not be newly divided nor would existing access or travel patterns change. The addition of maintenance roads, passing track, fences or retaining walls could somewhat exacerbate this "barrier effect;" however, because there would not be additional track and, unlike Package A, on- street parking on Atwood Street would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative, this effect is less than that likely to occur with Package A. Local residents frequently experience delays when traveling across the BNSF rail line. These delays would become more frequent; however, each delay would be much less than currently experienced because trains would be much shorter. Several neighborhoods in Fort Collins would benefit from close proximity to transit stations. These include Martinez Park (minority and low-income), Historic Fort Collins High School (minority), and Troutman Park (minority). Residents of these neighborhoods would be able to reach the transit station by foot or bicycle. Transit stations in north and south Longmont would improve mobility for minority and low-income neighborhoods, connecting residents to cultural events and employment in Fort Collins, Loveland, Boulder, and Denver. Property values would likely increase near station sites. Over time, this could make housing less • affordable for existing residents. 35 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Feeder bus service would connect minority and low-income populations in Fort Collins and Loveland to populations and services in Greeley, increasing the level of interaction between these communities. Similar benefits would result from feeder bus service between Berthoud, Johnstown, Windsor, Fort Lupton, Dacono, and Milliken. Feeder bus service along US 34 would improve mobility for Hispanic/Latino residents in apartment complexes adjacent to the highway as well as provide access to key community facilities, such as Wal-Mart and a regional bus line that provides service to Mexico. Construction of the commuter rail component of the Preferred Alternative would require the relocation of nine businesses. Of the nine impacted businesses, one is located within a census-identified low-income area. This business, a storage warehouse in Berthoud, was not identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office; through public involvement efforts; or through the business survey distributed for this project. There is no evidence to suggest that this business has any particular connection to a minority or low-income community or provides employment, goods, and/or services uniquely important to a minority or low- income population group. The requirement of passenger trails to blow their horns at at-grade crossings would increase noise in all neighborhoods adjacent to the commuter rail alignment. The noise analysis identified a total of 2,192 residential noise impacts along the commuter rail corridor. Of these impacts 1,495 would be moderate impacts and 697 would be severe impacts. Approximately half of the impacts would be in Longmont. Most of the noise impacts would • occur in census-identified minority or low-income areas. However, it is estimated that with the implementation of Quiet Zones (and noise walls located outside of Longmont), potential impacts to all residences along the BNSF corridor would be eliminated (see Section 3.6. Noise and Vibration). As described in Section 3.6.4.4 Rail Noise and Vibration Mitigation Evaluation, noise barriers will be considered if quiet zones and/or wayside horns are not feasible and reasonable. Two of the three proposed noise barriers (at 29th Street and CR 28 in Loveland, and at CR 14 and CR 18 in Campion) are adjacent to minority and/or low-income populations. While these would reduce noise levels for the surrounding communities, they would alter the visual landscape primarily affecting minority and low-income residences adjacent to the BNSF rail line. However, these same residences would benefit the most from the noise barriers. The vibration analysis identified impacts at a total of 40 residences within 111 feet of the nearest track. Of these residences, 26 are in Longmont and 14 are in Loveland. To mitigate for vibration impacts, special trackwork at certain locations and the installation of Tire Derived Aggregate (shredded tires) beneath the tracks would eliminate all potential vibration impacts. An increase in commuter rail and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Minority and/or low-income populations located near proposed stations would be affected. According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project (Section 3.5 Air Quality); emissions associated with increased activity at stations • 36 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum: Environmental Justice information. cooperation transportation. would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The proximity of the station sites would be beneficial for the nearby populations, especially those within walking distance. The visual analysis concluded that the introduction of retaining walls, noise barriers, grade- separation, and new stations would have a visual impact on residents adjacent to the rail corridor. The Preferred Alternative increased visual impacts with the addition of a maintenance road that was not included in Package A and a greater number of retaining walls than in Package A. Retaining walls would impact 14 residential areas with concentrations of minority or low-income populations and 7 residential areas with non- minority/non-low-income populations. Retaining walls would be constructed in Longmont between Mountain View Avenue and 21st Street in minority and low-income portions of the Clark Centennial and Lanyon neighborhoods; however, these retaining walls will be shorter than 5 feet, therefore there would not be a visual impact. Retaining walls and noise barriers would shield residences from the existing rail line, lessening the visual impacts of the railroad. Noise walls are proposed in three locations along the commuter rail alignment. One of these proposed noise walls (located along 29th Street near CR 28 in Loveland) would have high visual impact on a low-income community just east of the railroad corridor, north of 37th Street, but would eliminate 14 residential noise impacts. Of the five new grade separations for the Preferred Alternative commuter rail component, one new grade • separation (located at SH 52)would impact a minority community just east of the railroad corridor. The North Loveland and Berthoud stations would have a moderate visual effect to the surrounding minority and low-income populations because each would require a relocation of a business or residence. Because the proposed maintenance facility in Berthoud would change the visual character of the area, there would be a moderate visual effect to the low- income community across the rail corridor. According to the bicycle and pedestrian analysis (Section 4.9 Floodplains), impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be temporary in duration, would not be concentrated in areas with minority or low-income population groups, and would be offset by the overall benefits from added shoulders and sidewalks. The addition of passing track and maintenance roads and the resulting operational traffic impacts, right-of-way fencing and noise, vibration, and visual impacts would negatively affect minority and low-income neighborhoods and community cohesion in Longmont. These impacts could reduce property values in minority and low-income areas, except for the areas within walking distance of the two stations, where property values would likely be increased. Table 15 summarizes environmental justice impacts of commuter rail in the Preferred Alternative. • 37 Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Table 15 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for the Commuter Rail Component of the Preferred Alternative Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations 14 residential property displacements (all in 17 residential property displacements (none in Longmont); improved access to Front Range Longmont); improved access to Front Range communities, community facilities, and services; communities, community facilities, and services; potential degradation of community cohesion in travel time delays and out-of-direction travel at Longmont; travel time delays at at-grade at-grade crossings crossings 1 displacement of business in a census-identified 8 business displacements minority area; business is not owned by minorities 2024 residences, schools, churches, or parks 231 residences, schools, churches, or parks impacted by rail noise or vibration. Number of impacted by rail noise or vibration. Number of impacts reduced to zero after recommended impacts reduced to zero after recommended abatement abatement actions. Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at five proposed station sites; populations at four proposed station sites; emissions would not exceed NAAQS emissions would not exceed NAAQS Retaining walls would impact 14 residential Retaining walls would impact 7 residential areas; One noise wall would impact a low income areas; noise walls would result in a high effect • residential area in Loveland; commuter rail on visual conditions at two locations; commuter stations would have a visual impact on rail stations would have a visual impact on surrounding communities surrounding communities 1-25 Express Bus No business displacements or residential displacements would occur under the express bus component. Feeder bus service would connect minority and low-income populations in Fort Collins and Loveland to populations and services in Greeley, increasing the level of interaction between these communities. Similar benefits would result from feeder bus service between Berthoud, Johnstown, Windsor, Fort Lupton, Dacono, and Milliken. Additionally, feeder bus service along US 34 would improve mobility for Hispanic/Latino residents in apartment complexes adjacent to the highway as well as provide access to key community facilities, such as Wal-Mart and a regional bus line that provides service to Mexico. Of the eleven express bus stations proposed for the Preferred Alternative, only the Firestone station located at 1-25 and SH 119 would impact a minority community. A pedestrian overpass associated with the bus station would change the visual character for the nearby River Valley Village Mobile Home Park community. Impacts to the neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility at 31st Street and west of 1st Avenue in Greeley would be the same as those identified for Package A, Components A-T3 and A-T4. Table 16 summarizes environmental justice impacts of • express bus in the Preferred Alternative. 38 Final EIS NORTH 125 August 2011 EIS Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information cooperation. transportation. Table 16 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for the Express Bus Component Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations No residential or business property No business property displacements displacements Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at three proposed station sites; populations at three proposed station site; emissions would not exceed NAAQS emissions would not exceed NAAQS US 85 Commuter Bus The provision of commuter bus service would benefit minority and low-income communities along US 85. Bus stations in Greeley, South Greeley, Evans, Platteville, and Fort Lupton are all located in minority and/or low-income areas and would expand employment opportunities and services to these populations. Commuter bus service would improve regional connections between US 85 communities. Service to DIA would improve access to the airport over the No-Action Alternative. Limiting the number of stops would benefit residents that travel between communities on a regular basis. • There would be four business displacements as a result of commuter bus stations. None of these businesses were identified as being minority-owned by the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Minority Business Office. Bus stations in Greeley, South Greeley, Platteville, and Fort Lupton would have a moderate visual effect because they would result in the relocation of a business or residence. These stations would not, however, impede views to the mountains. Construction of queue jumps, bus stations, and maintenance facilities would not require the relocation of any residences or businesses. However, an increase in bus and vehicular traffic around station sites would result in localized increases in air emissions. Impacts would affect minority and/or low-income populations located near proposed station sites. According to the air quality analysis prepared for this project, emissions associated with increased activity at stations would not exceed NAAQS. Table 17 summarizes environmental justice impacts for the commuter bus component of the Preferred Alternative. Table 17 Environmental Justice Impact Summary for Commuter Rail Component of the Preferred Alternative Minority/Low-Income Populations Non-Minority/Non-Low-Income Populations One property displacement; improved access to No property displacements; improved access communities along US 85 to communities along US 85. No known displacement of businesses owned by Four business displacements. Displaced minorities; displaced businesses may provide businesses provide services and employment services and employment for minority persons for all populations. • Localized increase in air emissions affecting Localized increase in air emissions affecting populations at four proposed station sites; emissions populations at one proposed station site; would not exceed NAAQS emissions would not exceed NAAQS. 39 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Benefits of the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would provide overall improvements in the operation of local and regional transportation systems, including commuter rail and bus transit options. Other benefits associated with the Preferred Alternative would include: ► Short-term and long-term employment opportunities would occur during the construction of the facilities as well as their ongoing operation and maintenance (refer to the economic analysis in Section 3.3.2.3 for more specific information). ► The provision of shoulders and sidewalks would better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel. ► Safety and emergency response times would improve. ► The commuter rail component would improve access to community facilities, provide broader opportunities for employment, facilitate participation in regional social and cultural events, promote interaction between communities, and stimulate business activity. ► Both express bus and commuter bus transit components would result in moderate improvements in mobility and would improve regional connectivity. ► Minority and low-income populations are concentrated around transit improvements and would benefit from the transit-related components. • CONCLUSION In making a determination of disproportionately high and adverse effect it is important to balance the impacts of the project with the benefits. Below is a discussion of the impacts and benefits of each alternative, an analysis to determine if impacts are predominantly borne by low-income and minority communities, and an assessment on whether the impacts are appreciably more severe (disproportionately high and adverse ) for these low-income and minority communities. No-Action Alternative While impacts for the No-Action Alternative would be less substantial than the impacts described for Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative, local populations would not benefit from much-needed transportation improvements. In addition, local communities would receive adverse effects resulting from transportation needs unmet. These adverse effects would result in direct and indirect effects on communities that are typically caused by traffic congestion and impaired mobility, including an increase in air emissions and noise, longer travel times, traffic queues at key interchanges, neighborhood traffic intrusion, deteriorating safety conditions, and lengthened emergency response times. In addition, minority and low-income populations would not benefit from the proposed noise abatement measures, which would in many cases lower noise levels below existing conditions. • 40 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information cooperation. transportation. The No-Action Alternative would not provide any communities with the accessibility benefits associated with transit services and adverse impacts would affect both low-income and minority communities, as well as the general population. Therefore, impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative would not be predominantly borne by low-income and minority communities. Similarly, all segments of the population would be affected by the impacts. Low-income and minority populations would not receive more severe impacts than non low-income and minority populations as a result of the No-Action Alternative. Package A Implementation of Package A would result in the relocation of 59 residences (23 of which are located in minority and low-income areas), increased noise and visual impacts, an increase in air emissions, and an exacerbated barrier effect for communities located along the commuter rail alignment. However, local populations would benefit from stronger regional connections between communities, improvements in mobility, safety, and emergency response, and improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Relocations, noise and visual impacts, would occur. While mitigation measures would reduce these impacts, they would still affect local communities. Increased air emissions would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Because a community division • already exists along the BNSF corridor, the exacerbation of the barrier effect would not result in a high and adverse impact on community cohesion. Although there would be some adverse effects, these would not be predominately borne by minority or low-income populations. In general, impacts and benefits from Package A would be distributed across all communities, including minority and low-income populations, as well as non-minority/non- low-income populations. Although construction of the commuter rail under Package A would require 16 residential relocations within minority/low-income areas, there is no evidence these would be disproportionately high and adverse effects since the mitigation commitments, including relocation benefits are generous. There would be no noise impacts (after mitigation), but there would be visual impacts, traffic impacts, and the potential for exacerbating the existing barrier created by the BNSF corridor. As with the relocations, the visual impacts, traffic impacts, and community cohesion impacts would not be considered disproportionately high and adverse effects. Minority and low-income residents, as well as the overall community, would benefit from safety and access improvements to businesses, residences, and community facilities. For all of Package A, no segment of the population would receive more severe impacts, or impacts of a greater magnitude than any other segment of the population. In Longmont there would be noticeable impacts; however, because the totality of the adverse impacts balanced with benefits and mitigation, the low-income and minority populations would not receive disproportionately high and adverse effects from the Package A. • 41 Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Package B Implementation of Package B would result in the relocation of 24 residences (7 of which are located in minority and low-income areas), increased noise and visual impacts, and an increase in air emissions. However, local populations would benefit from stronger regional connections between communities (though, to a lesser degree than in Package A or the Preferred Alternative), improvements in mobility, safety, and emergency response, and improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Relocations, noise and visual impacts would occur. While mitigation measures would reduce these impacts, they would still impact local communities. Increased air emissions would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Package B would provide overall improvements in the operation of local and regional transportation systems, but to a lesser degree than Package A or the Preferred Alternative. Any adverse impacts or benefits resulting from the Package B improvements would affect both low-income and minority communities, as well as the general population. No segment of the population would receive more severe impacts, or impacts of a greater magnitude than any other segment of the population, Therefore, as a result of mitigation commitments and benefits received from Package B, it is determined that, overall, minority and low- income communities would not suffer disproportionately high and adverse effects from the alternative. Preferred Alternative • The Preferred Alternative is a combination of components presented in Packages A and B, and includes multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the relocation of 51 residences (20 of which are located in minority and low-income areas), increased noise and visual impacts, an increase in air emissions, and an exacerbated barrier effect for communities located along the commuter rail alignment (although, to a lesser degree than Package A). Benefits resulting from the alternative include enhanced regional connections between communities, improvements in mobility, safety, and emergency response, and improved mobility for transportation- disadvantaged populations. Noise, visual, traffic circulation, and air quality impacts would occur. While mitigation measures would reduce these impacts, they would still impact local communities. Emissions of all air pollutants would increase slightly with the Preferred Alternative when compared to the No-Action Alternative. The regional study area is a non-attainment area for ozone. Because a community division already exists along the BNSF corridor, the minor exacerbation of the barrier effect would not result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect on community cohesion. Impacts and benefits resulting from the Preferred Alternative would be distributed across all communities, including minority and low-income populations, as well as non-minority/non- low-income populations. Relative to Package A, the Preferred Alternative reduces impacts in Longmont by removing the second track and adjusting the alignment to fit more closely to • the existing corridor (i.e. there will be no removal of parking and no relocations along Atwood Street). Further, all segments of the population would benefit from safety and 42 Final EIS NORTH I-25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation transportation. access improvements to businesses, residences, and community facilities, from stronger regional community connections resulting from the Preferred Alternative; and from mitigation commitments which will, in some cases, improve conditions over existing conditions and over the No-Action Alternative. For all of the Preferred Alternative, no segment of the population would receive more severe impacts, or impacts of a greater magnitude than any other segment of the population. In Longmont there would be noticeable impacts; however, the totality of the impacts when combined with mitigation commitments and benefits received from the Preferred Alternative, would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and low-income populations. MITIGATION In accordance with U.S. DOT Order 5610.2 on Environmental Justice, DOT decision makers (i.e., FHWA)will ensure that any of their programs, policies or activities that will have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority populations or low-income populations will be carried out only if further mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and adverse effect are not practicable. In determining whether a mitigation measure or an alternative is "practicable", decision makers will take into account the social, economic, and environmental effects of avoiding or mitigating the disproportionately high and adverse effects. • Mitigation has already been factored in to the analysis of impacts to minority and low- income populations. For example, mitigation for noise impacts in Wellington reduced the effects of traffic noise to below impacts levels, avoiding a disproportionately high and adverse effect to this community. The mitigation will be carried out for that alternative even if there is not a finding of disproportionately high and adverse effects. Mitigation for construction related impacts to minority and low-income populations could include the provision of reduced price bus passes during construction, acceptable access modifications, and translated information on construction processes and alternate modes available during construction and pre-opening day. Right-of-way acquisition will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Uniform Act). This purpose of this act is to provide fair an equitable treatment for al persons displaced from their homes, businesses or farms. Owners of property to be acquired will be compensated at fair market value for their property. If toll lanes are constructed, ways to make tolling more equitable will be sought. For example, payment options will be considered in order to permit the broadest opportunity as possible to use toll facilities. Alternate payment options will be provided so that persons who do not have a credit card can still participate in the tolled express lanes. Toll replenishment using cash or employer-based payroll deductions could also be included in the tolling program. • A context sensitive approach to project design and mitigation is encouraged to ensure that project elements enhance the community. This will include involving the public in the development of rail or bus station design treatments. 43 Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. Efforts will continue to be made to ensure meaningful opportunities for public participation during the review process. During the public review and comment period for the Final EIS, all segments of the population (including minority and low-income populations) will have the opportunity to review the project alternatives, their associated benefits, adverse impacts, and any proposed mitigation, and can propose additional mitigation that will reduce adverse effects. REFERENCES ICF Consulting with Myra L. Frank & Associates, 2003. Desk Guide: Environmental Justice in Transportation Planning and Investments. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Planning Office of Policy Analysis & Research. Colorado Department of Transportation, 2005. CDOT's Title VI and Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA Projects. • • 44 Final EIS NORTH I25 August 2011 EIS • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX A: • BUSINESS SURVEY • Appendix A Final EIS August 2011 NORTH 1-25 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information_ cooperation. transportation. THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. • • Appendix A Final EIS NORTH 1-25 August 2011 • Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS information. cooperation. transportation. APPENDIX A Survey of Potentially Affected NORTH EIS%^r Business Owners information WoperatiM transportation The Colorado Department of Transportation is studying several alternatives in Northern Colorado to alleviate congestion on I-25 and make travel safer. The range of alternatives includes improvements to the roadway system and/or to the transit system. Each alternative would have different effects on businesses. As part of our investigation of the potential social and economic effects H the study area, we are contacting all local businesses that may be affected as a result of these alternatives. In order to determine potential effects on your business and employees, we would like you to answer thirteen (13)questions. Your answers will be used to help identify which alternative is eventually chosen and to quantify social and economic impacts in the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)that is required for this project. All of the answers you give about your business will remain confidential. All the data we gather will be discussed in general terms in order to protect the privacy of your business and your employees. 1. Name of business 2. Business address(Optional) City • 3. How long has your business been at this location? 4. What types of services does your business provide? 5. How many toll-time and part-time employees are employed at this location? Full-Time Part-Time 6 What percentage of the employees at your company are unskilled workers,e.g., manual laborers? What percentage are skilled or professional workers, e.g., electricians or engineers' According to the US Depaument of Labor"t nskilled labor"is labor that requires less than two years of traitnng or expel "skilled Moor'id labo bainng at least two years of training o eent ,and"Prowho is member means a professions n who holds at least a United States bagcalaureate degree ore foreign equivalent degree and who is a member of the pro/essioni o Unskilled Skilled or Professional 7. Approximately how many minority employees (i.e., African American, Native American, Asian,or Latino) are employed at this location? [Actual number or percentage] Full-Time % Part-Time ,o 8. Does a minority person or persons own this business? Yes No If Yes,Which minority group? 9. Are you aware of any transportation issues that your employees may have? [For instance:a long commute to work, restrictions preventing use of vehicle to get to work,etc...]. Please elaborate. Yes No If Yes, please provide details: 10.Please estimate the percentage of employees using the following modes of transportation to get to work: Vehicle % Bus/Transit % Walk % Bicycle % Other • Appendix A Final EIS NORTH I--25 August 2011 Technical Memorandum:Environmental Justice EIS • information. cooperation. transportation. 11.Had you heard of the North 1-25 EIS prior to receiving this survey? Yes No 12. If yes, where did you hear about it? •••• Newspaper articles _ Television _ Word of mouth um, Radio ... Public community meetings Council/Commission meeting Committee meetings Don't remember Other: 13.How do you prefer to receive information about the North I-25 EIS? Newspaper articles Public service announcements Through a newsletter The project Web site Ads in the newspaper Via E-mail Public community meetings Other: Please return the completed survey in the envelope provided.If you are not presently occupying this address,or it there are multiple businesses at this address, please provide us with a contact or contacts who may be able to answer these questions. If you would prefer to complete this survey over the phone please contact Jessica Woolery with PRACO at 13031 689-0704 or 17191 473-0704. ill For questions pertaining to this survey or to the North I-25 project or to be added to the project mailing list, please contact Jessica Woolery with PRACO at 1303) 689-0704 or 17191 473-0704 or visit the project website at htlp:/iwww.dol.state.co,us/Northl25eis/. Comments: • Appendix A Hello