The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003 Lionshead Redevlopment Environmental Impact Report • • `? • a r So • 1 os cr , ., _...,. � S. i m Pte`°Te O . )01.16"14 alp ----' *41 ' WEST DAY ! 7 . * 4r-- _141111 , it "7 2.: niw5H0 I \ ,' ?7 cou SPA " I F AAF3TA ., f EAST Li L-- A NOM 1,101VAGEWM3 ❑L f LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT Environmental Impact Report Submittal To The Town of Vail Submitted by VAIL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY September 2003 • Lionshead Core • West Day Lot • Tennis Court Site • North Day Lot rir* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS September 2003 Lionshead Redevelopment: Core Project Summary of Lionshead Core Page 2 Existing Conditions Page 3 Proposed Development Plan Page 4 Report Summary 1. Hydrologic Conditions Page 5 2. Soils Conditions Page 6 3. Atmospheric Conditions Page 7 4. Biotic Conditions Page 8 5. Other Environmental Conditions Page 8 6. Visual Conditions Page 9 7. Land Use Conditions Page 10 8. Circulation and Transportation Conditions Page 11 9. Population Characteristics Page 12 Cr, 10. Alternative Development Scenarios Page 13 Lionshead Redevelopment: West Day Lot Project Summary of Lionshead West Day Lot. Page 2 Existing Conditions Page 3 Proposed Development Plan Page 4 Report Summary 1. Hydrologic Conditions Page 5 2. Soils Conditions Page 6 3. Atmospheric Conditions Page 7 4. Biotic Conditions Page 8 5. Other Environmental Conditions Page 8 6. Visual Conditions Page 9 7. Land Use Conditions Page 10 8. Circulation and Transportation Conditions Page 11 9. Population Characteristics Page 11 10. Alternative Development Scenarios Page 12 C Table of Contents.doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 1 r Lionshead Redevelopment: Tennis Court Site Project Summary of Lionshead West Day Lot. Page 2 Existing Conditions Page 3 Proposed Development Plan Page 4 Report Summary 1. Hydrologic Conditions Page 5 2. Soils Conditions Page 6 3. Atmospheric Conditions Page 6 4. Biotic Conditions Page 8 5. Other Environmental Conditions Page 9 6. Visual Conditions Page 9 7. Land Use Conditions Page 10 8. Circulation and Transportation Conditions Page 11 9. Population Characteristics Page 12 10. Alternative Development Scenarios Page 12 Lionshead Redevelopment: North Day Lot Project Summary of Lionshead West Day Lot. Page 2 Existing Conditions Page 3 Proposed Development Plan Page 4 Report Summary 1. Hydrologic Conditions Page 5 2. Soils Conditions Page 6 3. Atmospheric Conditions Page 6 4. Biotic Conditions Page 7 5. Other Environmental Conditions Page 7 6. Visual Conditions Page 8 7. Land Use Conditions Page 9 8. Circulation and Transportation Conditions Page 10 9. Population Characteristics Page 11 10. Alternative Development Scenarios Page 12 C Table of Contents.doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 2 4 0 ( P' Appendix A: Conceptual Drainage Report for Lionshead Redevelopment by Alpine Engineering, Inc. Appendix B: Soils and Foundation Investigation, Lionshead Core Area by Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix C: Soils and Foundation Investigation, Marriott Property and West Day Lot by Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix D: Soils and Foundation Investigation, Tennis Court Sites by Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. Appendix E: Air, Noise, and Odor Impact Assessment, Proposed Lionshead Core, West Day Lot, North Day Lot, and Tennis Court Site Development Projects in Vail, Colorado by Greystone Environmental Consultants. Appendix F: Biology and Wetlands Impact Assessment Proposed Lionshead Core, West Day Lot, North Day Lot, and Tennis Court Site Development Projects in Vail, Colorado by Greystone Environmental Consultants. Appendix G: Vail Resorts' Lionshead Development Traffic Impact Study by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Appendix H: Soils and Foundation Investigation, North Day Lot by Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. C Table of Contents.doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 3 Environmental Impact Report Lionshead Redevelopment Core Site Vail, Colorado September 2003 This report was prepared by: 42140 Architecture Inc. 1621 18th Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303)292-3388 Contributing Consultants: Alpine Engineering Hart Howerton P.O. Box 97 137 Benchmark Road Edwards, CO 81632 Avon, Colorado 81620 Braun Associates, Inc. Koechlein Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 2658 12364 West Alameda Parkway, Suite 115 Edwards, CO 81632 Lakewood, CO 80226 Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. Kimley-Hom&Associates Inc. 5231 South Quebec Street 950 Seventeenth Street Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Suite 1050 Denver, CO 80202 Hart Howerton 30 Hotaling Place San Francisco, CA 94111 This report has been prepared pursuant to Title 12,Zoning Regulations,Chapter 12,Section 12-12-4: Studies and Data Required for Environmental Impact Reports,of the Vail Town Code. The requirement for this report was determined by Section 12-12-2: Applicability. Lionshead Redevelopment Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 1 Lionshead Core EIR.doc o a PROJECT SUMMARY Vail Resorts Development Company is proposing the redevelopment of the area encompassing the existing Gondola Building and Sunbird Lodge in the heart of Lionshead. This area is referred to as "Lionshead Core." The proposal is to demolish the existing buildings and replace them with more architecturally harmonious buildings that redefine the street patterns and pedestrian flows through the village. The following descriptions summarize the functions, areas, and quantities, and are approximate. Refer to submitted design drawings for explicit quantities and functions. The new structures would house 22,000 sq. ft. of retail, 9,770 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 13,545 sq. ft. of skier services. There will be 79 condominium residences in 180,000 square feet. The hotel will offer 81 guestrooms (60 are hotel lockoffs), conference center, ski club, restaurant and spa, for a total of 53,000 square feet. Below grade, a two-level parking structure provides access and service to the buildings above. The structure will accommodate 290 parking spaces, and 8 loading docks. Above grade, the project will consist of two buildings, with pedestrian walkways and squares tying the project together and to the village core. Construction is scheduled to start in 2005, with completion projected for 2007. PROJECT BOUNDARIES The property being developed is Lot 2, Block 1, Sunbird Lodge; Lot 4, Block 1, Gondola coorBuilding; Tract G, Tract H, and Tract D. A portion of Tract C is being developed as public restrooms. All properties are owned by Vail Resorts Development Company. Lionshead Redevelopment Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 2 Lionshead Core EIR.doc 0 . U y bA cg dam" Q O O a a © v CI) U 0 0 w Cu �,O a c o ,� 4 a. E .c z C to O O OM .. O b M C :-.-1., W ril C .—I CI• 0 O .4 or H O M i; M • N op C V, U j • N -o .O �O.I b b 0 0 1 �� w rN f ^i- --g tas, n .. : z 1 �, if6 _. — 1tt 1 1 y �l\ U + ip � } 1 31 } �,`�, E v 1 .1 1 I Lffi is I, 1 \` `•,\�, i U ti j i ( j v` ' p i /I I: n O i i i 1 q% 'n i_ . rq- It ,,, O.* \ \liti V �� ' # J / - ( \ \.., 0, (4 } ... 1 m 1 ,ry) 5• 0. i 0, _,; ! -I tt_____ L, , 7:::, ,t....„ - _..........,,,' : , :.,... U^- CP i f," ..r 1. mit r 102.81' •t£ .�' � 4 1 cn cu WJ ~� _L......, bwv i� 3 l Y k`4 ;```it!'. i t\1 'gyp F I .,.f . : �� i rx 'sue .._.., , ,:' 710- 14;.--....-'-' 's 4 7--1 ., ,.. i -- ..i4A; 'El'. ,, , „ \_ � 6O o^ 1.01 % I $a ∎∎ r'L r 74 '" w f .. / 0 y ;: � w r_.;, .`L., I : E'-1E `g 3 o� 1,:c S3£a iV 9,9-----.. ,.,:,• '" 1 4. } u y lit _-vi •:, edilk !y -'Sa t�,fc ` S / .a4 irs tltl �. �- b I� .� a t-.+.....,.tea U r is 3°().,.-- ! ib • I /�� g+� } t �' 1.69 � � { E-1 }+ , i 1 3tq 1 '1 �k7 �mrr lAw ounww cc / #x I 1 ,;:= ii ✓1 ,, 'p fr £ f'1fW.eT gg t pa ::- O ;a'a ; £: V, /r-. gee: q L65 ^`w `5 _� +y •/ "� !:: ' •,/ ri_ f6 I t s� C C4.4 no' 1 al.. ?n^ i11 L72 C•1 0 g r %q 111T1I f.!v •, U ,, 3b:iE€A,.. 1J v s U4 „�V•v� � J• mi<lrr S ^A3 a° O , •,1,-'111: -: .',7.17:v" — .. , ; ■- ■ -.111 `" r" 'ITS �`' \`, 1 ; Ti i i.+ ? 1 CI i 8 1 1 Xfiq ` J T�., y G" 4 V I � (( t 1i f..•0 0 i j ',;: ,,,90, . - 4, .6. i.,H WEST LIONAD CI CLE V� } t., ....� ,`'• ' , i +d o v�j.+ ff til H O}, rn C/) P. ID I o C 0 ) ~ it 0.� a� a QU ct 4) a a b el 01 rn 0 E 0 0 a W ii V] 5 - - . F frIP1 o ct g .-\', Nii•ri-4.77----, i�4 w� S y! ° y'- IIJd T a ', a! ! C2.�i * �JIJ $ �fla .� J 4s -_ ''" J ,qr . = `'I r- P1,:', "- ®. 'y 4 i� `k �' e` L= -a * �4~� , ,z,,♦ �1 f r a I— Y it; • r-otto - $1‘ ' (rt. 4 . ; !- I „\• €� N a, k i Vi �,„ ~ 'I .M s p ; ' � 7 �� w 1 p .U i-U ....,: 011 �JIIF: �� rm I � T ms, arc - I �iv? ( a � 1.s .'' 'ftS O � " II �{ o _ � i ` E fir , I I =N a 0 . -�`�,�; � •I I.o 4 ci) -a 0 i i"'/ /. / �,K' yy �-4-5, J�Y sT4 1 i ny� to U rs 4� k0.4 = ,4 0 ;;it it IOC' .4%:41Wt 'Vrittlii clik,„„q„,,,TIte:4..-• ,.. 4,' ri �_r F; �r I . ,_N. ,L.:: :,,....,,.,,„„:„.,;-:,-„,....,„,---- - , ct co C REPORT SUMMARY C 1. Hydrologic Conditions: A. Summary The Core area is located adjacent to the Eagle Balm Gondola and Chair 6. Gore Creek is a couple of hundred feet to the south and is not impacted by this development. Very little off- site drainage flows to this site, and there are no natural water features on the site. The majority of the site is currently developed with existing buildings or paving that will be removed to make way for the proposed redevelopment. There will not be a significant change to the hydrologic conditions of this site as it is already a densely developed piece of property. Stormwater will be conveyed through and off of the site by a series of inlets and pipes. Flow will be directed such that it maintains historic drainage patterns as much as possible. A detailed report was prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc, and is included in Appendix A. B. Environmental Impacts As the site is already a densely developed piece of property, there will be no significant change to the hydrologic conditions. The greatest chance for environmental impact is during the construction phase. C. Proposed Mitigation Care will be taken to remove pollutants from the runoff to maintain downstream water quality. A water quality vault will be placed in the storm drain system to capture pollutants. The existing storm drain system in place between the proposed development and Gore Creek will be evaluated to verify if it has the capacity to carry the flows from the development. Detention is not expected to be provided because of the close proximity of Gore Creek and the minimal increase in peak flow that the proposed development will have on the peak of the overall drainage basin. A sediment control plan will be prepared for the project to limit the transportation of sediments to Gore Creek and its tributaries during construction. Devices that may be used during construction to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving the site include stabilized construction entrances, silt fence, straw bales, stone outlet structures, sediment traps, or a pumped sediment removal system. Lionshead Redevelopment Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 5 Lionshead Core ElR.doc S D. Irreversible Impacts Since the p roposed development contributes a minimal increase in peak flow, it is not expected that the new development will have any irreversible impact to the existing system. Additional storm sewer will be added if necessary. 2. Soils Report: A. Summary The natural soils on the site will support the buildings as designed. The natural sand and gravel will support spread footings foundations and slab-on-grade construction. Existing fill will not support slab-on-grade construction, and will be removed prior to replacement of fill or construction of floors. At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at various elevations in exploratory borings. Because the ground water appears to be above the lowest below-grade level, it is anticipated that temporary and permanent dewatering will be necessary. Due to the close proximity to existing structures and the anticipated depths of excavation, shoring will be required in order to proceed with construction of the site. Drainage around the structures will be designed and constructed to provide for rapid removal of surface runoff and avoid concentration of water adjacent to foundation walls. A detailed report was prepared by Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc, and is included in Appendix B. B. Environmental Impacts The amount of water pumped out by the dewatering system will need to be monitored during excavation to determine if the existing storm system can accommodate this additional flow. A device will need to be used to prevent sediment laden runoff from leaving the site during dewatering. Also, there is the potential for radon gas in the subsurface strata of the mountain terrain. Due to the granular nature of the natural soils and shallow ground water, it appears that the risk for radon gas at this site is low. C. Proposed Mitigation Refer to Section 1: Hydrologic Conditions and the report by Alpine Engineering in Appendix A for details of devices used to remove sediment from the pumped water, prior to it entering the storm system. To minimize any impact of radon gas, the below grade areas will be ventilated. D. Irreversible Impacts As the amount of ground water pumped out of the site is unknown at this time, it is not known if it will have any irreversible impacts on Gore Creek. However, the estimated amounts do not appear to create any problems. Lionshead Redevelopment Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 6 Lionshead Core EIR.doc 0 3. Atmospheric Conditions: cle A. Summary The small rise in vehicle traffic in the area may result in a slight increase in fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. However, the impact on the local air quality is expected to be minimal relative to contributions from vehicle traffic on I-70, and general vehicle traffic in the Town of Vail. Short-term impacts to air quality may occur during the demolition and construction phase of the project. These impacts would result in temporary increases in levels of airborne particulates and tailpipe emissions. Impacts are predicted to be small and can be successfully mitigated. Impacts to air quality from the operation phases are expected to be insignificant. It is anticipated that boilers and emergency generators will be associated with the project. All combustion flue gasses would be vented through devices that meet standard practice for air pollution control. Overall, this equipment should not significantly alter the local air quality. A detailed report was prepared by Greystone Environmental Consultants, and is included in Appendix C. B. Environmental Impact Potential impacts to air quality from demolition will depend on the type of materials contained in the structures and on the demolition operating procedures. Older buildings may contain c asbestos and lead-based paints. During construction, emissions of fugitive dust will be generated from earth moving and material handling, vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved surfaces, and tailpipe emissions from diesel-powered earthmoving equipment. It is expected that these impacts will be minimal because control measures can be applied. Upon completion of the project, the additional vehicle traffic may result in slight increases in fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. C. Proposed Mitigation If, during the demolition of the existing structures, asbestos is found, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Pollution Control Division (CDPHE) will require an inspection followed by abatement before demolition can begin. Asbestos is not considered a hazardous waste and is handled as a solid waste, but must be disposed of at landfills that accept asbestos. After asbestos has been properly abated, it is not considered an issue for impacts to ambient air. If the buildings contain lead-based paint, it is expected that demolition would generate insignificant emissions of lead. The lead would predominantly remain in the refuse material, where it would be retained on the painted surfaces or in large flakes of paint that would not disperse into the air. Measures should be followed to minimize generation of fugitive dust during demolition. These include wetting down, including pre-watering of the work surface, removal of dirt and mud deposited on improved streets and roads, and wetting down, washing, or covering haulage Cof equipment when necessary to minimize emissions of fugitive dust during loading and transit. Lionshead Redevelopment . Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 7 Lionshead Core EIR.doc • • During construction, dust emissions can be mitigated by wet suppression, soil compaction, minimizing disturbance of storage piles, adding gravel to unpaved surfaces, limiting vehicle speed, weight, and number of vehicles on the road, minimizing "track out," and street sweepers. D. Irreversible Impacts There are no irreversible impacts from the demolition of the existing structures. Fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions will be limited to the construction period. It is expected that impacts from fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions will be minimal because control measures can be applied. Upon completion of the project, fugitive dust can be mitigated by periodically cleaning paved roads. Additional impact on local air quality is expected to be minimal relative to contributions from vehicle traffic on I-70 and general vehicle traffic in the Town of Vail. 4. Biotic Conditions No vegetation, animal habitat, or wetlands exist in the project area other than minor clumps of tress and shrubs. The proposed construction therefore would not have any negative affect on these conditions. 5. Other Environmental Conditions A. Summary The site was reviewed for impacts due to sound and odor. There will be an increase in noise and odors during the demolition and construction phases due to equipment. During the operation phase, the noise due to the increase in traffic will be barely perceptible over the existing ambient noise that is dominated by the vehicle noise from I-70. There will be no significant impact from odor during the operation phase of the project, as trash storage will occur inside the building, and cooking exhaust will be expelled above the roof level of the project. A detailed report was prepared by Greystone Environmental Consultants, and is included in Appendix C. B. Environmental Impact There will be no long-term impact from noise or odors for this project. The short-term impact during construction will be from equipment. Noise generated by construction would occur only during the daytime, and should be within the local noise limit for construction. During the daytime, there are better conditions for odor dispersal, limiting potential impacts to odor from construction. Lionshead Redevelopment Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 8 Lionshead Core EIR.doc 0 C. Proposed Mitigation Construction during the daytime will minimize the impact of noise and odors. D. Irreversible Impacts There will be no irreversible impacts from noise or odors. 6. Visual Conditions: A. Summary The Core Site is currently developed with large buildings containing residential uses, restaurant and retail development, office and skier services facilities, on-mountain food and equipment operations and storage, loading and delivery facilities, and a variety of other uses. The existing buildings are dated architecturally and show signs of aging. The existing uses have been identified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as needing to be removed and/or redeveloped to improve the overall visual and aesthetic quality of Lionshead. The proposed uses include a hotel with spa and meeting room amenities, multiple-family dwellings, retail/restaurant uses, public restrooms, semi-public streets and gathering areas, skier service facilities, on-mountain food/service facilities, and parking and loading to serve those uses. Additionally, public loading areas are provided to benefit other buildings and uses in the Lionshead area. The proposed buildings are subject to the Town's zoning limitations and design guidelines. The proposed bulk and mass of structures will be similar to other existing structures developed in Lionshead. However, new buildings will be designed to a stricter standard as promoted by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The ultimate design and materials to be utilized in proposed structures will be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The bulk and mass of proposed structures will be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Town of Vail does regulate views adjacent to the proposed development parcel (view corridor along the east end of the property). Additionally, the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies a view that should be considered in the design of building on the core site (the view from the North Day Lot to the ski mountain through the core site). These views have been considered in the proposed layout and design of structures on the core site as shown in the development plans. Other private views on surrounding land are not a criterion that the Town uses to evaluate development proposals. Views and impacts to properties throughout Lionshead were considered as part of the planning effort that resulted in the adoption of the Lionshead cwLionshead Redevelopment Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 9 Lionshead Core E1R.doc C Redevelopment Master Plan. The Lionshead Mixed Use District 1 evolved from and is based ceon the adopted master plan for Lionshead. B. Environmental Impacts The impacts of the proposed development are consistent with the impacts anticipated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the subsequent rezoning of the property to Lionshead Mixed Use 1. Please refer to other sections of this report for specific environmental impacts. C. Proposed Mitigation Mitigation of visual conditions is not required as the proposed development is consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. D. Irreversible Impacts The proposal will have irreversible impacts to the visual quality of the site consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 7. Land Use Conditions: A. Summary The Core Site is currently developed with large buildings containing residential uses, restaurant and retail development, office and skier services facilities, on-mountain food and equipment operations and storage, loading and delivery facilities, and a variety of other uses. The property is adjacent to and in the vicinity of other large residential and lodging facilities. The proposed land use conditions for the subject property are shown on the Proposed Development Plan. The proposed uses comply with the zoning on the property and are proposed at the intensity allowed by that zoning. The proposed uses include a hotel with spa and meeting room amenities, multiple-family dwellings, retail/restaurant uses, public restrooms, semi-public streets and gathering areas, skier service facilities, on-mountain food/service facilities, and parking and loading to serve those uses. Additionally, public loading areas are provided to benefit other buildings and uses in the Lionshead area. The development proposal does not require any modification to Zoning Regulations or the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to accommodate uses proposed. The proposed development of this site will not result in negative impacts to land use conditions in the area and is consistent with the development patterns established in the area and recommended in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Lionshead Redevelopment Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 10 Lionshead Core E1R.doc CO B. Environmental Impacts The ro o impacts of the proposed development and land use patterns are consistent with the impacts p P P anticipated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the subsequent rezoning of the property to Lionshead Mixed Use 1. Reference other sections of this report regarding such impacts. C. Proposed Mitigation No mitigation is necessary as the proposed development and land use patterns are consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts and mitigation. D. Irreversible Impacts The proposal will have irreversible impacts due to development of structures on the property. However, the proposed land use conditions are consistent with the zoning on the property and recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Reference other sections of this report regarding such impacts. 8. Circulation and Transportation Conditions A. Summary A Traffic Impact Study was carried out to determine the impact of future traffic conditions associated with the proposed Lionshead Redevelopment project located primarily along the south side of the I-70 South Frontage Road in Lionshead Village. The purpose of the study was to identify traffic generation characteristics, identify potential traffic related impacts to the local street system, and to propose mitigation measures for identified impacts. A detailed report was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, and is included in Appendix G. The portion of the report for Lionshead Core Area focused on the intersections of South Frontage Road and Lionshead Village Parking Structure Access, South Frontage Road and East Lionshead Circle, and South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle (east). South Frontage Road is a CDOT roadway with one travel lane in each direction along the south side of Interstate 70. Primarily, the frontage road is located north of Lionshead Village. The roadway has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour through the project area. East Lionshead Circle and West Lionshead Circle are collector roadways with one lane of travel in each direction. The intersections of these roadways with the South Frontage Road are stop controlled on the minor street approach with free flow movements along the Frontage Road. B. Environmental Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts due to the (6; increase in traffic. Lionshead Redevelopment Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 11 Lionshead Core EIR.doc C 4 C. Proposed Mitigation Please refer to the report prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates in Appendix G for proposed mitigation due to the impact of traffic to the redeveloped site. D. Irreversible Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts due to the increase in traffic. However, it is also important to consider that the Core Site currently consists of similar land use to that proposed, so the impact due to the new development is seen as slight. 9. Population Characteristics: A. Summary The Core Site is currently developed with large buildings containing residential uses, restaurant and retail development, office and skier services facilities, on-mountain food and equipment operations and storage, loading and delivery facilities, and a variety of other uses. The Sunbird Building provides residential dwelling units that produce a population on the site. These dwellings are being removed from the site as part of the redevelopment of this site. The existing buildings will be razed and replaced with a hotel with spa and meeting room amenities, multiple-family dwellings, retail/restaurant uses, public restrooms, semi-public streets and gathering areas, skier service facilities, on-mountain food/service facilities, and parking and loading to serve those uses. Additionally, public loading areas are provided to benefit other buildings and uses in the Lionshead area. The redevelopment of this site will provide for the lodging of guests in addition to permanent/vacation residences. All of the proposed development is within levels anticipated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the zoning on the property. The proposed development of lodges and residences is also consistent with the existing development patterns established in Lionshead as well as those encouraged by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The hotel will contain approximately 80 hotel rooms (60 are hotel lockoffs) that could provide temporary accommodations for 190 guests (a rate of just over 2 persons per room). There will be approximately 80 multiple-family dwelling units. While these dwelling units could serve a permanent population, they are likely used more as vacation homes. If used as permanent residences they could produce approximately 240 residents based on the average of 3 persons per unit. CP, Lionshead Redevelopment Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 12 Lionshead Core EIR.doc CIO This site, given its central location in the commercial core area of Vail, provides a suitable c.1e location for the anticipated population given its proximity to public transportation, recreational amenities, and commercial activities. B. Environmental Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts. C. Proposed Mitigation No mitigation is necessary as the proposed development is consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts and mitigation. D. Irreversible Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts. 10. Alternative Development Scenarios Lionshead Core is a mixed-use redevelopment in a fairly dense existing urban/ mountain setting. The primary design goal was to create a new heart for Lionshead Village, which has been an objective of the Community for many years as evidenced in the 1998 Master Plan. The proper density for this type of development is a balancing act: a certain amount of density is required for the "critical mass" to give vitality and life to the place and also support the retail and other associated uses; too much density will destroy the character and charm of the place. The Master Plan, realizing the economic reality of supporting redevelopment and retail uses in the existing community, addresses these issues directly by allowing for a higher density than is currently permitted. The overall intent of the Master Plan has been followed in terms of land uses and circulation patterns, height and bulk, view corridors, density, retail and pedestrian revitalization and architectural character. Using the constraints of view corridors, height limits and the creation of public spaces, the final design takes up less density than that allowed. While striving to achieve the kind of vitality and excitement essential to a successful public space, a mid-site view corridor has been incorporated, including an ice rink and public plaza to help integrate the north and south sides of the site along with new and existing retail shops and restaurant. Additional density seems to preclude or compromise these amenities, while less density lacks critical mass and vitality as well as the economic support required for a successful heart in the center of Lionshead. ceLionshead Redevelopment Core Site Environmental Impact Report Page 13 Lionshead Core EIR.doc 0 • Environmental Impact Report Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Vail, Colorado September 2003 This report was prepared by: 42140 Architecture, Inc. 1621 18th Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303)292-3388 Contributing Consultants: Alpine Engineering Hart Howerton P.O. Box 97 137 Benchmark Road Edwards, CO 81632 Avon, Colorado 81620 Braun Associates, Inc. Koechlein Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 2658 12364 West Alameda Parkway, Suite 115 Edwards, CO 81632 Lakewood, CO 80226 (hp, Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. Kimley-Horn& Associates Inc. 5231 South Quebec Street 950 Seventeenth Street Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Suite 1050 Denver, CO 80202 Hart Howerton 10 East 40th Street New York,New York 10016 This report has been prepared pursuant to Title 12,Zoning Regulations,Chapter 12,Section 12-12-4: Studies and Data Required for Environmental Impact Reports,of the Vail Town Code. The requirement for this report was determined by Section 12-12-2: Applicability. Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 1 Lionshead WDL EIR.doc 0 0 (bro PROJECT SUMMARY Vail Resorts Development Company is proposing the redevelopment of the existing West Day Lot skier surface parking area, adjacent Marriott parking garage, tennis courts and undeveloped land South and West of the Marriott Hotel at Lionshead. The existing Marriott Hotel parking structure will be demolished and the number of spaces currently used by the Marriott Hotel will be maintained in the proposed garage construction. The equivalent number of West Day Lot skier surface parking spaces will be relocated across South Frontage Road at the Vail Resorts Maintenance Facility. The following descriptions summarize the functions, areas, and quantities, and are approximate. Refer to submitted design drawings for explicit quantities and functions. The new development will include 12 residences north of the existing TOV bicycle path with views to the mountains, the Gore Creek and an internal pedestrian/fire lane. The site coverage of the 12 duplex residences, excluding the parking garage below, is 22,500 square feet. The pedestrian way will run along the North side of the houses, allowing for east/west access by foot, bike and emergency vehicles for the Marriott Hotel, the new hotel/condominiums, the duplexes and the adjacent properties. Below the pedestrian way and adjacent to the proposed hotel/condominium parking garage is sub-surface access for the 12 residences. This secured 31,000 square foot garage provides 54 parking spaces for residents and guests. Within the condominium/hotel structure will be 113 condominiums and 90 hotel rooms (44 are hotel lock-offs). Other functions including meeting rooms, spa, retail and restaurant for a building total area of 430,000 square feet. A proposed three-level parking garage will be constructed below the condominium/hotel building with 466 parking spaces and a three-berth loading facility. Construction of the residences will begin in Fall 2004, while the West Day Lot remains in-use as surface parking. The hotellcondominium is slated to be started in Spring of 2006 with completion in Spring 2008. PROJECT BOUNDARIES The property being developed is Lot A and B of the Morcus Subdivision; a portion of Lot 4 Block 1 of Vail/Lionshead, Third Filing with a portion of Lot C and all of Lot D of the Morcus Subdivision; Mark Resort and Tennis Club (Book 300, Page 184), a portion of Lot 4 and 7 of Vail/Lionshead Third Filing; and Mark Lodge (Book 276, Page 606), a portion of Lot 4 and 7 of Vail/Lionshead Third Filing. All property is owned by Vail Resorts Development Company. Coo, Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 2 Lionshead WDL EIR.doc -b M • 0 Cu a p bA• c/D °' w ) a � ° A - .- O o > i a, v a _) 0 w CI • _ c o c • .. • .. o b w Q.', O� •p 0 U a1. N U o .O O rn .4 = . by cr 3• � cu ct • cn o cad Q• v �l/ a� \\ \ P ;, 7----,‘ \' 9 tag I \ '0.s�. .q „� �< K \'\ \`V� NI `; 3 � :5Y . P \ of •di eg! lig ", Vi ` , ,- `\ I ii ! 1` dd ,‘ , \ 1: fi, %: et 1/ �� •\ err• �":<''' V\ t. • nom,.�'' Oor'„'� 44,440 ; rl�o .., bp N ti t: yN�bsyy � R ER O• N ip ,\ik ,, -- Ifri.... . ' , ''Il,b;gwe'l.::,44110p,.41tNk\ a oho �` � � � � ':t( ....,......... , ____ C/D a-.) \z ,.8 czt d gliiiwk___.... O ›, .I \ \\,,ae" ))4 \\I 0 ._ \,:!,\ iki tl ,o ¢. L• .1 LI 5 �A WIC! 3i g N I 3 .'f �— ■R r, r1 ' t {{ ._..7.1 — , \ • , le it 1. \ti % \;(i, . a \ cd f � U , i . I t FA ' • O .4 i 11,4$` � G * `l .9. 0 4 \\li\ik ' 410441 3 ''h \''.• ..: (1..) cu \\ ',%: ,, _ 'At- ' FOR �� ai�'i I' 1• r.c .. 1 �` 3 .; I 1 i +st I \ ` a) fti �r / II';,,.,t S CU c) 0., 4,, ,;.,,,t,... , ..it. __\\\1 A \ .\ y . 0 - 10, :„ ) \\,,,,,;,. s. Illlll/ Il i,_ off, c p§0�\ ';t;! y "0 o I .• i lh!,ii ^, E,. a' , qq 1) .,... ( 01"i; li!!!. r 1 l'IV . ' I iN CC \ \ / Iit •1` x�e :.. ;�?,• 1 a s. `�,�II!'1 ISM trjj 6) \ 1,,T1'0 NI \--L_ ......• ,..... , 4: f. `ti „\ \ `i I I i" ii_ ' OA 5 ti it k _ . ,�°^\ o :19 .0 , t'.• W O 4 --E -.F.. ›, „t, \ 6 \\ \ 1, I,.,, % _r--H-41 ie 0.0• •.-. +.4 •-. \ l'i ' i ,Iiiil fri:' ' if-- .' ' 0 0..) 1( 11 k\ Z o x " w ae f 1 k ii o I ;~ ! ; Ifirr ' t' : r g 1; o m • O f r y r . ,I��'L �iw> O II b cd=" o W F- -d3 a 6 a ° n a › aeccgPc. ° A ...., CIJ 4.0 40 40 CI a3 MI w 2 a 4:1 eu 0 1, o \,-- \,,,, w i .. 1 f ' 1 e µ� U t o gt iti. ' 5 ti { lr '. � t 4.,„ ■ „ ' ISO I r-_,,v-i 1 IF , 4:--, ti:Ay*, , i 44,,,, '""' ik , d t4 « .` .gyp,!y 1. ; y, L:-.„,,,,I.,...„:„:,:i....., ', :- -. - c-s„,.,--Ittir ',,\''' ' - „,40,*;---; STA'-',,4,:* ''411PNI:I3 ''' -- , y� k , a , S,t " ,� f ,' t h t a i \:\ .� 1 ,r ,.... a.,..t k x 44,,,,,,'% IT\:: 1 �}P 5• 1 r <. * ., by ''t g ar 1 a4 ,''i�ith 4£ q Y P ..5 'l t i y. t 51? ,PR� a2 ,t •,ak yq� i \ ' ' '' '-^0.014‘. ■ ''" " 1 r. ''' II ' �`r 1 it ! �,.i) 1 441,4kto, 4' 14 'lt ‘ ' V';'• . '',.,,A14,.:i-e":,,,t ''''''' 1 ''' 1".t t II ti ' \ ‘ ' ''''',*' \ 1,•, P. ''■' 4N,,,f,,71.4., ilek k, ' ' ' ,5 SS 9 k r ¢7 ,` ,, 'g r I. 4 i. �a g 1m •1 f t 146 ti "" 4� j, 111 L P, b' \* ik 5 " :`` ;a . \ ` 4 Z /J S Y , / w j r` Y t t P a 4 , f 1 a / W o , ` 1 7 0 W4 i , f 11 x , oC w i ' ° 1 r rr " W O /f/ /� ' j\ __ .. t .r j4 cA o a 0 a I ( 0 0 REPORT SUMMARY 1. Hydrologic Conditions: A. Summary The site is currently a parking garage, a surface parking lot and some grassed area. Gore Creek is 75 feet to 100 feet to the south of this parcel with a bike/recreation path in between. Gore Creek is not impacted by this development and there is no floodplain encroachment upon the site. Very little off-site surface drainage flows to this site and there are no natural water features present. A large portion of this site is presently impervious area that will be removed to construct the proposed improvements. The hydrologic conditions of the site may change somewhat as a result of the proposed residences, but the proposed hotel and parking structure will be constructed on already impervious areas of the site. A detailed report was prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc, and is included in Appendix A. B. Environmental Impacts There will be an increase in impervious area as a result of the proposed development. The greatest chance for environmental impact is during the construction phase. C. Proposed Mitigation Cov Care will be taken to remove pollutants from the runoff to maintain downstream water quality. Stormwater runoff will be outfalled onto grassy swales wherever possible. Where grassy swales cannot be used, a water quality vault will be placed in the storm drain system to capture pollutants. The existing storm drain system in place between the proposed development and Gore Creek will be evaluated to verify if it has the capacity to carry the flows from the development. Detention is not expected to be provided because of the close proximity of Gore Creek and the minimal increase in peak flow that the proposed development will have on the peak of the overall drainage basin. A sediment control plan will be prepared for the project to limit the transportation of sediments to Gore Creek and its tributaries during construction. Devices that may be used during construction to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving the site include stabilized construction entrances, silt fence, straw bales, stone outlet structures, sediment traps, or a pumped sediment removal system. Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 5 Lionshead WDL EIR.doc D. Irreversible Impacts Since the proposed development contributes a minimal increase in peak flow, it is not expected that the new development will have any irreversible impact to the existing system. Additional storm sewer will be added if necessary. 2. Soils Report: A. Summary The natural soils on the site will support the buildings as designed. The natural sand and gravel will support spread footings foundations and slab-on-grade construction. Existing fill will not support slab-on-grade construction, and will be removed prior to replacement of fill or construction of floors. At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at various elevations in exploratory borings. Because the ground water appears to be above the lowest below-grade level, it is anticipated that temporary and permanent dewatering will be necessary. Due to the close proximity to existing the Marriott Hotel and the anticipated depths of excavation, shoring will be required in order to proceed with construction of the site. Drainage around the structures will be designed and constructed to provide for rapid removal of surface runoff and avoid concentration of water adjacent to foundation walls. A detailed report was prepared by Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc, and is included in Appendix C. B. Environmental Impacts The amount of water pumped out by the dewatering system will need to be monitored during excavation to determine if the existing storm system can accommodate this additional flow. A device will need to be used to prevent sediment laden runoff from leaving the site during dewatering. Also, there is the potential for radon gas in the subsurface strata of the mountain terrain. Due to the granular nature of the natural soils and shallow ground water, it appears that the risk for radon gas at this site is low. C. Proposed Mitigation Refer to Section A: Hydrologic Conditions and the report by Alpine Engineering in Appendix A for details of devices used to remove sediment from the pumped water, prior to it entering the storm system. To minimize any impact of radon gas, the below grade areas will be ventilated. D. Irreversible Impacts As the amount of ground water pumped out of the site is unknown at this time, it is not known if it will have any irreversible impacts on Gore Creek. However, the estimated amounts do not appear to create any problems. Coe Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 6 Lionshead WDL EIR.doc (69 3. Atmospheric Conditions: A. Summary The small rise in vehicle traffic in the area may result in a slight increase in fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. However, the impact on the local air quality is expected to be minimal relative to contributions from vehicle traffic on I-70, and general vehicle traffic in the Town of Vail. Short-term impacts to air quality may occur during the demolition and construction phase of the project. These impacts would result in temporary increases in levels of airborne particulates and tailpipe emissions. Impacts are predicted to be small and can be successfully mitigated. Impacts to air quality from the operation phases are expected to be insignificant. It is anticipated that boilers and emergency generators will be associated with the project. All combustion flue gasses would be vented through devices that meet standard practice for air pollution control. Overall, this equipment should not significantly alter the local air quality. A detailed report was prepared by Greystone Environmental Consultants, and is included in Appendix E. B. Environmental Impact Cpy Potential impacts to air quality from demolition will depend on the type of materials contained in the structures and on the demolition operating procedures. During construction, emissions of fugitive dust will be generated from earth moving and material handling, vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved surfaces, and tailpipe emissions from diesel-powered earthmoving equipment. It is expected that these impacts will be minimal because control measures can be applied. Upon completion of the project, the additional vehicle traffic may result in slight increases in fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. C. Proposed Mitigation Measures should be followed to minimize generation of fugitive dust during demolition. These include wetting down, including pre-watering of the work surface, removal of dirt and mud deposited on improved streets and roads, and wetting down, washing, or covering haulage equipment when necessary to minimize emissions of fugitive dust during loading and transit. During construction, dust emissions can be mitigated by wet suppression, soil compaction, minimizing disturbance of storage piles, adding gravel to unpaved surfaces, limiting vehicle speed, weight, and number of vehicles on the road, minimizing "track out," and street sweepers. Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 7 Lionshead WDL EIR.doc Q ce D. Irreversible Impacts There are no irreversible impacts from the demolition of the existing structures. Fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions will be limited to the construction period. It is expected that impacts from fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions will be minimal because control measures can be applied. Upon completion of the project, fugitive dust can be mitigated by periodically cleaning paved roads. Additional impact on local air quality is expected to be minimal relative to contributions from vehicle traffic on I-70 and general vehicle traffic in the Town of Vail. 4. Biotic Conditions No vegetation, animal habitat, or wetlands exist in the project area. The proposed construction therefore would not have any negative affect on these conditions. 5. Other Environmental Conditions A. Summary The site was reviewed for impacts due to sound and odor. There will be an increase in noise and odors during the demolition and construction phases due to equipment. During the Coe operation phase, the noise due to the increase in traffic will be barely perceptible over the existing ambient noise that is dominated by the vehicle noise from I-70. There will be no significant impact from odor during the operation phase of the project, as trash storage will occur inside the building, and cooking exhaust will be expelled above the roof level of the project. A detailed report was prepared by Greystone Environmental Consultants, and is included in Appendix E. B. Environmental Impact There will be no long-term impact from noise or odors for this project. The short-term impact during construction will be from equipment. Noise generated by construction would occur only during the daytime, and should be within the local noise limit for construction. During the daytime, there are better conditions for odor dispersal, limiting potential impacts to odor from construction. C. Proposed Mitigation Construction during the daytime will minimize the impact of noise and odors. D. Irreversible Impacts There will be no irreversible impacts from noise or odors. co, Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 8 Lionshead WDL EIR.doc C 6. Visual Conditions A. Summary The West Day Lot property is currently developed with a cleared dirt parking lot, the Marriott parking structure, the Marriott Hotel, and other recreational facilities. The visual quality of the majority of the site (excluding the renovated Marriott structure) is fairly poor. The proposed uses for the property include a hotel/condominium with spa and meeting room amenities, single-family dwellings, limited retail/restaurant uses, and parking and loading to serve those uses. The proposed development of the site will improve the overall visual aesthetics of the site. The proposed development is subject to the Town's zoning limitations and design guidelines. The proposed bulk and mass of structures will be similar to other existing structures developed in Lionshead, however new buildings will be designed to a stricter standard as promoted by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The ultimate design and materials to be utilized in proposed structures will be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The bulk and mass of proposed Cstructures will be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Town of Vail does not regulate views on or adjacent to the proposed development parcel. Therefore, potential impacts to private views on surrounding land are not a criterion that the Town uses to evaluate development proposals. Views and impacts to properties throughout Lionshead were considered as part of the planning effort that resulted in the adoption of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The Lionshead Mixed Use District 1 evolved from and is based on the adopted master plan for Lionshead. Certain areas and views were adopted in the Master Plan as warranting protection; however, none were recommended in the area of the subject parcel. B. Environmental Impacts The impacts of the proposed development are consistent with the impacts anticipated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the subsequent rezoning of the property to Lionshead Mixed Use 1. C. Proposed Mitigation Mitigation of visual conditions is not required as the proposed development is consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 9 Lionshead WDL EIR.doc D. Irreversible Impacts The proposal will have irreversible impacts to the visual quality of the site consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 7. Land Use Conditions A. Summary The West Day Lot property is currently developed with a cleared dirt parking lot, the Marriott parking structure, the Marriott Hotel, and other recreational facilities. The property is adjacent to and in the vicinity of other large residential and lodging facilities. The proposed land use conditions for the subject property are shown on the proposed development plan. The proposed uses comply with the zoning on the property and are proposed at the density allowed by that zoning. The proposed uses include a condominium/hotel with spa and meeting room amenities, single-family dwellings, limited retail/restaurant uses, and parking and loading to serve those uses. The development proposal does not require any modification to Zoning Regulations or the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to accommodate uses proposed. The proposed development of this site will not result in negative impacts to land use conditions in the area and is consistent with the ce development patterns established in the area and recommended in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. B. Environmental Impacts The impacts of the proposed development and land use patterns are consistent with the impacts anticipated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the subsequent rezoning of the property to Lionshead Mixed Use 1. Reference other sections of this report regarding such impacts. C. Proposed Mitigation No mitigation is necessary as the proposed development and land use patterns are consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. D. Irreversible Impacts The proposal will have irreversible impacts due to development of structures on the property. However, the proposed land use conditions are consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 10 Lionshead WDL EIR.doc � o 8. Circulation and Transportation Conditions A. Summary �= A Traffic Impact Study was carried out to determine the impact of future traffic conditions associated with the proposed Lionshead Redevelopment project located primarily along the south side of the I-70 South Frontage Road in Lionshead Village. The purpose of the study was to identify traffic generation characteristics, identify potential traffic related impacts to the local street system, and to propose mitigation measures for identified impacts. A detailed report was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, and is included in Appendix G. The portion of the report for Lionshead West Day Lot focused on West Lionshead Circle and Forest Road. South Frontage Road is a CDOT roadway with one travel lane in each direction along the south side of Interstate 70. Primarily, the frontage road is located north of Lionshead Village. The roadway has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour through the project area. West Lionshead Circle and Forest Road are collector roadways with one lane of travel in each direction. The intersections of these roadways with the South Frontage Road are stop controlled on the minor street approach with free flow movements along the Frontage Road. B. Environmental Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts due to the increase in traffic. C. Proposed Mitigation Please refer to the report prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates in Appendix G for proposed mitigation due to the impact of traffic to the redeveloped site. D. Irreversible Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts due to the increase in traffic. 9. Population Characteristics A. Summary The West Day Lot property is currently developed with a cleared dirt parking lot, the Marriott parking structure, the Marriott Hotel, and other recreational facilities. The existing Marriott Hotel generates a temporary and transient guest population on the site, which will remain unchanged in this building. Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 11 Lionshead WDL EIR.doc The redevelopment of this site will provide for the lodging of guests in addition to permanent/vacation residences. All of the proposed development is within levels anticipated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the zoning on the property. The proposed development of the condominium/hotel structure and residences is also consistent with the existing development patterns established in Lionshead as well as those encouraged by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The hotel will contain approximately 90 hotel rooms (44 are hotel lock-off units) that could provide temporary accommodations for 200+ guests (a rate of just over 2 persons per room). There will be approximately 125 dwelling units in a condominium and single-family format. While these dwelling units could serve a permanent population, they are likely used more as vacation homes. If used as permanent residences they could produce approximately 375 residents based on the average of 3 persons per unit. This site, given its central location in the commercial core area of Vail, provides a suitable location for the anticipated population given its proximity to public transportation, recreational amenities, and commercial activities. B. Environmental Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts. ce C. Proposed Mitigation No mitigation is necessary as the proposed development is consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts and mitigation. D. Irreversible Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts. 10. Alternative Development Scenarios During the process of developing the program and design of structures for this site, the goals of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan were consulted and analyzed. These goals provide the framework upon which zoning for the entire Lionshead area was developed. The Master Plan identifies the West Day Lot and Marriott site as being in two development areas: the Resort Lodging Hub and the Mixed Use Hub. The Master Plan directs growth in this area for lodging and residential uses along with ancillary retail and commercial uses. Using the Master Plan direction, alternatives ranging from the extremes of doing nothing to maximizing development and density were analyzed. Doing nothing does not achieve the Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 12 Lionshead WDL EIR.doc ® S /r redevelopment goals of the master plan and does not add to the vitality of the Lionshead area and therefore was abandoned as a viable alternative. To the other extreme, maximizing the program of the site while improving the vitality of the area tended to overwhelm the site and cause parking and landscape difficulties not easily overcome. The alternative ultimately selected provides a balance of the development objectives being sought by the Town. The property is redeveloped with moderately scaled structures that respond to the design guidelines and with a program that balances the need for vitality (live beds) and the need to provide an economically sound program that will ensure longevity of the project. The program includes a mixture of lodging and residential development with ancillary retail and restaurant uses. C Lionshead Redevelopment West Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 13 Lionshead WDL E1R.doc 0 Environmental Impact Report Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Vail, Colorado September 2003 This report was prepared by: 42140 Architecture, Inc. 1621 18th Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303)292-3388 Contributing Consultants: Alpine Engineering Hart Howerton P.O. Box 97 137 Benchmark Road Edwards, CO 81632 Avon, Colorado 81620 Braun Associates, Inc. Koechlein Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 2658 12364 West Alameda Parkway, Suite 115 Edwards, CO 81632 Lakewood, CO 80226 Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. Kimley-Horn& Associates Inc. 5231 South Quebec Street 950 Seventeenth Street Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Suite 1050 Denver, CO 80202 Hart Howerton 10 East 40th Street New York,New York 10016 This report has been prepared pursuant to Title 12,Zoning Regulations,Chapter 12,Section 12-12-4: Studies and Data Required for Environmental Impact Reports,of the Vail Town Code. The requirement for this report was determined by Section 12-12-2: Applicability. Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 1 Lionshead Tennis EIR.doc o PROJECT SUMMARY Vail Resorts Development Company is proposing the redevelopment of an existing tennis court site located on Forest Road, adjacent to the ski hill in a residential area. The proposal is to demolish the existing tennis courts and ski area maintenance building, and subdivide a third of the site into four single-family or duplex home lots. The remaining two-thirds of the site will be left as open space along the ski trail. The site will also be developed with a path to connect Forest Road to the pedestrian/skier bridge/bike trail. Demolition of the tennis courts and site regrading is to begin Spring 2004. Pending subdivision approval, construction of the access road, utilities, etc. shall begin in Spring 2004. PROJECT BOUNDARIES The property being developed is unplatted, and is part of the North 1/2 Section 7 Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th PM. The only portion of the site being developed is the west 2.25 acres. This portion of the site will be subdivided into four residential lots. All property is currently owned by Vail Resorts Development Company. (pe C Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 2 Lionshead Tennis EIR.doc ba) V A a °'� w•.. 'C °!; I ne .. F � a ,�O CA Cn a o 0 a °a. to •?° b o g U • CA a) w c4 O . > o a) O ^d s•. O a) � Q. ,, , ‘,.,,;,',<,,,V,. ,1,;,, V:iV.',. - 0 Y. T {{_....... _... �'q( '� O 1 `.� cu w 3\ , t u / /...: %y s 8. ttl t u11 t v `*" `` r` 1•,ty ,` o N U t ) •t ijljy�i f z�\ � �" CC ! , 1 t ++ 4 o t gi I I N O • sr< g g 3 ✓ a#• ^� N r I r, 1lt ,+l t Czi Y > c. I I r -. `'t. 8 /I i�.• a 1 t~. ra #1f,.�jy k,,, • yi / i i: :cn Iy U ` >=i I 4• "T 'f*s, 1 13`r^ k i▪ .r fa (;/ b �-'" Y.,m. ,z h 4 i ll,t . k . ii , I .��; / e �5 's" O 1 • f/ { .-0 ▪ Y r i t ,aY? / ,� v 1«C rF 1 i 1 i t :I r j i t ,.>_ r" / :c i I ","�. ,�, i•U r��sj t E i t $aa. kr 1, y'1 : / ' r p J y K I � � «i •" ' ( �/ r 1 1 5 1 1 X14 a r i ' X4`3{)• r z r Rw ° s J• rh I '••;',\'5.:�\i iy� t 'i ,y it«ti!'# 1 t4{ 2ri -f-- �}•C- .. t 4 t� tt' 5�� aka .S� 7:, i 1 t m r isr $Y �.S •cn a) •'d r JE`a ..' Si"'• t.Yi i g 'r _ tt is `(i� '.� \ � ,t; , , \,,:r ' t l 41 t i (':11,,',�2111(>,,,'1/,,Y;t �, ," 1� \ ♦ t \\` �q - _:,1 Immo « r-+ U w' "�▪` 't ' t i �•} `•� _ H �` of t;-r ,A' \ V'1\�\� !A °, ° ar. ♦� \ i y I{4 a t R+' s a.: } T \�` �ti, \m t +k CC 1 ' �'. 1 tt•[, A , I � co ..�., i « t « .i '< tt ly�y `\°-..,:::.,,, 1, ti .°ti \ .V , iy /:1 i 4 i ti`l li t \^, SA ` 1 ypp' 4v'l'yl ,.� Cl.) ! °t! r6� t ; �'+ a �{ !I it E Iii`I ' ' •. ,k r r. �,f �• 3•. &'', 1 t '1 t `14 ,`v 1' I t3 I ;1 Y v \{ ,`"' & \� c,\.V /€,iY a) a) . , , \ 4' 4 t i Ai.! ij t' F,S i=ris , , ,' 2„,,,L,,,,,,,,,: \ , \ ,, /, ( / 4 i.,. `, t! r y l` "�'C\` ',• :F■4.'`, „ 1 i rl`' 1 \� ` ..r . r`..., ` \. " t `;. y , ' 9 . °r • +:. „.. ,i "°�• 5 i 1 \ 'r, f,„ i - , a !� ." v � \ ,r \ i° \ 1 t 1 . \� '"4 ' e 4r .1r : � r' i .ti /2c(^:';'''' ,. .„.,. \' \ 4 4..cn ..: l', .,,,,i, , ,,,,A , , . , , 1 CU :1'C ` ' , i - xr3 "+$ � r3 ,G«' \ ^; t ,-- ` ' � �\ a'� � .i \ d \ ' I t� `° w ! e z t �Epc• " ,/�, fl. is 5 e \ ;\ v 5 1\\ 'J ` i 1 �"� S x .z l l t pnS I"l I y .a � \\,,,,:.,,,,,,\,..„:„° i \V y r i 1ti �- \ w m..- r y } 1., 1 - `•\ _` ^ t \V1 \ \ \ ' V t \ i r / '•,, l ktA k j t t-' «"t 1 I i y a t x � + �.. .,w.. ".•, \" + L,. j y i i 'I .• / k tt\ i I !"4 )','./,' f .. .. , ti\\� .\ .. , l z.•.� c. •I �� ; S t i 1 t ;f f A, z• V i t 1 7 v r< 1 t ? _... ■4-+ S. 4..,:- a i L 1 f 0 CI a�i \~�� i C\ N v) 'C ��\ �` ------�x — 3 — -- ------ _ Z ..z s~ a) H \--. in o cC3 >_«• c= .. rh — — "' ♦ ? 1p V U "d ;;x..y c y� A W E. cl S?, .1 4 a 4U , . c, © nn R. a e CD 0 44 WI a a 'a M. �66,0 — E� 4 ci cu cu a a © W '> C c W .,a 1 k r ,.. k: Y, a; ♦ //1/ 4_ .0 Y~ Ali1 . .1 A 4/' .r `rT7 f _ f'. Mks . 5 5 ; , :I 3' ;. -Papa t .x r #.: �`'':a .�"`'•.lv; k 'fi -, n , ..r > t. t' rte ' i ! x , i ' '''' : t*44,',, ''''', ' AV -1 ..„x--- � ,, ' P^ t r I.., i;• , 4.\,1'..,,r+,,..--,1,,,,„... ,. I- ii ... (t/-------ic.\\ . .. ... . \ , ty 4 ) t, .. .0 , , , ,e, r -- lillii rt a i_.::-_"t;:1:: 'T.: ri i 0 a s., 4- \ "��[[ - ... i• ;Fi. .. �, - . _c. 4,E f...,.,5 ,•-:: e lm- ' '..... -. ---- .. ,R • ? Y .. �-� y - t � .'., ._ -i ^ilk .Y' ;M, ""r.0'k , - ;'."A .. .y'' ! 1. �- ' r" Cdr x'4.-.. ; ,s- ~ , .. .. 4 X` ""r.'"..yH,. ..... E 1� yr: ti T�6 is e.. Y i•. p! ,� n” ' y Vat Y n' : . o..- , W la `1r 4 ,/t/ F• i It k l- o a f y S i PW - ... „A w Y W O ea '"-fie!' cn a , O 0 REPORT SUMMARY 1. Hydrologic Conditions: A. Summary The site is located west of the gondola and directly south of the Lionshead Core Area. Gore Creek is located approximately 60 — 100 feet to the north of the site with some grassy vegetation in between. There are no natural water features on this site. The hydrologic conditions may change somewhat due to the proposed driveways, and homes; however, much of the land being developed is currently impervious due to the size of the existing tennis courts. There is no floodplain encroaching into this area. A detailed report was prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc, and is included in Appendix A. B. Environmental Impacts The existing tennis courts create approximately 3/4 acre of impervious surface. There will be an overall decrease in impervious area as a result of the proposed development. The greatest chance for environmental impact is during the construction phase. C. Proposed Mitigation Care will be taken to remove pollutants from the runoff to maintain downstream water quality. Stormwater runoff will be outfalled onto grassy swales wherever possible. Where grassy swales cannot be used, a water quality vault will be placed in the storm drain system to capture pollutants. The existing storm drain system in place between the proposed development and Gore Creek will be evaluated to verify if it has the capacity to carry the flows from the development. Detention is not expected to be provided because of the close proximity of Gore Creek and the minimal increase in peak flow that the proposed development will have on the peak of the overall drainage basin. A sediment control plan will be prepared for the project to limit the transportation of sediments to Gore Creek and its tributaries during construction. Devices that may be used during construction to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving the site include stabilized construction entrances, silt fence, straw bales, stone outlet structures, sediment traps, or a pumped sediment removal system. Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 5 Lionshead Tennis EIR.doc 0 a D. Irreversible Impacts There is no significant impact to the existing surface runoff volumes or quality of water entering Gore Creek. Therefore, there are no irreversible impacts. 2. Soils Report: A. Summary To return the site to a more natural grade, the tennis courts will be demolished. The existing fill will be removed and replaced with imported fill to meet the requirements of the soils report. The natural soils on the site will support residential type buildings. The natural sand and gravel will support spread footings foundations and slab-on-grade construction. At the time of drilling, no ground water was discovered down to a depth of 30 feet. If cut and fill slopes greater the 10 feet are required for the development of the site, a Professional Geotechnical Engineer should analyze them for stability. A site-specific geotechnical investigation should be performed for the individual residential buildings or retaining structure locations when the locations, elevations and size of the structures are known. A detailed report was prepared by Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc, and is included in Appendix D. B. Environmental Impacts The slope and soils will support individual residential buildings without negative impact to the site. Definitive impacts will have to be determined once the structures are known. C. Proposed Mitigation Refer to Section A: Hydrologic Conditions and the report by Alpine Engineering in Appendix A for details of devices used to control run-off during construction. To minimize any impact of radon gas,the below grade areas of the residences should be ventilated. D. Irreversible Impacts There are no irreversible impacts based upon the excavation of the property. 3. Atmospheric Conditions: A. Summary The small rise in vehicle traffic in the area may result in a slight increase in fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. However, the impact on the local air quality is expected to be minimal relative to contributions from vehicle traffic on I-70, and general vehicle traffic in the Town of Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 6 Lionshead Tennis EIR.doc e 0 Cue Vail. Short-term impacts to air quality may occur during the demolition and construction phase of the project. These impacts would result in temporary increases in levels of airborne particulates and tailpipe emissions. Impacts are predicted to be small and can be successfully mitigated. Impacts to air quality from the residential buildings are expected to be insignificant. A detailed report was prepared by Greystone Environmental Consultants,and is included in Appendix E. B. Environmental Impact Potential impacts to air quality from demolition will depend on the type of materials contained in the structures and on the demolition operating procedures. During construction, emissions of fugitive dust will be generated from earth moving and material handling, vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved surfaces, and tailpipe emissions from diesel-powered earthmoving equipment. It is expected that these impacts will be minimal because control measures can be applied. Upon completion of the project, the additional vehicle traffic may result in slight increases in fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. C. Proposed Mitigation Measures should be followed to minimize generation of fugitive dust during demolition. These include wetting down, including pre-watering of the work surface, removal of dirt and mud deposited on improved streets and roads, and wetting down, washing, or covering haulage equipment when necessary to minimize emissions of fugitive dust during loading and transit. During construction, dust emissions can be mitigated by wet suppression, soil compaction, minimizing disturbance of storage piles, adding gravel to unpaved surfaces, limiting vehicle speed, weight, and number of vehicles on the road, minimizing "track out," and street sweepers. D. Irreversible Impacts There are no irreversible impacts from the demolition of the existing structures. Fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions will be limited to the construction period. It is expected that impacts from fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions will be minimal because control measures can be applied. Upon completion of the project, fugitive dust can be mitigated by periodically cleaning paved roads. Additional impact on local air quality is expected to be minimal relative to contributions from vehicle traffic on I-70 and general vehicle traffic in the Town of Vail. Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 7 Lionshead Tennis EIR.doc 0 41w 4. Biotic Conditions A. Summary Grassland habitat exists at the Tennis Court Site. Colorado blue spruce are also scattered throughout the property, with a majority occurring near Gore Creek on the lower slope. The proposed development will occur mostly in the area of the existing tennis courts, where the natural habitat has already been altered. Wildlife species may be temporarily displaced from the project area because of construction activities and increased human presence. No threatened or endangered plants or wildlife will be impacted by this project. Refer to the detailed report prepared by Greystone Environmental Consultants, included in Appendix F. B. Environmental Impact Several mammalian and avian species may use the grassland habitat in this area. Construction, increased human presence, and noise will likely displace wildlife species from the site during construction. There is potential for increased sedimentation and runoff into Gore Creek during construction. Increased sedimentation and runoff could affect natural trout spawning in the creek. C. Proposed Mitigation Ce At the location of the tennis courts, the potential for erosion would be increased during the construction phase of the project because of demolition and soil disturbance. These impacts can be reduced by avoiding the removal of trees and shrubs whenever possible, and by revegetating the area as soon as possible. Sediment control will be very important during construction to protect Gore Creek. Refer to Section A: Hydrologic Conditions and the report by Alpine Engineering in Appendix A for details of devices used to control run-off during construction. Other efforts include revegetating disturbed areas with native plants species when practical. An existing stand of spruce trees will be retained to use as cover by birds and small mammals. D. Irreversible Impacts A small area of vegetated habitat will be permanently lost as a result of construction activities; however, an effort has been made to maintain as many spruce trees as possible. Affects to wildlife species are not expected to have long-term detrimental impacts to the population health or status. Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 8 Lionshead Tennis EIR.doc Ce 5. Other Environmental Conditions A. Summary The site was reviewed for impacts due to sound and odor. There will be an increase in noise and odors during the demolition and construction phases due to equipment. Due to the limited development of the site, the slight increase in traffic to the area will not have sound impact over the existing ambient noise that is dominated by the vehicle noise from I-70. There will be no significant impact from odor once the residences are constructed. A detailed report was prepared by Greystone Environmental Consultants, and is included in Appendix E. B. Environmental Impact There will be no long-term impact from noise or odors for this project. The short-term impact during construction will be from equipment. Noise generated by construction would occur only during the daytime, and should be within the local noise limit for construction. During the daytime, there are better conditions for odor dispersal, limiting potential impacts to odor from construction. C. Proposed Mitigation Construction during the daytime will minimize the impact of noise and odors. co. D. Irreversible Impacts There will be no irreversible impacts from noise or odors. 6. Visual Conditions A. Summary The Tennis Court property is currently developed with several tennis courts, a snowmaking pump house, and a recreation path. The visual quality of this site is poor due to the aging of the tennis courts and pump house facilities. The property is proposed to be platted for four residential lots consistent in size with other lots along Forest Road. The proposed development of the site will improve the overall visual aesthetics of the site. The proposed development is subject to the Town's zoning limitations and design guidelines. The proposed bulk and mass of structures will be similar to other existing structures along Forest Road. New residential structures will be subject to proposed private design guidelines as well as the Town's Design Guidelines. Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 9 Lionshead Tennis EIR.doc e The Town of Vail does not regulate views on or adjacent to the proposed development parcel. Therefore, potential impacts to private views on surrounding land are not a criterion that the Town uses to evaluate development proposals. The proposed development is consistent with the development existing on adjacent lots and other lots in the vicinity. The visual quality of the proposed development will enhance the aesthetics and visual quality of the neighborhood. B. Environmental Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts. C. Proposed Mitigation Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts and mitigation. D. Irreversible Impacts The proposal will have irreversible impacts to the visual quality of the site consistent with the development on adjacent properties. C 7. Land Use Conditions A. Summary The Tennis Court property is currently developed with several tennis courts, a snowmaking pump house, and a recreation path. The Land Use Designation of the property is Ski Base and the zoning is Agriculture and Open Space. The adjacent residential properties are designated Low Density Residential by the Land Use Plan and are zoned Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential. The proposed land use conditions for the subject property are shown on the proposed development plan (4 residential lots). The proposed residential lots require a land use plan map amendment to Low Density Residential and rezoning to Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential consistent with the adjacent residential uses. The proposed development of this site will not result in negative impacts to land use conditions in the area and is consistent with the development patterns established in the area. B. Environmental Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts. Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 10 Lionshead Tennis E1R.doc • 0 Coe C. Proposed Mitigation Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts and mitigation. D. Irreversible Impacts The proposal will have irreversible impacts to the land use conditions however these conditions will be consistent with the development on adjacent properties. 8. Circulation and Transportation Conditions A. Summary A Traffic Impact Study was carried out to determine the impact of future traffic conditions associated with the proposed Lionshead Redevelopment project located primarily along the south side of the I-70 South Frontage Road in Lionshead Village. The purpose of the study was to identify traffic generation characteristics, identify potential traffic related impacts on the local street system, and to develop mitigation measures required for identified impacts. A detailed report was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates,and is included in Appendix G. CI; The portion of the report for the Tennis Court Site focused on the intersection of South Frontage Road and Forest Road. South Frontage Road is a CDOT roadway with one travel lane in each direction along the south side of Interstate 70. Primarily, the frontage road is located north of Lionshead Village. The roadway has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour through the project area. Forest Road is a collector roadway with one lane of travel in each direction. The intersection of this roadway with the South Frontage Road is stop controlled on the minor street approach with free flow movements along the Frontage Road. B. Environmental Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts due to the increase in traffic. C. Proposed Mitigation Please refer to the report prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates in Appendix G for proposed mitigation due to the impact of traffic to the redeveloped site. cpyLionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 11 Lionshead Tennis EIR.doc 3 Ce D. Irreversible Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts due to the increase in traffic. 9. Population Characteristics A. Summary The Tennis Court property is currently developed with several tennis courts, a snowmaking pump house, and a recreation path. No population is produced by the existing improvements. The redevelopment of this site will provide for four single-family residential dwellings. Four duplex dwelling units will produce a permanent population of 24 residents based on 3 persons per unit. This site, given its central location adjacent to the commercial core area of Vail, provides a suitable location for the anticipated population given its proximity to public transportation, recreational amenities, and commercial activities. B. Environmental Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts. C. Proposed Mitigation Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts and mitigation. D. Irreversible Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts. 10. Alternative Development Scenarios Vail Resorts Development Company is proposing to subdivide the 2.25 acre Tennis Court Site in Lionshead to create four residential lots. Four feasible development alternatives were examined with respect to this property. These include: 1. Do Nothing Alternative- The Do Nothing Alternative consists of maintaining the property in its existing condition, which is generally consistent with the current zoning of Agriculture/Open Space. The site currently contains several tennis courts, a "`.. Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 12 Lionshead Tennis E1R.doc • 0 pedestrian pathway, and a ski area maintenance building. The tennis courts and fencing are generally not in use, are somewhat dilapidated and considered an eyesore. The snowmaking pumphouse structure and the activity generated is a not an ideal fit in this neighborhood. 2. Five Lot Subdivision - In the five lot scenario, the snowmaking pump house and related functions are relocated onto Forest Service property. The potable water pumping function of this structure remains on site due to the water line in Forest Road, and can occur on site in a small underground vault. Five new single family lots are created ranging in size from approximately .42 to .5 acres. The access for three of the lots occurs from a private road, with two lots accessing directly from Forest Road. This is a feasible layout which does, however, cause the removal of many of the large spruce trees on the site and therefore was abandoned. 3. Four Lot Subdivision - The proposed four lot subdivision creates lots ranging in size from approximately .47 acres to .58 acres. The pump house relocation is the same as occurs with the five lot subdivision. All residences are to be accessed off a 20' private road, with a sense of place established at the entry with all residences "inside". An important element of this layout is allowing most of the big spruce trees on the site to be maintained. Primary views are available to the Gore Range from each lot. Ski in and out access is provided by a skiway easement to the cul-de-sac. A public path is still maintained on the site to allow the neighborhood to continue access to the Core. Ce This alternative was selected due to its balance between desired site development objectives and site sensitivity and compatibility. (leLionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Site Environmental Impact Report Page 13 Lionshead Tennis EIR.doc Environmental Impact Report Lionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Vail, Colorado September 2003 This report was prepared by: 42140 Architecture, Inc. 1621 18t Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303)292-3388 Contributing Consultants: Alpine Engineering Kimley-Horn& Associates Inc. P.O. Box 97 950 Seventeenth Street Edwards, CO 81632 Suite 1050 Denver, CO 80202 Braun Associates, Inc. Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 2658 12364 West Alameda Parkway Edwards, CO 81632 Lakewood, CO 80228 Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. Oz Architecture 5231 South Quebec Street 1580 Lincoln Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Denver, CO 80203 This report has been prepared pursuant to Title 12,Zoning Regulations,Chapter 12, Section 12-12-4: Studies and Data Required for Environmental Impact Reports,of the Vail Town Code. The requirement for this report was determined by Section 12-12-2: Applicability. Lionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 1 Lionshead NDL EIR.doc • 0 CP' PROJECT SUMMARY Vail Resorts Development Company is proposing the redevelopment of an existing employee surface parking lot referred to as the North Day Lot. The proposal is to demolish the existing parking of approximately 105 parking spaces, and develop the site with affordable housing and office space for the use of Vail Resorts Development Company. The affordable housing will provide approximately 144 beds, 100 of which replace beds at the Sunbird Lodge that is being demolished to make way for the Lionshead Core redevelopment. The office space will be approximately 16,000 square feet. Around 95 parking spaces in a below-grade parking garage will be provided, as dictated by zoning to serve the office and housing use. In addition to the private development proposed by Vail Resorts, the site has been planned to accommodate a transit center to be constructed, funded, and operated by the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail will be responsible for preparing any reports necessary for the review of the transit center. Demolition of the site is anticipated to begin in 2005, with construction concluding in 2006. PROJECT BOUNDARIES The property being developed is a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead 3`d Filing. All property is owned by Vail Resorts Development Company. Lionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 2 Lionshead NDL EIR.doc y a p a> Ce. c czt ap*d A- a u°a V p Z w '0 w t4 0 li c o t. 0 Or o W a) U 4-. U b czs a) .4 v) a \ '47-,�`? 'Y 4 ` e \ pC� a ✓ ` .= K� . L\.,... f," 0 C es k� k `� tif / 1af` y _,;, bn {f f t .' ` /y v b p l i E \ I !: Ln 1Z '+ i A o v) l 1 ,t� 5,t i c i 4 \',, k�1 . .`� .iC., i.• py 1 M, N y}u N ` I „.„1,-.....3 .-stn .4-..,-,t,;;;,t;1,.....?,,,,,,-!,..,.„........\' ^"'” .S x". .0 l 'y" �{-�'• ' . "" "� t tPti � �t6 �J.s ' 0 t ry� " .-"W:,_fi ?1 y:Ya sv�'r z.a.- ! t'j 4 �"t i• gt � . ^ r. at �r4" ',..7.C..--'a .."' .. Q, £v T ' w..%. sr,,. v5 ,, re • \ ::: Y 1{ -- t R I s f �•= r " tea' t �1 _ N, t• Ya pti+ UI : Z 4,:t''',,,� . " . {gip\� 4. E1 L, '�. rn ^� m }1ti 4f.{..,' 'j f �} lji • cn �: '' \c 'T 1——b 3 :` 5 . w _ ��1 "try { ›l 't Cr" 2 ` y k iA t c pp'�yy 4 Mei� ', 4 ..Nr ,. .-3 �`i„� ', r.,i°>'.1r. E n ,I 4� st I V.!{,`i E t .k�.4itt„,4 Y .,i 'A '-,1 , -,,,"-,‘,.41:1. i7:14 3/4 zz > `^ ..c� a°' �xw a{Ytl , i r "° tia.,—t ( ' .O 0 •CZ ti) y� v 7 �-i. P �s v Imay+,,, ..: �,,. i �i 1 8 �i..yy �; ,} ��` � 111 I US H C/xJ _ M .a l* Je <K4v z) 44)H Q.t..!0. —1 . 1 W H H r 4 cz * t a • • ,.., •Tr ...,... -1- a co 14 ty 41 ra >1 44 Po 0, CI g z > .—. .044 S E •c) ir.,' rLI ,:14 z i 0 * il li 11 , ,.,, &. k -t :• /.-- , t : ft ;, , . \ I, ,t t ' \ • . 4 -''''' - t .,....:„..0...../t , 1,,, t • ' 1, ,•': „„t, t 't ,...."' ' -,' it tt • y,... ._ - . ,,.. ..,,,,:-.1 \\, 1 , , I ' * 14 11,2.1' % 11'01 , ,'1 1; '1.1' ,. 74.1.lit011;1.1.., 11:1' ' , „111"firiglift:,;” ,!.:••• '- .,... •• % ,.;,---7'''= .'7.-'!-,,,•' • ,11'1'...:-'•' ' -•"--,ilii,"!:,- , .'. _„.,. --::',. ''' ' •;;,i,, -' - - . -111,. .,,,,,,r,....77 '-`' .... ;,..„... ,t,:' '..,,,•:, .„,,..,---`7:1,...' - iiitiri:t. ... ,.• k..., , ..o,m-..-- :),:i -„,,,*,-'-- 1. ,:,..,. ,, „. ., , . —.. - „,:'.. ., ,.::,,,,,i I ;',- .,:,,,,, , ,, , . „ ,,, Imi -.,....: i4,,, .04c-qt . . n '' ', 11' ,(f---., , ”' , ''''' 41:rge4 ,Ift;,:..,:t:: '..:,.. -„,.. . -..... - .• ,...- . . .,.. . . ,. . ti-:=E-0,*-1. , , . . ......, , . . . . ,. . , . . . ,.. 1 ,,, -- ,,, .. ,. ,,,„„ ,. - ,, . ' t , = -, . ,..... :.4.1 ,, f. 13 C LI, 1. ..,,,.3,,,, 1k*. ,, iiii .,..„, 1:'111, 111 A1. "'-''-',',.: A./...4/.:?;'.-,'ti'-;..t,'..,... .,,. !/..''),/ ,.,4,,/`7 , .,. /,,..1..,,,. . , t.! ': tt•,; :,ttt•,,,',.::.:‘,.:', ';•t.tt.:ii:•7''' Iter..-Ift ' '!'•' ;'' -:i0. / t 0.• ,, .., ...., ' .. '.. '..;;.I ry,t.e:-:::::-,,,7,....Yi11:;r1-:::''':.:' r1 ,'.', 4.g.t.i.",1%., ti't .tk ,• / .t r.. •Ilifili*- ", ,,/, '.2-.: :" • !,,,,, .,!. , to _,. ;.•;-!,,,;,,,,,,.„.', ,-t•-.0,/'44 i .•• • t tegf") ; t11. •..:...t.,...../..:!'•:.:./.4,-..'••ti"-•-•:::•4',.!'! .,-,, ' ..'< , :',',.-,•',':-1',•- - ',,.•kttete,'St •"• , r....,,,:,;,,-:,.;,.. , ,.i ...c,1 ' A.--v,,,...44., -,, .4014flis • P'!'",.I''2 :'.!.1'.:2„ 41, .1, .„'...:'',. ''''', , $Z, . ‘'..b fl ''. ,-,-'''',,,‘" 4 .. i :,,,i,1'::,-'1 -,,',!,Iit,',,:'77::::'' ' 11!1';,.1.1:';,2.,.' . ''",,,.,I,C1;.''',,,.., , 1 , ''. . ‘•!,,,,,k.,,:, - „:„,,,,,4,,,,,.,.„.;,-„,,,,,,,-„1,, ,v,...,,,i.,-, ''. ,. i' , ii.,...,.-11, ,, ,.-.-3:‘,,,,,t,t-i,/,,,A„.-4,-rt,,,,-...-..!:•:-,,,/,b„•;g1,1-,. t,',...'-1' %;•••'. -- ''''''''''• ./. . • ,,q ,,„..„,,,,,- !,,,,,,,,,, ;,,a,....:0,..V4,-..,' ,%,,,,,,,•1 ., t.". '''.•-•":"7- /7/".41 it t ..:4., '• oh , t .ti..- ' '''''''4,e'tlISVVI"-•,.'''72••L'-';'.-•;'!''-L'''F I :`i ., '''t,`.-*71,-:. .1E'' • .-;'7,'!,- i ,, •. ,. .., -,. ,:: ri,f-ii','.t.)At.,,-,i,,,,,,i,,,,,, . . Fz,,,, . 1-----e,,....-.;, ' -' ' .,JKt ' v ,,, ... . --, ,.. ....' - 0,01:--• . '.,..,'.41-:-..4..:,,,!,',•;i,...,--,‘,.:.--:,I,...h,';.:,.,.,,,,,;;;-.5:..41§;., 2 t ,..... .. r . r . ..,,..;/ .5i,:,!;!,z;,'„-,-,::::„.,,:?,titt""-:; :); ' . '-.;`;'';,,I.•:- ..-,1,..?",'",';,'1 -.P,Y, i • .. .,, , . ,.. \ \-;.::'--=,i.,,...'.:'„,',-';,::-.14.4,-,,;,' ',,--'f-41:A.' .1.„,—, , t ! -' it )' . ' '", 41,?,,t-,'•,•" ,''',4",";„ 't•••'•'' .,, . tt, -4/ , • **,.v,;,'•'°.,,...''.....0,, ,t,s.- ,, ti,, ,t r• .-f'. • 1-41.V..." '''• •.„' '' t .:-/-'•.''': ,111' Y ... 1. r-,--:-i .: ,' ,, '.. .„.„...;:::,i=4:::.:z.-.,,,-*;:i:1*.',S.:ttsFZ ,•;.:,,,,,,„:k,: ,... if .4! .,,,,,,A ,, .,, , , ,,,., ,- '. ,...„.„,::,.0..g,:,:t7-:"<,i,,,,i.1-.,',.,,,,,',-,::;.• 7.f';41,:;,,',3,.>,',,'4'ikii:',.,„"":', 1:i:1',1„; .4• . ,,,„' ',, , ,,. " r i t ..,;„„T...3-,, Izi ,---- , . ...., , . ., , ,,,,,,,,,,-1,,t,,,,,,:----,,,...„ r .,...„,„., „.„.., ,,..„„,,..,...„,...„,„..........,,.., , ,,.... ,..,., .,..... ,....,.. _. , ... ,, ,.,,,,,..:4.,..„,,,..t.,....„,,,,i.i,„:„...,..„,„„,,,...,,,,,,„„.„,„.....,„.„..,,,, . . ...,, ,. 4s,.-,-,,,v.,,,:,,-,,,.„,-.;.,:.4,..,..::f!.,.„-x.,.-..:.4.:,:t:t.441,11.3,0-..,..„, ,.. , ...-, ',.. ,.614.,,,,.„,,,,,,,, 1..„...:-.:4',-!,:,fi.V"kt;iis:::.4.,:-;--1,k,t;:''-':t•'4ii- ''' ik'! 'tifr, Tr;... • r'''-4.-..,. ','0.1.'.' g g''-.V.--!'!•tt,4-.• '-'-::•/. ;„",../•!.4: ,k..t...4410..'.R.,'''.,,e%'''''',"."'' '''t'; .,..k0;i'''' ti " f'.,'"I'",, 'rttt't`-',7,,....t,-'4",,,,,,":..x,*.:,.n.w.3',i".•,1',-.'..,.,A',.4:11,..r4:::.;',',!<„ •,, ' ' .,-,J,."',F.;:,;..iilf,44,''''''':.'*•**f.bt.,,,,,.rt't";•,'''.4i.1-.. , . , 'r - .,.1 .■'-'50'42,. ... .i..4-::qt..... ..,,..,,,,,i....;.:1.4 .',. ...-..;,.-1 . t ' t-:,---. 1 rt-'-4,-,,..v....r..},I. , .;,.,4.5.4.. .5 ....zrhr.....5,„,..,,,,,„ ft,tr,„":iit',.. , . . 4, ; or ' ' . :1-f°,7 1 ..'t,r' e,,. ,.. ''',';;„ik.".t„.:,:itecle:',!.‘1.,".;,,:i,577',..thit,„ , 1 '•... . . i 7,t...,,tfh,.,-;:f.5.„,:.5,,,,,,,..*.4,:•.4''',/,,i1",••,".„,.".,•:-',., ,..'•:4!•; ••„!-„,•,,..-!%;:,tt,„„.45,•247y.,47,it;,-....:Vt'1 ' ' , ..2 lif-:t.--.41.1.:4zA••;?•::::, ,,',,,I1'.:It.t•z,,,,:,'N.11.-';',!::,,:•.!ii ', : ' ' :? it,-, „, ,..,..i.:,Fs,..,-.:?-t.:. .... , . .:.„ .k?,:t4:X:it,14.•717,:/, itt,l,•;;...-.4ts.ktiz.•-:.:, 1,-.,,,.7.v'',,,,,t,:-.0.,.. i '', -'-1:'-r:,',---.:-:.,•'-i.- ..,..-. h... , ,, ,i'..,-;:‘Vt. ::',.::*''''''&..'''..Yr-'a.r".':4''''.':tk,;* 4.'--,'.5:''!r''7,'''*'..-'' '•:'''''''',,'ii: Ch,";,,'',;1, • r. .... 4Z.'',4 ' ,; . ..,.,,4,,Wr;P:;:..1",.4 ‘„",1-'4'.2.?,?,t;',!„,-).,,,,,..?',1f7,,,;1,),',1, • -,:r.'''"•; ,t • '.„&.'-,--,-, '41:',•NA7....,1 '. 407,44,, ,,,,i,„,„.'',. ..,••57,,,,14„,.,?'''''' ,.'^-,.,251-*/4-/--.!:-,,•---1.t.;tt-t•-,,t---• , , ' ''....-.:tfi'';':;!,•..,*''.i::!:„.;•••••:::::".••-k-.„:/l ,. / ttit.,!„&„,,...,!;:/•,,?,::,/01,103t-ilvir, tt... f 't,,,, /.,'„: • „.,i. ,-: k ,,t,•&,,, .it 1'''''''''':. ' ' ----•'-/;;A"Trzt,t4;1-,,t,(hli..i..* i ..1',,,.4' ' r - ; -. . ':7.,,..•: .;-'-'.-„„,, '1, k:,...;',.. ,,'' . . .” ', -i (r-'•2-4 :--i'ii* 4. 1 ..I k t' ,it",;:',,, '1.•;„'\ l'I'%..1,1 1 i .''': 1,',''' ''' - k .,,...,,, - "4' :;4 .,,,-,:.,% . , . , i f'•A . •' ,,eit&4t,,,,e'!' " ".-''' -II:- '",."','" ..,......'".""; .2, is4t%.' .-,7-'.•I'Pr..--, :',:147,': ', .,L'''''.:'''''''t7'; ' '-''L';'''''..--1..''' '''''.',7 ''..:'' 0° . It 7.; .; t. Z ..., _,,•,-----;1 m ,;- - .4'-- -....,.... --..-: ='•'..,::::: -.....','!---' , . Px4 ,,„.........*""<,is ..- Phy m•......-::ia.--, ,... ..,,,....--- -II ff.. ..,4- .... 04 w W 11 = ..;.. .. -,*'''' „ ; I , ,.. cr ,. ., • • 0 4.1 0 t:4 po 0 • 0 4 REPORT SUMMARY 1. Hydrologic Conditions: A. Summary The site is north of the Lionshead Core Area, and adjacent to the South Frontage Road. Gore Creek is approximately 900 feet to the south and should not be impacted by this development. Currently the site is an asphalt parking lot. There is little off-site surface drainage to this site and there are no natural water features present. For the most part, this site is impervious area that will be removed to construct the proposed improvements. A detailed report was prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc, and is included in Appendix A. B. Environmental Impacts The hydrologic conditions should not change significantly since the proposed improvements will be constructed on already impervious areas of the site. The greatest chance for environmental impact is during the construction phase. C. Proposed Mitigation Care will be taken to remove pollutants from the runoff to maintain downstream water quality. Cie Stormwater runoff will be outfalled onto grassy swales wherever possible. Where grassy swales cannot be used, a water quality vault will be placed in the storm drain system to capture pollutants. The existing storm drain system in place between the proposed development and Gore Creek will be evaluated to verify if it has the capacity to carry the flows from the development. Detention is not expected to be provided because of the close proximity of Gore Creek and the minimal increase in peak flow that the proposed development will have on the peak of the overall drainage basin. A sediment control plan will be prepared for the project to limit the transportation of sediments to Gore Creek and its tributaries during construction. Devices that may be used during construction to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving the site include stabilized construction entrances, silt fence, straw bales, stone outlet structures, sediment traps, or a pumped sediment removal system. D. Irreversible Impacts There is no significant impact to the existing surface runoff volumes or quality of water entering Gore Creek. Therefore, there are no irreversible impacts. co, Lionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 5 Lionshead NDL EIR.doc 2. Soils Report: A. Summary The natural soils on the site will support the buildings as designed. The natural sand and gravel will support spread footings foundations and slab-on-grade construction. Existing fill will not support slab-on-grade construction, and will be removed prior to replacement of fill or construction of floors. At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at various elevations in exploratory borings. Because the ground water appears to be below the lowest below-grade level, it is not anticipated that ground water will influence the construction of the proposed building. Due to the depth of the proposed excavation, temporary shoring may be required. Drainage around the structures will be designed and constructed to provide for rapid removal of surface runoff and avoid concentration of water adjacent to foundation walls. A detailed report was prepared by Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc, and is included in Appendix H. B. Environmental Impacts Dust created by the excavation of the site will have a short-term affect on the air quality. Refer to Section 3, Atmospheric Conditions for these issues. There is the potential for radon gas in the subsurface strata of the mountain terrain. Due to the granular nature of the natural soils and shallow ground water, it appears that the risk for radon gas at this site is low. C. Proposed Mitigation To minimize any impact of radon gas, the below grade areas will be ventilated. D. Irreversible Impacts The proposal will have irreversible impacts due to development of structures on the property. However,the soils conditions will support the proposed structures. 3. Atmospheric Conditions: A. Summary The redevelopment of this site decreases the number of parking spaces, so there will be a decrease in traffic generated by the private development of this project. There may be slight increases in pollutants due to the presence of the proposed Town of Vail Transit Center. Short- term impacts to air quality may occur during the demolition and construction phase of the project. These impacts would result in temporary increases in levels of airborne particulates and tailpipe emissions. Impacts are predicted to be small and can be successfully mitigated. Lionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 6 Lionshead NDL EIR.doc CO Impacts to air quality once the project is operational should be minimal. A detailed report was prepared by Greystone Environmental Consultants, and is included in Appendix E. B. Environmental Impact Potential impacts to air quality from demolition will depend on the type of materials contained in the structures and on the demolition operating procedures. During construction, emissions of fugitive dust will be generated from earth moving and material handling, vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved surfaces, and tailpipe emissions from diesel-powered earthmoving equipment. It is expected that these impacts will be minimal because control measures can be applied. Upon completion of the project, the additional vehicle traffic may result in slight increases in fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. C. Proposed Mitigation Measures should be followed to minimize generation of fugitive dust during demolition. These include wetting down, including pre-watering of the work surface, removal of dirt and mud deposited on improved streets and roads, and wetting down, washing, or covering haulage equipment when necessary to minimize emissions of fugitive dust during loading and transit. During construction, dust emissions can be mitigated by wet suppression, soil compaction, minimizing disturbance of storage piles, adding gravel to unpaved surfaces, limiting vehicle speed, weight, and number of vehicles on the road, minimizing "track out," and street sweepers. D. Irreversible Impacts There are no irreversible impacts from the demolition of the existing structures. Fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions will be limited to the construction period. It is expected that impacts from fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions will be minimal because control measures can be applied. Upon completion of the project, fugitive dust can be mitigated by periodically cleaning paved roads. Additional impact on local air quality is expected to be minimal relative to contributions from vehicle traffic on I-70 and general vehicle traffic in the Town of Vail. 4. Biotic Conditions Limited vegetation and no wetlands exist in the area proposed for the North Day Lot. There are no natural habitats at this site. 5. Other Environmental Conditions A. Summary Lionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 7 Lionshead NDL EIR.doc Cr, The site was reviewed for impacts due to sound and odor. There will be an increase in noise and odors during the demolition and construction phases due to equipment. There will be no significant impact from noise or odor once the project is constructed. A detailed report was prepared by Greystone Environmental Consultants, and is included in Appendix E. B. Environmental Impact There will be no long-term impact from noise or odors for the private development project. The short-term impact during construction will be from equipment. Noise generated by construction would occur only during the daytime, and should be within the local noise limit for construction. During the daytime, there are better conditions for odor dispersal, limiting potential impacts to odor from construction. C. Proposed Mitigation Construction during the daytime will minimize the impact of noise and odors. D. Irreversible Impacts There will be no irreversible impacts from noise or odors. co, 6. Visual Conditions A. Summary The North Day Lot property is currently improved as a paved parking lot. The visual quality of the site is fairly poor as one might expect of a paved asphalt area. The proposed development of the site will improve the overall visual aesthetics of the site. The proposed development is subject to the Town's zoning limitations and design guidelines. The proposed bulk and mass of the structure will be similar to other existing structures developed in Lionshead, however new buildings will be designed to a stricter standard as promoted by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The ultimate design and materials to be utilized in proposed structures will be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The bulk and mass of proposed structures will be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Town of Vail does not regulate views on or adjacent to the proposed development parcel. Therefore, potential impacts to private views on surrounding land are not a criterion that the Town uses to evaluate development proposals. Views and impacts to properties throughout Lionshead were considered as part of the planning effort that resulted in the adoption of the Lionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 8 Lionshead NDL E1R.doc 0 O Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The Lionshead Mixed Use District 1 evolved from and is based on the adopted master plan for Lionshead. Certain areas and views were adopted in the Master Plan as warranting protection; however, none were recommended in the area of the subject parcel. B. Environmental Impacts The impacts of the proposed development are consistent with the impacts anticipated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the subsequent rezoning of the property to Lionshead Mixed Use 1. C. Proposed Mitigation Mitigation of visual conditions is not required as the proposed development is consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. D. Irreversible Impacts The proposal will have irreversible impacts to the visual quality of the site consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 7. Land Use Conditions A. Summary The North Day Lot property is currently improved as a paved parking lot. The property is adjacent to and in the vicinity of large residential and lodging facilities. The proposed land use conditions for the subject property are shown on the proposed development plan. The proposed uses comply with the zoning on the property and are proposed at the intensity allowed by that zoning. The proposed uses include multiple-family dwelling units to be used for employee housing. Additionally, there will be commercial office space. Parking to serve the residential and commercial use is also provided. The development proposal does not require any modification to Zoning Regulations or the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to accommodate uses proposed. The proposed development of this site will not result in negative impacts to land use conditions in the area and is consistent with the development patterns established in the area and recommended in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. B. Environmental Impacts The impacts of the proposed development and land use patterns are consistent with the impacts anticipated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the subsequent rezoning of the Lionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 9 Lionshead NDL EIR.doc • property to Lionshead Mixed Use 1. Reference other sections of this report regarding such impacts. C. Proposed Mitigation No mitigation is necessary as the proposed development and land use patterns are consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. D. Irreversible Impacts The proposal will have irreversible impacts due to development of structures on the property. However, the proposed land use conditions are consistent with the zoning on the property and recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. 8. Circulation and Transportation Conditions A. Summary A Traffic Impact Study was carried out to determine the impact of future traffic conditions associated with the proposed Lionshead Redevelopment project located primarily along the south side of the I-70 South Frontage Road in Lionshead Village. The purpose of the study (60, was to identify traffic generation characteristics, identify potential traffic related impacts to the local street system, and to propose mitigation measures for identified impacts. A detailed report was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, and is included in Appendix G. The portion of the report for Lionshead North Day Lot focused on the west intersection of West Lionshead Circle and South Frontage Road. South Frontage Road is a CDOT roadway with one travel lane in each direction along the south side of Interstate 70. Primarily, the frontage road is located north of Lionshead Village. The roadway has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour through the project area. West Lionshead Circle is a collector roadway with one lane of travel in each direction. The intersection of this roadway with the South Frontage Road is stop controlled on the minor street approach with free flow movements along the Frontage Road. B. Environmental Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts due to the increase in traffic. C. Proposed Mitigation Please refer to the report prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates in Appendix G for proposed mitigation due to the impact of traffic to the redeveloped site. Ce Lionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 10 Lionshead NDL EIR.doc • D. Irreversible Impacts Decreasing traffic to this site will not result in irreversible impacts. 9. Population Characteristics A. Summary The North Day Lot property is currently improved as a paved parking lot and therefore no population is associated with the property. The redevelopment of this site will provide for housing of employees. Many of these employees will be seasonal workers at the resort; however, one can expect that the dwellings will be occupied year-round. The proposed development is within levels anticipated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the zoning on the property. The proposed development of a residential structure is also consistent with the existing development patterns established in Lionshead as well as those encouraged by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The structure will contain approximately 144 beds. These beds are likely to be developed in a ce 4-bed room unit configuration. Therefore there is likely to be a permanent population of 144 persons living on the site. This site, given its central location in the commercial core area of Vail, provides a suitable location for the anticipated population given its proximity to public transportation, recreational amenities, and commercial activities. B. Environmental Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts. C. Proposed Mitigation No mitigation is necessary as the proposed development is consistent with the zoning on the property and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts and mitigation. D. Irreversible Impacts Please refer to other sections of this report for specific development related impacts. creLionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 11 Lionshead NDL EIR.doc ED 10. Alternative Development Scenarios During the process of developing the program and design of structures for this site, the goals of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan were consulted and analyzed. These goals provide the framework upon which zoning for the entire Lionshead area was developed. The Master Plan identifies the North Day Lot as being on the fringe of the Resort Retail and Commercial Hub. The Master Plan directs growth in this area for employee housing, office, lodging, and retail uses. Additionally this site was identified as a potential location for a Town of Vail transit area with skier drop-off, hotel shuttle drop-off, and regional bus drop-off. Using the Master Plan direction, alternatives ranging from the extremes of doing nothing to maximizing development and density were analyzed. The do-nothing alternative does not achieve the redevelopment goals of the master plan and does not add to the vitality of the Lionshead area and therefore was abandoned as a viable alternative. To the other extreme, maximizing the program of the site while improving the vitality of the area tended to overwhelm the site, reduce area for desired Town of Vail functions, and cause parking and landscape difficulties not easily overcome. The alternative ultimately selected provides a balance of the development objectives being sought by the Town. The property is redeveloped with a moderately scaled structure that responds to the Town's desired zoning goals and design guidelines, with a program that balances the need for vitality and Vail Resort's need for office and employee housing infrastructure. The program includes a mixture of employee housing units and office space. The plan also reserves a space on the ground level of the building for cr. the Town to develop a transit center. Lionshead Redevelopment North Day Lot Environmental Impact Report Page 12 Lionshead NDL E1R.doc L CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE REPORT FOR LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT JUNE 2003 C Prepared for: Vail Resorts Development Company P.O. Box 959 Avon, CO 81620 Prepared by: Alpine Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 97 Edwards, CO 81632 (970) 926-3373 110 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (111, 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project Description 1 3. Development Sites 1 -Core Area -West Day Lot -Tennis Court Site -North Day lot 4. Developed Conditions 4 5. Water Quality 4 6. Downstream Impact 4 7. Floodplain 5 8. Soils 5 9. Erosion and Sediment Control 7 10. Exhibits: Exhibit A—Excerpts from Hart-Howerton Report Exhibit B —Water Quality Vault Detail Exhibit C—FEMA Floodplain Maps Exhibit D—Sediment Control Details 11. Figures: Figure 1 —U.S. Soil Conversation Service Soils Map Figure 2—U.S. Forest Service Soils Map C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report / Page A-2 2. Project Description C The Lionshead re-development project is located in Vail, Colorado. It consists of four separate parcels, which are currently developed but are proposed to be upgraded. They are the Core area, the West Day Lot, the Tennis Court site and the North Day Lot. They are described in detail in the"Lionshead,the Re- development of Lionshead, Pre-application Conceptual Submittal to the Town of Vail PEC and DRB, submitted by Vail Resorts Development Company, Book 2 of 2, September 26, 2002"as prepared by Hart-Howerton. Excerpts from the Hart- Howerton report may be found in Appendix A. This report addresses hydrologic conditions in the existing case and also for what is proposed on the site. The surface drainage,watershed characteristics, natural water features and proposed changes and impacts are discussed for each site. 3. Development Sites Core Area The Core area is located adjacent to the Eagle Balm Gondola and Chair 8. Gore Creek is a couple of hundred feet to the south and is not impacted by this development. Very little off-site drainage flows to this site and there are no natural water features on the site. The majority of the site is currently existing buildings or paving that will be removed to make way for the proposed re- development. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report June 2003 Conceptual Drainage Report for Lionshead Page A-3 a 0 cle Proposed development includes hotels, condos,retail shops, restaurants, parking structures and a courtyard. There will not be a significant change to the hydrologic conditions of this site as it is already a densely developed piece of property. West Day Lot The West Day Lot is south and west of the existing Marriott Hotel. It is currently a parking garage, a surface parking lot and some grassed area. Gore Creek is 75 to 100 feet to the south of this parcel with a bike/recreation path in between. Gore Creek is not impacted by this development,. Very little off-site surface drainage flows to this site and there are no natural water features present. A large portion of this site is presently impervious area that will be removed to construct the proposed improvements. Proposed for the site are townhomes with underground garages, condos, a hotel and a parking structure. The hydrologic conditions may change somewhat as a result of the proposed townhomes but the proposed hotel, condos and parking structure will be constructed on already impervious areas of the site. Tennis Court Site The Tennis Court site is located west of the gondola and directly south of the (.9 Core Area. Gore Creek is located approximately 60 - 100 feet to the north of the Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report June 2003 Conceptual Drainage Report for Lionshead Page A-4 S site with some grassy vegetation in between, and should not be impacted by this development. There are no natural water features on this site. Currently the site has abandoned tennis courts and a snowmaking pumphouse on it. There are 4 single family lots proposed for the site, primarily on the western half of the property. The hydrologic conditions may change somewhat due to the proposed driveways and homes. However, much of the land being developed is currently impervious. North Day Lot The North Day Lot is north of the Core Area/Gondola and adjacent to South Frontage Road. Gore Creek is approximately 900 feet to the south and should not be impacted by this development. Currently the site is an asphalt parking lot. There is very little off-site surface drainage to this site and there are no natural water features present. For the most part, this site is impervious area that will be removed to construct the proposed improvements. Proposed for this site is one employee housing building with underground parking and an office. The hydrologic conditions of this site should not change significantly since the proposed improvements will be constructed on already impervious areas of the site. C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-5 June 2003 Conceptual Drainage Report for Lionshead • CO 4. Developed Conditions Co Proposed for the four development sites are several buildings, underground parking structures, plaza areas and driveways. Stormwater will be conveyed through and off of the sites by a series of inlets and pipes. Flow will be directed such that it maintains historic drainage patterns as much as possible. Additional pipes and inlets will be installed to carry runoff from the site. 5. Water Quality There will be a small increase in impervious areas as a result of the proposed developments. Care will be taken to remove pollutants from the runoff to maintain downstream water quality. Stormwater runoff will be outfalled onto grassy swales wherever possible. Where grassy swales are not able to be used, a water quality vault will be placed in the storm drain systems to capture pollutants. A detail of a possible water quality vault is provided in Exhibit B. 6. Downstream Impact On some of the sites, there are storm drain systems in place between the proposed developments and the Gore Creek. These storm drain systems will be evaluated to see if they have the capacity to carry the flows from the proposed developments. Additional storm sewer will be installed as is necessary on all sites. Detention is not expected to be provided because of the close proximity of C Lionshead Redevelopment E Environmental Impact Report June 2003 Conceptual Drainage Report for Lionshead Page A-6 0 • Gore Creek and Red Sandstone Creek and the minimal increase in peak flow that ciethe proposed development will have on the peak of the overall drainage basin. 7. Floodplain There is no floodplain encroaching upon the Core Area, West Day Lot, Tennis Court site and the North Day Lot development sites. A copy of the FEMA floodplain panel in the area of Lionshead may be found in Exhibit C. Although the floodplains extend onto the development sites,there is no development within the floodplain and the floodplains should not be impacted by the development. 8. Soils In order to assess hydrologic conditions at each of the development sites, actual soil types were obtained from the"Soil Survey of Aspen—Gypsum Area, Colorado, Parts of Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin Counties"prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and the"Draft Soil Survey of the Holy Cross Soil Survey—White River and Arapaho National Forests, Colorado—Parts of Eagle, Garfield, Mesa, Pitkin and Summit Counties"prepared by the U.S. Forest Service. There are four hydrologic soil groups(A, B, C or D) that soils may be classified into as a means of estimating runoff from precipitation. They are grouped according to their runoff—producing characteristics from long-duration storms. • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-7 June 2003 Conceptual Drainage Report for Lionshead 1 i • Please refer to Figures 1 and 2 for Soils Maps and Tables 1 and 2 for soil names Cw and hydrologic soils groups. TABLE 1 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SOILS SUMMARY Map symbol Soil Name Hydrologic Soil Type 45 Forsey B TABLE 2 U.S. FOREST SERVICE SOILS SUMMARY Map symbol Soil Name Hydrologic Soil Type 281B Quander Family B ML Made Land All impervious Group B soils have a moderate infiltration rate and consist mainly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to cmoderately course texture. Made Land (ML) is man-made material, including buildings, pavement, fill and other disturbed areas. It is mostly impervious. No soils information for what lies below the impervious layer is available. For the four development sites,the following soils are present: The Core Area consists of Made Land. Aside from a few planter boxes,this area is a brick plaza surrounded by buildings. The West Day Lot consists of Made Land. There are some trees along the perimeter of this site and a berm along the existing bike path, but the majority of the site is existing parking lot. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report June 2003 Conceptual Drainage Report for Lionshead Page A-8 i The Tennis Court Site consists of Quander Family soils, however it is mostly impervious due to the tennis courts. Vegetation surrounding the tennis courts includes a grassy ski slope. The North Day Lot consists of Made Land. This is an asphalt parking lot with little to no vegetation surrounding it. 9. Erosion and Sediment Control A sediment control plan will be prepared for the project to limit the transportation of sediments to Gore Creek and its tributaries during construction. Devices that may be used during construction to prevent sediment laden runoff from leaving the site include stabilized construction entrances, silt fence, straw bales, stone outlet structures, sediment traps and the Dirtbag(pumped sediment removal system). Details of these devices may be found in Exhibit D. • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report June 2003 Conceptual Drainage Report for Lionshead Page A-9 ' • C Exhibit A Excerpts from Hart-Howerton Report Not included, refer to drawing submittal to Town of Vail C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-10 too • Exhibit B Water Quality Vault Detail S Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-11 O:O V %J......0,00.V .i J��i-O V 24" Dia. Ring & Cover 410 `'v ..--.....'". . 41L."\ ...>>"---..„..,:: . rode Rings As Req'd 24" Dia. Access Holes Inlet Pip Around All Pipes & Blackouts By Contractor 0 0 `r •utle: Pipe • I • i t `• 1 t + I Retaining Baffl 'so View For Reference Only SANDOIL SAND I OIL INTERCEPTOR '�©ldcastie Precast k STANDARD DRAWING � �� Division FILE NAME: 110ECSSNDOIL—F i ca - Iri� 1L�R ISSUE DATE: APRIL, 2001 53/2 w FOX Pk.y. 3)791- 12 co ac,xs Copyright © 2001 Gfdca�°Pred-+�.k Prate ( )791-1100 /I-aru-7,x-4sse „y,oldcastleprecast.com FOX (�)�,-IIxO Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-12 J C Exhibit C FEMA Floodplain Maps Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-13 sg ,t,�� ^js y.. Y+c.. } r s hr at ,,.. yie a a. " yaf 'L r Y 5 `�• T ' 4 Y r.-:..4.: .1:;. >....x,2� = LMATb0MA1 FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM I 1 1 FIRM f ,, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 1 TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO EAGLE COUNTY 1 PANEL 2OF5 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) I 2 -.....- e i 1{I' F ij 1 NUMBER COMMUNITY-PANEL i 080054 0002 C' I MAP REVISED: M7% MAY 1, 1985 IJyO ' °! ; _ 1, Federal Emergency Management Agency ;- • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-14 ^i6)� � ¢? � �� IIUHH W j o` 1 0 o N a . \ • In I- U / a 3105 z m 1 I . W ,.OZ o°O if ' U• ti W u Q]1'aw N `Z 0 tgl u i' U " .... __q ... • Cr7 W (.2__ I i.i z 1- O \-..--....' w N1,< 80 G 3lJ , , Q b J C0 A• • w a V, 7 111 \ w O _.._ Z . N • ° ° N 383 i \x w�• o ys, , ro v 0 \..\o- ..T...._ -0 r w o 8019 .. ... . _,8076 1 w Zo 0 00 oz I-0 O-F m IA CC JO r Q Z> f 7Q~ z $O CD Z W p N] -7 .. N*r ¢V >,-oU z �� . >. °ti u.1 U O .:_c?- ' 8070 o r\ w o,h a►o- O Zv- C4-7.'c..7) O ul CO o� _ OQ N -i- - - -\\c o\ W CI N _ �L o Q m F-w r: -.) 111:41,4•-, :�; �- t , oo W - p 66 2 J o� m ws co � T +^svw v z e O N ':86 -'F w `b ��` ca v co N \ p w0 co Q CO co m 03 N O �. /bc `° Z Z v O 4/y N EL_ O i v 8053 N 6 a 00 11VA zW `1• O 8 ° >:Zo Lionshead Redevelopment 00 Environmental Impact Report \ \\ •\ Page A-15 \ ill 1 I r. t : - t= /4 ° A 1 oR iii itLMS* 11Et -1.1.' '....-i \ . ---- \ . I u'E r•;Ipt1i •105 ■ isIS 1 t a + i� Z ,1 . JM\ , Duo I, •-�, 1 ,, . , , ,,1 1 `�. . .► Ai.-.,.. sta' \\ ''''‘ 11,- ----1- .1.1401/..7-$1111;,.-..-4-\\ '''t---;:'. . " o • -_-..1 \ li , ��V;.4-i-.1111. �a J cc \•\ ' \11 jt 1� 4::,,• 1 , `•,a!k + ),r I.:i Mw�� 1a 1. 11 i?' i�� .. 1tr grill. w ,- Zt1►rte, £ A ' o 1... ....iiir„......,,...-- ,.. ,. \ —1;a : ''''-..- 101)041.7 igi" % r Ay. . Alp--.._.._. \ .,..,, .-.... arki..,.:bi r. ,or__..n. - , VI ' *„.0.0•713 trit604411 , .;,,- . . !„„n...., Ili Lu /: , \\ 1 1 ''''1- . (ii . '3 , 1.4"•,:.\ 1 AS,It 44.1.-- I;--__ \ U. \ ‘ . NI 1‘1 OA ,r �, 'Q `...V it.* �.,, 11.x,\`. � r};... . - \ / 1 \ X� .1 \`1.= \ lid: 4 • 1\' H W�V� W u �`, \\ iiiiwO\1 Tom,, \\,•` 1�� '`• U\\, \ i \ \ ,*^ \ IT% li. Lj cc I I I- \\ . \\'' \, 1 ‘,7,:v., - ,-...tA .,:.,p,A . , ,..,„,, . .,. • \ \ .-- , 41,11",a \ ,,r...s.I aMi. is•-----..- - LI 0 .-I \\ \ ‘ \\\ ''' 1* N • •4".4. --'7:- - I !`• a ‘\ 4\ \<<".\ ' ' i .-1, 1 , letA -.• Allitt -.--, ��'\ : 4`\ , C k -"-A \_:k - U z '. vfirw,. .1 . - .W.A:.;.41 `� O \ ✓� 8076 w \\ \ . Z0 a . <4 . ;(n . Q ¢U \.�Z s. :p 1 `Wilt W m \ate , o� �. 2 o w z z ..._.."A :. Of!!. 8070 w 1 O'. e\/�;6.'4:4.M.`N.` JAN �1 .� +` �`\ °° \\w — "' p ` p66 W J co �� o .:i`r'✓CD co h\\ �\ ZO�. N ,,Sli Q p co +^ w co m \ N f V .� 4/kiQ Z W \ r W Z : 0 N 0 \ w a 3 �,� N N oZ \-, Z • o, 3 gv5 u.W o g0 _ iivn �zj c -�- o wi-� Lionshead Redevelopment I o oo° Environmental Impact Report 1 \� \\ L. Page A-16 (by Exhibit D Sediment Control Details L C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-17 • - r r • v • # • - y' -:-tom. ,..1... .. C PM 111111W7 40. ,I va-. - l....- •.,.. * .,.�' ell••.1 ... - ,+�. .• ,. avow :.-v' •�. Pumped Sediment --_ - - - - ;- Removal System ,- -.. r -• - I l 7tenever accumulated zc'ater must be pum ped! t ,; .,•�,� , .,. ...,. : _,.�,. •. . ...-,� .,ter 1/111tciI lilt' ellyironntt•lit t lh•t•tiyel- ;v , . and economically with 1)irtllag1 t� S 0, , Et! ...- Collect sand, silt and lines. Avoid !' 1 4".t "'u r :+„ silting streams, su1.1' .t111(1111g propel'- =~', :-i 0 1 tv; and storm sewers. As more and V .. II t( emphasis is put on saving our +,.' . ...11111 /1 %tti:ulds, rl;gulations are h•conling ''4,',. - nu,rr stringent it t tiding the , ; , pumping of dirty tlalrr lion) holes • +- :11.01111(1 c(111Strllt•l1(►11 slll'S-sllt•II as -.- _ Ii,11n(I:111uns, 1)11)1 line construction. J repairing luunicipal water/sewer _ �`: -' -e"�. .. lines, nl:u•inl• construction, utility, _ _ .,. � :_-Y+ --'.•� .... :r a ...:. 'r :-.R- hi�llw:ly an(1 site (Ieyelopnu•nt "�- ..� �- _.r. areas. I)irtbag applications arc '='''� e. endless. - '~-•� -� ...... __ , z` Use Recommendations = ii'"` A('X Environmental mantlla•tures y i)irthag using a variety of nonwoven -- —J geot(xtile lithric nlantiEtctured by SI - -•-"° 'ter' Geosl►Iutions.'Ibe lithric properties ' w..M.,.0r"rpr on the Spot ilicatiorls page x1111111 the :tggrl;tiate or Ilayh:de hell to maxi- .� ....; ,,,. r strength of I)irthag and are a result nlizl 5l:uer Iluw through the surlilct +.v1►31+F y� ' of tests cou(Iu(�Lt(i at on-site Iahola- area ()I' the ha ;.�/1MM'" . tnries at the geotextile Iactot•): All test methods thods in AS'1'i\1 or industry stan- 1)irthag is lull \then it tin longer d:urls. caul efficiently filter Si clim nt or -� -•--� pass water at a reasonable rate. ,•+. '•. te` Each standard Dirthag Irats a lilt Flow rates Will vary depending n(ling on 4-} spout hinge enough to accommodate the size ()I' 1)irtbag, the type :ulrl . .. a 4" discharge hose. Straps are amount of sediment discharged attached to secure the hose turd pre- into 1)irthag, the type of ground. ".+ ,.,,,,.,,. - vent pumped water from escaping rock or other substance under the * _' .r...I•_____ without being filtered. hag and the degree of the slope on -�:. _ --111,00gr+►c°'tor which the bag lies. Under most cir- "'Illb"'- . Install Dirtbag on a slope so that c•umstanccs 1)irtbag will accommo- •- '� incoming water flows doss nhill date flow rates of I:►I)(► gallons per +. a;;,v.w:a;. - -:;_..- r through Dirtbag without creating minute. Use of t•xceSSIVe Iii\s more erosion. Strap the neck of rates or overfilling 1)irtbag with 1)irtbag tightly to the discharge sediment will cause ruptures of the Lionshead Redevelopment hose.To increase the efficiency-of bags or failure of the hose attach- Environmental Impact Report - filtration, place the bag on an meat straps. Page A-18 al 1 1 i..► Hillside Installation on Straw Undeilarnent . 1 N Easy To Use , _'_��,-__ «w. .1. �Ae 1-=�.^. f- .: �K �=,1. t Dirtb is easy to transport - .,40.1.0e..,-•t11" ''1x: ',?`_ it..%^+r' Coe: the site.To install, simply unfold �'^� } •4" discharge ``' t ' -y,��' i1 , ;;L r•t; � , nd insert up to pump j f i the hose into the hand-sewn spout - - r , .{ ached •' s;:� j"• '�` :3. 1.7.0:V. o•.- and secure with the att. • • - . = -•..• :.7 is straps. Pump dirt, water into ";• :: -- • , 04 :,• .... Dirtbag.The bag collects the silt as .. - ? the clean water gently filters out • from all sides. _, xt4 ' r •tt C:utnhare Dirtbag to the alternatives ;� such as cumbersome bate forts which arc g:,;._,:,..:.,-.15,. t s l i v. , ve- !�, :•L build and to clean up afterward. And : F �.•_, -{.c . (*.. .•i : ri. Dirtbag poses no threat to the emi- ronment when disposed properly: Dirtbag Features Typical Dirtbag" Construction • Designed and produced from a variety of fabrics to meet engi- neering specifications for flow BAG PLACED ON HIGH STRENGTH rates,siren th, and permeability: AGGREGATE OR DOUBLE STITCHED • Stabilized to provide "J" TYPE SEAMS resistance to SEWN IN SPOUT ultra-violet degradation. • Meets municipal, state, and toe HIGH STRENGTH Corps of Engineers specifica- tions. HIGH STRENGTH GTH lions. HOLDING HOSE • Available in 10' x l sizes.12-'N x D I R T B A G IN PLACE 15', and 15 l 15' sizes. Custom o sizes available. e „---WATER FliA71 II� FROM PUMP - PUMP DISCHARGE `: I HOSE LEP GTH OPENING ACCOMODATES UP TO 4” TOP VIEW DISCHARGE HOSE v �I'_ �J � 7.....,..1/4 - 4--,I�111= I I= , I =f I 1 hI I= I— :I-1 I I— —ill " 1 1=111 I I I=11 11=�!I IIII III=.III=11III=II = I —II —I= ., 111-111-1 1=1 I 11 =1 1—Ti—ITS-11 1-11 1-11 1 _ AGGREGATE OR STRAW UNDERLAY VENT r t.i.. ." t , �..aaa cC ..- SIDE VIEW 1-l; .(i`,•}-p.,.. >�,I Lionshead Redevelopment (kw -- - -- "- Environmental Impact Report Page A-19 Cie 0 - Dirtbag'Specifications 3.0 Construction Sequence Control of Sediment In Pumped Water 3.1.1 Install 1)irll,:�,on a slope 5o incoming water flows(limit- hill thrinl;gh 1)irtbag without creating more erosion.Stags 1.0 Description the neck of I)irtbag tigluh 10 the diselt.tl_'•hosr.'I.' 1.1 'Iins work shall c4 1115151 or lin•nislling.placing mill rot nlvilrg increase the ellicienc% of filtration.place the bag on an Dirtbag' pumped sediment control device as directed hy aggregate or ha■-bale lied to maximize 4%alel'114)"1hro11glt the design rngitleer or as shown on the runuarl drawings. the surlarc area of the hag. Dirtbag pumped-silt rontod system is marketed by: 3.1.2 1)inbag is lull I%hrn it 110 lolhrr caul ellirirnt ■ litter 5rdi .\(:1 I:m-intrunenlal. Inc. turns or allo4% (cater to pass at a reasonable rate. Flow '111.11 (::u•lhsell I)rixr rates will vary depending loll Ihr site ol• I)inbag. the t■1)' 1:ichuunlll.\nrgiuia !:12:11 and amount ol•se11inll•111 clisrll.Irgrit into I)irlhag.tile RIlt 1'ho11e:iin41-I lip-.Milli 4 or ground.rock or usher Slll151.1114 •lllllll'1 Ihr 1).1,4 and the I'ux:YI►1-71:1-i 179 degree III.die 511)1)1'011%4I lick the bag lirs. I•ruler most rir- IIUU:arli Ininamu nIC11.uY1111 runt5lanrrs Dirtbag"ill arr1)uuuoll:lte 11.,„ canes Ill. rim) gallult5 per minute. 15•111 e\I'Isst\r 114,54 1.111•%III o\1•rldl- 2.0 Materials lug I)irlh:lg with sediment will cause the h.Ig 144 rupture 1)r 2.1 Dirtbag' tallow 1)l.Ihr Muse aUarlunent swaps. 2.1.1 I)trthag shall he nlanldactumll using a puhpropylene ton- 3.1.3 I)iyHlse I lirdl:ag as directed h■ the site e112inerr. II %%1)teit grutextilr In 4111 SI (;I ls(4lluions.!hell 541%11 into a allowed. Dirtbag 111x■ be cut 44114'11 Mill the contents.celled hag with a dauhle needle matching using a high sllrligtll :Hire rl•11n.s lug■isihle lathed. I)ir111.1 is stmlig enough al 11nra11. 1 o lilted‘l ith optional swaps if it twist he Iwulrll.144.1%. ()11-site disposal Ina\ hr larilil:urll h∎ 1)larulg I)irtbag in SI (1e/151dtut11)tts /r`"is• Ihr hark of a dump truck 1)r Il.uhrll 111 it 4t 1.1 um-.1111! GAI-LAP ,,44 511414/sl d11l11)11.444111 t, `) ACCRED,TAT o n �,r :1111)NIIIg the mater 11)drain from the hag 1lhilr in place. (1100)ti!1-111 1 I -'' Iherrhy elinlnlatiug the null 111 1111 I)in hag. 4.0 Basis of Payment 2.1.2 Each stanllauil I)irthag leas a lilt slpinl I:u;ge enough 10 act nnulnlau•a I- discharge hose.Straps are attached to 4.1 '1 I 1 1. la∎m 11 lin.ally 1)irthag used during construction is sernre 1 r 1141Se:111 1 11re'r111 1)111I yell%I:uer 1in111 esc:11lil1g 144 he 111r11111rd in the hid 441.1Kerall erosion.11111 sedin lent %11111u111 loving filtered. rouunl plan unless a unit price is requested. 2.1.3 I)irlbag seams shall have an asrrage aide wi11111 strength per I)-Inn! as follows. Dirtbag Style Test Method Test Result Dirtbag'53 ASTM D-4884 60 LB/IN Dirtbag'55 ASTM 0-4884 100 LB/IN Test Results Properties Test Method Units Style53 Style55 Weight ASTM 0-3776 oz/yd 8 10 Grab Tensile ASTM D-4632 lbs. 205 250 Puncture ASTM D-4833 lbs. 110 150 Flow Rate ASTM D-4491 gal/min/ft' 110 85 Permittivity ASTM D-4491 sec.' 1.5 1.2 Mullen Burst ASTM D-3786 lbs."4 350 460 UV Resistant ASTM 0-4355 % 70 70 AOS%Retained ASTM D-4751 % 80 100 All properties are minimum average roll value!MARV)except the weight of the fabric which is given for information only.Depending on soil conditions and filtration requirements,additional geotextile • cp. options are available.Please call our engineering staff for solutions. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-20 r- ... .._„....... _ _ .. . ...i. _. ....,.."_.,., , e ..„............m. ,..._ .........„:„......... ,.. •„.. .A.,4, ,. _A, ...., . ...r.:._. ..:. .... ., . ...t.:s ........ .... . ;....r- — y - -° Disposal 4110-r_ Di�l)0>r 1)f Dirtbag* as directed by the site engineer. If .%+ � t allowed. 1)irtha!� nla\ be cut 01x•0 and the content.nts srrc rc ` -;t I)irtl).1g 1, strong enough to a. •� .. after rein( \ IaI)Ilt', y j (�� " — ae---`` Y' Iu lifted \\"itll optional strap, if it nttut be hauled away. �'i►%1S�_t' _.=°�- _. `T Dirtbag in ....rte-1• �_:y...:, Off-site diaw•al n1:1V he facilitated by placing - ._-. - > _ ,"--. the back 1)f a clomp truck 1)r (Imbed prior t() n:c• and . alli+\\Il the "ate'r n drain 11011 the has; "hilt' u1 1)Ltcc, .C �– .,,, their IA elintinaullti the need t0 ilk I)irthag. cr: i-s1 bza-- y' -, r _''..'s4e- 4` .}.)t.-r te.•'• Above: Dirtbag installation shown on inclined hillside for maximum flow. VP' - Dirtbag Features: ID1.High strength double stitched ..d., type seams. - ' 2.Sewn in spout -'•'�~ 3.High strength strapping for hold- ter- :.4" ing hose in place. '� ' 4.Hose opening ing accommodate up _ to 4"discharge hose. .a='}' ` C� Pump Discharge Hose For optimal flow, install over straw 0 or aggregate. __. '1'•:i.® .1-- - ... - .L . ..�`lSir+ -r.a�...-..•...-�.. r S .. Aggregate or Straw Underlayment •t2ainrigs m3 qaxificEticrs aai]ab]e m disc ACF/SI Combine Forces for Solution Implementation ,,,,,„„- :-CF'* Distributed by: i SI' Geosolutions 'Eonci; 6025 Lee Highway,Suite 435 2831 Cardwell Drive Chattanooga,TN 37421 Richmond,Virginia 23234 (800)621-0444•FAX(423)899-1619 (800)�-3636•FAX(804)743-7779 ww w.acfenvironmental-com Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-21 50' Min. o u Earth Mountable Berm (Optional) t � v 5 v MIRAFI 140N Filter Cloth t°m W a _ c,sv�� w��,raw_�r � , ` I M �vv\ PT*�T v SECTION Edge of Pavement 4 50 Min. .-4'/.i 0 1 0' aril Min. 4•♦O I) ` � Existing Ground o C E 4.4* ♦ ♦♦ N I♦ + a3, Iy♦I • 0 4444*,♦ 4►,4y•I4*j e4v 4I el ♦ ree4j 10' MAXIMUM CENTER TO 36" MINIMUM LENGTH FENCE POST, II -- CENTER DRIVEN A MINIMUM OF 16" INTO IIGROUND --,...-.,_.;;..::::: 116" MINIMUM HEIGHT OF GEOTEXTILE CLASS F - ® _ .._.. 8" MINIMUM DEPTH IN 'I II GROUND FLOW FLOW/ 36" MINIMUM FENCE POST LENGTH 1� PERSPECTIVE VIEW FILTER 1 CLOTH FENCE POST SECTION MINIMUM 20" ABOVE FLOW GROUND UNDISTURBED ,h GROUND EMBED GEOTEXTILE CLASS F A MINIMUM OF 8" VERTICALLY FENCE POST DRIVEN A INTO THE GROUND MINIMUM OF 16" INTO POSTS THE GROUND :*∎mo SECTION B CROSS SECTION . t SECTION A C��+�� :`� °� STAPLE • i J STAPLE/I JOINING TWO ADJACENT SILT SILT FENCE FENCE SECTIONS TOP VIEW Approx. Scale: 1" = 2'-0" SF STANDARD SYMBOL Construction Specifications 1. Fence posts shall be a minimum of 36" long driven 16" minimum into the ground. Wood posts shall be 11/2" x 11/2" square (minimum) cut, or 13/4" diameter (minimum) round and shall be of sound quality hardwood. Steel posts will be standard T or U section weighting not less than 1.00 pond per linear foot. 2. Geotextile shall be fastened securely to each fence post with wire ties or staples at top and midsection and shall meet the following requirements for Geotextile Class F: Tensile Strength 50 lbs/in (min.) Test: MSMT 509 Tensile Modulus 20 lbs/in (min.) Test: MSMT 509 Flow Rate 0.3 gal ft / minute (max.) Test: MSMT 322 Filtering Efficiency 75% (min.) Test: MSMT 322 3. Where ends of geotextile fabric come together, they sholl be overlopped, folded and stapled to prevent sediment bypass. III4. Silt Fence shall be inspected after each rainfall event and maintained when bulges occur or when sediment accumulation reached 50% of the fabric height. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-23 STRAW BALE DIKE FLOW 41.$ leM vt" v( ■r V2 '- t yc vi ~--4' VERTICAL FACE STANDARD SYMBOL sBO BEDDING DETAIL . ANGLE FIRST STAKE TOWARD ti -+.. I PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE '— N�1J1 FLOW 01 .r..... �l�� ;r";-v7 • • -BOUND BALES PLACED ON .....‘"1114111111111140,-I1 :y , l� CONTOUR erS' -;„-,T.,-0,0-00„,4rig- v i..k • $. . tr: 2 RE-BARS, STEEL PICKETS, OR 2"x2 STAKES 1 1/2' TO 2' IN GROUND, DRIVE STAKES :.�.' _�'� FLUSH WITH BALES. ANCHORING DETAIL CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. BALES SHALL BE PLACED AT THE TOE OF A SLOPE OR ON THE CONTOUR AND IN A ROW WITH ENDS TIGHTLY ABUTTING THE ADJACENT BALES. 2. EACH BALE SHALL BE EMBEDDED IN THE SOIL A MINIMUM OF (4) INCHES, AND PLACED SO THE BINDINGS ARE HORIZONTAL. 3. BALES SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED IN PLACE BY EITHER TWO STAKES OR RE-BARS DRIVEN THROUGH THE BALE. THE FIRST STAKE IN EACH BALE SHALL BE DRIVEN TOWARD THE PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE AT AN ANGLE TO FORCE THE BALES TOGETHER. STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN FLUSH WITH THE BALE 4. INSPECTION SHALL BE FREQUENT AND REPAIR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE MADE PROMPTLY AS NEEDED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5. BALES SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFULNESS SO AS NOT TO BLOCK OR IMPEDE STORM FLOW OR DRAINAGE. . 0 STRAW BALE DIKE Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-24 ' STONE OUTLET STRUCTURE AFLow/if FLOW //��• •� STONE / / EARN DIKE • • •r•• '•: •. •./.... ' •�� . O O• O 2' MIN. • p�t• O O O r - O O - !._..••• • / / if // /iy / if 6" MIN. LEVEL CREST L=6' 2' MIN. 1 111 00 U U UU 1 — 2"x1 0"x12' 1 Q } * f BAFFLE BOARD 12" MIN. 6" MIN. J 1 4) Op 0 Q I f�QC? C?� — `— EXISTING GROUND •� `� 4" MIN. V EMBEDDED PROFILE STANDARD SYMBOL 0°00 ""•"' CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. THE STONE SHALL BE 2' SCREENED CRUSHED. STONE. 2. THE CREST OF THE STONE DIKE SHALL BE AT LEAST SIX INCHES LOWER THAN THE LOWEST ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE 'OF THE DIKE AND SHALL BE LEVEL 3. THE STONE OUTLET STRUCTURE SHALL BE EMBEDDED INTO THE SOIL A MINIMUM OF FOUR INCHES. 4. THE MINIMUM LENGTH, IN FEET, OF THE CREST OF THE STONE OUTLET STRUCTURE SHALL BE SIX FEET. 5. THE STONE OUTLET STRUCTURE SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER EACH RAIN, AND THE STONE SHALL BE REP WHEN THE STRUCTURE CEASES TO FUNCTION AS INTENDED DUE TO SILT ACCUMULATION AMONG THE STONE, WASHOUT, CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC DAMAGE, ETC.. 6. THE BAFFLE BOARD SHALL BE EXTENDED ONE FOOT INTO THE DIKE, STAKED AND EMBEDDED FOUR INCHES INTO EXISTING GRC 0 STONE OUTLET STRUCTURE Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-25 SEDIMENT TRAP not to scale 9 Pte\ ,•' 2" STONE-� �%-„ ::' -. 1---1. MIN. "'t:` 1- R1PRA �. PQ RIPRAP 1' MIN. 1 .- o 2' 1' MAX. EARTH EMBANKMENT ' PROFILE UNDISTURBED AREA slr NI( r--4' MIN.--. 1 2 —11 FLOW 7. 1r ' WEIR CREST 2' STONE .SMALL RIPRAP-�' •�'.. (OPTIONAL) {.•. ••:'�:�'� =.s....... � -y f--2' APRON FILTER CLOTH N.-EXCAVATE FOR REQUIRED STORAGE CROSS SECTION A—A OPTION: PON FOOT L EMBEDDED OF D STONE MAY BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF NE RIPRAP IN PLACE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. AREA UNDER EMBANKMENT SHALL BE CLEARED, GRUBBED AND STRIPPED OF ANY VEGETATION AND ROOT MAT. THE POOL AREA SHALL BE CLEARED. 2. THE FILL MATERIAL SIZED STONES, ROCKS, ORGANIC MATERIAL OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE AS THE WELL AS EMBANKMENT SHALL BE COMPACTED BY TRAVERSING WITH EQUIPMENT WHILE IT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED. 3. ALL. CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 2:1 OR FLATTER. 4. THE STONE USED IN ONE OUTLET P--GRADE SIDE ON THE SMALL RIPRAP OR EMBEDDED FILTTERECLOTH I I THE AGGREGATE PLACED RIPRAP. 5. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED AND TRAP RESTORED TO 115 ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS WHEN THE SEDIMENT HAS ACCUMULATED TO 1/2 THE DESIGN DEPTH OF THE TRAP. 6. THE STRUCTURE SHAW. BE INSPECTED AFTER EACH RAIN AND REPAIRS MADE AS NEEDED. 7. CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT EROSION AND WATER POLLUTION IS MINIMIZED. E. THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE AREA STABILIZED WHEN THE DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABIUZED. SEDIMENT TRAP Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-26 two • Figures .. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-27 (-- SHEET NO 3 SOIL SURVEY OF ASPEN-Gti PSJM AREA,COLORADO, PARTS OF EAGLE,GARFIELD,AND PITKIN COUNTIES (EDWARI): Q'_"ADRANGLE) R.82 W I R.8I W_ 100°30 00 39'45 00• Area covered by U.S. Forest Service Soils Map 4.�� ri Ii P.� s r _ �\ii ___ px:IA, • �+ �cr' Pbj�Q f e: / 'iF .1 i 11:111 -N,... ,,..- , -- -,...„ taw4101.,„.41_, : J ... 4_,Te , : • ' }: " ? to_ r ! ` ` + 5 • . r . *7'4' ` • ��r.. i te /5-7-15;f-- s ..., . i•-* . t elt: ' -F >' nu +.rYr a ,r asp .... � i :r.,. ='%R r _ •t _ r/ 45 { ' '^, ;r . T. 5 S. t Y y= '': 12 ,"` ,r x -Its■ -�r• . r• '� V.r-' - +. ! /� ..: '.t fir•• , YiSf .•4 4. i-o•t,-•r. . ". y., .? ti ��ri.. -:v WEST VAIL r _r. _ �- a•`rt r y �t .tifs1. �e ".r F •Q�e .. -a T__,.. Fd ""C.. lt.`rK c.., �.t►'r�Q ,p� �.�•-• _ -t r4.::�`,��+"fr � .o a-� t •fir i�_� � riNf_.:.--,..:m.J f S 5 - •314-,- -,. - i. �SaS:.t ;tir 'r f`1F' — `aV ,.y-p_fly a ->Yq URV 74 ( -•"• •. y.. If-jl. .L _ i 2-• -1� �+7• ZA.4 1,0K.� x047 .'y�;`1'`c�-y TSv _ a > 2 r+r5(4 . `y ,�� -', a -°'eS s .t s?,..'-...�•.r•�': c,. 1p4■.� 1467. 1 N ••• L oc f 0 N SCALE: 1" = 2000' c a G. ok cta a b cw E b ae c w, E c = © © Figure 1 — U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soils Map w (7------ -------- t 33 - 353C 346C ) ) 393B 353C 346C 353C 15 353C • 395D 3678 /3151 1 •, c. ; 346B I 34E 281C 346C J�(r � 348C / -- !- F .1,,,,,,r. . 40? Till;fa E's. ," ' ell l 351C 381 : '''` Area covered by U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soils Map -----,- F ---- --\ ---______ 381B 351C si----- .:., ..\ N II i = c N SCALE: 1" = 2000' g a Q o Z two > et . c E a '—' b O © a -' Figure 2 — U.S. Forest Service Soils Map w 0 Exhibit D Sediment Control Details L ., Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-30 ya. '''•-- - oar •I► • • i• •s r .• • A�,• •r` '• . i . . - 0• ® -, -. , ice= • 0 M ..•!•—"Lm .. F �..'. may' art , Pumped Sediment �. Removal System -'�` ""- I l'lu'never accumulated zc'ater must be Jnu odd! "' ` '_ , - .f "'" " Protect the environment effectively and economically with l)irtbag"! 1 s ASP- ( ollect sand, Slit and line. \Vold ''...1.1 silting streams, surrounding proper . t�: and storm sewers. :\s more and 4..-- -,roL - . more t mphasis is put ou say ing uur ==� '` wetlands, regulations are becoming i . ''' more stringent regarding the , punupiutg of dirty water li•ont holes - .: ; ' 1 :u ound construction sites-such as ...„ �' _ ,.: `"s'° � linuudations, pier line construction, Y `~ ` r repairing municipal water/sewer - -d;;. ,t lines, In:trine construction, utility; • fib highway and site development nt : eas. 1)irtbag applications are , - eudless. .. m, � �r Use Recommendations - � � i A(.I' Environmental nruttulacuues r Uirtbag using a viu•icty of nonwoven ` geotextile lahric ntanufacturecl bV SI - , ` (;eosolutions.'I•he fabric properties -, ,-. + '• •s �, ,, ;,,. on the Specifications page allirnt the aggregate or Ii whale heel to maxi- -- +.,,,.-�,. - ' strength of 1)irtbag and are a result ntize water flow tlu•uugh the surface ..rto►••- .• -, . or WAS conducted at on-site labura- area of the bag. te,rl1S at the geotextile factor). All test .»" .. .►--�- "_.'. .- methexls are AS•I'r I or industry Stan- Ih l hi l r •••••dards. caul clliciently filter sediment or - ., pass water at a reasonable rate. .. ./•140111110P - Each standard 1)irtbag has a fill Flow rates will vary elepending ou spout large enough to accommodate the size of Uirtbag, the type and a 4" discharge hose. Straps are amount of sediment discharged ,. *'"*'r.„"' -y f attached to secure the hose and pre- into I)irtbag, the type of ground. -1"...... .. vent pumped water from escaping rock or other substance under the ' ...•r+�+'"•"" without being filtered. hag and the degree of the slope on -Mr's' which the bag lies. Under most cir- r.., Install Dirtbag on a slope so that cumstances 1)irtbag xrilI accommo- ""` • . •dam"'`" •• • incoming water flows downhill date floe rates of 1:,11(1 gallons per • through I)irthag without creating minute. Use of excessive fie.w are+ ';7" more erosion. Strap the neck of rates or overfilling 1)irthag with 1)irtbag tightly to the discharge sediment will cause ruptures of the Lionshead Redevelopment I hose.'1O increase the efficiency-of bags or failure of the hose attach- Environmental Impact Report filtration,place the hag on an meat straps. ® Page A-31 r d to 9 0 Easy To Use Hillside Installation on Straw Underlayment �I, - , = First, Dirtbag10 is easy to transport " ;�s ', h" t f `..„,0 ;, Alio the site.To install, simply unfold • , - `t,, �s:;.7. ` .i lhd insert up to 4" pump discharge ' " the hose into the hand-sewn spout *, s , ' .4 r ', �: • ,,q4,,ot and secure with the attached • �r :--4,7,. -w..,- 1,144- ii ��,�.r;•'ri1 }+I{ Y�t lit Yy,•� f`Y,/ .i ::::..,11.1�. straps. Pump dirty water into � ., F3 ,.�r Dirtb.ig. The bag collects the silt as - i:r'S '.4:5P y tit'-t; the clean water gently filters out "` ;T:4I w a from all sides. (.onhpare Dll•tbag to the alternatix-es :, ,;l�yk R,.A` f 0' ~ l� �1.2 �. '+'- such as su:►W hair lurk which are - • .qt- . ' •Inul't'C•llllll)ersolile to transport, to �`.•"I .° 'y' +t 3� !:� '�� l�'49�_�..y build and to clean up alic l��ard. And li't ik 11- : .! . " .. , i j . � .. . i '' 'i'•�t �_�'�.��;��7t�:�S� }"::,*;1-,':;i: .'::, .•1 �i: ::• ,,5..r Ii Dirthag poses no threat to the envi- ronment when disposed properly: Dirthag Features • Designed and produced from a Typical Dirthag° Construction variety of fabrics to meet engi- neering specifications for flow rates, strength, and permeability. BAG PLACED ON HIGH STRENGTH AGGREGATE O DOUBLE STITCHED • Stabilized to provide resistance to R STRAW "J" TYPE SEAMS i\\\ ultra-violet degradation. SEWN IN SPOUT • Meets municipal, state, and \ — �� • Corps of Engineers specifica- tions. HIGH STRENGTH • Available in 10' x 15'. 12-V' x STRAPPING FOR D I D TD AG HOLDING HOSE 15', and 15' x 15' sizes. Custom x IN PLACE sizes available. ° „--WATER FLC1,, FROM PUMP ) T I PUMP DISCHARGE LENGTH HOSE OPENING ACCOMODATES UP TO 4" TOP VIEW DISCHARGE HOSE _err . rr_=A-.-• "r ±,�4. .,: ''. - !rr-i- r,1/4,-h;!,i "r' ��I � �lrlil 1__ 1 i1 _.-1 i: 1� 1 1 -111-- 11 ,' chi f;:i,:•-;•a:: I_' .I1I- 1I I-1 i 17.-111=-111= 111 .-IIF-111----7-111=--1 II—III 1 -111---1 11--111—,1 11 —' '- 111=i 117±--11 i -111--111--111 AGGREGATE OR STRAW UNGERL.(MENT • ate, . ,,_.. SIDE VIEW Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report y,:, =r:. Page A-32 • Dirtbag' Specifications 3.0 Construction Sequence Control of Sediment In Pumped Water iille 3.1.1 Install I)irtbag on a slope so incoming ware floors dot%11- 1.0 Description hill through Dirtbag%%idiom creating more erosion.Sara 111e neck of I)irtha;g ti;ghtb to the discharge hose. Ill 1.1 This frock.hall consist of furnishing. placing and returning increase the efficiency of filtration.place the I>ag on an Dirtbag" pumped sediment control clerice as directed he aggregate or hay-bale heel to maximize truer How tlu•ough the design engineer or as shown on the contract th•attings. the surlace area of the hag. 1)irtha;i pumped-sill control system is marketed hr: 3.1.2 I)irtl>ag is lull Then ii nu Ionizer ran rllirieiiiI■ liloer s'.tli- .\(:1'I:ntinnitiwntal. Inc. went or Alm% %%mer to pass:u a reasonahlr rate. fluor 211:11 (:artltu•II 1)ritr rues%%ill var■ depending on the size of Dirtbag. the ■p• I\ie11111otid.Virginia 2:12:1I and amount of sediment discharged into Dirtbag. the type Phone:nub-1 1::-.;611; of wrountl., ruck or other suhSt.11lee 1111(41 flu•hag and the Tax:11111-7 11-7779 degree or the slope 4111 tcllit'II the bag lit•.. 1•11der moat cir- tttttt:aclr11\iru11nit•nt:tl.eonl (lutist:inrrs 1)irihag\till act onuuod.te hoot rates of 1.11111 2.0 Materials �galluii, ill.minute. I. or•\cessitr hoot Fairs o1.(Aerlill- iug Dirtbag%%Rh sod-anent will calls'.the hag II/rtlptlu•e ur 2.1 Dirtbag' failure(II'the louse auacl41nent straps. 2.1.1 1)irihag shall ht•manufactured using a poi%prop%kite non- 3.1.3 Dispose Dirtbag as tlirerit'd I,t the silt'entitlrer. II' %%men geotextile lion1 SI (leu.olulions,then worn into a a1lotu•(1. I)irtl,.tg nla■ he rut open autl the et Intents w(11(11 hang%till a douhlt• needle matching using a high sure th .Hier re11111■log t i.ildc Iahri1. 1)ilihag is sllolig enough ill ilur:ul. 114' 111ietl \\411 oplioFl:a1 511..11/5 if II 11111st be 11.1111111 attar. SI(Ieosoltlt 1(111. . h1644. ()11=si1s•(lispe>sal 1161 hr Ian ilit:urd h\ plating I)irthag in GAI—LAP /�!� doe hark of a d11n11/mock k u1.I1.ithrd pi iu1 Iu use.4111! N tt N:.i;;t•t(Snhtliul Is.((liii �(/f l_.) ACCREDITATION allotting Ihr stater to drain 1141111 the bag ttliile iii place, thereby eliminating iii'need Ili Iili I)irlhag. III 2.1.2 Each standard I)irthag 11as a till spout large enouugh to 4.0 Basis of Payment accommodate a I"tliscliarge loot.Swaps arc atI,lrhrd III 4.1 'I he pa∎lut•nt lin.any I)irihag used during construction is serrate the hose and pretrnu pumped%%ate'.Irani escaping to he iurlutled in the hid of ut,•rd1 erosion 1111(1.edinlen1 ttithn11t hying filtered. runnrd plan tootles.a nllil price is r'.tlursted. 2.1.3 I)irthag seams shall Islt•o•an average tt i(le tt idol i snrlt2,1 l l per ASTM I I)-IIIII I as[i>Ilnws, Dirtbag Style Test Method Test Result Dirtbag"53 ASTM D-4884 60 LB/IN Dirtbag`55 ASTM D-4884 100 LB/IN Test Results Properties Test Method Units Style 53 Style 55 Weight ASTM D-3776 oz/yd 8 10 Grab Tensile ASTM D-4632 lbs. 205 250 Puncture ASTM D-4833 lbs. 110 150 Flow Rate ASTM 0-4491 gal/min/ft' 110 85 Permittivity ASTM D-4491 sec.' 1.5 1.2 Mullen Burst ASTM 0-3786 lbs.' 350 460 UV Resistant ASTM D-4355 % 70 70 AOS%Retained ASTM D-4751 % 80 100 All properties are minimum average roll value(MARV)except the weight of the fabric which is given for information only.Depending on soil conditions and filtration requirements,additional geotextile . options are available.Please call our engineering staff for solutions. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-33 • • Disposal l)isp,t (. ctl I)irthag" as directed h■ the site engineer. II alht�veel. 1)irtlru nt:n hr tilt t9pytt and the contents seeded ctlirr rrntm nth,; nc. Uirthag is strong enough to tr..d� # -L the lilted \\ith optional strap, it it must the hauled ;may. ()If-site li: tit,ii tna■ IIr Iarilit:ur(I h■ placing I)irth,tg in *4=--• the hark nth a dump truck or !lathed prior to use and �;§:�:•.r 1 'dim\iu the \\Met- t�, drain Ilium tilt ha \c hilt. ill platy. •'° thereby elintin:ttin,; the nerd to lilt I)ii titi • f r i7 Above: Dirtbag installation shown on inclined hillside for maximum flow. Dirtbag Features: c , 1.High strength double stitched "J„type seams. �' "c�t r • 2.Sewn in spout .- s, 3.High strength strapping for hold- 4r yJ ing hose in place. 4.Hose opening accommodate up E Z to 4 discharge hose. .. l�•.+if{:try-i7'....:t'�e,:� , Pump Discharge Hose w� ® For optimal flow, install over straw or aggregate. 0 '•' ,. .T w t*M+n o ' S*� ,+.. P-ff�s>y' w ati+`1 '4!- i G 4 _ ® Aggregate or Straw Underlayment *t2a.,drgs ad gpezi firr9±r6 aaniale m disk ACF/SI Combine Forces for Solution Implementation }ACF, Distributed by: SI' Geosolutions 2831 Cardwell Drive 6025 Lee Highway,Suite 435 Richmond,Virginia 23234 Chattanooga,TN 37421 (800)448-3636•FAX(804)743-7779 (800)621-0444•FAX(423)899-7619 www.acfenvironmental.com wsivv.sigeosolutions.com Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-34 50' Min. o � Earth untable Berm (Optional) 10' 4, E - crop r 5 Lip_ MIRAFI 140N Filter Cloth 0 z I 1 —1 (111, W C VVVW V' ' ), / ' *;'W:V V >V,, VW„ , • W' . ,, 'W `ew-, SECTION Edge of Pavement Iwo 50' Min. $1 '74 rt 10' VAR 2 E Min. 4O4 Existing Ground 2 41$4,m ,� • . O4, "4.,, O•4�IO��,1 I OI ,I ,I � ► Oi W�I %,' i‘ ��. �`tab c .•• gel/ f// 4*,0� 2" Crushed Sceened Rock ` _ �� +4•��••s 4•• o l` CAo 00z O.pobo 4ved 99 080 6° kal-d° b- /he Existing Ground — .t4t$ PLAN #4 4' Le STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION NOTES Scale: 1" = 10'-0" 1. STONE SIZE — USE 2" CRUSHED SCREENED ROCK. ?\\N�`l�\0� AM r 2. LENGTH — AS REQUIRED, BUT NOT LESS THAN 50 FEET. SYMBOL ON PLANS 3. THICKNESS — NOT LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES. 4. WIDTH — TEN (10) FOOT MINIMUM, BUT NOT LESS THAN THE FULL WIDTH AT POINTS WHERE INGRESS OR EGRESS OCCURS. 5. FILTER CLOTH — WILL BE PLACED OVER THE ENTIRE AREA PRIOR TO PLACING OF STONE. 6. SURFACE WATER — ALL SURFACE WATER FLOWING OR DIVERTED TOWARD CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE PIPED ACROSS THE ENTRANCE. IF PIPING IS IMPRACTICAL, A MOUNTABLE BERM WITH 5:1 SLOPES WILL BE PERMITTED. 7. MAINTENANCE — THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS—OF—WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL STONE AS CONDITIONS DEMAND AND REPAIR AND/OR CLEANOUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. SCE SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL PAVING OF ENTRANCE COMMENCES. 8. WASHING — WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS—OF—WAY. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITH STONE AND WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE. C9. PERIODIC INSPECTION AND NEEDED MAINTENANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AFTER EACH RAIN. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report __ Page A-35 1 • o 10' MAXIMUM CENTER TO 36" MINIMUM LENGTH FENCE POST, II ----CENTER . ' DRIVEN A MINIMUM OF 16" INTO 0 :...:, :::::- ii II GROUND 16" MINIMUM HEIGHT OF IIIn GEOTEXTILE CLASS F II A 8" MINIMUM DEPTH IN FLOj FLOW 36" MINIMUM FENCE POST LENGTH�� PERSPECTIVE VIEW FILTER CLOTH — FENCE POST SECTION MINIMUM 20" ABOVE FLOW GROUND UNDISTURBED ' GROUND EMBED GEOTEXTILE CLASS F A MINIMUM OF 8" VERTICALLY INTO THE GROUND FENCE POST DRIVEN A POSTS MINIMUM OF 16" INTO THE GROUND i �� ,��.` SECTION e CROSS SECTION 1. IIrl SECTION A 'PAM e� STAPLE • STAPLE A JOINING TWO ADJACENT SILT SILT FENCE FENCE SECTIONS TOP VIEW Approx. Scale: 1" = 2'-0" SF STANDARD SYMBOL Construction Specifications ` 1. Fence posts shall be a minimum of 36" long driven 16" minimum into the ground. Wood posts shall be 11/2" x 11/2" square (minimum) cut, or 13/4" diameter (minimum) round and shall be of sound quality hardwood. Steel posts will be standard T or U section weighting not less than 1.00 pond per linear foot. 2. Geotextile shall be fastened securely to each fence post with wire ties or staples of top and midsection and shall meet the following requirements for Geotextile Class F: Tensile Strength 50 lbs/in (min.) Test: MSMT 509 ii Tensile Modulus 20 lbs/in (min.) Test: MSMT 509 Flow Rate 0.3 gal ft / minute (max.) Test: MSMT 322 Filtering Efficiency 75% (min.) Test: MSMT 322 3. Where ends of geotextile fabric come together, they shall be overlapped, folded and stapled to prevent sediment bypass. • 4. Silt Fence shall be inspected after each rainfall event and maintained when bulges occur or when sediment accumulation reached 50% of the fabric height. Lionshead Redevelopment 1 Environmental Impact Report 1 Page A-36 STRAW BALE DIKE FLOW PC_' llr Vr 11r '` ' 11r N(r Y !--------4' VERTICAL FACE STANDARD SYMBOL SBD BEDDING DETAIL ANGLE FIRST STAKE TOWARD • I PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE 'r FLOW . �0 ►f .11►'� y -BOUND BALES PLACED ON Ilo CONTOUR 2 RE—BARS, STEEL PICKETS, OR 2"x2" STAKES �►' -- 1 1/2' TO 2' IN GROUND, DRIVE STAKES FLUSH WITH BALES. ANCHORING DETAIL CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. BALES SHALL BE PLACED AT THE TOE OF A SLOPE OR ON THE CONTOUR AND IN A ROW WITH ENDS TIGHTLY ABUTTING THE ADJACENT BALES. 2. EACH BALE SHALL BE EMBEDDED IN THE SOIL A MINIMUM OF (4) INCHES, AND PLACED SO THE BINDINGS ARE HORIZONTAL 3. BALES SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED IN PLACE BY EITHER TWO STAKES OR RE—BARS DRIVEN THROUGH THE BALE. THE FIRST STAKE IN EACH BALE SHALL BE DRIVEN TOWARD THE PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE AT AN ANGLE TO FORCE THE BALES TOGETHER. STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN FLUSH WITH THE BALE. 4. INSPECTION SHALL BE FREQUENT AND REPAIR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE MADE PROMPTLY AS NEEDED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5. BALES SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFULNESS SO AS NOT TO BLOCK OR IMPEDE STORM FLOW OR DRAINAGE. STRAW BALE DIKE Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-37 .r STONE OUTLET STRUCTURE FLOW if FLOW if/ / •: EARTH DIKE p j1, STONE •••..0 •• . • .•-• if • O 0 .0 • O ii SEDIMENT TRAP not to scale PTONE-�` .•', ��i-►1 I r-1 MIN. �` •�:•pC-\ SMALL " P� RIPRAP 1' MIN.-Ct� / ••' • -'->�2 1' MAX. " dr EARTH EMBANKMENT p. PROFILE, UNDISTURBED AREA 9 9 I----4' MIN.----1 2 FLOW —I1 7' 1 r WEIR CREST ;v. 2" STONE `�-SMALL RIPRAP (OPTIONAL) :•i: :7:t. • "4"``.�� FILTER CLOTH --1 t--2' APRON EXCAVATE FOR REQUIRED STORAGE CROSS SECTION A—A OPTION: A ONE FOOT LAYER OF 2" STONE MAY BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE RIPRAP IN PLACE OF THE EMBEDDED FILTER CLOTH. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. AREA UNDER EMBANKMENT SHALL BE CLEARED, GRUBBED AND STRIPPED OF ANY VEGETATION AND ROOT MAT. THE POOL AREA SHALL BE CLEARED. 2. THE FILL MATERIAL FOR THE EMBANKMENT SHALL BE FREE OF ROOTS AND OTHER WOODY VEGETATION AS WELL AS OVER-SIZED STONES, ROCKS, ORGANIC MATERIAL OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL THE EMBANKMENT SHALL BE COMPACTED BY TRAVERSING WITH EQUIPMENT WHILE IT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED. 3. ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 2:1 OR FLATTER. 4. AGGREGATE PLACED ON THEnUP -GRADE SIDE MON�THE SMALL RIPRAP OR EM BEDDED THICKNESS OF IN THE RIPRAP. 5. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED AND TRAP RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL DIMENSIONS WHEN THE SEDIMENT HAS ACCUMULATED TO 1/2 THE DESIGN DEPTH OF THE TRAP. 6. THE STRUCTURE SHALLL BE INSPECTED AFTER EACH RAIN AND REPAIRS MADE AS NEEDED. 7. CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A MANNER THAT EROSION AND WATER POLLUTION IS MINIMIZED. 8. THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE AREA STABILIZED WHEN THE DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN PROPERLY STABILIZED. C SEDIMENT TRAP Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-39 I • L Figures L Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-40 rSHEET \O 3 SOIL SURVEY OF ASPEN-GYP�b1 AREA,COLORADO, PARTS OF EAGLE,GARFIELD,AND PITKIN COUNTIES (EDWARI'S i,'_"ADRANGLE) cre\ R.82W I R.81 W. 100°30'00• 39'45'ay Area covered by U.S. Forest Service Soils Map i 4• _ .— ..:r : i5.r, ..kr• -v:. ."x *:--- t, ; 2y-.:"A. 4v... 4-/'l�}Tt. " /` j .M �. .. '''' l } n t,I,� `- , tyti- +e''-fS'?:1..r•Est '." h" .5;;,44,--L-- . _ - �f• fir( k, • .-'i tic:;' ! t--'�, S,e", r ` 'i�'Y+a gym eI' ^F `/,/� ,�_ -•:�,�� •' ` ±Gf 2 K • L ,; •: .LM x!C°_ t t� r• -,. ,.. y�� 1 Lij--.N•' y r 4 �`.y4`I Qf1i bl SURJE 4\+?'t e� v , ! �� _ J ��JY • '''''''':?'::::14.44/alikali'•3 ' ��,�� ;•' ---1,, 1 2�' 104 ' `t � ..1 '��•"1:1;•4''`, �"#,,, rat zw d� + � '.4 r,t 't a t^:•.1"4 :43•''' e s` tss''` r t -'~ r'ra Z ',, ," �-'�� a5 ,�� •, T. 5S. l�„JJ L :• �( '�i yam.o ..1i. t:"�'d•`F; r-� 4' +� _ U` P ',•:te Y.ti'•',r.�.7x R c''Y,�{; •''�' �y1V�+'�ATie „ M5: ..In �'Q'• ,7, '.f• �Y"''wti-,rN , n'- ...-"�yd: �M • j rfi�'My'Y•4�•1.N(: ., ^'.. ',F . l ""rr Ri,�4a 4 + ref �r t a 'fr•' /'r1 w '!WEST VAIL - ,�: .r i. _ �.i ,�, � ;,rYt ;• t. r fGt �.°: ,, /.'is' •(7- 's•4.n:•' r ".A:A�1 :.i �0•,t yY qr •'t `r f 45 } 'rx a ti r*3 01 ,• L �. 41, t t4161.1514 F:` SC L 14.1 3UR!1. Vim- , -"r✓ r•+..%?*: '.h`,1` .a.. . r/', i " , .,t ' „ �..,Cy13"�.j„ `'r, _ ,4,1"^'-kk,:r"y V r' 3�1�,-.. „,v- :, :� ' - •S ,,..4, ..,- ^i u3'`' �S.,,x' .,•„ '.C�+k V+e., •t S r.7 A-i ,1 iy j+ri.'-. '• 104::i 14b, ;� .t� ft .-e.i.4i, ��. l..p u- Ln:"rr;rt74 � t•-..._ ,w ;�/ ?;{c,.r, .. ' . aq Gw FEtt :.1- ��I� I] i.., ••■■ ,■,, L O 1 E F Q r SCALE: 1,. 2000' o a �o 1 t cC LL vet C 4iu ,4 iu ,,, E ,~ \ O c w Figure 1 — U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soils Map ..4.- (_.,,,s,....://...p/-----/- 353C 3-45C r . 393B 353C 346C 353C /315 353C •i 395D 3678 /315( �� Ni_____, 346B '.--N,_� 346 3460 - 28IC ---\ �1 348C /-�!J 0.`,-� " roal,,...,equisi,„„10- • \--- (ril i` 351 C 381$-- ) ......,..............._____... .= Area covered by U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soils Map -----./ 381B 3510 r---- 1 :., .. SCALE: 1" = 2000' Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page A-42 Figure 2 — U.S. Forest Service Soils Map SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT LIONSHEAD CORE AREA VAIL, COLORADO 11 I KKfort Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Y 7C 12364 W. Alameda Pkwy • Suite 115• Lakewood, CO 80228-2845 �-� LAKEWOOD AVON SILVERTHORNE 4:1, (303) 989-1223 (970) 949-6009 (970) 468-6933 � � (303) 989-0204 FAX (970) 949-9223 FAX (970) 468-6939 FAX Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-1 6 KOECHIN CONSULTING ENGINEE-16, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT LIONSHEAD CORE AREA VAIL, COLORADO onm es..pp REP/sl , ri• 33822 • a IA 7/241 S�+ ((Si • wuuuuw Prepared for: Terry Winnick, V.P. Vail Resorts Development Company P.O. Box 959 c L e Avon, CO 81620-0959 °r�„ oa 'clk clJ E Job No. 02-058 July 2, 2002 a s � E c c 0 DENVER: 12364 West Alameda Prkwy.,Suite 115,Lakewood, CO 80228(303) 989-1223 ,� AVON/SILVERTHORNE: (970)949-6009 > July 2,2002 Q KOECHLEIGNSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-058 Consulting Geoiechnical Engineers ‘111e TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 3 SITE CONDITIONS 4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 5 INVESTIGATION 6 RADON 7 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 7 EXCAVATIONS 8 GROUND WATER 10 EXISTING FACILITIES 11 SHORING 12 DEWATERING 14 FOUNDATIONS 15 FLOOR SLABS 18 FOUNDATION DRAINAGE 19 LATERAL WALL LOADS 19 SURFACE DRAINAGE 21 COMPACTED FILL 21 LIMITATIONS 22 VICINITY MAP Fig. 1 LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND MONITORING HOLES Fig. 2 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND MONITORING HOLES Figs. 3 thru 5 LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND MONITORING HOLES Figs. 6 and 7 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figs. 8 thru 14 TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL Fig. 15 TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL Fig. 16 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Table I C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-3 July 2,2002 KOECHLE; 9NSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-058 ..► Consulting Georechnical Engineers SCOPE This report presents the results of a soils and foundation investigation for the Lionshead Core Area for the proposed Lionshead redevelopment in Vail, Colorado. The approximate site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Fig. 1. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed construction. This report includes descriptions of subsoil and ground water conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and monitoring holes, allowable soil bearing capacity, recommended foundation systems, and recommended foundation design and construction criteria. This report was prepared from data developed during the field investigation, our laboratory testing, a previous investigation, and our experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions in the area. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the proposed • redevelopment as described in the PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION section of this report. We should be contacted to review our recommendations when the final plans for the redevelopment have been completed. A summary of our findings and conclusions is presented below. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were generally similar. The subsurface materials encountered in exploratory Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-4 July 2,2002 KOECHL CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 02-058 "ow Consul?Thg Geotechnical Engineers borings for this investigation (TH-1 (02-058) thru TH-3 (02-058)) consisted of concrete pavers underlain by an existing fill to varying depths of 6.0 to 7.5 feet. The existing fill was characterized by a medium dense to very dense, silty to clayey, gravelly sand with scattered cobbles and boulders. Below the existing fill to the maximum depth explored of 52.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of dense to very dense, natural silty to clayey, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Pockets and layers of silty sand and sandy clay were encountered within the exploratory borings at various depths and intervals. The exact locations of the silty sand pockets and sandy clay layers were difficult to determine during our field investigation. 2. The subsurface conditions encountered in our previous investigation (Job No. 97-301) were similar to those conditions encountered for this investigation. The subsurface conditions encountered in exploratory borings TH-1 (97-301) to TH-6 (97-301) typically consisted of 0 to 20.0 feet of asphalt, concrete pavers, concrete, roadbase or existing fill underlain by a moist to wet, dense to very dense, brown, silty sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders to the maximum depth explored of 39.0 feet. Where fill was encountered, the existing fill consisted of a gravelly, silty to clayey sand with cobbles and boulders. 3. At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at various elevations of EL. 8114.1 in exploratory boring TH-1 (02-058), EL. 8114.9 in TH-2 (02-058), and EL. 8124.6 in TH-3 (02-058). 4. The shallowest ground water readings recorded during monitoring for our previous investigation were at EL. 8117.5 in exploratory boring TH-1 (97- 301), EL. 8119.8 in TH-2 (97-301), EL. 8113.5 in TH-3 (97-301), EL. 8114.3 in TH-4 (97-301), EL. 8122.8 in TH-5 (97-301), and EL. 8119.5 in TH-6 (97-301). 5. Because the ground water level appears to be above the anticipated below grade level, we anticipate that temporary and permanent dewatering will be necessary for construction of the proposed development. Refer to the DEWATERING section of this report for additional details. 6. We anticipate that the natural sand and gravel will be encountered at the proposed foundation elevations. In our opinion that natural sand and gravel will support spread footing foundation systems for the proposed Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-5 July 2,2002 KOECHLET -ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-058 Consultif Geotechnical Engineers buildings with special precautions. Refer to the FOUNDATIONS section of this report for complete recommendations. 7. We anticipate that the soils at the potential floor slab elevations will consist of either existing fill or the natural sand and gravel. In our opinion, the existing fill will not safely support slab-on-grade floors. However, it is our opinion that the natural sand and gravel will satisfactorily support slab-on-grade floors. Refer to the FLOOR SLABS section of this report for complete recommendations. 8. Due to the close proximity to existing structures and the anticipated depths of excavation, it is our opinion that shoring will be required in order to proceed with development of the subject site. Refer to the EXCAVATIONS section of the report for additional details. 9. Because cobbles and boulders were encountered within the exploratory borings, we anticipate that heavy-duty excavation equipment will be necessary to complete the required excavations. 10. Drainage around the structures should be designed and constructed to provide for rapid removal of surface runoff and avoid concentration of '°" water adjacent to foundation walls. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION A preliminary site plan was provided by Vail Resorts Development Company prior to our field investigation. The preliminary site plan presented the locations of the existing structures. At the time of this investigation, the final redevelopment plan for the Lionshead Core Area has not been completed. We understand that the redevelopment involves removing the existing buildings and replacing them with new structures. We anticipate that the proposed buildings will be up to seven stories above grade with two to three levels below grade. The below grade levels will most likely be parking levels while Lionshead Redevelopment 3 Environmental Impact Report Page B-6 July 2,2002 KOECII ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC JobNo.02-058 — Consult g Geotechnical Engineers the upper levels will consist of commercial shops and residential space. We anticipate excavations of up to 40 feet (EL. 8100) in depth may be required for construction of the structures. The proposed buildings will most likely be of cast-in-place concrete and steel frame construction. Maximum column and wall loads were assumed to be those normally associated with medium to large commercial structures. SITE CONDITIONS The proposed development will be part of the Lionshead Redevelopment and will be located at the Lionshead Core Area in Vail, Colorado. Currently the site is occupied by two multi-level commercial/residential buildings. The building on the east side of the site is the Gondola Terminal and is three to four stories in height with two below grade levels. This building is occupied by retail shops, a restaurant and administrative offices. The building on the west side of the site (Sunbird Lodge) is used for both residential and commercial purposes and is five-stories in height with one below grade level. The below grade level for this building is used as a parking garage and loading dock, which is shared with the Gondola Terminal building and is accessed from Lionshead Place to the southwest. The above grade levels are occupied by restaurants and condominiums. On the north side of both buildings is the Lionshead Mall, which is a pedestrian mall that allows for access to the various shops and restaurants located in and adjacent to Lionshead Redevelopment 4 Environmental Impact Report Page B-7 July 2,2002 KOEC!ILJ ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 02-058 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers the two buildings. Plazas and driveways currently surround the existing buildings and are paved with asphalt, concrete, or concrete pavers. Several other smaller buildings, such as ticket offices, etc. also exist on the site. The adjacent structures consist primarily of residential and commercial buildings. The elevation difference from the north side to the south side of the site is approximately 17 feet. The overall drainage of the site is generally down towards the south-southwest towards Gore Creek. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS A previous geotechnical investigation and ground water monitoring investigation were performed for the Lionshead Core area prior to the current investigation. The data and results of these previous investigations have been reviewed and included in the preparation of this report. The following reports were reviewed and information from them used in compilation of this report. 1. Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc., Soils and Foundation Investigation, Proposed Lionshead Core Redevelopment, Vail, Colorado, December 16, 1997, Job No. 97-301. 2. Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc., Interim Report, Ground Water Monitoring Program, Proposed Lionshead Core Redevelopment, Vail, Colorado, September 1, 2000, Job No. 97-301W. • Lionshead Redevelopment 5 Environmental Impact Report Page B-8 July 2,2002 KOECHLI CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-058 Consu(trfg Gentechnical Engineers INVESTIGATION Subsurface conditions for this investigation were performed at this site on June 4 and 5, 2002 by drilling three exploratory borings (TH-1 (02-058) thru TH-3 (02-058)) using an ODEX downhole hammer at the locations shown on the Locations of Exploratory Borings and Monitoring Holes, Fig. 2. An engineer from our office was on the site to supervise the drilling of the exploratory borings and visually classify and document the subsurface soils and ground water conditions. Our engineer also obtained representative samples of the soils within the exploratory borings to be examined in our laboratory. However, due to the method of exploration, representative samples were difficult to obtain from the exploratory borings. A description of the subsurface soils observed in the exploratory borings for this investigation and monitoring holes from our previous investigation (Job No. 97-301) is shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings and Monitoring Holes, Figs. 3 thru 5; and on the Legend of Exploratory Borings and Monitoring Holes, Figs. 6 and 7. Our laboratory investigation included visual classification of all samples and testing of selected samples for natural moisture content and gradation analysis. Results of the laboratory tests for this investigation and for our previous investigation (Job No. 97-301) are presented on the Logs of Exploratory Borings and Monitoring Holes, Figs. 3 thru 5; on the Gradation Test Results, Figs. 8 thru 14; and in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results, Table I. Lionshead Redevelopment 6 Environmental Impact Report Page B-9 July 2,2002 KOECHL CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 02-058 ..r Consul g Geotechnical Engineers RADON In recent years, radon gas has become a concern. Radon gas is a colorless, odorless gas that is produced by the decay of minerals in soil and rock. The potential for radon gas in the subsurface strata of mountain terrain is likely. Due to the granular nature of the natural soils and shallow ground water, it is our opinion that the risk for radon gas at this site is low. However, since excavations for lower levels for the development are anticipated, we suggest that the buildings be designed with ventilation for below grade areas. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were generally similar. The subsurface materials encountered in exploratory borings for this investigation (TH-1 (02-058) thru TH-3 (02-058)) consisted of concrete pavers underlain by an existing fill to varying depths of 6.0 to 7.5 feet. The existing fill was characterized by a brown, moist, medium dense to very dense, silty to clayey, gravelly sand with scattered cobbles and boulders. Below the existing fill, to the maximum depth explored of 52.0 feet (EL. 8084.1), the subsurface conditions consisted of brown, moist to wet, dense to very dense, natural silty to clayey, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Pockets and layers of silty sand and sandy clay were encountered within the exploratory • Lionshead Redevelopment 7 Environmental Impact Report Page B-10 July 2,2002 KOECHL ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 02-058 Consults g Geotechnicol Engineers borings at various depths and intervals. The exact locations of the silty sand pockets and sandy clay layers were difficult to determine during our field investigation. The subsurface conditions encountered in our previous investigation (Job No. 97- 301) were similar to those conditions encountered for this investigation. The subsurface conditions encountered in exploratory borings TH-1 (97-301) to TH-6 (97-301) typically consisted of 0 to 20.0 feet of asphalt, concrete pavers, concrete, roadbase or existing fill underlain by a moist to wet, dense to very dense, brown, silty sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders to the maximum depth explored of 39.0 feet (EL. 8096.5). Where fill was encountered, the existing fill consisted of a gravelly, silty to clayey sand with cobbles and boulders. At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at elevations of EL. 8114.1 in exploratory boring TH-1 (02-058), EL. 8114.9 in TH-2 (02-058), and EL. 8124.6 in TH-3 (02-058). The shallowest ground water readings recorded for our previous . investigations were at EL. 8117.5 in exploratory boring TH-1 (97-301), EL. 8119.8 in TH-2 (97-301), EL. 8113.5 in TH-3 (97-301), EL. 8114.3 in TH-4 (97-301), EL. 8122.8 in TH-5 (97-301), and EL. 8119.5 in TH-6 (97-301). EXCAVATIONS Excavations of up to 40 feet (EL. 8100) may be required for construction of the two to three lower levels within the proposed redevelopment along the north side of the Lionshead Redevelopment 8 Environmental Impact Report Page B-11 July 2,2002 KOECHLEI*NSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-058 Consultin Geotechnical Engineers site. Due to the elevation difference across the site, we anticipate that excavations of up to 25 feet may be required for the development of the south side of the site. In addition, excavations up to 30 feet in depth will be necessary to remove the existing fill and existing structure foundations beneath the site. Because cobbles and boulders were encountered within the exploratory borings, it is our opinion that heavy-duty excavation equipment will be necessary to complete the required excavations. Due to the anticipated depths of excavations and the proximity to existing structures, we anticipate that shoring will be necessary for a portion of the excavations. For areas of the excavation requiring shoring, refer to the SHORING section of this report for additional details. For areas of the excavation not requiring shoring, care needs to he exercised during construction so that the excavation slopes remain stable. In our opinion, the moist, existing gravelly sand fill and the moist, natural sand and gravel classify as Type B soils in accordance with OSHA. Wet or saturated sand and gravel will classify as Type C soils in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA regulations should he followed in any excavations or cuts. All existing fill, foundations, and soft soils beneath the proposed construction should be removed and, if necessary, replaced with properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill. Refer to the EXISTING FACILITIES section of this report for additional details. All fill should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED Lionshead Redevelopment 9 Environmental Impact Report Page B-12 July 2,2002 KOECHLEI 'ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 02-058 ConsultiifF Geotechnical Engineers FILL section of this report. GROUND WATER At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at elevations of EL. 8114.1 in exploratory boring TH-1 (02-058), EL. 8114.9 in TH-2 (02-058), and EL. 8124.6 in TH-3 (02-058). The shallowest ground water readings recorded during monitoring for our previous investigation were at EL. 8117.5 in exploratory boring TH-1 (97-301), EL. 8 119.8 in TH-2 (97-301), EL. 8113.5 in TH-3 (97-301), EL. 8114.3 in TH-4 (97-301), EL. 8122.8 in TH-5 (97-301), and EL. 8119.5 in TH-6 (97-301). For a more detailed presentation of our previous ground water monitoring program, refer to our interim ground water monitoring report as referenced in the PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS section of this report. Based on design information provided by Vail Resorts Development Company, the lowest level of the proposed development will be at elevation EL. 8100 and the shallowest ground water elevation was recorded to be EL. 8124.6, ground water will be encountered during excavation for the proposed redevelopment. Based on our experience in the area, we believe that ground water is traveling in more permeable layers or seams within the existing soil matrix. Therefore, greater amounts of ground water could be encountered at random locations within the excavation for the proposed development. Because ground water will be encountered, temporary and permanent dewatering systems Lionshead Redevelopment 10 Environmental Impact Report Page B-13 July 2,2002 XOECHLEIONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 02-058 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers will be required for the proposed redevelopment. Refer to the DEWATERING section of this report for additional details. EXISTING FACILITIES We anticipate that prior to construction of the redevelopment, the existing structures and utilities will be removed. We recommend that existing foundations, slabs- on-grade, utilities, and existing fill be completely removed and, if necessary, replaced with properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill prior to construction of the new facilities. However, due to the close proximity to existing structures, it may be necessary to use a portion of the existing foundation wall in the northwest corner of the development as a part of the shoring for the new development. The owner and project planners may want to consider the cost benefit of using portions of the existing structures as parts of the shoring for the new development during the planning stages. For structures to be removed, a representative from our office should observe the completed demolition and removal of the existing foundations, slabs-on-grade and existing fill in order to verify that they have been completely removed. Provided that the existing fill is free of deleterious material, the existing fill may be used as structural fill for this project. All fill for this project should be moisture treated and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. A representative from our office should observe the removal of the existing foundations, Lionshead Redevelopment 11 Environmental Impact Report Page B-14 July 2,2002 KOECHLI.ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 02-058 Consults Geniechnical Engineers `.. slabs-on-grade and existing fill, as well as the placement and compaction of any fill beneath the new facilities. SHORING Due to the depth of excavation and proximity of surrounding structures and property lines, it will not be possible to slope all of excavation sides as required by OSHA regulations. Therefore, a shoring system will be necessary. A typical shoring system used for deep excavations includes piles (either driven or socketed in pre-drilled holes) as soldier posts with lagging. However, due to the presence of cobbles and boulders, driving or pre-drilling holes with conventional drilling equipment may not be possible. An alternative to driven piles or socketed piles using conventional drilling equipment as soldier posts could be multiple minipiles in conjunction with tie-backs, which can be drilled through the cobbles and boulders. Minipiles are installed by drilling and advancing a casing into the ground to the desired depth. The hole is then filled with grout as the casing is removed from the hole. Where ground water is encountered, it is sometimes necessary to leave the casing in the ground to prevent water from entering the hole. Multiple minipiles in conjunction with tie-backs could be used as soldier posts for a soldier post and lagging shoring system. An alternative shoring system that may also be considered for this site is a soil nailed shoring system. Installation of a soil nailed shoring system will be influenced by Lionshead Redevelopment l� Environmental Impact Report Page B-15 July 2,2002 KOECHLEeONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 02-058 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers the presence of cobbles and boulders and by the presence of adjacent existing structures - and utilities. Property boundaries may also limit how far the shoring system can extend beyond the excavation and intrude into the adjacent property. Therefore, other methods, such as interior bracing or using portions of the existing foundation walls as part of the shoring system, may need to be evaluated. The ability to complete the excavation within the site constraints and the need for a shoring system including the type of system should be evaluated during the design phase of the project. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during this investigation and our previous investigation, the shoring system should he designed using the following engineering soil characteristics for the natural sand and gravel: 4' = 35°, y = 135psf, c = 0. If soil nails are used as part of the shoring system, their pullout capacity will be influenced by the existing soil conditions, method of hole advancement, hole diameter, bonded length, grout type, and grouting pressure. For preliminary design purposes, the soil nails may be designed using an ultimate unit resistance of 20 kpf assuming that the soil nails are small diameter and are backfilled with low pressure grout in the natural sand and gravel. Lionshead Redevelopment 13 Environmental Impact Report I, Page B-16 July 2,2002 KOECHLEI 'ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-058 mow Consultin Geotechnical Engineers DEWATERING At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at elevations (EL.) of EL. 8114.1 in exploratory boring TH-1 (02-058), EL. 8114.9 in TH-2 (02-058), and EL. 8124.6 in TH-3 (02-058). The shallowest ground water readings recorded during monitoring for our previous investigations were at EL. 8117.5 in exploratory boring TH-1 (97-301), EL. 8119.8 in TH-2 (97-301), EL. 8113.5 in TH-3 (97-301), EL. 8114.3 in TH- 4 (97-301), EL. 8122.8 in TH-5 (97-301), and EL. 8119.5 in TH-6 (97-301). Since we anticipate that the lowest level of the proposed development will be at EL. 8100 and the shallowest ground water elevation was recorded to be EL. 8124.6, temporary and permanent dewatering systems will be necessary for the proposed development. Based on our experience in the area, we believe that ground water is travelling in several permeable layers or seams within the existing soil matrix. Therefore, greater amounts of ground water could be encountered at random locations within the excavation for the proposed development. A temporary dewatering system for the proposed development could consist of trenches within the excavation sloped down to a sump pit where the water can be removed by pumping and/or deep wells. During construction the dewatering system should be reviewed and it may be necessary to adjust the pumping in order to control the amount of ground water infiltrating into the excavation. The feasibility of different temporary dewatering systems should be evaluated during the design phase of the project. Lionshead Redevelopment 14 Environmental Impact Report Page B-17 July 2,2002 KOECHLEaONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-058 ..1110.` Consult: Geotechnical Engineers Once the final design of the proposed redevelopment has been selected, we should be contacted to discuss and to assist in the design of the temporary dewatering system. Based on the assumed below grade elevation (EL. 8100) and assumed permeability of the soils, we estimate a flow of ground water into the excavation may be 3 to 4 gpm per linear foot of excavation. This flow of ground water represents an estimate and is subject to change based on the plan limits of the excavation and depth of excavation. Since we anticipate that the lowest level of the proposed development will be at EL. 8100, which will be approximately 25 feet below the shallowest ground water, we recommend that a permanent dewatering system be designed for beneath the proposed slab-on-grade concrete floor slab. The permanent dewatering system may consist of a combination of underslab drains and foundation drains sloped to a sump pit where the water can be removed by pumping. A consideration of the change in ground water flow for the time of year should be made in the design of the permanent dewatering system. The pump capacity of the permanent dewatering system can be better determined during construction by monitoring the requirements of the temporary dewatering system. FOUNDATIONS The subsurface material at the potential foundation elevation for the proposed redevelopment consists of the natural sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. In our opinion, the natural sand and gravel will safely support a spread footing foundation Lionshead Redevelopment 15 Environmental Impact Report Page B-18 . July 2,2002 KOECHL `CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-058 Consulting Gentechnical Engineers 1 -- III 1 system for the structures within the proposed redevelopment. We recommend that the spread footing foundation system be designed and constructed to meet the following criteria: 1. Footings should be supported by the undisturbed natural sand and gravel or properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill, as described below in Items 6, 10 and 11. 2. We recommend wall and column footings be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure 6,000 psf. 3. Spread footings constructed on the natural soils/compacted fill may experience up to 0.5 inches of differential movement between foundation elements. Because the soils are granular in nature, we anticipate that the majority of the differential settlement will occur during construction. 4. Wall footings and foundation walls should be designed to span a distance of at least 10.0 feet in order to account for anomalies in the soil or III compacted fill. 5. Foundation wall backfill should not be considered for support of load bearing footings. Footings should be stepped and supported by undisturbed natural sand and gravel and should not be constructed on foundation wall backfill. Foundation walls or grade beams should be designed to span across an excavation backfill zone and should not be constructed with footings within this zone. 6. Excavations for the structures within the redevelopment may encounter wet and/or soft soils requiring excavation and removal. Soft soils may be stabilized by either removal and replacement with compacted granular soil or by the placement of angular cobbles and boulders, which should be compacted into the soft soils by heavy construction equipment until a non- yielding subgrade is obtained. 7. Another option to stabilize soft soils would be to place a layer of geogrid reinforcement at the bottom of the excavation prior to compaction of the angular cobbles and boulders. The use of the geogrid reinforcement C Lionshead Redevelopment 16 Environmental Impact Report Page B-19 July 2,2002 ROECHLONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-058 Consulting Geotechnica! Engineers typically will reduce the amount of cobbles and boulders required to achieve a non-yielding surface. 8. The base of the exterior footings should be established at a minimum depth below the exterior ground surface, as required by the local building code. We believe that the depth for frost protection in the local building code in this area is 3.5 feet. 9. Column footings should have a minimum dimension of 24 inches square and continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Footing widths may be greater to accommodate structural design loads. 10. We anticipate that cobbles and boulders will be encountered at the foundation elevation. Removal of the cobbles and boulders may result in depressions and rough bottoms in the excavation. The resulting depressions can be backfilled with compacted backfill or lean concrete. Refer to the COMPACTED FILL section of this report for backfill requirements. 11. Pockets or layers of existing fill may be encountered in the bottom of the completed footing excavations. These materials should be removed to expose the undisturbed sand and gravel. The foundations should be constructed on the natural sand and gravel or compacted fill. Refer to the COMPACTED FILL section of this report for backfill requirements. 12. Fill should be placed and compacted as outlined in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. We recommend that a representative of our office observe and test the placement and compaction of structural fill used in foundation construction. It has been our experience that without engineering quality control, poor construction techniques occur which result in poor foundation performance. 13. We recommend that a representative of our office observe the completed foundation excavation. Variations from the conditions described in this report, which were not indicated by our test pits/borings, can occur. The representative can observe the excavation to evaluate the exposed subsurface conditions. Lionshead Redevelopment 17 Environmental Impact Report Page B-20 July 2,2002 ROECNLEINSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 02-058 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers te FLOOR SLABS The subsurface soils at the floor slab elevations consisted of existing fill or natural sand and gravel. In our opinion, the existing fill will not safely support slab-on-grade floors. However, it is our opinion that the natural sand and gravel will support slab-on- grade floors with a low risk of movement. We anticipate that slabs-on-grade constructed on the natural soils may experience up to 0.25 inch of movement. We recommend the following precautions for the construction of slab-on-grade floors: I. Slabs should be placed on the natural sand and gravel or new compacted fill. All existing fill or soft soils beneath slabs-on-grade should be removed prior to placement of fill or construction of floors. 2. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members. Vertical movement of the slab should not be restricted. 3. Exterior slabs should be separated from the building. These slabs should be reinforced to function as independent units. Movement of these slabs should not be transmitted directly to the foundations or walls of the structure. • 4. Frequent control joints should be provided in all slabs to reduce problems associated with shrinkage. 5. Fill beneath slabs-on-grades may consist of on-site soils free of deleterious material or approved fill. Fill should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement and compaction of fill beneath slabs should be observed and tested by a representative of our office. 6. As part of the permanent dewatering system, we recommend that an underslab drain system be installed below interior slabs-on-grade. An underslab drain system should be designed by a professional engineer familiar with permanent underslab drain systems. C Lionshead Redevelopment l8 Environmental Impact Report Page B-21 July 2,2002 __ KOECHLEPONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-058 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FOUNDATION DRAINAGE As part of the permanent dewatering system, we recommend the installation of a drain along the below grade foundation walls. This drain will help reduce the risk of hydrostatic pressure developing on foundation walls and of ground water infiltrating into the below grade areas. The drain should consist of a perforated pipe encased in free draining gravel and a manufactured wall drain. The size of the perforated pipe should be determined based on information obtained from the temporary dewatering system and the type of permanent dewatering system designed. The drain should be sloped so that water flows to a sump where the water can be removed by pumping. Recommended details for a typical foundation wall drain are presented in the Typical Wall Drain Detail, Fig. 1 5. LATERAL WALL LOADS Walls will be planned that will be required to resist lateral earth pressures. Lateral . earth pressures depend on the type of backfill and the height and type of wall. Walls, which are free to rotate sufficiently to mobilize the strength of the backfill, should be designed to resist the "active" earth pressure condition. Walls that are restrained should be designed to resist the "at rest" earth pressure condition. The following table presents the lateral wall pressures that may be assumed for design. Lionshead Redevelopment 19 Environmental Impact Report Page B-22 July 2,2002 ROECHLEI 9NSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 02-058 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Earth Pressure Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure' (pcf) Active 35 At-rest 50 Passive 300 Notes: 1. Equivalent fluid pressures are for a horizontal backfill condition with no hydrostatic pressures or live loads. 2. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be used at the base of retaining wall or spread footings to resist lateral wall loads. Backfill placed behind or adjacent to foundation walls and retaining walls should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement and compaction of the fill should be observed and tested by a representative of our office. Due to the topography of the site, retaining walls may be constructed as part of redevelopment of the area. If retaining walls are constructed, a drain should be constructed adjacent to the wall. The drain may consist of a manufactured drain system and gravel. The gravel should have a maximum size of 1.5 inches and have a maximum of 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Washed concrete aggregate will be satisfactory for the drainage layer. The manufactured drain should extend from the bottom of the retaining wall to within 2 feet of subgrade elevation. The water can be drained by a perforated pipe with collection of the water at the bottom of the wall leading to a positive gravity outlet. A typical detail for a retaining wall drain is presented in the Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail, Fig. 16. Lionshead Redevelopment 20 Environmental Impact Report Page B-23 July 2,2002 Q KOECHLEI.NSULTING ENGINEERS,INC JobNo.02-058 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Co SURFACE DRAINAGE We recommend the following precautions be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the facilities are completed. 1. Wetting or drying of the open foundation excavations should be minimized during construction. 2. All surface water should be directed away from the top and sides of the excavations during construction. 3. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the buildings should be sloped to drain away in all directions. We recommend a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet. 4. Backfill, especially around foundation walls, must be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this (ibe report. COMPACTED FILL Fill may consist of the natural sand and gravel, existing on-site gravelly sand fill free of deleterious material, or approved imported fill. Deleterious material includes; building materials, trash, topsoil, and organics. The imported fill may consist of non- expansive silty or clayey sands or gravels with up to 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and a maximum plasticity index of 10. No gravel or cobbles larger than 6 inches should be placed in fill areas. Fill areas should be stripped of all vegetation and loose soils, and then scarified, moisture treated, and compacted. Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts; C Lionshead Redevelopment 21 Environmental Impact Report Page B-24 July 2,2002 XOECHLEI NSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 02-058 +,. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers moisture treated, and compacted as shown in the following table. The recommended compaction varies for the given use of the fill. Recommended Compaction Percentage of the Percentage of the Percentage of the Use of Fill Standard Proctor Modified Proctor Optimum Maximum Dry Maximum Dry Moisture Content Density Density (ASTM D-698 (ASTM D-698) (ASTM D-1557) or D-1557)' Below Structure Foundations 98 95 -2 to +2 Below Slab-On-Grade Floors 95 90 -2 to +2 Utility Trench Backfill 95 90 -2 to +2 Backfill (Non-Structural) 90 90 -2 to +2 Notes: 1. For clay soils the moisture content should be 0 to +2 percent of the optimum moisture content. For granular soils the moisture content should be—2 to +2 of the optimum moisture content. We recommend that a representative of our office observe and test the placement and compaction of structural fill. Fill placed below foundations and slab-on-grade floors is considered structural. It has been our experience that without engineering quality control, poor construction techniques can occur which result in poor foundation and slab- on-grade performance. LIMITATIONS Although the exploratory borings were located to obtain a reasonably accurate determination of foundation conditions, variations in the subsurface conditions are always possible. Any variations that exist beneath the site generally become evident during Lionshead Redevelopment 22 Environmental Impact Report Page B-25 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. • Consulting Geotechnical Engineers LL ? eFtl krT • _ . . _ A SITE A M A NOT TO SCALE �.. VICINITY MAP Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report JOB NO.02-058 Page B-26 July 2,2002 KOECHLIrONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-058 **1°' Consult g Geotechnical Engineers excavation for the removal of existing structures and excavation for the new structures. A representative from our office should observe the completed excavations to confirm that the soils are as indicated by the exploratory borings and to verify our foundation, floor, and dewatering recommendations. The placement and compaction of fill, as well as installation of foundations, should also be observed and/or tested. The design criteria and subsurface data presented in this report are valid for 3 years from the date of this report. If we can be of further assistance in discussing the contents of this report or in analyses of the proposed project from a soils and foundation viewpoint, please call. KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. eV RE V.............. �. y. I • -os 33822 s cc= =_ • •4,= i1a ' uuuuuw�� Scott B. Myers, P.E. Senior Engineer Reviewed by: groe,194„ ✓l.tc Q.r..� i William H. Koechlein, P.E. President (4 copies sent) Lionshead Redevelopment 23 Environmental Impact Report Page B-27 C" z : -C LLJ ',-.: •+-r k : . -•1■. -,1 ov Z To . •r• ! . - 0 , . Z= LLJ 0 o 2 z 2 P 0 _1 • cn ti ; ; • i ; ., t ... ''- ... , , i •! i , I ; . ,. .11 \ :1 " L t• -. 1, . , : . • . , •i 1 .. \t "t , ■•■• ' /1 1. : 11,....„4-• ...-... a-- V) E 0.4 .:,.> c. , c 0.1) 7:, ele en_ "CI 7 c.) c i ! , 1 .7(z','4. co • tn 1,- g 0-■ 1 1 - .1 t--....--1 i j u.... ,./r :-.,..,,..Q. . : . . o , , ,..c. i,..: e4 , I . c . 0 mu . .....„...„ 1 ...., , , . •.. . • • i , c•• sr„ .< ,,,.... ,,,... • : . _ l''‘••••• ,t • 1 1 •17.2i'ri7 "t-,L,,... S.: C:: . k i•--.,.:! -i ' 1 ' ci _. .c. O M W : 4: CL•4 z E ( i .1 I I: Z 0 = = • ,."--..1- -'' ',War.-...szli• •-• /1 1 .. 03 (...) .4k . I • . ‘... -VII----'''--"---------rC::....1": It-., • 0 ? O -A. •# ili .., ,....„,... ,. • , . I ''' .. ) , ■ , : , • I -. 1.:,.;:- . 1 i . i• ; i ,1 .... • 0 z rz .... = w N.,, , ....„. .., .----"") „.., o N , • \,,,,,,,,,=0...1.:''"!`.'-._::. ,.; ,..i.4 cl... i.,1 ,;•:::Tr .•-•!,,\ \al .. ''(-....---..... ‹...•-. 1„ V, q't:k.7"••••;,,Ii./T:b7 , ----.. , r "%1 -------- ---■-- ------- ..1, v.........0-..,-"4 .,......,,.,T ,, " 1 0 cn • L 117/g/friiii',,.. P Ill A ; ,' . ILI Cit . a 1 Ir.---- - -----"-'4'q4Y'Ith CiD 11711T- t el . -- ..--.2 ..1.. '. .. . , „....---. • Ir) • i (.1 ,.., , = , lli. I , 's., 4.... , ,„- 1-41,7p „........„ _ , .. ..„. 1....,r:„." „q.:1 a) ........ uj Z > - •,1 ii I I A 1 LI 1 9 , 1• i• %II,4111! 1- i- `41 a) i (...-- . ...,_ - .... 11" 1.- ";11 a • ,i, .1 Oil ti,.,0,11:i.,41 :•.. .. .^:.4:\' I ; n i .----\ i.,s<\'-„' \\,A\ ... • .57' . •, I': , . .... x- 5: ,'---. . ! ......• 7„.,, 0..- - 6 i - - . - ,) t.. \s\ .. 1:-\ '-. -\'.\i is, ,' ''''t 1 ..Lit, 9. •• th i L. t e, X.\,\\,Yr '', i .• i ;i 0 a. ... i ,,;,..•-•••------; ..„..,... , ,v• ,.. . \\ , ,, \\,.,,\. ''\ - u_ < "..., 1 _„.., .... .....: .:7.:‘ t,".c. I :47\19'•. ',-,\‘.\-1..) "i. 1 CI X 1 ,T... ,7,...1- \ \ •: *\,,..., .". >,,„ , I W 0 -J u. --...jit'S.:::::::::::::::\ "'.,C,.'l r`11.,\l'IV"'..\\s,\\:7 \'' ?.; 1 ,. , . W u j I j t.At ill'i . \,.."‘t , r ,t! !:...............! i • 0 1 \ . u) LIJ • t .. ..,, . - II 1 c. 1 i• i 1 111 i 1 .0-4 W.• •404i's\\''N'•-••v . ;:i. ', s, '..r. '.! .-, ..7. i,_.; , Ilk z o i ;i.- "11 ■ i,- I; i .„,./ o w 2 , s I - _, ,, i,t, ' , Lt., ,,-, %../ C9 ...,...,.. . _,..- •,,,,i,...d li k i i i tt t.‘" \ s\ .- ' • ...,J " • '. .,,-"--., i..-..: ---------II. lilli -\Fill. ›- i cc Z ...., . , 1-, ...,_i.....,...,L, ._.„4 _ .......: ...e .._ .... . • 0 - ; \ Intltil l'itIN ,„ , \.,. ., ''''\\\\ \If ),I, ,,,, ce , - 1, tq 41101 ,•„::....,_., ,..,......,,-...„...„. ,...:, ....„ , ._ _ \ . ........_ ....._..... . i g ......, / -.a •,i ,..._......i i 14,11ili.L_MIIII i.... • i ''''....' k.. ., ., ‘ , 1 ..-'1',,,-.,..,.-.).,i. ,.....,i-n I.t s• z.1 .,..,....1...:. .:.1.2.1.% `1 ...... S : II. CC) i 1 I . . t ,e. 0 Z if I .• . ti.1 n 0 = i a It .. I 1 I IL-1,, u) u) , .• 1 i W LI • e, i ,,,, i , „ I-- I-- I i ,c.ir. t < < C) '!,•''. ''''tt t ,,.,,•• U 0 Z : i ' ,-,.1 i L..I . ■ . ' ■ .;.4 ..'"•;r:i CI ! 1' IS • i ......, Z Z VA: ; ■•• . :t„::;•• '''' ■••••:‘ ; i ...... \ I' I (.1) C? LIJ i.... 9;., ....... ." ' ! -I- co) -J • (I) 0 - •., •-• ■ Z ‘ il i"....! :,,.:7.1 55 , ,r, I ; ...... i re • ' S 11:: ::•;; \ v---. -.. -5 1 ;,•.-- .4 ' i: I %.■ 8,....., i•_I 111D 0 1 :'.... . \ ra SS . .-. -... . t:4i • :..... ...... ..' .... - ":::: i . I • 1 I.ir.:' 1. (.-.)., . .• W , ; >' .s. Ce -0 I, i 1 .* h" ''"'s. i . .j. r.:-1 . 0 5.. -...,„ .- a) ,.;,:, 1 . ----- - -tr.' t I '----..--; . . .... .. t t s:, Us 1. I ! „,./................ ' 1"... 0 III z I< 'i 1 IJ.I i , ag >" 2 • .. Ce ti,, ,t , it cl. 1 I 4..,,, • i .,,.„,„_... '..----1 f, ....,.. I ;'' 1 1 'M1°4' '7,2: 1: [I C344 S 4f1 t • 4:7-----.-"! atonl il ,i' 1 • ''',, ., OM ••-'f'' '• •• . •,. 1 Z ILI 1_1.1; 1 ',.. 01 ..j ............ ........ = > '4.. i • ,......., I ..------4- 1.1 .' ii51111.1:;....::-.:3........_........_•.ii...... L._. 't . , , 0 UJ 11J . ,....„ „ 111 '.. i '! LO 1 i uj LIJ 0 . . , •,,.. . . • • .• , , , LL , 1 t 0 0 ,...',.. , : t: 1 t I 2 « .t'•.:. 1 t „ I 3 1 0) \I I, ,C,:t: .... i ' X lil U-I • , . ; • ii rei • '• . .,, i ij,.,._.. ,........ . Z a , k 0 i i 0 0. 1,..„..g1 i i • ,. .... ,•:, u) u) 1 rt_W z z 1 .._ i. --....,,, ..„, ,, . • . ...._....„._._. ...... _ . • I- i ,..:,•:„ I 0_ 0 0 „ . ,, --....... ...... 1.- -.4 I,. . <C 0 f,„ v.,.. 5. ... , •_. ...., . .. i 1 ‘,-.•...''",, -"'^. '''' 7 ....' 1 Ett • , ,,!.....:. 1 s• t ._ . -....- 0 1,..,, --- . LiF,i,t. --• 't ii.) L.:............_..-- ..• ' ,,..„ . , , az. i • ,... i / ,.. :r... ' •i - ..... ,,,ii .4„,......T"' . '. 1 1 . ' \•■i ...-..o, E t''''' ' . I I re) Z . 1 ,., '-,. /W..-3i .,1,....S.ii",10,...11: ..'t 1 • • 14'1, „.4".V.'.' - N1,:•41., `.I • 1 • fi '. 1 •' .1' 11,1j ' . .. .J.01 . ". - ,.f,• 1 ..., l', fti4i,,11.1. , ,' • i,, 5:, ; a- 4";I 0 4 . • ...,..., -1- CI i<••••-,....gititirtLaM I • . V., 'S.,. j i 'i ' wim i. • : . •..1 ' S , ..,. lil I... 1 .• Lau- .... •- ') '4?",:. ti., '...,.. ''kr..1.7aiNti*,,,,,,,„..„::4 ii 06 41;•!,.,.. .". - -.. • "-i:E. ,.-7---74.1 , *4 ,• '''''''''''' "\.,..-,. ..--.■-.,......a.:;:-.0 th II) iticl l'....4 MI •''''''''''" • "'''.-11,..--....,...,,,,, ti _______D___, ---- .- -----. -----. ----. . . - ... ... . ..., I iir Z ..-. -. .. . i -I , . " CC 0 • r- (/) -------'---:-- 1. : i 1.------- -, . ' ■ i . . . .. i . . . • ■ ' 1 • . in i 9 ■ ,.,, N ... 1 • ..... . i ..•.-, 0 L. 1 0 C 0 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers TH-2 (02-258) TH-3 (02-258) EL. 8139.9 EL. 8139.1 ti... 8140 TH-1 (02-058) 8140 — EL. 8136.1 )A9'. ,-. - - 43/12 Qob �Qao - 8130 50/11 w:Qt? bd� 8130 '0oo1 WC=8 �p o WC126 - - °:q, �o boa -200=21 . 1 -200=16 �o:a� Qata� _ K�t�°G7 ota .oci Iu 0:4! �Q� = cso _ - Pc;,-,p: QQ�J - `QOA bP. CI p.VPF AO. ?:off E r� ob 1 Qobl bb�Q �� r_c 8120 — 8120 t5 Q:a1 50/7 50/5:a, o 0 - :,csactl Q:ot� 0.-&:511138/12 - r., .',0 .�.otx Q:oa G _ P:4: = - 0l SsaG - :oS? - I .:150/5 --► PQ .Q?qc P8?) Qo0 4ot 81 10 'Ob r:ob r 8110 ItiGa r. 0128/12 :e;st pay :otY WC= 10 �o m F- _ ppQ r 200=6 0 WC1015 - m 6 ti _ i�:_ Qob 200=62 _ D z - It Q�� ,, - -I Z 8100 ■■ btb� 50/0 s fns p NM 8100 — O O _ 0' 6Q o _ Z �- szaa1 �:obi50/10 flj Z Q _ s�' p° Poe, WC=9 P'QoD — 1 > po°aQ� !3.:�Q• -200=9 p:ot? — m w — is z :. (?© od W GZ�' ©op' — —I - SSCQo O dd 8090 Da Ql vaa p 8090 a O�■ 50/9 nrro WC= 11 O°tat 50/9 - - °9Q6a:Q -200=7 - P.oa 50/8 - 8080 8080 — 8070 8070 - r" i D\_ _ N O a CA - 6; V CC CC a 8060 8060 -� Q. E C4 1-1 • y LOGS OF: EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND MONITORING HOLES o o a , JOB NO. 02-058 FIG. c KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 8140 8140 _ TH-2 (97-301) - EL. 8132.5 - 8130 TH-3 (97-301) 8130 — TH-1 (97-301) EL. 8126.5 = EL. 8125.6 ♦, _ M I 10 50/3 - {JD:�� ,_ uam01 8120 la 04 -_-_- T5ea 8120 — �I^�'Q,a socE)WC=4 _ Fero ■ 50/7 �3rt ood -200=8 , 16/12 - _ s48 WC=7 Pp61 -200=21 --- - - bo_0I 20/0 - poo I�O aJJ oo A 20/0 - o:p L ppc 8110 �a �i p a boa 8110 — oa� ao a ''`8,:% - m k! I If:vt? pq - m uw. u rti Mil 50/1 � QO o _ < WC=22 Z _ YES i db — `7b - -I tr3� 200=23 ob :oo Z 8100 ■■ b a`QI °Qq c 8100 Z O_ f�Q:o _ off _ !-- - eJtP rQQ — .,r Q ¢�Q. . QQO WC=5 - Z > — -200=5 -n w _ - m wm _ _ -1 8090 8090 8080 8080 8070 8070 O L M — Cl.) O , — E a"cal • '�' 0.4 ++ c• a 8060 8060 • fl, E — y ct....- y C ,L � LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND MONITORING HOLES .o 0 JOB NO. 02-058 FIG c Gz: KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers TH-6 (97-301) EL. 8139.0 , 8140 8140 – – TH-5 (97-301) j – – EL. 8133.3 440 - 111 � – 8130 • 15 WC=4 8130 _ , ' -200= 12 – TH-4 (97-301) - EL. 8123.5 - ,♦,l:� – --- �W' - - h;D.Q OoD '� r7a-(7 _ `>of 8120 Q WC Q . 40 8120 b o - - 0 -200=20 Q r 0 o goou boz d�� - pp`'01 Kp.0,9 D:ofl t� --- PP-eY - Qoq ot',a [102:9 ov.4 – – �Qo n I b 8110 ob 8110 Inc,:O: m I– oflm0 36'40:1 oQ Q -200= 10 D Z 8100 ■ �, ,t__. blob O O 8100 — Z w _ - m J m W _ - "'I 8090 8090 — 8080 8080 8070 8070 – – }' r, • © M - E E. O " W - - y +.' CI > c L1r 8060 8060 E I et a) c y LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND MONITORING HOLES .0 o JOB NO. 02-058 FI' c W KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. :onsulting Geotechnical Engineers LEGEND: ■ ASPHALT, C:ONCRETE or CONCRETE PAVERS ;-r FILL, Sand, Gravelly, Silty, Clayey, Cobbles, Boulders, _- Moist, Very dense, Brown. -ul SAND and GRAVEL, Silty to clayey, Some thin clay layers, ( Cobbles, Boulders, Moist to wet, Dense to very dense, (%.% Brown. flJ] ROADBASE WATER. Indicates depth of water encountered while drilling for this investigation and for our previous investigation (Job No. 97-301). EXCAVATION DEPTH. Indicates anticipated excavation depth provided by Vail Resorts Development Company. --► CAVING. Indicates depth of caving soils while drilling. ---- WATER. Indicates shallowest ground water measured during monitoring for our previous investigation (Job No. 97-301). REFUSAL. Indicates practical drill rig refusal. ' SPLIT SPOON DRIVE SAMPLE. The symbol 43/12 indicates that 43 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a 2.0 inch 0.D. sampler 12 inches. BULK SAMPLE. Obtained from auger or ODEX cuttings. MONITORING WELL. Indicates 2-inch diameter PVC pipe installed in boring to monitor ground water levels. LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND MONITORING HOLES JOB NO. 02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-32 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers LEGEND: Notes: 1. Exploratory borings TH-1 thru TH-3 for Job No. 02-058 were drilled on June 4 and 5, 2002. Monitoring holes TH-1 thru TH-6 for Job. No. 97-301 were drilled on October 21 thru 24, 1997. 2. Exploratory borings TH-1 thru TH-3 for Job No. 02-058 were drilled using an ODEX downhole hammer. Monitoring hole TH-1 for Job No. 97-301 was drilled with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. Monitoring holes TH-2 and TH-3 for Job No. 97-301 were started with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger; however, due to practical auger refusal on the cobbles and boulders, the holes were redrilled using an ODEX downhole hammer. Monitoring holes TH-4 thru TH-6 for Job No. 97-301 were drilled using the ODEX downhole hammer. 3. The exploratory boring logs and monitoring hole logs are subject to the explanations, limitations, and conclusions as contained in this report. 4. Laboratory Test Results: WC - Indicates natural moisture (%) -200 - Indicates percent passing the No. 200 sieve (%) 5. Elevations for the exploratory borings for Job No. 02-058 are based on survey data provided by Peak Land Surveying. Elevations for the monitoring holes for Job No. 97-301 are based on survey data provided by Eagle Valley Surveying. LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND MONITORING HOLES JOB NO. 02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-33 KCIECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGI EERS .v�T ,r�T3mP �" �+�y, sr T w.r n�l' 0 1 f 1, 1 ,OOTIi�a. ' II j�I ' ' I 1 III i I ! ! I � i I I I 1 ! I I 1 �T 90 III ( ; If1 ! 111111 I I 1111 ! I • I I ` !1I I III 20 80 ! I I i i i ! I I I I I j I i I j I I j;I ! I I II ; j I 1 II ! I I • 30 10 70 ,II I ! I Lill 1 m Z I i I I I ` 11 ; I I 1 I ! i 1 40 n 4C I I II 11i ' ! I Il1 ' II IIIIII � ? o- I ' i ; ,0 W So II I { IIIj . II1i1 ! 1 1 ! IIiI I I I I ! I ' ∎ : : : 60 D U ' I I I ( I 1 E a40 ill ! II ! I �Ili1 � ' II 11 III I ! I i 7C ° 30 I I I I ; ! I :, � IIIj ' !III I I I I 1► l1 I I I I I 1 'I I 80 ; III ! p , 'I I 'i i 90! ! III . ' I Ill i1 . ' l I I IIII III , , II ! 1I ,00 0 0.01 000, 200 100 10 1 0.1 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM II +3" 1 GRAVEL 1 SAND I SILT CLAY Sample of SAND and GRAVEL GRAVEL 48 °!° SAND 45 Source TH-1 (02-258) Sample No. Elev./Depth 46.0 feet SILT&CLAY 7 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX ._„ ,00h IliUI`NI I '1'1-1 ' 1, 1 *" 16111 IT ITI 7 71111 I i I IIII ! 1 0 I � ; ,o 90 IIIIII IIIlIIII II IIII Illlill I! Illil 20 80 N-. I ; I ! i I H 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I l l 70- 1111 ill 1 IiI 'I { I I t i 30 III II ! ! 1 1 1 60 I I I I I i I IIII I I I I 4° co I i I I ! i l m a. IIIiIII IIIII ! II 11. IIII � IIIII ! II 1III � --4 III '!,Iil � so 1 ' I i i I I ' ' I 1 m Z illllll 1II , 1 III 1; � D 40 I I i! Z CC IIIII Iii 111 I i I IIII , I IIII 11 IIIltll ► I 700 30 1 I I I I I I I j I j 11 I I I I I I I 11 1 ' 111 I I ! 80 20 ,I I I I I ! I I I I I I I is ,° ( I I I 1 1 1 1 1 III . 11 1 1 IIi 1! II I I 90 0 11111 ► 1 IIi111. ! I 1111111 1 I 1 IIII I I I 1Hi : I I , too 200 ,00 10 1 0.1 0.01 0 00 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL 1 SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND and GRAVEL,Clayey GRAVEL 33 % SAND 46 % Source TH-2(02-058) Sample No. EIev./Depth 9.0 feet SILT&CLAY 21 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX % GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-34 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGIT' EERS ,00— ." m• °—'''''7 - I ■ i i I I I i I I I ■ o I I 1, I ' ! I I ) N.. 90 i � ll IIIjI 11 i I 1111 . ' IIII1 ! , ij ' ! l i ,o I! Ii 20 80 . . I . i j N I III I I j I I- i )- I I I III I ' . I . I ' 30 • Z70 iiI 1 ! ll !! 40 a ! iji II111 i 111111 ! I I 11 1 I 11 ! I � ! � —i W 50 ;! I I I IIII I I I I i I11 I L I I I II ! i I I I II ! i 1 I I 60 D F. II U 40 ' I I I I I I I I Z CC o_ : I � I i ` I 11 ' 1111 ! II I I I I I _ III I I I I IIII I I l i 70 O 30 11 , 1 I i LI _! l IjLli I I III I ! ! ! I ill ( ! i 1 1 I 80 20 1111 ! ! I I I ' il Ili 111111 III l ! 90 ,00 III 11 ; I• I ! 11 I I i I 111111 1 1 1 I I . 1 ! I 111111 ' ,00 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT I CLAY Sample of SAND and GRAVEL GRAVEL 56 % SAND 38 % Source TH-2(02-058) Sample No. Elev./Depth 30.0 feet SILT&CLAY 6 % LIQUD LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % il i1;!I 1 1 l 1! II I 1 i!I 1 I I I! I II�. 100 .. .' ,' ihI 1 I °-- I' T • ► j I I 1 I I I I I I Il l l i l l j 90. r i o j l � N I il I i I I ' l i i I I I 60 Zo III X,l ! I ' ll i I ! , I I I I I . I I I I !_ 1 _ 1 70 ' 30 I Z iji I � 1 II i i I I I I! , � M 60 I I 11 I I I ! I II 4073 ZM (I) II I II -1 50 XJ Z 11 InI 1 I 1 1 1 1 I U 60 ct c_• 30 IiI_ I I 1 II I . 1 I I III I 1 II I ! I I li I 700 _ 1 111 ; 1111 IIII li II ' ! 1I 111 I 80 10 11111 , l 1 III1i 1 ill ! 1r, I Ili i I II ' II11i � I I 11111111 1 AI 1 1 1 � II ! II 1 ,00 0 200 100 10 1 0 1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND and GRAVEL GRAVEL 36 % SAND 55 % Source TH-2(02-058) Sample No. Elev./Depth 42.0 feet SILT&CLAY 9 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX w GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-35 KO' CHLEIN CONSULTING ENGIMEERS , .., I ; : ; . . , . , . 0 Hi I , . !1 ! : ' . . . . . ! . . . ,0 90 -"sss4•:,', i II ' ii ,....... H 1 1 ! • • I ! I ! 'I I 1, I 1 • ' I 78%.4..;44.1„., 20 80 „ . , ; F I I; , , : : , ; 30 0 HII • ! ; 111 1 111 ! . , : ; I M 73 (-73 60 40 0 H 50 50 7) ; . • ; ! : -I = 2 w I; ; III II ! , i 1 111 III " a iii i III 0 30 70 li; ! i • , ■ III 1 ill I 1 _ II 1 , -N..6 i 80 I ; 1 20 I' , : . • 'h !II 1 1 IH 1 I II : 1 11 I !! 1 • , 1 , • , • , ; • 10 90 i ! 1 huh i ill ! ! ' H I ! 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I, , , ! 1 , ; 1 : ; 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3- 1 GRAVEL SAND SILT I CLAY Sample of SAND.Gravelly,Clayey GRAVEL 24 °A, SAND 60 % Source TH-3 (02-058) Sample No. Elev./Depth 9.0 feet SILT&CLAY 16 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 100 1 . i71-7= 1 I : I o "ger ! : ! i ' I III I l I I 111 1 1 I L I I I I 1 1 I 1 i 1 90 1 10 HI I Hill I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i II 1 i I ! il ' 1 1 I 1 1 ' ; ' ; 1 I : 1 ; -.."`"""■-• ' , 1 I I 80 --••••■■-■111.‘ 20 i -■•••.....„;...,...1. 2 I I I I I I I : I 1 I 1 11 1 ' I -".. . I I I 1 ' 30 -0 70 I Z 73 1 I I I.Tic : I I 07) 60 40 0 . M Z -i F._ 50 50 73 Z • I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 M iii I II 1 L i 0 40 60 > CC ' I ' 1 1111 i 111 1 1 w ; 11 m a 1 , III I 700 30 70 I I 1 1 ' Ill ; - , i I i !1 i 1 1 1 11 I 1 ] 20 80 1 ; I 1 1 I I 1 • I 1 , 1 i . 1 ! I I i I 1 10 -90 , ; 11 LI i illi I li 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 0 • 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND I SILT CLAY Sample of CLAY,Gravelly, Sandy GRAVEL 20 % SAND 18 % Source TH-3 (02-058) Sample No. Elev./Depth 31.5 feet SILT&CLAY 62 % LIQUID LIMIT %• PLASTICITY INDEX % GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-36 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGIOERS - _. •. ,00--'1=- ,-, '- '- - .r''"'"I 7 , • 11 ' .• 0 i N_ Hi i ; Ihi : iiii ! i 1111 ! I , . io so 1 , • • -....., 80— 20 70 . , • , , III 1 ' l I 1 IIlI 1 1 1 1 : • II ' ; , 30 • 77 (-D II ' ' I • 1 - I '! ! : M Eli• 60 40 ; i 1 z 50 1; i ; I I 1 m 1 1 I I 1 , ; , 1 • --i 60 > (...) 443— CC . . It , E . . , li i i ' III , 111 1 1 • I I I I o • 30 70 ' I - • • ' ! ' I II h III I_ .. 111,1 1 1 I III .. i 20 . 80 1 : . ,' I 1 I IIIiII 111 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 11 ! : I ; 10- 90 ii ! ' , il 1 1 III I I I III I I " ! • ' ' III I I I 11 1 1 1 . i! ! , , 1 100 0 ' 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM ÷3" j GRAVEL SAND 1 SILT CLAY Sample of SAND. Gravelly. Silty GRAVEL 23 % SAND 56 % Source TH-1 (97-3011 Sample No. ElevJDepth 9.0 feet SILT&CLAY 21 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX loo---2- --,;----+--,..7-- v— ' 1'"-',1 : , . •, n sl un won ,... ' I t 1 j ! . • • C ,44.■ 11 : : ■ ; 1 111111 . - i II I I • 1111 I 1111 I 1 1 1 90 I 1 1 10 ' I ' 1 1 II I I I 80 20 I ! 1 :III ' I I I 1 il 1 I I I 70 I 1 1 1 . • 30 -0 (..7 , !1 • • . . , ; 11 M Z 1 I I , 1 1 I I • 1 1 1 1 j I 70 (7) 60 I Ato 0 cn I! 1 rn 1 I I i 1 z j... 50 50 73 Z Hi I I 1 I I 1 1 i M —I ill 1;1 I I I 1 w 11 H . I I 11111 1 1 1 1 . I 1 m ii i • 0 30 70 • I 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 . rill 1 I I I , I 1 1 1 1 20 ' 80 1 • Ii • HI I 1 1 1 1 1 I . 10 ILI I 90 III ! 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' 1 1 11 1 1 I 0 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 ' 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT I CLAY Sample of SAND.Gravelly, Silty GRAVEL 27 % SAND 50 % Source TH-1 (97-301) Sample No. Elev./Depth 20.5 feet SILT&CLAY 23 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-37 KOEtHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS Y ..� ,fjm]�.•_ ; I .,S r�[ 'rc ..� ..r .,� .,�s (. 0 ,00 1 Id1l ( 1 ( , I 1 I 1 ' I 111 i ; 1 I i ,, I 1 1 i 1 lilt l l I I I I I I , i 1 10•�� I i I i l l ' I I it i l ? I ! ' ill ' I I• I ; I I i I 1 i j I III I I ti ! 20 80 i 1 I) I 1 ! I I 1 1! I 11 i I 1 ( I ' I ! I I ' 70 1 I m Z III 1 I ! 1111 i i i I r i l I I I 40 Chi I 1 c � 1 , ' 1 1 ! 111 I . II Il i I IiI li l ! , , . • ! l ?•. 50 1111 III 11 1 I I III l ' � m I . . 1 i I ! I I I I I i t 1 60 D W 40 I I ! I I 1 I I I ' I WHH i i i I f 70 O 30 ' i I 111II 11 I III 11 I ! 111 . I I I ' I � ! I I I 80 20 ! Ill ;I ' � ! I 1 1 1111 11 I I II ( 1 ,∎! ( I IL 1 I i !II I I i ' I ' 90 10 I I I I I I I I I I I IIi I I I 1 III I i I 1 . : , ;0 i 100 200 100 10 1 0 1 0.01 0 001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM 3" I GRAVEL 1 SAND SILT CLAY Sample of GRAVEL, Sandy GRAVEL 59 % SAND 33 % Source TH-2(97-301) Sample No. Elev./Depth 14.0 feet SILT&CLAY 8 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX I ' l l s< I f1n fn fin WM I to f10 Aril .... 'yoRTKi� . ' p.i , m,Ar 1 1 1 I Hi 1 0 i T • 1111 11 !I I II I I i l 111 1 1 Hi I 1 0 � ! II I I I II 11 I 1 1 II I I III I I 20 80 1 1 1 i 1 I 1111 I ' � 11 1 1 1 I 1 I 11 III 1 30 70 f I I II III Z6D IIII I ; _. II N.. I . I . I_ I 1111 I. 1 400 II ! 1I. r1II1 I 1III ! 1 11111 1 Z -1 50 50 70 1.._ 5o II ' i I Iil � 1 . 111 I 1 III III 11 I I : D• a.i 11I i 1 I I I I II , 1 Z a. II ! !II II III 1 1 1 II I I 0 20 II1111 � I ill 1"11 ► I I IIi I I 1 I Hi II 7D ! 1 80 ,D illiill I fIIIII ' 111111 II I ! II I 11 � .- I III 1 1 1 ,DD 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" I GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND,Gravelly GRAVEL 30 % SAND 65 % Source TH-3 (97-301) Sample No. Elev./Depth 29.0 feet SILT&CLAY 5 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX % -- GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-38 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGMEERS 100 "--r'--- ' 'rcrLI'll ,lf---I---Irg-----. '':' -11--1----r-771-77 . .'' .' 'i I ' ' H • • I 0 II ; i I • ; III II . . • • 90 • . • 10 'Row . i 7111% ., 1 ! • Iii i ! • • .1 • • 80 . , . 70 I i : ! ; • , I I I ilII ' • 1 1 , it . , . : • • • • : • . . 1 i : • . : 11 H I 1 I 1 II : , , , , !, M 70 L-73 60 40 0 cn < ' z o_ . • I : ! I! I -I so x, ,.._ 50 • ! : • , Z II ; I lit I 11 : • • : i , • ' M ill , • : : , ; • • ! . : i . II , . , . 60 > C•-) 40 . Is H , • d 1 ! I m i I ,1 30 70 I : • ! II . • III III 1 ---Tiin I • • : i !: : : ! • I 1 ! i I .-'%•••■■,.!di I !! ! ! I 20 80 •• , , • 1 . . . • • • ill ' I 11 1 I 1 I I 11 1 1 1 I I i • i • I I Hill 1 11 • • ' 10 90 i• II . I 1 III 1 I • 1 II I I , 1 . ti . ; , , 11 , i : I . 'I 0, • • ' 100 200 100 10 1 0,1 001 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +r 1 GRAVEL I SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND,Gravelly.Silty GRAVEL 22 % SAND 58 % Source TH-4(97-301) Sample No. ElevJDepth 4.0 feet SILT&CLAY 20 % LIQUD LIMIT % 1 PLASTICITY INDEX % . - r * aa WI, •1. ran y " 100.— .77."-.77 '-'7". 1 ! ' : I ■ ' 0 taws ! • • ! ; 1 " ! ' ■ i i IH i I I . I 111 11 1 ' 111 . 1 1 1 11 11 90 , . 10 • I 11 11 I 11 1 11 1 1 80 20 111111 ; I li i I 1 i ! I I III_ 1 ' 1 11 I 70 ao 7 III ' ' CD l! : IILI 1 1 ■ I I 11 I fri 73 I u) 1 I m I I-1 I I I 1 c_ I --1 I 1._ 50 : . _ 40 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 11 1 LL -I 0 1 . 1 -60 IX , i I II w m 30 70 t:, II 1 1 • I - III , • 1 • : 11 • • 20 I_1 1 l'-'44%„.............r., • : , 80 ! ! i •• i 11 ill . 1 1 II I' ii 1 ,_,.....41... I 1 1 I 10 -90 I HI 1 : II II I 11 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 0 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 001 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3- GRAVEL I SAND SILT I CLAY Sample of GRAVEL, Sandy, Silty GRAVEL 56 % SAND 32 % Source _ T1-176(97-301) Sample No. Elev./Depth 9.0 feet SILT&CLAY 12 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-39 KOrCHLEIN CONSULTING ENGIrEERS 0 11 i I : , ! 1! ! I ! i ' . -,....., so II ' ', ! 1 . , , _ I I 1 I! I I ! ; . • 80 ! l_ 20 • 1 I li 1 i ' i ' ; . I Ili ' ,1 • , : • . , ; ■ i , I 1 I .•. 70 30 70 O 11 ; 1 ! ; ; I! I ' 1 1 I 1 I I • ! t ; ' • M Z 1; I 1 • ; ' 11 I ; , t ; 1 : • X C.7) 60 40 0 C/3 I I • I 1 I II I I ;I ! 1 ; . ; M Z H• 50 50 Lii -I O 40 60 > CC • . . 1! I I I I I 1 I I I • E m Lu : 30 70 • t i $ i ' : • ■ I , I 1 1 I I • I I i I I i . ■ i . . 20- 80 I " 11 ill 1 1 I I 1: 1 ; 1 ! • 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 I 1, 1 • • i : 1: 1 • • ' . 1 1 1 1 I I 1 0 100 200 100 10 1 01 0 01 0 001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM *3" I GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND,Gravelly GRAVEL 32 % SAND 58 % Source TH-6(97-301) Sample No. ElevJDepth 34.0 feet SILT&CLAY 10 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX Neap, Sample of GRAVEL % SAND X Source Sample No. Elev./Depth SILT&CLAY % LIQUID LIMIT X PLASTICITY INDEX X ,-...., GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-40 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers PAVER BLOCKS OR CLAYEY BACKFILL 10 1 �— MANUFACTURED 9111-11• 11,," WALL DRAIN -1 COMPACTED GRANULAR I ,BELOW GRADE WALL BACKFILL 'vn1 EDGE OF EXCAVATION OR SHORING (EXCAVATE AS PER OSHA REGULATIONS) 1V I I WATERPROOFING I FILTER FABRIC I GRAVEL ' PLASTIC SHEETING 12° MIN. PERFORATED PIPE NOTES: 1 . DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES BELOW TOP OF FOOTING AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 2. EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO FOOTINGS SHOULD BE CUT AT A 1 TO 1 (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) OR FLATTER SLOPE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTINGS UNLESS SHORING IS PROVIDED. EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO FOOTINGS SHOULD NOT BE CUT VERTICALLY AND SHOULD BE AVOIDED WHEREVER POSSIBLE BY LOCATING THE EXCAVATION AWAY FROM THE FOOTING UNLESS SHORING IS PROVIDED. 3. THE DRAIN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. 4. GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: WASHED 1.5 INCH TO NO. 4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 3% PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. 5. THE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM MOISTURE INFILTRATION BY APPLYING A SPRAYED ON MASTIC WATERPROOFING OR AN EQUIVALENT PROTECTION METHOD. 6. THE PERFORATED PIPE SIZE SHOULD BE DETERMINED DURING THE PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM DESIGN. TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL JOB NO.02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-41 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers CLAYEY BACKFILL 10 MANUFACTURED 1 CI 1 t: WALL DRAIN 11E1 COMPACTED GRANULAR I RETAINING WALL BACKFILL EDGE OF EXCAVATION Ael (EXCAVATE AS PER OSHA REGULATIONS) I I ��WATERPROOFING FILTER FAB•IC I I GR.VEL won o 0 PERFORATED PIPE y.w NOTES: 1. DRAIN SHOULD BE SLOPED DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 2. THE DRAIN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. 3. GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: WASHED 1.5 INCH TO NO. 4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 3% PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. 4. THE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM MOISTURE INFILTRATION BY APPLYING A SPRAYED ON MASTIC WATERPROOFING OR AN EQUIVALENT PROTECTION METHOD. 5. THE PERFORATED PIPE SIZE SHOULD BE DETERMINED DURING THE PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM DESIGN. TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL JOB NO.02-058 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page B-42 0 T Z > ;- > > - — LU ▪ J J :7 > d 0 .$ Z W Z G > z 0 z z z Z r z z z < z ° � � � L) scn C3 cdo z 0 U z * Z ° _ = � o — 3 Y U) U v: > L U ,_, Z c r N `. a - \:. N N ° v1 NO N - H v: o `. Ur v? O C:.: < N H - _ >- O __■H = U X 0 2 O j z L- • �� - - �. C 2 2 < a) ,. _ , aa)) Z CI c J , Cl) < ^ a C x ° a `^ r- N v s. - o z 2 a) a) a) m z L O O O 'r, O C O a) O O O O V 2 - 2 a O N - O C a C a c L! C M M N N M co a.< — tn a) O N�. .-. . r-- ... . .. . .- .-. — ' v- O , h co O O C O O O O C C O O O O M M M M M M M O r:i • I I C C I 11 N Z 0 0 C 0 0 o a s o. ON a a s N N N M M N M C ,..: \:. O 0 _ _ — _ z L . L - H H H H H Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Pane B-43 ��CKKKkk ,-� �-� KTechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. r . Consulting Geotechnical Engineers ® Y x 12364 W. Alameda Pkwy • Suite 115 • Lakewood, CO 80228-2845 www.KCEDenver.com ��, 4, ► -1. LAKEWOOD AVON/SILVERTHORNE 31)(M)40 1: (303) 989-1223 (970) 949-6009 (303) 989-0204 FAX (970) 949-9223 FAX June 16,2003 Jack Hunn Vail Resorts Development Company P.O.Box 959 Avon,CO 81620-0959 Subject: Proposed Construction Revision Proposed Commercial/Residential Structures Lionshead Redevelopment Marriott Property and West Day Lot Vail,Colorado Job No. 02-057 As requested we have prepared this letter to acknowledge that the proposed redevelopment as presented in our report entitled C "Soils and Foundation Investigation, Proposed Lionshead Redevelopment, Marriott Property and West Day Lot, Vail, Colorado",dated July 8,2002,Job No.02-057 has changed. In our aforementioned report,we had anticipated excavations to an elevation of 8105 would be required for construction of the two commercial/residential structures. However, we understand that plans have changed and that excavations to an elevation of 8100 will be required for construction of the commercial/residential structures. We should review the proposed changes to verify that the recommendations within our report are valid for the new development plans. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service. If we can be of further assistance,please contact our office. KOECHLEIN,OOG ENGINEERS,INC. `QQ.- B. . • • • 33822 • ;' '°: •w° gip: G/16/0 •:,•g ee •:c, Scott B.MyeW.5; i AVu��`\``� Senior Engineer Reviewed by: - jkt ® William H.Koechlein,P.E. President Lionshead Redevelopment (3 copies sent) Environmental Impact Report Page C-1 cc: Ms.Tracy Hart-42/40 Architecture,Inc. SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT 1 MARRIOTT PROPERTY AND WEST DAY LOT VAIL, COLORADO • 1 0KKKKKif Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. 4 , Consulting Geotechnical Engineers A. 12364 W. Alameda Pkwy • Suite 115• Lakewood, CO 80228-2845 k LAKEWOOD AVON SILVERTHORNE 4,� -313i ��'�� (303) 989-0204 FAX (970) 949-9223 FAX (970) 468-6939 FAX Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page C-2 1 KOECHN CONSULTING ENGINEE4, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS C SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION PROPOSED LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MARRIOTT PROPERTY AND WEST DAY LOT VAIL, COLORADO t7 /::5‘4 Us cr . 16289 • _ kiinimilit000 Prepared for Terry Winnick, V.P. Vail Resorts Development Company P.O. Box 959 c r; Avon, CO 81620-0959 o oar U CQ a CO Job No. 02-057 July 8, 2002 g a cg L7 O DENVER: 12364 West Alameda Prkwy.,Suite 115,Lakewood, CO 80228(303) 989-1223 AVON/SILVERTHORNE: (970)949-6009 July 8.2002 0 KOECHLEL'ONSGLTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 3 SITE CONDITIONS 4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION 6 INVESTIGATION 6 RADON 7 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 7 EXCAVATIONS 9 GROUND WATER 10 EXISTING FACILITIES 11 SHORING 12 DEWATERING 14 FOUNDATIONS 16 FLOOR SLABS 19 FOUNDATION DRAINAGE 20 LATERAL WALL LOADS 21 SURFACE DRAINAGE 23 COMPACTED FILL 23 LIMITATIONS 24 VICINITY MAP Fig. 1 LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF EXISTING FILL Fig. 3 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figs. 4 thru 12 LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figs. 13 and 14 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figs. 15 thru 17 FOUNDATION EXCAVATION RECOMMENDATION Fig. 18 TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL Fig. 19 TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL Fig. 20 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Table I ill Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page C-4 July 8.2002 • KOECHLEIISNSULTI.NG ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C SCOPE This report presents the results of a soils and foundation investigation for the Marriott Property and West Day Lot for the proposed Lionshead redevelopment in Vail, Colorado. The approximate site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Fig. 1. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed construction. This report includes descriptions of subsoil and ground water conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, allowable soil bearing capacity, recommended foundation systems, and recommended foundation design and construction criteria. This report was prepared from data developed during the field investigation, our laboratory testing, a previous investigation, and our experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions in the area. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the proposed redevelopment as described in the PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION section of this report. We should be contacted to review our recommendations when the final plans for the redevelopment have been completed. A summary of our findings and conclusions is presented below. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were generally similar. The subsurface materials encountered in exploratory C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page C-5 July 8,2002 • KOECHLEIN gISULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geoteelinical Engineers C; borings for this investigation (TH-1 (02-057) thru TH-15 (02-057)) consisted of asphalt and/or existing fill to varying depths of 3.0 to 27.0 feet. The existing fill was characterized by a medium dense to very dense, silty to clayey, gravelly sand with cobbles and boulders. Wood, concrete, and building materials were also observed in the existing fill. Below the existing fill to the maximum depth explored of 43.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of dense to very dense, natural silty to clayey, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. 2. The subsurface conditions encountered in our previous investigation (Job No. 98-358) were similar to those conditions encountered for this investigation. The subsurface conditions encountered in exploratory borings TH-1 (98-358) and TH-2 (98-358) typically consisted of 6.0 to 15.0 feet of asphalt and/or existing fill underlain by a moist, dense to very dense, red to brown, silty sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders to the maximum depth explored of 22.0 feet. The existing fill consisted of a gravelly, silty to clayey sand with cobbles and boulders. 3. At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at various elevations of EL. 8107.5 in exploratory boring TH-1 (02-057), EL. 8109.1 in TH-8 (02-057), EL. 8107.7 in TH-9 (02-057), EL. 8108.2 in TH-10 (02-057), EL. 8097.9 in TH-11 (02-057), EL. 8103.1 in TH-12 (02-057), EL. 8099.1 in TH-14 (02-057), and EL. 8098.5 in TH-15 (02-057). 4. No free ground water was encountered in either boring of our previous investigation (Job No. 98-358) to the maximum depth explored of 22.0 feet. 5. Because the ground water level appears to be above the lower anticipated below grade levels, we anticipate that temporary and permanent dewatering will be necessary for construction of the proposed development. Refer to the DEWATERING section of this report for additional details. 6. We anticipate that existing fill and the natural sand and gravel will be encountered at the proposed foundation elevations. In our opinion the natural sand and gravel or new compacted structural fill will safely support spread footing foundation systems for the proposed buildings with special precautions. Refer to the FOUNDATIONS section of this report for complete recommendations. • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 2 Page C-6 July 8,2002 • KOECHLEISNSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C 7. We anticipate that the soils at the potential floor slab elevations will consist of either existing fill or the natural sand and gravel. In our opinion, the existing fill will not safely support slab-on-grade floors. However, it is our opinion that the natural sand and gravel will satisfactorily support slab-on-grade floors. Refer to the FLOOR SLABS section of this report for complete recommendations. 8. Due to the close proximity to existing structures and the anticipated depths of excavation, it is our opinion that shoring will be required in order to proceed with development of the subject site. Refer to the EXCAVATIONS section of the report for additional details. 9. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, we anticipate that heavy-duty excavation equipment will be necessary to complete the required excavations. 10. Drainage around the structures should be designed and constructed to provide for rapid removal of surface runoff and avoid concentration of ce water adjacent to foundation walls. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION A preliminary site plan was provided by Vail Resorts Development Company prior to our field investigation. The preliminary site plan presented the locations of the proposed structures and the existing structures. At the time of this investigation, the final redevelopment plan for the Marriott Property and West Day Lot has not been completed. We understand that the redevelopment involves removing the existing parking garage and replacing it with a new two to three story commercial/residential building that will include two below grade levels for parking in the northwest portion of the site. In addition, a two to three story building with one below grade level for parking will be 4110 Lionshead Redevelopment 3 Environmental Impact Report Page C-7 July 8,2002 • KOECHLE•ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C constructed in the west portion of the site. We anticipate that townhomes will be constructed along the south portion of the site. We anticipate excavations of up to 20 feet in depth (EL. 8105) may be required for construction of the two commercial/residential structures. Excavations of up to 27 feet may be required for the townhomes in order to remove the existing fill. The proposed commercial/residential buildings will most likely be of cast-in-place concrete and steel frame construction while the townhomes will most likely be of cast-in-place concrete and wood frame construction with walk out basements. Maximum column and wall loads were assumed to be those normally associated with medium to large commercial structures for the proposed commercial/residential buildings and light residential for the townhomes. C, SITE CONDITIONS The proposed development will be located in the Lionshead redevelopment on the Marriott Property and West Day Lot in Vail, Colorado. The Marriott Property is located at 715 West Lionshead Circle. It is bordered by West Lionshead Circle and the Marriott Hotel to the north, the Antlers Condominiums to the east, Gore Creek to the south, and the West Day Lot to the west. Currently, the northwest corner of the Marriott Property is occupied by a three level parking garage, with one level above grade and two levels below grade. The south half of the Marriott Property is landscaping with an abandoned tennis court in the southeast corner of the site. C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 4 Page C-8 July 8,2002 O KOECHLEIN cSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C Site topography for the Marriott Property generally slopes downward to the south to the south end of the parking garage then slopes upward to the south and west because of an existing berm. From the top of the berm, the property slopes down steeply southward toward Gore Creek. The southeast corner of the Marriott Property, where the tennis courts are located, is relatively flat. Access to the site is via an asphalt-paved driveway that runs south from West Lionshead Circle between the Marriott Hotel and the parking garage. At the time of this investigation, installation of an irrigation system was in progress for the area south of the Marriott Hotel. Vegetation on the Marriott Property consisted of grass and several pine trees. The West Day Lot is a gravel and asphalt paved parking lot currently being used as contractor storage and parking. It is bordered by West Lionshead Circle to the north, the South Frontage to the northwest, Forest Road to the west, Gore Creek to the south and the Marriott Property to the east. Access to the lot is from West Lionshead Circle. The parking lot is relatively flat and south sloping but is bordered by an existing berm along the northwest, west, and south edges of the lot. The east side of the lot is bordered by the parking garage for the Marriott Hotel. From the crest of the berm the site slopes downward to the northwest, west, and south. Vegetation on the existing berm consists of grass, weeds, and a few aspen and pine trees. C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 5 Page C-9 July 8,2002 • KOECHLLLONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Cie PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION A previous geotechnical investigation was performed for the West Day Lot prior to the current investigation. The data and results of this previous investigation have been reviewed and included in the preparation of this report. The following report was reviewed and information from it used in compilation of this report. 1. Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Development, The West Lot, Vail, Colorado, December 28, 1998, Job No. 98-358. INVESTIGATION Subsurface conditions for this site were investigated on May 30, 2002 and June 3, 6, 7, and 10 thru 13, 2002 by drilling fifteen exploratory borings (TH-1 (02-057) thru TH- 15 (02-057)) using either an ODEX downhole hammer drill rig or a percussion hammer drill rig at the locations shown on the Locations of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. An engineer from our office was on the site to supervise the drilling of the exploratory borings and visually classify and document the subsurface soils and ground water conditions. Our engineer also obtained representative samples of the soils within the exploratory borings to be examined in our laboratory. A description of the subsurface soils observed in the exploratory borings for this investigation and from our previous investigation (Job No. 98-358) is shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figs. 4 thru 12; and on the Legend of Exploratory Borings, Figs. 13 and 14. cw Lionshead Redevelopment 6 Environmental Impact Report Page C-10 July 8,2002 • KOECHLEIT NSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C Our laboratory investigation included visual classification of all samples and testing of selected samples for natural moisture content and gradation analysis. Results of the laboratory tests for this investigation and for our previous investigation (Job No. 98-358) are presented on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figs. 4 thru 12; on the Gradation Test Results, Figs. 15 thru 17; and in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results, Table I. RADON In recent years, radon gas has become a concern. Radon gas is a colorless, odorless gas that is produced by the decay of minerals in soil and rock. The potential for radon gas in the subsurface strata of mountain terrain is likely. Due to the granular nature of the natural soils, it is our opinion that the risk for radon gas at this site is low. However, since excavations for lower levels for the development are anticipated, we suggest that the buildings be designed with ventilation for below grade areas. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were generally similar. The subsurface materials encountered in exploratory borings for this investigation (TH-1 (02-057) thru TH-15 (02-057)) consisted of existing fill to varying depths of 4.0 to 27.0 feet. The existing fill was characterized by a brown to black, dry to • Lionshead Redevelopment 7 Environmental Impact Report Page C-11 July 8,2002 KOECHLE•ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers moist, medium dense to very dense, silty to clayey, gravelly sand with scattered cobbles, boulders, wood, concrete, and building materials. The approximate location and depth of existing fill encountered throughout the site is shown in the Approximate Location and Depth of Existing Fill, Fig. 3. Below the existing fill, to the maximum depth explored of 43.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of interbedded layers of brown, moist to saturated, dense to very dense, silty to clayey sand, clean sands, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders, and sandy cobbles and boulders. The subsurface conditions encountered in our previous investigation (Job No. 98- 358) were similar to those conditions encountered for this investigation. The subsurface conditions encountered in exploratory borings TH-1 (98-358) and TH-2 (98-358) (me typically consisted of 6.0 to 15.0 feet of asphalt and/or existing fill underlain by a moist dense to very dense, red to brown, silty sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders to the maximum depth explored of 22.0 feet. The existing fill consisted of a gravelly, silty to clayey sand with cobbles and boulders. At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at various elevations of EL. 8107.5 in exploratory boring TH-1 (02-057), EL. 8109.1 in TH-8 (02-057), EL. 8107.7 in TH-9 (02-057), EL. 8108.2 in TH-10 (02-057), EL. 8097.9 in TH-11 (02-057), EL. 8103.1 in TH-12 (02-057), EL. 8099.1 in TH-14 (02-057), and EL. 8098.5 in TH-15 (02- 057). No free ground water was encountered in either boring of our previous Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 8 Page C-12 July 8,2002 • KOECHLEINSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C investigation (TH-1 (98-358) and TH-2 (98-358)) to the maximum depth explored of 22.0 feet. EXCAVATIONS We anticipate that excavations of up to 20 feet (EL. 8105) may be required for construction of the two commercial/residential buildings with below grade parking. In addition, excavations up to 27 feet in depth may be necessary to remove the existing fill beneath the proposed townhomes. The approximate location and depth of existing fill encountered throughout the site is shown in the Approximate Location and Depth of Existing Fill, Fig. 3. Because cobbles and boulders were encountered within the cre, exploratory borings, it is our opinion that heavy-duty excavation equipment will be necessary to complete the required excavations. Due to the anticipated depths of excavations and the proximity to existing structures, we anticipate that shoring will be necessary for a portion of the excavations. For areas of the excavation requiring shoring, refer to the SHORING section of this report for additional details. For areas of the excavation not requiring shoring, care needs to be exercised during construction so that the excavation slopes remain stable. In our opinion, the existing moist, gravelly sand fill and the moist, natural sand and gravel classify as Type B soils in accordance with OSHA. Wet or saturated sand and gravel will classify as Type C C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 9 Page C-13 July 8,2002 S KOECHLEIIONSULTLNG ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C soils in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA regulations should be followed in any excavations or cuts. All existing fill, foundations, and soft soils beneath the proposed construction should be removed and, if necessary, replaced with properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill. Refer to the EXISTING FACILITIES section of this report for additional details. All fill should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. GROUND WATER At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at various elevations of EL. 8107.5 in exploratory boring TH-1 (02-057), EL. 8109.1 in TH-8 (02-057), EL. 8107.7 in TH-9 (02-057), EL. 8108.2 in TH-10 (02-057), EL. 8097.9 in TH-11 (02-057), EL. 8103.1 in TH-12 (02-057), EL. 8099.1 in TH-14 (02-057), and EL. 8098.5 in TH-15 (02- 057). No free ground water was encountered in either boring of our previous investigation (TH-1 (98-358) and TH-2 (98-358)) to the maximum depth explored of 22.0 feet. Since we anticipate that the lowest level of the proposed commercial/residential buildings will be at elevation EL. 8105 and the shallowest ground water elevation in this portion of the site was recorded to be EL. 8109.1 in TH-8 (02-057), we anticipate that ground water will be encountered during excavation for the lower portions of the C Lionshead Redevelopment 10 Environmental Impact Report Page C-14 July 8,2002 • KOECHLEII\ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers CIO proposed commercial/residential buildings. Based on our experience in the area, we believe that ground water is traveling in more permeable layers or seams within the existing soil matrix. Therefore, greater amounts of ground water could be encountered at random locations within the excavation for the proposed development. Because ground water will be encountered, temporary and permanent dewatering systems will be required for the proposed redevelopment. Refer to the DEWATERING section of this report for additional details. Since we anticipate that the lowest level of the proposed townhome buildings will be at elevation EL. 8107, and the shallowest ground water elevation in this portion of the site was recorded to be EL. 8099.1 in TH-15 (02-057), we do not anticipate that ground iro; water will be encountered during excavation for the proposed townhome buildings. However, our investigation was performed during a very thy time of the year. It is possible that ground water may be encountered during wetter times of the year. EXISTING FACILITIES We anticipate that prior to construction of the redevelopment, the existing structures and utilities will be removed. We recommend that existing foundations, slabs- on-grade, utilities, and existing fill be completely removed and, if necessary, replaced with properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill prior to construction of the new facilities. A representative from our office should observe the completed demolition and • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 11 Page C-15 July 8,2002 • KOECHLEI1NSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers removal of the existing foundations, slabs-on-grade, utilities, and existing fill in order to verify that they have been completely removed. Provided that the existing fill is free of deleterious material, the existing fill may be used as structural fill for this project. Deleterious material includes wood, concrete, building materials, topsoil, organics, etc. All fill for this project should be moisture treated and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. A representative from our office should observe the removal of the existing foundations, slabs-on-grade, utilities, and existing fill, as well as the placement and compaction of any fill beneath the new facilities. SHORING Due to the depth of excavation and proximity of surrounding structures, property lines and streets, it may not be possible to slope all of the excavation sides as required by OSHA regulations. Therefore, a shoring system may be necessary. A typical shoring system used for deep excavations includes piles (either driven or socketed in pre-drilled holes) as soldier posts with lagging. However, due to the presence of cobbles and boulders, driving or pre-drilling holes with conventional drilling equipment may not be possible. An alternative to driven piles or socketed piles using conventional drilling equipment as soldier posts could be multiple minipiles in conjunction with tie-backs, which can be drilled through the cobbles and boulders. Minipiles are installed by drilling C Lionshead Redevelopment 12 Environmental Impact Report Page C-16 July 8,2002 S KOECHLEIN `SULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Ce and advancing a casing into the ground to the desired depth. The hole is then filled with grout as the casing is removed from the hole. Where ground water is encountered, it is sometimes necessary to leave the casing in the ground to prevent water from entering the hole. Multiple minipiles in conjunction with tie-backs could be used as soldier posts for a soldier post and lagging shoring system. An alternative shoring system that may also be considered for this site is a soil nailed shoring system. Installation of a soil nailed shoring system will be influenced by the presence of cobbles and boulders and by the presence of adjacent existing structures and utilities. Property boundaries may also limit how far the shoring system can extend beyond the excavation and intrude into the adjacent property. Therefore, other methods, such as interior bracing, may need to be evaluated. The ability to complete the excavation within the site constraints and the need for a shoring system including the type of system should be evaluated during the design phase of the project. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during this investigation and our previous investigation, the shoring system may be designed using the following engineering soil characteristics for the natural sand and gravel: 4)1 = 35°, y= 135psf, c= 0. If soil nails are used as part of the shoring system, their pullout capacity will be influenced by the existing soil conditions, method of hole advancement, hole diameter, bonded length, grout type, and grouting pressure. For preliminary design purposes, the Lionshead Redevelopment 13 Environmental Impact Report Pa e C-17 g July 8,2002 40 KOECHLEIONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C soil nails may be designed using an ultimate unit resistance of 20 kpf assuming that the soil nails are small diameter and are backfilled with low-pressure gout in the natural sand and gravel. DEWATERING At the time of drilling, ground water was encountered at an elevation of EL. 8109.1 in exploratory boring TH-8 (02-057). Since we anticipate that the lowest level of the proposed commercial/residential buildings will be at elevation EL. 8105 and the shallowest ground water elevation in this portion of the site was recorded to be EL. 8109.1 in TH-8 (02-057), temporary and permanent dewatering systems will be necessary (hre for the proposed development. Based on our experience in the area, we believe that ground water is travelling in several permeable layers or seams within the existing soil matrix. Therefore, greater amounts of ground water could be encountered at random locations within the excavation for the proposed development. A temporary dewatering system for the proposed development could consist of trenches within the excavation sloped down to a positive gravity discharge or to a sump pit where the water can be removed by pumping and/or deep wells. During construction the dewatering system should be reviewed and it may be necessary to adjust the pumping in order to control the amount of ground water infiltrating into the excavation. The feasibility of different temporary dewatering systems should be evaluated during the (11.'' Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 14 Page C-18 July 8,2002 0 KOECHLEIONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C design phase of the project. Once the final design of the proposed construction has been selected, we should be contacted to discuss and to assist in the design of the temporary dewatering system. Based on the assumed below grade elevation (EL. 8105) and assumed permeability of the soils, we estimate a flow of ground water into the excavation may be 2 to 3 gpm per linear foot of excavation. This flow of ground water represents an estimate and is subject to change based on the plan limits of the excavation and depth of excavation. Since we anticipate that the lowest level of the proposed development will be at EL. 8105, which will be approximately 5 feet below the shallowest ground water, we recommend that a permanent dewatering system be designed for beneath the proposed slab-on-grade concrete floor slab. The permanent dewatering system may consist of a combination of underslab drains and foundation drains sloped to a positive gravity discharge or to a sump pit where the water can be removed by pumping. A consideration of the change in ground water flow for the time of year should be made in the design of the permanent dewatering system. The pump capacity (if required) of the permanent dewatering system can be better determined during construction by monitoring the requirements of the temporary dewatering system. 0 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 15 Page C-19 July 8,2002 KOECHLEI.NSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers (11Pe FOUNDATIONS The subsurface material at the potential foundation elevation for the proposed commercial/residential buildings consists of fill underlain by the natural sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. It is our opinion that the natural sand and gravel will safely support a spread footing foundation system for the proposed commercial/residential buildings. The subsurface material at the potential foundation elevation for the proposed townhomes consists of existing fill and the natural sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. In our opinion, the existing fill will not safely support a spread footing foundation system for the proposed townhomes. However, it is our opinion that the natural sand and gravel or new compacted structural fill bearing on the natural sand and gravel will support a spread footing foundation system for the townhomes. A deep foundation system, such as drilled piers, driven piles or mini-piles, supported by the natural sand and gravel could be used to support the proposed townhomes. However, due to the presence of large cobbles and boulders, installation of drilled piers or driven piles could be difficult. The installation of mini-piles will also be influenced by the presence of cobbles and boulders, however, mini-piles can generally be installed in these conditions. Due to the high cost of mini-piles and the difficulty in installation of drilled piers or driven piles, we anticipate that the owner will choose to support the proposed townhomes on either the natural sand and gravel or new compacted L Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 16 Page C-20 July 8,2002 • KOECHLE.ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C structural fill. If the owner would like to pursue the option of a deep foundation system, we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. If the owner chooses to support the proposed structures on spread footings, all of the existing fill should be removed from beneath the footprint of the proposed structures. If the elevation of the proposed foundations is above the elevation of the natural soils, compacted structural fill will need to be placed in order to raise the excavation to the elevation of the proposed foundations. We recommend that spread footing foundation systems be designed and constructed to meet the following criteria: 1. Footings should be supported by the undisturbed natural sand and gravel or properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill, as described below in Items 2, 7, 8. 11, 12 and 13. 2. All existing fill must be removed from below proposed foundations. If necessary, properly moisture treated and compacted structural fill may be placed beneath the proposed foundations in order to raise the level of the excavation after removal of the existing fill. If structural fill is placed beneath the proposed foundations, an equal depth of fill must be placed below the entire foundation. The fill beneath the proposed footings should extend beyond the proposed footing, as shown in the Foundation Excavation Recommendation, Fig. 18. All structural fill placed beneath foundations must be moisture treated and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement of the fill must be observed and tested on a full time basis by a representative from our office. 3. We recommend wall and column footings be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure 6,000 psf for foundations constructed on the natural sand and gravel and for 4,000 psf for foundations constructed on new compacted structural fill. 4. Spread footings constructed on the natural soils or new compacted structural fill may experience up to 0.5 inches of differential movement C Lionshead Redevelopment 17 Environmental Impact Report Page C-21 July 8,2002 KOECHLEONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C between foundation elements. Because the soils are granular in nature, we anticipate that the majority of the differential settlement will occur during construction. 5. Wall footings and foundation walls should be designed to span a distance of at least 10.0 feet in order to account for anomalies in the soil or compacted fill. 6. Foundation wall backfill should not be considered for support of load bearing footings. Footings should be stepped and supported by undisturbed natural sand and gravel and should not be constructed on foundation wall backfill. Foundation walls or grade beams should be designed to span across an excavation backfill zone and should not be constructed with footings within this zone. 7. Excavations for the structures within the development may encounter wet and/or soft soils requiring excavation and removal. Soft soils may be stabilized by either the removal and replacement with compacted granular soil or by the placement of angular cobbles and boulders, which should be compacted into the soft soils by heavy construction equipment until a non- yielding subgrade is obtained. 8. Another option to stabilize soft soils would be to place a layer of geogrid reinforcement at the bottom of the excavation prior to compaction of the angular cobbles and boulders. The use of the geogrid reinforcement typically will reduce the amount of cobbles and boulders required to achieve a non-yielding surface. 9. The base of the exterior footings should be established at a minimum depth below the exterior ground surface, as required by the local building code. We believe that the depth for frost protection in the local building code in this area is 3.5 feet. 10. Column footings should have a minimum dimension of 24 inches square and continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Footing widths may be greater to accommodate structural design loads. 11. We anticipate that cobbles and boulders will be encountered at the foundation elevation. Removal of the cobbles and boulders may result in depressions and rough bottoms in the excavation. The resulting C Lionshead Redevelopment 18 Environmental Impact Report Page C-22 July 8,2002 III KOECHLEIACIINSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers co; depressions can be backfilled with compacted backfill or lean concrete. Refer to the COMPACTED FILL section of this report for backfill requirements. 12. Pockets or layers of existing fill may be encountered in the bottom of the completed footing excavations. These materials should be removed to expose the undisturbed sand and gravel. The foundations should be constructed on the natural sand and gravel or new compacted structural fill. Refer to the COMPACTED FILL section of this report for backfill requirements. 13. Fill should be placed and compacted as outlined in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. We recommend that a representative of our office observe and test the placement and compaction of structural fill used in foundation construction. It has been our experience that without engineering quality control, poor construction techniques occur which result in poor foundation performance. 14. We recommend that a representative of our office observe the completed tie foundation excavation. Variations from the conditions described in this report, which were not indicated by our borings, can occur. The representative can observe the excavation to evaluate the exposed subsurface conditions. FLOOR SLABS The subsurface soils at the floor slab elevations for the commercial/residential buildings consisted of shallow fill underlain by the natural sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders while the subsurface soils at the floor slab elevations for the townhomes consisted of variable depths of existing fill over the natural sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. In our opinion, the existing fill will not safely support slab-on-grade floors. However, it is our opinion that the natural sand and gravel will support slab-on-grade floors with a low risk of movement. We anticipate that slabs-on-grade constructed on the ce Lionshead Redevelopment 19 Environmental Impact Report Page C-23 July 8,2002 1111 KOECHLEOONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers c natural soils may experience up to 0.25 inch of movement. We recommend the following precautions for the construction of slab-on-grade floors: 1. Slabs should be placed on the natural sand and gravel or new compacted fill. All existing fill or soft soils beneath slabs-on-grade should be removed prior to placement of fill or construction of slab-on-grade floors. 2. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members. Vertical movement of the slab should not be restricted. 3. Exterior slabs should be separated from the building. These slabs should be reinforced to function as independent units. Movement of these slabs should not be transmitted directly to the foundations or walls of the structure. 4. Frequent control joints should be provided in all slabs to reduce problems associated with shrinkage. 5. Fill beneath slabs-on-grades may consist of on-site soils free of deleterious material or approved fill. Fill should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement and compaction of fill beneath slabs should be observed and tested by a representative of our office. 6. As part of the permanent dewatering system for below grade slabs-on- grade constructed near the ground water elevations, we recommend that an underslab drain system be installed below interior slabs-on-grade. An underslab drain system should be designed by a professional engineer familiar with permanent underslab drain systems. FOUNDATION DRAINAGE Surface water tends to flow through relatively permeable backfill typically found adjacent to foundations. The water that flows through the fill collects on the surface of relatively impermeable soils occurring at the foundation elevation. Both this surface C- Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 20 Page C-24 July 8,2002 KOECHLEIISNSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C water and possible ground water can cause wet or moist below grade conditions after construction. Because below grade areas will be constructed for both the commercial/residential buildings and townhomes, we recommend the installation of a drain along the below grade foundation walls. This drain will help reduce the risk of hydrostatic pressure developing on foundation walls and of ground water infiltrating into the below grade areas. The drain for townhome construction should consist of a 6-inch diameter perforated pipe encased in free draining gravel and a manufactured wall drain. The drain should be sloped so that water flows to a gravity outlet or to a sump where the water can be removed by pumping. Recommended details for a typical foundation wall drain are li. presented in the Typical Wall Drain Detail, Fig. 19. LATERAL WALL LOADS is Walls will be planned that will be required to resist lateral earth pressures. Lateral earth pressures depend on the type of backfill and the height and type of wall. Walls, which are free to rotate sufficiently to mobilize the strength of the backfill, should be designed to resist the "active" earth pressure condition. Walls that are restrained should be designed to resist the "at rest" earth pressure condition. The following table presents the lateral wall pressures that may be assumed for design. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 21 Page C-25 f July 8,2002 • KOECHLE!JNSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Earth Pressure Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure' (pcf) Active 35 At-rest 50 Passive 300 Notes: 1. Equivalent fluid pressures are for a horizontal backfill condition with no hydrostatic pressures or live loads. 2. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be used at the base of retaining wall or spread footings to resist lateral wall loads. Backfill placed behind or adjacent to foundation walls and retaining walls should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement and compaction of the fill should be observed and tested by a representative of our office. Due to the topography of the site, retaining walls may be constructed as part of redevelopment of the area. If retaining walls are constructed, a drain should be constructed adjacent to the wall. The drain may consist of a manufactured drain system and gravel. The gravel should have a maximum size of 1.5 inches and have a maximum of 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Washed concrete aggregate will be satisfactory for the drainage layer. The manufactured drain should extend from the bottom of the retaining wall to within 2 feet of subgrade elevation. The water can be drained by a perforated pipe with collection of the water at the bottom of the wall leading to a positive gravity outlet. A typical detail for a retaining wall drain is presented in the Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail, Fig. 20. (10" Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 22 Page C-26 July 8,2002 KOECHLEI4VSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers ce SURFACE DRAINAGE We recommend the following precautions be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the facilities are completed. 1. Wetting or drying of the open foundation excavations should be minimized during construction. 2. All surface water should be directed away from the top and sides of the excavations during construction. 3. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the buildings should be sloped to drain away in all directions. We recommend a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet. 4. Backfill, especially around foundation walls, must be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. COMPACTED FILL Fill may consist of the natural sand and gravel, existing on-site gravelly sand fill free of deleterious material, or approved imported fill. Deleterious material includes building materials, trash, topsoil, organics, etc. The imported fill may consist of non- expansive silty or clayey sands or gravels with up to 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and a maximum plasticity index of 10. No gravel or cobbles larger than 6 inches should be placed in fill areas. Fill areas should be stripped of all vegetation and loose soils, and then scarified, moisture treated, and compacted. Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts; C- Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 23 Page C-27 July 8,2002 1 KOECHLEIIINSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers moisture treated, and compacted as shown in the following table. The recommended compaction varies for the given use of the fill. Recommended Compaction Percentage of the Percentage of the Percentage of the Use of Fill Standard Proctor Modified Proctor Optimum Maximum Dry Maximum Dry Moisture Content Density Density (ASTM D-698 (ASTM D-698) (ASTM D-1557) or D-1557)' Below Structure Foundations 98 95 -2 to +2 Below Slab-On-Grade Floors 95 90 -2 to +2 Utility Trench Backfill 95 90 -2 to +2 Backfill (Non-Structural) 90 90 -2 to +2 Notes: 1. For clay soils the moisture content should be 0 to +2 percent of the optimum moisture content. For granular soils the moisture content should be—2 to+2 of the optimum moisture content. We recommend that a representative of our office observe and test the placement and compaction of structural fill. Fill placed below foundations and slab-on-grade floors is considered structural. It has been our experience that without engineering quality control, poor construction techniques can occur which result in poor foundation and slab- on-grade performance. LIMITATIONS Although the exploratory borings were located to obtain a reasonably accurate determination of foundation conditions, variations in the subsurface conditions are always possible. Any variations that exist beneath the site generally become evident during Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 24 Page C-28 July 8,2002 KOECHLEIISNSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-057 Consulting Geotechnica! Engineers C excavation for the removal of existing structures and excavation for the new structures. A representative from our office should observe the completed excavations to confirm that the soils are as indicated by the exploratory borings and to verify our foundation and floor recommendations. The placement and compaction of fill, as well as installation of foundations, should also be observed and/or tested. The design criteria and subsurface data presented in this report are valid for 3 years from the date of this report. If we can be of further assistance in discussing the contents of this report or in analyses of the proposed project from a soils and foundation viewpoint, please call. KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. h4h7. 2r 'r Richard M. Wenzel III, E.I.T. Engineer Reviewed by: 01, m • _.a; 16289 :ce_ .k, :moo: 7-r oz.:441 Nllpl William N. Houlette, P.E. Senior Engineer (4 copies sent) (1.10, Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report k 25 Page C-29 S 'INeCrs. Ko ifill LEIN n cs0NSULTING t;:.,ng Geote i EnNnGINEERS. .cai Engine co III 77.:'.::,--.Tir,-.-.t,;:..;;;,..:ir'..,':,.-:.' ..„..„-,::::..-77.7,:i:: ::!?::.,:-..i'*..,x1.41,-.,+74.,,:','.11::;:,...:'::;.:1;..-;::::.':::.'.,:.:-. -.;;,,:.:. ,....; ‘, •.' ,,,,,.,,,,,...,.,,,.7.7'.;:Ij".'.:ir',-,?...t.:;..1:.."..-f-'::-. ..7.:::::.,...:,.,ii,:;:.,„.::;;:',..i:...1::;;.;#7,•';',4P.:7-.i.''.;',..::,::,.; -_,.•.:-':::7. '.'',.7,..1 -''.-.:.,-E.c.:::. .,,,,,_,...,..--,-.,77,7::::‘,,1:.: :-..-1 :::','':,•-•,:,‘, :.,"i:i,::::?.:•"::';:i4:i,-'''',Si::-)p;;;.,!i";t:I.:14:::TW..;11?1;5:'•:,:',17:::'.."7.-::::•:,''' '''.,:' ''.,i., ', .1 .',:;.- 2;,.'::::: _, _........-7`,-7:'.,:::".-:.,::1.::::::p:;::::::::,,:::77:,!.."::-•:::i-',:-. ...-:::',.::':.:,-.::,ir.-,:',.:.1,44'0:1j-kitjti::-.4,:;::*':#:::.7.':'.:'''',"':::- • ' '''.':::::.-.::.f:' - :.a.,:„.d.sar,dvtooc o''',.,-:•_, .....,::-.,;::;,:: :::-:'-'..- '•::.: :-...:',`',- .::-1'. .:1,t-''''-:,--; :-::',';':'''):-: ;`•:::: :: .t.:: :.. 8 •, . • .,,.:,,-1,•-:•,: _•:7,27=•,,::7,•,,,..•••••`,',.::;',,•,;.•:',H,::•• •••':':.•''::.•-••:',:'E';...%2."'•,'7.-•:',- .•"-, - .-,.i-i 64t1:7:. 1...i'l.:••."•,:'.. ,,•:',,.:.;•••: -.*•-:-,1":'-.. ' ''':::,:,,•:,:.••.• ':.'I (le , ' '' , ' ,,„ ' ;_,.:;::,;:0,6.1. ::::::-:::.*:'-' '-''''''-'•..' -1, ...7`.,* ,•:;7':',-.:•;:'7:Ifin'.*"••44: ;:)..•:.^,,^„.,•!:L.:-..:...2'''''''..:;',...:L'.„!.;,:-.a'1.1:2:.:.::: :''''''..—.. - : '• '''. -'- '-. , ,..,,,,,, ' .` • ,ft.."-.":' . ' .." 2,:,.. ..',..:;..tticiikl.-ieqd:.q7:-;-..•.--:;:;-. ., • .:' .. ...erl".' ..'''.",-.- ...:'•-,.'..1.:.):,.;1','.i. ''-,.'..,..t,:i.:.,..-;.::i i-' .:..•,.',...FL.„..:."-:.:,::::'' ' ';..•:.',,.,,,...',. .:-....:.' -'' '".:1';*-',:"",'''L7:k6,i,:r4e..._.,'",::-1-•;:,`-'/N '-56 ...„.1.- .,..:: .,......!...:..,::.;::„,zi.,!,... .....,....,* . ,.;:(.7.,,.,,,,,,,..,:, -::,,,s ,-.,.,..?,,..;,,,..,:::',..,,...:.,......,.,..-....,:-...„:!,..:,..,.:46.....,,,,,,•,,..„ ft,:,“00..t...,,, ,,,,,,,A, ,,,,,,, -- ".. ......,,,,,,...,,,,,,.,,,,,y-:,....:::::-..,.,,,,••..,--_.-4-...._,.:..,...q,-..,.:.-,.,-....,.....,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,, .,.4.,, .,%k„..,,k,..,.,,T.:..,,..,7,...,.../.....,,,.,;;,,,,?a, p.;."1-iti.*:..,?:,,,,:_.... ....7. --;.-....:':',. -.-,_=-4,t,:',-,;'....4,:;kiiigr:,.,!:?-..,i-',-,z7.-... ..,44.74._______,',a: :....e.-.4-.56:,-,4,,,,,zi.44-,:ti,.,4A,r, =,i,•., i.'. A i4- ..... ....e !•:.'I':'f"::''' ''. - : .::•''>.'ii%!:,:':::.?•"i-•!',:t1464,i'At.,-44',:kiVil'aCIV•litTV ,,•inz.'4: 'i.,,-, ,,1740,,•,1,-,,is:::`2%,*,°mIt•.,'•'1,41/4'..,', -.,,•1'., •1:,.....`....„,,et:.;!•7!7,,,,;•af•izq'l „•,t.-* .-•:=A'• :' , : •, •..--..,,,,!!50;•:.-.:111-11 ,,'',AC:','' '''.1110,,-. ....'",.eL-4;:',-*1; 3',."';‘,,Z..'1::;.'1,1k‘.tt:::•:;qt;L__.,, -44 :7••i•V4I‘i'i•s=4:itk*;!'a:'t '...7'",•:,-•'---. ••-','''' .,:•''''' . ' .‘' • ' :''':,.;•: $4'7'f:ri.i;7';A5;isi:,t,r,',T7'.^..:.41'•*;`,,%:-*4fttst!"--N A-7.;VtAii,4),i;faIti-.4.*@,-.1 .$17';; 4V,:eg':"'•' ,s;*" 't'--- ' '..1'*r'f:=''A,ntl.giR.I•••-:,:e••?.:k;Mii'.•;: .';;,•":.•''R-F._.477%1F:t.4„i.;44,i7ir. .." - ... ••• "717'..,...f.i.1$' ,.:-.:q:.:,ItT,,:---,::•..,-;. C.rt0....a.4.5alt,Si,:?:....".'!_:•;4',:'.7. ,q,.4- 7.•,-*Kli-s.',.;:-Itp..',..;1-ir.::T:.:. ..:: lialtkiiN:Vi.t.jfP:::;-.('!:.'''...."..ifk7":!-!-:',!",K;''',' • -., -.,-,&2:'.6m','-,-.1-..--4:".:::, '.• ?-F.:1---4-.:_—' -;.,4),-.4-:",.!6:c*.g.tr, ' • ,,”s:771,44P.-.7 -1,7..77,6.--iic ' 04,,,,-.%*.q..,r;k.:;Ai.:..,' ',.,,,i,i,...-,-, *4 '-'44;',,.: ,A.it-at'. .,44N`if',--::,,,.1.--,e..._-, -.,,,°.!:,,.-.., -0-..„.4:',,,57,-,.:,-,,,...,.??I ;•,,4k,,„ :‘,..._::::.:--,,„.T.,.-.. ' 7,443%'fik. ..1.=-': ".'..,.*%,-1'-'sxc:',1;TfmT"''' :470.L%-l*Z.,:,:i'llr:,;; ;......4::,:.',. .-!,::::,'..E .. ::.7„..- •: ,- : :,-:,..-:„,...4;„..:., . :ge..0,447.41,.......i.:t,?....i.:k...,v.10.,v,**: •:,14::-. ).'-..7,. . N.::k:..-1,!:,k7:•*,.2.7.'zi,,,,.5,,.', _.-- •. :,-,,:.:.',•-,,-,1::::1„,,.,..:,•,,,....--,:',L...F.,,,,p,.4A.,.,,,..--,,,;;..,?, ,,...-:,,,..:1:3•3',1*:,,mI;04,,,-:,,,•,-,„„er.-,....4"Ift,,, .„.„,„:4',,,,,...-4„,,,,..'*lirvii4"P.A.-'*'---4-,41.4-161-%'-'it'''''-'::"','''''''''-''''''''''''''''''''....:' . '':.:•-•.- ,tinks„,,...t.4.,...,at?_1.:TAi,,,vii,rti:it'AV:kt 4,4f5k.,44.1.,' ,-,-,.„ ',--5'..:4.7,..;',..,"=,-;t11,1:-14,7;,,7,,,?:::..:::,-,-.•-,,:-,4.1".,.',.Av::: -',,:.; ,.;i. „ ....,..•=,..,,--.,27.7, ,.„,,,,.i,,..,*,-. - r.I.,,, ,- --,:, ,ii.,,t,,,,-:-,,,r---,,,-0-.--,„--$444,11.,,v-rikAiliItl,'.-,,,,!:.;:i-..,,,, :',.---''.- :.., .,q„,,,:g,,,,-,,,,,,,k,,,,.. 0.-...,:t..,-4,,:(,...;L::.;;;:,,,..%44 •.;,:i...4c,A,-..,..,,*1......4.,,k7a1:7,t,.:4:-...:-.,..,,,,,--',.,'-• ----,P;: • '---„r•- • - p,m14.t.,,eq,•,,,-...4',.a.Ar.,7-;44:,..4-,-,•i-;;;:..,5,---'--v.- .:-....0:,---,.::,,,,..r:::•,ty,-.,.%,:+1,7•!,,,,,---,,,,--,,'-• ,• - - --. ' 4- • ule-4:74,,'..',41-3A.,-;-II.,--14.;.1.04Nsitf,.-!..4,;:,.4,14a,v24:1-,:4r.,: -:-;4:.;i4.6.,:f,-.::::::-.7,.::-.,,,:•-,. ,-• -•• - '•;, - - ::...-''..'!'':-„'..-.;:;'... .-!::'..itt..A.:4',..:hiktilip.:4,f,:-:)•!:41-,1*.ts.--1.:i'?",!:"`4:57:::-.7.,.., ••••"..-'2: '•-- '.. ' : , ... ° „„ .. ..„:4„9,-;-:,1-1,, -..,.:its,,--.;.-1I '. -...-fet,k..i. ..,,,,:-:-4.1,,,,,t,..14,-,.....,-,...,,,:, ,.,,,i.k.i,”:.,,:7.....•,,',..'' , ' , , tk -.:!'i.''''C:4114'''.',4%.'',A,.-1.' ,..,,. • ,,,. -... :. .. , . , ■. : .„ , C SITE A M A Redevelopment head R---Impact Repo' LI 'ons Environmental Impa ,-30 page `-- MAP iron VICINITY — Env VIC NOT TO SCALE (poi JOB NO'02457 5 112 z al ui.g) .._ .i D ) •c = en W ui O-- Z tl. c,to tn.:4 c1.4 C o © oi) Z.,c , c8 al u 0 2 ‘ 0) ce: o'• ad cl. Z ° - ' l'---- o P(S) I° —1 n CY) 9m (-N -0 73 u) c 0, o z± _. o= , ,, o ci., = u .0 o , z z •c, E z 0 m o 0 = o , o - •o © rii --) .,. - .,:." . .,..., .1 .a- , , — 0 .. z p ) = . , . 0 cn 44 17- u'l .... c p" U) , , 1 ' t \! 11-1 0 > — , — W (/) W -± . I— •:( ...* *-- CL It • X 0 0 , ..-- ..■ , , LL U._ 0 0 r w w ,, •1 8 • ' •‘ , 1 ' —I _J ---., A c.. I 1 _1 _1 — X Fi E '1 00 1 , , , , ,1, Cl) cr.) , x , s (-9, (.9 X Z Z 1 Fc' E 00 1 mm 1 >- >- re re 1 o 0 F- \ g g U) 00 (D a. 11 Z X X W W re X u) u) f:t Lu a. k W111 < < CL 0 r \ a. •• 0 (.) 0 — — >" 17, E w o u) re E- X E2 0 0 1 ■ 0 - ill • T . < 2 < s ■ 1 r.e 0 -- —1 EL ...s •I 9 , ' , , , , \ 4L ..••• ...- LI. ..- 0 in ...• ..- , (/) .2 --• 0 r z ,. ...% , . ,"; 0 is) - tt-, z z (ri , , •i 9 • ,.... „ u) cc ce ,...... ..- 0 , ..- —i 0 i •1 1-- N ..... .00 '''' *** Co' ' --- \ 0 ...., --- I • .... -- i , 00 ..... HE -- / i..-- z •cr x — o R. o i.9 1.- c., ' k / •19 1- 1.7:- C.? if) < •i 9 -1 -F- 04 C) • < -J i L CI LI . 411)C'F. I— I— r... 1 i ,-u) F.: u) < 1 . 14-I 2 w w s R EL < •x 9 6 tn i- cv 1 9 •x 9 ,• I— 04."--. 1-- c4 i (--* X "..... 11.. U. 0 ••■ • City ••■ k o& ..... . 0 tr• ..... .. V iz' X 44'0 ■., •x 9 , , I ef,/,70 I— g .... S' ■. — ..-- ■ 00' ...0 ■ . D ■ ..,, co . .°.. '''' H .:- .0° '' z •• 0°' -1 %....0* 0 43:110 41) r-- In cn A c0 ci z ca 0 -, ....) ,,, , ,----) ri 7 2 :J 7..1 .77771, 1 E171 —771 7-71 r - 1 6 12 Z a)) r.- N C y p M ' Th ww O �" dA a J w L Q.Z c J . o Z Z CZ Z g ' Z H co 'C -a. m ll N _ 111 w w = c,C U 11.. 0 =3 LL O O O O t+ O 6 w� w w w ; _ w w u- u" a I" O T t- . t{) r 0 re ° 0 LL. LL LL LL O O O O Z Z Z Z O O O O F.: a a a , O O ,te ..- 0000 -a''') o{r:o. O\ , 0 C) c , err w w W w . '''''n; .1:'-'''''''':1‘..1-... .: - '411,-4A 0nc�• S (24P11 I 0 0 0 0• ►� •' o oo' ,C�tG«1 `.� ooG actrsc„r a a a ao-. aoo06L Q(�,cl < < < < % c0000t7FJ�)4? ' i()o o 6 9 9-.9,o-t.i v) Cl) Cl) v) J 1 : UGC�Ovw✓, Cit,) W W W W 00 c.,c,u0.0;or U U U 0 V- " , oo0000aoatao(t�.'ic c„ �nrnooc.'� � 4`', - Z 1 a&44 sC 0 0 b 0 )G Q C ■ 0 0 -1 -1 - 0 _ 1 —ZC: ' s S ., #, r000.000p0Q _1 C d I � OCGO07 ?,il /n 1 000c,,,]C a., )00a0C G X ,, a000:oOpa 1.1„ ` O' i:t+ t.,y �i , , 1 0 IL xQo , 1 2y +° ,� o.41,' W• W 2 x Ir 4'a ' , D _; 1 +e � y.i Z <,- 7 p ✓ 1 � 9 i t` 1 Q x N "` '1 Z O 0yN ,/ /./ ... .' r, � , Q r , f / (. { �. LL7 Ya t v�1 0 _ _ a J.1.r W Ot� (7 5zaQ I— , j 1 F- o w I. (9 Yom. 1 ? `°I Q 1x' rn ,7', •_eflo00000 •i 1 1 r + i<.•. �\ ' p „,,,r060000 "..-; 000. I ', E. g.' , 11 1. `..' +1 vtv0 , ', ! _ ' ,_.r i0000)GC'.co ,ao 1 I'. ,, . 4i y ) 1 X l>, o ,.. ./11-00060000m(=M 0()i:1 1 i 1: 1 E 4\}� k 0 ; o0000cz0oti�GGGr, ae _ f I' l "I ( , 1, 1,..<4,,,,,s7",/\;34.,,....e,fy,L'i000000 000000,1 ry I 1 i .,I I I fit, t , j%'v',, a,o c,o00000oc,,c�,>aA.., , 1 • i ' I I i f a . .',.,,,9:,,,,,,,, , ,.' {i' / 40aa,1,70o Gc)a o>Laei` I I I I I i . I I I I I a ' \ . • .') ')car,JGO 1 1 I 1 I i I 1 I I I I I I t w ; 1 ,,, i I I I 11 1 Z I , ': I i { 1 I II0., ' •1 c7 E �s I I ' ' I I I I I 10 I 1 1 I 1 1 l S ” `_ ,1 I oo ,> 1 1 1 1 1 l � � �I` 1 1 1 1 ``L'r' I I I I I I O I' I I Q fly 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,. 1 �= ° 11 1 -II I v HN 1 1 1 1 1 1 /‘ I 11- O I I I >• 1: i O 1 o I 11 I I ! i , *`t I I -- i t IQI i � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i �,: I . ',t I I I 1 I w 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 {`i t.', 1 00,1 I i I I-I 1 H p 7( �' � �n I I I cn I l Q I 1 I ti I l r a N N-°` , p* a �="' I 11 Iwl 1 `. �_ w � i I 1 o I i I (I? in , 1 //'r,�! / t ?-F,� 1 1 1 �i I 1 1 x 0 I I I I . /- O I 1 I 1 1 1- N t?t. �L-'N .1 \ 11 a 0- = I I I I I I I I I I . !`y *. 111.11=, i la. L_ O 1 I I 1 1 { 1 I I 1 !!ts > tl QOm 1 1 1 I I I I I I i' r E; t +LS., ghat, ��\ S'' I I ; I I I I 1 I I ti I I ,.E. 1,, s. ,; ` 1 'I'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 u2 u� I 'D r t{„t�v` .. � 01:, ♦2 .� �. ;t cy1 i ` 1 i I i 1 i I { I I H N I I 1 ' ;to 'p , 1 i „ t Y\''/' f Ok ,a0a Q v/ '� LS U "a.r 0 O CO iii, 9 • N O O z m O 0 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 0 4Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Q8140 8140 — TH-2 _ (02-057) APP.EL. 8132.2 - - TH-1 – _ (02-057) Vv: 8130 APP.EL. 8128.5 �� 8130 – 56 T 1 - - �j 65 T ,I - 65 T �� 70 T � 50/4 - _ 37T 47T '4 " 28 T 4s 8120 — 8120 52 T `• 29/6 24 T 18 T - 80 T tti•- 22 T •�•■ - 144 T ", 19 T ►� ' 50/3 - 59 T 8 T ►� ' - 12 T � 8110 - -8110 IPrAl 50/4 1 126 T___ 10 T � r W _ 106 T '° 35 T �� – < ti _ 162 T Z 48 T I,•1% 50/4 _ �i 175 T •a '' 8100 — O + Z – Z ® � 8100 � 50/3 132 T r;,.a WC=11 Z Q – 58 T ,. 200=4 _J -n – 66T _ m w – 84T : —8090 E ::::: . 8090 — —8080 8080 — —8070 8070 — - 8 8060 8060 Li LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report .1013 NO. 02 057 Page C-33 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ® "'Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 0 —8140 8140 TH-4 – (02-057) APP.EL. 8133.7 – 8130 , 8130 — TH-3 I – (02-057) 72 T � – APP.EL. 8123.6 – 50 T t.i50/I� •V• 89T – ; �� 8120 — 8120 113T 6 1 54 T 78T 160T 46 T 141•40i �� I .. 60 T – 24 T l 1v 1 50/5 �� 50/1 – • 62T �� – 88 T ��...', 64 T - 1 —81 10 175 T 52 T S 8110 --I– _ 90 T j+_• 96 T ��•�1 – m u- 144 T '' --0 50/1 97 T i. • ■ 50/3 – < – Z _ D – --1 Z 8100 8100 — Z O P - _ _Z Q _ - > m w _ – m J –I W – —8090 8090 —8080 8080 — —8070 8070 — —8060 8060 - (6- LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment JOB NO. 02-057 Environmental Impact Report Page C-34 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers • 8140 8140 -i • 8130 TH-5 TH-6 8130 — (02-057) (02-057) - APP.EL. 8125.2 APP.EL. 8124.9 —8120 40 T 92 T a 8120 — 64T 23T 84 T 50/5 106 T 50/1 116T °3 76T mq 'at – 40T ;-27"c , 41T – cae°a —8110 60T 64T 8110 — 106 T p 64 T g' w _ 264 T 60 T 34/6 m u- _ WC=6 Z -200=22 _ .� cp, —8100 8100 — Z H – Z Q _ _ — m J m W 8090 8090 8080 8080 —8070 8070 — —8060 8060 C LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment JOB NO. 02-057 Environmental Impact Report Page C-35 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 0 oConsulting Geotechnical Engineers Ce 8140 8140 — 8130 TH-7 TH-8 8130 — (02-057) (02-057) - - APP.EL. 8125.2 APP.EL. 8125.1 '♦■I :.. - - k - 58T ~.• 84 T •• —8120 8120 52 T '' 60 T !•' - _ I. 150 T ~-�,''- 50/5 — 44 T "see 50/2 34 T aoD g — -- 96 T 1 ': 35 T 5 0 - 34T —8110 72 T '��. �» 8110 — 54T I J'• 204 T---:-- IA - m — 65 T 352 T= L w - '` 50/5 50/3 M _ u. _ D Z _ — 'i Z O — - 8100 8100 — Z L _ - m _ m -I rrl W _ -8090 8090 — —8080 8080 — 8070 8070 —8060 8060 C LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report JOB NO. 02-057 Page C-36 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. • Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 0 —8140 8140 — _ TH-9 – (02-057) TH-10 – APP.EL. 8131.7 (02-057) – – APP.EL. 8129.7 – —8130 • 8130 — 33/12 V�� . b `�� – �� —8120 rQ �• 8120 — ~• :150/7 - - je...: 50/5 01.1 – • —8110 --► i••.ti 81 10 — _ _ = ,�• ,I 50/4 — m `w _ j 60/12 .4 – m Z m •t.4 – –I ce 0 Z —8100 ' rr. 8100 — z i• ••� 50/3 H — E:' ' ' • Z Q _ ii E S •:.� - •' m > i l• •46/12 r w _ — w _ •': 200 227 —m 8090 A 50/12 8090 — 8080 8080 —8070 8070 — —8060 8060 — Le LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment JOB NO. 02-057 Environmental Impact Report Page C-37 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. • 0 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers ilLe —8140 8140 — 8130 8130 — _ – TH-11 —8120 (02-057) TH-12 8120 — A PP.EL. 8116.9 (02-057) _ – APP.EL. 8115.1 – – 30/12 — 8110 —8110 ��; �� _ ,s b m w _ o 50/6 m LL — '°-:t iew D Z , Y= _ hJnCF' — —'I F •n er O ko 0 —8100 - � 50/8 • p ' 8100 Tow, Z F- – -- �Or _ z Q _ ;.fke .;,. Q 50/1 -n w _ — m wd ...q94 _ —I �.:� 8090 — 8090 00 50/9 _ cx Q %` 4 - • Vi �;:" �.�. 50/6 – !ft`, I ' 8080 – 50/6 8080 r K)°< b J�QSI – _ • 'ms' ' -• .4 4th, •s — 1150/5 —8070 8070 — —8060 8060 — C LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report JOB NO. 02-057 Page C-38 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. • • Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C —8140 8140 - - TH-13 - (02-057) - APP.EL. 8132.7 - - �� TH-14 8130 � (02-057) 8130 — 41 T ,4i APP.EL. 8126.1 - 32 T I :♦I - ! - 18 T ��II 47/12 _ —8120 17 T I 17 T .:. 8120 — 19 T III 50/6 - 68 T ��j 86 T 156 T �� 60 T �� - 50/3 '♦' - - 103 T �� 29 T �� 8110 82T I. St.' 71 T 8110 - . ■ w 89 T 58 T 50/6 - m w L`JI 50/3 +_� _ m LL _ 66T i. , D Z – 76T – -1 Z 8100 132 T— 8100 — Z O — °° _ _ H - 20 T o........ Z Q _ o:::::::a 46/6 - -n > — WC=9 m w _ -200=13 – rn J -I w - —8090 8090 —8080 8080 — —8070 8070 — —8060 8060 rhie LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report JOB NO. 02-057 Page C-39 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ® Consulting Geotechnical Engineers -1 (98-358)H-1 TH C —8130 APP.EL. 8128 8130 — ■ • 15/12 _ WC=6 -200=11 8120 TH-15 8120 (02-057) -3 33/12 APP.EL. 8115.2 ?4,iO3 WC=4-200=14 #. a Qe —8110 `A 8110 15/12 18 T �� — 37 T - ,.Jam. 8100 41 T ., _ 8100 _ 62 T—_ - w _ 60 T n_ 50/2 _ w – _ < w Z _ – —i 4.„ 8090 8090 — _ 1- - Z < _ > w _ — m w – 8080 8080 — —8070 8070 — —8060 8060 — —8050 8050 C LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report JOB NO. 02-057 Page C-40 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. • Consulting Geotechnical Engineers -8130 TH-2 8130 - (98-358) - APP.EL. 8125 ay. 50/6 8120 - —8120 ti4. yam., -8110 8110 -� - s 8100 8100 - w r w m w _ < - Z _ — —I ° _8090 8090 0 H _ _ w _ m -8080 8080 -8070 8070 - -8060 8060 - -8050 8050 L LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report JOB NO. 02-057 Page C-41 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers LEGEND: ■ ASPHALT ."V". FILL, Sand, Gravelly, Silty, Clayey, Cobbles, Boulders, _- Wood, Concrete, Building materials, Dry to moist, Red, Brown, Black, Tan. r'1-!" , SAND and GRAVEL, Silty, Clayey, Cobbles, Boulders, Dense to very dense, Slightly moist to wet, Red to brown. 7—I SAND, Silty, Very little gravel, Very moist to saturated, Very Dense, Brown. COBBLES AND BOULDERS, Sandy, Gravelly, Slightly moist to wet, oir • Very dense, Brown. TOPSOIL WATER. Indicates depth of water encountered while drilling. —► CAVING. Indicates depth of caving soils while drilling. REFUSAL. Indicates practical drill rig refusal. WATER. Indicates depth of water measured after drilling. T EQUIVALENT BLOW COUNT. Indicates equivalent standard penetration blow count of 65 for 12 inches of penetration calculated from continuous hammer blow of the percussion hammer investigation rig. ' SPLIT SPOON DRIVE SAMPLE. The symbol 29/6 indicates that 29 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a 2.0 inch O.D. sampler 6 inches. SLOTTED PVC PIPE. Indicates that a 2.0 inch diameter slotted pvc pipe was installed for water monitoring BULK SAMPLE. Obtained from auger cuttings. LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report JOB NO. 02-057 Page C-42 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers LEGEND: Notes: 1. Exploratory borings TH-1 (98-358) and TH-2 (98-358) were drilled for our previous investigation Job No. 98-358 on November 11, 1998 using a 4-inch diameter continuous flight auger. Exploratory borings TH-1 thru TH-8 and TH-13 thru TH-15 for this investigation were drilled on June 10 thru 13, 2002 using a percussion hammer drill rig. Exploratory borings TH-9 thru TH- 12 for this investigation were drilled on May 30, 2002 and June 3, 6, and 7, 2002 using an ODEX downhole hammer drill rig. 2. Ground water was encountered at depths of 21.0 feet in TH-1, 18.0 feet in TH-8, 24.0 feet in TH-9, 21.5 feet in TH-10, 19.0 feet in TH-11, • 12.0 feet in TH-12, 27.0 feet in TH-14, and 16.7 feet in TH-15 at the time of drilling. 3. The Boring Logs are subject to the explanations, limitations, and conclusions as contained in this report. 4. Laboratory Test Results: WC - Indicates natural moisture (%) -200 - Indicates percent passing the No. 200 sieve (%) 5. Approximate elevations for borings drilled for this investigation (TH-1 thru TH-15) were measured by Peak Land Surveying. Approximate elevations for borings TH-1 (98-358) and TH-2 (98-358) were estimated from the topographic map obtained from Peak Land Surveying. LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report JOB NO. 02 057 Page C-43 KO CHLEIN CONSULTING ENG EERS 0 4r6; 100 I I i 1 1 • NI 1 I 1 IL 1 1 � 1 I � 10 90 I 11 . II ( 1 1 1 I III I I I 1 1 ! I I ! 20 80 I . I I 1 I . 1 I 1 I d 1 1 I 30 070 I . 1I 1 I 11 M Z I 1 . 1 I 1 I I i , I ao I 1 m in ! 1 1 I II11 -z-i I I 1 d 50 i i l I I I I f I I i I I 50 m U 40 I I I I I . I 1 11 I 1 I i ( 80 Z z c � I m a 30 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I ( 70 0 20 1I 1 1 t 80 11 ! I 1 1 1 ' ' 1 11 90 1 1 I I 1 I I 10 0 III 1 II 111 1111 1 I 11 1 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001' DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" I GRAVEL SAND I SILT CLAY Sample of SAND,Gravelly GRAVEL 19 % SAND 77 % Source TH-I (02-057) Sample No. EIevJDepth 39.0 feet SILT&CLAY 4 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX % ce10 — /1'n Or q7 1 1 1 1 I10 1 1 I 1 1 I • I i I • 20 80 1 1 •►�1 I I 30 1 II m z 70 I1 I I i I I 40 m 0 Q60 I I I 1 1 I z d I i I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 50 z I— 50 . 1 1 m II � 11 z CL I I ' I I I I I 1- 1 1 1 i so v a 30 1 I I I I I 1 I 70 {I 1 20 1 1 i 11 I 80 II 10 1 I I I 90 1 0 I ill 1 I , I 1 I I . I I I , I 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" I GRAVEL I SAND I SILT I CLAY Sample of SAND,Gravelly.Silty GRAVEL 37 % SAND 41 % Source TH-6(02-057) Sample No. Elev./Depth 19.0!feet SILT&CLAY 22 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX C GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 02-057 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page C-44 KCCHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS 100 i ' � -'- I I •a I i 0 I - l i ; I I II I � , G II I ' 111 11 III I 1111 1 ! I I 1 20 1 1 r 60 1II I 1 111 1 ' II II ► 30 X ? '0 IIII ' 1II , III i! II I II II II ! I 40 E 60 1 1 1 l !�! 111 I I ' i 1 I I I 1 � ' Z i I 1 m a Ili I I I II � I I I 1 I i1 so ~ so 11 I I III 11 .) i I 11 1 1 1 I 1f it 11 m w I I I I I 1 I I i 1 I , , 1 11 I I 60 D a• 40 1 l I I II II , I ! II 1 1 I I III ► II 1 om CC 30 1 1 ii II 20 • I III ! _ I I, � ! ! 80 111 I ' i 1 ' I I i If11111 1 ,a ,; 11111 1 I III I I i I I I , 90 1 ! j j I Iii I I 1 ;III 1 I I 1 1 1 ! ! I I I I 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL 1 SAND SILT I CLAY Sample of SAND,Silty GRAVEL 0 % SAND 73 Source TH-9(02-057) Sample No. EIev./Depth 36.0 feet SILT&CLAY 27 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX 3wm ,n.n35 ra aiq a a3" :+n 0 sir •+I9 1°1 ,� ,0o'��1rj T"� 1 ,1 1 . � I I 1 t, I � '� I � i 10 90 IIII I ' I III I I 11 I I 1 1 I I ! ( l I I 1 20 80 III I I I 1 t 1111 1 1 I I I I HH 111 I 40n �• 80 , I 1 11 ` I I I rn a. III I III 111 � 1 � 1 50 ! z X l I m W 50 i 1 1 I � I11 I 1 80 � U• 40 1 I Z a 30 I! i1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I (11 ( m 70 l it I I II II I I I III 1 80 20 111 I I. I I V I 11 90 10 1 ! ! 1 III ! I ► iI I , I too 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND I SILT I CLAY Sample of SAND,Gravelly, Silty GRAVEL 33 % SAND 54 Source TH-14(02-057) Sample No. Elev./Depth 29.0 feet SILT&CLAY 13 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 02-057 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page C-45 KOCHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS y,� I �I +-vl I i j m i m M I in 3B i° r I I I I e!p a •3o I I uI 9 I I I 1 T I I ? 7 *''0 ° ! � 1 il I II � i ' 1 I I I i I 1 I 1 i I I I I 1il L , H I I I I! 1!90 • i I ! ! 1! ! I !I 80 11 II! 1 NIH I II I I J I , , 70 30 -0 I ! ! I i ! 1 Z 1 I I I 60 n a f 1 I -I: I l 1 1 1111 ! W 50 I I I I i 1 I I 1 ! I ► I I ! ! I 11 I 1 I I I II I ►Ii I I I I I I! 11 I I,_ I�I I I I i ao 1 I l D III I ! I Ia ! ► I I ►! o 30 � I !I; I I II I 1I I 20 80 1; I I 1 1 -I l i i II I I _ ,° 90 lli I iI I I I III I I I i1 100 200 100 10 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" I GRAVEL I SAND 1 SILT CLAY Sample of FILL,SAND,Gravelly,Silty GRAVEL 39 % SAND 50 Source TH-1(98-358) Sample No. Elev./Depth 4.0 feet SILT&CLAY 11 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX % /0“r 1n 7 x1 sv0 t Yd 5'� 31� ° st6 � e ,°° ICI ! Mi, I i l ! I 'I ' . iI II l i ►Ii i I I l l l ,0 9° 11 ! ! N., ► 1 ! III 1 _ I 20 60 III ∎ ! 1 11► 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ► 3° �z 7° 1 ► 1 l ` V I I I H I H I V I I I a X60 1 1 I �'-! z 0.. II I I 1 I I I I I I ! I I ! I 50 x I : } j I I I m Z I 1 I � 1 1 ! 60 D 40 111 1 I CC II 1 I I 11L l I I 1 I 20 ! I I I i I ! I I l I 1 I ! I 80 10 I 11 I I I I I I 111 1 1 I I 1 I 90 ° 1 ! 1 1 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND I SILT CLAY Sample of SAND and GRAVEL. Silty GRAVEL 45 % SAND 41 Source TH-1(98-358) Sample No. Elev./Depth 9.0 feet SILT&CLAY 14 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX GRADATION TEST RESULTS Job No. 02-057 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page C-46 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers a. __iv CONCRETE FOOTING -iii- --71 EXISTING 1 \--11 EXISTING FILL COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL \ FILL (SEE REPORT FOR COMPACTION RECOMMENDATIONS) =111-1 11-I I I-I 11=1 11= '"fir 1Ti—iiii_i i- FIRM NATURAL SOIL EDGE OF EXCAVATION (EXCAVATE AS PER OSHA REGULATIONS) ..— FOUNDATION EXCAVATION RECOMMENDATION JOB NO. 02-057 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page C-47 KOE iHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers CLAYEY BACKFILL 10 1I I MANUFACTURED ii. III=III II 'f WALL DRAIN I I� I COMPACTED GRANULAR BELOW GRADE WALL BACKFILL EDGE OF EXCAVATION u V (EXCAVATE AS PER /1 OSHA REGULATIONS) IA I I I 17-WATERPROOFING I I I I FILTER FABRIC GRAVEL I PLASTIC SHEETING 12" MIN. PERFORATED PIPE 'Now. NOTES: 1. DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES BELOW TOP OF FOOTING AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 2. EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO FOOTINGS SHOULD BE CUT AT A 1 TO 1 (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) OR FLATTER SLOPE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTINGS UNLESS SHORING IS PROVIDED. EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO FOOTINGS SHOULD NOT BE CUT VERTICALLY AND SHOULD BE AVOIDED WHERE EVER POSSIBLE BY LOCATING THE EXCAVATION AWAY FROM THE FOOTING UNLESS SHORING IS PROVIDED. 3. THE DRAIN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. 4. GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: WASHED 1.5 INCH TO NO. 4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 3% PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. 5. THE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM MOISTURE INFILTRATION BY APPLYING A SPRAYED ON MASTIC WATERPROOFING OR AN EQUIVALENT PROTECTION METHOD. 6. THE PERFORATED PIPE SIZE SHOULD BE DETERMINED DURING THE PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM DESIGN FOR THE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL JOB NO. 02-057 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page C-48 KOFCHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers CLAYEY BACKFILL 10 I MANUFACTURED �I 1 i WALL DRAIN II COMPACTED GRANULAR RETAINING WALL BACKFILL EDGE OF EXCAVATION (EXCAVATE AS PER OSHA REGULATIONS) I I WATERPROOFING I I FILTER FAB*IC GR•VEL • VAO0O PERFORATED PIPE NOTES: 1. DRAIN SHOULD BE SLOPED DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 2. THE DRAIN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. 3. GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: WASHED 1 .5 INCH TO NO. 4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 3% PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. 4. THE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM MOISTURE INFILTRATION BY APPLYING A SPRAYED ON MASTIC WATERPROOFING OR AN EQUIVALENT PROTECTION METHOD. 5. THE PERFORATED PIPE SIZE SHOULD BE DETERMINED DURING THE PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM DESIGN FOR THE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL JOB NO.02-057 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page C-49 • U z_ �' T T T UJ >> V] V; �' _; w >- r a6 s 6 `.. < U' C7 > L W o z Z Z M = < FE 0 z z z rip </) z J J < D r.-. v) cn z 0 U Z_ * W G.r ^� J UZ = _w "� � -, 0 vJ H z > L1 - z � o N (N M H O V] O w < N H ..- >- O 2 U 0 n < - - - M o O , 2 2 z 3 J a Q � o o rc• 7 o E-- < O m z 2 a) ca o O o O O 0 C- M o, a; a; 7 a a) ( ] M M N d N. c) 9 0 r-' s c o c o ,, o O o ° M .' O N N N NO Z O - Q Z O - 4 .2. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page C-50 1 4010 J i L 1, PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED 5 LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT TENNIS COURT SITES 1 VAIL, COLORADO ] ] rCKKK/� � . �,,_� kit. Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. •� l�� Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Y T NC 7 3 si. .A- 12364 W. Alameda Pkwy • Suite 115 . Lakewood, CO 80228-2845 �4 -1- LAKEWOOD AVON /SILVERTHORNE 4, - (303)989-1223 (970)949-6009 l ' 4, )l,W�� (303)989-0204 FAX (970)949-9223 FAX Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page D-1 �KKKKKk. oN h echlein consulting-Engineers, Inc. Y'. , Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Y x Y x 12364 W. Alameda Pkwy • Suite 115 • Lakewood, CO 80228-2845 www.KCEDenver.com 4��' '�� LAKEWOOD AVON/SILVERTHORNE ��43(N)1 l�►�. (303) 989-1223 (970) 949-6009 (303) 989-0204 FAX (970) 949-9223 FAX June 16,2003 Jack Hunn Vail Resorts Development Company P.O.Box 959 Avon,CO 81620-0959 Subject: Site Plan Revision Proposed Residential Development Lionshead Redevelopment Tennis Court Sites Vail,Colorado Job No.02-059 As requested we have prepared this letter to acknowledge that the proposed residential development as presented in our report entitled "Preliminary Soils Investigation, Proposed 5 Lot Residential Development, Lionshead Redevelopment, Tennis Court 0 Sites,Vail,Colorado",dated June 6,2002,Job No. 02-059 has changed. In our aforementioned report, we had anticipated that a 5 lot residential development was to be constructed. However, we understand that plans have changed and that a 4 single-family lot residential development will now be constructed. We should review the proposed changes to verify that the recommendations within our report are valid for the new subdivision plans. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service. If we can be of further assistance,please contact our office. KOEC, sc� T��,yJ�TING ENGINEERS,INC. 33822 •1.4,,. ... Scott B. My�ri„W. Senior Engineer Reviewed by: (9.a9,..2,4, 11)1A,51_,,___. W:..X, 1 , William H.Koechlein,P.E. President C (3 copies sent) Lionshead Redevelopment cc: Ms.Tracy Hart-42/40 Architecture,Inc. Environmental Impact Report Page D-2 • • KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED 5 LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT TENNIS COURT SITES VAIL, COLORADO '� * o•'. B. My Fes/ �'• G• •e>�S Prepared for: Andrew Catford Vail Resorts Development Company t P.O. Box 959 E A cl Avon, CO 81620-0959 o a te E cs Job No. 02-059 June 6, 2002 , ca � o DENVER: 12364 West Alameda Prkwy.,Suite 115,Lakewood, CO 80228(303)989-1223 AVON/SILVERTHORNE: (970) 949-6009 June 6,2002 ID KOECHLEIONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers PC TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SITE CONDITIONS 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS 4 INVESTIGATION 4 1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 RADON 6 GROUND WATER 6 CONDITIONS INFLUENCING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7 FOUNDATIONS 8 FLOORS 9 FOUNDATION DRAINAGE 9 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION 10 SITE WORK 10 General 10 IL Cut Slopes 11 Fill Slopes 12 Retaining Walls 12 Compacted Fill 13 SITE DRAINAGE 14 jPRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 15 Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design 15 Preliminary Rigid Pavement Design 17 FURTHER INVESTIGATION 17 1 LIMITATIONS 17 VICINITY MAP Fig. 1 LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 3 LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 4 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figs. 5 and 6 TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL Fig. 7 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Table I ILLionshead Redevelopment 1 Environmental Impact Report Page D-4 June 6,2002 KOECHLEI•ONSULTI.NG ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers „ c SCOPE This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the E proposed 5 lot residential development as part of the Lionshead Redevelopment at the existing tennis courts in Vail, Colorado. The approximate site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Fig. 1. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the development of the site. a„ This report includes descriptions of subsurface soil, bedrock and ground water conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, the geotechnical conditions A influencing the proposed development and recommendations for development of the site. CThis report presents general subsurface conditions for the proposed development. A site specific geotechnical investigation should be performed for the individual residential building or retaining structure locations when the locations, elevations and size of the 1 structures are known. The general recommendations presented in this report are based on the subsurface conditions encountered within the exploratory borings and our experience with similar developments. A summary of our findings and conclusions is presented below. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings varied. ] _ The subsurface conditions encountered within exploratory borings TH-1 1 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page D-5 1 June 6,2002 KOECHLEIONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and TH-2 consisted of 2 to 3 inches of asphalt underlain by either a granular roadbase or a granular fill to varying depths of 2.0 to 14.0 feet. The existing fill was characterized by a medium dense, gravelly, clayey sand. Below the existing fill or roadbase, to the maximum depth explored of 30.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of a natural, medium dense to very dense, silty, clayey, gravelly sand with scattered cobbles and boulders. The subsurface conditions encountered within boring TH-3 consisted of 3 inches of asphalt with 12 inches of roadbase underlain by a natural, very dense, silty, clayey, gravelly sand with some cobbles and boulders to a depth of 12.0 feet. Below the natural gravelly sand in TH-3, to the maximum depth explored of 20.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of a very hard, silty sandstone bedrock. 2. Existing fill to a depth of 14.0 feet was encountered within the exploratory borings. All existing fill within the development should be removed. If after removing the existing fill final grades for the redevelopment require the placement of new fill, the new fill should be properly moisture treated and compacted. 3. Any topsoil will need to be removed from all construction areas prior to construction. The topsoil may be used in landscaping areas. 4. At the time of this investigation, no free ground water was encountered in the exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored of 30.0 feet. 5. In our opinion, the natural, gravelly sand or sandstone will support spread footing foundation systems for structures within the proposed development provided that certain precautions are followed. Refer to the FOUNDATIONS section of this report for more information. 6. In our opinion, the gravelly sand or sandstone encountered throughout the development will support slab-on-grade floors. Refer to the FLOORS section of this report for more information. 7. We anticipate that cut slopes over 10 feet in height may be required for development of the subject site. All cut slopes greater than 10 feet in height must be evaluated by a Professional Geotechnical Engineer. Refer to the SITE WORK section of this report for additional cut slope recommendations. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 2 Page D-6 1 4111 June 6,2002 KOECHLEI CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 1 8. Retaining walls and fills may need to be constructed for the development of the subject site. Refer to the SITE WORK section of this report for Hadditional details. 9. Utilities will need to be installed for the proposed development. Because medium dense to very dense, gravel?y sand and very hard sandstone were encountered within the exploratory borings, it is our opinion that heavy- duty excavation equipment will be required to complete excavations within the proposed development. 10. The potential for radon gas is a concern in the area. Building designs within the developments should include ventilation systems for below grade areas such as crawl spaces and basements. i SITE CONDITIONS t The proposed site consists of existing tennis courts and pro shop and is located at 565 Forest Road in Vail, Colorado. Gore Creek is located to the north of the subject site while Forest Road borders the southern boundary of the site. Existing tennis courts are located in the northern half of the site. A narrow access road from Forest Road provides access to the tennis courts. The access road is located along the west and north sides of the subject site. The tennis courts and area immediately surrounding the courts is generally y level. The south half of the site consists of landscaped areas and an existing pro shop building. The existing building is buried into the hillside. The south half of the site kF_ slopes down towards the north at an approximate grade of 35 percent. Based on observations of the topography of the surrounding areas, we believe that the tennis courts ;,3 and existing building were created using a combination of cuts and fills. The total kg/ elevation difference across the entire site is approximately 32 feet. Overall drainage of Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 3 Page D-7 9 June 6,2002 • KOECHLE•ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers M M y;. the site is down towards the north. Vegetation on the site consists of grass, trees and bushes. , i PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS We anticipate that the subject site will be developed into single-family residential I l lots. At the time of our investigation, a preliminary site plan showing the approximate lot -] boundaries was provided by the owner. Based on the preliminary' site plan, five residential lots will be created during the development of the site. We anticipate that the existing building on the site will be removed and possibly replaced with compacted fill as part of the development of the site. In addition to removing the existing building, we believe that utilities, retaining walls, cut slopes, fill slopes and pavements will be constructed as part of the development of the subject site. The pavements will probably consist of flexible asphalt pavement. Maximum column and wall loads for the structures ,i were assumed to be those normally associated with single-family residential structures. T 1 INVESTIGATION Subsurface conditions for the proposed development were investigated at this site 3 on May 28, 2002 by drilling three exploratory borings with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. The locations of the exploratory borings were selected based on the accessibility of the site. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are Lionshead Redevelopment l'' Environmental Impact Report 4 Page D-8 June 6,2002 • KOECHLEI•ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. -ic Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers ,I presented on the Locations of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. An engineer from our office was on the site to observe the drilling of the exploratory borings and visually classify and ''l document the subsurface soil, bedrock and ground water conditions. A description of the 5 subsurface soils and bedrock encountered in the exploratory borings is shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 3; and on the Legend of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 4. Representative soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings were tested in our laboratory in order to determine ry their natural moisture content, dry density and ,i gradation properties. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 3; on the Gradation Test Results, Figs. 5 and 6; and in the J Summary of Laboratory Test Results, Table I. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings varied. The subsurface conditions encountered within exploratory borings TH-1 and TH-2 consisted P ry � j of 2 to 3 inches of asphalt underlain by either a granular roadbase or a granular fill to varying depths of 2.0 to 14.0 feet. The existing fill was characterized by a brown, moist, medium dense, gravelly, clayey sand. Below the existing fill or roadbase, to the maximum depth explored of 30.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of a natural, brown, dry to moist, medium dense to very dense, silty, clayey, gravelly sand with scattered cobbles and boulders. The subsurface conditions encountered within boring riLionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 'I ,., 5 Page D-9 .. ] 0 • June 6,2002 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers ,icv TH-3 consisted of 3 inches of asphalt with 12 inches of roadbase underlain by a natural, reddish brown, dry, very dense, silty, clayey, gravelly sand with some cobbles and boulders to a depth of 12.0 feet. Below the natural gravelly sand in TH-3, to the maximum depth explored of 20.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of a reddish L brown, dry, very hard, silty sandstone bedrock. At the time of this investigation, no free ground water was encountered in the exploratory borings to the m p ry � maximum depth explored of 30.0 feet. RADON In recent years, radon gas has become a concern. Radon gas is a colorless, ..111W odorless gas that is produced by the decay of minerals in soil and rock. The potential for radon gas in the subsurface strata of mountain terrain is likely. Structures constructed within the development with below grade areas should be designed with proper ventilation for the below grade areas. GROUND WATER At the time of this investigation, ground water was not encountered in the 3 exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored of 30.0 feet. Based on the ri conditions exposed within the borings, we do not anticipate that ground water will adversely influence the construction of the proposed development. However, our :._I Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 6 Page D-10 I June 6,2002 • KOECHLEJ ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers m investigation was performed during a dry time of the year. It is possible that ground water may be encountered at higher elevations during wetter times of the year. CONDITIONS INFLUENCING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 Construction of the development will require excavation of the subsurface soils. These soils consisted of existing granular fill, natural gravelly sand and sandstone. Because very dense, gravelly avell sand and hard sandstone were encountered within the exploratory borings, it is our opinion that heavy duty construction equipment will be _i required to complete the necessary excavations. Up to 14.0 feet of existing fill was encountered within the exploratory borings. We recommend that no structure be constructed on the existing fill. All existing fill within the development should be removed. If after removing the existing fill final grades for the development require the placement of new fill, the new fill should be properly moisture treated and compacted. We anticipate that cut and fill slopes greater than 10 feet in height may be required for development of the subject site. All cut and fill slopes greater than 10 feet in height should be analyzed for stability by a Professional Geotechnical Engineer. Refer to E, the SITE WORK section of this report for additional details. Because locations of residential buildings or retaining structures within the development are unknown at this time, we recommend that site specific subsurface ..1c Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 7 Page D-11 j • 0 June 6,2002 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers investigations be performed when the location, elevation and size of each structure within the development is known. The site specific investigations may involve the drilling of additional borings or possibly the excavation of deep test pits. If requested, we can perform the site specific investigations. Y.-W-' FOUNDATIONS The materials at potential foundation elevations consisted of the existing granular fill, natural gravelly sand or sandstone bedrock. In our opinion, the existing fill will not safely support spread footing foundations. However, it is our opinion that the natural gravelly sand or the sandstone will support spread footing foundation systems. All (0 existing fill should be excavated to the gravelly sand prior to foundation construction. In addition, if both the natural gravelly sand and sandstone are exposed at the design foundation elevation, we recommend that the entire excavation be excavated to the sandstone. We do not recommend that structures within the development be supported rj by a combination of soil and bedrock. We anticipate that spread footing foundation systems for the residential structures within the proposed development may be designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure varying from 3,500 psf to 5,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure will depend on the final location and elevation of the foundation for the proposed residential buildings and the subsurface conditions beneath those locations. The maximum allowable bearing pressure and specific design Lionshead Redevelopment III I Environmental Impact Report 8 Page D-12 June 6,2002 KOECHLEIONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers ii recommendations can be better defined during the site specific investigations. FLOORS The materials at potential floor slab elevations consist of existing granular fill, gravelly sand and sandstone. In our opinion, the existing fill will not safely support slab- on-grade floors. However, the natural, gravelly sand and the sandstone will safely support slab-on-grade floors with nil to low risk of movement. The soils and bedrock pP gT that can safely support slab-on-grade floors can be better defined in the site specific investigations. IIFOUNDATION DRAINAGE Surface water, especially that originating from rain or snowmelt, tends to flow through relatively permeable backfill typically found adjacent to foundations. The water that flows through the fill collects on the surface of relatively impermeable soils occurring at the foundation elevation. Both this surface water and possible ground water can cause wet or moist below grade conditions after construction. Since we anticipate below grade areas will be constructed for the proposed residential buildings within the development, we recommend the installation of a drain 3 along the below grade foundation walls. For planning purposes, the drain should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe encased in free draining gravel and a manufactured lo .'" Lionshead Redevelopment Ill Environmental Impact Report 9 Page D-13 1. June 6,2002 • •KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. 'ic) Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers i,.-, wall drain. The drain should be sloped so that water flows to a sump where the water can be removed by pumping, or to a positive gravity outlet. Recommended details for a typical foundation wall drain are presented in the Typical Wall Drain Detail, Fig. 7. UTILITY CONSTRUCTION Yw Construction of utilities below grade will require the excavation of the subsurface soils. We anticipate these soils will consist of existing granular fill, gravelly sand and p existing � � gT Y sandstone. Because very dense, gravelly sand and very hard sandstone were encountered within the borings, it is our opinion that heavy-duty construction equipment will be J required to complete the necessary excavations for utilities. The existing granular fill, cogravelly sand and the weathered sandstone classify as Type B soils in accordance with OSHA regulations. Any non-weathered sandstone will classify as Type A soils in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA regulations should be followed in any 1 excavation. SITE WORK General Construction of the access roads, retaining walls and general site grading will require cuts and fills to obtain the desired grades. Any cut or fill slopes greater than 10 feet in height should be evaluated by a Professional Geotechnical Engineer. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 10 Page D-14 'I] 1 June 6,2002 • KOECHLE� INCONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. jJob No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Retaining wall systems may be required in some areas to reduce the extent of cuts and fills. We anticipate that on-site granular fill, gravelly sand and crushed ox sandstone may be used in fill areas for development of the subject site. Large slabs of sandstone should not be used in fill areas. Large slabs of sandstone may be used for boulder retaining walls or boulder faced slopes. Proper moisture treating of the natural soils will be required prior to or during placement and compaction of fill. Surface drainage should be carefully y evaluated during design and construction of the proposed development. Slopes above and around retaining walls, cut slopes and fill slopes should be graded so that positive drainage is maintained away from these structures. ce Cut Slopes Li Any cut slopes, which are greater than 10 feet in height, should be evaluated for stability on an individual basis. If requested, we can perform the evaluation of 3 these slopes. In general, slopes of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) up to 10 feet in height I should be stable, if properly drained. Surface drainage should be carefully designed to divert surface water away from the slopes. All cut slopes should be vegetated as ] soon as possible after construction. 9 F Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 11 Page D-15 _i June 6,2002 KOECHLEI•ONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers IV -iiFill Slopes A We anticipate that fills over 10 feet will be required for the development of the subject site. Any fill slope greater than 10 feet in height should be evaluated for stability on an individual basis. If requested, we can perform the evaluation of these slopes. In general, fill slopes of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) up to 10 feet in height should be stable, if properly drained. Fill slopes may be constructed with on-site Ai soils and crushed sandstone free of deleterious materials or an approved imported j Pp P granular fill. Refer to the Compacted Fill section of this report for specific fill recommendations. Retaining Walls jRetaining walls may be needed or desired to reduce the magnitude of cuts or fills for development of the subject site. The types of walls that are possible on this site are conventional concrete retaining walls, MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) walls, timber crib walls and boulder retaining walls. The retaining walls need to be g designed to resist lateral earth pressures. Lateral earth pressures depend on the type of backfill, slope of ground surface behind the retaining wall, height of retaining / wall, and type of retaining wall. We can provide the required investigations and ii possibly the designs, or the geotechnical design criteria, for the retaining walls once the specific site layout and proposed construction are finalized. ti Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 12 Page D-16 June 6,2002 • KOECHLEIONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers TI Compacted Fill Structural fill for this project may consist of the on-site existing granular fill, gravelly sand, crushed sandstone or approved imported non-expansive fill. The existing granular fill may be used as structural fill for this project provided it is free of deleterious material. The imported fill may consist of non-expansive silty or clayey sands or gravels with up to 35 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and a maximum plasticity index of 10. No cobbles or boulders larger than 6 inches should be placed in fill areas. Fill areas should be stripped of all vegetation and topsoil, scarified, and then compacted. Topsoil may be used in landscape areas. Where fill will be placed on existing slopes, the existing slopes should be benched prior to the placement and compaction of fill. Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts then moisture treated and compacted as shown in the following table. The recommended compaction varies for the given use of the fill. rjLionshead Redevelopment 13 Environmental Impact Report Page D-17 June 6,2002 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers i C Recommended Compaction Percentage of the Percentage of the Percentage of the Use of Fill Standard Proctor Modified Proctor Optimum Maximum Dry Maximum Dry Moisture Content Density Density (ASTM D-698 4 (ASTM D-698) (ASTM D-1557) or D-1557)1 Overlot Fill (Inside building envelope) 98 95 -2 to +2 Overlot Fill (Outside building envelope) 95 90 -2 to +2 Access Road and Below Pavements 95 90 -2 to +2 Utility Trench Backfill 95 90 -2 to +2 i; Backfill (Non-Structural/Landscaping) 90 90 -2 to +2 Notes: 1. For clay soils the moisture content should be 0 to +2 percent of the optimum moisture content. For granular soils the moisture content should be—2 to +2 of the optimum moisture content. ' We recommend that a representative from our office observe and test the 1 filoplacement and compaction of fill for development of the subject property. Fill placed p be low building envelopes and access roads is considered structural. It has been our experience that without engineering quality control, poor construction techniques can occur which result in premature failure of roads and fills. t SITE DRAINAGE Surface drainage should be carefully evaluated during design and construction of the development. Overall drainage of the site is generally down to the north. Construction areas should be carefully sloped to reduce the possibility of infiltration of surface water into the cut and fill slopes. In addition, slopes above and around retaining ii, walls, cut slopes and fill slopes should be graded so that positive drainage is maintained Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 14 Page D-18 �z i June 6,2002 0 KOECHLEIIONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers c away from these structures at all times. The surface drainage of the development should -) be evaluated prior to establishing final grades. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ' It is anticipated that the roads within the development will be paved. Based on the subsurface conditions, it is our opinion that flexible asphalt and rigid concrete —i pavements are possible. We anticipate that both flexible pavement and rigid pavement could be used at this site. We recommend that rigid pavement be used in high traffic areas such as 1 entrances or where heavy vehicles (trash trucks, delivery trucks, etc.) turn or maneuver. jcp, Two preliminary pavement sections are presented for the flexible pavements. The following sections present design assumptions and preliminary flexible and rigid pavement sections. In order to properly design the required pavement sections, we i recommend when final subgrade elevations have been achieved, a final subgrade and pavement investigation be performed. Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design iThe design of the preliminary flexible pavement was based upon an 1- Equivalent Daily Load Application (EDLA), laboratory test results and the Colorado Department of Transportation pavement design manual. Preliminary design il IC Lionshead Redevelopment 15 Environmental Impact Report Page D-19 June 6,2002 • KOECHLEIIONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers I c calculations were based on engineering soil characteristics from soil samples encountered in the exploratory borings to a depth of 4.0 feet. Based on laboratory tests and visual observations of the soils, we anticipate that the soils, to a depth of 4.0 feet, will classify as A-1-b soils, as defined by the AASHTO Classification system. The preliminary pavement designs are based on the subgrade soils having an AASHTO classification of A-1-b. This soil type was assumed to have a Hveem Stabilometer R-value of 75. The R-value was estimated from the AASHTO classification of the soil. Because the R-value of the natural soil was assumed to be -1 75, the use of roadbase will not reduce the thickness of pavement. However, l roadbase may be required to establish a suitable finished grade prior to paving. The (0, EDLA for a small residential development was assumed to be 5. Two flexible / pavement designs, based on the above method, are shown below in Table A. These flexible pavement designs include two full depth asphalt pavements. 1 Table A I 6Summary of Preliminary Flexible Pavement Alternatives �.v Full-Depth Asphalt Full-Depth Asphalt+Roadbase (inches) (inches) 4.0 4.0 + 2.0 to 4.0 Note: Because the R-value of the natural soil was assumed to be 75, the use of roadbase will not reduce the amount of pavement. However, roadbase may be required to establish a suitable finished grade prior to paving, we have assumed 2.0 to 4.0 inches of roadbase will be used as a leveling course. i fkw Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 16 Page D-20 June 6,2002 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No 02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers _ic Preliminary Rigid Pavement Design I A preliminary rigid pavement section was designed using the same values of li the EDLA and R-value as those used in the flexible pavement design. The Colorado Department of Transportation pavement design manual, along with the above mentioned design values, were used to determine a rigid pavement section. The preliminary rigid pavement design resulted in a design section of 5.0 inches of concrete. FURTHER INVESTIGATION to The subsurface conditions for the subject development varied throughout the site. Because the location, elevation and size of the proposed residential or retaining structures within the development are not known at this time, we recommend that site ° jspecific investigations be performed when the locations, elevations and size of the proposed structures are known. If requested, we can perform the site specific J investigations. 9 LIMITATIONS l Our exploratory borings were located to obtain a general determination of subsurface soil, bedrock and ground water conditions for the proposed development. However, variations in the subsurface conditions, which were not indicated by our ic Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report -1 17 Page D-21 June 6,2002 0 KOECHLEGCONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.02-059 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers i) borings are always possible. Any variations that exist beneath the development generally become evident during construction of utilities, access road or overlot grading. This report was prepared based on the conditions disclosed by our exploratory borings. This report presents the general subsurface conditions and guidelines for planning and design purposes. Individual site specific investigations should be performed for the proposed residential or retaining structures on the subject site when the location, elevation and size of structures are known. ---] We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service. If we can be of further r assistance in discussing the contents of this report or in analyses of the subsurface conditions, please contact our office. KOWOIM ONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 46°414,‘A• -c B.4;y• f"� P `p 3;;:;22 Si ] ::-13• 3 itc%11�� 1��,, �\`\\\ Scott B. Myers, P.E. Senior Engineer Reviewed by: Y :: //) =— i7 74.00 i William N. Houlette, P.E. Senior Engineer ille (4 copies sent) Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 18 Page D-22 HLEIN CONSG GE , Consulting ULTIN GeotechnicaEN INl Engineers il :` v:; r+, r*n, �d t' S s -;-,,,5q---:x.s , e" w Y, S « t; £§; . �„? V F c , a% F1,; d v ''} y y :ii ' o§tf r a ' .;s '. k 4 �, - , ' „ 'r { j{ .K C�1, p�� c- ,,,,,;=, b %. '%•7„,,p- 4,1,- 15. cdti � 4 } k'V a w 0,,,,,; :4,..4q1 '' k`,d'� � :¢::00-;:i':.';::+. "5, ,.--1 s r O i, 3° � „ q i 1;4'1' .` 3 a r n e s1 ;,d ,x 3' �'.V U.z a i 6 � �� r � ts e i a ., t - � .' )1 f ! g ;, t '"x r x 4, R� rya y�x _fi l a°adte0 4 v „" �r,-..-.4,-' ^, � 's - �+� 1 ,Y `` Pi baava1'. , -?i 0 a " . ` 'm„, r a "g. 3 w . s �� n` z r /;j W 1 a 7w f� me t '?: e1 g� aZ-e.* 3 `w" t 'tt',^ i�" �xn" , -0 z �`eK�2R �< 4:19:4:',`,. k,, .;-: - k � � i �;ZC ,'>�� . np y 4"� 44 't Y � 4 # r �N : "� r1, ,r'e, e�p 1 £r 5; ti ` ..---' ,:41 ;.:4q,-4..,10 :,!--k--.n.'+4,1,0';.4-':::'1.4:, .sw, y^ y.Sak�' $ ,,- * .: 5 '1. t r t„ � °„eg 3 . ',, #i � t a',,�C - , o� y -5 i;< .° s s o� � �' ? " Y'7 , t„ �,, '- 4 $ y +y am , ';', ,T d-,-.7.-''',. P "a 4 ° ''' ” ' e ay' - ' a- k E ,t i' rr ?i';41-1°44'0191 ” § r p „. ,..i ,,,fi F'mss ... 0 SITE s =w .w NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report - JOB NO. 02-059 Page D-23 i 3 0 COCHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers sac s ..._..,/ T - % , . . !l' N P7)0. �/ 1 r l i ts .,1! r..,1;4-1;4' (--.:0&,--....._--- ,,-- _ M.015.400 7 - , -- "~ GORE CREEK � "l �� _____,--- ----;:"--::::I 17Z ‘.,,,,...`.,--'.:-'...:_,__„,,_,___‘'''-----------':_t-7----=-7•---- .________.---1 1 li illy// N;(4-11, ,1‘,\ 1 ______=:-....--\ -----:::' r------=--,-----"--- -----.... ,N.el '0---,‘ 1\1, LOT-4--- . _.:_..._ `" i / • 1. •.. 8.46 ACRES a -..,_},.1 r �- + LOT 3 `�1j ! I�t�• ----a i r _ 4 LOT 5;° ._ i T H-2 4V I _8.48 ACRES. i,� ! �_`' ] ,/, i ! 8.42ACRF sa EXISTING !A /`_` { TENNIS � SS )i`,ri yj` A pROpO COURTS $ I, ED , I �'',;W: 4 s gccESS Ro TH 3 . ' w. 0 1 t w dl�ry�y.r+` SKI—R =--------------- ` -.. i. 4, �s `` O.4AAGRES-—EXISTING EtIlluDING- . .. .'. s ( BUIRIED /._,, ` i,.. ti 's• !1 ?REgTROgD'— 3'''-'4.4111-\ Y—II 1 ■ .1----Iplri 11 / Or ---.1--- ‘ 1 I t 4 ifr / A N ' A - 1"= 80' LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 1 Lionshead Redevelopment JOB NO. 02-059 Environmental Impact Report Page D-24 1 _. TH-1 0 TH-2 Ti Ilk APP.EL. 8150 APP.EL. 8150 APP.EL. 8150 0 1 0 — ■ lit III .1.:• ir r3: 1 — _ ■ ■ 4 .\.70 7. !PC:SQ.'0 I;0. 4*O'CS. •CPO '..6: c›,;(:): • 40/l2 41 32/12 '• 50/5 •c:) 0 ,.•-0: 5 ■ 4. 1..6: WC—6 :4,,>:(5: 5 DD=126 -cs'll i -cps'a ••0: _ ■ 4 f/ .*. • -200=27 _ 0 4 et gA .1:30 — •c":(72: cl.. C1 i ) 4 •CrT a ''. : •••0: .ar CP•0: _ . 1 10/12 •cp-c): 50/6 •;(::ts'e. 50/3 10 C:15(:1 WC—7 %..p: ...-0: :fp C>: : 10 ■ 4 atoc3d _ -200=28 ^•Fg? ..—0: •cr cs ■ 4 i 1.c>:6: •C:441 J _ I 4 •••C. — 10,f7.C): • WO — tic1r0.11 59/12 •c-c): 50/7 50/2 15 ...,:•,,a • i '"—°—• WC=7 :4,6.6 • • 15 ;, 0 DD=126 :6.6 _ -200=27 •C>:(1): . — i D I- •0:. .csa W Qe?..3c2.:91 m W — c-cy ''' .- I Z ci 50/6 50/0 50/3 — 20 69 wc-5 . ,9(:„ 4,G-6 .1i.,:,..- 20 I cs•To -200=19 2 I- - •o• m w — coo 13: m • P5c1 tick). 25 25 •0: • ] csTo _ ts o: -- 399 50/0 9:1'P. 30 30 _ . 1 3 _ _ 35 35 1 — 40 40 -.•, :- Lionshead Redevelopment LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Environmental Impact Report JOB NO. 02-059 Page D-25 o 0 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ) Consulting Geotechnical Engineers LEGEND: iciir Ill ASPHALT r FILL, Sand, Clayey, Gravelly, Moist, Medium dense, Brown. , 1 _ 4 Q4. SAND, Gravelly, Clayey, Silty, Scattered cobbles and i eY boulders, Dry to moist, Medium dense to very dense, Brown to °:clip- reddish brown. I I I I ROADBASE IIIISANDSTONE, Silty, Dry, Very hard, Reddish brown. a CALIFORNIA DRIVE SAMPLE. The symbol 40/12 indicates that 40 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a 2.5 inch O.D. sampler 12 inches. ...J ' SPLIT SPOON DRIVE SAMPLE. The symbol 50/6 indicates that 50 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a 2.0 inch O.D. sampler 6 inches. 0 I Notes: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on May 28, 2002 using a lt,.., 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. No free ground water was encountered at the time of drilling to the maximum depth explored of 30.0 feet. 1 ] 3. The Boring Logs are subject to the explanations, limitations, and conclusions as contained in this report. 5 c N S A 4. Laboratory Test Results: p„g cu WC Indicates natural moisture (%) DD - Indicates dry density (pcf) > cl pi -200 - Indicates percent passing the No. 200 sieve (%) .ti Q. 1° 5. Approximate elevations are based on the topographic site plan prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc. and presented in Figure 2 of this report. I .! LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ! i w JOB NO. 02-059 „,i. 0 0 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS lic, 100 bin • in1-t in t;3/iin 1/�in3iin %a #10 %$0 #30 r �0 %1q0 #1i10 %�00 1 I I 1 0 90 10 , 80 20 ILO O 70 30 Z m 60 III11I1IIOOLU1LII1IIIIm CO Z m D 70 20 80 -- 10 90 i 0 100 t. 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3” GRAVEL SAND I SILT CLAY Sample of GRAVEL,Sandy,Clayey GRAVEL 41 % SAND 32 % Source TH-1 Sample No. Elev./Depth 14.0 feet SILT&CLAY 27 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX % C610 L 'i 1. - 1111 41n It in. #4 %1 % %%0 %1e 100 1 I 0 90 - 10 I ■ 80 • . I 20 U` 70 ■ m Z can 60 40 m n.. Z Z 50 50 x w m :,< 0 40 ` — . -- - 60 D w Z n. m 30 - 70 v ol ■ • 20 -- _ - 80 414 i 10 90 0 1 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY • Sample of SAND,Clayey,Gravelly GRAVEL 16 % SAND 65 % Source TH-1 Sample No. Elev./Depth 19.0 feet SILT&CLAY 19 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX GRADATION TEST RESULTS Lionshead Redevelopment Job No. 02-059 Environmental Impact Report Page D-27 I 0 0 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS ' 100 6I '- 1'6in In 3/j in 151n 31in #a 90 ##10 10 x30 #4 760 #1 7 o #�p 00 1 0 - 10 80 - 20 • z 70 Ill N 60 • C7 40 m a z i Z 50 50 W m -I 40 - 60 D CC I a 30 1 �� t 70 0 1. i 20 80 10 90 0 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND,Gravelly,Clayey GRAVEL 38 % SAND 35 % 1 Source TH-2 Sample No. Elev./Depth 4.0 feet SILT&CLAY 27 % LIQUD LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX x/o ce 100 6 m m tin 311 in 11'31" #a #10 xJ,o #30 W0 0 #1?0 #140 flp0 'Y I 1 I I I 0 90 10 j 80 20 Ur 70 - 30 - z m 60 cn ao m a z 1-_ 50 7) j z 50 m m 40 . 60 > cc w z a m 30 70 O 20 80 10 90 3 0 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM 3 +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND,Clayey,Gravelly GRAVEL 23 % SAND 49 % Source TH-2 Sample No. Elev./Depth 14.0 feet SILT&CLAY 28 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % t GRADATION TEST RESULTS Lionshead Redevelopment Job No. 02-059 Environmental Impact Report Page D-28 lipHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 4 +rs Consulting Geotechnical Engineers CLAYEY BACKFILL 10 1I - - - -1 I MANUFACTURED WALL DRAIN 1471 BCOMPACTED BACKFILL z- ELOW GRADE WALL EDGE OF EXCAVATION (EXCAVATE AS PER OSHA REGULATIONS) WATERPROOFING I I FILTER FABRIC GRAVEL 121 46l_t PLASTIC SHEETING PERFORATED PIPE 12" MIN. NOTES: 1 . DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES BELOW TOP OF FOOTING AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 2. THE DRAIN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. 3. GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: WASHED 1 1/2 INCH TO NO. 4 GRAVEL { WITH LESS THAN 3% PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. 4 THE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS SHOULD BE E o. Ca PROTECTED FROM MOISTURE INFILTRATION BY APPLYING A SPRAYED Q•a ON MASTIC WATERPROOFING OR AN EQUIVALENT PROTECTION METHOD. — • et 0-1 aJ G -c ce+ CC• >r"i 'gor TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL 0 JOB NO.02-059 U z � w w > � W r Ti) r > Z W U _ U r 0 C. cJ �, U Z ›" > >; w r , Z O .-5. U U U F- D J tj Z Z 4 c7 0 z U z W J w__ U w z , 0 U U o H � 3Z Z. U) i W ZW 0� - o. i H c o >" O ar NW' O .-- ;-i O Q U m H H q W .'1) z � � � r4 O q >- w q H 5 U > cn n W ;. O (1) o M c o a ago W a) , c1 W �. v c, 7 v cv TS = z .. U) TS CC C cv H H H H o C z i- 1 C f W AIR, NOISE, AND ODOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED LIONSHEAD CORE, WEST DAY LOT, NORTH DAY LOT, AND TENNIS COURT SITE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN VAIL, COLORADO FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Prepared for: Vail Resorts Development Company 137 Benchmark Road Avon, Colorado 81620 Prepared by: Greystone Environmental Consultants 5231 South Quebec Street • Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 June 2003 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-1 (..,,, �.� _. �_,aa TABLE OF CONTENTS ,.emai«mE :? -: os u<,� .mo .at;�.. r..�.. sr orz=.1,� .. .mai Wit-. n x o 1 Summary of Report 3 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Analysis of Air Quality 5 2.1 Existing Air Quality and Atmospheric Conditions 5 2.2 Air Quality Regulations 6 2.2.1 Colorado Air Emission Source Regulations 6 2.2.2 Colorado Air Quality Regulations for Demolition Activities 6 2.2.3 Town of Vail Air Emission Source Regulations 6 2.3 Potential Impacts to Air Quality from Demolition 7 2.3.1 Emissions of Fugitive Dust 7 2.3.2 Asbestos-Containing Material 7 2.3.3 Lead-Based Paint 7 2.4 Construction Phase Impacts 8 2.4.1 Earth-Moving and Material Handling Activities 8 2.4.2 Unpaved Travel Surfaces 8 2.4.3 Paved Travel Surfaces 9 2.4.4 Tailpipe Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Earth-Moving Equipment 9 2.4.5 Summary of Impacts During Construction Phase 9 2.5 Operation Phase Impacts 10 3.0 Noise 11 3.1 Existing Noise Background 11 C.. 3.2 Noise Regulations in the Town of Vail 11 3.3 Noise Impacts During Construction Phase 11 3.4 Noise Impacts from Operation Phase 13 3.5 Noise Mitigation from Operation Phase 13 4.0 Odor 14 4.1 Colorado Odor Regulations 14 4.2 Vail Odor Regulations 14 4.3 Odor Impacts During Construction Phase 14 4.4 Operation Phase Impacts 14 . 5.0 References 15 TABLES Table 1 Typical Construction Noise Levels 12 Table 2 Predicted Noise Near Construction Activities 12 Table 3 Typical Automobile Noise Levels 13 L Lionshead Redevelopment 1 Environmental Impact Report Page E-2 (ar, SUMMARY OF REPORT M. - '_-w ,ht" .3i[ a a'" arJrZ i.;."s±. >.;d'z aa= ii 9 YZRZ a EM az ' Z..�,t.,diZ W.= -.s.-,n.a s This report describes an evaluation of impacts to air, odor, and noise for the Lionshead Core, West Day Lot, North Day Lot, and Tennis Court Site development projects. The report was developed to describe local atmospheric conditions, including existing air,noise and odor,applicable local and state regulations, potential construction and operation impacts,and mitigation measures. Short-term impacts to air quality may occur during the construction phase of the projects. These impacts would result in temporary increases in levels of airborne particulates and tailpipe emissions. Impacts are predicted to be small and can be successfully mitigated. Impacts to air quality from the operation phases are expected to be insignificant. Short-term impacts to noise will occur during the construction phase of the projects. Operation of heavy equipment will result in noise levels typical of construction.However,the anticipated noise is predicted to be within the limits set by the Town of Vail. Noise will also occur from increased vehicle traffic associated with the operation phase of the projects; however, impacts are not expected to be significant relative to existing ambient noise levels. Odor impacts are expected to be limited to the construction phase of the projects. Temporary odors may result from diesel exhaust and short-term construction. Odor impacts would also be related to meteorological conditions that would affect dispersal of the exhaust. S 1430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.12.03).doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-3 • 1 0 INTRODUCTION _*. ;:4P x,r. '.A ,. roa.Ul 'altr -- ..... sUCS' : •, :. 4, 7244,0..° M.,. t 0. This report is intended to be an element of an Environmental Impact Report developed pursuant to Title 12 of the Vail Town Code,Zoning Regulations,Chapter 12, Environmental Impact Reports(EIR). The elements required of the EIR covered by this report include: • Local atmospheric conditions, such as air shed characteristics • Potential air emissions • Any potential changes in or impacts to air quality • Other environmental conditions such as noise and odor • Any potential changes in or impacts to noise or odor The impacts to air, noise, and odor that are associated with the development of Lionshead Core, West Day Lot, North Day Lot, and Tennis Court Site are assessed in this report. Summaries of these four projects have been provided below. Lionshead Core is the removal of an existing concrete structure that currently houses skier services and retail business and construction of a six-story building that will house hotel rooms, condominiums, skier services, retail business, below-grade parking,guest services, and loading docks. The West Day Lot project involves the demolition of a two-level parking garage to make room for two new developments, including a six-story building that will house hotel rooms, condominiums, parking and a delivery dock,and a series of individual residences with below-grade parking. The North Day Lot project includes the demolition of existing parking spaces, and the development of affordable housing and office space for the use of Vail Resorts Development Company. The affordable housing will provide approximately 143 beds. The office space will be approximately 16,000 square feet. Approximately 92 parking spaces will be provided, as dictated by zoning to serve the office and housing use. The Tennis Court Site is located on Forest Road. Currently, the site consists of abandoned tennis courts and a pump house for snowmaking. These structures will be demolished, and four single-family lots are proposed for the western half of the property. C 1430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.12.03).dce Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-4 1 2 0 ANALYSIS OF AIR QUALITY -t &., ,,:3..,.x ,1 a8..'a.. 2.1 EXISTING AIR QUALITY AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS Air quality concerns in the Western Slope Air Quality Region of Colorado are primarily associated with elevated ambient air concentrations of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometers (PM10) during the winter months. These elevated levels of PM10 are related to seasonal sources such as wood stoves and fireplaces and road sanding. They are also related to atmospheric inversions where dense, cold air within mountain valleys becomes trapped below a warmer layer of air. Little or no air moves during inversions and pollutants within the trapped air cannot disperse out of the valley. Inversions typically occur during the winter and usually do not last for more than a week. Inversions can also occur during the early morning hours at other times of the year, but usually break up shortly after sunrise. When inversions are not present,wind patterns in the Vail valley would be primarily down-valley and up- valley and would follow the predominant geographical features. Down-valley winds would typically occur during the morning, and up-valley winds would typically occur in the afternoon. Controlled and uncontrolled burns that take place during seasons other than winter can also affect ambient concentrations of PM10, as well as other regulated air pollutants. The state regulatory standards or thresholds for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air are: (6.,„ • 150 micrograms per cubic meter(µg/m3)for 24-hour averages,and • 50 tg/m3 for annual averages. The Town of Vail is in an attainment area for all criteria pollutants (Hancock 2002). Attainment means that the area is in compliance with the federal Clean Air Act. Standards for air quality are stricter in nonattainment areas than in attainment areas. Monitoring data for Vail were reviewed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that ambient concentrations of PM10 have been monitored in Vail since 1996 at 846 Forest Road(EPA 2002a). Over this period, monitoring has shown that EPA standards have not been exceeded and has shown a decreasing trend in both 24-hour maximum and annual average concentrations(EPA 2002b). Records for monitoring of other criteria pollutants— nitrogen oxides (NON), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO),ozone, and lead—were not found for Eagle County. In addition to emissions of PM,o, combustion sources such as vehicles, gas heaters, and wood stoves can also produce emissions of other regulated pollutants such as NON, CO, SO2, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In general, air quality issues that are associated with these pollutants are limited to heavily populated and industrial areas where numerous emission sources can generate high ambient concentrations. Air quality near the proposed sites would also be affected by the proximity of Interstate-70 (I-70), which is near the proposed Lionshead development projects.Commercial and non-commercial vehicle traffic on I-70 may contribute both fugitive dust (PM10) and tailpipe emissions (NON, CO, SO2, and VOCs) to the local ambient air. 1 1430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.12.03).doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-5 • 2.0 Analysis of Air Quality L 2.2 AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS 2.2.1 Colorado Air Emission Source Regulations Some large construction projects are required to file an Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) for construction sources that would generate fugitive dust (Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, Regulation Number 3, Part A.II). Activities that would be exempt from this rule include "disturbance of surface areas for the purposes of land development, which do not exceed 25 contiguous acres and which do not exceed six months in duration..." Because of the anticipated construction schedules,the Lionshead development projects described in this report are not exempt from this rule. The construction phase for each project is anticipated to be longer than 6 months. An APEN must therefore be filed with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's(CDPHE)Air Pollution Control Division. The APEN must include a dust control plan that addresses how dust will be kept to a minimum at the construction sites. The developer must prevent visible emission, off-property transport, and off-vehicle transport of particulate matter for the sites' activities, haul roads, and haul trucks. 2.2.2 Colorado Air Quality Regulations for Demolition Activities General impacts to air quality from demolition are regulated under Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulations 1,3, 8, and 19. CDPHE enforces these regulations. Regulation 1.III.D.2.h regulates emissions of fugitive dust from demolition. Regulation 3.II, which covers the criteria for filing APENs, may require an APEN to be filed for demolition that involves asbestos. Whether an APEN is required, CDPHE will require compliance for demolition that involves asbestos under Regulation 8, Part B. Regulation 8, Part B specifies the procedures and notifications required for asbestos abatement and removal. This rule will affect demolition of any structure that contains asbestos. Regulation 8, Part C regulates emissions of lead. Although this regulation does not address demolition specifically, it is applicable to any source that has the potential for emissions of lead. Regulation 19 regulates abatement of lead-based paint. This regulation would apply if the structures are occupied by children or are target housing (in general, target housing means it was constructed before 1978 other than a zero-bedroom dwelling or any housing for the elderly or a person with a disability). If the structures that are proposed for demolition do not meet these criteria,then this regulation would not be applicable. If the structures meet these criteria, then abatement, under controlled conditions to reach certain clearance levels for lead in soil,may be required. 2.2.3 Town of Vail Air Emission Source Regulations Title 5, Chapter 3, Air Pollution Control, of the Vail Town Code regulates air quality in Vail. In general, these rules regulate the use of solid fuel burning devices, gas appliances, and gas log fireplaces in dwelling units, accommodation units, restricted dwelling units, and common areas. Devices that burn solid fuel are required to be certified in addition to other specific requirements listed in these rules. C 1430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.I2.03).doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-6 0 o 2.0 Analysis of Air Quality 2.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO AIR QUALITY FROM DEMOLITION cv Potential impacts to air quality from demolition will depend on the type of materials contained in the structures and on the demolition operating procedures. Older buildings may contain asbestos and lead- based paints. Operating procedures that would minimize the generation of fugitive dust would be recommended during demolition. 2.3.1 Emissions of Fugitive Dust It is recommended that the Control Measures and Operating Procedures under Regulation I.III.D.2.h be implemented, wherever feasible and economically reasonable, to minimize generation of fugitive dust during demolition. The measures and procedures cited in this regulation include: • Wetting down, including pre-watering of the work surface, • Removal of dirt and mud deposited on improved streets and roads, and • Wetting down, washing, or covering haulage equipment when necessary to minimize emissions of fugitive dust during loading and transit. Fugitive dust from some demolition may be difficult to control. The general strategy for demolition should consider minimizing generation of fugitive dust. 2.3.2 Asbestos-Containing Material co, Existing structures scheduled for demolition may have been constructed before 1979. Structures built before 1979 have the potential to contain asbestos-containing materials(ACM). Because of the age of the structures,there is potential that they were constructed using ACM. If asbestos is found in the structures, CDPI-IE will require an inspection followed by abatement before demolition can begin. Asbestos is not considered a hazardous waste and is handled as a solid waste, but must be disposed of at landfills that accept asbestos. After asbestos has been properly abated, it is not considered an issue for impacts to ambient air. However, in addition to precautions before demolition, special precautions must also be taken during demolition. 2.3.3 Lead-Based Paint Structures built before 1978 have the potential to contain lead-based paint. Because of the age of the structures,there is potential that they were constructed using lead-based paint. If the structures scheduled for demolition contain lead-based paint, it is expected that demolition would generate insignificant emissions of lead. Instead,the lead would predominantly remain in the refuse material,where it would be retained on the painted surfaces or in large flakes of paint that would not disperse into the air. Abrasive activities, such as sanding or sawing of materials coated with lead-based paint, may have the potential to result in small amounts of emissions of lead. In general, emissions of lead that result from demolition of structures that contain lead-based paint may not be specifically regulated; however, this activity may still create liabilities if precautions are not taken. • It is recommended, if feasible, that the Control Measures and Operating Procedures under Regulation I.III.D.2.h be implemented. 1430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.12.03).doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-7 o • 2.0 Analysis of Air Quality In addition, appropriate health and safety measures must be taken during demolition to protect worker exposure to any potential hazardous air pollutant emissions. 2.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS During the construction phase of Lionshead Core, West Day Lot,North Day Lot, and Tennis Court Site, sources of air pollution will include fugitive dust from earth-moving and material handling,vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved surfaces, and tailpipe emissions from diesel-powered earthmoving equipment. Impacts from these sources will be limited to the construction period and are not expected to affect the overall air quality of the area. Emissions of dust will vary day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific activity, and meteorological conditions. Emissions will not be continuous and will have a definable beginning and end. In addition, because of the small area of each site where construction will occur and because these impacts can be minimized by applying control measures, it is expected that any impacts will be minimal and should not exceed Colorado's ambient air quality standards. 2.4.1 Earth-Moving and Material Handling Activities Fugitive dust will be generated from rough grading, excavation, cut-and-fill operations, and material storage and handling. These emissions can result from both the transfer of materials and from wind erosion. Material that would typically be susceptible to wind erosion would be dry or freshly disturbed surfaces. itme Soil and foundations were investigated for the West Day Lot site. A summary of subsurface conditions is presented here to characterize soil and existing fill. The investigation of the soil and foundations for the West Day Lot (Koechlein 2002) characterizes the existing fill as medium dense to very dense, silty clayey,gravelly sand with cobbles and boulders. Below the exiting fill, the subsurface conditions can be characterized as dense to very dense, natural silty to clayey, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. As a conservative measure, it is assumed that silty surface soils will be encountered at all the projects sites described in this report. It will likely be necessary to control wind-blown dust by wet suppression for the type of fine particle silt and clay described above. The investigation also reports that the potential for radon gas in the subsurface strata of mountain terrain is likely,but low. Radon is therefore not considered a concern. Fugitive dust from material handling and excavations can be managed to comply with local regulations. Emissions of fugitive dust from the type of construction described here are commonly controlled by wet suppression, wind speed reduction via wind barriers, covering storage piles and slopes, compaction of soil, and by minimizing the disturbance of storage piles. 2.4.2 Unpaved Travel Surfaces Emissions of fugitive dust are also generated when a vehicle travels across an unpaved surface. The force of the wheels on the road surface pulverizes surface materials, and particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling wheels. Mechanical turbulence created by the vehicles is also a factor in generating fugitive 1430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.12.03).doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-8 • 2.0 Analysis of Air Quality dust plumes. The quantity of emissions is a factor of both surface silt and water content and vehicle weight. Emissions of fugitive dust from unpaved road surfaces are also caused by wind erosion. The heavily traveled unpaved surfaces such as on-site access roads, parking lots, and laydown areas can be watered as necessary to minimize dust generation during the construction phase. A schedule of surface treatment such as regular watering will reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent. Surface improvements, such as paving or adding gravel or slag to an unpaved road will decrease dust emissions. Limiting vehicle speed, weight, and the number of vehicles on the road will also control emissions from unpaved roads. Rain and snowfall can also act as natural mitigation measures. 2.4.3 Paved Travel Surfaces Emissions of dust from paved roads occur when vehicles travel over loose material that has been deposited on the paved surface and then is re-entrained. Traffic passing from unpaved surfaces to paved roadways can create both mud and dirt deposits on the paved surface (referred to as "track out"), generating additional emissions of road dust. Again, the quantity of emissions is a factor of surface material, silt and water content,and vehicle weight. Control measures for paved surfaces are typically both preventative and mitigative. Preventative control measures prevent material from being deposited onto the surface. These measures include minimizing "track out" by periodic washing of the unpaved or paved surfaces of intersections, gravelling road entryways, washing vehicle wheels, and covering truckloads. Mitigative measures attempt to remove material that has been deposited on road surfaces, such as using street sweepers to periodically clean paved surfaces or water flushing. Other control measures can include limiting vehicle speed and weight thro and the number of vehicles on the road. Because of the limited scope of roads at construction sites, mitigative measures can be used successfully. 2.4.4 Tailpipe Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Earth-Moving Equipment Tailpipe emissions from diesel-fueled earthmoving equipment may result in a temporary increase of concentrations of PM10 and other pollutants in ambient air. Diesel exhaust from heavy equipment may accumulate in the area during inversions and contribute a short-term local impact to air quality. High exhaust velocities and temperatures will augment dispersal of pollutants in tailpipe emissions; thus, ground-level concentrations of these pollutants near the proposed development site will be minimal. 2.4.5 Summary of Impacts During Construction Phase In summary, emissions of fugitive dust will be generated from earth moving and material handling, and vehicle traffic on paved and unpaved surfaces. Tailpipe emissions will be generated from diesel-fueled construction equipment. Dust emissions can be mitigated by wet suppression, soil compaction, minimizing disturbance of storage piles, adding gravel to or paving unpaved surfaces, limiting vehicle speed,weight,and the number of vehicles on the road,minimizing"track out,"and street sweepers. Fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions will be limited to the construction period. It is expected that impacts from fugitive dust and tailpipe emission will be minimal because construction areas are small and control measures can be applied. C Lionshead Redevelopment l430-Vail-LH-Air-E IR(Jun.12.03).doc Environmental Impact Report Page E-9 2.0 Analysis of Air Quality S 2.5 OPERATION PHASE IMPACTS Operation of Lionshead Core, West Day Lot, North Day Lot, and Tennis Court Site may have a small impact on local air quality because of the anticipated small increase in vehicular traffic, boilers, emergency generators,and cooling and cooking exhaust associated with the projects. A small increase in the local population is expected along with a small rise in vehicle traffic in the area. This additional vehicle traffic may result in slight increases in fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. Roads will be paved to mitigate fugitive dust emissions from vehicle traffic. Paved roads can also be cleaned periodically to reduce the accumulation of surface material that would generate fugitive dust. Tailpipe emissions from the additional vehicles may also result in slight increases of PM10 as well as of other pollutants, but the additional impact on local air quality is expected to be minimal relative to contributions from vehicle traffic on I-70 and general vehicle traffic in the Town of Vail. Any new wood burning appliances associated with the development should comply with USEPA certification standards and with Eagle County and Vail regulations. It is anticipated that small boilers and emergency generators will be associated with the projects. Depending on the size and operating schedules of this equipment, it may be necessary to file one or more APENs with the State of Colorado. Boilers with a capacity of 5 million British thermal units (Btu) per hour will require an APEN. Emergency generators with a horsepower(hp)rating greater than 260 or that operate more than 250 hours per year or with a horsepower rating of more than 180 and that operate more (pi than 100 hours per year also require an APEN. All combustion flue gases would be vented through devices that meet standard practice for air pollution control. Overall, this equipment should not significantly alter the local air quality. Cooking exhaust will be properly vented in accordance with industry standards. Exposed soil areas will be revegetated as construction progresses, mitigating emissions of fugitive dust during operation. 1430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.12.03).doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-10 3.0 NOISE 3.1 EXISTING NOISE BACKGROUND Noise standards and sound measurement equipment have been designed to account for the sensitivity of human hearing to different frequencies. This varying sensitivity is accommodated by applying "A- Weighted" correction factors. This correction de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. The primary assumption is that the A- weighted decibel (dBA) is a good correlation to a human's subjective reaction to noise. In general, an urban residential area at night is 40 dBA; a residential area during the day is 50 dBA; a typical construction site is 80 dBA; a subway train at 20 feet is 90 dBA; and a jet takeoff at 200 feet is 120 dBA. A current analysis of noise in the Vail area(Washington 2001) estimated existing and future noise levels throughout the Vail Valley. Assuming that the primary source of noise in this area is I-70, this analysis estimated that the maximum 1-hour average noise level near the proposed locations is currently 58.1 dBA and is expected to increase to 60.2 dBA by the year 2020. 3.2 NOISE REGULATIONS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL Title 5, Public Health and Safety, Chapter 1 (5-1-7, Noise Prohibited) of the Vail Town Code regulates sources of noise. The regulated noise level for sources located on private property is established at the CV' boundary of the property. Sources in all residential areas, except areas zoned for high density multiple- family (HDMF) development, are limited to a maximum of 55 decibels from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and 50 decibels from 11:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. Construction is allowed up to 90 decibels from 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. These rules also regulate noise from motor vehicles. These rules apply at all times. Vehicles less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, are limited to 80 decibels at a distance of 25 feet. Vehicles greater than 10,000 pounds are limited to 90 decibels at a distance of 25 feet. It is unlawful for any person to idle or permit the idling of the engine of any truck or any motor vehicle for a period in excess of 20 minutes. It is also unlawful for any person to permit any idling of an engine of any unattended truck or any motor vehicle except for refrigeration vehicles within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1, Lionshead Mixed Use 2, Commercial Core 1 or the Commercial Core 2 zone Districts of Vail. A permit is required for a business or corporation to operate sound-amplifying equipment. 3.3 NOISE IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE Table 1 presents typical noise levels for construction equipment at a distance of 15 meters (45 feet) (Crocker 1982). These values assume the equipment is operating at full power. 1430-Vail-LH-Air-E1R(Jun.12.03).doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-11 3.0 Noise ce S TABLE 1 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Equipment Category Noise Level at 45 ft(dBA) Dump Truck 88 Portable Rock Drill 88 Concrete Mixer Truck 85 Pneumatic tool 85 Grader 85 Front-End Loader 84 Mobile Crane 83 Excavator 82 Backhoe 81 Dozer 78 Generator 78 The typical noise 45 feet from a construction site would be 85 dBA because the construction equipment can be spread throughout a construction site and may not be operating concurrently. This value and the data presented above indicate that there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise that will be limited to the construction phase of the project. The propagation of noise depends on many factors including atmospheric conditions, ground cover, and the presence of any natural or man-made barriers. As a general rule,noise decreases by approximately 6 dBA with every doubling of the distance from the source (Bell 1982). Therefore, noise levels at various distances from the construction site can be predicted and are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 PREDICTED NOISE NEAR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Distance from construction site Predicted Noise Level (dBA) (meters) 15 851 30 79 60 73 120 67 240 61 1 Approximated typical noise level at 15 meters from a construction site. Noise generated by the project would occur only during construction and the activities will be intermittent. Noise from construction will not be generated during nighttime hours. Noise from construction will be temporary and will briefly add to existing highway noise. Construction will be completed in a timely manner. As long as construction takes place within the prescribed regulatory period of 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,the resulting noise should be within the local noise limit for construction. C 1430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.12.03).doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-12 3.0 Noise S L. 3.4 NOISE IMPACTS FROM OPERATION PHASE The impacts to noise during the operation phase will be related predominantly to increased automobile traffic. Table 3 (USDOT 1995) presents typical noise levels for automobiles at a distance of 15 meters (45 feet)at speeds ranging from 50 miles per hour(mph)to 70 mph. TABLE 3 TYPICAL AUTOMOBILE NOISE LEVELS Speed (mph) Noise at 45 ft(dBA) 50 62 55 64 60 65 65 66.5 70 68 The increase in the population may result in a slight rise in traffic along Town of Vail roads.Traffic noise is a combination of traffic density and vehicle speed. The resulting increase in vehicle noise from traffic, which would be much less dense and slower than the highway traffic, would be barely perceptible over the existing ambient noise that is dominated by vehicle noise from I-70 and general traffic in the Town of Vail. 3.5 NOISE MITIGATION FROM OPERATION PHASE (bp, The increase in noise caused by operation of the proposed development projects is predicted to be minimal and barely perceptible over existing ambient noise. Therefore, noise mitigation is not necessary. co, 1 430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.I2.03).doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-13 4.0 ODOR effiSEKNAVIMMULTIMENiffikke, . w<; mamwommemluommaggravanzmosmaaramyonn,mmagimmkgmktimagr, ,., 4.1 COLORADO ODOR REGULATIONS Colorado Air Quality Control Regulation No. 2.A.1 regulates odors in residential and commercial areas. This regulation states, "it is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with seven(7)or more volumes of odor free air." 4.2 VAIL ODOR REGULATIONS The Town of Vail evaluates odor associated with construction and development under Title 12, Zoning Regulations,Chapter 12, Environmental Impact Reports,of the Vail Town Code. 4.3 ODOR IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE Temporary impacts to odor from the construction phase may result from exhaust gases from diesel equipment or from short-term construction activities such as roofing applications. As with air pollutant emissions from this equipment, dispersal of odors would be augmented by high exhaust velocities and temperatures and would also be related to various meteorological factors, such as wind speed and wind direction,that would limit or enhance dispersal of these odors. Because construction is expected to occur during the daytime when there would be better conditions for odor dispersal, potential impacts to odor from construction would be limited. 4.4 OPERATION PHASE IMPACTS The activities associated with operation of these development projects in Vail are not expected to result in any significant impacts to odor. The types of activities that may be related to minimal sources of temporary odor would include storage of garbage, food preparation, and handling and exhaust gases from additional vehicle traffic. Sewage from the development will be handled by the Eagle River Sewage and Sanitation District sewage treatment plant,thus eliminating the potential for odors related to sewage at each location. L Lionshead Redevelopment 1430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.12.03).doc Environmental Impact Report Page E-14 • 5.0 REFERENCES Bell,Lewis H. 1982. Industrial Noise Control, Fundamentals and Applications,Marcel Dekker,Inc.,New York,New York. Crocker, M.J., Kessler, F.M. 1982. Noise and Noise Control, Volume II. CRC Press, Inc., Chemical Rubber Company, Cleveland,OH. Hancock, R.K., Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Personal Communication [RE: status of Town of Vail attainment for criteria pollutants] with Susan Riggs,Greystone Environmental Consultants, October 31,2002. Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc., 2002. Soils And Foundation Investigation Proposed Lionshead Redevelopment Marriott Property and West Day Lot,Job No. 02-057,Vail,Colorado,July 8. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance,June. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002a. AirData, Select Report/Map, Eagle County, Colorado, http://www.epa.gov/air/data/repsco.html?co-08037'—Eagle%20Co—CO,October. EPA. 2002b.AirData, Monitor Summary Report, Cav http://oaspub.epa.gov/airsdata/adags.summary?geo=&cnty=08037&geoinfo=%3Fco%7E08037% 7EEagle%2520Co%7ECO&year=_&fld=county&fld=stabbr&fld=regn&rpp=25,October. EPA. 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, section updates(2002)http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/. Washington Infrastructure. 2001 Noise Study. Prepared for the Town of Vail. C 1430-Vail-LH-Air-EIR(Jun.12 03).doc Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page E-15 BIOLOGY AND WETLANDS IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED LIONSHEAD CORE, WEST DAY LOT, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND NORTH DAY LOT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN VAIL, COLORADO FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Prepared for: Vail Resorts Development Company 137 Benchmark Road Avon, Colorado 81620 Prepared by: Greystone Environmental Consultants 5231 South Quebec Street Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 June 2003 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page F-1 • ,. : xxr - .F r. .4 x zne ssTABLE,.uOF CONTENTS Summary of Report ii 1.0 Vegetation 1-1 1.1 Habitat Characterization 1-1 1.2 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species 1-1 1.3 Lionshead Development—Site-Specific Conditions and Analysis 1-1 1.3.1 Core Area 1-1 1.3.2 West Day Lot 1-1 1.3.3 Tennis Court Site 1-2 1.3.4 North Day Lot 1-2 2.0 WETLANDS 2-1 2.1 Site Characterization 2-1 2.2 Lionshead Development—Site-Specific Conditions and Analysis 2-1 2.2.1 Core Area 2-1 2.2.2 West Day Lot 2-1 2.2.3 Tennis Court Site 2-1 2.2.4 North Day Lot 2-1 3.0 Wildlife 3-1 3.1 General Description 3-1 3.2 Big Game 3-1 3.2.1 Mule Deer 3-1 3.2.2 Elk 3-1 3.2.3 Black Bear 3-1 3.3 Raptors 3-3 3.4 Fisheries 3-3 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 3-4 3.6 Lionshead Development—Site-Specific Conditions and Analysis 3-5 3.6.1 Core Area 3-5 3.6.2 West Day Lot 3-5 3.6.3 Tennis Court Site 3-5 3.6.4 North Day Lot 3-6 3.7 Irretrievable Commitment of Wildlife Resources 3-6 4.0 Recommended Mitigation Measures 4-1 5.0 Cumulative Impacts 5-1 6.0 References 6-1 TABLE Table 1 Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area 3-2 C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc i Page F-2 • SUMMARY OF REPORT This report evaluates impacts to vegetation, wetlands, and wildlife from four proposed development projects: Lionshead Core, West Day Lot, Tennis Court Site, and North Day Lot. The report was developed by Greystone Environmental Consultants to describe local biological conditions, including existing vegetation, wetlands, and wildlife; applicable local and state regulations; potential impacts from construction and operation; and mitigation measures. Impacts that occur during the construction phase of the project are anticipated to be minimal and should not require special permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A site visit was conducted on October 1,2002. It is possible that wildlife within the project area may be affected by construction activities. The likelihood of this occurring is low because wildlife are expected to avoid project areas as the result of increased human presence, construction activity, and disturbance of habitat. These effects to wildlife are not expected to have long-term detrimental impacts to the health or status of local populations. No threatened or endangered plants or wildlife will be affected by the proposed projects. C C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-VaiI-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc ii Page F-3 .. �w 1 0 VEGETATION : .' n_'i��'��* ,�„�ki.5.+ OIYAW5 1.1 HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION The area where the proposed Vail's Lionshead development projects will be built is either previously disturbed and supports reclaimed vegetation species or includes existing structures or parking lots that are void of any vegetation. This analysis addresses only the areas that support existing vegetation. Based on differences in structure and dominant species,two distinct vegetation types were observed in the project area. These vegetation types include mixed woodland and grassland. The mixed woodland vegetation type is dominated by lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and aspen (Populus tremuloides), with scattered individuals of Colorado blue spruce (Picea pungens). This vegetation type is diffused throughout the lower slopes within the project area. The understory is characterized by bluegrass(Poa spp.), big bluegrass(Poa ampla),Oregon grape(Mahonia repens),vetch (Vicia americana), oatgrass (Danthonia spp.), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), western wheat grass (Pascopyrum smithii), bastard toadflax (Comandra umbellata), and false Solomon's seal (Smilacina stellata). Western snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) occurs in areas where the forest canopy is open. The grassland vegetation type within the project area occurs either on or at the toe of the treeless ski slopes. This vegetation type is characterized by both native and introduced species. The introduced species are a result of reseeding the open,treeless areas. Grass species in these areas consist of bluegrass, big bluegrass, mountain oatgrass, smooth brome, and western wheatgrass. Needlegrass (Achnatherum spp.)occurs on drier sites in the grassland habitat. 1.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES No federally listed threatened or endangered (T&E) plant species occur in Eagle County (FWS 2002). Therefore, the projects associated with Vail's Lionshead development will not affect T&E plant species. Sensitive plant species identified by the U.S. Forest Service (FS) will not be addressed in this analysis because no portion of the proposed project occurs on land administered by the FS (Crites 2002). The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) also indicates that there are no known occurrences of T&E plant species within the project area(Menefee 2002). 1.3 LIONSHEAD DEVELOPMENT — SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS 1.3.1 Core Area No vegetation exists in the area proposed for the Core Area development. The proposed construction therefore would not affect any vegetation. 1.3.2 West Day Lot No vegetation exists in the area proposed for the West Day Lot. The proposed construction therefore would not affect any vegetation. The potential for erosion would be increased during the construction Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 1_1 Page F-4 1.0 Vegetation phase of the project because soil would be exposed. Revegetating areas as quickly as possible after construction can reduce this impact. 1.3.3 Tennis Court Site The Tennis Court Site is located on Forest Road. Currently, the site consists of abandoned tennis courts and a pump house for snowmaking. These structures will be demolished, and four single-family lots are proposed for the western half of the property. The habitat at this site is disturbed with much of the site contained within the existing tennis courts and the pump room. Patches of habitat including grass and Colorado blue spruce trees occur along the margins of the site. Vail proposes to construct four single-family home lots on this 7-acre site. Less than 2.5 acres of this site would be disturbed for construction. The remaining 4.5 acres would not be impacted by construction. Ground that is not occupied by structures or pavement will be appropriately reclaimed and landscaped. The potential for erosion would be increased during the construction phase of the project because removal of vegetation would result in areas of bare soil. Effects of potential soil erosion, including siltation of adjacent creeks, may be minimized or eliminated by preserving as many trees, shrubs, and ground vegetation as practical, by revegetating bare areas as early as practical,and by installing silt fencing. 1.3.4 North Day Lot The North Day Lot project includes the demolition of existing parking spaces, and the development of affordable housing and office space for the use of Vail Resorts Development Company. The affordable housing will provide approximately 143 beds. The office space will be approximately 16,000 square feet with 92 parking spaces, as dictated by zoning to serve the office and housing use. No vegetation exists in the area proposed for the North Day Lot. The proposed construction would not affect any vegetation. C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 1-2 Page F-5 11/ 2.0 WETLANDS 2.1 SITE CHARACTERIZATION A site reconnaissance conducted on October 1, 2002 indicated that none of the project sites support wetland habitats. This reconnaissance did not include formal wetland delineations in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetland Mitigation Guidelines (1987). Several of the proposed projects are,however,adjacent to Gore Creek and Red Sandstone Creek. These drainages support isolated riverine wetland habitats. These creeks are considered Waters of the United States; therefore, they are included under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the jurisdiction of the COE. Dredge and fill within these creeks or within the riverine wetlands associated with these creeks would require a Section 404 Permit. Guidelines for Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) require that wetlands be avoided whenever possible and that impacts be minimized through project actions. Characteristic plant species along the drainages include groundsel (Senecio spp.), orchard grass(Dactylis glomeratus), mountain willow (Salix monticola), and sandbar willow (Salix exigua). The willow species are wetland indicators and are closely associated with the low areas on the floodplain near surface water. Seeps and springs that are common on many of the slopes in the Vail area have not been observed at any of the proposed project sites. Current descriptions of the proposed projects indicate no wetlands or other Waters of the United States would be affected. 2.2 LIONSHEAD DEVELOPMENT — SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS 2.2.1 Core Area No wetlands were observed within or adjacent to this project site; therefore, this project would not affect wetlands. 2.2.2 West Day Lot The proposed Townhouse Buildings at the West Day Lot site are adjacent to Gore Creek. As proposed, the site would not have direct impacts on Gore Creek. Without appropriate controls on sediment, however, sedimentation of the creek may increase during the construction phase. No wetlands were observed within or adjacent to this project site,therefore,this project would not affect wetlands. 2.2.3 Tennis Court Site Two of the proposed single-family home lots at the Tennis Court site are adjacent to Gore Creek.Grading would not occur within 80 feet of Gore Creek. As proposed, the site would not have direct impacts on Gore Creek or associated wetlands. Without appropriate sediment controls, sedimentation of the creek, especially during the construction phase,may increase because of the proximity to the creek.No wetlands were observed within or adjacent to this project site,therefore,this project would not affect wetlands. cw, 2.2.4 North Day Lot Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-VaiI-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 2-1 Page F-6 0 • 2.0 Wetlands coi No wetlands were observed within or adjacent to this project site; therefore,this project would not affect wetlands. C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 2-2 Page F-7 3 0 WILDLIFE ,_t,a ,, 4,44-.tea s. .o; -8'i.,> OME-4 AMIKAT. s°? :..r. 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Information on distribution of and issues that involve wildlife was obtained through agency contacts and a field reconnaissance (October 1, 2002). The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS), FS,and CNHP were contacted. Species with a potential to occur in the project area and potential impacts caused by the project are listed in Table 1. This table also includes the seasons the species are likely to be present in the project area and the type of impact of the proposed project on the species. Several wildlife groups are discussed further in the following paragraphs as a result of issues raised by CDOW and FWS.These include big game, raptors, fisheries,and threatened and endangered species. 3.2 BIG GAME 3.2.1 Mule Deer CDOW has divided the state into data analysis units (DAU) for management of big game herds. These DAUs are further divided into game management units(GMU). The project area occurs within mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) DAU D-8, also known as the State Bridge Deer DAU, which includes the Vail, Cre Eagle, and Yampa populations. This DAU contains GMUs 15, 35, 36, and 45. This DAU covers 1,458 square miles; of this area, 343 square miles are winter range, 140 square miles are severe winter range, and 41 square miles are winter concentration areas. The current estimate of the mule deer population is 19,700 individuals. The provisional herd objective is to reduce the herd to 16,500 mule deer (Graham 2002). Critical habitat is defined as an activity area that, if lost to a species, would adversely affect it. Critical habitat includes the I-70 underpass and its migration corridor,the area south of Gore Creek and east of the Eagle River as a migration staging area, and all winter range. The total area of critical habitat within this DAU is 367 square miles. The project area occurs within summer range, and no critical habitat or migration corridors are within the project area (Andre 2002, NDIS 2002). Implementation of the project would not directly affect any critical habitat for mule deer. 3.2.2 Elk The project area occurs within elk(Cervus elaphus) DAU E-16, also known as the Frying Pan River Elk DAU,which includes GMUs 44,444,45, and 47. Estimates of critical habitat use areas were not obtained from CDOW; however, the project area is within summer range.No critical habitats, migration corridors, or calving areas are in the project area(Andre 2002, Graham 2002). Implementation of the project would not directly affect any critical habitat for elk. 3.2.3 Black Bear Black bears (Ursus americanus) inhabit the Vail area in and around the proposed projects. Many plant species found near the project area, such as serviceberry, chokecherry, and currant, provide forage for bears. Bears also regularly scavenge unprotected trash at residences and businesses in the Vail area Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 3-1 Page F-8 3.0 Wildlife 0 4,„,„ (Andre 2002). No critical bear habitats are within the project area (Andre 2002). Implementation of the ' project would not directly affect any critical black bear habitat. TABLE 1 WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA Sensitivity to Season of Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Loss and Type of Impact* Potential Human Activity Occurrence Mammals Black bear Ursus americanus Sensitive 3 Year round Elk Genius elaphus Sensitive 3 Year round Mule deer Odocoileus Sensitive 3 Year round hemionus Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus Moderately sensitive 3 Year round Bobcat Lynx rufus Sensitive 3 Year round Red fox Vulpes vulpes Moderately sensitive 3 Year round Mountain lion Felis concolor Sensitive 3 Year round Coyote Canis latrans Minimally sensitive 3 Year round Porcupine Erethizon Minimally sensitive 3 Year round dorsatum Marten Mantes americana Sensitive 3 Year round Red squirrel Sciurius Moderately sensitive 3 Year round hudsonicus CpyDeer mouse Peromyscus Minimally sensitive 3 Year round maniculatus Mountain Sylvilagus nuttallii Minimally sensitive 3 Year round cottontail Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Moderately sensitive 3 Year round Red-backed vole Microtis Sensitive 3 Year round clethrionomys Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus Minimally sensitive 3, no habitat in area Winter leucocephalus Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Minimally sensitive 3, occasional use Year round only for hunting Peregrine falcon Falco peregrines Minimally sensitive 3, occasional use Summer only for hunting Red-tailed hawk Buteojamaicensis Minimally- 3, restricted use of Year round moderately sensitive area for hunting Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Minimally sensitive No known Year round occurrence Northern three- Picoides Moderately sensitive 3 Year round toed woodpecker tridactylus Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Moderately sensitive 3 Year round Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Minimally sensitive 3 Year round w a er vary's Oporornis tolmiei Moderately sensitive 3 Summer warbler Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea Moderately sensitive 3 Summer Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 3-2 Page F-9 3.0 Wildlife TABLE 1 WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA Sensitivity to Season of Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Loss and Type of Impact* Potential Human Activity Occurrence Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Moderately sensitive 3 Summer Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra Moderately sensitive 3 Year round Green-tailed Pipilo chlorurus Moderately sensitive 3 Year round towhee Virginia's warbler Vermivora Moderately sensitive 3 Year round vrginiae Cedar waxwing Bombycilla Minimally sensitive 3 Year round cedrorum Black-billed Pica pica Minimally sensitive 3 Year round magpie Stellar's jay Cyanocitta stelleri Moderately sensitive 3 Year round Gray jay Perisoreus Minimally sensitive 3 Year round canadensis Tree swallow Tachycineta Moderately sensitive 3 Summer bicolor Amphibians Ambystoma Would be affected Tiger salamander Sensitive only if it occurs in Year round tigrinum disturbed wet areas Bufo boreas Would be affected Boreal toad boreas Sensitive only if it occurs in Year round disturbed wet areas *I Long-term displacement Displacement from developed areas Partial displacement near developed areas 3.3 RAPTORS No raptor nests are known in the project area and none were observed during the site reconnaissance.No known goshawks use the project area. A known peregrine falcon nest is located more than 5 miles from the project area,and peregrine falcons may forage within the project area(Andre 2002). 3.4 FISHERIES Two streams, Gore Creek and Sandstone Creek, occur within the project area. Sandstone Creek is a tributary to Gore Creek. CDOW has designated Gore Creek as a gold medal fishery. Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis),and brown trout(Salmo trutta)occur in the reach of Gore Creek that flows through the project area (Andre 2002). Spawning can occur in this reach throughout much of the year because cutthroat trout and rainbow trout spawn in the spring and brook trout and brown trout spawn in the fall. C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 3-3 Page F-10 3 Wildlife (he 3.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The FWS Federally Listed and Candidate Species and Their Status list was examined for T&E species that may occur in Eagle County, Colorado (FWS 2002). The list includes two endangered species, two threatened species, and three species that are candidates for listing. The endangered species that may occur within Eagle County are black-footed ferret(Mustela nigripes)and Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly (Boloria acrocnema). The two threatened species that may occur within Eagle County are bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). The three candidate species that may occur in Eagle County include Gunnison sage grouse (Centrocercus minimus), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and boreal toad(Bufo boreas boreas). The project area does not support suitable habitat for black-footed ferret,Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, Gunnison sage grouse, or yellow-billed cuckoo. Therefore, these species will not be analyzed further in this document. The project area does not support suitable habitat for Canada lynx. The habitat for Canada lynx in Colorado is typically mature or old growth Englemann spruce and subalpine fir forests; a mix of Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, and aspen is the second most common habitat used by lynx. Lynx also require sufficient denning habitat, which has been described as areas of dense downed trees, roots, or dense live vegetation (Shenk 2001). The project area supports small, mixed woodland with aspen, lodgepole pine, and Colorado blue spruce. There is a lack of downed woody debris, the habitat is extremely fragmented, and it is in an area that experiences heavy human use year round. Therefore, the project does not support potential habitat for Canada lynx. Suitable lynx habitats occur near the project area, including on the ski mountain. Lynx have been cerecorded near the project area using radio and satellite telemetry (Shenk 2001). CNHP also reports that six Canada lynx occurrences have been reported between 1969 and 1991 at higher elevations at the Vail Ski Area(Menefee 2002). These occurrences were not near the project area. In Colorado, bald eagles typically nest in large, mature cottonwoods or pines. Nesting sites are typically associated with large rivers or reservoirs in locales that experience little human disturbance. Similar sites are also commonly used by wintering eagles, especially near roost sites. In Colorado, foraging eagles are typically associated with aquatic habitats that support reliable populations of fish and waterfowl. Eagles will also forage in open,terrestrial habitats,where they prey on medium-sized mammals(prairie dogs and jackrabbits) and scavenge roadkill or winterkill animals when these resources are available. Bald eagles are not known to nest or roost within the project area or in the immediate vicinity(Andre 2002, Menefee 2002). Suitable aquatic foraging habitats occur in the Vail Valley, and bald eagles may be expected to use these habitats. During the winter, bald eagles are known to occasionally occur in the Vail Valley, where they forage along Gore Creek(Andre 2002). However,Gore Creek is relatively narrow where it occurs in the project area, and many portions of it within the project area have a dense canopy. Bald eagles are not likely to forage where the stream is narrow or where there is a dense canopy;therefore,they are not likely to occur in the project area. No potential bald eagle habitat would be disturbed by the proposed project. In Colorado, the boreal toad typically lives in damp conditions near marshes, wet meadows, streams, beaver ponds, and lakes interspersed in subalpine forests. These habitats include lodgepole pine, Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, and aspen (Hammerson 1999). Potential habitat for the boreal toad may exist within Gore Creek. These habitats are expected to be of marginal quality because of disturbance caused by anglers. Boreal toads are not known to occur within the project area (Andre 2002, Menefee 2002). Occurrences of the boreal toad are known at the Vail Golf Course in ponds 2 miles east of Vail Village (Andre 2002, Menefee 2002). The proposed projects would not disturb potential habitat for the boreal toad. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 3-4 Page F-11 0 3.0 Wildlife CNHP and CDOW indicate that there are no known occurrences of T&E wildlife species within the project area (Andre 2002, Menefee 2002). Based on this information, the results of the site reconnaissance, the large proportion of the project area that is already developed, and the lack of suitable T&E habitat within the project area, no T&E wildlife species are expected to occur within the project area. 3.6 LIONSHEAD DEVELOPMENT — SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS 3.6.1 Core Area No habitat exists at this proposed site; therefore, none of the wildlife species listed in Table 1 are expected to use this area. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to affect wildlife species because of the low likelihood that wildlife would occur at this site. 3.6.2 West Day Lot No habitat exists at this proposed site; therefore, none of the wildlife species listed in Table 1 are expected to use this area.Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to affect wildlife species because of the low likelihood that wildlife would occur at this site. There is a potential for increased sedimentation and runoff during construction because the West Day Lot project is near Gore Creek. This potential impact would be short-term and could be minimized by implementing best management practices and by reseeding the area as soon as possible. Runoff and sedimentation would not likely be increased in the long term because an existing parking structure is currently on the site and the proposed project would occupy the same physical footprint. Increased sedimentation and runoff could affect natural trout spawning in Gore Creek, depending largely on the time of year construction takes place and the duration of the construction. Rainbow, brown, and brook trout all spawn in Gore Creek. Rainbow trout are spring spawners and brown and brook trout spawn in the fall. Sedimentation could impair spawning by smothering spawning beds and filling interstitial spaces in the gravel. Sedimentation could have a larger effect during the fall spawn because flows are typically lower and sediment is not flushed out of the system as quickly as when flows are higher. 3.6.3 Tennis Court Site Several mammalian and avian species listed in Table 1 may occur in the small areas of grassland habitat at this site. Wildlife would likely be displaced from this site as a result of construction, increased human presence, and noise. Construction is not expected to impact the existing grassland habitat and individual Colorado blue spruce trees because the areas supporting these small habitats are not included in the specific construction area. Any potential effects to wildlife and habitats as the result of this project would not jeopardize the current health or protective status of wildlife species that may occur in the project area. There is a potential for increased sedimentation and runoff into Gore Creek during construction at the Tennis Court Site. This potential impact would be short term and could be minimized by implementing best management practices and by reseeding the area as soon as practical. Long-term runoff and sedimentation would not likely be increased because the proposed project has a physical footprint that is similar to a maintenance lot that is currently on the site. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 3-5 Page F-12 3.0 Wildlife • Increased sedimentation and runoff could affect natural trout spawning in Gore Creek, depending largely on the time of year construction takes place and the duration of the construction. Rainbow, brown, and brook trout all spawn in Gore Creek. Rainbow trout spawn in the spring and brown and brook trout spawn in the fall. Sedimentation could impair spawning by smothering spawning beds and filling interstitial spaces in the gravel. Sedimentation could have a larger effect during the fall spawn because flows are typically lower in the fall and sediment is not flushed out of the system as quickly as when flows are higher. 3.6.4 North Day Lot No habitat exists at this proposed site; therefore, none of the wildlife species listed in Table 1 are expected to use this area. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to affect wildlife species because of the low likelihood that wildlife would occur at this site. 3.7 IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES The irretrievable commitment of wildlife resources,which is considered for both individuals and habitats, includes habitats that would be permanently lost to development and human intrusion on habitats. There will be no new irretrievable commitment of wildlife resources associated with the projects described in this report. C C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-VaiI-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 3-6 Page F-13 Nape 4 0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES vkm ,°atti ..c.x'.`z.=.,mgvr rm ,mi...x , of n::.E.._aa:,;p stem *:..a_ x?a ran `ec>az ..e m 'm z e,.«,mam5g,... `Ezzzv bs rt .s.,_ k The following mitigation measures are recommended to further reduce potential effects to flora, fauna, and habitats: • When practical, native plant species should be used to revegetate disturbed areas. • Revegetation should occur during mid-summer to provide the best opportunity for success. • Shrubs and understory vegetation should be retained for use as cover by birds and small mammals in areas that are not disturbed by for construction. • Disturbance should be limited to within the construction work site. • Silt fencing will be installed, where necessary, to control siltation of creeks that are adjacent to construction areas. • Fruit trees should not be planted near entrances or exits of new buildings to help avoid interactions between humans and bears. • Strict covenants on the proper storage of household waste should be enforced, or bear-proof enclosures should be required for waste. • Disturbance to riparian areas should be avoided, especially along Gore Creek. • The realignment of the bike path at the West Day Lot site should be sloped away from Gore Creek to reduce the amount of fine sediment that enters the creek during construction and maintenance. C C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 4-1 Page F-14 • 5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS tr=gsmtwarimpraw,=?,--m2mmaawig=t dw°'.. ' m t rjagrAcr:r: �. .:` °.city"s ,atEt � b ...., r :a The evaluation of cumulative impacts from the proposed project on plants and wildlife considers previous actions and developments in the Vail Valley. The most significant impacts to populations of wildlife and plants in the Vail Valley include construction of the Vail Ski Area, construction of Interstate 70, and residential and commercial development. The Vail Ski Area occurs in areas of summer habitat for elk and mule deer. Because the majority of activities at the ski area occur during the winter, these species experience relatively lower impacts than with intensive summertime activities. As the level of use during the summer months increases, the potential types and degrees of effects to wildlife are expected to increase. Construction of I-70 caused severe impacts to populations of mule deer and elk. The highway bisects the Vail Valley and interrupts the winter-summer migration route, causing loss of important winter ranges and increased collisions between motor vehicles and animals. Residential and commercial development of the Vail Valley has also had impacts on wildlife populations because it has resulted in an almost complete loss of habitat in the valley floor and on many hillsides. Relative to past impacts to wildlife in the Vail Valley, the proposed developments will occur at or near existing buildings, ski lifts, lodges, parking lots, and other developed areas, and will have negligible impacts to plants and wildlife. Therefore the proposed Vail's Lionshead Development projects will not have important contributions to the type or magnitude of cumulative effects. co) Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 5-I Page F-15 • r 6.0 REFERENCES Andre, B. 2002. Personal communication [October 24 telephone conversation with P. Golden, Greystone Environmental Consultants, Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: CDOW wildlife issues for the Vail Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Vail's Front Door and Lionshead developments.]. Wildlife Biologist,Colorado Division of Wildlife, Vail,Colorado. 2 pages. Crites, M. 2002. Personal communication [October 23 telephone conversation with P. Golden,Greystone Environmental Consultants, Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Applicability of White River National Forest Sensitive Species analysis in the Vail EIR for the Vail's Front Door and Lionshead developments.]. Biologist, U.S. Forest Service, White River National Forest, Supervisors Office,Glenwood Springs,Colorado. 1 page. Graham, V. 2002. Personal communication [October 25 telephone conversation with P. Golden, Greystone Environmental Consultants, Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Mule deer and elk population numbers and habitat information for the Vail EIR for the Vail's Front Door and Lionshead developments]. Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, Colorado. I page. Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. A Colorado Field Guide. 2"d edition. University Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife Menefee, M. 2002. Personal communication [October 24 fax to P. Golden, Greystone Environmental Consultants, Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Threatened and endangered or rare species and significant natural communities in the vicinity of the project area]. Environmental Review Coordinator, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 7 pages. Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). 2002. NDIS database, Eagle County, Elk and Mule Deer Habitats [web page]. Colorado State University. Located at: http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ndis/ftp html site/ftp lead.html.Accessed October 24, 2002. Shenk,T. M. 2001. Post-Release Monitoring for Lynx Reintroduced to Colorado,Annual Progress Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, December 2001. Interim Report — Preliminary Results. Located at http://wildlife.state.co.us/T&E/Lynx/USFWS Report 01.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS). 2002. Federally Listed and Candidate Species and Their Status in Colorado. County-wide species list. Effective August 22, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Colorado Field Office,Lakewood,Colorado. C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1571-Vail-LH-Biology(6-13-03).doc 6-1 Page F-16 T R A F F I C I M P T S T U D Y Vail Resorts' Lionshead Redevelopment Vail,Colorado Prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company 137 Benchmark Road P.O. Box 959 Avon,CO 81620 Prepared By Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. 950 Seventeenth Street Suite 1050 Denver,Colorado 80202 (303)228-2300 (303)446-8678 FAX September 16,2003 C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-1 • NOTICE Please note that the findings contained in this report are based on the conditions at the time of the study. Should development occur that is significantly different than the assumptions that were made in the study,further review and analysis may need to be performed. This report has been prepared in accordance with the professional standard of care. No other warranties or guarantees, express or implied, are made or intended. This report has been prepared solely for Vail Resorts, the Town of Vail, Colorado, and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the purpose stated herein and should not be relied upon by any other party for any other purpose. The conclusions in this report are based on the limited information described above. Any reliance on this report by any party other than Vail Resorts, the Town of Vail, and CDOT shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. or its employees. If you have any questions or require any additional information,please contact us. C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-2 • • • 0 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 APPENDICES 3 LIST OF TABLES 4 LIST OF FIGURES 4 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 2.0 INTRODUCTION 8 3.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 11 3.1 Existing and Future Roadway Network 11 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 13 3.3 Future Traffic Conditions without Project 15 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 18 4.1 Trip Generation 18 4.2 Trip Distribution 21 (11; 4.3 Traffic Assignment 26 4.4 Total Post Development Traffic 26 5.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSES 34 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 45 APPENDICES Appendix A- Peak Hour Volume Count Sheets and Calculation Worksheets Appendix B-Trip Generation Worksheets Appendix C- HCS Intersection Analysis Worksheets Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-3 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -Lionshead Redevelopment Net Project Traffic Generation 21 Table 2-South Frontage Road/Parking Structure Access LOS Results 36 Table 3 -South Frontage Road/West Lionshead Circle (east) LOS Results 37 Table 4-South Frontage Road/West Lionshead Circle (west) LOS Results 38 Table 5 -South Frontage Road/Forest Road LOS Results 39 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -Site Location 9 Figure 2-Study Area 10 Figure 3 - Existing Laneage and Control 12 Figure 4-Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 14 Figure 5-2005 Background Pre Development Traffic Volumes 16 Figure 6-2020 Background Pre Development Traffic Volumes 17 Figure 7-Hotel Expansion on West Day Lot Trip Distribution 22 Figure 8-Core Area Redevelopment Trip Distribution 23 .441) Figure 9-Recreational Homes (Tennis Court Site) Trip Distribution 24 Figure 10- North Day Lot Trip Distribution 25 Figure 11 -Hotel Expansion on West Day Lot Traffic Assignment 27 Figure 12-Core Area Redevelopment Traffic Assignment 28 Figure 13 - Recreational Homes (Tennis Court Site) Traffic Assignment 29 Figure 14- North Day Lot Traffic Assignment 30 Figure 15-Reroute of Traffic Volumes from Employee Parking Relocation 31 Figure 16-2005 Total Post Development Traffic Volumes 32 Figure 17-2020 Total Post Development Traffic Volumes 33 Figure 18 - 2005 Level of Service Total Post Development 41 Figure 19-2020 Level of Service Total Post Development 42 Figure 20- Recommended Short Term Intersection Laneage and Control 43 Figure 21 - Recommended Long Term Intersection Laneage and Control 44 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-4 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vail Resorts currently plans a redevelopment project within the existing Lionshead Village, in Vail, Colorado. The project is currently proposed to include the development or redevelopment of four separate areas. These areas being redeveloped include the West Day Lot, Lionshead Core Area,Tennis Court Site along Forest Road, and North Day Lot. As of the date of this study, the following project description identifies the current Vail Resorts' Lionshead Development program evaluated within this report. West Day Lot located just west of West Lionshead Circle along the South Frontage Road is anticipated to be developed with approximately 90 hotel units, 113 condos, and 12 recreational/seasonal second homes. The Core Area redevelopment located along Lionshead Place is planned to consist of approximately 79 condo units, 81 hotel units, a 4,500 square foot spa, and 32,000 square feet of commercial space (retail and restaurant). In addition, the Core Area is also expected to include 100 parking spaces to be made available to members of the Ski Club. The existing Tennis Court site located along Forest Road just east of the Gondola line will be developed into 4 recreational/seasonal second home sites, each potentially being constructed as a duplex, creating a total of 8 units. In addition, the North Day Lot is proposed to accommodate 144 beds of employee housing and approximately 16,000 square feet of Vail Resorts offices being relocated as part of the Core Area redevelopment. It is assumed that full development of this area is expected to occur around year 2005, and was therefore analyzed with this horizon. The analysis of a long-term 2020 horizon is also included within this study,as requested by the Town of Vail. Regional access to the proposed redevelopment is expected to continue to be provided by I-70. Primary access will be gained from the South Frontage Road. Direct access to the Core Area is to be gained from Lionshead Place/West Lionshead Circle for hotel guests. West Lionshead Circle and Forest Road will provide direct access to the hotel expansion on the West Day Lot. Access to the residential development at the tennis court site will be along Forest Road. West Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-5 C Lionshead Circle will provide access to the North Day Lot for the office and employee housing units being relocated. The purpose of this study is to identify traffic generation characteristics, identify potential traffic related impacts on the local street system, and to develop mitigation measures required for identified Vail Resorts development impacts. Additionally, the Town of Vail requested that this report analyze traffic conditions at the following four roadway intersections: • South Frontage Road and Lionshead Village Parking Structure Access • South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle (eastern location) • South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle (western location) • South Frontage Road and Forest Road Three of these intersections provide direct access to the proposed redevelopment sites. The fourth intersection of South Frontage Road and the Lionshead Parking Structure was included to show any potential impacts from the proposed redevelopment projects. This study has been Nir) prepared in accordance with the Town of Vail traffic study scope. The entire Vail Resorts' Lionshead Redevelopment Project is expected to generate approximately 184 AM peak hour, and 231 PM peak hour weekday new vehicle trips added to the surrounding street network. The Saturday peak hour of the generator is anticipated to generate 291 trips per hour. It is important to consider that the Core Area currently contains uses that add to current traffic conditions. In order to provide the most accurate analysis,credit was taken for the existing employee housing, office, and retail trips currently generated by the site. Distribution of site traffic on the street system was based on the Master Plan's Lionshead Village Transportation Analysis prepared for the Town of Vail by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (October 1998) and the street system expected to exist in the future. Distributions were prepared separately for the development areas/lots based upon differences in site location and Lionshead Redevelopment • Environmental Impact Report Page G-6 site access. Assignment of project traffic was based upon the trip generation described previously and the distribution developed. Based on the analysis presented in this report, the proposed Vail Resorts Lionshead Development will be successfully incorporated into the future traffic operations. The proposed project development and expected traffic volumes resulted in the following conclusions: • The expected net increase in vehicular traffic for the identified Vail Resorts Lionshead redevelopment combined is 184 AM and 231 PM weekday peak hour trips. • Near term Improvements Needed Prior to Project Impacts (2005): o Separate northbound left and right turn lanes at the intersection of the Parking Structure with South Frontage Road o Dedicated westbound left turn lane at the intersection of the Parking structure with South Frontage Road • Long term Improvements Needed Prior to Project Impacts (2020): o Dedicated westbound left turn lane at the western intersection of West Lionshead Circle with South Frontage Road o Dedicated eastbound and westbound left turn lanes at the intersection of Forest Road with South Frontage Road • Long term Improvements Needed for Project Impacts (2020): o Dedicated westbound left turn lane at the eastern intersection of West Lionshead Circle with South Frontage Road Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-7 2.0 INTRODUCTION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) has been retained by Vail Resorts to prepare this report to document the results of a Traffic Impact Study of future traffic conditions associated with the proposed Lionshead Redevelopment project located along the south side of the I-70 South Frontage Road in Lionshead Village in Vail, Colorado. The vicinity map illustrating the project location is shown in Figure 1. The purpose of this study is to identify trip generation characteristics, potential traffic related impacts on the local street system, and to develop mitigation measures required for identified impacts. This study has been prepared in accordance with Town of Vail standards and includes Level of Service (LOS) analysis performed for identified study area intersections. This study specifically includes evaluation of the following key intersections as shown in Figure 2: • South Frontage Road and Lionshead Village Parking Structure Access • South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle (eastern location) • South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle (western location) 1111 • South Frontage Road and Forest Road The project is currently proposed to include the development and/or redevelopment of four separate parcels. The West Day Lot is anticipated to be developed with 90 hotel units, 113 condos, and 12 recreational/seasonal second homes. The Core Area redevelopment located east of the Lionshead Place cul-de-sac is proposed to consist of 79 condos, 81 hotel units, a 4,500 square foot spa, and 32,000 square feet of retail. The existing tennis court site located along Forest Road just west of the gondola line will be developed into 4 recreational/seasonal second home sites, each potentially being constructed as a duplex,creating a total of 8 units. The North Day Lot is expected to accommodate 144 beds of employee housing and approximately 16,000 square feet of office space to replace the existing Vail Resorts offices and employee housing to be relocated with the Core Area redevelopment. It is assumed that full development would occur prior to 2005, and was therefore analyzed with this horizon year. The Town of Vail has also requested a long-term 2020 horizon be analyzed within this study. Lionshead Redevelopment 1.1) Environmental Impact Report Page G-8 r .\ Eo NORTH NTS 067867001 r 414 ,. .. ,. LIONSHEAD VILLAGE `'4'.., 4„ 1:'' ry :.;cvi ., HC _ . .. „ . r _�„„,„A.,,,,,,.,, . ,_ , . .. , , , . ,, „ . - "'4 VAIL VILLAGE ,4 , am i y 4. / . _ - : -, • FIGURE 1 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT Lionshead Redevelopment SITE LOCATION Environmental Impact Report • Page G-9 rillnKimley 1 and AssociaHorn tes,Inc. / NTS 067867001 NOF F-1 LEGEND EBV N • Study Area Key Intersection ■ hR T I O% O G F ? / __ _ _ _ _ HOTEL'E%PANSION ' /' ES D VLO i ANTI ERs _=_" _-=-_---_=_ '—L - '--__= FgC1UTY _ _ MAINTENANCE 43 'ION THE MARRIOTT1.�� 09 qR lE /// � r - - - ^W ST V� ,,_ _ - ORE AREA':''iris E _- -_ _ -__ P.� SPA) LD \ r_ EAST LIONSHEAD c G ' O • lJ __ E O � ��_' r: MARK E 0.0C((PG LIONSHEAD VILLAGE 77I:7.115--AY LOT �`ypPO LPG PARKING STRUCTURE I Li% -- ZSHFaO apt IIIiIi I TO EggTBOUND j-TO'NEST BOUND FIGURE 2 III LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report ❑ m.y Kimley-Horn Page G-10 J and Associates,Inc. . 4 3.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.1 Existing and Future Roadway Network Primary access to all four sites is expected to be provided by the existing South Frontage Road. Direct access to the Core Area is to be gained from both Lionshead Place/West Lionshead Circle for hotel guests and the Lionshead Village Parking Structure. West Lionshead Circle and Forest Road will provide direct access to the hotel expansion on the West Day Lot. Access to the residential development at the tennis court site will be along Forest Road. West Lionshead Circle will provide access to the office and employee housing on the North Day Lot. The Town of Vail identified four project intersections along these roadways for evaluation: • South Frontage Road and Lionshead Village Parking Structure Access • South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle (east) • South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle (west) • South Frontage Road and Forest Road South Frontage Road is a CDOT roadway (classification F-R) with one travel lane in each direction along the south side of Interstate 70. Primarily, the frontage road is located north of Lionshead Village. The roadway has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour through the project area. West Lionshead Circle and Forest Road are collector roadways with one lane of travel in each direction. The intersections of these roadways with the South Frontage Road are stop controlled on the minor street approach with free flow movements along the Frontage Road. Existing lane configurations and traffic control at the key intersections studied are shown in Figure 3. • Lionshead Redevelopment evelo ment Environmental Impact Report Page G-11 C NTS 067867001 NORTH LEGEND Erq 0 Study Area Key Intersection ..) CRoadway Speed Limit iliD Stop Controlled Approach TENNIS COURT:'- MENINT pP __ _ = WwTP __ _ __. "?.HOTEL EXPANSION / _`_--�._ DAV LOT) NTL ___ -_ '� A - �s�_. --t. 51-1 /O P„ceJ ,:; - MAINTENANCE FACILITY l s?O J'rfo 3L MAFav- UR LE ti � V_ORE AREAa,:_ ■ �(Y` WEST vpiL Spy/ 1 EAST LIONSHEAD D ; 0 • __.y— r_ cF -�^�L� 11 � v t”' G�POEppA- ----1 _ E -� F- PARKING VILLAGE td NORT 0AV LOT j:'j'%__''"' pO 1111 :Fi:�s�_a;:=___: S�'E PARKING STRUCTURE � -. �SNFP°C' N j I.70 EASTBOUND - I TD WESTBOUND ior 4: ep 1111411,4111414511P )._ 4110 FIGURE 3 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT Lionshead Redevelopment ...) EXISTING LANEAGE AND CONTROL Environmental Impact Report H c:imin Kimley Horn Page G-12 and Associates,Inc. 0 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes �r Existing peak period turning movement counts were conducted at the three intersections adjacent to the redevelopment project site on Friday, July 5th from 8:00 to 11:30 AM and 3:00 to 5:30 PM per Town of Vail's request. These time periods were chosen by the Town to represent the maximum adjacent street peak hour volume as these were believed to vary from the typical 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM time periods. These summer turning movement counts were then compared to counts conducted on President's Day Weekend 1997 from the Lionshead Village Transportation Analysis conducted by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (October 1998). Comparisons of the traffic volumes conducted during the winter and summer holiday weekends found that the peak wintertime conditions had the higher traffic volume associated with it. These winter morning and afternoon peak hour turning movement counts at the key intersections are shown in Figure 4. Detailed traffic count sheets are available in Appendix B. It is important to note that traffic volumes for the Lionshead Village Parking Structure were taken directly from the wintertime counts due to a majority of the traffic at this intersection being created by skier traffic entering and exiting the parking garage during the winter. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-13 NTS 067867001 NORTH LEGEND • Study Area Key Intersection K0n ..) XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TENNIS CTE OURT SI I \IS:11\ _ -_ / ��- I'• P = o ___-__— ___ ______ _:HOTEL EXPANSION ai_'; / - - - (N/EST OAV LOT) _ / R,___.713 -- MAINTENANCE FA I c.-1t1 �\� SON�U� THEM�aO�� C1R LE / ,. tt _-=Y,,O1.y_Ty'=dig 05 WEST L'1 -=- =_.=_-IE :044�.i NZ t/ VNL SP EAST LIONSHEAD n `�S ( PO / PC Li t -�-+-� V L 10\ G PO ._ �// _.... __... —�F LJ L._r- LANDMAPoC I�OE �jN�aONSP NORTH DAY LOT NW= PARKING PARKING STRUCTURE C�—IR'll ..- NOaZNFONSPGEa 40\OA\ I.70 EASTBOUND /)!'' \- TO WESTBOUND \1 - if / 1O\9\,2' 9/ N co CO r' r\-94(56) /4h16� `� <-286(374) 7 156(99) m a -32oi13131 v 298(372) —� �' \ �3 co 1 �► 131831 � 23413911 FIGURE 4 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report • IranKimley-Horn Page G-14 J and Associates,Inc. • 0 3.3 Future Traffic Conditions without Project To accurately determine the impact of the redevelopment project, traffic volumes expected at the time of project buildout were necessary. These traffic volumes were determined for the future prior to the addition of project traffic from the redevelopment project, called the background condition. The 2005 background pre development traffic volumes were obtained by applying a 2% annual growth rate to the existing traffic volumes. This growth rate was obtained from the Lionshead Village Transportation Analysis prepared by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (October 1998). This growth rate was based upon the historical and expected growth in skiers to Vail as provided in the Master Plan. Background traffic volumes for 2005 are shown in Figure 5. The Town of Vail also requested that a long-term 2020 analysis be provided. A 1.5% growth rate was provided and used to represent growth from the short-term 2005 horizon until the long-term 2020 horizon. In addition, information regarding additional future projects in the Lionshead area was obtained from Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig to be incorporated into the long- term 2020 horizon. Background pre development traffic volumes for 2020 are shown in Figure 6. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-15 C NTS 067867001 NORTH LEGEND _ • Study Area Key Intersection E®R XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes LTENNIS COURT SITE =- N 0 GORE PEE P _ _ -_- _=-='— _ NTS 067867001 NORTH LEGEND KRVN • Study Area Key Intersection XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ;'TENNIS COURT :M: O SITE ({ P 1 p _ _ _ _ _..TEX EXPANSION �:,:::�. HO EL - - AY ES D ANTLERS r �� J �� MAINTENANCE FACE N , E 1 L� \)c r-NSOUPR� c THE MARWOT ry.„ cw..E. zai. ka��.. L.J 1p /` J{I v ;'.4COREAREA`::_i j=". ,:l WEST �r' __-- -_____ 'f P�� VWL SP A, AID -.e. EAST LIONSHEAD 0 r pPO _.___ OAF L�. -f-�r} 0^^'": } E apR{(PG 1 1E ._.._. _.. :::_r.:a=r D�NF D NORTH DAY LOT E�OPO PARKING VILLAGE 70% ONtPOi PARKING STRUCTURE �t NO�jNf, e" / , I.70 EASTBOUND �,� /� / .70 WESTBOUND Y, 1110 �,1I1�O\2, 6% c.--30a 5,1'1 N W 11 of 7 "I31as1 '�4. X / 41\169i1 ° ,G N N r---94(56) 140/6) �a 4-502(657) 7(3) 7 i � \ lI 4-P 156(99) v`N 523(654) —� 0, FIGURE 6 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT 2020 BACKGROUND PRE DEVELOPMENT Lionshead Redevelopment TRAFFIC VOLUMES Environmental Impact Report Page G-17 ❑imrI and A-Horn � and Associates,Inc. . • 4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS 4.1) 4.1 Trip Generation Site-generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation. Rates are applied to proposed land uses to estimate traffic generated by developments during a specific time interval. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates is the current edition of the Trip Generation Reports published by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE has established trip rates in nationwide studies of similar land uses. Based upon a request from the Town of Vail for this study, Kimley-Horn used ITE Trip Generation Report trip rates that apply to Apartment (220), General Office Building (710), Resort Hotel (330), Specialty Retail (814), Recreational Homes (260), and Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230) for traffic associated with the development. ITE does not provide trip generation rates for the skier club membership program and the parking spaces provided to ski club members along with the membership. Therefore, it was necessary to develop a specific trip generation rate for this land use apart from ITE. The following paragraphs describe the project by development area, as well as project traffic volumes associated with the redevelopment project. West Day Lot The West Day Lot located just west of West Lionshead Circle along the South Frontage Road is anticipated to be developed with 90 hotel rooms, 113 condos, and 12 recreational/seasonal second homes. This development would replace the existing 160 on-mountain employee parking spaces, planned to be relocated to the Holy Cross/Maintenance Site. Trip generation for the 90 hotel rooms was based on ITE Land Use Code: Resort Hotel (330). The 113 condos were estimated for trip generation based upon ITE Land Use Code: Condominium/Townhouse (230) and the 12 recreational/seasonal second homes were estimated for trip generation based upon ITE Land Use Code: Recreational Homes (260). These ITE Land Uses are believed to be the most appropriate to estimate trip generation based upon development characteristics. I Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation: An Information Report, Sixth Edition, Washington DC,1997. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-18 • • CCore Area The Core Area redevelopment located along Lionshead Place is planned to consist of 79 condo units, 81 hotel rooms, a 4,500 square foot spa, and 32,000 square feet of supporting retail uses. This development would replace 32,480 square feet of commercial space (retail and restaurant), 18,000 square feet of offices, and 100 employee beds. All of these existing uses were anticipated to previously generate vehicle trips. Since the existing Core Area consists of development generating vehicle trips, credit was taken for these existing trips previously generated by the site, as the commercial (retail and restaurant) will be redeveloped on the existing site and the employee housing and office uses will be relocated to the North Day Lot. Trip generation for the existing offices was calculated using ITE Land Use Code: Office (710). The proposed hotel rooms were calculated using ITE Land Use Code: Resort Hotel (330). Trip generation was calculated for the retail space using ITE Land Use Code: Specialty Retail (814). The proposed condo trip generation was calculated using ITE Land Use Code: Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230). Trip generation was not calculated for the spa as this is anticipated to be an amenity to the hotel and will not generate external trips. The proposed ski club is anticipated to have 300 members who will have parking privileges at the Core Area. These club members will be allocated 100 parking spaces within the parking structure beneath the Core Area building. On a typical busy weekend day, all parking spaces are anticipated to be occupied. Therefore, the parking spaces are expected to attract 100 entering and 100 exiting, or 200 total trips per day. To determine the number of trips that would occur during a common peak hour, information was obtained relative to anticipated club member activity. Based upon information from Vail Resorts, it is expected that approximately 33 percent of skiers arrive within a common peak hour. Therefore, the resultant trip generation for the Ski Club would be 33 vehicle trips during the peak hour. These trips would most likely be seen as 33 entering vehicles during the AM peak hour and 33 exiting vehicles during the PM peak hour. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-19 V Applicable assumptions as presented in the Lionshead Village Transportation Analysis were followed with this study. This included the 75 percent primary internal trip generation reduction per FHU within the Lionshead Transportation Analysis. Due to the pedestrian nature of Lionshead Village, a majority of the trips generated by the retail redevelopment in the Core Area are expected to be made by people who are already skiing and/or staying in the Lionshead area. In fact, it is believed that this percentage may even be greater. However, to provide a conservative analysis and to be consistent with the Master Plan Study, the retail generation was reduced 75 percent to eliminate the double counting of trips following the same procedure used within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Tennis Court Site The existing Tennis Court site located along Forest Road, just east of the Gondola line, is proposed to be developed with four (4) recreational/seasonal second home sites. However, each site may be constructed as a duplex. To provide a conservative analysis, trip generation was completed assuming 8 units total on this site. To estimate vehicle trip generation from these future homes, the ITE Land Use Code: Recreational Homes (260) was used. Nia) North Day Lot The North Day Lot currently provides parking for 105 on-mountain employee vehicles being relocated to the Holy Cross/Maintenance Site. The North Day Lot is proposed to accommodate 144 beds of employee housing and approximately 16,000 square feet of Vail Resorts offices. The proposed development of 144 beds of employee housing on this site actually may not generate any new vehicle trips during the peak hour. Vail Resorts is planning that this housing may be for employees that do not need a vehicle and who will walk to and from work. To provide a conservative analysis, an estimate of vehicle trips per ITE was assigned to the street network. To estimate the trip generation of the proposed office space and employee housing ITE Land Use Code:Office (710) and Apartments (220) were used, respectively. Lionshead Redevelopment ■iri) Environmental Impact Report Page G-20 Trip Generation Summary Table 1 summarizes the estimated net traffic generation for the development. The trip generation worksheets are included in Appendix B. These calculations illustrate the rates used, directional distribution of trips, and number of daily trips. The calculations provide for the net development to estimate new vehicle trips (future development minus existing development being removed) generated by Vail Resorts' Lionshead Redevelopment. New trips are vehicles that are attracted to Vail by development of additional hotel rooms, dwelling units or retail space. Table 1 -Lionshead Redevelopment Net Project Traffic Generation Development Area AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total West Day Lot 27 53 80 63 40 103 Core Area 25 12 37 15 28 43 Tennis Court Site 1 1 2 1 2 3 North Day Lot 28 37 65 43 39 82 (1.0' Total 81 103 184 122 109 231 4.2 Trip Distribution Distribution of site traffic on the street system was based on the Lionshead Village Transportation Analysis prepared for the Town of Vail by Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (October 1998) and the street system expected to exist in the future. The directional distribution of traffic is a means to quantify the percentage of site-generated traffic that approaches a project site from a given direction and departs the site in the same direction. Distributions were prepared separately for the West Day Lot site, Core Area redevelopment site, Tennis Court site, and North Day Lot based upon differences in site location. Figures 7 through 10 illustrate the expected project trip distribution for the hotel expansion on the West Day Lot site, Core Area redevelopment,Tennis Court site, and North Day Lot,respectively. 411/ Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-21 CNTS 067867001 NORTH <In LEGEND 0 Study Area Key Intersection XX%(XX%) Entering(Exiting)Trip Distribution 1 TENNIS URT liT O Fs. D ,NWT' 4- o °0 ')RE Gp�� !O O i ': HOTEL E%PANSION .�^ —ANTLERS DAYLOT) J` _.. (WEST /, v:_% NTENANCE AMON •C �0 ;;;p PR J THE MARRIOTT{'�`, 4_ 0,LE i fa!!!",..,..._._ if d�' ---__= WEST ( - ORE AREA'ei�'r':=': OS 1 --1 LET•Milite ,c1;11--j* 14 EAST LIONSHEAD c.> ,L Op0 / 0 etF �. LOO aN EST Ir ,L 5 Op0 + LIONSHEAD VILLAGE NORTH DAY LOT;';:..;"'_' `y I PARKING STRUCTURE I lqZ-1 - - .- - .�Ea0,'*'G 1 �I NOa 55% I-i0EASTBOUND f-- `4j�° I-70 WESTBOUND / T / 1.\��1° 051 o ° �n, / (35%) 50'10...--', (40%) T y v°° FIGURE 7 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT • HOTEL EXPANSION ON WEST DAY LOT Lionshead Redevelopment TRIP DISTRIBUTION Environmental Impact Report •`_ ��.1 Kimley-Horn Page G 22 and Associates,Inc. • t • NTS 067867001 NO©©N RTH • © LEGEND • Study Area Key Intersection XX%(XX%) Entering(Exiting)Trip Distribution 7;M :v 1 TENNIS COURT 1 SITE [ / DP ‘- `WNVTP AVCCO P O �O p _____- _ HOTEL EXPANSION E:!:::, '�e'eG''ae.!C'�.`�`�.'e'�vF::`:y(WEST OAY LOT) ANTLERS _ � _�' �-i' r- � TENCE FACILITY�// 1J %MNN�\� `N pJ� TNE MARWOTT � ,i�� -i1 -- =110 WEST _ _,=::_c-s3'?;;: /7CA NZSAH SAIL (y _...,.., EAST LIONSHEAD (' .s r'y^}} V Dl.. NOER '" LANDMRK pP 1 5 ' :NORTH DAY LOT ERDP LIONSHEAD VILLAGE 1 1-1_,,....— - - ONZ Pp PARKING STRUCTURE ' J t .._. =— : �Z�FR I-70 EASTBOUND I.70 WESTBOUND c. O, )i t'n X30% ° I 5° 0 o 7 ii o X30° J 45°0— 10%--> vi 'a I° 0°101 FIGURE 8 • LIONSHEAD REDEVEItOPMENT CORE AREA REDEVELOPMENT Lionshead Redevelopment TRIP DISTRIBUTION 11.7./.1 Environmental Impact Report H Page G-23 _ and As socia tes, Inc. C NTS 067867001 NO 1=t-1-1-1 1=t-1-1-1®® ©pn LEGEND _ • Study Area Key Intersection XX%(XX%) Entering(Exiting)Trip Distribution TENNIS COURT SITE / OP��-{- '-'1 ."1-yjW{ J Ada 0 G 0 __ ==;-..HOTEIE%PANSION -__ _ --- _- _ - E5T DAV LOT -- R Nil � %%'_.a_�_:3::i�-�:.: _� - ,.... = - NTENANCE FACILRY MA l \O -07.;so Pig THE MARRIOTT OIR, I ` !ititiloikwill R E AREA_+^-_ �y0`' WEST ,f^ (-----7- -'--- ='=- -.7f;;;-- ,p,-, 4 14g, , \viditn-, S. -__EAST LIONSHEAD O /'�f O - L� E GP 'R'eo J V E :..f G R ��-- LANDMARK '�1� 0,0,,:c' ti O_ __ Soy _ _ __ °PD LIONSHEAD VILLAGE :NORTH OAT LOT:_�-:j_?'"' ......... .. RONS POE PARKING STRUCTURE ril% _...._ e,CNF 55% I, H TD EASTBOUND I TU WESTBOUND 110 •17 X4510 s y FIGURE 9 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT RECREATIONAL HOMES (TENNIS COURT SITE) Lionshead Redevelopment TRIP DISTRIBUTION Environmental Impact Report �' ❑um ri Kimley-Horn ' Page G-24 and Associates,Inc. I (3 f 4\ NTS 067867001 NORTH 0 LEGEND Egan • Study Area Key Intersection XX%(XX%) Entering(Exiting)Trip Distribution 1 TENNIS COURT:44 1: SITE g ,40111111110. 'CIPS to '-.!a 0 ANIC42*EFF: v.,:egink 11, _ .—#2;:ff+TEMERMEREVEMP e39 ilk PL-4,, -,....E.,:itiF.. ''''P.N, „cos- \r-T--gEN'IrTri 0 cw'tv. ,,„..eg ,. ---,...----fLi {, .. CEAST LIONSHEA0 --- :NDRTH.DAY i:or OP s°4c Ge.opt) LIONSHEAD VILLAGE PARKING STRUCTURE 1.1":73 9,0,41P. tk°C6 55% -.1.-y. -- L i I-70 EASTBOUND I-70 WESTBOUND Ilf 0 Nt I (5%) ■.-.7 - 7 r ,., f.....,01° J. . 1 *cl°-.--V FIGURE 10 L( LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT '''' NORTH DAY LOT Lionshead Redevelopment TRIP DISTRIBUTION Environmental Impact Report H , Page G-25 Kimley-Horn 11:21/1 and Associates,Inc. 4.3 Traffic Assignment Traffic assignment was obtained by applying the above distributions to the estimated traffic generation. Project traffic assignment for the hotel expansion on the West Day Lot, Core Area redevelopment, Tennis Court site, and North Day Lot are shown in Figures 11 through 14, respectively. 4.4 Total Post Development Traffic It is important to recognize that the West Day Lot and North Day Lot currently provide parking for on-mountain employees. The West Day Lot provides approximately 160 parking spaces and the North Day Lot provides approximately 105 parking spaces. With the redevelopment of these two lots, there will be a redistribution of traffic for these employees. Currently, parking for these employees is expected to be accommodated in some form on the existing Holy Cross/Maintenance facility along the north side of South Frontage Road. These employees are expected to use the existing access located approximately 300 feet west of the Forest Road access that aligns with the Eagle River Sanitation District along the south side of South Frontage Road. Information has been provided by Vail Resorts to determine when these on-mountain employees would be expected to arrive and depart both the North Day Lot and West Day Lot on a typical winter season day. It is believed that on the North Day Lot approximately two- thirds of the entering trips in the morning occur during the peak hour. All evening peak hour trips exiting the North Day Lot are believed to occur during the peak hour. On the West Day Lot, it is expected that all entering trips in the morning are expected to occur during the peak hour. However, it is believed that approximately two-thirds of the exiting trips occur during the evening peak hour. Therefore, a redistribution of these on-mountain employee trips is reflected in the total post development traffic figures as shown in Figure 15. Site traffic volumes were added to the background volumes to represent estimated traffic conditions for full project development. Total traffic volumes that include the entire planned Lionshead Redevelopment project are illustrated in Figure 16 for the 2005 horizon and Figure 17 for the 2020 horizon. Lionshead Redevelopment J Environmental Impact Report Page G-26 • • NTS 067867001 \ N O RTH LEGEND • Study Area Key Intersection rEn XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Eiiiiiiiiiiigiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiike ----- ::?TENN15COURT OPc_ - t i SITE :'' ' FtraggRET T h_ y�WTP G 4.� .•�r wr :a 4�-�� —_e ' ce ,,,s -- - ___ \ OS /�O SO 'G�� liC➢ • MAryTENANGE - -- WEST ^ _ .:. ' en AN All* V VNLSP C..J �j of\f a ..b' EAST LIONSHEAD P� �',-- VI E ",— SPG,NOP _ � ir.�r��IANDMARK,� L�; jON ._ ROP•NORTH OAT LOT.::.::,H:; 0 LIONSHEAD VILLAGE ' - =-s -PARKING STRUCTURE .- =- "' N O‘ytl'`a I 70 EASTBOUND 4-"/ C5 I-70 WESTBOUND y " 1 of (ti F —0� 0 26120) ;v,o — `0\ 1//61 ? T FIGURE 11 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT --- HOTEL EXPANSION ON WEST DAY LOT Lionshead Redevelopment TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Environmental Impact Report Page G-27 ❑-F1 and Associates, 3 � and Associates,Inc. NTS 067867001 LEGEND NJ CZ)p RTH 0 Study Area Key Intersection XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes -:TENNIS COUNT +!::- ME ei.t. O,p G " 161511111111=gx,,,,to. .'i — TL_R -__ - _ _Pf r GE FAGI-I� �MgINTENAN IL OPO^ p�C— (y , �-^''�� JPa THE MPFRfOTT _,"7� cs LE ,77 7 _ - _.s: `ONE :. �`�' •� mss' _ wt mss.-, ..,:�.*....��."_ �_ yt---�l s. s':^T' T�. .+" ,I WEST SNY ._�1 [..„,*,, A All`: VNL./c0 • EAST LIONSHEAD C "`�� aAv �/ CSR —"�1.:. ,.�� LbDE f��iSP ZN NORTH DAV LOT s«``: 5� FypPp LIONSHEAD VILLAGE ._._.: NS PGE PARKING STRUCTURE �� 37t:'w D 170 EASTBOUND I-70 WESTBOUND cv 1(3) -a I� X7(4) J1 —2(6) Zll 0(0� i 11 12(8) 2(1) 341 FIGURE 12 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT • CORE AREA REDEVELOPMENT Lionshead Redevelopment TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Environmental Impact Report JV and Associates, Page G-28 Inc. L ' as C •N tfrs 067867001 Ni 1_1 LEGEND • Study Area Key Intersection Kian XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes '4:.. 11111111. ....—■ TENNIS COURT■:,::::k,,, -...-....-----------...--- ___ -----1: -----"maggal HOT.EZtN,S,TION N.,N;K:, i .. WES sf" E=Zati fp$ Trri nj:7 -7-'-7iii: 7.-NifsitSP ,,-., __ EAST LIONSHEAD 9,&0 -'---■/ _ _________ . ?c4 C':::.:1 TAPT6PA—r„„—n viJ6_,* ,,ot'l s■CO‘AC' LIONSHEAD VILLAGE I In, b filligr '1:7.7 PARKING STRUCTURE _n r 1- ] 70 EASTBOUND I-70 WESTBOUND -10 FIGURE 13 0 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT RECREATIONAL HOMES (TENNIS COURT SITE) Lionshead Redevelopment TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Environmental Impact Report Page G-29 Kimley-Horn illib,i Ell/ 1 and Associates,Inc. • NTS 067867001 LEGEND NORT I ©© 0 Study Area Key Intersection ©O17\1 ,...- XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TEETEIF --TENNIS COURT'Ys` .c� SITE .;:_l OP Po F = _ % L EXPAN HOTESION L=::r _-,� - _ __-__ _ = EST DAY LO —1 ANTI. � - ._.- ----_ —_ _ AC fN P 51f1'O1__— ,-+ _ l `f MAINTEN� __ _ \`� ION Sp S'THE MARfUOTT \ O ikRGLE_.. / J// !, }� µti:ORE AREA zi.'<i._=?: O�' WEST E:_- -_--_i :_=•.- __,,33 err N17---s-P-5' `_ 'r:_:_ ::i T 4,1- , ,..*,4, t I l_s — EAST LIONSHEAD C, O -. �9 V IL E SPO'EaOP �i�` t � LANRK? u aa.1 nss:_;a: 5 Opp LIONSHEAD VILLAGE � :NORTH DAY LOT?__i`'"" ly - ONtPG� PARKING STRUCTURE - _ ___ O� f, N 70 EASTBOUND 1.70 WESTBOUND ._ N �0 7T h c ,o) FIGURE 14 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT • NORTH DAY LOT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report ❑ gm ri Kimley-Horn Page G-30 J and Associates,Inc. . . • • NTS 067867001 LEGEND NORTH • ©©©. Study Area Key Intersection ©0 XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ll, TENNIS COURT:-��_ SITE __'< .5-. '" _ _ _" OS D%A S _ r TL =ff — rIIIIIIF / CEF OI L V O P C -r ';'' HE MWW O T - - 5 M N T E N RY ._.- _ _y ___= O`er WES 0 _______/ .. EAST UONSHEAD c_ L Cv^�7 14C",4r,) MAriK, Ls,_ ,0NS PG0aUPO R Op,O '� NORTH OPV LOT i;3�_;j ��' R LIONSHEAD VILLAGE `j�L^.�� le-` �ON'(PGE PARKING STRUCTURE ' ! 1- 1 L A atN III :\`x I.70 EASTBOUND , 70 WESTBOUND c 9 1, 5 ti 11 ,s (76) 449 -00) 7 i JI ", o FIGURE 15 • LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT REROUTE OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES FROM Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental PARKING RELOCATION vironmental Impact Report Kimley Horn ' Page G-31 `- ❑ten and Associates,Inc. NTS 067867001 1 LEGEND NORTH • Study Area Key Intersection <En XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ! TENNIS COURT --- -SITE -'_'_€' / '01, t.. t�il,�� \-3 11 O \- WWTP k O OORF e_,,,,,4/%--- EE .----- _ - , , HOTEL EXPANSION'_:::� - - - - ' (WEST DAY LO n_ NTL E -= - / \o' ,, HEMAFWOTT "9 ilk Pi.-47: __ri j- = 1 _ /GIR LE r J N FACILITY,,,, L {�^ OREAREA _ ; r'rO' WEST rr Ell Ni":""2"""""11111, 11:11-4. _LEAST EAD ,'P C. V 4L �r GR°O`r � LANDM � L_7DE 0,0,,,-(N —_� ---1 (j�T,�� ASH LIONSHEAD VILLAGE r-f NORTH DAY LOT:,;?__".". Fy L-� 'L _____ SHF,ONS PGE PARKING STRUCTURE ate../ -=-= '- NOR 0i\ o, ---- ------_ 7 � � ff\ 1.TO FAS7BOUND JO % � ,( Illf 1.TO WESTBOUND / y %S 12 Ixrt. r0 El L 36(Sgl a -101(60) (-387(488) J \61R84661 28(27) T ii s ,- 3931 h h 168(107) a 382(496) n , 01A1 340p31 FIGURE 16 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT 2005 TOTAL POST DEVELOPMENT Lionshead Redevelopment PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Environmental Impact Report • Kimley-Horn Page G-32 m rI and Associates,Inc. J NTS 067867001 LEGEND NORTH • Study Area Key Intersection ERVN XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Traffic Volumes dil TENNS9COURT O _ ,p s O __ _ = lr-1 WNW ASE,REE 1, _- , HO--EL EXPANSION- _- -- '_. :(WEST OAY LOT)Y-.__ 1 1:5,,,,,- " NTL RS _ _ - - - _ O ,,k--/ 'U O' --'' r`E__FRIOn�t.v " cn5S,A - - / A IN T E N N CE FA C L B i / V-7 !IlEhf-74.. rO �T '"_CORE AREAF__ :_ �_fl WEST ,../'r F�., �--� .'.g;r:�_� .-..___. , \AILS � T3 EAST LIONSHEAD C�CtF L. L- �) C DM� 40` .--' „PGOp.O _______I .NORTN DAY LOT EB(° PROW S VILLAGE PARKING STRUCTURE {{{ -3 'CNFBONSPG y 11 NOB \\�\\q1\ I-70 EASTBOUND IO 'i-b 2 I-70 WESTBOUND �% If a 6P g\ cra ,b\ C-.-Si. 5"1 05° J r- `/ C d\. 1Y N a - ) N �-101(60) 36(59) <-554(707) z8(z7) r 169(110) -a �„ �ry 556(714) _> FIGURE 17 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT . 2020 TOTAL POST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-33 �. ❑_� Kimley-Horn J and Associates,Inc. sour 5.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSES Kimley-Horns analyses of traffic operations in the site vicinity were conducted to determine potential capacity deficiencies in the 2005 and 2020 development horizons. The acknowledged source for determining overall capacity is the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual2. Capacity analysis results are listed in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative term describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street during a particular time interval. It ranges from A (very little delay) to F (long delays and congestion). Based upon Kimley-Horn experience, LOS D or better is recommended as the measure of acceptable level of service during the peak hours. The intersection operations for background (prior to the addition of project traffic) and total (with project traffic added) traffic peak-hour conditions at key intersections were analyzed using the unsignalized analysis methodologies found in the Highway Capacity Manual2 (HCM) using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000) program, Release 4.1. The following provides a discussion of the level of service results on an intersection-by-intersection basis (calculations in Appendix C). , 2 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Washington DC, 2000. Kimley-Horn followed procedures in Chapter 10 for unsignalized intersections. N.r)Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-34 0 South Frontage Road and Parking Structure Access It was found that the intersection of South Frontage Road with the parking structure access is expected to operate at a deficient level of service prior to the addition of project in 2005. The northbound movement at this unsignalized intersection is expected to operate at LOS F with extremely long delays during the PM peak hour in 2005 before the addition of project traffic. Based upon the results of the analysis and the expected magnitude of turning movements in both short term 2005 and long term 2020 horizons, the northbound approach should be striped and signed with separate left and right turn lanes. Sufficient pavement width is believed to exist for this improvement. In addition, a left turn lane along South Frontage Road was found to be needed for acceptable level of service for 2005, prior to the addition of project traffic. This improvement is expected to increase operations at this intersection by separating left turn traffic from the through movements. This shared center turn lane area would likely further improve operations by providing these northbound left-turning vehicles a refuge or acceleration zone before entering the main stream of traffic along the frontage road. It is recommended that the Town of Vail consider implementation of these improvements to improve the existing traffic situation at this intersection. With these improvements, the northbound approach level of service improves to LOS C during the PM peak hour with or without the addition of project traffic. All movements are expected to operate with acceptable level of service,with or without the addition of project traffic in the long term horizon year. Table 2 provides the results of the level of service capacity analysis. • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-35 C Ce.,.C7 5 0 a ak al l 0 PO = UPC gO pQQ C * v a a � CDN * O ----, rr N r .fir Q) t, 00 O ■O 00 1--I 0", 00 6) y 3 = A v e�--4 N r-4 M ci N Om N VI al O 6 G a .; * cn * .^ O < POUW QUU �1 C W 4. O 4 ,•• 0 ' m aD O N O 10 0 O " 6 N N D N N N a row $ caD 3 ci) "0 41 Z cr d O Qa0ww QUUU v cd * .°,1., a * c -," � .h)v• N O = .,i o k in 00 `;‘-ii eli M -∎ G0 00■ 4 0 74 O bi) B .�•4t40 0 a+ CP O U '`s v 0 CD CU V rte- r! h ■p to M N „p VS W .fir A N r-4 O-4 � �+ eta Cdr W cD W ,, * * v N O in � fa■ v ul y .Y, O * O u N .� ~ > ' ' N. p 1 I 40.1 v V m O cn v 5 v v a) v O . O E .p }. S1, L11 �+-� -tr � � a" _ ,n N p 7:1000 'O 0 0 0 > p ON y -1 0 0 0 ,x 0 0 0 0 N v N < ZZZ zzzz ,44) 0 0 tbe South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle (east) This unsignalized east intersection of the Frontage Road with West Lionshead Circle was found to operate with an acceptable level of service in the background condition of 2005 and 2020. In 2005, with the addition of project traffic, it is expected that the intersection will continue to operate with acceptable level of service with the existing intersection configuration. However, with the addition of project traffic in 2020, it is anticipated that a two-way left turn lane is recommended to be installed that will provide a deceleration lane for westbound left turning vehicles turning onto West Lionshead Circle at this location as well as an acceleration lane for northbound left turning vehicles turning onto the Frontage Road. With this improvement, all movements are expected to operate acceptably. Table 3 provides the level of service results at this intersection. Table 3- South Frontage Road/West Lionshead Circle (east) LOS Results 2005 Background 2005 Total 2020 Background 2020 Total** (without project) (with project) (without project) (with project) Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Time Period (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) AM Peak Westbound Left 8.3 A 8.2 A 8.8 A 8.8 A Northbound Approach 13.9 B 15.8 C 19.0 _ C 18.5 C PM Peak Westbound Left 8.3 A 8.8 A 8.9 A 9.5 A Northbound Approach 17.3 C 20.6 C 31.5 C 20.2 C **2020 Improvements include a two-way left turn lane IIILionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-37 v South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle (west) ‘,..11 The northbound shared left turn and right turn movement at this west unsignalized intersection of the Frontage Road with West Lionshead Circle is expected to operate at unacceptable level of service in the future prior to the addition of project traffic in 2020. This is due to the northbound left turning vehicles having difficulty entering the South Frontage Road due to the high through volumes. The northbound approach is expected to benefit from a two-way left turn lane along the Frontage Road. This two-way left turn lane will allow vehicles to enter the Frontage Road more easily by having a designated lane to turn into before merging with through traffic. With these improvements, all movements are expected to operate acceptably in the 2020 horizon.Table 4 provides the level of service results at this intersection. Table 4- South Frontage Road/West Lionshead Circle (west) LOS Results 2005 2005 Total 2020 2020 Total** Background (with project) Background** (with project) (without project) (without project) Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS III Time Period (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) AM Peak Westbound Left 8.7 A 8.3 A 9.4 A 8.8 A Northbound Approach 14.3 B 14.4 B 14.6 B 15.0- B PM Peak Westbound Left 8.3 A 8.9 A 8.9 A 9.6 A Northbound Approach 25.5 C 25.2 D 25.2 D 22.6 C **Improvements include separate northbound left and right turn lanes and two-way left turn lane I Lionshead Redevelopment III Environmental Impact Report Page G-38 0 0 Cy South Frontage Road and Forest Road All movements at this unsignalized intersection are expected to operate acceptably in 2005 with the existing geometry and lane configuration. Background growth along South Frontage is expected to elicit the need for left turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches at this intersection prior to the addition of project traffic in 2020. With this improvement, this intersection is expected to operate with acceptable level of service throughout the long term horizon. Table 5 provides the level of service results at this intersection. Table 5 - South Frontage Road/Forest Road LOS Results 2005 2005 Total 2020* 2020** Background Background Total Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Time Period (s/veh) (s/veh) (s/veh) (s/veh) AM Peak Eastbound Left/Through/Right 7.8 A 8.1 A - - - - Eastbound Left - - - - 8.2 A 8.6 A Westbound Left/Through/Right 8.5 A 8.2 A - - - - Westbound Left - - - - 9.5 A 9.1 A Northbound Approach 16.6 C 16.4 C 16.2 C 15.4 C Southbound Approach 15.7 C 16.2 C 14.9 B 14.9 B PM Peak Eastbound Left/Through/Right 8.7 A 8.5 A - - - - Eastbound Left - - - - 9.8 A 9.5 A Westbound Left/Through/Right 8.3 A 8.7 A - - - - Westbound Left - - - - 9.0 A 9.6 A Northbound Approach 17.6 C 22.3 C 16.5 C 18.6 C Southbound Approach 21.4 C 24.3 C 18.8 C 19.5 C *2020 Improvements include a two-way left turn lane east and westbound along South Frontage Road (...- Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-39 The HCS analysis results for total traffic are graphically depicted for the study intersections in Figure 18 for the 2005 horizon and Figure 19 for the 2020 horizon. It is recommended that the Town of Vail monitor through volumes along the Frontage Road after build-out of the development to ensure that any improvements along the Frontage Road are based on actual traffic volumes, rather than growth projections. The intersection HCS resulted in the future lanes and control recommendations as shown in Figures 20 and 21 for 2005 and 2020, respectively. '40) Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-40 / NTS 067067001 LEGEND NORTH 0 Study Area Key Intersection Eon XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Level of Service TENNIS COURT f. ,O SITE ,p >I _ If. F 'PO } Sy coRF oPtO : 'L EXPANSION Mg . - - - -MOTE EST D L n ANTI — - _- -_ _ - — `� �%.:•:; .: IMPANTENPNCE FACILITY/1 \O GIR LE / uP� �7HE MARRIO = SO Tri - -- \-17' P9 ;: ORE AREA[[-;:;:y: •.: _ t_.:_.., � -] WEST( /, _ _ __ ---_- PN caw Z !. �VNL SPAS ......._ _......-__ _, 4371-1-- . AIL-,.. -� L-,Lt ,,-� s,-, EAST LIONSHEAD c ( t P Y" C . (} .�_ E NS PG6 EST LIONSHEAD VILLAGE NORTH DAY LOT - �OPO FlEIL-'7]iL sip ,�ON�PG� PARKING STRUCTURE ( .....-�� ESN j ,,,., 1.70 EASTBOUND / M j-70 WESTBOUND ir U `\C U U 41 m m 1 J A(A) iii. FIGURE 18 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT 2005 LEVEL OF SERVICE Lionshead Redevelopment TOTAL POST DEVELOPMENT Environmental Impact Report • ❑ �� Kaimley-Horn Page G-41 and Associates,Inc. NTS 067867001 LEGEND NO©R{TH • Study Area Key Intersection pOV V XX(XX) AM(PM)Peak Hour Level of Service T:?�TENNISCOORT{[�.'._.. SITE_ �:":[`+�� O'P -_'-':.ROTE.EXPANSION t:::_ _ - -C '` s - tW E ST DAY LO n -- 09 If r �� -�' THE AwOT ` R_ UE - -__- MA NENAN F (\--13 1 0��` M !/jr,_,IN:<)/- -- - WEST fr EAST LIONSHEAD P U `y,i3 -'f,} PO qc � TTT Vl +'� V�IL LO( ,f- Gy,O F--... _._ NAP L�1- WJDMAF( l,OD¢E fRON", �/ OVA NORTH Qp <0''''''C9'°'' OR LIONSHEAO VILLAGE ^ _. P NSpGE PARKING STRUCTURE ?� � .........::::." jNF O 1-70 EASTBOUND @�(� 1-70 WESTBOUND Eye illi 10 a o 65- UI\- . 411 ti y Irt A(A) FIGURE 19 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT 2020 LEVEL OF SERVICE TOTAL POST DEVELOPMENT Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report H r.n Page G-42 J and Kimley-Horn Associates,Inc. • / NTS 067867001 LEGEND NORTH • ©; Study Area Key Intersection .:1ij-TENNS COURT / �` SITE 1.-.- °gyp -\- - -_ _ __ _ 1\,_ WWTP J `�.-_ _____ _ __ _____'::.t":. OTEL EXPANSION;;_��g+ _.- - _____ - (WESTDAY LOT) ANTI-ERS _ -- __ _ __ __ _ AN GE FAWN S 'l- ( HEMARWOTT' of,LE / _--. U T .1 09 11 ORE AREA::_:Y:$: O`' WEST N 1 -j{ J s • - 11--11 _1 ( r'"� a _ v EAST_LIONSHEAD C;_O l f-- 1-,Z LOl�_ i ��pP � 1L-., �� LANDMARK� LDO�E pNt PG F` ai� mss'-"�,,,,.,...r�..� -4�.. OJ�NFP-_ ::. €i_:`s'. ,0‘.0' APO NORTH DAY WT;_::K:`"" ONSPG� LIONSHEAD VILLAGE t _ ____ _ ��PARKING STRUCTURE ...- " ,,,,jN N - I jO EWTOOD D A-- CD J _-.__ 44)--11 Al lir 1111111111P FIGURE 20 0 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED SHORT TERM INTERSECTION Lionshead Redevelopment LANEAGE AND CONTROL Environmental Impact Report Page G-43 J ❑—� Kimley-Horn _ and Associates,Inc. • fi NTS 067867001 LEGEND NORTH • 0 Study Area Key Intersection 0 TENNIS COURT SITE / OPF 5-An _..y \--.WWTP f = O { -A„ ) W OTSEL DIX�P�AONS=IO f( J/ 1- 7;= = - TENANGE FACIU7Y V'------ -r' VPK_a a THE MARRIOTr[ OIR LE -r 1 _ _ V Y 1 v—lj LJ �r� % c ?:i:ollEAREA`R:a.°-s WEST 1 J k- C1' T @E�-'v-EY-=_`r_".'s= f��,,ll._P��.r- fyN 1:7 \J.AIL'Spy EAST LIONSHEAD Oy G ',...1::,.::: ;..:rvs-�.. -j � L LV�.r� �ROPO __. }F` '' �.r^-� �1.4�P1.DMARK,_I �O^E PR N'CP O ESN D S PO LIONSREAD VILLAGE :NORTH DAV LOT =1_;-" ONtPGE,O PARKING STRUCTURE I �1E'�� ti `1 ,=.. - ORSRER I-70 EASTBOUND 0, I-70 WESTBOUND li. vitio.)-11 40 NIIIIV FIGURE 21 LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED LONG TERM INTERSECTION .. Lionshead Redevelopment � LANEAGE AND CONTROL Environmental Impact Report `_ Page G-44 con Kimley Horn and Associates,Inc. • 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis presented in this report, Kimley-Horn believes the proposed Vail Resorts Lionshead Redevelopment will be successfully incorporated into the future traffic operations. The proposed project development and expected traffic volumes resulted in the following conclusions: • The expected net increase in vehicular traffic for the identified Vail Resorts Lionshead redevelopment combined is 184 AM and 231 PM weekday peak hour trips. • Near term Improvements Needed Prior to Project Impacts (2005): o Separate northbound left and right turn lanes at the intersection of the Parking Structure with South Frontage Road o Dedicated westbound left turn lane at the intersection of the Parking structure with South Frontage Road C • Long term Improvements Needed Prior to Project Impacts (2020): o Dedicated westbound left turn lane at the western intersection of West Lionshead Circle with South Frontage Road o Dedicated eastbound and westbound left turn lanes at the intersection of Forest Road with South Frontage Road • Long term Improvements Needed for Project Impacts (2020): o Dedicated westbound left turn lane at the eastern intersection of West Lionshead Circle with South Frontage Road 110 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-45 • APPENDICES S Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-46 • APPENDIX A Peak Hour Volume Count Sheets and Calculation Worksheets • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-47 •ll Traffic Data Services, Inc. 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : FOREST&FRONTAGEAM Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 No iii/ Page No : 1 Groups Printed-1-Unshifted FOREST RD FRONTAGE FOREST RD FRONTAGE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int.Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 32 0 1 0 5 0 51 4 93 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 2 0 45 4 84 08:30 AM 0 0 0 3 34 0 3 0 0 0 41 3 84 08:45 AM 0 0 0 2 42 0 1 0 3 0 52 5 105 Total 0 0 0 5 141 0 5 0 10 0 189 16 366 09:00 AM 0 0 0 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 110 09:15 AM 0 0 0 1 57 0 2 0 2 0 62 2 126 09:30 AM 0 0 0 4 51 0 2 0 1 0 68 4 130 09:45 AM 0 0 0 2 62 0 1 0 1 0 67 1 134 Total 0 0 0 8 215 0 5 0 4 0 261 7 500 10:00 AM 0 0 0 1 54 0 3 0 1 0 71 2 132 10:15 AM 0 0 0 1 52 0 2 0 2 0 72 3 132 10:30 AM 0 0 0 0 79 0 6 0 2 0 97 0 184 10:45 AM 0 0 0 1 55 0 3 0 1 0 62 2 124 Total 0 0 0 3 240 0 14 0 6 0 302 7 572 11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 49 0 4 0 3 0 70 4 130 1 11:15 AM 0 0 0 3 57 0 9 0 5 0 73 2 149 Grand Total 0 0 0 19 702 0 37 0 28 0 895 36 1717 1 Apprch% 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 97.4 0.0 56.9 0.0 43.1 0.0 96.1 3.9 Total% 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 40.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 52.1 2.1 No)FOREST RD Out In Total 1 of l al 0l I 1 i 01 of 1 0l Right Thru Litt) - T � W� ms N 0- w T - _ ..E• °'- CO t--• 7/5/02 8:00:00 AM 1--2 c -.4 0 1 O - _r- 7/5/02 11:15:00 AM N - _ m a 8 -°' 1-Unshifted O - -� + `-° A a 4-1 I r' TLionshead Redevelo mt I Le37i Thru 1 Righ 1 Environmental Impact Report 1 1 1 Page G-48 1 551 1 651 I 1201 Out In Total FOREST RD I • All Traffic Data Services, Inc. • 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : FOREST&FRONTAGEAM L Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 Page No : 2 FOREST RD FRONTAGE FOREST RD FRONTAGE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound APP' App. Int. Start Time Left Thru Right T tal Left Thru Right T ta� Left Thru Right Tol Left Thru Right Total Total Peak Hour From 08:00 AM to 11:15 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 10:30 AM Volume 0 0 0 0 4 240 0 244 22 0 11 33 0 302 8 310 587 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 98.4 0.0 66.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 97.4 2.6 10:30 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 79 6 0 2 8 0 97 0 97 184 Volume Peak Factor 0.798 High Int. 7:45:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:15 AM 10:30 AM Volume 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 79 9 0 5 14 0 97 0 97 Peak Factor 0.772 0.589 0.799 FOREST RD Out 1 In Total of l 01 1 I 1 01 01 1 01 Right Thru Left (11, N Wan _ ._, North � -?o WO� C9 o N 0 ZcO— i6.)t—+ 7/5/02 10:30:00 AM —2 A - - D 00 — —1- 7/5/02 11:15:00 AM ° _ 0 If_ — "� r — m o N — a—, 1-Unshifted r'%4,— - K i V 41 I I-• Left Thru Right I 221 01 111 1 I I 1 121 I 331 1 451 Out In Total FOREST RD • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-49 f All Traffic Data Services, Inc. - 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : FOREST&FRONTAGEPM Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 .r Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Unshifted FOREST FONTAGE RD FOREST FONTAGE RD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time. Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int.Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 1 91 0 4 0 2 0 85 2 185 03:15 PM 0 0 0 3 111 0 5 0 2 0 77 6 204 03:30 PM 0 0 0 3 81 0 7 0 4 0 64 2 161 03:45 PM 0 0 0 4 93 0 4 0 4 0 99 4 208 Total 0 0 0 11 376 0 20 0 12 0 325 14 758 04:00 PM 0 0 0 5 106 0 6 0 4 0 59 6 186 04:15 PM 0 0 0 1 83 0 7 0 3 0 82 4 180 04:30 PM 0 0 0 6 99 0 2 0 4 0 93 2 206 04:45 PM 0 0 0 2 112 0 5 0 3 0 73 2 197 Total 0 0 0 14 400 0 20 0 14 0 307 14 769 05:00 PM 0 0 0 4 116 0 3 0 3 0 85 0 211 05:15 PM 0 0 0 4 94 0 3 0 5 0 75 8 189 Grand Total 0 0 0 33 986 0 46 0 34 0 792 36 1927 Apprch% 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 96.8 0.0 57.5 0.0 42.5 0.0 95.7 4.3 4 Total% 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 51.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 41.1 1.9 FOREST Out I In OI I Total l I I I 0I 01 0] ht Thru Left I 0 o - NO Fox� p- ❑ _1 North - ' T o' - O_ E z Q- .c-► 7/5/02 3:00:00 PM 4_2 o -05> z - I- 7/5/02 5:15:00 PM rn co m X O=o Unshifted �io - 0 0 e,- A-t U1_ T r Left Thni Right 461 01 341 1 1 1 I 691 1 801 I 149 Out In Total FOREST ...1 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-50 All Traffic Data Services, Inc. • 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : FOREST&FRONTAGEPM C Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 Page No : 2 FOREST FONTAGE RD FOREST FONTAGE RD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start lime Left Thru Right APP' Left Thru Right APP' Left Thru Right APP' Left Thru Right Ana I Total Total Total Total Total Peak Hour From 03:00 PM to 05:15 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:30 PM Volume 0 0 0 0 16 421 0 437 13 0 15 28 0 326 12 338 803 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 96.3 0.0 46.4 0.0 53.6 0.0 96.4 3.6 05:00 0 0 0 0 4 116 0 120 3 0 3 6 0 85 0 85 211 Volume 0.951 Peak Factor High Int. 2:45:00 PM 05:00 PM 04:45 PM 04:30 PM Volume 0 0 0 0 4 116 0 120 5 0 3 8 0 93 2 95 Peak Factor 0.910 0.875 0.889 FOREST Out In Total 1 01 1 01 1 01 I 01 01 1 01 Right Thru Left (Ire N - j 2 0 - —O� , North L?o O — — z Q E tQ— rot—0 7/5/02 4:30:00 PM 4---2 -w 3> I- — 7/5/02 5:15:00 PM — m m u_r5A —v-L Unshifted �— -r0 O °—' V Ef OD— i I 14 Left Thru Right 1 131 01 151 1 1 l 281 1 1281 1 581 Out In Total FOREST C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-51 All Traffic Data Services, Inc. 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : WLION&FRONTAGEAM Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 ,..) Page No : 1 Groups Printed-1-Unshifted W LIONHEAD FRONTAGE W LIONHEAD FRONTAGE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left_ Thru Right Int.Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 08:00 AM 0 0 0 5 23 0 11 0 9 0 49 4 101 08:15 AM 0 0 0 6 35 0 10 0 7 0 40 3 101 08:30 AM 0 0 0 2 38 0 7 0 14 0 34 5 100 08:45 AM 0 0 0 14 34 0 4 0 12 0 43 5 112 Total 0 0 0 27 130 0 32 0 42 0 166 17 414 09:00 AM 0 0 0 10 40 0 8 0 10 0 62 4 134 09:15 AM 0 0 0 12 49 0 7 0 12 0 60 2 142 09:30 AM 0 0 0 11 52 0 5 0 11 0 69 1 149 09:45 AM 0 0 0 8 54 0 8 0 10 0 65 5 150 Total 0 0 0 41 195 0 28 0 43 0 256 12 575 10:00 AM 0 0 0 4 51 0 5 0 14 0 66 4 144 10:15 AM 0 0 0 7 51 0 5 0 14 0 75 3 155 10:30 AM 0 0 0 2 62 0 4 0 8 0 80 10 166 10:45 AM 0 0 0 5 46 0 4 0 15 0 58 5 133 Total 0 0 0 18 210 0 18 0 51 0 279 22 598 11:00 AM 0 0 0 6 47 0 6 0 11 0 61 5 136 11:15 AM 0 0 0 4 58 0 4 0 10 0 74 2 152 Grand Total 0 0 0 96 640 0 88 0 157 0 836 58 1875 Apprch a/o 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0 0.0 35.9 0.0 64.1 0.0 93.5 6.5 Total% 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 34.1 0.0 4.7 0.0 8.4 0.0 44.6 3.1 ....)W LIONHEAD Out In Total I oI I l of 1 01 1 101 01 I0I Right Thru Left ur North -7 o m Z E°0 ce 7c7- ao r-� 7/5/02 8:00:00 AM 4----0"V --45-F.1 0 - _i- 7/5/02 11:15:00 AM 2 0 rn L - ao« m N - E 1-Unshifed r� OA -0_� + x- Nitit 41 T r Lionshead Redevelo ment Left Thru Right Environmental Impact Re ort � sal of 1s7� P P I l I Page G-52 1541 1 2451 399 Out In Total W LIONHEAD 1 All Traffic Data Services, Inc. 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : WLION&FRONTAGEAM (11., Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 Page No : 2 W LIONHEAD FRONTAGE W LIONHEAD FRONTAGE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound App. Int. Start Time Left Thru Right T tal Left Thru Right T tal Left Thru Right T tal Left Thru Right Total Total Peak Hour From 08:00 AM to 11:15 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 09:45 AM Volume 0 0 0 0 21 218 0 239 22 0 46 68 0 286 22 308 615 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 91.2 0.0 32.4 0.0 67.6 0.0 92.9 7.1 10:30 0 0 0 0 2 62 0 64 4 0 8 12 0 80 10 90 166 Volume Peak Factor 0.926 High Int. 7:45:00 AM 10:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM Volume 0 0 0 0 2 62 0 64 5 0 14 19 0 80 10 90 Peak Factor 0.934 0.895 0.856 W LIONHEAD I Out 01 I In 01 1 Total 01 I 101 01 1 01 Rtght Tr Left L __To- - -.N ? - 0 —O t `� - N � North w — »c Z Wit°— Nt—, 7/5/02 9:45:00 AM 4—�� —WS? 0 — —~ 7/5/02 10:30:00 AM 2 m Co D a — ( - — m °v —N L 1-Unshifted io I I Left Thru Right 1 221 01 461 1 1 1 I 431 1 681 1 1111 Out In Total W LIONHEAD • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-53 All Traffic Data Services, Inc. "� 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : WLION&FRONTAGEPM Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 ,41) Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Unshifted W LIONHEAD FRONTAGE W LIONHEAD FRONTAGE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int.Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 _ 03:00 PM 0 0 0 16 79 0 2 0 13 0 75 5 190 03:15 PM 0 0 0 7 98 0 6 0 14 0 73 3 201 03:30 PM 0 0 0 15 96 0 5 0 7 0 64 4 191 03:45 PM 0 0 0 13 97 0 4 0 16 0 98 4 232 Total 0 0 0 51 370 0 17 0 50 0 310 16 814 04:00 PM 0 0 0 9 104 0 4 0 9 0 62 3 191 04:15 PM 0 0 0 13 89 0 5 0 17 0 87 2 213 04:30 PM 0 0 0 9 95 0 8 0 20 0 96 1 229 04:45 PM 0 0 0 5 106 0 7 0 18 0 73 5 214 Total 0 0 0 36 394 0 24 0 64 0 318 11 847 05:00 PM 0 0 0 4 112 0 3 0 20 0 83 1 223 05:15 PM 0 0 0 3 87 0 5 0 23 0 81 4 203 Grand Total 0 0 0 94 963 0 49 0 157 0 792 32 2087 Apprch% 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 91.1 0.0 23.8 0.0 76.2 0.0 96.1 3.9 Total% 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 46.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 7.5 0.0 37.9 1.5 W LIONHEAD Out In 0 01 l 01 01 1 101 Riht Tr Leift III gm - w _ P North »c -n -. D- I t-► 7/5/02 3:00:00 PM �-2 co -N 3 0 - -1- 7/5/02 5:15:00 PM w 4 LL N elL r - m '5- - _ Unshifted x m N 1 - �O � A 8 4, T r Left Thru Right 491 01 1571 l l 1 208 a ■III/1) Out ut In Total W LIONHEAD Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-54 All Traffic Data Services, Inc. 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : WLION&FRONTAGEPM L Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 Page No : 2 W LIONHEAD FRONTAGE W LIONHEAD FRONTAGE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound App. Int. Start Time Left Thru Right T � Left Thru Right T � Left Thru Right T � Left Thru Right Total Total Peak Hour From 03:00 PM to 05:15 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:15 PM Volume 0 0 0 0 31 402 0 433 23 0 75 98 0 339 9 348 879 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 92.8 0.0 23.5 0.0 76.5 0.0 97.4 2.6 04:30 0 0 0 0 9 95 0 104 8 0 20 28 0 96 1 97 229 Volume Peak Factor 0.960 High Int. 2:45:00 PM 05:00 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM Volume 0 0 0 0 4 112 0 116 8 0 20 28 0 96 1 97 Peak Factor 0.933 0.875 0.897 W LIONHEAD Out In Total I of 1 1 01 1 01 I 1 01 01 1 01 Right Thru Left �' 1 '� ill, _ T-r `�J� North tog--c ` 11 C99 ao — — p rn z `�— m r-� 7/5/02 4:15:00 PM F-2 0 —a O — 1- 7/5/02 5:00:00 PM r. °' u. — rn« r- — m 0 v - E-, Unshifted �% o tY i V i 1 r' Left Thru Right I 231 01 751 1 1 1 I 401 I 981 I 1381 Out In Total W LIONHEAD • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-55 All Traffic Data Services, Inc. '' 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : LION&FRONTAGEAM Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 s.r) Page No : 1 Groups Printed-1 -Unshifted LIONHEAD FRONTAGE LIONHEAD FRONTAGE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int.Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 08:00 AM 0 0 0 4 18 0 2 0 6 0 36 6 72 08:15 AM 0 0 0 4 43 0 6 0 2 0 43 2 100 08:30 AM 0 0 0 6 37 0 2 0 8 0 63 12 128 08:45 AM 0 0 0 5 27 0 2 0 5 0 48 11 98 Total 0 0 0 19 125 0 12 0 21 0 190 31 398 09:00 AM 0 0 0 6 32 0 8 0 5 0 55 7 113 09:15 AM 0 0 0 5 40 0 10 0 7 0 62 5 129 09:30 AM 0 0 0 8 51 0 9 0 4 0 61 4 137 09:45 AM 0 0 0 9 62 0 7 0 2 0 58 2 140 Total 0 0 0 28 185 0 34 0 18 0 236 18 519 10:00 AM 0 0 0 5 54 0 5 0 6 0 64 8 142 10:15 AM 0 0 0 7 51 0 8 0 3 0 75 8 152 10:30 AM 0 0 0 10 70 0 6 0 10 0 76 7 179 10:45 AM 0 0 0 18 59 0 10 0 5 0 87 7 186 Total 0 0 0 40 234 0 29 0 24 0 302 30 659 11:00 AM 0 0 0 8 45 0 4 0 14 0 82 6 159 11:15 AM 0 0 0 9 56 0 4 0 14 0 100 4 187 Grand Total 0 0 0 104 645 0 83 0 91 0 910 89 1922 Apprch% 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 86.1 0.0 47.7 0.0 52.3 0.0 91.1 8.9 Total% 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 33.6 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 47.3 4.6 `41)LIONHEAD Out Total 01 I In 01 I 1 1 1 1 01 Of 01 Right Thru Lift O - N w - North - m - o _ F�� 0 2 o z - r-� 7/5/02 8:00:00 AM 4-3.t -A 7 0 - -~ 7/5/02 11:15:00 AM 2 0 m LL Ti- co Y m o� `�� 1-Unshlfted 1-%- v o - oa7 14 Lionshead Redevelo ment Le 3 I 0 Right Environmental Impact Report ICI 111 Page G-56 I 1931 I 1741 1 3671 Out In Total LIONHEAD , All Traffic Data Services, Inc. 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : LION&FRONTAGEAM L Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 Page No : 2 TN LIONHEAD FRONTAGE LIONHEAD FRONTAGE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int. Start Time Left Thru Right T tal Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right T tal Left Thru Right fad Total Peak Hour From 08:00 AM to 11:15 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 10:30 AM Volume 0 0 0 0 45 230 0 275 24 0 43 67 0 345 24 369 711 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 83.6 0.0 35.8 0.0 64.2 0.0 93.5 6.5 11:15 0 0 0 0 9 56 0 65 4 0 14 18 0 100 4 104 187 Volume Peak Factor 0.951 High Int. 7:45:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM Volume 0 0 0 0 10 70 0 80 4 0 14 18 0 100 4 104 Peak Factor 0.859 0.931 0.887 LIONHEAD Out In Total I 01 11 01 1 01 I 1 01 01 101 R ht Thru Left 1 (11101 ` T �2— (.o — — II North c — p w O m°— t'r ■ 7/5/02 10:30:00 AM u _0 z O — I— 7/5/02 11:15:00 AM _ l'' — O N —N a--, 1-Unshifted — �—• w_ 47 T r Left Thru Right I 241 01 431 I l 1 691 1 671 1 1361 Out In Total LIONHEAD CLionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-57 All Traffic Data Services, Inc. 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : LION&FRONTAGEPM Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 NI) Page No : 1 4 Groups Printed-Unshifted LION HEAD FRONTEGE RD LION HEAD FRONTEGE RD Southbound Westbound _ Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int.Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0_ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 11 77 0 15 0 13 0 69 6 191 03:15 PM 0 0 0 11 96 0 16 0 17 0 71 14 225 03:30 PM 0 0 0 9 103 0 9 0 10 0 74 12 217 0 03:45 PM 0 0 0 15 110 0 14 0 14 0 100 12 265 Total 0 0 0 46 386 0 54 0 54 0 314 44 898 04:00 PM 0 0 0 2 95 0 7 0 12 0 66 15 197 04:15 PM 0 0 0 18 101 0 18 0 17 0 92 8 254 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 8 107 0 12 0 0 12 0 94 10 243 04:45 PM 0 0 12 102 0 15 15 0 85 14 243 937 Total 0 0 0 40 405 0 52 0 56 0 337 47 05:00 PM 0 0 0 12 86 0 8 0 12 0 91 12 221 05:15 PM 0 0 0 10 56 0 5 0 15 0 85 15 186 Grand Total 0 0 0 108 933 0 119 0 137 0 827 118 2242 Apprch% 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 89.6 0.0 46.5 0.0 53.5 0.0 87.5 12.5 Total% 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 41.6 0.0 5.3 0.0 6.1 0.0 36.9 5.3 LION HEAD Out In I In o l 1 Total I 1 1 I 1 01 01 01 Right Thru Left • -n rn 1 o _ e 1 cw - CO. _ 7/5/02 3:00:00 PM F-=m 0 2 w m 7/5/02 5:15:00 PM p _ -t E N - Unshifted _ o Oo --g--4. ,F3,0, 8- O tr a 4-I T r Left Thru Right 1 1191 01 1371 1 I i zSSI I aa Ill Out ut In Total l LION HEAD Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-58 All Traffic Data Services, Inc. 6214 Secrest Street Golden, CO. 80403 File Name : LION&FRONTAGEPM Site Code : 99923962 Start Date : 07/05/2002 Page No : 2 LION HEAD FRONTEGE RD LION HEAD FRONTEGE RD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right T tai Left Thru Right App. Left Thru Right Tod Left Thru Right Total Total Peak Hour From 03:00 PM to 05:15 PM- Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:15 PM Volume 0 0 0 0 50 396 0 446 53 0 56 109 0 362 44 406 961 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 88.8 0.0 48.6 0.0 51.4 0.0 89.2 10.8 04:15 0 0 0 0 18 101 0 119 18 0 17 35 0 92 8 100 254 Volume Peak Factor 0.946 High Int. 2:45:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 04:30 PM Volume 0 0 0 0 18 101 0 119 18 0 17 35 0 94 10 104 Peak Factor 0.937 0.779 0.976 LION HEAD Out In Total I 01 1 01 I 01 1 01 01 01 Right Th1 ru Left f-'I N o J� 0 North — w 3 O C — L-4 7/5/02 4:15:00 PM 4----�W —A 5 m O — —F- 7/5/02 5:00:00 PM 2 °' °' m LL -� Unshifted — m o ir; A g 4 1 Left Thru Right I 531 0] 561 94] I 1091 I 203 Out In Total LION HEAD • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report • Page G-59 Frontage Road Intersection ...me'Period Beginning Time Forest Road West Lionshead Lionshead 8:00 AM 114 124 89 8:15 AM 103 124 123 8:30 AM 103 123 159 8:45 AM 129 138 121 9:00 AM 135 165 139 9:15 AM 155 175 159 9:30 AM 160 183 169 9:45 AM 165 185 172 10:00 AM 162 177 175 10:15 AM 162 191 187 10:30 AM 226 204 220 10:45 AM 153 164 229 11:00 AM 160 167 196 11:15 AM 183 187 230 3:00 PM 228 234 235 3:15 PM 251 247 277 3:30 PM 198 235 267 3:45 PM 256 285 326 4:00 PM 225 235 242 4:15 PM 221 262 312 4:30 PM 253 282 299 4:45 PM 242 263 299 - 5:00 PM 260 274 272 5:15 PM 232 250 229 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-60 ATD Services,Inc. Cie 6214 Secrest Street • Arvada,Co. 80403 tlel : FRONTAGE ROAD WEST OF Site: 2 deign, : FOREST RD Date: 07/03/02 terval Day: Wednesday egm E&W 12:AM 50 01:00 42 02:00 20 03:00 20 04:00 5 05:00 21 06:00 174 07:00 302 08:00 521 09:00 555 10:00 526 11:00 574 12:PM 501 01:00 436 02:00 452 03:00 542 04:00 651 05:00 624 06:00 539 362 301 09:00 247 10:00 174 11:00 127 otals 7,766 .M Peak 11:00 'olume 574 M Peak 04:00 'olume 651 • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-61 Data File: VAIL#2 • ATD Services,Inc. 6214 Secrest Street Arvada,Co.80403 :lel : FRONTAGE ROAD WEST OF Site: 2 #1e2 : FOREST RD Date: 07/04/02 .1e3 . erval Day: Thursday egin E&W 12:AM 71 01:00 51 02:00 32 03:00 8 04:00 12 05:00 18 06:00 120 07:00 274 08:00 436 09:00 485 10:00 521 11:00 578 12:PM 701 01:00 658 02:00 691 03:00 721 04:00 769 05:00 642 06:00 601 07:00 426 08:00 385 09:00 336 10:00 189 11:00 154 otals 8,879 M Peak 11:00 'olume 578 M Peak 04:00 'olume 769 3 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-62 ata File: VAIL#2 ATD Services,Inc. 6214 Secrest Street Arvada,Co. 80403 'itlel : FRONTAGE ROAD WEST OF Site: 2 'itle : FOREST RD Date: 07/05/02 'itl� riterval Day: Friday legin E&W 12:AM 95 01:00 56 02:00 52 03:00 34 04:00 12 05:00 14 06:00 146 07:00 284 08:00 375 09:00 513 10:00 584 11:00 521 12:PM 620 01:00 636 02:00 684 03:00 781 04:00 775 05:00 801 06:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 'otals 6,983 ,■ Peak 10:00 /olume 584 'M Peak 05:00 /olume 801 • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-63 • Data File: VAIL#2 ATD Services,Inc. ``r 6214 Secrest Street Arvada,Co. 80403 'itlel : FRONTAGE ROAD EAST OF Site: 1 ltle2 : PED BRIDGE Date: 07/03/02 'itle3 iterval Day: Wednesday tegin E&W 12:AM 56 01:00 38 02:00 24 03:00 10 04:00 3 05:00 29 06:00 144 07:00 299 08:00 508 09:00 541 10:00 544 11:00 548 12:PM 488 01:00 429 02:00 421 03:00 536 04:00 626 05:00 630 06:00 524 07:00 344 . . 08:00 290 NI) 09:00 278 10:00 160 11:00 122 'otals 7,592 .M Peak 11:00 'olume 548 'M Peak 05:00 'olume 630 Lionshead Redevelopmef Environmental Impact Report Page G-64 Data File: VAIL#1 ATD Services,Inc. 6214 Secrest Street C� Arvada,Co. 80403 ale1 : FRONTAGE ROAD EAST OF Site: 1 itl : PED BRIDGE Date: 07/04/02 nterval Day: Thursday 3egin E&W 12:AM 62 01:00 47 02:00 28 03:00 11 04:00 14 05:00 20 06:00 134 07:00 262 08:00 422 09:00 490 10:00 . 547 11:00 565 12:PM 694 01:00 642 02:00 684 03:00 743 04:00 791 05:00 666 06:00 623 4 56 C0 O 392 09:00 327 10:00 202 11:00 184 'otals 9,006 i M Peak 11:00 volume 565 'M Peak 04:00 'olume 791 • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-65 L a File: VAIL#1 ATD Services,Inc. • 6214 Secrest Street Arvada,Co. 80403 itlel : FRONTAGE ROAD EAST OF Site: 1 7itle2 : PED BRIDGE Date: 07/05/02 itle3 nterval Day: Friday 3egin E&W 12:AM 82 01:00 45 02:00 51 03:00 22 04:00 6 05:00 24 06:00 158 07:00 221 08:00 320 09:00 535 10:00 678 11:00 698 12:PM 687 01:00 658 02:00 702 03:00 876 04:00 921 05:00 812 06:00 102 07:00 'vie)08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 'otals 7,598 IM Peak 11:00 volume 698 'M Peak 04:00 volume 921 v.) Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-66 Data File: VAIL#1 • APPENDIX B • Tri p Generation Worksheets • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-67 a) C v O = H N co N N (0 a) a. (0 o L 2 o M c 0 Y "= O) a) W co N M CI_ 2 a. L C O If) (Y) (,.� N O C (.0 �- N W O C a) (n C 1— r� co N o a E 7 • 0 O 2 O Y () X N ti o • O W I • a m 2 C Q W L d L N LU ti co E C N N N co Q C W O O C "Li a t3 G1 p_ C ~ Q O N ▪ o J Z J C tn m co 0 cU Z E < E o Lionshead Redevelopment To > (f) v a) z Environmental Impact Report Page G-68 0 5 8 8 - ) - 7 / 2 = / / { / CO CO CO 7 / 7 / ) & \ \ \ > TD t t E / T o - 2 % » % 2 \ $ co ± _ m _Y } CO CL 0 CO = co co CO c CO - 2 a ' & f 2 k \ CO / W C � >Eli .0 \ W \ & 2 / 7 co Q & / Q 2 2 = % D \ § { \ \ } , ) \ , mi \ % \ ) 7 CO N N k \ \ } 7 2 N R \ \ ƒ ) \ CO / _0 _� =a H2 H2 / & _ _ co- § & @) % © c U / m c 0) U ,— i \ W G M % \ \ / 0. E / \ co © N / \ 2 R = $ 0 0 r = 3 ) '5 \ / I } I ) I E 2 \ j \ CO N N \ Cj 9 \ c N 4 % \ j y j \ < \ < k ' 3 = \ k \ » CO % (0 R 2 } \ \ i % 6 co ( C 2 3 72 2 -co- E \ , ® , ƒ - EG , , 0- t 2 0 a a _ \ $ :20 . » 2 _ { \ E { \ \ \ E \ ) co ® // 5 0 co co \ < c a) / \ \ ' j Q F / / ' I— a) ' ( \ §cci \ & 2 = � _ � { - / . / / { § a . E m o o » c / e g \ / ƒ ƒ¢ \ > \ N & % ' _ \ CO co Q _ / '- / / \ Oo « c \ \ ) ] CO e ! ( 0 _ % 2 \ # { 2 ) � / \ \ ƒ 2 O - \ -0 '— n � � \ _ / § m » � > k § ) » ° I _ ® _ e ® ® \ \ _ _ ; \ a) Ti 2 I » n •&® / : ® ° c cc E \ & o % _ R 7 / % _ U § ! { */ a _ E , - - n : @ . e # e � a co ® E / Cl) ® - - - a) C . $ 9 \ Cl) 0 G - 3 > 7 ) u 0 Cl) 0 J z 0 A CC H » f Z e < w / riKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Project Vail Resorts' Lionshead Development Subject Trip Generation for Existing Employee Housing at Sunbird Lodge Designed by EAG Date June 10, 2003 Job No. 067867001 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Average Rates Land Use Code-Apartment, (220) Independant Variable - Persons (X) X = 100 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 310) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 16% ent. 84% exit. T = 0.28 (X) T = 28 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.28 * 100.0 4 entering 24 exiting 4 + 24 = 28 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 311) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 67% ent. 33% exit. T = 0.40 (X) T = 40 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.40 * 100.0 27 entering 13 exiting 27 + 13 = 40 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday(recommended rates from Town of Vail) Average Saturday Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting T = 0.124 (X) T = 12 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.124 * 100.0 6 entering 6 exiting 6 + 6 = 12 The average rate for Saturday daily trips(page 314)is 3.24. In order to determine an average rate for the peak hour of the generator for Saturday,two trips were subtracted out to represent employee trips to and from work and then a 90%reduction was taken from the daily trips to represent the peak hour trips. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-70 PP7 Kimley-Horn 111■111111111I _ and Associates, Inc. Project Lionshead Subject Trip Generation for Existing Office Use in Core Area Designed by EAG Date June 19, 2003 Job No. 067867.001 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Average Rates Land Use Code - General Office Building (710) Independant Variable - 1000 Square Feet(X) X = 18.000 T =Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 1053) Directional Distribution: 88% ent. 12% exit. (T) = 1.56 (X) T = 28 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 1.56 * 18.0 25 entering 3 exiting 25 + 3 = 28 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 1054) Directional Distribution: 17% ent. 83% exit. T= 1.49 (X) T = 27 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T= 1.49 * (18.0) 5 entering 22 exiting 5 + 22 = 27 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday (page 1056) Directional Distribution: 54% entering, 46%exiting (T) =0.41 (X) T = 8 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) =0.41 * 18.0 4 entering 4 exiting 4 + 4 = 8 G:\-tpto\067867001 Vail Resorts\Lionshead\June 03 Revision\Trip Generation\[Office_Core_Ex.XLS]Sheet 1 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-71 C;>•� Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Project Lionshead Subject Trip Generation for Existing Retail and Restaurant in Core Area Designed by EAG Date June 11, 2003 Job No. 067867001 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Average Rate Land Use Code - Specialty Retail Center(814) Independant Variable - 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area (X) X = 32.5 T =Average Vehicle Trip Ends AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, (rates from Lionshead Masterplan) Daily Weekday entering (Tin) = 0.11 (X) (T) = 6 exiting (Tout)= 0.07 (X) (Tin) = 4 entering (Tout) = 2 exiting entering (T;,,) = 0.11 * (32.5) exiting (To„t)=0.07 * (32.5) Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 1225) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 43% ent. 57% exit. (T) =2.59 (X) T = 84 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) =2.59 * (32.5) 36 entering 48 exiting 36 + 48 = 84 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday(page 1228)* Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting (T) =4.2 (X) T = 136 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) =4.2 * (32.5) 68 entering 68 exiting 68 + 68 = 136 *peak hour of generator on Saturday assumed to be 10%of daily • Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-72 ey and Kiml Associa-Horn tes, Inc. -a-- Project Lionshead Subject Trip Generation for Hotel in Core Area Designed by EAG Date June 19, 2003 Job No. 067867.001 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Average Rate Land Use Code -Resort Hotel (330) Independant Variable- Rooms (X) X = 81 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 586) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 61% ent. 39% exit. (T) = 0.31(X) T = 25 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.31 * (81.0) 15 entering 10 exiting 15 + 10 = 25 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 587) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 53% ent. 47% exit. (T) =0.42 (X) T = 34 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.42 * Ln(81.0) 18 entering 16 exiting 18 + 16 = 34 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday (rate approved by Town of Vail) Daily Weekday (T) =0.9 (X) T = 73 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.9 * Ln(81.0) k:\09201714\hotel.xls Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-73 IPP1,1111111 Ira Kimley-Horn 111...i111111111 I and Associates, Inc. Project Lionshead ..� Subject Trip Generation for Condominiums at Core Area Designed by EAG Date June 19, 2003 Job No. 067867001 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Averge Rate Land Use Code- Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230) Independant Variable - Dwelling Units (X) X = 79 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 362) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 17% ent. 83% exit. (T) = 0.44 (X) T = 35 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) =0.44 * 79.0 6 entering 29 exiting 6 + 29 = 35 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 363) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 67% ent. 33% exit. (T) =0.54 (X) T = 43 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.54 * 79.0 29 entering 14 exiting 29 + 14 = 43 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday(page 367) Saturday Directional Distribution: 54% entering, 46% exiting (T) = 0.47 (X) T = 38 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.47 * 79.0 21 entering 17 exiting 21 + 17 = 38 G:\-tpto\067867001 Vail Resorts\Lionshead\June 03 Revision\Trip Generation\[Condo_Core.xls]Sheet 1 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-74 • • nKimley-Hom and Associates, Inc, Project Lionshead Redevelopment Subject Trip Generation for Ski Club Designed by EAG Date August 17, 2003 Job No. 067867001 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 Ski Club Membership Trip Generation 300 proposed ski club members with 100 parking spaces. All 100% of parking spaces are expected to be occupied. It can be expected that 33% of all trips arriving will occur during common peak hour per Vail Resorts Information. Therefore, it is assummed that 100 club members would be generated on any given Saturday. 200 daily trips (one entering and one exiting per club member) Of these 100 club members attracted, 33%would arrive during the common peak hour resulting in 33 peak hour trips (100 members per day x 0.33 arrive in peak hour) These peak hour trips would be expected to be arriving during the morning peak hour and departing during the evening peak hour. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-75 EN piKimley-Hom. and Associates, Inc. Project Lionshead • Subject Trip Generation for Retail and Restaurant in Core Area Designed by EAG Date August 17, 2003 Job No. 067867001 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Average Rate Equations Land Use Code- Specialty Retail Center(814) Independant Variable - 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area (X) X = 32.0 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, (rates from Lionshead Masterplan) Average Weekday entering (Tin) = 0.11 (X) (T) = 6 exiting (Tout) = 0.07 (X) Mr) = 4 entering (Tout) = 2 exiting entering (Tin) = 0.11 * (32.0) exiting (Tau t) = 0.07 * (32.0) Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 1225) Average Weekday Directional Distribution: 43% ent. 57% exit. (T) =2.59 (X) T = 83 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 2.59 * (32.0) 36 entering 47 exiting 36 + 47 = 83 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday(page 1228)* Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting (T) =4.2 (X) T = 134 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) =4.2 * (32.0) 67 entering 67 exiting 67 + 67 = 134 *peak hour of generator on Saturday assumed to be 10%of daily Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-76 _ c V- O 7 Y _ Li N co a) d T U C N Co CO W c0 Co co N- O .� O 7 L O I a) 'X co N N W o_d H• 2 a C ; (V (O W (O O N OU) N co O I Y X r C) a) W d 2 N- C — N W u O O N (n w C a) a) O. 0 O U co c Co CND > W m I- C 0 -0 J m ) @• T N o a) C a) O a) J ?) 0 O c, CO 0 o Lionshead Redevelopment o o Environmental Impact Report > U Page G-77 • CONTIKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Project Lionshead Subject Trip Generation for Resort Hotel at West Day Lots Designed by EAG Date June 19, 2003 Job No. 067867001 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 4 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Average Rate Land Use Code-Resort Hotel (330) Independant Variable - Rooms (X) X = 90 T =Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 586) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 61% ent. 39% exit. (T) = 0.31(X) T = 28 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.31 * (90.0) 17 entering 11 exiting 17 + 11 = 28 • Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 587) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 53% ent. 47% exit. (T) = 0.42 (X) T = 38 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) =0.42 * Ln(90.0) 20 entering 18 exiting 20 + 18 = 38 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday(rate approved by Town of Vail) Daily Weekday (T) = 0.9 (X) T = 81 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) =0.9 * Ln(90.0) Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-78 �—� Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Project Lionshead Subject Trip Generation for Condominiums at West Day Lot Designed by EAG Date August 17, 2003 Job No. 067867001 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Averge Rate Land Use Code - Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230) Independant Variable - Dwelling Units (X) X = 113 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 362) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 17% ent. 83% exit. (T) = 0.44 (X) T = 50 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.44 * 113.0 9 entering 41 exiting 9 + 41 = 50 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 363) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 67% ent. 33% exit. (T) = 0.54 (X) T = 61 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.54 * 113.0 41 entering 20 exiting 41 + 20 = 61 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday(page 367) Saturday Directional Distribution: 54% entering, 46% exiting (T) = 0.47 (X) T = 54 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.47 * 113.0 29 entering 25 exiting 29 + 25 = 54 G:\-tpto\067867001 Vail Resorts\Lionshead\August 03 Revision\Trip Generation\[Condo_West Day Lot.xls]Sheet 1 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-79 C"/1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1 Project Lionshead Subject Trip Generation Designed by EAG Date June 10, 2003 Job No. 067867.001 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Fitted Curve Equations Land Use Code- Recreational Homes (260) Independant Variable - Dwelling Units (X) X = 12 T =Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 470) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 67% ent. 33% exit. (T) =0.16* (X) T = 2 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) =0.16 * (12.0) 1 entering 1 exiting 1 + 1 = 2 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 471) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 41% ent. 59% exit. (T) =0.26 (X) T = 4 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.26 * (12.0) 2 entering 2 exiting 2 + 2 = 4 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday(page 474) Directional Distribution: 50% ent. 50% exit. (T) = 0.36 (X) T = 5 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.36 * (12.0) 3 entering 3 exiting 3 + 2 = 5 Lionshead Redevelopment`W Environmental Impact Report Page G-80 • a M !> E C V W- O X '- O W I LL L a) p C N W (0 m O c O L c) O co O = cY ... W a d a_ 4.5 C W To O 0 I (p X W a_ L C C W C a) N aD 9- C G) E a� a O 0 y a) U > (1) W N A U) F- 63 O a) U U) O a) N O c a) J 0 • O o o o C Lionshead Redevelopment rf E Environmental Impact Report E Page G-81 FP- Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Project Lionshead Redevelopment Subject Trip Generation Designed by EAG Date August 17, 2003 Job No. 067867.001 Checked by Date Sheet No. 1 of 1 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Fitted Curve Equations Land Use Code - Recreational Homes (260) Independant Variable- Dwelling Units (X) X = 8 T =Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 470) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 67% ent. 33% exit. (T) = 0.16* (X) T = 2 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.16 * (8.0) 1 entering 1 exiting 1 + 1 = 2 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 471) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 41% ent. 59% exit. (T) = 0.26 (X) T = 3 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.26 * (8.0) 1 entering 2 exiting 1 + 2 = 3 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday(page 474) Directional Distribution: 50% ent. 50% exit. (T)=0.36 (X) T = 3 Average Vehicle Trip Ends (T) = 0.36 * (8.0) 2 entering 2 exiting 2 + 1 = 3 Lionshead Redevelopment •■•'` Environmental Impact Report Page G-82 • a� a) Co V 2 a) N a_ T (6 7 To' (0 co V N 0 LI-) N N • ~ O ` E O d S • N 'X C) O Q) d W N C) a d F` 2 d C C,) d W co O N CO H 0 S Y w o W r) a. d N CO — N N W C C C d 0 a O w _N V O (n CO E 0. O d u• .� -0 U o o_ d N r O W '8 J CO T d cu t a C L m J O y O o z cp Lionshead Redevelopment co ° a Environmental Impact Report E r > w 0 E o Page G-83 pr � Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Project Vail Resorts' Lionshead Development }_ Subject Trip Generation for Employee Housing at North Day Lot Designed by EAG Date August 17, 2003 Job No. 067867001 Checked by Sheet No. 1 of 1 4 4 TRIP GENERATION MANUAL TECHNIQUES ITE Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Average Rates Land Use Code -Apartment, (220) Independant Variable - Persons (X) X = 144 T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. (page 310) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 16% ent. 84% exit. T = 0.28 (X) T = 40 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T= 0.28 * 144.0 6 entering 34 exiting 6 + 34 = 40 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. (page 311) Daily Weekday Directional Distribution: 67% ent. 33% exit. T= 0.40 (X) T = 58 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T=0.40 * 144.0 39 entering 19 exiting 39 + 19 = 58 Peak Hour of Generator, Saturday(recommended rates from Town of Vail) Daily Weekday T=0.124 (X) T = 18 Average Vehicle Trip Ends T = 0.124 * 144.0 * The average rate for Saturday daily trips(page 314)is 3.24. In order to determine an average rate for the peak hour of the generator for Saturday,two trips were subtracted out to represent employee trips to and from work and then a 90%reduction was taken from the daily trips to represent the peak hour trips. Lionshead Redevelopment .rr Environmental Impact Report Page G-84 • APPENDIX C HCS Intersection Analysis Worksheets Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-85 Tk )-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA Gen-'`a='' : oration Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Garage Entrance Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Parking Garage Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 335 94 156 349 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 335 94 156 349 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 26 0 27 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 (3 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 0 27 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 156 53 C (m) (vph) 1141 336 v/c 0.14 0.16 95% queue length 0.47 0.55 Control Delay 8.7 17.7 1LOS A C ;Approach Delay -- -- 17.7 Approach LOS -- -- C 'CS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Versill, Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-86 1 Tk.,.,/-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA., Generale-Information Site.Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Garage Entrance P- 'ncy/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Parking Garage Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments " Major Street _ Eastbound Westbound , Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 438 56 99 436 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 438 56 99 436 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 159 0 284 0 0 0 F i-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -I-loonly Flow Rate, HFR 159 0 284 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Dela ;,Queue Len'"th,and Level of Service , �;'a . a Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 99 443 C (m) (vph) 1080 365 v/c 0.09 1.21 95% queue length 0.30 18.66 , Control Delay 8.7 150.7 LOS A F Approach Delay -- -- 150.7 Approach LOS -- -- F r 0TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 l Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-87 1 TL.. -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA General Information Site:InformetiN77' f _ ,Inr-- 7' iw 4 :4 Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Garage Entrance Imp Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Date Performed 08/18/03 Jurisdiction Town of Vail Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Parking Garage Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 335 94 156 349 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 335 94 156 349 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 26 0 27 0 0 0 • Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 0 27 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay,Queue Length;°aatid Level of Service °r Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 156 26 27 C (m) (vph) 1141 442 670 v/c 0.14 0.06 0.04 95% queue length 0.47 0.19 0.13 ;Control Delay 8.7 13.7 10.6 ;LOS A B B !Approach Delay -- -- 12.1 Approach LOS -- -- B 1ICS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Versio Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-88 i I T4.0J-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA/ i4,.if� 1�`. .�._�.. �n '?`, .7`rg� i,i,x_ :21 6,i d °9 "�z.�.sxic?sa_...a'�_... ..L..�..e,. _._... ..o,....a, .�..., ,.... �....�... Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Garage Entrance Imp ncy/Co. Kimley-Horn mite Performed 08/18/03 Jurisdiction Town of Vail Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Parking Garage Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25•Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments a z Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 438 56 99 436 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 438 56 99 436 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound _ Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ' Mme 159 0 284 0 0 0 irnk-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 159 0 284 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R 'YOU)!,Qt a lkLengthf: rrtl Covet.iitteiVice ' x .fE . , . .w . s a. .)n, . wq _, . . . . Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 99 159 284 C (m) (vph) 1080 476 601 v/c 0.09 0.33 0.47 95% queue length 0.30 1.45 2.53 Control Delay 8.7 16.3 16.2 LOS A C C Approach Delay -- -- 16.3 roach LOS -- -- C ,, IitsS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.k Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-89 iThy WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA._. IGener`al lnforrnation . S,ite,[n1'ormation' Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Garage Entrance Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2005 ...." Analysis Time Period Total Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Parking Garage Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 387 101 168 382 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 387 101 168 382 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 29 0 31 0 0 0 _ Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 29 0 31 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 I RT Channelized 0 0 II Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Deli oleos Length,and Level of Service . .. z . E s ,' PL5RF{R ` r iii m k' Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 168 29 31 C (m) (vph) 1086 408 623 v/c 0.15 0.07 0.05 95% queue length 0.55 0.23 0.16 Control Delay 8.9 14.5 11.1 LOS A 8 B Approach Delay -- -- 12.7 Approach LOS -- -- 8 iCS2000tnt Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved VersiLe Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-90 TWO-WAY STOP CON..QtOL SUM11 ... TWO-WAY STOP CONTRO n Site`lnformatic G 1„ ft itjo EAG Intersection 'Analyst EAG Intersec Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdici 08/18/03 Analysis Year I f. Date Performed 08/18/03 Analysi Background Traffic AM Analysis Time Period Total Traffic PM 37867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment 1 Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment `h Frontage Road North/South Stree East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/Sc East-West Study Period (hrs) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study IN Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments .6d Adjustments �, .. ..,l r � Eastbound Major Street Eastbound ` 1 2 3 Movement 1 2 3 L T R L T R 0 502 94 Volume 0 488 60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 502 94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 488 60 0 — — Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — Two Way Left T Median Type Two 14 0 RT Channelized 0 0 1 0 Lanes 0 1 0 TR Configuration TR 0 Upstream Signal 0 Northbound Minor Street Northbound 7 8 g I Movement 7 8 9 L T R L T R _ 26 0 27 Volume 166 0 293 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 26 0 27 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 166 0 293 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 N Flared Approach N 0 1 Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 1 0 1 Lanes 1 0 1 L R Configuration L R �,�� `1a. 3:, :<t e 1M l j . AT,W411.Wx D+t3eVQueu� Length;kara EB WB Northbourj Approach EB WB Ir 1 4 7 8 Movement 1 4 7 L L Lane Configuration L L 156 26 v(vph) 107 166 990 358 C (m) (vph) 1032 434 0.16 0.07 j v/c 0.10 0.38 0.56 0.23 95% queue length 0.35 1.77 9.3 15.8 Control Delay 8.9 18.3 A C LOS A C 13.9 I ;,Approach Delay -- -- -- -- -- -- B Approach LOS -- -- Copyright©2000 University of Florida.All Rights Reset /ICS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,A TOrm -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMAIII Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Garage Entrance Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Parking Garage Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 554 101 169 556 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 554 101 169 556 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 , Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 29 0 31 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 29 0 31 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R bell i uetje:Let>igth,an LOveiof Services ,> tili-, , ,. katr t, RE, 'TW--.4, , „ ., -,1:. Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v(vph) 169 29 31 C (m) (vph) 942 328 502 v/c 0.18 0.09 0.06 95% queue length 0.65 0.29 0.20 (Control Delay 9.7 17.0 12.6 LOS A C B IApproach Delay -- -- 14.8 i approach LOS -- -- B r!CS2000l M Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Versio Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-94 Tom)-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMM4 em Sitelorat�a General m ,. Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Garage Entrance Anency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2020 ARa`lysis Time Period Background Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Parking Garage Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 657 56 99 654 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 657 56 99 654 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 159 0 284 0 0 0 P 'c-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 , 1 .ly Flow Rate, HFR 159 0 284 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 . Configuration L R w ' en•tb;:and Level o Service ¢ F Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v(vph) 99 159 284 C (m) (vph) 896 368 452 v/c 0.11 0.43 0.63 95% queue length 0.37 2.11 4.22 Control Delay 9.5 22.0 25.5 LOS A C D Approach Delay -- -- 24.2 Approach LOS -- -- C F '0TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-93 T11,_,.-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA._ r'' , , , Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Garage Entrance Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Parking Garage Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 554 101 169 556 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 554 101 169 556 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 29 0 31 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 29 0 31 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v(vph) 169 29 31 C (m) (vph) 942 328 502 v/c 0.18 0.09 0.06 95% queue length 0.65 0.29 0.20 'Control Delay 9.7 17.0 12.6 :LOS A C B `Approach Delay -- -- 14.8 Approach LOS -- -- B !CS20001 ht Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Versill Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-94 g T'..,,)-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA• ,*3-3'`;'.a. '!g ' -" " ''Y Fi„e*'."'s'�," ur ,SA�r a°t ,-,m7„, , xf .(, .,t,. e yr G' �. . ., s..r_ • _ _ ,.,.... _ . . ,Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Garage Entrance P—ncy/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Parking Garage Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 707 60 110 714 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 707 60 110 714 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- – 0 – -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 166 0 293 0 0 0 f -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 hrele►tiy Flow Rate, HFR 166 0 293 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R .. ...ff� ?i'3v kS a' 2n � ' D ueue°L�n.th,.eind Level - ,, Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 110 166 293 C (m) (vph) 856 312 422 v/c 0.13 0.53 0.69 95% queue length 0.44 2.94 5.16 Control Delay 9.8 28.9 30.8 ILOS A D D Approach Delay -- -- 30.1 Approach LOS -- -- D i0TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.k Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-95 TVWAY STOP CONTROL SUMMAF ra l a "x o .b ;iii..,"' ,,7F1 ': r..c. r ' 3 :.a s i r 3 , ..i d Gener • . it ' r :�P .t! LJ '" , �, ._ Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/E. Lionshead Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail II Date Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 360 32 73 274 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 360 32 73 274 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 , Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 31 0 129 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 31 0 129 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N . Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR 0v-9 r* revue°1erl o th;':and`L:evel of Service,L_T'': _`VV �t�4nt ic: Sli;;'�-"`° a . Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 73 160 C (m) (vph) 1178 565 v/c 0.06 0.28 95% queue length 0.20 1.16 Control Delay 8.3 13.9 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 13.9 Approach LOS -- -- B UCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Versior 3 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-96 T. )-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA. [General Information Site inforn`iation Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/E. Lionshead ncy/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail 1 Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ta* /olumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 367 30 83 465 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 367 30 83 465 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 46 0 118 0 0 0 F -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 heeRly Flow Rate, HFR 46 0 118 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR D. ... ......... ................... .... .. . - A p p r o a c h r ; .a EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 83 164 C (m) (vph) 1173 454 ivlc 0.07 0.36 !95% queue length 0.23 1.62 Control Delay 8.3 17.3 SOS A C ;Approach Delay -- -- 17.3 6pproach LOS -- -- C t 9TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-97 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/E. Lionshead Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/27/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 394 16 42 341 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 394 16 42 341 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 , Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R �.?' Volume 47 0 154 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 47 0 154 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 42 201 C (m) (vph) 1160 533 v/c 0.04 0.38 95% queue length 0.11 1.74 Control Delay 8.2 15.8 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 15.8 Approach LOS -- -- C HCS2000TNI Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights R Lionshead Redevelopment 4 Environmental Impact Report Page G-98 C1-.//0.\1-1,-,,,,,,,,,,,,I,-0/ 1Crttin(rc\onrtic rnvxwa\T ntal0/')fCi l Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information `'" Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/E. Lionshead Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/27/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment EastNVest Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 467 48 111 504 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 467 48 111 504 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 35 0 72 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 0 72 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 111 107 C (m) (vph) 1061 337 v/c 0.10 0.32 95% queue length 0.35 1.33 Control Delay 8.8 20.6 LOS A C Approach Delay -- - 20.6 Approach LOS -- -- C HCS2000T NI Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights F Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-99 file•//C•\f)nrttments°/71 land%70 Settin>?s\curtis.rowe\1,ocal%20Set. T1110-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA[, r limilr i,, �i ',> ,:-.. Y .'441G , r Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/E. Lionshead 'Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 MINKYolurnes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 _ 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 540 32 73 411 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 540 32 73 411 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 , Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 31 0 129 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 31 0 129 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Dela-'Queue Len•th,'and Level of Servic` Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 73 160 C (m) (vph) 1011 415 v/c 0.07 0.39 95% queue length 0.23 1.78 Control Delay 8.8 19.0 LOS A C !Approach Delay -- -- 19.0 Approach LOS -- -- C IICS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Versto Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-100 T% -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA,, General Information �7T � g �<" { inV x * a ''''.4) i d tp�" s r 9 8.. » 44.`4 A f .' .9 ��. �$ "8� 6�� -'-„ 4 .-,y� Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/E. Lionshead P -icy/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail L Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments. Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 550 30 83 697 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 550 30 83 697 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 46 0 118 0 0 0 F -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hearly Flow Rate, HFR 46 0 118 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR � :. . ...�#,x v:.... ''eEIe 1Y�fAY*� '�t=i�i3�+lat•Y11` 2.3< Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 83 164 C (m) (vph) 1004 295 v/c 0.08 0.56 95% queue length 0.27 3.15 Control Delay 8.9 31.5 LOS A D 'Approach Delay -- -- 31.5 Approach LOS -- -- D ,, ATM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-101 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/E. Lionshead Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/27/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound li Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 574 16 42 478 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 574 16 42 478 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 , Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 47 0 154 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 47 0 154 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length, and.Level-of Service `` Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(vph) 42 201 C (m) (vph) 995 466 v/c 0.04 0.43 95% queue length 0.13 2.14 Control Delay 8.8 18.5 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 18.5 New' Approach LOS -- -- C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Res( Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-102 +;1o•//r.�r,, ,,w,P„two Nna„(10i)ncPr,;,,oc\r„rt;c r vwe\T nrnl°/.7fSPttir Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/E. Lionshead Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/27/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 650 48 111 736 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 650 48 111 736 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ L T R L T R Volume 35 0 72 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 0 72 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LTR belay, Queue Length, and Level of Service ',. Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LTR v (vph) 111 107 C (m) (vph) 908 342 v/c 0.12 0.31 95% queue length 0.42 1.31 Control Delay 9.5 20.2 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 20.2 Approach LOS -- -- C HCS2000TNt Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-103 file•//1•\Tlncrimentc%70and%20Settines\curtis.rowe\Local%20SettinesV I T,.,J WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA.,_,' General information °Site.Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/W Lionshead Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ,176hicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 370 187 47 221 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 370 187 47 221 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 14 0 7 0 0 0 _ Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 14 0 7 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR DeI ;'Queue Len•tti and Level`of°Service ' - . Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 47 21 C (m) (vph) 1024 407 v/c 0.05 0.05 95% queue length 0.14 0.16 _ Control Delay 8.7 14.3 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 14.3 Approach LOS -- -- B 9CS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Versi, ' Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-104 Two..1-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMO( -- r u e..} , `;;°L %' k k s� �` i _ �. x xx _____ 'Pt'+w'r dbi' X i.`tiii iNS i . Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/W Lionshead 1141,6 ency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2005 alysis Time Period Background Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 366 98 28 483 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 366 98 28 483 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street _ Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 116 0 31 0 0 0 r -k-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 rly Flow Rate, HFR 116 0 31 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach _ N N Storage _ 0 _ 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR 4C1 'e fliiii o i<liiiiid Level of Service MI 4 3°?, M, A`" k 3140 , , tfA M ? i;xs Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 28 _ 147 •C (m) (vph) 1108 320 v/c 0.03 0.46 95% queue length 0.08 2.30 Control Delay 8.3 25.5 LOS A D Approach Delay -- -- 25.5 Approach LOS -- -- D / 90T,MM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-105 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/W.Lionshead Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/27/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 366 72 26 324 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 366 72 26 0 324 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 L T R L T R Volume 36 0 28 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 36 0 28 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 26 64 C (m) (vph) 1133 448 v/c 0.02 0.14 95% queue length 0.07 0.49 Control Delay 8.3 14.4 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 14.4 ', Approach LOS -- -- B Lionshead Redevelopment Hcsz000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights R Environmental Impact Report IIPage G-106 fI1A•Hr.\ri",.,,,,,o„+o0/1/10,,,1047nCatti„nc\rnrti0 rrm \T no 010/7(1QPttincre\TPmn\rn71r7PF, tmn (1Q115i7nnz Two-Way Stop Control • Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/W.Lionshead Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/27/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 487 123 53 485 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 487 _ 123 53 485 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street _ Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 59 0 27 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 59 0 27 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 53 86 C (m) (vph) 979 263 v/c 0.05 0.33 95% queue length 0.17 1.37 Control Delay 8.9 25.2 LOS A D Approach Delay -- -- 25.2 Approach LOS -- -- D HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Res, Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-107 fla•//C•\T1n,,,.,,,,,too/7(lonr10/-WiCPttinnc\rnrtic rrnz,e\T nral°/')fCattii TVv�� CONTROL Fn/n Lk�nuhaad EA8 Intersection o*�e/vv Analyst ' .~' __ ___ Jurisdiction 7ownofVaJ Agency/Co. Date Performed 08/27/03 Analysis Year 2020 — Analysis Time Period Background Traffic AM Project nn a�� De�nription 007807001 -Lk�nohoodRedevok�oent EnbNVeotGhaet South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 _ _ L.:-- Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L . T R Volume 0 555 187 47 331 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 , 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 555 187 47 331 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 – – 0 -- – yNedion pe Two kkayLe� Turn Lane ' RTChanne|ized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 ' Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 14 0 7 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 14 0 7 0 0 0 — Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (Y6) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR ' ��8�m�bin��wm�o'^r,''f,-^M ..^�^1,.s��m�e~1u�m�-rn�°c ��`-��°��c===�" , ~~~�b=`,_~—'~'- ~' ~-~-~�--_- _ -_-- Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(vph) 47 21 C (m) (vph) 874 396 %tic 0.05 0.05 95% queue length 817 817 Control Delay 9.4 14.6 LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- /4.6 Approach LOS -- -- 8 IICS2000TM Copyright©200 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved v"m.. NNW Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-108 TI46.,-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMA ,€ 6 t'Iii 7h 1c t41 V.",11 i,x ,: ,, E '� Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/W.Lionshead At'ncy/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail I Performed 08/27/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment _ East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 - MhicI4olumes and.Adjustments . `'. , ,. : Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 549 98 28 724 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 549 98 28 724 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 _ -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 116 0 31 0 0 0 P '--Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 _ 1.00 _ 1.00 F.,y Flow Rate, HFR 116 0 31 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage _ 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Wen jf Kt!aaitiVej of ervice T','.fMinRnAta . V. I h „ : tAi—FA: _ .,` . ."!,'. i4 , Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(vph) 28 147 C (m) (vph) 948 322 v/c 0.03 0.46 95% queue length 0.09 2.28 Control Delay 8.9 25.2 LOS A D Approach Delay -- -- 25.2 (Approach LOS -- -- D H 9Thi Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-109 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information . Analyst EA G Intersection Frontage/W.Lionshead Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/27/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment EastNl/est Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 L 0 1.00 2 3 4 5 6 T R L T 435 1.00 435 R Volume 552 1.00 552 72 26 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 72 26 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ..►' Volume 36 0 28 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 36 0 28 0 0 0 NI Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Quettii„Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (vph) 26 64 C (m) (vph) 967 424 v/c 0.03 0.15 95% queue length 0.08 0.53 Control Delay 8.8 15.0- LOS A B Approach Delay -- -- 15.0- �./ Approach LOS -- -- B HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights R Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-110 f;1A•!/( •\llnnnmantc0/7flonrlo/7(1Cattinrrc\rnrfic r ,,a\T r 1O/.')ilQ ' l Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 r.. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ^Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/W.Lionshead Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/27/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelo ment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: West Lionshead Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound _ Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 671 _ 123 _ 53 727 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 I 671 123 53 727 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized I 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street _ Northbound _Southbound Movement 7 8 9 _ 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 59 0 _ 27 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 59 0 27 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 _ 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v (vph) 53 86 C (m) (vph) 836 289 v/c 0.06 0.30 95% queue length 0.20 1.21 - Control Delay 9.6 22.6 LOS A C Approach Delay -- -- 22.6 Approach LOS -- -- C HCS2000rr+ Copyright o 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Rest Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-111 file//C•`flnrnmentc0/,'land°/7ncettinac\runic rnwe\T nral°/7fSettir T. 3-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMML.._,I General Information Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Forest Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Forest Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ‘ , ._; Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 548 8 10 299 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 548 8 10 299 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 6 3 4 6 1 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 3 4 6 1 4 -- Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Della ir ` <, Y . �sF . _ �+el of Service { e Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 0 10 13 11 C (m) (vph) 1270 1025 322 349 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.03 95% queue length 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.10 Control Delay 7.8 8.5 16.6 15.7 LOS A A C C Approach Delay -- -- 16.6 15.7 Approach LOS -- -- C C FICS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Versi Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-112 T .3-WAY STOP CONTROL SUM ' General Information � lw i k.,„ .4 --, ,:j-,.0,0,,,,,.. .,, -, e ^ : int . Analyst EA G Intersection Frontage/Forest ,ncy/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Performed 08/18/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Forest Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 9 457 5 9 602 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 457 5 9 602 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- - 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR _ LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R _Volume 7 2 11 _ 9 1 5 k-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 nearly Flow Rate, HFR 7 2 11 9 1 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR sta 5.,�e, 4'^ :� � Y ' '.d= ''s � � ,6 - s r c 4 an .�y5 ,� � � d.� w: sv �-�;e�. -�5, � �y;.'�� p 3� • D. _it !., UetIe.Length, and; .r. i,,. °f.. d ' ,fWit v ,a:4*14 �104. w, 3 « itY,4iff _. " eei:i ta:f.1! ,.v;:f,::1-„ , r x & .�_�A1-�. Win,>, Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v(vph) 9 9 20 15 C (m) (vph) 983 1110 305 234 v/c 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.06 95% queue length 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.20 'Control Delay 8.7 8.3 17.6 21.4 LOS A A C C 'Approach Delay -- -- 17.6 21.4 Y Approach LOS -- -- C C Approach Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-113 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Forest Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 09/07/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Forest Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (his). 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 422 13 14 421 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 422 13 14 421 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided 4 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ._ Volume 13 3 10 6 1 4 NI Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 13 3 10 6 1 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 0 14 26 11 NI C (m) (vph) 1146 1135 343 332 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.03 95% queue length 0.00 0.04 0.24 0.10 Control Delay 8.1 8.2 16.4 16.2 LOS A A C C Approach Delay - 16.4 16.2 .� Approach LOS -- -- C C HCS2000T"t Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights I Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 1 n Page G-114 ri .ilr. 71 -.,t..o/_7(l�r1rlO/ f ff rii Q\!`11rf1C rr%\uP\T nral��7nCP1 Two-Way Stop Control • Page 1 of 1 . TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ^ General Information Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Forest Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 09/07/03 Analysis Year 2005 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Forest Road _ Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 9 599 13 17 541 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 599 13 17 541 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 _ 9 10 - 11 12 _ L T R L T R Volume 14 2 16 9 1 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 14 2 16 9 1 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 9 17 32 15 C (m) (vph) 1035 977 240 201 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.07 95% queue length 0.03 0.05 0.45 0.24 Control Delay 8.5 8.7 22.3 24.3 LOS A A C C Approach Delay -- -- 22.3 24.3 Approach LOS -- -- C C HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights RI Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-115 file•//('•\Tlnriimentc°/70and°/7(1Cettinac\enrtic rnwe\T.nral%71)Sett 1 w No' TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Forest Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail ',mo"° Date Performed 09/07/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Forest Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments 4 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 822 8 10 448 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 822 8 10 448 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 6 3 4 6 1 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 3 4 6 1 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (vph) 0 10 13 11 C (m) (vph) 1120 811 335 375 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.03 95% queue length 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.09 Control Delay 8.2 9.5 16.2 14.9 LOS A A C B Approach Delay -- -- 16.2 14.9 Approach LOS -- - C B HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-116 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Y ', l € Site Information lalyst EA G Intersection Frontage/Forest gency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 09/07/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Background Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Forest Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 9 685 5 9 903 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 685 5 9 903 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R lume 7 2 11 9 1 5 -eak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 2 11 9 1 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dela Queue Len•th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (vph) 9 9 20 15 C (m) (vph) 759 914 332 275 v/c 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.05 95% queue length 0.04 0.03 0.19 0.17 Control Delay 9.8 9.0 16.5 18.8 LOS A A C C Approach Delay -- -- 16.5 18.8 ,proach LOS -- -- C C IICS20001 M Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page G-117 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst EAG Intersection Frontage/Forest '� Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 09/07/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic AM Project Description 067867001 -Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Forest Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 698 11 14 569 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 698 11 14 569 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane y RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 11 3 10 6 1 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 3 10 6 1 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ()/o) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (vph) 0 14 24 11 C (m) (vph) 1011 899 370 373 v/c 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.03 95% queue length 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.09 Control Delay 8.6 9.1 15.4 14.9 LOS A A C B Approach Delay -- -- 15.4 14.9 ..., Approach LOS -- -- C B HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights F Lionshead Redevelopment 0 Environmental Impact Report Page G-118 file•Hr.\lnriimprac°G,M21-1r1°G,70Cettinuc\cnrtic rnwe\T,nCa1%70Set Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst EA G Intersection Frontage/Forest Agency/Co. Kimley-Horn Jurisdiction Town of Vail Date Performed 09/07/03 Analysis Year 2020 Analysis Time Period Total Traffic PM Project Description 067867001 - Lionshead Redevelopment East/West Street: South Frontage Road North/South Street: Forest Road _ Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 9 827 11 17 837 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 827 11 17 837 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR _ L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 12 2 16 9 1 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 12 2 16 9 1 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay,`Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (vph) 9 17 30 15 C (m) (vph) 804 805 295 263 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.06 95% queue length 0.03 0.06 0.34 0.18 Control Delay 9.5 9.6 18.6 19.5 LOS A A C C Approach Delay -- -- 18.6 19.5 Approach LOS -- -- C C HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights f Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report /� r�/� Page G-119 T1lr.•//I •\Tll1!`11r rItc0/711anr10/)flcpttincc\riirtic rnwe\T nra1°/7f1Cet --iL, SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING NORTH DAY LOT VAIL, COLORADO I] i t. ,4.0K K KKirk., Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. f Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Y - Y Y 12364 W. Alameda Pkwy • Suite 115 • Lakewood, CO 80228-2845 -I �� LAKEWOOD AVON /SILVERTHORNE -y -� (303)989-1223 (970)949-6009 ��Y��l �iy►y�� (303)989-0204 FAX (970)949-9223 FAX Ow Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page H-1 • KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS lAft I SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING NORTH DAY LOT VAIL, COLORADO I 3 ,„••Of Ili tiff 11,7 * '0- R- 33822 �cm -' . 8/-2/03 .�* ] f., e,c,... ..iiiimmilutto 3 Prepared for: Mr. Dan Feeney Vail Resorts Development Company P.O. Box 959 Avon, CO 81620-0959 ° N o E 0. o a a 72-,. a mac. E a '-' Job No. 03-101 August 7, 2003 -0 au g ,• o I DENVER: 12364 West Alameda Prkmy.,Suite 115,Lakewood, CO 80228(303) 989-1223 W AVON/SILVERTHORNE: (970) 949-6009 1 • • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. it Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 3 SITE CONDITIONS 3 INVESTIGATION 4 gi SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 RADON 6 . EXCAVATIONS 6 GROUND WATER 6 SHORING 7 FOUNDATIONS 8 SLABS-ON-GRADE 10 -1 FOUNDATION DRAINAGE 11 LATERAL WALL LOADS 12 RETAINING WALLS 13 SURFACE DRAINAGE 14 IRRIGATION 15 COMPACTED FILL LIMITATIONS 16 16 VICINITY MAP Fig. 1 LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 ] LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Figs. 3 and 4 LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 5 GRADATION TEST RESULTS Figs. 6 thru 10 TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL Fig. 11 TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL Fig. 12 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Table I de, ighiri Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page H-3 • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers I 3 SCOPE This report presents the results of a soils and foundation investigation for the proposed commercial building at the North Day Lot in Vail, Colorado. The approximate is shown on the Vicinity Ma Fig. 1. The purpose of this investigation was 3 site location n' p, Fig. PmP to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed construction. ,l, The purpose of this report is to provide descriptions of subsoil and ground water conditions encountered in the exploratory borings, allowable soil bearing capacity, recommended foundation systems, and recommended foundation design and construction 1 criteria for the proposed development. This report was prepared from data developed during the field investigation, our laboratory testing, and our experience with similar g g projects and subsurface conditions in the area. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the proposed development as described in the PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION section of this report. We should be contacted to review our recommendations when the final plans for the proposed construction have been completed. A summary of our findings and conclusions is presented below. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Subsurface conditions encountered in exploratory borings were generally similar. The subsurface conditions consisted of 3.0 to 5.0 feet of existing Ihy Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report IPage H-4 F S 0 August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers fill underlain by a medium dense, silty sand with little gravel to depths of 6.0 to 11.0 feet. The existing fill was characterized by a loose to medium dense, clayey silty sand with scattered gravel. Below the silty sand, to the maximum depth explored of 40.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of a dense to very dense, silty sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. 2. Existing fill to varying depths of 3.0 to 5.0 feet was encountered at this site. All existing fill will need to be removed from below construction areas prior to construction. 3. Ground water was encountered at depths of 29.0 feet in TH-1, 30.0 feet in TH-2, 29.0 feet in TH-3, and 33.0 feet in TH-5 at the time of drilling. Because we anticipate excavations of up to 15 feet for construction of the proposed development, we do not anticipate that ground water will influence the construction of the proposed building. Refer to the GROUND WATER section of this report for additional details. 4. We anticipate that silty sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders will be encountered at the proposed foundation elevations. In our opinion, the natural sand and gravel will safely support spread footing foundations for ,G the proposed building. Refer to the FOUNDATIONS section of this report for complete recommendations. 5. We anticipate that the soils at the potential floor slab elevation for the proposed building will consist of the natural silty sand and gravel and cobbles and boulders. In our opinion, the natural sand and gravel will safely support slab-on-grade floors for the proposed garage. Refer to the FLOOR SLABS section of this report for complete recommendations. 6. Because cobbles and boulders were encountered in the exploratory borings, we anticipate that heavy-duty excavation equipment will be necessary to complete the required excavations. Refer to the EXCAVATIONS section of this report for additional recommendations. 7. Due to the depth of the proposed excavations and proximity to existing structures, we anticipate that a temporary shoring system may be required. Refer to the SHORING section of this report for additional details. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page H-5 2 • • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers © y, 8. Drainage around the structure should be designed and constructed to provide for rapid removal of surface runoff and avoid concentration of water adjacent to foundation walls. 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understand that the proposed project consists of the design and construction of a commercial building. The commercial building will consist of two sections, a four- story section and a six-story section. One level of below grade parking will be constructed below the entire building. The upper two floors in the section of the building "1 with six-stories will consist of office space while the main level in both sections will be a passenger drop off area and bus transit area with support offices. The remaining floors in N both sections will consist of employee housing units. The proposed building will most likely be of cast-in-place concrete and structural steel construction with concrete slab-on- grade lower level floors. Excavations of up to 15 feet in depth may be required for construction of the proposed below grade level. Typical building loads for the proposed building are assumed to be those normally used for large commercial construction. SITE CONDITIONS The proposed building will be constructed in the North Day Lot in Vail, Colorado. The North Day Lot is located immediately north of the Landmark Condominiums and at the south end of the pedestrian overpass over 1-70. At the time of our investigation, the , C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 11-6 3 J • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No.03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers lot is being used as a parking lot for Vail Associate employees and for short-term check- in for the Landmark Condominiums. The lot is paved in asphalt and has a 6 to 14 foot earthen berm located along the north side of the lot. The earthen berm is bordered to the north by the South Frontage Road. The west side of the lot is bordered by West Lionshead Circle. The south side of the site is bordered by the Landmark Condominiums. The east side of the site is bordered by a landscaped area with a sidewalk. Vegetation on the berm north of the parking lot and the landscaped area east of the lot consists of grass, weeds, and pine trees. INVESTIGATION Subsurface conditions were investigated at this site on July 23, 2003 by drilling five exploratory borings with a 6-inch diameter Tubex downhole hammer drilling system using compressed air at the locations shown in the Locations of Exploratory Borings, Fig. office was on site during our field investigation to supervise the 2. An engineer from our offs s g g p drilling of the exploratory borings and to visually classify and document the subsurface soils and ground water conditions. Representative soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings were tested for natural moisture and gradation properties. After drilling, two-inch diameter PVC well screen pipe was placed in exploratory borings TH-1, TH-2, TH-4, and TH-5 in order to monitor ground water elevations. Four- inch diameter PVC well screen pipe was installed in exploratory boring TH-3. Graphical Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page H-7 4 • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers logs of the subsurface conditions encountered within the exploratory borings are presented in the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figs. 3 and 4; and in Legend of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 5. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the Logs of Exploratory rY b p Borings, Figs. 3 and 4; in the Legend of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 5; in the Gradation Test Results, Figs. 6 thru 10; and in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results, Table I. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions encountered in exploratory borings were generally similar. The subsurface conditions consisted of 3.0 to 5.0 feet of existing fill underlain by a red- brown to brown, dry, medium dense, silty sand with little gravel to depths of 6.0 to 11.0 feet. The existing fill was characterized by a black to dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, clayey silty sand with scattered gravel. Below the silty sand, to the maximum depth explored of 40.0 feet, the subsurface conditions consisted of a red-brown 3 to brown, dry to very moist, dense to very dense, silty sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Ground water was encountered at depths of 29.0 feet in TH-1, 30.0 feet in TH-2, 29.0 feet in TH-3, and 33.0 feet in TH-5 at the time of drilling. a Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 11-8 5 S • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers c RADON In recent years, radon gas has become a concern. Radon gas is a colorless, odorless gas that is produced by the decay of minerals in soil and rock. The potential for radon g as in the subsurface strata of mountain terrain is likely. Due to the granular nature of the natural soils, it is our opinion that the risk for radon gas at this site is generally low. However, as a precaution we recommend that the below grade levels be designed with "3, ventilation to reduce the risk of radon gas build-up in these areas. w EXCAVATIONS We anticipate that excavations of up to 15 feet in depth will be required for °.,, construction of the proposed building. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered within the borings, we anticipate that these excavations will be in the existing fill, silty sand, and sand and gravel. Care needs to be exercised during construction so that the excavation slopes remain stable. In our opinion, dry to moist, existing sand fill, natural x' silty sand, and natural sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders classify as Type B soils in accordance with OSHA. Very moist or saturated, sand and gravel will classify as Type C soils in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA regulations should be followed in Iany excavations or cuts. Due to the depth of the proposed excavation and proximity to the existing structures, we anticipate that temporary shoring will be required to complete the necessary excavations, if the excavation cannot be laid back. Refer to the SHORING .I Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 11-9 , 6 f • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers - C section of this report for additional details. All existing fill and soft soils beneath the proposed construction should be removed, and if necessary, replaced with properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill. All fill should be laced and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED P P FILL section of this report. GROUND WATER Ground water was encountered at depths of 29.0 feet in TH-1, 30.0 feet in TH-2, 29.0 feet in TH-3, and 33.0 feet in TH-5 at the time of drilling. Because we anticipate that excavations of up to 15 feet in depth will be necessary for construction of the -0C proposed building and the shallowest ground water was encountered at a depth of 29 feet, we do not anticipate that ground water will influence the construction of the proposed building. However, if plans change and two levels of below grade construction are considered, ground water could be encountered. If plans change and more than one level below grade is being considered, we should be contacted to review our recommendations. SHORING Due to the depth of the proposed excavation and proximity of existing structures, we anticipate that temporary shoring may be required, if the excavation sides cannot be laid back in accordance with OSHA regulations. Because cobbles and boulders were Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page H-10 7 August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Q encountered within the exploratory borings, the installation of a conventional soldier posts and lagging shoring system will be very difficult. A soil nailed shoring system i would not be influenced by the presence of the cobbles and boulders. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered durin g this investigation, it is our opinion that the shoring system may be designed using the following engineering soil characteristics for the natural silty sand and sand and gravel: (V = 35°, y = 135 psf, c = 0. We recommend that a shoring contractor be contacted to design and construct the proposed shoring system, if such a system is required. FOUNDATIONS tThe subsurface material at the potential foundation elevation for the proposed jbuilding will consist of natural sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. In our opinion, the natural sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders will safely support a spread footing foundation system for the proposed building. We recommend that the spread footing foundation system be designed and constructed to meet the following criteria: 1. Footings should be supported by the undisturbed natural sand and gravel 3 or properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill, as described below in °3H Items 8, 9,and 10. 2. We recommend wall and column footings be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 6,000 psf for foundations constructed on the natural sand and gravel. ti ,,C01 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 11-11 1 8 1 • s August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers c 3. Spread footings constructed entirely on the natural sand and gravel or ( properly moisture treated and compacted structural fill may experience up to 0.5 inches of differential movement between foundation elements. Because the soils are granular in nature, we anticipate that the majority of the differential settlement will occur during construction. 4. Excavation for foundations adjacent to existing structures should be performed with care. The excavation should be made so that existing foundations and floor slabs are not undermined. Excavations adjacent to existing structures should be excavated at a 2 to 1 slope (Horizontal to , Vertical). „,3 5. Wall footings and foundation walls should be designed to span a distance of at least 10.0 feet in order to account for anomalies in the soil or compacted fill. ., 6. The base of the exterior footings should be established at a minimum depth below the exterior ground surface, as required by the local building code. We believe that the depth for frost protection in the local building code in this area is 3.5 feet. j7. Column footings should have a minimum dimension of 24 inches square and continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches. �,, Footing widths may be greater to accommodate structural design loads. 8. We anticipate that cobbles and boulders will be encountered at the foundation elevation. Removal of the cobbles and boulders may result in depressions and rough bottoms in the excavation. The resulting depressions can be backfilled with compacted backfill or lean concrete. Refer to the COMPACTED FILL section of this report for backfill requirements. 9. Pockets or layers of soft soils may be encountered in the bottom of the completed footing excavations. These materials should be removed to expose the undisturbed, natural sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. I The foundations should be constructed on the natural sand and gravel or new compacted structural fill. Refer to the COMPACTED FILL section of this report for backfill requirements. C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 11-12 t • • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C 10. Fill should be placed and compacted as outlined in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. We recommend that a representative of our office observe and test the placement and compaction of structural fill used in foundation construction. It has been our experience that without engineering quality control, inappropriate construction techniques occur which result in poor foundation performance. 11. We recommend that a representative of our office observe the completed foundation excavations. Variations from the conditions described in this report, which were not indicated by our borings or test pits, can occur. The representative can observe the excavations to evaluate the exposed subsurface conditions. SLABS-ON-GRADE The subsurface soils at the anticipated floor slab elevations for the proposed building consists of sand and gravel. The subsurface conditions below exterior slabs-on- grade will consist of the existing sand fill underlain by the natural silty sand. In our g opinion the existing fill will not safely support exterior slabs-on-grade without a high risk of movement. However, it is our opinion that the natural silty sand and sand and gravel will safely support slabs-on-grade with a low risk of movement. We recommend the following precautions for the construction of slabs-on-grade: 1. Slabs should be placed on the natural silty sand, sand and gravel or new compacted fill. All existing fill or soft soils beneath slabs-on-grade should be removed and replaced with properly moisture treated and compacted fill prior to construction of slabs-on-grade. 2. A subgrade modulus of 200 pci may be used for design of slabs-on-grade on the natural silty sands, sand and gravel or new compacted fill. ic Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page--13 - 10 1 • r August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers IC 3. Slabs should be separated from exterior walls and interior bearing members. Vertical movement of the slab should not be restricted. <. 4. Exterior slabs should be separated from the building. These slabs should be reinforced to function as independent units. Movement of these slabs should not be transmitted directly to the foundations or walls of the structure. 5. Frequent control joints should be provided in all slabs to reduce problems associated with shrinkage. 6. Fill beneath slabs-on-grade may consist of on-site soils free of deleterious material or approved fill. Fill should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement and compaction of fill beneath slabs should be observed and f tested by a representative of our office. ‘,.., FOUNDATION DRAINAGE Surface water tends to flow through relatively permeable backfill typically found adjacent to foundations. The water that flows through the fill collects on the surface of J g relatively impermeable soils occurring at the foundation elevation. Both this surface water and possible ground water can cause wet or moist below grade conditions after construction. Because a below grade level will be constructed for the proposed building, we recommend the installation of a drain along the below grade foundation walls. The foundation drain for the proposed building will help reduce the risk of hydrostatic pressure developing on foundation walls and of ground water infiltrating into the below grade areas. The drain should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe encased in free Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 11 Page H-14 E • • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnica! Engineers draining gravel and a manufactured wall drain. The drain should be sloped so that water flows to a positive gravity outlet or to a sump where the water can be removed by pumping. Recommended details for a typical foundation wall drain are presented in the Typical Wall Drain Detail, Fig. 11. LATERAL WALL LOADS Below grade walls which require lateral earth pressures for design will be constructed. Lateral earth pressures depend on the type of backfill and the height and { type of wall. Walls, which are free to rotate sufficiently to mobilize the strength of the backfill, should be designed to resist the "active" earth pressure condition. Walls that are jc.), restrained should be designed to resist the "at rest" earth pressure condition. The Jfollowing table presents the lateral wall pressures that may be used for design. e Earth Pressure Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure' (pcf) Active 40 At-rest 55 Passive 300 Notes: `" 1. Equivalent fluid pressures are for a horizontal backfill condition with no hydrostatic pressures or live loads. I.; 2. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used at the base of retaining wall or spread footings to resist lateral wall loads. i Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report 12 Page H-15 1 • • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Backfill placed behind or adjacent to foundation walls and retaining walls should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. Placement and compaction of the fill should be observed and tested by a representative of our office. RETAINING WALLS We anticipate that retaining walls could be constructed as part of the development of the subject site. The types of walls that are possible on this site are conventional concrete retaining walls, MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) walls, crib walls and boulder retaining walls. Lateral earth loads for retaining wall designs are presented in the LATERAL WALL LOADS section of this report. Foundations for retaining walls may be constructed on the natural silty sand or compacted structural fill using a maximum is allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure for design of retaining wall foundations has been reduced because we anticipate that the retaining wall foundations will be bearing in the natural silty sand. Existing fill is not suitable for support of retaining walls. Structural fill placed below retaining walls should be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this report. If retaining walls are to be constructed, in order to reduce the possibility of developing hydrostatic pressures behind retaining walls, a drain should be constructed adjacent to the walls. The drain may consist of a manufactured drain system and gravel. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page H-16 13 • • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers The gravel should have a maximum size of 1.5 inches and have a maximum of 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Washed concrete aggregate will be satisfactory for the drainage layer. The manufactured drain should extend from the bottom of the retaining wall to within 2 feet of sub grade elevation. The water can be drained by a perforated pipe with collection of the water at the bottom of the wall leading to a positive gravity outlet. A typical detail for a retaining wall drain is presented in the Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail, Fig. 12. SURFACE DRAINAGE Reducing the wetting of structural soils and the potential of developing Chydrostatic pressure behind below grade walls or retaining walls can be achieved by j Y carefully planned and maintained surface drainage. We recommend the following precautions be observed during construction and maintained at all times during and after the development is completed. 1. Wetting or drying of the open foundation excavations should be minimized during construction. 2. All surface water should be directed away from the top and sides of the excavations during construction. i33. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the proposed building should be sloped to drain away in all directions. We recommend a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet for landscaped areas adjacent to the proposed building. A slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet may be applied ir) to paved or slab-on-grade areas adjacent to the proposed building. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page H-17 14 • • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. k) Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 4. Backfill, especially around foundation walls, must be placed and compacted as recommended in the COMPACTED FILL section of this k report. 5. Roof drains should discharge at least 10 feet away from foundation walls with drainage directed away from the structures. 6. Surface drainage should be designed by a Professional Civil Engineer. f , IRRIGATION 3 Sprinkler systems installed next to foundation walls or sidewalks could cause consolidation of backfill below and adjacent to these areas. This can result in settling of exterior steps, patios and/or sidewalks if they are constructed on these soils. We IDrecommend the following precautions be followed: 1. Do not install a sprinkler system next foundial retaining walls. The sprinkler system should to be at least at on 10 w feet ls away or above from the buildings or face of retaining walls. J2. Sprinkler heads should be pointed away from the structures or in a manner that does not allow the spray to come within 5 feet of the buildings or face of retaining walls. 3. The landscape around the sprinkler system should be sloped so that no ponding occurs at the sprinkler heads. 4. Install landscaping geotextile fabrics to inhibit growth of weeds and to allow normal moisture evaporation. We do not recommend the use of a plastic membrane to inhibit the growth of weeds. 5. Control valve boxes, for automatic sprinkler systems, should be located at least 10 feet away from the structure and periodically checked for leaks and flooding. Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 11-18 15 cb 0 • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers i ,. COMPACTED FILL Structural fill below slabs-on-grade for this project may consist of the existing, silty, sandy sand fill free of deleterious material, natural silty sand, natural sand and gravel, or approved imported fill. No deleterious material was encountered in the existing fill, however, if deleterious material is encountered it should be removed. Deleterious L material includes building materials, trash, topsoil, and organics. Structural fill below foundations for this project may consist of the natural sand and gravel or imported granular fill. The imported fill may consist of non-expansive silty or clayey sands or gravels with up to 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and a maximum plasticity index cie of 10. No gravel or cobbles larger than 6 inches should be placed in fill areas. Fill areas jshould be stripped of all vegetation and loose soils, and then scarified, moisture treated, ,� and compacted. Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts; moisture treated, and compacted as shown in the following table. The recommended compaction varies for the given use 1, of the fill, as indicated in the following table. t Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 11-19 "`I 16 0 August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No.03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Ce Recommended Compaction Percentage of the Percentage of the Percentage of the ,iUse of Fill Standard Proctor Modified Proctor Optimum Maximum Dry Maximum Dry Moisture Content Density Density (ASTM D-698 (ASTM D-698) (ASTM D-1557) or D-1557)' Below Structure Foundations 98 95 -2 to +2 Below Slabs-On-Grade 95 90 -2 to +2 Utility Trench Backfill 95 90 -2 to +2 Backfill (Non-Structural) 90 90 -2 to +2 Notes: 1. For clay soils the moisture content should be 0 to +2 percent of the optimum moisture content. For granular soils the moisture content should be—2 to +2 of the optimum moisture content. We recommend that a representative of our office observe and test the placement and compaction of structural fill. Fill placed behind retaining walls and below lefoundations, slab-on-grade floors, and exterior slabs-on-grade is considered structural. It has been our experience that without engineering quality control, inappropriate construction techniques can occur which result in poor foundation and slab-on-grade performance. LIMITATIONS Although the exploratory borings were located to obtain a reasonably accurate determination of foundation conditions, variations in the subsurface conditions are always possible. Any variations that exist beneath the site generally become evident during excavation for the proposed structure. A representative from our office should observe Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page H-20 17 • • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 4e, 3 the completed excavations to confirm that the soils are as indicated by the exploratory borings, and to verify our foundation and slab-on-grade design and construction recommendations. The placement and compaction of fill, as well as installation of foundations, should also be observed and/or tested. The design criteria and subsurface data presented in this report are valid for 3 years provided that a representative from our office observes the site at that time and confirms that the site conditions are similar to the conditions presented in the SITE CONDITIONS section of this report and that the recommendations presented in this report are still applicable. We recommend that final ` plans and specifications for proposed construction be submitted to our office for study, prior to beginning construction, to determine compliance with the recommendations tii presented in this report. .-] jc, Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page H-21 18 • • August 7,2003 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Job No. 03-101 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers e If we can be of further assistance in discussing the contents of this report or in analyses of the proposed project from a soils and foundation viewpoint, please call. KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. i .-.-° • 23822 V 1 ninu►u o Scott B. Myers, P.E. Senior Engineer Reviewed by: ...IC ,c4,e_c ji.e_ - „vs. -41, X" William H. Koechlein, P.E. President II (4 copies sent) cc: Rob Rydel - Oz Architecture gal ii ::1 Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Page 11-22 1 19 1 Co iCHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers • { L � ,Fr` 3 fD " . <_ s K -4 E z e . ° tl,o s s; �o,:..r va, s lih , SS�� r t:z :,:r1 E,z % e y 3 :5:.] III '5 " .2v . � � ,k� � r0"fr b ."& r vs sa 4� 4 . ^V 3 a l r + - e�l5 _ < s a ,; :',,i ,� 1 1 o 3 3 " �� . m �,n ? r 4 x§ d.A 5 c 4:-f ''" a),t V S e - 3 ,,; : � � K flY(1 's p15 „ ^x s e 1 a t ` s i�r , i} 1E:ua a , w � � Y F+ E a 4.` .4„,„:„.r ! ` , ;;; T it".4441 3 y . n w t '' ' fw r y# a V a � iA y i k a fr l 5 ( s ,.v c � b pfi - w . ss� ..bv --#r :u F�Y PP >—o ..hx A' .. x e�, • . 1 i. i y .,.1-Y . .,v •:3 SITE F]::: A M A NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP Lionshead Redevelopment Iiire Environmental Impact Report ' i JOB NO 03-101 Page H-23 Z y r 9 Q ,a';! s � X11 s sr - ._. . LU w t W • \ 1. - \� r.. ct Z U \ 1 �S N N�� \ f/ /\ M --- I I y \ 5`Y I.y z 00 flH I i t It 1 i ( '. ; •.. z o 1 I \ Ii t ; , ` .., 1 '\,,) I ).—.,�. \ it \ I \ \ W 2 i ( ++±1 \ \ `i '7 r I /2x W ' 1 I 2 I . l r' or I;' `'';:_ �\ _ 0 \ ,\ 1 1 1 1 1, 1— \��, , \ 1 , I \ \ \ ({ rrr no no lin mu sin I `" I 1 I 1 ....__ _ I .P is 1 \ \ \ , 1 ; 4 � i t r " !.If!l!y� . i iiE:1:,/' � f 1 1 ' , 1■1 ! ;,1 I} a; 1 1 i 1 �, c,, III�IIII _.....-7 \ i \ 1 U) ;l \ "‘ . ", ' 1 \'\ ' ; �; I t ! I p I ,� 1 t 1 I ( ; t\ ti\ 1 1 11, t\\) t\ 1 1 } ii\\ \ 1 0 i 1 ' 1 1 i 1 2: , III 1 It ‘ \ e t 1...-..... ..-,..... - VI CO k kw Ce . \ \ \•- .,,,st„,\Nk...„.,..-.,,,„-,,,\---......\----,:1--1 t,\ \ \ \ A , \\ \ 1 t 1 ; ce) 41 1„ 1 1 4. \ \ + t '1 I In ` '-,.,,,- \jii Iii 1 i t 4 II 1 \ , 1 -,' ico \\.._2—. —, \ - ",. i; II Lli 1.— 0 ,1 1 ,,,,, . . c,,\--\ N.,,\ ...---..„ -s ,,, v. \\\ \",,,. \,. ......_... --\\ '0, \ 1 ,— ,, ,..,. v-- \\ \ , 11(---.:-,N ,',\`'....--, -4 \,4\ <9 \ 1 CC1 "1 \l' 1 , — o_ I 1 '14 '"4.7,;75‘\\\\ ,` \ ` i (�\ I L11 , = I ! Q; , ,. 11 1 X11 t HI IY �.� 1 '� Z ' / � ' I i O i ` 1 'II, �' , t It 4 r I /` R 1 :t -- :Ali-., 1 `, ' �4 x �.k Q j1/2 i il\ t cr3 A-:.;'-'1 \,., .,, k z 1 i 1t '�'I 1 iI — J I i \ ,f ' t, j i ii II 1 \ \ \ \• 1 — t - s } 1 ` 1 \ \ \ \\ \\ \ Y: 1 1 ! E' 1`■ \ , I = 1, 0 t it 1 i`t _� -� 11 i I 1 1 • _ 1 `� 1 f ! _ l- - -..i PEpESTR�AN �_ 1 - �' i _r' 1 °i L - J 1 'I �_ E 1 BRIDGE / - { y ',..1:,.._.._ 1 i I Z t 1`� `� 1; / . I I' cid t N° 4 q, 1 'k \ \ ,.,( r ;__.__-_I \ { 1 / t \\ \\\\\ \ � 1 r t 1 t \ , I 1 1i \ \ \ \e` \ 1 I t' �. '�f"; i \t ' I -- I Q z 7„ ,1 i r- :i �Y ��i(1; r i • r• :I A \\ _ 0 ,,, /', �,...��4,1, . , . l I — _■ t j .- y l 2 .. - j I ,- ' ; ' L 2 \ / , i \ I ii i o \\,- I WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE �\Lo ) d / o 1 el I • •KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers ill) —.-- _ _ _ _ _ _ ...,,. r a ' __."--- -.,-- , /J;',:f l ... .� T H-1 I1 I ; 1 -0_ ,i2,,i 0 ,„,--",,,,, it \ : ---------- ,\ „- ,...------7, , - \ . .: l r / . I I 0 / "11 --___ 141'i= / y I�. I jjJ Li l 1T � r i ! l IlL S I Co/ I f j 'mom= _ �� _ '' . `' 817C r V r g \WI mou EMI Ma 2 I J 1! - A, ii ID (1. ',,,,- i D ® I – I h I , \ 7 yr i' 4ij� 1j .y Ai ! , \ „.4,5,4c.--- I I \j \ ~ f t 1 i �3 ' TTTTTT r! y'- _I } ' / r'�t' 1 0 __5\6O I \ = �� f ., ,� �. I 1" = 30' Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report JOB NO.03-101 Page H-24 0 KO EIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers TH-1 TH-2 TH-3 APP.EL.8168 APP.EL.8166 APP.EL.8168 ® 0 0 o o♦ ►, - - _,y/ A. 3/12 ►♦,r) WC=10 - 5 t WC=16 •A' -200=45 5 — _ -200=51 - _ ��3:- 2P°' 29/12 - bcU14/12 pQ;- 10 d: WC=5 �aacr � m0 10 - baao -200= 15 �f3: b0: -t] �b - a: nda pate Op a O. Q;. - oRa t, O 42/12 39/12 - 15 ID Q- a WC=6 o WC=4 15 _ b � 200= 16a 200=12 _ ; tt�0: o b pQ 's�°a� ��aa ciaa ~ _ KY_:a 19fQ: Q:. - p W - Q9.4!3: w'. r o"d m PP a Q Q. -0 ur p Q:° be:� °:a _ —I Z p°, 41/12 b o c d I _ 20 �Q. WC=3 P-,: �0: _ mad o p�Q 20 - e : -200= 1 1 1,› a soda - Z R0.6. PePQ- Tf W pc-,,c3: t?6a Q b0:- T MI b�°yE7- E301'0 t a,0 - �Q �� p� �'b paa� oa°C1 ta"CF� !ti O: : • i - 25 b 0:a bdg Ada 25 - o a� p°aa poaa - - It?15:47 P..!C - °P SAP: p a°' o0'vo. 0054 - f�Qa d b Q' hOOD? b 'C) baO o - _ Q:• It;0:4 Iflt3: j -.. a ■50/1 fl � 50/3 =bRba - 30 �?f3: 30 O;0: db:o _ eaa�7 b 0: baac7 - ILl 6: _ C>PD 3. 35 P°a: 35 — �°•p• lb Q - 5 CST 0 -6�- 0Q - 40 4E°i 40 , 0 Lionshead Redevelopment LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Environmental Impact Report JOB NO. 03-101 Page 11-25 • KOVIEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers TH-4 TH-5 APP.EL.8166 APP.EL.8167 O0 � ■■MI 0 11/12 5 r 5 90gQ rib Z IbcrVo Q' Dd - 10 19/12 opQ`� WC=4 200=8 10 1o�P: b 0: D:b p I -f!'Q •- a WC=4 R1Q 23/12 Q: :4s_;:-15 bPo -200=6 Expo: 15 o©t'0: •QQ bb•c7 i 6d>:6; I- i_ b0 ID 0: 0 L.L. ISa p4 O Ada 50/11 bf?df2� WC=3 2 �o Z 20 P. (> . -200-7 20 'Q d 'T1 bcyTo 594Q bL� Q Sy - Itt Cs: 3�?O: o° (9-Cy. 50/7 25 ba�.y lb 25 00'°x? b Qo. - noQ bc: .Q flC3: Its 0: moo P6Q b06Q 1��: 117 : po'-0: 3 �09P: b9Q 30 0 Q:' 30 boo Dcs - b0i'Q o°Q 000: / _ 35 O 35 3 - 40 40 C Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Page H-26 JOB NO. 03-101 • 0 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers I IL., LEGEND: III ASPHALT ll I I ROADBASE i r "I FILL, SAND, Silty, Clayey, Some gravel, Scattered cobbles and _- boulders, Moist, Loose to medium dense, Black to dark brown. SAND, Silty, Little gravel, Dry, Medium dense, Red-brown to brown. O' SAND and GRAVEL, Silty, Cobbles, Boulders, Dry to very moist, IIPP.e. Dense to very dense, Red-brown to brown. IWATER. Indicates depth of water encountered while drilling. BULK SAMPLE. Obtained from drilling cuttings. I SPLIT SPOON DRIVE SAMPLE. The symbol 14/12 indicates that 14 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive a 2.0 inch O.D. sampler 12 inches. C I I Notes: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on July 23, 2003 using Tubex drilling methods. 2. Ground water was encountered at depths of 29.0 feet in TH-1, 30.0 feet in TH-2, 29.0 feet in TH 3, and 33.0 feet in TH-5 during drilling. 3. The Boring Logs are subject to the explanations, limitations, and conclusions as contained in this report. 3 4. Laboratory Test Results: WC - Indicates natural moisture content (%) -200 - Indicates percent passing the No. 200 sieve (%) 5. Approximate elevations are based on the site plan presented in the Locations of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. ,,i ' Lionshead Redevelopmen LEGEND OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Environmental ImpaPcge H 2 JOB NO. 03-101 C • KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ce 100 m n i m 4 m38 m r #t. 10 X 10 T sir r1I e,1 Sr 0 90 . 1 . ' 10 80 - . . 20 1 70 . _ - _ _ L - 30 C60 .-- I - . • - - - --- 40 m Ia_ 50 - 50 70 Z w m 0 40 - - - 60 D w Z a m 30 . - - - 70 r 20 - - - • 1 80 . - - - - • 10 90 0 1 1 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND,Gravelly,Silty GRAVEL 36 % SAND 49 % Source TH-1 Sample No. Elev./Depth 9.0 feet SILT&CLAY 15 % LIQUD LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX n 1 din 1/i ,��i Xa #10 #0 X30 #40 7 #100 #140 900 «. 100 •in 1 ( 1 I 1 0 90 10 80 . - . 20 • (7 70 30 -D Z m•N 60 - 40 n Q I Z a -I I- 50 - 50 Zl 0 I • . , 60 D w Z a m 30 - - 70 0 20 80 10 90 0 I I 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of GRAVEL, Sandy,Silty GRAVEL 49 % SAND 40 % - Source TH-1 Sample No. Elev./Depth 19.0 feet SILT&CLAY 11 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX % (iv, GRADATION TEST RESULTS Lionshead Redevelopment Job No. 03 101 Environmental Impact Report Page H-28 0 0 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS (her 1!I in.3'in P4 010 P 0 P3. 714. Pe. P1.0 •140 P 00 •100 •m �.:. • �� 0 ' 90 10 80 I 20 ' 70 - I - 30 .1 0 Z m in 60 40 n cn m H 50 - - — - 50 23 w - O 40 � B0 D cc W z a_ m 30 - 70 20 80 10 90 0 1 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 i DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of FILL,Silt,Clayey,Sandy GRAVEL 2 % SAND 47 % Source TH-2 Sample No. Elev./Depth 4.0 feet SILT&CLAY 51 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX .irlW 1.�m 1'3/4 in 12 m1 in ►4 e10 90 P30 Sr 10 7 #1 0 ' 100 �( 1 I I 7 1 o ■ so 10 80 20 70 30 O m Z 73 60 I 40 z a I I 50 - 50 m z m O 40 • i60 D • IY W i z a m 0 30 I ' ' 70 ° 20 so I 10 - I 90 Y% 0 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0:01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND and GRAVEL,Silty GRAVEL 42 % SAND 42 °/ Source TH-2 Sample No. Elev./Depth 14.0 feet SILT&CLAY 16 % LIQUID LIMIT ° -L PLASTICITY INDEX 0 iLie GRADATION TEST RESULTS Lionshead Redevelopmen 1 Environmental Impact Repor ,. Job No 03-101 Page H-2' 0 • KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1 100 bin Q 1/21n 3/8 m 1 1 1 7 1 .10 .{0 .30 .40 1r .100 .140 .iO 0 90 I — 10 60 20 70 30 -0 M Oz X 60 - 40 m 50- 50 x Z -I O• 40 60 D w m m ° 30 . __ _ 70 0 20 — 80 I 3 10 90 0 1 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 'I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of FILL,Sand, Silty,Clayey,Some gravel GRAVEL 6 % SAND 49 % Source TH-3 Sample No. Elev./Depth 4.0 feet SILT&CLAY 45 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX I' 6 m '/' - -m 1 m /4 m 1 t in 3/8 in .4 .1. #20 .3. *4. • .1.• #140 u 100 I 0 90 10• 60 I 20 0 70 N.L.s.,..... .,i1 30 m X • 60 40 m 3 Z 50 I I 50 X M w D CC• 40 I 60 z w I m a o 30 70 £ 20 I 80 3, 10 90 0 1 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND,Gravelly,Silty GRAVEL 36 % SAND 52 ok Source TH-3 Sample No. Elev./Depth 14.0 feet SILT&CLAY 12 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX i C,,,, J GRADATION TEST RESULTS Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report Job No 03-101 Page 1-1-30 0 • KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS i 100 e 7---' rz y I x xio 10 x39 «o 10 xo o aia TO 0 90 _ 10 80 - - - - - - 20 ` 70 _ 30 'U m z x 60 - - -- - - - - - '- . - 40 0 (4 m z j ,_ 50 - - 50 x Z -m1 m 40 60 D 2 w w m 30 - - - - - - 70 ° 20 - _ _ - __- - - 80 7] 1 10 I 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of SAND,Gravelly, Silty GRAVEL 18 % SAND 76 % Source TH-4 Sample No. Elev./Depth 14.0 feet SILT&CLAY 6 % LIQUD LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX °/x 0 10i - /8,n #4 - ii x x3 a0 90 a1°0 #14 x 0 0 .A 80 20 70 30 Zm A N 60 40 m Q z a -I .3 i_ 50 5° 7J Z m W -I 0 40 I 60 D w z a m 30 - 70 ° 1 20 80 10 90 0 I 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL I SAND SILT CLAY Sample of GRAVEL, Sandy,Silty GRAVEL 60 % SAND 32 % Source TH-5 Sample No. Elev./Depth 9.0 feet SILT&CLAY 8 % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX % _.. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Lionshead Redevelopment Job No. 03-101 Environmental Impact Report Page H-31 0 3 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1 ap 6 m 1 m Le in 15'31'n as 010 #0 Ti fu #60 #1110 e1a0 1 100 1 T 1 •in I I ( T l 1 p I 90 10 80 - - — - — - 20 70 _ - - - - '30 Z I m Z ( 60 - - - - - - - - - - 140m z 50 - _ , - , . I _ . 50 Z m w -i IY 40 - - - - 60 Z a.. m 30 - -_ 0 O • 20 - - _ 80 1 10 • 90 • 0 II 100 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MM +3" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Sample of GRAVEL, Sandy, Silty GRAVEL 63 % SAND 30 % Source TH-5 Sample No. Elev./Depth 19.0 feet SILT&CLAY 7 % LIQUD LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX :._,C I,. l Sample of GRAVEL % SAND Source Sample No. Elev./Depth SILT&CLAY % LIQUID LIMIT %, PLASTICITY INDEX C GRADATION TEST RESULTS Lionshead Redevelopment Job No. 03-101 Environmental Impact Report Page H-32 • 1DECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers lir. CLAYEY BACKFILL 1 0 1I I MANUFACTURED I 7.111E-II lI I WALL DRAIN l i�j II COMPACTED BACKFILL I f BELOW GRADE WALL I EDGE OF EXCAVATION (EXCAVATE AS PER OSHA REGULATIONS) I i I WATERPROOFING I I FILTER FABRIC GRAVEL 12.1 ;•w... ,I0 PLASTIC SHEETING 12" MIN. PERFORATED PIPE I NOTES: 1 . DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES BELOW TOP OF FOOTING AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY 3 PUMPING. 2. EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO FOOTINGS SHOULD BE CUT AT A 1 TO 1 (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) OR FLATTER SLOPE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTINGS. EXCAVATIONS ADJACENT TO FOOTINGS SHOULD NOT BE CUT VERTICALLY. ,3 3. THE DRAIN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. 4. GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: WASHED 1.5 INCH TO NO. 4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 3% PASSING THE NO 200 SIEVE. 5. THE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM MOISTURE INFILTRATION BY APPLYING A SPRAYED ON MASTIC WATERPROOFING OR AN EQUIVALENT PROTECTION METHOD. C- ] TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL Lionshead Redevelopment Environmental Impact Report JOB NO.03-101 Page H-33 •ECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 1 CLAYEY BACKFILL 10 — — 1I — — —11 I MANUFACTURED =�� I�� I�_ — WALL DRAIN 11E1 j 1 COMPACTED BACKFILL RETAINING WALL EDGE OF EXCAVATION (EXCAVATE AS PER OSHA REGULATIONS) ' I WATERPROOFING FILTER FAB'IC GR•VEI °°f C PERFORATED PIPE 3 NOTES: 1. DRAIN SHOULD BE SLOPED DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. 2. THE DRAIN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND. 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. 3. GRAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: WASHED 1 .5 INCH TO NO. 4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 3% PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. 3 4. THE BELOW GRADE CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALLS SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM MOISTURE INFILTRATION BY APPLYING A SPRAYED ON MASTIC WATERPROOFING OR AN EQUIVALENT PROTECTION METHOD. TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL Lionshead Redevelopment JOB NO. 03-101 Environmental Impact Report Page H-34 a„ w • U Z > Cl) c DO w 1 >, �' w P. VI Cr) cn r j V' ciD v) CZ V Z W -c E�'' >; > > >; > w 1 U , rd VD v) Z o U U G ) v 7 W W _ c/D. Q > -CZ ro Q Q > > D cip Q '� Q 4 4 ^ Z v� [ < &D C7 C7 OU -1 Z W w 0 H H 2 ¢ U) w 0 W c. r. V) U W o 0 H 0 W o a VD U) W Z W Z o ,--n N > o `, v) V) cn H < Z VD IC o H v X • ¢ H Q o 0.1 :=1 H U) z L=., o ¢ r- ¢ O ,_. o w � Qa a z Q W W • L C s Fv)` y ,n m y o v v m cv E a 1 Z c a to t • et a 1Z E ra, H r. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c ' 'O . Q C ,.� W d �'� = E ✓ E O H H H H H H 'r-: H a .�