The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.con.061.1979 �::.<,-y:);:_, � s-cr ��R: • . :a�:y!i,�:��-`.}l��'jll�:� ' 7r'`�~�;:,� : _ >: . .,.. _ . _� .. �.,�,��`�w+L+�r.'':�.�'�:.��!?��:�i' .. ' '�°��i., '�i ,��:. i , AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF STUDY lol(7q� THIS AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF STUDY dated this � day of , 1979, is between LITTLE ANNIE, LIMITED PARTNERSH P ("Little Annie") , THE BOieRD OF COUNTX , COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ("County") , WALLACE, MeHARG, ROBERTS AND TODD ("Consultant") and the City/County PZanning Office ("Lead Agency") representing the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. ` W I T N E S S E T H: - -; SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement is to be performed in satisfaction of certain study require- ments of Appendix C "Site Spacific Study and Environmental Statement Outline" of the April 3, 1979 Memorandum of Under- � standing ("Site Specific Agreement") concerning the assessment of the proposed Little Annie Ski Area ("Project°). With the consent of the United States Department of Agriculture, and Forest Service, the Consultant is hereby retained by Little � Annie and the County to prepare certain studies with respect to the Project as required under the Site Specific Agreement _`� i and applicable laws and regulations. Completion of this L agreement and the May 15, 1979 Contract between the County � and the State of Colorado, Division of Wildlife, will satisfy all Little Annie's study requirements under the Site Specific Agreement. ,'} SECTION 2. PERFORMANCB BY CONSULTANT. The i Consultant shall undertake and prosecute the described work � diligently to conclusion, using that standard of care, skill � . . . . .l, . � : . . -• J . �r . . � � � � - � . � � . . � . '�� _ . . . � � � . . . � ' . . . - t . . .� ... .. � . . _ . . . � 'i . ,..,e!FLfi �..,:.... . . .. .. , ' . . ' - . . � � . � . . + .. � Vr�,aie:�.y,?s' .:;x:.:��- � , �� . � �__:�,`�%�; . �;�;�{;�,'t t �� _ . . . . _ . , ,., ' and diligence normally provided by a professional person in the performance of such consulting services with respect to work similar to that hereunder, and in the manner outlined in the "Little Annie Ski Area - Proposal Pursuant to the Site Specific Phase (Step 9) of the Colorado Joint Review Process" ("Scope of Services") , attached hereto and made a { ' part hereof by this reference. With respect to the performance of the Consultant, it is agreed as follows: t ,f ? A. The Scope of Services consists of Phase A, � � "The Need for Additional Skiing Facilities" and Phase B, i � "Site Specific Study". Upon signature of this Agreement by � the parties, the Consultant shall immediately begin work on j � j the studies reporting first in draft form, and then in final � form, completing its performance hereunder on or before � January 1, 1980. � B. The Consultant shall not lessen or change � the Scope of Services, nor deviate from the professional � personnel identified at pages 16 and 17 of the Scope of � Services without the prior written approval of the Lead Q ; Agency and Little Annie. � ' C. With respect to the draft reports to be i � submitted, the Consultant agrees to correct and redraft such � . reports if they are found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or � � inadequate by Little Annie or the Lead Agency. The draft t and final reports shall be furnished to Little Annie and the a ' Lead Agency. � � % ' z 8 � a ,Z_ � � � . .,. .. - , •- ��x.W.v�.u::.z �.>.��.•.., :.:.�.�.,.:�..,:,..-:.��,..,,.V..-.-...�........_,..,._........_._------. : . . . . . •- . . -"-�-"r.;- r..�r . . . � . . � .. �. ' � � . . _. . � . . . . 1' �' - ' i -:. F. . . . . . � � . � . . �. � . �� ' . ... � . � . . . . .. . � . .. �� :a ^ ... ..`�'.�'1�+;�.i.Y� ' . . .. . . . . . . � . � � . � � � . � y�. �� F r:�,A '._ �. . .:'J�i�v_'�'�ER'.�a:.�` -. . .. Ni�',��:n�F:�:'A�n� �� r::KF ��• __ _ '�X, �;. . D. The Consultant shall work directly for �� ` and its work shall be supervised by the Lead Agency. Except ' with respect to modification of the Scope of Services, Little - Annie shall not be invplved, interfere with, nor participate in any aspects of the supervision of the Consultant work by the Lead Agency. Little Annie shall be furnished with copies _- of a11 correspondence between the Consultant and Lead �gency. ' E. The Consultant hereby assures all parties of its independence and neutrality as to all work to be performed hereunder. The Consultant £urther assures all parties that it has no bias or predisposition with respect ; � to the Project. k ; E. Little Annie has submitted to the Lead ; Agency the folZowing information: (a) Sno-Engineering, Tnc., : � Little Annie Preliminary Master Plan Economic Feasibility ; Analysis; (b) Sno-Engineering, Inc. , Zittle Annie Draft i Biophysi.cal Conditions; (c) Gage Davis and Associates and �} :S Alan P4. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. , Little Annie Socio- �y :} $ Economic and Development Impact Analysis, Addendum #,I � � S (AUgust 14, 1978) and Addendum #2 (October 11, 1978); and `� '; �, (d) Garfield & Hecht, Attorneys, June 29, Z978, update �. � letter (all collectively the "Application") . The Consultant � acknowledges receipt of the Application. To the extent that `� the Application already satisfies any study requirements of k ;� the Scope of Services, the Consultant will merely verify the material submitted. G. In carrying out the terms of this Agreement, i':i there shall kae no discrimination against any nerson because ; o£ race, creed, color, sex or national origin. -3- .. _. . . �y9�FFr'�`""'°�-�.'-,��„�-T.4 ,.. ... . ..�.;.:-:: .ax...:.;�..- � ,,.r:�,.._:t+.�H:xr_�a:r��.=u:o...m�e,.�S-`tu u,_,+vfkeW.•_9.1 ....,_:rd...x _�,s-:....- - : ,.:...�_..��. . . . _ � � �,.T-�'a'wu�s.a..�:: . . .. . -`' . ._ .. '.. . .. . . . . � � - . r: . � . � . . . :� � . � � � � �". ' � '. � . x. . . ' ::�..y � . � _ . . .. . � . . .. -. . - � . . . .. . �. . . . . ' . . �' �. � . . - .ti . .��S,rKj.�'R"�;aL a�� . � . . . . , . , . . . . �r . . . . � � ..�,�.i... ,,,�}..e k'arx»s"��.. p -'.' / �,rl;:a.�]=:�� _ . . � •'�-:i:�;c:5a.i!'l' i"4v::i.:;r•;�u . ��.�Sa ��1+�:` . �'�'�"�- .. -. ....� - ��+qp, .. . - 5._ . . aa�ewtraa'" w.v�...ir:iyrr. �-tr)a]�.tllL�i.��^�.[G'•�!�Y... �F�i 1�•. . '��t' ' t ` SECTION 3. RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTIES. The prepara- tion of the studies is the sole responsibility of the Consultant. No other party hereto is obligated, in any way, to participate in such preparation. The Lead Agency and Little Annie will provide all existing available data in their possession; � however, none of these parties shall be obligated to perform any analysis or aggregation of existing data, nor collect or t gather any information not presently in their possession. All analysis, aggregation, and collection of such data shall ? - � be performed by the Consultant in performance of this agree- ment. The veracity, accuracy and sufficiency of any and all information provided under this agreement shall be the sole - responsibility of the Consultant. 3 a, SECTION 4. SUBCONTRACTORS. The Consultant shall act as an independent contractor in providing the services � "i described in this agreement. The Consultant shall furnish `? % its services in its own manner and method and shall not be '� �5 considered an agent or employee of any other party hereto. _ � � Except as provided at pages 16 and 17 of the Scope of Services, 'i none of the services covered by this agreement shall be sub- `,' ' ' contracted without the prior written consent of Little Annie ' � and the Lead Agency. The Consultant shall be as fully ,; responsible to the Lead Agency and Little Annie for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors, as well as the acts and � omissions of persons directly or indirectly employed by the x Consultant. � t SECTION 5. PAYMENT. In consideration of the •` � Consultant's performance under this Agreement, the Consultant , -4- ; ..,,._.,..,.,...,.�._.,.�...j.� _ ... ....._..__._.._._ ---�--- °-.�._.....___._��_ ..�...:<:: �,m,��.��M,;��= ._._._--- _ ± � ' .. . , • E u �� . "' ... � �FS 4'L,��a. . . . . . . �...` . . ... . . . . .. . . . ' ' � . ' . I ...�:.��} . •atLw"i .?ii,:_k:. � �y�Y�T�� . •x,.�;.�;';.;r�,; _ ' 2: , ' �- ,.... . : . _, _. _ . �, ��f'',' t�. , _��;. shall be paid at the rates and for the hours actually ; performed; provided, however� the Consultant sha11 compLete the Scope of Services for a sum not to exceed 598,000.00. Payments are subject to and shall be made in accordance with the following: A. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed ' - as obligating the County to expend funds, nor involve the County for any obliqation for the future payment of r.ioney. ti in excess of appropriations authorized by law by the County. i B. Payment hereunder is subject to a separate �i Funding Contract between Little Annie and the County, attached � i � � hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Should * there be any default under that separate funding contract either the County or Little Annie shall have the right to s terminate this agreement. C. Billings on the agreed price o£ $98,OOO.QO shall be rendered based on percentage of completion in ?� :� increments of 208. Payments shall be due within 30 days '; '� after receipt of billing. Procedures for billing and disburse- ment are described in the separate Funding Contract, the `,'� ;'� terms of which are incorporated herein. Billing shall be == :� i separated as to Phase A and Phase B work and shall be itemized ; ;s as to task, staff time and other costs. Copies of all ,'� billings shall be sent to Little Annie. ;� D. The agreed price of $98,000.00 includes salaries and travel, including trips to Aspen shown on >>c: page 18 of the Scope of Services, other normal direct or �a - `.# � :A � -5- - .. � . 'xlPHw� F.rl+w'..0..�.'..v.. - .. � ' F � ` -^¢fLGi'/.'�. i'[:J?.....i i-'cla.'^:'I .: �.�` ,FFk.:i:�.d.A w.��Ki�..w�.�+h,.-,. c...54_ ;.�tl�i.sk'"..A:}.�e.�.�-E�.xl"..S3�ql-�T1..�.. . . . , . . j� _ . . . .....t � . � .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . � . .. } ' ' .+.:I'iF=9`�A1' � . . . � . . � . .. � ( � .M�. �'..��:�....-�- )p�. ` _ i F .'��.y.A+.' . . �_.��. �„�� . kz!T.f�ir' �. . •.x�r�,Ei4. �3' `v;�;Y. .. _ _.. ..� � . _ _ . .. . � f y�•, �F '� . ` . ry��. � � out-of-pocket costs and the draft and final reports, including all art work and mock up. i ! � E. The following is a breakdown of billing ` . i (based on 000's of dollars) to be rendezed by the Consultant �� and subcontractors: � � FIRM PHASE A PHASE B f ! Wallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd $14 $36 {� ! Allan J. O'Connor & Associates 6 2 � Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates 12 12 ? Parsons, Brinkorhof, - F Quade and Douglas, Inc. 2 la ; ` Special Consultants and ' � � �Contingencies (See E. Below) 2-4 2-12 ; , � TOTAL $36-38 $62-72 � F. "Special Consultants and Contingencies" � identified in paragraph E, above, represents an allocation .�'u� for funds for special experts needed as they may be identified. � :� Only $2,000.00 in such funds are available in both Phase A � � a, and Phase B within the agreed price of $98,000.00, and no � .� funds in excess thereof may be expended, nor any special � � , consultants engaged without the prior written consent of the n , Lead Agency and Zittle Annie. � SECTION 6. CONSULTANT'S STATUS. The Consultant �; shall execute this agreement as an independent contractor '� � �. and not as an employee of any other party herto. As an � � ` independent contractor, the Consultant shall indemniEy, ,� defend, and save harmless the County and Little Annie, its � . ofEicers, agents and employees, against all loss, cost, � 5 S -6- ; i � � . ' -- --'---'-- '-----� �---r.__....._>.^........_...�.....w..,..,.,,�.�._+..d.-,.�r�:r� . �=-.�.�.. - _ . . � � . : .. � � . � � - �.=� � � . _ � . .�♦ � .. . . � . .� ` � •.- � : - . � � �� ;{: � � � �- � � � . � . .. � . .� ; . . . � .. . .... F. . . . � _ � ,� . . . . . . . . - , .+ . .. ".. vt�+,¢v"�"-'=� � .. . . . � � � - � . . . . . t � .. . � ., . .. . . , . . . . . � � . . . . . . . 1 . . . � . . . ".'�"i::`k'' .:.t:.,sv:.•:'l�' �. ,. . . } :; ',,,f�:sx,,,,;, � � x`' 3t�' . �a�r��Y�� <.�t-wiju?'�,�•.w:A; . ... �__ . . ,. , . .. _ .. .._,. .' _.... _. _ _ . _ . . - t��?� . - j,,�'t'`, A . v,�,�+.�. { , expense or liability occasioned by, arising out of, or connected with the Consultant's performance, or failure to act, under this agreement. SECTION 7. ACCESS TO RECORDS. During the term of this agreement, and for a period of three (3) years after ; its termination, the County, and/or Litt].e Annie, or its � ; � � duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any ; books, documents, papers and records of the Consultant, and �: , q- �. � of any subcontractor of the Consultant, which are directly i pertinent to this agreement for the purpose of making audit, � � � examination, excerpts, copies or transcriptions. The Consultant ,� shall require all of its subcontractors to comply with this � � i, provision. SF.CTION 8. MODIFICATION OF SCQPE OF SERVICRS. With '� the consent of the Consultant, the Scope of Service may be � i:i changed by the Lead Agency, provided that such changes must y3 ;� � ,� fall within the outline o£ study in the Site Specific Agreement � and be reasonably related to the Little Annie proposal and � � the purposes of this agreement. Little Annie shall be notified � � in writing of any proposed changes in the Scope of Services. - =; i In the event the Lead Agency wishes to change the study in a manner inconsistent with the Site S�ecific Agreement, Little '3 . Annie must approve such change in writing. Further, no changes in the Scope of Services exceeding the oriqinal :,� agreed price of 598,000.00 shall be made without the written approval of Little Annie. , � ;; -7- _ . _. .. ...�..,.��s�.;.,.�w �:xo:�:��:.....�,.�.,�.�..�.w.,,...�. -- ... .-----------•,a�,��„� .�. . N..� � . �� " �` . . . . . ,: .. . x�x�-. . C . . . � � . . ' � . �1� .. � . . . . . � . . � � ... k '� . � _C . 4 ' . '" . .�i4'x+�.#��j -_ . . . � : . . � . . ..� . . . . . I .. . . . , . ' .. , ;.Fy f.'.+wie: C'.,. ..-:i;,. , i- r re � . ;,�:i�;;.=''- ��;i� z*;;n . ��tEta..��,'{�i- . �. �, y��' ... ' ..... � � � . . ' . .� � .._ � �. _..�., .'..1L+:�.`i�.` ' . . . . x.. ��: . . . .. �. . �uY.d. .._... .�� . ��,. dr(N,x'r�; . .. . . . �.� v: _�`�; SECTION 9. TERMINATION. A. The Consultant shall have the right to - terminate this agreement in the event payments are not made � in accordance with paragraph SC. above or if the parties � cannot within a reasonable period of time agree on changes in the Scope of Services. B. Little Annie shall have the right to terminate this agreement in the event: (i) in accordance � with paragraph 5B. above; (ii) the Consultant fails or refuses to perform hereunder; (iii) Little Annie elects to �-, � exercise its right under the Site Specific Agreement to ! withdraw the Application; or (iv) the parties cannot within i'� a reasonable period of time agree on modifications in the t Scope of Services. - C. The County shall have the riqht to terminate this agreement: (i) in accordance with paragraph SB. above; ;'.`z (ii) should Little Annie withdraw its Application; (iii) in the event the Consultant fails or refuses to perform hereunder; or (iv) if the parties cannot within a reasonable period of time agree on modifications in the Scope o£ Services. - ; D. Should this agreement be terminated, the � Consultant shall be entitled to payment for work performed '� !� to the date of such termination. �3 SECTION 10. MISCELLANEOUS. In the event of any in- consistency between this Agreement and the Scope of Services attached, the provisions of this Agreement shall control with � respect to the performance of the parties hereunder. This ':� � -8- ...�_....,..,.�4. _:_ . �. - - .�....�..____--� ---._______._.._.------�..�....L.... �_�.` ai7�.: � . .. . -.f� . . f . . . . �;. . . .. �� ' �� _ � � .. � r . � � � � . . . . .:. � . . � . .. . . . . . . �.� . .�. . - . � . . � �. ,� 3 w��n.�m;1.7?'- .' � �;: :�. �;;,,,�,.. ,.ti..�.....,�,.�. _��__ ___ --- _ � u+. „�'�`� ��r�� 1 u�,, e . . ' . .- - . .. ._ . ..._. .�... .,x+£tht'.�!.' ,... . �4 ,`-, $�� `�:A. ; • agreement sha11 be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. Jurisdiction and venue for any lawsuit or other proceedings between the parties hereto shall be with the District Court, County o£ Pitkin, State of Colorado. This agreement aonstitutes the entire understanding among the parties hereto with re5pect to the subject matter hereof, and there are no agreements, ' S understandings, restrictions, representations or warranties among the parties other than those set forth herein. Except � � as allowed in Section 8 above, this Agreement shall not be ;i altered, modified or otherwise chanqed except by a further ) ;; , writing by a11 of the parties hereto. This agreement shall ' � � be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties ;s hereto, their personal representatives, successors and `� assigns. �'t ':; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this �# �� Agreement for Preparation of Study effective the day and •� i. year first written above. WALLACE, McHARG, ROBERTS and TODD , DATE: �'�D- �� ,('J I G��A��Gi-v'°�� _ Donald . Brackenbush, - ! Webster Regional Manager { THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO i� ti• i' / ' f c �DATE �$ ��J..,7� By c� s " � z h irman � � u_.. �A+,�TE�ST: i �? . . . .�7 �. .�:i . � � �_ o� . � � ? �.. :d�� . � r•�'Sepu�ywClerk and Recorder 4 - � . � -9- F � - --.-_.J—--- ---- r-:� . ...- ♦�, ' � � .� - - .�,x;,��,.�.- � ' :� j ��a�� ,.�'"'�'�`"� , �,,,,,,�„"'..� � = s,� _ ' ��f ' � . , " r � .. � - . _ . ;� � � ysM TED F�''R`��'x p '� IEe �` LIT`�LE a Pai�'er �, . � . . . � . BY g arnY Ge�� t � Da , � � pl.At�ING pFFZC� � •�� DA'�E' GYTY/G�� e�tor � ~,' gy R�e�� r . . r ' _. , �'. . DATE' .� d. '-$ _lp_ __------"""'.`�"'�� - .. . � ro�v,"`a.""«,.�"'d.�►�"" - ._ i. .`�*:a . - ��. ��.� . ,� �..., , , , � , ,' - . . _ l. : : ; _ , _ : y. , _ _ F i�^a t F= �} ' � � ! i 4 � �' . 'c , . ,-, s . �, :�, .r�r:tiu�o-�'=� . '�'.3- �� f�� . � . F�: 3 � ... � . . . . 3�� I 1 y C.y! / .�:�� . .. � _Y S..r i?��"'•u;,i%�f ' . . .ilt]'y��,'sEY,�.y� � � , . .._.....�.....,. .,... . . ....._. . ... . ._. . . _. . ...... . .. . �� . . . . 7T1.��. .� • Y �� : . . . . . . .. . . �[: Yf , � .. . . . � . - � - . '� ' ' . . . . . ,I{ � `; � LITTLE ANNIE SKI AREA � k ;; .._.�. . � . . . . . � . PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO THE SITE SPECIFIC PHASE (STEP 9) �:� .� OF THE COLORADO JOIf�T REVIE4�1 PROCESS � � _" ;:, , s, ;^ . . ;� , � � � : � . r� , SCOPE OF SERVICES • � . �- r; INTRODUCTION: �s: t. . . . . . . .. . n� � • The professional services of the Consultant shall consist �'" ; generally of the studies, analyses and plan formulation '''� described in the paragraphs ne::t following, organized in ' �� ' tcvo phases: �. �, . • . ��: �> , PHASE I: The Need for ndditional z � Skiing I'acilities ,��, � . PHASE II: Site Specific Study � � . , . : � �: �� Appropriate reports or memoranda setting fortli study find- � �; • ings and conclusions and/or plan or project recom.-;tendatiens '�"� shall be prepared and presented, as apnropriate, for each �� study item,.with adequate client/community review periods � as si:oton on tP.e h'ork Proqram Chart at thz _n3 of this sec- � tion_ � �, • � � . ��. '� . w � r � . x� � , � �� . . ",s� '. ,� }� � . l - � -1- . : � . �. � � — ,. ------- - -—�v ��- c - - � � . - . , � � - - . . � .��, . � � �. . � �. , . , . :� � . . . � .. � � . . .,..r.i? :�; ..�, . . ,..�' .. ._. . . . . , ;� '. k .�, Y��. n . � .. � . . . � . j� . � . . � . . -,•,iY;, _ _�:.• ,.,... _ . -A -� � r �'� .....1�,.. ,.: ..;,;ti.,,;:;�R. . � :r, Z��'_``- • � ; -- ,�A31; � ' . • ..� � ,.�'., . • +�'�i: PHASE I: THE NEED FOR ADDITIOidAL SKIIPlG FACILiTIES The primary purpose of this phase will be to determine future needs for additional ski facilities and the inter- . �� relationships between growth and winter recreation facil- ities. The tasks to accompli.sh the above stated objectives . are as follows: TASK I-1 Reviecv of Previous Studies, Zoning and Legal , - Review and Preparation of Comprehensive Data Base. � . . . . . , ..�:3 + .,. 1. Sumarize all pertinent reports, data and . ��- • information in mutually compatible form. i�.s This will include specific data available from public and private sources as to traf- . } fic, land use, utilities, skier capacities and economics and social factors. . [:; 2. Reviet•r present zoning, code restrictions - and special jurisdictions affecting the City's and County's rate of growth. � 3. Establish a base map systen and produce base maps appropriate for corridor and local scale. .The base maps c•�ill include parcel . level and specific structure iniormation as ��i. required. �, TASK =-2 Additional Skiing. ' In order to facilitate draving conclusions as to eohether additional ski area caplcity is - needed �aithin Pitkin County, at least the follot•r- ;' +! i ing questions shall be addressed: 1. Should the rate of grov�th of s}:i area capacity generally conform to the grot:�th ' rate .of housing development? (CiLy/ County cor�tribution app:Lied to this ques- . ' " tion.) . 2. IVhat is the level of utilizatio±l at cahich ex.pansion is justified? (Consicer a�hethe:r utilization sliould be vie�•:ed as a function _ of annual sY.ier visits, of the filling oL . traditionally uncierutilired p°riods, or o•` • hiy;i season daily sk5.er visits.) k -2- .. .�__ _. . _ ._. _ _._.._ .._ - _._---�---- ---- - -- -_..._....�„�.,Y...;. -_.. ..�:-,.,�:w,s..�......:.:.e---_ _ -�.::: f' � . � .•c - . � . . �.'� . . . _ � � ��,� . - � � . �� . � . . . . . . - . �.;� . �.�.: . .�fH`�F',s�rx . . . ' .. � �. . . � .. ' � . i : � . .. . . . . . . � . ' � � . � . . � - � � � � ,! . . . . . . � , � _ . _^�-. 'b�i.::u�.�:,1 _. __ : ��i � �•=-�fi;�.:tG . . x��K`�z�� . . • ...__ ._ .. . . . . .f,3'.v�..�. w. � .�. � ' . . � . . . �,�.� 1 ' 3. Is ski capacity in the area presently � uttder or over utilized, or in balance? • Based on historica7. trends, tohere can the area e::pect to be crith respect to utili- � zation in 1982 (earli.est anticipated date for completion of the Little Annie's base ' area development)? ' 4. . L�hat is the effect of upper mountain li£t ' etipansion on mountain capacity? (City/ � ;`? I County contribution applied to this and :w, � � remaining questions in this section.) _ - . . ;;; � 5. What is the appropriate method for calcu- ;g lating mountain capacity? Is the tsao-hour ;a loading concept. at the base area (reduced r� { for return trips) a valid formula? "� s_�: 6. WHat standards are valid with regard to � skier density per acre (by ability levelj? �' 7. Is it appropriate to assume that denand, �� as a percentage of tourisL- and resident populatzons, will groc•r at the sam� rate :� as these populations do? • F;F • � ' 8 Are other community needs and goals in r?� conflict orith the need for ski area es- �"r� gansion. 9 To what ehtent can ski area expansion be � � . expected to spur other areas of growth? '� The follo�aing data shall be prepared to aid in � determining whether a need for additional skiiag � � ' iH L ..; ' F.�{�.JCt.ri� . � . ' ' ��f ' . ' �+. ' . ;1. Update of existing population and popu- � � �ation projections (tourist, residen�, � i� ' total) identified by gror�th manage:nent :� area_ � :� 2. Examination of the mix of skiers on a � daily basis (is 80� of all' tourists and � � 30� of all residents a valid assumption?) , y, . � .. -3- ��`x�' �£ ) u 4� _ _.,.,....____.____------- ___ __ __ __. ---- ..,,,__ . ...___.. _,, -------,�+�>.a� •--�-� -- - i —' �� y' �� ._ y, �.:�r . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 1�_, .. . .. � � . . 'j�: _� . '� . . � ' 2�1 •..�+'�'"TR..". . . . � . . .. . -. � . ' � � � .. . . 1 . . � � � ' - � . :.' .; . _ . . . . . � . . . . �r�c��Ca��:' _ _ ,..�,.� -� f/ Y��"�. , ./ �rf`+�� ' �5,.��_7-�` � . 3t . �,:-,r..,�'� . � - i, ,,. _ . -- .. , . ... ��. . . ��„; ; � Assuming th� foregoing analysis concludes that there is a need for sF;i area er.pansion: L �Vhat levels of ability should it serve? 2. SVhat is the ideal location? . 3. Can upper mountain lift er.pansions meet '� the need or is increased capacity out of �" a new base area necessary? The study shall examine potential ski area expan- sions itemized in this site specific agreement �'_ ; :#-.. ; (including possible expansion within existing r;:� areas) with respect to each area`s ability to �'s' • meet the need for additional skiing capacity �"3 ' when and if such need exists: The report shall ^_ also consider the effects of increasing the " ``�r'. j capacity of existiny base lifts as an alterna- :rii; .'tive means of increasing mountain capacity, �::� ; specifically addressing the effect of such �n �x s action on trail density (particularly at closiny} . i;:; . _{ i� TASK I-3 Land Use and Zoning. . [�' Existin lod in densities the rate of }� g g g , grocath and location of future gro��ti► ��ill be corrobor- ,'�� ' ated with e�+isting .planning documentation, and Er�., arrayed geographically by type in an under�tand- �' , able form. � ' S� . %�' ` TASK I-4 Utilities and Community Services Capacities. ;;; ' � � Trunk utility capacities and treatment facility . ti � . capacities v�ill be inventoried_and deficiencies ' based on future grotath identified. Comr.�unity �,'��' facilities also will be analyzed as to capacity � and expected expansion. Future population �:•ill �� be compared to future facility capacities anci !�� thresholds for expansion identified. �� _�` � r. . � � . � � � . �. z� � � . . - . . . ;� 3 :_...- --------___._..__. ._._. ____.___._ ___._ _.._._,..,_.�_,._._�_,.__----- -`------ -- --- _.�.�.__.._. ..:amvxeww------- ---^`"--*..w..:.^.."'_. _ �- .—. . . ,�.—_""°a1�i,e.-xl:g:'. . . � . . . � .� . � . ..l�� . . . :,: . _.� -:,. ::;- , . ,� . --.. �. ,:. _.. . ... . . . . . ....; l. � . .%r . . .. . .,�'/ � . .. . _' ' .. ' ., .. . . �. .,.. .' � . . ..- . . .. . . . � .. � .��.: '^. . � :..: � � . . . .�1 � . . . . " . . . . Y .� _ F' . . . .. . x,� - +C,t+�'d�:- . . : - . . � ... �. - �� . � . . . � . ' . . . . � . . � �� . � . . .' :e�t:..�.� �,. , .._ i i�i..�,.' . f� '. ;�.i��'.: ,;�,�.�., Y:e��R�. , •t r '��:,. tX:t . � . � �� • � . . � :M!� 4 . . . TASIC I-5 Transportation Overview. - During the A phase of work, an overview state- >;� ment caill be developed to identify the major - constraints and opportunities associated with alternative ski area espansion with respect to _ future transportation (public and private). �', �; . '� TASK I-6 Private Sector Economic Relationship Analysis. ; iS s • An examination �ai11 be made of the nature of �.--- existing relationship between mountain capacity � _and support services, particularly lodging fa- �� cilities, employee housing, and other support � activities �vhich affect municipal fiscal struc- �' . ture. It will be determined whetiler these re- `� ` _ � , lationships are constant or are apt to chaage � in the future, and their impact upon municipal . �� capacity to provide urban services at. desired � levels will be identified. i � �_ � TF1SK I-7 Public Sector Economic Relationships Analysis. ' � Examine "base line" fiscal conditions for the %� Aspen/Snomass sub-region, given the recent gov- . 3 ernmental reorganization. f. This t•ask will emphesize currc:nt m::nicipal � �':, revenues and exgenditures �and the lin!cages - to the ski industry and potential impacts_ � TASK I-3 Alternatives Analysis_ . � � The Phase I report �vill summarize all earlier. � � tasks and answer the basic questions as to i�• ski facility need described in 1.B.2, a '� � through i, of the t�iay 4, 1979 Requ�sE for Preliminary Proposals. • � . � _�_ � • � ' � . � . . . . � . � � . x� . : €� . . ... � " .... _.._.��'' - . -_." ' '_'" _ . ' . . :: ....._..._ ..... ._._ .__'" "�r....�--r-. . _ ��.«.:w..�.�-^--� . . .. . �� . ... . -.i.f . ___...�„� .. . . . . .�. S� .... . . . . � . . .. s '�` .�' ,_.:sanl7E�'�C=A`'' . . . .. � . . ... . - � . .. � . . �. .. . � . . � . . � � \ :l .:�. I � � .. � I � � � . � . � r:;al.,.:,�. , ,��, ;. � FCf��': � • .� -t`�.�,"'i�` �:,,,� . "s' ,r•f , , .n . _ _ . ` �� . � . r ��r��. ' . � .�1 � _ - . . � . . . j� � i r . � � , • . . �. . � _ . . . . . . x�f'�. . t a , S� . . . . . � . . � - � .. In an effort to facilitate the deternination . � oE the Little Annie alternativ�s, the study - ��rill address at least the follo4�ing, as it • . relates to the Little Annie proposal: • � � l.. Overall concept ' � 2. Design criteria 3. «inter recreation t � • ' 4. Summer recreation � " 5. Development Plan : a. Base area ' �' b. Top (Little Annie Village) �'•' . c. Other support facilities . x • " d. Lift alignment (1) Center line analysis � . (2) Survey maps (3) Trai]. stafiing � e. Operating plan ` ' ' ' (1) Area functions . �`` (2) Patrol ' ' (3) Ski school � (4) Emergency support '� (5) Access alternatzves '� f. Transportation pl.an � ;� (7.) Access ' �S: (2) Circulation `'�� (3) Capacities (parking) f� (4} Commuting patterns ;�5: x� 6. De�elopment timetable � 7. Capital investment projections "~ . � a. Update proform ;� b. Capita]. costs • � c. Opera:.ing costs �' �s F,; . ' I 8.' Municipal sexvices � t�. a_ Water ?� �� b. Sev�er • :� � c. Solid araste d. Electricity and gas � e. Fire protection - :� f. Police protection g. Street maintenance � h. Transportation� � :i • � ;°. -6- ;� � , � _ __. _____. ._._. __.. _ __ __ _ �____ _ _.___. __.___.---- - . ____._ ..._. ..___�_._Y_ , ,.. _ ._. _��. ...�..Q�..-'--�-- --�� .. . . ... . /�� . . � � � . F•, 5 , � , ..-,.�.S �.�.' . .. '��' , �:�' . _ .'.. . � '. � � � '� � � "+1��i��`�"ry• � � .� .. • . � . •��.:�,.�� .�:. � _ ;:,� .. .�' �.��. .. . . .. . .. - '- `' . . :, . � • ..:'.. . .. . . ... � . . ; . . .. „ . . .�.. � .�- . . '� � . . . '- . . ' � ', . . ... . . . . ' . ". � . � . � ' �� . � . . . .Y.�""�'}*�= . .____ y....�.. �..�_..-Sti]+n_�.�� / r,� :: . . �. � i±�.t` �',4�" "+h:�.:. � . . `Y'�t'=`. •;:EG-u'.� . . . . _ . _ . .,,�: . . .. r, ' .ti' • . . . � . . .. .�F�YY��. . . . � � �+ t��. . �744� . . . . . ��;_: � . - `� . . . ' . - . � . . The formulation of alternatives �•�ill be based pr9.marily on the fact that tc��o proposals, Little • ' Annie and Burnt D7ountain (Snoc•rmass East Phase) , • . are before the I'orest Service for consideration. Fiocoever, other alternatives than those listed belo�o may be formulated, with resp=ct to the � two proposals, as the study progresses, due to - citizen input, etc. Alternatives Based on the foregoing, the follocaing alterna- - ' tive actions, as a minimum, �oill be considered: ? �',; a. Development of Little Annie `'' b.. No development of Little Annie ``°` � c. Development of Burnt t•Iountain (Snowmass East Phase) - 'i d. , No development of Burnt Dlouatain ;i-x ' - - (Snowmass East Phase) . ^•. e. Development of both areas � . f. Development of neither ;,4. g. Increasing the capacity of existing .� � base lifts as a means of in- �; creasing mountain capacity, ' �,�� specifically addressing the effect ?�I. of such an action on trail density yr� (particularly at closinq). (City/ `�� County contribution applied to � this alternative. � h. Development or no of Burnt hiountain � (Owl Creek) �' i. Development or no of Upper Baldy . , �'�' . ' Mountain (S•7est Village) F„ . j. Development or no of Upper Hiqhland 'z` _ Park (Aspen Highlands) � . €� � !:� ` Any consideration of these alternative actions °' shall first be preceeded by a determination of �� tahether a comparison of Little Annie to the [•;est Village and/or Aspen Highlands sites is approp- . � ria te. ;� ,�. . :�; . . . � ' . ' . F'� �. u � `#' . � - � � . � . �,:� . �. � . . .. ' � . . . � .' - � . .. ' . �7�. . . � . .s ' � . . . . . . S�.. . ., . . . . � _..:......:.;.uacv:s.cs-,w-^"'�"__....___."____._—_.._'_"___ _ ' ' . __ �" e;.�,a'^"�."�.�. . . . _ """m'�""'�(�.�.� , � �. . . �.J' . . . . . .. .. � . ... r �� .�. . , � �� . . .. � �� ..� -. .�, _ . . . . . . . . . I '�'�� . �. . . . � . . `t. . .. . . . .�.. . . . ' . I . - . . � . - . . . . �;`�+ ,s��-"S�',d�: . . � . . � . '' . . . . � . ' , . ' , . , <.�1.;".id•'r •�:.. ' f ..{..'� .� L 7�y . ' k� M' J�4] �.y� S�L^ri � .�,T;rv'�'�,5i1' � � . . . . . _.:...... . . ...,...... .:.- . . � �� .. . .. . . . .. . .... . ..� . � . �:�:�. . � ' � if,t.. . . ti � , C , . � . $',Y,�. � , ' t' . . . � . , . . "TASK I-9 Evaluation of Alternative Actions. � This section caill discuss ho�•r.the alternatives - compare c•�ith each other in terms of the evalua- � tion criteria cited above_ This �•�ill provide . the basis for iden�ification of a preferred alternative action. 3> • � In addition, in an effort to fully evaluate � . � the Little �lnnie alternative, the follo�•�ing ' ; �eill be addressed: (City/County contribution ;� applied to this section down tc2 Socio-Economic ' ;s Imoacts). ;� �� _ ; 1. [4ithin the fram�work of the �lspen/Pitkin ;3 � County Grocath Management Policy Plan, can �;; • the assumption be made that the nu_mber of ;�, ` ' housing units approved is the overriding ;,�',' } £orce leading to the need for facilities , t,� . • necessary to support the units; or, is a � ; ' ski.area expansion itself a contributor � ��. ' � to creation of the need for support facil- }� + ities? � : ,� . 2. What are the implications for groc•rth out- �, side Pitkin County, if any; i_e., growth � : reliant on Aspen's skiing (tourist gro:ath) or on Aspen's economy in generai�(employee ' f. ' groc,ith)?: . � 3. Is the ultimate ski capacity buildout at �� Snorrmass Villag� such that the com�-nunity's concept of self-sufficiency �•�ill be ;3� jeopardized if it is necessary to accb�odate . � the Aspen area's excess skiing demand? • With respect to the secondary grocath associated � �' tvith ski area expansion, the study shall identify �� the secondary employee generation associated s•�ith � ' ski area e�:pansion (if any) , and address the Pol- � lowinq: � � � ' -8- . � . �. : ;_ � � . a {� � ; . ..._,,,r.,,a,w,,,.�,,,_-- _-----°-- � __ _,_ - - —""".�� -.jr _ . ,,, y; � 1�,, ' . ��. _ � . . *�;�r- . . .. . . . � . -s. _ . . . . . � . - . , _ _. .. . . . : ' . . . .. .:'. . .. . . .. f . . . ..�...a_::�.,:. A��.: i'.!� ' / � hf � ;' 3i F' �,q�..^ t '��t".,Z� .I - ' _�.._.�............._,.�..... .. ... �:.� i t'. ' . ' _ . . ��..�. , ` . . . . � ' . . . ' . . '�}�� :� 1. Is it a valid premise that inasmuch as � the City and County have established . . ma�imum growth rates (and en£orce the • sane through annual residential building quotas) that any secondary employee im- , . • pacts (from co;nmercial expansion, for , � instance) associated caith that gro:ath will occur regardless of whether or not ski area - . -- ezpansion is approved•, and that therefore, the consideration of secondary empZoyee im- � pacts associated with ski area expansion should be limited to those additional employ- ees necessary to provide se.rvice to employees �� of the expansion as well as to provide pub- lic services directly associated with that � expansion (transportation, parking enforce- ment, etc.) . . � 2. Does the level of primary and secondary "'� � employee generation differ o�ith upper . `r , � . mountain lift expansion as opposed to base . area lift expansion? , . . . . . . ;!�1 3. Are the secondary impacts associated with ``= ski expansion (if any) such that they cannot `;;� be accomodated in the Aspen area? ,y ' � � Socio-Economic Impacts: ' �� L� • The study shall address each of the follo�ving � � 4ues*_ions: 4� . - :.s � L Is Little Annie Ski Area economically viable? � What effects, if any, will there be on the �� . Aspen economy in the event the area goes �`� into bankruptcy or is a marginal operati.on? �' � � � 2. Can or should a performance bond be required �s' to insure that all propos^d improvements are �� constructed or guaranty removal of improve- {� ments in the event of bankruptcy? ;� • � • �. 3. tVill the Proponent be adequately xnsured ;� (particularly in vie�a of the installation �� of a yondola and potential for out-of--bounds 5 sY,iing)? . :� � ;f 3 „ -9- � es . , .�� . . . . � .. � . � .. �. .� . � � � � . . ' . .7 . � � � � . . - � � . :� �.-.� __ . . . � � "-- .�,,,;.er.e».,q.�,,._.._. :- . .. . -..�. ,.. _, ,�—�,ouew;�. � .. . . .. r. . . r. , .. . : � . . .,�"' . . . . .'��I , � . . . . . . - ... N . . . . � � . . . � - . . �_ . .�..� . .. �. . . .. . . � . s.�c�'�tC�`�,., � � ..� - . . �. . � _ . . . � . . . �. . _ . �'\ ;(_ . . . � . i : � .. .. :«t:. �;�..– . _ _ �.�..� �., _:,- -`��'!�. . �r . 'Ji'`;'i'y��,r � �� . •,�a��y s -� �� • . . ._. - .. ._ . . .. . - - - 6 �i�� • 1 • ' . � ��•:� (� • � • 4. �rihat are the costs to the public for pro- viding public services such as road im- ' provements and maintenance, utilities, transnortation, police protection, hos- pital facilities, governmental services, � etc.? . � 5. t�7hat is the source of the� labor force? !`? Will salaries be adequate to assure pro- _ � fessiorlal management of the area? 6. tVill the area accentuate the e};isting r "i winter season nature of the local economy and increase the dif£iculty of creating � a year-round economy? . ; 7. [+Ihat are the advanta.ges and disadvantages �'� of having a third (and independent) party . Aw provide ski area manaqement within the ',:� area? . "r'� j In addition, the study shall c7ocument the promised `� � discount local pass, including verification of � `=� the number of passes that can be offered, limita- °' tions on usage (if any) , and the period o£ time � over t.hich thi"s commitment can be guaranteed; an ':�; all in light of the Forest service policies with F{ respect to such local discounts. ��y ;s:: �m ,^� � PHASE II: SITE SF'ECIFIC S�(UDY � . •� ,�, The purpose of this phase of the studp. is to develop accord- `i ing to NEPA standards environmental impact material which " � - wi12 form the basis of the Draft Environmental Impact Study 'n`< for the 3,500-acre Little Arnie Ski E�rea. The study taill +: ' � � include the positive and ne9ative impacts zssociated with ':� the planned project as to the physical, biological, ecor.o�!tic and social environment in t:hich it is located. "` ii� � The follo�aing tasks describe the process to accomplish the �:, desired EIS, and have been basecl on thosc tasks descrzbed `-�`_ in Section 3 of the i•tay 4, 1979 Request for Prel.iminary `;;�. Proposals. . - ` . �� • ;a � . -10- `' '� . - �....__ -_ - - .. _ . . _:—_ - --=��r,�,�;. - ----•�r,�..:r:r::a�:�:-r-_' �+-_'_.:_:_.::r...�---...�--��---.� . . . � � � . . . . . ., . . ... .f' . . . .. . . . _ . � ... . _ . ..:, . . � . . - r . .. � . . . � . � +. ,� . . ... ., ::. `,�:� ��..� rq. . �il . .. � . . . . - � . � .. , . : . . . . . �. . - . . . . � . . . .�. t ._ . . .. . . . . . .h, .._ ,� ... ,,�r.�,ri'�, _ \ � il i '-ai+_.::�,�+:; "d;i�.._b�w�'.;. _.. _ . . ____ _ __ s . t.. _,., . . . . i'_r � / p�F`�j f., `Y�"'1�.�.5�^��1� . ' . . ...._... . . . . .. . . . . , .�..Y,' . , . � � ,� .�_ .. ` � 1 � . 1 . . ' • . ' " . . • TASK II-1 Inventory and Analysis of Specific Site. . The £ollowing physical, biological and socio- economic areas will be inventoried and .analy- - zed from secondary information for the ski � ;k area site as the background for an EIS accord- ing to NEPA gui�ielines. � ' ' ' ' �.�.4. ._ A. Physical Factors ;� ,, � (1) Location �; (2) Size and ownership status � "� • (3) Climate . ; (a) Temperature rt' ? (b) Precipitation � � r (c) Snow depth " (4) Geomorphic/Physiographic ` (a) Provide bedrock znd surPicial �� 4 geologicaZ maps. • % • (b) Show on a map and describe areas � of avalanches (hi.storic and ;,� ' ' • poten�ial) , mud flows and � debris fans, all types of �:,� � unstahle or potentially w�- s:r stable slope, special seismic �'� • � considerations, areas of f�' high radio-activity, ground ;� subsidence, expansive soil . and roak, and other geoZogic� � conditions which are pertinent. (c) Analysis of mineralization includ- � , 'presentZy knozan locatab�e min- erals, Y.no4m leasable minerals � and known energy sources. k:� � � (5) Soils � � (a) Productivity (b) Capability .� � � ,(�) Hazard• � �' i Erodibility '� -,1 ii Dtass failure � (6) Topography y„ (7) Visual resources � . t�: (a) Pxepare m�p of area viithin viev ' �c of project (b) Prepare map of access and travcl � routes. , � (8) rieteorology _ .� . ;� . � -11- � � � ' . �a. i' ._:._---._........_.__._.�____,_...........-.,._._..._____---- --_..._._._.__... .__.__-- --_.. .__. __._�._.___�.-_____....__._..._.._.,.__..�- _. ; . -----.-.�.e....,.,.:.__--_.._.,, ,._. . ..__. � ----.��n..�--�----- , _ __..""��¢; �� 1;?i� 1�' � � ,.�.�,� � a � : :�,; ;•;;�,:3 , ; :i�j' ��, yy,__,s�. .i :�:�;#:: � .,�E':l•..r.-e. .. . i;f r�z%'�� ' i�,d� . ,�� . • , , _�.��_ . . r�� . . . �r ',: , , , a�,, ' . . . . (9) Cultural resonrces (a) Archaeological (b) Historical (10) tJilderness resources • (.il) t�Tater resources =i (a} Water quality � . � {b} Surface water " (c) Subsurface �,,atez " ,. (12) Air quality, inclnding clarity and •::; ambient Ievels `E (13) Noise . �F (14) Fire "� ,;i (a) Potential wildfire hazard (15) Land use • '� , i� (16} Infrastructure.improvements ��r- � � �a) Roads ' `�F (b) Trails «� (c) EZectrical transmission and � � �� distribution Fx: � (d) t,Tater col].ection, storage and � ; distribution - � (�) Communications systems (f) Solid waste collection and � disposal � (q) Sanitary waste collection and" �+"� ' . disposal � ^� . . �: . . �B. Biological Factors � � - (Z) Veqetation ' (a) l9ap vegetation and cover types (b} Desc_ibe characteristics, quantity, . pzoductivity of plant types �' . (c) List of endangered or threatened � plant species j��='",: • (d) Evidence of past disturbance and ' � current indication of stages ti� _ • of ecological succession � . ;,' (2) Wi1dli£e � •`•� . (a) Habitat n� �� (b) Populations � (c) Threatened and/or endangered species '.'��° . (d) Diversity of.animal communities _� NOTE: Pitkin County has entered into a �'�- contract i�ith the Colorado Division • `� of h'ildlzfe to collect and analyze �•� data in regard to caildlife. in the �� , . Little Annie area. � (3) putdoor recreation resources :��{ (9) Iasects and diseases ^ ��7 �E �v � -l 2- �,� ;� ;s _—^-��:�.xr.,�.......�.�,,.,n,.,,,,,,�+�,�:,_..,r._. -- - � ---�.w�� f' , � ; , '"., . l: ,: : , �� .�.�:�i�"r`�n:� � � y�.f':r`y - �� r'i=�. - . �!i`:�'�:,:4. . � . . .�t.2,::{'p�la'�, . . . fA°:��yl'F' � . . . , � . ._. . ,.......:. .,.. . .._..,....� ..... . . . . . . � . . _. .. . . . .. . _ F ,i:� • i 11. , � . . . '.'�}'. ��%. ' • ,' ' • . . -i��. C. Economic.Factors � (1) Economic base of the community .. ' (2) Employment/unemployment . . (3) Housing , . (4) Land use requirements (5) Community service requirements . . (a) Health care services (b) Police protection i=� " (c) Fire proEection %s: (�? Transportation "� � r,l � (e) Education facilities . � '� (6) Servicing Agency- existing conditions � fi (a) Local general government �� (b) Special service districts '� � (c) School districts �' y (7) Plans and programs of servicing �� , , agencies �:5: • ' . (8) Long run municioal income vs. costs �, ' � � (a) Sources � �;t (b) Amounts '` � � (c) Distribution � �� L� , D. Social Factors ' � - (1) Population �n (a) Numb°rs {b) P'iinority composition � (c) Distribution and density , ;` (2) Human (civil). rights (3) Local culture -=J - (9) Personal security ;, (5) Educational, cultural and recrea- tional opportunities and need for additional skiing. � �,. { . � i . � � - . . � � � � � F�.'$�''.- t � TF1SK II-2 Employee Housing. • � . ,,. The study of employee housing will include spe- F� cific information as to the number, location,. �g size and character of employee housing units �. proposed by the Proponent. The study also will „ address: �'` ' � -13- � � � `� � ,� - - - - -- �/ - -- _-�.:�,,,�,� ..r . . �€' . i � . �,, .. . .. � .. � . � .:�: � ;�� . � ... � . . . . . . . .. . "' . .. . - . .. . . t' � . . . � . . . . �. . . ^�'.riiYk C...__... :: { " t�ti: i :�.,.'W'�'�a. ,�. � .�,�"`:S�s:_::� . '� : �'a .:xi: � , . _ �:.: , , .. . cf+. . • , '� 1. i�That is the employment im�act? Is there any secondary employee generation? If so, �ahat housing needs �•rill be created? 2. [Jhat irapacts, if any, does the base area have�on existing housing? (Any probable convezsion of existing long term local !:�t housiny to tourist short term use ��ill - be documented. ��;' ,F� . 3. Any suggested approach�:s to housinq of = ; seasonal employees tahich would be con- % i ducive to cooperative programs Por the � � housing of the summer (seasonalj users. . - . . 1 . . . � - ;f._.. . . . . ' . ''_5 i TASK II-3 Transportation'. '• '; . � � � The stady of transportation impacts will include . ;; a more detailed examination of the effects on = transportation of ski area expansion in general. ,,:¢ The study will be prepared in light of .tne three �, alternative �nture developments in the Aspen/ :� Pitkin County Transit (TSti) Alternatives Study ��` ("Grotath Management", "Balanced Groc•�th", "Buil@- 'yk • out") as well as the transportation impacts for ?�; each o£ the expansion alternatives for a trans- ;:� sit dominant solution identified Lor study as �:,. required under NEPA Environmental Assessm�nt� p� pzocedures, as well as the public costs for each °� of the alternatives. �' . • �` � 1. The steps that inust be taken to assure ��' that the "auto-tree': concept is workable �.� include: � :� (a) E�:pansion of on-stzeet parking '� ` ].imitations and enforcement. ' ?�. �h . ;� (b) Institution of a resident parkin9 � program, jk , ;� (c) Cost of additional enforcement :r personnel to implement any such `--; • proyrams. =t � � (d) Boundaries of areas cai�hin ��rhicn �?q . they must be implemented. � '� ' -1�1- . `{ ' � �. ;s � �---- - - ;� : ,; ---....�,�„�:z,�.»...�---___-_--.......o.,..«.,.,..�..r--�—_ . __-____ .- -.. _._..... ... __",'",�� z, : �;. � *�" .:�^al�,n. . . '�i: � .. . . � . . . , . . . . . . , � . � . . . . . . . ' . . . , . , ;j . /� . . � . � . 1 �u #�_ ��.:�, i � t . y�F k r}�`. . .. . � 'Ct :fi1��•�i! . , ._.. . _ `! "Fi'. • , � -., . , � . . . . . . . �� 2. The extent of the ski area's employ- . ee transportation needs. - 3. The capacity of streets within the impacted area; anticipated additional �i trip generation; effects on adjacent ;� �"?� residential users; leve.l of street ;v �; . improvement and maintenance required; : '� ' intercept parking requirements. ,y � • � Assuming that the Forest Service policy permits . `, differential pricing to effect movement of ski- � �j ers beta�een ski areas (and the Proponent is will- '� �; ing and ahle to implement it) the study cvill ' :;n: �,� identify (and consider the effect of) various '� ;ra . incentives and disincentives available to reduce " ; movement bet�veen Aspen and the Lown of Snoc�*mass � L;i Village; inc2uding� (but not limited to) : : ;� '� �� 1. � Preferential tveekly ticket pricing � �� (valid for the Snowmass Villaqe area ;,� E' . or the Aspen area only). � • t� r 2. Issuance of season passes for Sno�amass � z: residents and employees honored in Snowmass only, and correspandingl}•, � e passes for Aspen residents and employees � ;� honored only at Aspen area mountains. � N i: `"`s TASK II-4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Report. ; It is understood that the United States Forest � Service taill prepare the Draft Environmental � _ � . Impact_ Statement. The purpose of the impact � �: ' study is to develop the ingredients in a manner � � .in cvhiah the �IS can be prepared ioith a minimum fi � of effort. The "study" outline c•till thereiore � � . follow and be consistent r�ith the t1EPA guide- • lines and policiea. y . � . � . ,; -15- � - � � . � ' � a � ---___----...�b��.�... - --- - �------ ------. _ ___--°� _ .t(: . '�' �; y. � .. , _ . � , , � ,1 :ya+��.� , �.. `� - , , . ' ! � ;.-.}n. ::��_,_ �'�.,:,",'w.�?� :..�SJy.�ir. . t;y �� , � :y..Fu ::,,i.,�;��:.. {�i�.�.��'.��N^.+ . , . . '.t/".2+'SF`�' , � . �`� , � . • . . . . � � . ��.�.' 1� ; , , � � � . � . . � . . . ' � . . . . . , . . . . ' PROJECT TEAM AND PERSOPINEL ; _.; . � The follo�aing firms and personnel will be responsibie � £or the work: • ' � ;4 S9ALLACE, McHARG, ROBERTS AND TODD (t•7r7RT) `E � Architects, Landscape Architece, %'F Urban, Regional and Ecological Planners ',` 304 South Broaa�vay, Suite 522 ;�' � Los Angeles, California 90013 � �` Telc (213) 485-8455 :� �a + Donald H. Brackenbush, AIA,APA, Project Manager a�. � Elizabeth Bemis, Ecological Planner �� , iPMRT cvould be xesponsible for project man= ' agement as well as saork associated coith the � � . natural environment and man-made factors, • :s i �, as well as zoning, regulatory, urban plann- '� ing and report organization and production. �: � �1L�AP7 J. O�CO�tNaR & ASSOCIATES . � . • 106 South hIain Street � ' Bishop, Califoxnia 9351� � r - Tel: (714) 873-3895 ;� Allar J. O`Conr.or, nr.�, principal ' Allan O'Connor cvas responsible for a major portion of the Nlammoth 2lountain t9aster Plan, and would be responsibl.e for the ski -area � " analysis, as to skier capacities of existing �, and plan.ned facilities. - < ( . � . � � . . • � . � �. . ' . - � . . . . . . . . :F` � . . . . . . . . �� -16- � � � � • ' � �" , ;� ' _ ..__, ....__.._.._ ". - _. ___.__ ---- _.._ _..__.._ _..__. I - — - _ __ ' '_ - -_—_�:: r i� �.;[- �� 1- � � -y - �.:��_. > . l � � . yi;�::;_::.�� '; / � •;.�i � ,. .... . _,._ �.. , . � ' . . . 21.;: . . : . • . ,�_�.� . • . � � . . , . . � , . . . - ; WILLIF1p1S-KUEBELBECK AND ASSOCIATES, I�IC. (jVECA) � 330 t4ashington Street, Suite 720 NSarina del Rey, California 90291 �� '! • Tel: (213) 822-0114 ` , . i1 . . . . . � �� . . �' � William H. Whitney, Ph.D., Seniar Economist Peter Gordon, Project Economist ;�' � , � � 's> �., S�KA would be respansible for the fiscal analysis ,�r� and impact from the side of both the public fi- � . nance and private market absorption. . � i ' � PARSONS, BRINKERFIOF, QUADE AND DOUGLAS, INC_ (PBQ&b) � . 2323 North Broad�aay, Suite 450 ,,- � Santa Ana, Ca2ifornia92706 ?� Tel: (7J.4) 541-4147 . , M- � . � , , Michael Schneider, Traffic Analysis . '".r;� . . . . .c..�. � } PBQ&D cvould be responsible for the traffic, '� parking and transportation aspects o£ the analysis. � -�. . -17� � ., � , " n . - � - - �_"_�=-�-- =�--- ._------ - �-.. _ � � J � ��t . E`� - . . , . . � �- . �..�. .�. .. . , .� ..: .. . . . ' �' �: . . . � ' , l.'. .�� F . �' . . >�. ' 1 � � �• . .i e.y,r,. �'�C�sr.. .�. , ` ry1 . . . � .. . ' . . . . . �.... ,':. �s;� � � `��Lr'k,� ' . � Y��;k,�}�yt£�- + , .� v . . . _ C, , ' � � � •• � . 1' . . . . . .�ti. ` , • ' . . - . . ' . , , . ;a — P1EETItVGS Fli�D TRIPS � , � The.hudget of $98,000 includes trips to Denver as folloc•�s: '�� , : . � + . WMRT 8 A , A. O'Connor 4 - " : WilJ.iams- _ h� Kuebelbeck 6 ' PBQ&D 4 _ tx 'fi� ; : . �-- � � — FEE SCHEDULE BY FIRM �� ; Fees are shoc,m in 000's of dollzrs. Fees include salaries, e� : travel and other normal direct costs, as zoell as photo-ready � , art c•iorY, and mock up of the final reports. � ' FIRM PHASE I PHRSE II � �,. � ' [Jallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd $ 14 36 Allan J. Oconnor & Associates 6 . 2 ` TVilliams-Kuebalbeck.� Associates • 12 12 }� � PBq&❑ . Z 10 . . x 'F� Special Consultantsi and ' �� Contingencies 2-4 2-Z2 � , TOTt1L FEES •x k . S 36-38 62-72 � r. . _ ' � :� . _ � � 1S��ecial consultants and contingencies represent �unds for � ` � . special experts needed as they may be.identified, as well � �� as additional meetings and presentation by consultant team � , � . . members over and above those described. ' � , � � � "r�, -lf3_ � F �r.`°'^�"'^ �""'^.s+n++�a+ww+r^�-' _ .._; . . ._"_.��•..`wm..a�i..�''":, . .. —.yi .. .. � y L" ' � .. � .��,• ' � �� . " . . �� . :.,.'�..1. .., . .�. ,_� .- . .. .� . . . .. :. ... ...', . . } �� +�1�•'t'I�,.��}"`�'� � �� . . .• . ',�� . . � . . _. . . . . t . . .. . . . .. � . � � . . . .. r6��+.u_s�'� l' � ��t t j',.,� � ' , < < ` 4 w. :'�hK1f�,f� . �y;�i�•7��.;K�.r . ' . '�" ...5;"�� , _ .,..��.: ... - . �� . .':� � _ . . {:�j�: .�_ __ - _. .. ._ .. � _ . .... . � � . , -•'f . . . . .. . � '��:_�: t ' �• ` PERIOD OF PERFORh1ANCE � It is anticipated that the work vrill require eight (S) months to complete. Individual tasks are sho�rn along • taith revie�v periods, meeting times and products , l,�, TP,SK h�OP�TH I : � �,,,� ESTIt�ATED� � �:�� BUDGET l . PHASE I. � I �� (O��S) ( - 'fhe Need for Additional Skiing � � ; � Facilities � . ; � Task I-1: Review of Previous Studies, �.ej � � $,__ 6 , '� � I I + � � Zoning $ Legal Revici��, $ � � • Preparation of Comprehensive l � Data Basc ' ` Task I-2 Additional Skiing iM�"� � --6•- ;�'--,; ti Task I-,i: Land Use F, Zoning � «.e.....y 2 !i Task I-4 Utilities 6 ComTUnity i � � Z 1� ',� Services Capacitics I � �� ;� •Task I-5: Transportation Ovcrvie�,• I «;-�»y Z :� Tash I-6 Privnte Sector Economic Rela- � 6 (� ',� tionsiip Analysis Task' I-7: Public Sector Gconomic � � � I �' 6 � h Relationship analysis ' � � . Task I-S: Alternatives Analysis I �,.�r.�. � i � Task I-9: Alternatives Evaluation f _ �3 � t� - PNASE I� • y i � 36 � '� Site Specific Study � � Task II-1 Inventory and Analysis of . I��,�. ZZ i � ' Specific Site I : I � � � Task II-2 Employee ffousing �.��y _l�,__,_ �. � Task II-3 Transpo�tation �`-�'�� s.._ IO � � " Task II-4 praft Environmental Inpact c. .�-�.,d;�.t,o� 1G ;� Statement Report � 61 j � - t r, GP.An'D TOTAL $ 9S I � ! � _ � ? Meetingq 4.eport� � . 7: � . . . � . � . � . �� . - . � � . - . �. . . • '� � -1�� h � � --- ----_ _ __ _..._ . _--_. __ .- _ � ---- _____.... ...--�-- -, . �_,,..;,�� _ TT__. _...__._ __—_.,,,<��,E._ __.,...,,,.��:� .J.,>.,..�.� >.- `�� ,. r.. _ � � � _ �� ` • - :z��'� _ � � ��:;�,:�:'�'�"`