Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.031-00 RESOLUTION NO. 5 ~ Series of 2000 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE ROARING FORK RAILROAD HOLDING AUTHORITY (RFRRA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE RFRIqA BOARD AT ITS FEBRUARY 3, 2000 MEETING. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council the final draft of the RFRHA Comprehensive Plan for the City's final review and ratification, a tree and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". NOW. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves and ratifies the final draft of the RFRHA Comprehensive Plan. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~h day of March. 2000. chel E. R' I, Kathryn S. Koch. duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen. Colorado. at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated, Kathr~ S. Koch, City Clerk RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 1 03/06/00 DRAFT £~,. t::~ A A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE ASPEN BRANCH OF THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD CORRIDOR PREPARED FOR THE ROARING FORK RAILROAD HOLDING AUTHORITY Table o£ Contents Page I. Introduction .......................................................................... 2 II, Compliance of the Comprehensive Plan with the Requirements of the Conservation Easement ........................... 4 III. Summary and Key Findings of Recreational Trails Plan ............. 9 IV. Summary and Key Findings of Corridor Access Control Plan... 11 V. Summary and Key Findings of Corridor Investment Study/ Draft Environmental Impact Statement ..................................... 13 VI. Changes to the Conservation Easement Required by the Comprehensive Plan ......................... ' ................................ 16 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Recreational Trails Plan Exhibit B: Corridor Access Plan 1) Listing of All Utility Easements Exhibit C: Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Exhibit D: Additional Technical Information as Requested by the Local Decision Making Process: 1) Project Objective matrix and Explanatory Memorandum 2) Environmental/Biologic Inventory 3) Transit Financing Options 4) Transit Oriented Design Study 5) Socio-Economic Forecasts for the Study Area 6) Performance Characteristics of Proposed Rail Vehicles 7) Location and Size of Retaining Walls 8) Instantaneous Noise Levels By Location and Temporal Attributes 9) Rural/Regional Transit Agency Information Exhibit E: Reading the Roaring Fork Landscape: An Ideabook for Interpretation and Environmental Education Exhibit F: City of Glenwood Springs Bypass RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 2 February 3, 2000 I. INTRODUCTION In September of 1991, eight local governmental entities resolved to purchase the Aspen Branch of the Denver & Rio Grande Western railroad right-of-way from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company to preserve the corridor as a public asset. In December of 1994, the eight local governments signed an Intergovernmental Agreement to purchase the property. The urgency of the purchase was realized when the merger of Southern Pacific and Union Pacific railroads was announced. With the dissolution of Southern Pacific, Union Pacific could have abandoned the rail corridor and the land reverted to possible residential and commercial development. The result would have been the loss of the corridor and any opportunity to preserve it for recreational and transportation use. On June 30. 1997, the corridor purchase was finalized. Traffic congestion on State Highway 82 is and will continue to be a problem as the valley continues to grow and develop. Traffic congestion causes a negative im pact on the economic and personal well being of the local communities. It leads to longer commute time and slower freight movements, and it reduces the convenience of travelling throughout the valley. In addition to the recreational opportunities 'mentioned above, one of the objectives of the purchase is to reduce the amount of traffic congestion by increasing the transportation choices within the vail ey. A large percentage of the Roaring Fork valley is in public domain as Bureau of Land Management (BLM), White River National Forest or state holdings. Within recent years, increases in population and resort development, and the escalation of land values have dramatically increased growth in the valley. With this growth, lands available for trail and recreational use along the valley floor are diminishing. Currently, there are numerous trails throughout the valley but there is limited continuity between these trails. In addition to the transportation opportunity mentioned above, the other major opportunity and objective of the purchase is to develop a continuous non-motorized trail along the corridor. Recreational activities define the lifestyle and economy of the Roaring Fork valley. Skiing, hunting, hiking, raking, bicycling, and wildlife viewing are just a few of the recreational opportunities in the region. The population in the valley is more active than most regions and as the population and number of visitors grow, so does the demand for outdoor recreation facilities. Wildlife species are abundant in the valley with approximately 160 species throughout the region. All species of wildlife are important for viewing, photographing, and balancing the ecosystem of the valley. The purchase of the right-of-way provides an opportunity to develop environmental and wildlife educational programs and enhance access to public lands and the Roaring Fork River. RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 3 February 3, 2000 The Roarin§ Fork River throu§h its scenic and recreational opportunities ties the valley together. It is currently used by residents and visitors for a number of recreational activities including fishing, rafting, and kayaking. The river is designated as a "Gold Medal' resource because it is one of the highest quality aquatic habitats in the state. Over 15,000 anglers use the nver annually. Proper access points to the river are important for the safe use of the resource. Currently there are six designated boat ramps for watercraft. The purchase of the right-of-way presents the opportunity to provide additional river access and parking on public land to continue and expand the use of this resource. All of these issues deal with the overall quality of life of the residents, visitors, and guests in the Roaring Fork Valley. The purchase of this corridor has presented an opportunity to develop an integrated transportation and recreation solution to future problems before they are even fully realized. As a part of the agreement to purchase the corridor in 1997, it was required that a comprehensive plan be prepared that would determine the future uses of the corridor. The specific language within the Purchase Agreement requiring the development of a Comprehensive Plan is as follows: "The Governments shall develop, consider and approve the Comprehensive Plan,flor the Property w~thin twenty-four (24) months of the date this Amended,~greement ~s signed, unless the Governments mutually agree to extend the time period for the formulation and adoption of such a PIan. The adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and any amendments thereto shall be consistent with the grant conditions set forth in the grant documents referenced at section 5, above. It is anticipated that when the Comprehensive Plan for the Property is approved by all participating Governments. a new Intergovernmental Agreement will be negotiated and become effective to implement the Comprehensive Plan," The specific language within the Purchase Agreement the defines the Comprehensive Plan is as follows: "The Plan shall include the following: zl listing and description ofpossible uses for the property, including but not limited to such improvements necessary to place and operate a public transportation system, public trail, and/or access to public lands; I[. A detailed improvements and operations plan for the ultimate preferred uses(s} on the property, including a recommended management and funding strategy; and III. An interim plan which incorporates the interim use of the rail corridor for a temporary trail following approvalj~om the Surface Transportation Board ora certificate of interim trail use pending the re-establishment of rail service." In addition to these specific requirements, the Conservation Easement placed on the corridor also outlines additional requirements re§ardin§ access and retention of the property's conservation values. RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 4 February 3, 2000 The purpose of this document is to set out a Comprehensive Plan for the corridor that will be adopted by the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority and its member governments. This Comprehensive Plan will be used to guide all future use of the corridor and its findings will be incorporated into the existing Conservation Easement on the corridor to insure strict adherence to the uses set forth herein. II. COMPLIANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE Pr.AN WrfH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT A Conservation Easement was placed on the railroad corridor when it was purchased in 1997. The Conservation Easement is located along the property from the terminus of the 'Wye' (approximately 12t~ Street in Glenwood Springs), to the end of the tracks in Woody Creek. The purpose of the easement is to assure that the corridor will be maintained as a linear, open space corridor, appropriate for recreation (including trails), wildlife, environmental and educational purposes, while permitting the construction of trails and trailhead facilities and the continuation and construction of rail facilities. The easement also prevents any use of the Property that will significantly impair the "conservation values" of the corridor. The conservation easement contemplates a change in uses, and therefore a modification to the easement once a Comprehensive Plan for the corridor is adopted. The "conservation values" of the corridor are defined in the conservation easement as follows: "The Property possess natural, scenic, open space, historical, educational, wildlife, trail and recreational values (collectivelyt "Conservation Values") of great importance to Grantor, and, in particular, the people of Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield Counties, the Cities of Aspen and Glenwood Springs, and the Towns of Snowmass Village, Carbondale and Basalt, and the People of the State of Colorado." Paragraph $.c. of the Conservation Easement outlines 12 requirements that the ComprehehsJve .Plan must fulfil in order to be considered for approval by the State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT). Listed below are the 12 requirements and an explanation of how the Comprehensive Plan addresses these requirements: 1. "Location of both a permanent continuous public recreation trail running along the entire length of the property and the location of a continuous interim trial within the Pitkin County portion of the Property, in accordance with Ordinance 97-7, as amended, of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County and the location of an interim trail outside of Pitkin County;" RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 5 February 3, 2000 Exhibit A, Recreational Trails Plan, provides a map and written description of a continuous, permanent trail within the corridor. In addition, an interim trail within Pitkin County is also shown on the mapping. It is proposed that the permanent trail alignment shown on the map be used to place an interim trail on: the corridor outside of Pitkin County. This interim trail wil consist of a 4- to 6-foot wide dirt surface and/or 10-foot wide paved surface cross-section. 2. "location and description of trailhead facilities;~ Further shown on the mapping and described within Exhibit A~ Recreational Trails Plan are locations for potential trailheads along the corridor. Exhibit A also depicts a typical site plan for the trailheads on page 10. 3. "identification of public access points over the Property for the purpose of gaining access to the Roaring Fork River and other public lands along the Property for public recreation;" Included on the mapping in Exhibit A Recreational Trails Plan are potential points of access to the Roaring Fork River and federal lands. Access to federal lands are depicted as green, dashed arrows on the mapping. Access to the river are depicted as fish symbol with the letter "R~ on them. 4. "description of proposed wildlife and environmental education programs on the Property;' Attached as Exhibit E is a document entitled Reading the Roaring Fork Landscape: An Ideabook for interpretation and Environmental Education. This document outlines RFRHA future efforts to conduct wildlife and environmental education programs on the corridor, interpretive elements are also discussed within Exhibit A Recreational Trails Plan on pages 12 and 13. 5. 'a signage plan for all activities to be developed within the Property;" A signage plan is discussed and presented within Exhibit A Recreational Trails Plan on pages 12 and 13. 6. "location and existence of historic structures or areas;" Within Exhibit D: 1) is a memorandum dated September 2, 1999 from MK Centennial Engineers. On page 6, paragraph 12, of this memorandum, seven potential historic sites are identified. These potential sites are: a. The old D&RGW Railroad bed (milepost 360.91 - 393.33); b. Town of Basalt (indirect, milepost 383.0 - 384.0); RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 6 February 3, 2000 c. The Town of Catherine (indirect, milepost 376) d. The Town of Rathbone (indirect, milepost 393); e. The Satank Bridge (County Road Bridge, milepost 371.48); f. The Emma Historic District (indirect, milepost 381.92); g. The Glenwood Ditch (indirect, milepost 393-394). 7. 'a biologic inventory of the Property to amend and update the Baseline Documentation;' Attached as Exhibit D: 2) Environmental/Biologic Inventory for the corridor. This information is also summarized within the Criteria matrix and explanatory memorandum found within Exhibit D: 1). The inventory discussed within these Exhibi.ts describes potential impacts of the transit and trail systems on wetlands, wildlife movements, river crossings, noise levels, vehicle miles traveled, flora and fauna, water quality, fisheries and energy use. 8. "identification of criteria to be considered in implementing the Comprehensive Plan to protect and preserve the Conservation Values of the Property to the extent reasonable and practical; ~ The Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority is committed to uphold the values and goals of the Conservation Easement on the property. To that end, the following criteria will be used by RFRHA for evaluating proposed plans for uses of the corridor. These criteria will take the form of a policy statement and shall government the RFRHA's Board of Director and staff in their decisions regarding the development of uses on the property: Natural Values of the Corridor: · The de§ree to which a proposed use disturbs or otherwise changes the natural, existin§ topography, vegetation and landscape of the corridor will be considered and mitigated in the area(s) where the use will be placed. · The degree to which the proposed use will enhance or improve the existing site conditions so that they better conform to the surrounding topography, vegetation and landscape of the corridor will be considered when reviewin§ a proposed use. Scenic Values of the Corridor: · No new above-grounG structures or buildin§s shall be allowed on the corridor other than those proposed as a part of the rail or trail/recreational uses defined within the Comprehensive Plan. 04/17/00 ~fON 13:20 FAX 9707049284 RFREA .~]003 . RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 7 February 3, 2000 · ~'~o new roaas or o~ner surface disturbances shall be allowed bther :hah those proposed within the Comprehensive Plan. · RFRHA will request that future development on adjacent lands consider the scenic values of the corridor when designing development proposals for approval by local land use authorities. Historical Values of the Corridor: · New uses will consider the historical nature of adjacent properties and the rail corridor itself when final design of improvements for those uses are developed. · Interpretive and informational signing regarding historical community assets will be placed as a part of the trail and recreational improvements. Educational Values of the Corridor: · RFRHA shall encourage educational use of the corridor whenever feasible, provided that this use is passive in nature and does not leave permanent impact or change to the property. · Interpretive and informational signing regardin$ educational attributes of the corridor shall be pursued as a part of the trail and recreational improvements. Wildlife Values of the Corridor: · Impacts of the use of the property on wildlife habitat and migration corridors will be avoided or mitigated if necessaq~, Mitigation will be provided at the cost of the use that impacts wildlife sensitive portions of the corridor. · Wildlife viewin§ opportunities will be pursued by RFRHA and adjacent property owners agreeable to such activities. · No hunting will be allowed on the property. _Proper hunting safet~ procedures and protocal shall be observed when using thee corridor for hunting ac,cess to adjacent public or private lands. Trail and Recreational Values: · The trail plan described within the Comprehensive Plan will be pursued by RFRHA with the goal of completing a trail on the corridor by 20] 0. · Access to the Roaring Fork River and adjacent public lands will be opened to public use whenever practicable. RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 8 February 3, 2000 9. 'description of structures and facilities necessary to place and operate a rail transportation system and their location within the Property;~ Exhibit C Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and Exhibit D, items 1), 3), 4)t 6)t 7)~ and 8) describe the required structures and facilities necessary to place and operate rail transit within the corridor. I O. 'the identification of all areas other than Pitkin County where the Property will not support both trail and rail uses (In these areas the Comprehensive Plan will identify alternate routes for trails);" Based on Exhibit A: Recreational Trails Plan, it is possible to place both a trail and rail transit within the entire length of the corridor. There is a section just south of Glenwood Springs (milepost 362.7 - 363.8) where topography and proximity to Highway 82 make it difficult and somewhat detrimental to the environment to place the trail in the corridor. In this area, an initial, alternate route has been found between 23'~ Street in Glenwood Springs and Garfield County Road #154 (Buffalo Valley). This alternate route would leave the railroad right-of-way and follow the Atkinson Ditch along the Roaring Fork River. The alternate route will avoid potentially adverse impacts and would provide a better trail experience. 11 identification of all utility easements and facilities, both underground and above surface, including, but not limited to, telecommunications facilities; and" A~tached within Exhibit b: 1) is a listing of all utility easements and facilities currently located within the railroad right-of-way. 12. "a detailed improvements and operations plan for all uses, including a management and funding strategy." An improvement plan for the trail element of property use can be found within Exhibit A: Recreational Trails Plan, Sections 4. Trail System Elements, 5. Trail Descriptions and 6. Phasing Recommendations. Section 7 of this document addresses management, maintenance and operations envisioned for the recreational use of the corridor. Development and management of the valley-wide trail is both a local and regional endeavor with local segments forming the most heavily used portions. An effective operating relationship between the local participants is essential for funding and implementation of trail improvements in a reasonable timeframe. The organization of a management entity with overall responsibility for trail funding, implementation and perpetual management makes the most sense in the long term. One approach would be to extend and maintain the existing Intergovernmental Agreement authorizing RFRHA to provide this management RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 9 February 3, 2000 function. Another approach would be to form a non-profit corporation with tax- exempt status and a Board of Directors. Costs for the initial, ultimate and Pitkin County interim trail are provided within Section 8 of Exhibit A: Recreational Trails Plan. Funding will likely come from a variety of local, state and possibly federal sources, with the local funding representing the "local match" for state or federal cost sharing. Local funding can come from general or recreation funds already established within the local entities and/or from the formation of a recreation or transportation district. The transit system 'selected for the corridor envisions a commuter or light rail system in the rail right-of-way from Glenwood Springs to Carbondale. At the Catherine Store Road east of Carbondal e, the preferred system would leave the railroad right- of-way and cross over to the Highway 82 alignment to more directly serve El Jebel and Basalt. East of basalt, the transit system would a~aln connect with the railroad right-of-way and continue up the valley to the Gerbazdale area. Here. the transit system would again cross over to the Highway 82 alignment and follow it into Aspen. Nine stops are anticipated with service every half-hour throughout the day and evening. Management of a transit system in place on the corridor must be under the supervision of a regional or rural transportation authority. The state legislature has passed enabling legislation to allow for rural transportation districts that can include some or all of participating counties. If approved by the voters, a rural ~z~ ~-~, .~ transportation district can generate funding through a $-I O*~i~L~*~e ~ a ¼-cent sales tax. It is anticipated that overall management will be the responsibility of a transit system will come from this rural transportation authority. Attached as Exhibit D: 9) is documentation describing the proposed rural transportation authority currently being considered by the local governments. Included within Exhibit D: 3) are two documents that describe the funding strategy for the proposed transit system. The first is a one-page listing entitled ~Capital Funding for the Rail Alternative~. This listing shows the a possible mix of local, state and federal funding that could be used to fund the capital costs of a transit system. Currently, the funding is in place for 85% of the capital costs. However, nearly $28 million still needs to be raised in local funding to make the project a reality. Further included within Exhibit D: 3) is a memorandum dated September 10, 1999 that discusses the various funding options available to cover this 15*/, capital funding shortfall and ongoing operations/maintenance costs. Ill. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS OF THE RECRF. ATIONAL TRAILS PLAN The overall intent of the Recreational Trails Plan is to develop a trails and recreation plan for the corridor that provides a wide range of public recreational opportunities RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 10 February 3, 2000 including trails, river access, wildlife viewing, habitat conservation and educational and interpretive activities. The purpose of the Recreational Tails Plan is as follows: · To provide a continuous trail between Glenwood Springs and Aspen on the railroad right-of-way that will be environmentally cleared through an Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) process; · To meet the expressed community recreational needs; · To develop trails programming and design principals that will provide a quality trail experience · To plan for support facilities such as trailheads and parking; · To minimize impacts on adjacent landowners; · To develop implementation costs. A summary of key findings within the Recreational Trails Plan is as follows: Design Details: The plan describes an "initial" and "ultimate" trail design along the corridor. The intent of the initial trail is to establish a 3- to 6-feet dirt surface that will extend the length of the corridor. Establishment of this initial trail will allow for public access to the corridor in an expedient manner. The "ultimate" trail identifies what the facility may look like in the long term at final buildout. The plan envisions a 10-foot wide hard surface and a 4-foot wide soft surface as the platform for the ultimate trail. It is likely that the initial trail will be built as one project, connecting Glenwood Springs to Aspen with a multi-use recreational path. The Ultimate trail will likely be built in segments as demand warrants. For example, the ultimate trail will probably be constructed in and around the more urban areas of the valley (Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, and Basalt), with the rural areas being filled in as time progresses. However, there may be some rural areas that for various reasons such as safety or need, are built to the ultimate trail specifications more rapidly than others. A facility investment plan has been included as a part of the Recreational Trails Plan that prioritizes various segments of the alignment in an attempt to illustrate where and when construction of the ultimate trail makes the most sense. The Recreational Trails Plan also defines the following policies with regard to trail design: · Every attem pt will be made to maximize separation of trail and transit on the corridor; · Grade-separated intersections will be pursued where the trail crosses the tracks or major public road crossings; · Soft-surfaced pedestrian paths will be established from the trail alignment to public lands and the river where appropriate; RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 11 February 3, 2000 · A common theme for construction of trail amenities will be encouraged provided that local governments may modify these themes within their own jurisdictions; · Natural, salvaged and recycled materials will be utilized during the course of trail and facility construction; · The facilities will be designed for Iow maintenance and reduction of potential vandalism. Trail Use: The trail will be designed and operated for multi-purpose use. Uses include walking, running, biking, skating, equestrian and cross-country skiing. The ultimate trail will be designed and operated with the potential for commuting ~n mind. Local entities will have control over use of the trail in their jurisdiction. No camping or open fires will be allowed on the railroad corridor. linl~ages: Every effort will be made to allow for easy, convenient and direct access to the trail. Connection to existing and proposed trails will be encouraged and coordinated. A regional recreational experience will be stressed as a part of the trail experience. Environmental Impacts/Mitigation: The overriding goal of trail design and management will be to protect the natural quality of the railroad corridor. This will be done through minimization of im pacts to the natural environment through design, management and education. Sensitive areas will be identified and mitigation measurements will be implemented where appropriate. This may include seasonal trail closures on portions of the right-of-way, for example. Safety: Safety of the trail user and the adjacent landowners will be assured through design and management techniques. This will include providing adequate width to avoid user conflicts, situating trail access points so that they are sensitive to safety, and providing barrier protection where appropriate between trail and transit. Perimeter fencing is also proposed to reduce conflicts with livestock and wildlife. As mentioned above, grade-separated crossings at major intersections will be considered, as will solar-powered call boxes in rural portions of the corridor. Implementation: Implementation of the overall trail system will be a regional effort that will include the local governments, state government and possibly the private sector. A collaborative final design process including all affected parties will be completed prior to construction of any segment of the trail. This process will include the public, local governments and interest groups. IV. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS OF THE ACCF_SS CONTROL PtAN The overall intent of the Access Contra Plan is to promote the stewardship of the corridor by the owner (RFRHA), adjacent property owners, the conservation and RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 12 February 3, 2000 trail easement holder and the local governments. In addition, the plan strives to facilitate coordination between RFRHA and the local governments, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Colorado Public utilities Commission. The purpose of the Access Control Plan is three-fold: To protect the health and safety of the public using the railroad corridor; · To preserve the value of the transportation/recreation facilities by m~nimizing new crossings, ensuring safe operation and maintenance of existing crossings and consolidating crossing wherever practicable; · To preserve the open space and trail values of the corridor by avoiding adverse impacts to the open space, recreation, scenic and wildlife values, by avoiding impacts to the public enjoyment of the corridor, and when impacts can not be avoided, mitigate those impacts to the greatest extent possible. A summary of key findings within the Access Control Plan is as follows: Policy for Existing Crossings: The plan acknowledges, to the best extent possible, all existing crossing on the corridor. It finds that there are at least 102 crossings, 37 public and 65 private. Changes to or creation of new, public crossings will be under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Public Utility Commission (CPUC). The CPUC has procedures in place to deal with proposed changes to or additions of public crossings. Private crossings under RFRHA control will be allowed'by permit as opposed to easement or license, and must meet the standards for construction defined within the Access Plan. Existing private crossings shall be allowed to continue on the corridor. If the existing crossing is already licensed, that license shall be adhered to unless it is mutually determined by the licensee and RFRHA that modification of the license is warranted. If an existing crossing is currently not licensed, or a change of use of the existing crossing is requested, the user of the crossing shall apply for a license or license modification under a permitting process administered by RFRHA. Policy for New Crossings: New crossings of the railroad corridor shall be generally prohibited. There are exceptions to this policy, including: · A new public street or road crossing, which is administered through the CPUC; · A need for a new crossing to provide access to a private property that otherwise cannot be reasonably provided by an existing permitted crossing or another route (i.e. connection to an existing public road). Parties interested i~ pursuing a new crossing under the exceptions stated above must apply for such a crossing through either the CPUC procedures, or through the permitting procedure administered by RFR HA. It is the burden of the party proposing a new crossing is necessary under the hardships described above. RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 13 February 3, 2000 If a new crossing of the corridor is pursued, the following standards shal be followed: · A grade-separated crossing will be preferred; · The new crossing must be shown to have no adverse im pact to rail operations or to the trails and open space values of the corridor. · Consolidation of existing crossings may be required as a part of any approval of a new crossing; · Coordination with local agencies will be a part of the review/approval process. Policy for Crossing, Consolidation: Consolidation of existing crossings 'is an effective method of reducing conflicts on the railroad corridor. To that eno, RFRHA will encourage the consolidation of existing crossings wherever and whenever practicable. RFRHA may also require crossing consolidations as a part of any new crossing application, proposed development activity, or in conjunction with joint railroad/other transportation facility improvements. For example, if a commuter transit improvement is conducted on the railroad property, some public road crossings may be consolidated as a part of the public works project. Opportunities for Crossing, Consolidation: Opportunities for crossing consolidation will be based on the following criteria: · Minor crossings within Y2-mile of each other; · Major crossings within 1-mile of each other; · "Paper" crossings (i.e. crossings that are licensed but are not physically located on the corridor); · Private crossings where alternative access to public roads are available; · Crossings that can be combined via frontage roads. The corridor mapping included within the Exhibit B: Access Plan shows crossings that are suitable for potential consolidation under these criteria. RFRHA will pro- actively pursue crossing consolidation by meeting with license holders individually, evaluating potential consolidations on a case-by-case basis based upon transportation, trail and open space values, conducting safety analysis where applicable, and monitoring development activity on adjacent private lands. Permit for Crossings and Consolidations: RFP, HA currently requires private interests who are desirous of crossing or otherwise utilizing the corridor to obtain permission to do so from RFRHA. Attached as Exhibit B-2 is the permit form entitled "Notice of Intention to Undertake Rail Corridor Activities". This form will be used by RFRHA to review and approve/deny crossings and other uses of the rail corridor. RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 14 February 3, 2000 V. SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS OF THE CORRIDOR INVESTMENT STUDY The purpose of the Corridor Investment Study (CIS) is to determine the best, locally feasible, long-range regional transportation system for the Roaring Fork valley. The CIS will also answer the questions posed in the Comprehensive Plan regarding transit on the railroad corridor. A summary of key findings within the Corridor Investment Study is as follows: Technolo~/Alternatives: Through an intense public process, 46 technology options were considered. At the end, rail was selected as a "build~ alternative for further study. The build alternative was compared to two other alternatives during the more detailed, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Process: The "No-build" alternative, which looks at our transportation future with only projects that are currently approved or budgeted (also known as the committed projects alternative); and the ~Transportation Systems Management~ (TSM) alternative that looks at improving the existing RFTA Bus system (also known as the Enhanced Bus alternative). Alignment Options: Five potential alignments (A through E) were developed and combined with the rail/build and bus/TSM technology options. Each of the alignments followed either the railroad right-of-way or a combination of the right~of- way and the Highway 82 alignment. All five alignments survived the Phase 1 reality check and fatal flaw screening process. As a result of the Phase 2 comparative evaluation, Alignment C Iwith a crossing option at Catherine's Store, the northern crossing option at Gerbazdale and the Alignment B option south of Gerbazdale) was chosen for the rail/build alternative to be evaluated for the DEIS analysis. However, Alignment A, which follows the railroad corridor from Glenwood Springs to Woody Creek, will be considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement process as a possible phasing alternative. All five alignment options are fully described and illustrated within Exhibit C: Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prol~ulsion Options: Of the 19 total'propulsion options determined, eight were selected to be continued for detailed study. They include diesel, gasoline, hydrogen internal combustion, liquid propane, natural gas, electric battery, electric overhead catenary, and electric/gas hybrid. Station Location Olations: Sixteen ~)otential station locations were determined through the initial screening process. Of the sixteen discovered, nine were carried forward into the DEIS for comparative purposes. They are: RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 15 February 3, 2000 · West Glenwood Springs · Downtown Glenwood Springs · State Highway 133 (Carbondale) · Downtown Carbondale · El Jebel/Willits Lane · Basalt · Brush Creek Road · Pitkin County Airport · Galena & Main St (downtown Aspen) Significant Environmental Impacts: Through the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Process, The following environmental impacts were determined for the rail/build alternative: Beneficial Impacts: · Reduced air pollution · Increased transportation capacity · Safer transportatior · Improved quality of life · Greater potential to concentrate growth through transit oriented development · Increased transportation choices · Reduction in buses Adverse Impacts: · Relocation of or encroachment on households and businesses · Increased noise levels · Potential for encroachment on bald eagle buffer zone · New structures creating visual impacts Public Involvement: An intense public involvement process, funded and staffed over and above the work conducted within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement process; was conducted by RFRHA. In addition to a nested task force/policy committee structure, open houses, public meetings, workshops, focus groups, elected official briefings, newsletters and media outreach programs were conducted. Capital Costs: Capital costs for the rail/build alternative has been determined at $194 million. This cost was derived using Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) trains running on Alignment C and stopping at the nine stations listed above. This cost also includes the feeder bus routes, park-and-rides and station improvements required. RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 16 February 3, 2000 Operation and Maintenance Costs: An annua operations and maintenance cost of $10.8 million for opening day, 2003 and $20.85 million for the year 2020 -" (planning horizon) was determined for the rail/build alternative. This cost is based on a transit schedule that operates every half-hour between 6:00 am and 12:00 am every day. These costs also include the feeder bus systems, stations and maintenance facilities. This cost does not include revenues obtained from fares. Next Steps: After the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is published in January, 2000, a public comment period will begin on the DEIS that will last 90 days. Work on the Final Environmental Impact Statement will begin in March/April of 2000. ,k~/i~ The FEI$ will respond to all of the comments brought forward during the public comment period and will also determine financing and governance for the system. As a part of the financing work, phasing of the system will also be considered. It is anticipated that a FEIS will be completed and a Record of Decision issued for the project by November, 2000. If the required local financing is accumulated and a regional entity capable of managing the system is approved by the voters by November, 2000, a system can be built and begin operating by September, 2003. VI. CHANGES TO THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT REQUIRED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Based on the information and definition of uses contained within this Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that the following modifications, additions or deletions to the scope of the Conservation Easement be approved by the RFRHA Board, member governments and participating state agencies: Approved Uses. The following uses are determined to be appropriate for the property under the Comprehensive Plan: Trail and Recreational Use: A regional trail, with associated side trails to access the river and public lands, trailheads and signage program as defined within Exhibit A: Recreational Trails Plan. In addition, placement of interpretive and environmental educational facilities as described within Exhibit E: Reading the Roaring Fork Landscape: An Ideabook for Interpretation and Environmental Education. Rail Transit and Freight Use: Placement of all facilities, including trackage, stations and associated structures, for a rail transit system in some or all of the corridor, as described within Exhibit C: Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Exhibit D: Additional Technical Information as Requested Through the Local Decision Makin§ Process. Glenwood Springs Bypass Route: On October 21, 1999, the Glenwood Springs City Council adopted Resolution #99-11 designating the Railroad right-of-way from the RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 17 February 3', 2000 Colorado River to the vicinity of 23~ and 27n Street as the preferred bypass alternative for Highway 82. In addition, Glenwood Springs' participation in RFRHA had been conditioned upon the possible use of the railroad right-of-way for a vehicular bypass provided that such a bypass would not preclude the use of the right-of-way for rail or trail purposes. Attached as Exhibit F: City of Glenwood Springs Bypass is a copy of Resolution #99-11 and a copy of the conceptual study conducted by Glenwood Springs regarding the various bypass alternatives proposed. The use of the railroad right-of-way for placement of a bypass route is stil in the early stages of design. In addition, no funding for the project has been determined. The cost for a bypass along the railroad right-of-way is estimated at between $55 and $100 million. Pursing the ultimate placement of the bypass is seen as a joint effort between Glenwood Springs and RFRHA. Including the Glenwood bypass within the Comprehensive Plan~ although anticipated by both parties during the purchase~ in no way binds RFRHA to participating in any future funding of the planning or capital expenses related to construction of the bypass. As plans are refined and finalized, both partners will work together to insure that the project fulfill the mutual goals of each entity. Anticipated Future Uses Appropriate to the Corridon There are some emerging local issues in the Roaring Fork valley that may at some point in the future require the use of the corridor. Such use of the corridor will not impact the conservation values or the approved uses of the corridor, but could enhance the nature of the corridor as a public asset. Two such uses are public telecommunication and existing transit use. It is becoming apparent that rural access to broadband telecommunications technology is to a large extent being ignored by the private sector, primarily because of it's poor economic return. As a result, rural areas may find themselves forced to provide their own access to this broadband technology if they want to keep pace with their urban counterparts. As a result of this need to stay abreast with new technology, it may be necessary for the railroad right-of-way to be available as a corridor for a future regional telecommunication system. Any use of the corridor for these purposes would likely come in the form of buried cable or fiber optic lines, and should not be undertaken unless it is a part of an overall regional telecommunication master plan. Any physical undergrounding of utilities in the corridor shall be subordinate to existing and future planned transportation and recreation uses of the corridor. Another possible future use of the property could be for placement of facilities needed under existing transit use prior to ir~ plementation of rail transit. Use of portions of the right-of-way, as designated within Exhibit D: 4) Transit Oriented Development Study, could be used for existing or enhanced transit. This use of the RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 18 February 3, 2000 property will consist of parkland-rides and/or stations for bus improvements to facilitate existing Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) bus service or to facilitate the -'- Enhanced Bus/TSM transit alternative if this alternative is carried forward as a phasing option within the Record of Decision IROD). Any future anticipated use of the corridor deemed appropriate by the RFRHA Board will be reviewed, discussed and considered for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan under the methodology described below, Removal of the Access Plan from the Conservation Easement: Because the Access Plan sets out policies, standards and procedures for existing and new crossings, as well as for consolidation of crossings, the oversight and approval of crossings on the corridor can now be managed by RFRHA. ~ Modification of the Conservation Easement/Restriction: The conservation values of the corridor are defined as being the natural, scenic, open space, historical, educational, wildlife, trail and recreational values. The Comprehensive Plan addresses and preserves all of these values with the exception of the natural and c~c.~ _~?_cc wildlife values. The conservation easement, which now covers the entire corridor, is reduced in physical scope to cover only those areas where natural features, such as ri parian areas, critical wildlife habitats and prime wetland areas. With this reduction in size~ the conservation easement may be modified to become a restriction or coveneant on the property. The boundaries of the reduced conservation easement/restriction are described within Exhibit G. The criteria proposed to protect the conservation values on the remainder of the corridor can be used by RFRHA to govern use (or non-use) of the property in the future. Retention of the Trail Easement: It is proposed that the trail easement be retained by the easement holder. The trail easement will burden the entire property until the trai is actually placed, at which time it will be reduced to a 20-foot wide easement, 10-feet either side of the centerline of the trail. Procedure for Modification to the Comprehensive Plan: Every five years, the RFRHA Board shall review the Comprehensive Plan and make changes to it if deemed necessary. In addition, RFRHA staff or Board members may propose to initiate a modification to the Corn prehensive Plan because of a perceived need to do so. The RFRHA Board must approve the initiation of the modification process before it is to proceed. After approval to proceed, any amendment to the Corn ~rehensive Plan will be initially drafted and presented to the Board. After receiving comments from the RFRHA Board, the draft will be distributed to all member governments, including Great Outdoors Colorado and The Colorado Department of Transportation, for their comments. A final draft of the amendment(s) will then be brought back to the RFRHA Board for their final acceptance. Once accepted by the RFRHA Board, the amendment(s'~ will be sent back to the member governments for their ratification. All member governments RFRHA Comprehensive Plan Page 19 February 3, 2000 must approve of the amendment(s) before they are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Transferability of the Comprehensive Plan: In the Intergovernmental Agreement forming RFRHA, it is anticipated that ownership of the rail corridor may be transferred to another public agency. If this is the case, the Comprehensiv? Plan will be tied to the property and will transfer with property ownership to that new ownership entity.