Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.worksession.20220516
1 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 16, 2022 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen ZOOM MEETING INSTRUCTIONS Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join. https://zoom.us/j/98513330484?pwd=dXhOblhKVTdaVWhFejJLY0hMUzg4dz09 Passcode: 472804 Join by phone: Dial US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 985 1333 0484 Passcode: 472804 I.WORK SESSION I.A.Housing - Council Goal: Lumberyard 100% Schematic Design Progress Update I.B.Armory Update - Review of Public Outreach and Remodel / Reuse Direction 1 Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THROUGH: Rob Schober, Capital Asset Director MEMO DATE: May 13, 2022 MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022 RE: Lumberyard Schematic Design Update #5: 100% Schematic Design SUMMARY: The Lumberyard affordable housing schematic design has been further developed based on City Council direction from the work session on April 4, 2022. The project team will present the 100% Schematic Design for the Lumberyard affordable housing project with 277 affordable housing units and 467 bedrooms. This package also includes a draft transportation impact analysis report as well as a report of VOC air sample testing at the project site. BACKGROUND: At the April 4, 2022 work session, staff presented a comprehensive background of the Lumberyard design process to this point. The April 4, 2022 work session materials can be accessed using this link. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: 1. Is the design represented in this 100% Schematic Design package acceptable to use as the basis of the development application? 2. Are there any specific areas Council would like the team to prioritize in the next, Design Development, stage of the design process? 3. What areas of the design would Council like input on moving into Design Development? DISCUSSION: Design Update – 100% Schematic Design: At the Aspen City Council work session on April 4, 2022, the project team presented two design alternatives for 75% schematic design. The “stay the course” plan included 310 units and the “elbow room” plan included 266 units with design modifications to provide more adequate spacing between the buildings and roadways as well as removal of units from the west facing side of the fourth floor of buildings 1 and 3 which created a stepped back condition on the fourth floor at those locations. 2 Page 2 of 8 Council direction at the April 4, 2022 work session required the project team to essentially amalgamate the two options which were presented. Council directed the team to proceed toward 100% Schematic Design with the “elbow room” site plan but with the entire fourth floor of all three buildings intact. The team was instructed to prioritize maximizing bedroom count while making the modifications. The project team was also asked to continue to develop the palette of natural materials and tones inspired by Deer Hill and the celebration of sustainable design features. The results of the Council direction from April 4, 2022 and the subsequent design effort have created a 100% Schematic Design with 277 affordable housing units and 467 bedrooms, distributed among the three buildings as follows: In the updated 100% Schematic Design site plan, the design team has updated the buildings as noted and has incorporated landscape design features in the open site areas between buildings. Further detail can be seen in the renderings below and in the attached presentation slides. Should Council have any remaining design concerns, staff recommends that those be addressed during the next stage of the design process, Design Development (DD). 100% Schematic Design Site Plan 3 Page 3 of 8 View of Plaza and Courtyard from Hwy 82 Entrance Enlarged View of Ground Level Patios and Pedestrian Circulation View of West-Facing Façade of Building 2 4 Page 4 of 8 100% Schematic Design Project Cost Estimate: The phased project cost estimate shown below has been created based on the updated 100% Schematic Design and includes sustainability program elements such as the enhanced building envelope, solar PV, battery storage, EV charging, and more. The proposed phasing plan shown below assumes an average of 5% annual cost escalation and includes project contingency of 10.5% of estimated construction costs. Construction costs are based on quantity take offs by division and include general conditions based on similar projects. Phases 1, 2 and 3 also include developer fees as customary for public private partnership agreements. Lumberyard Affordable Housing - Proposed Project Phasing and 100% SD Cost Estimate 2019-2023 Planning & Design $4,362,231 2024-2025 Phase 0, Demolition, Access, Infrastructure, Traffic Signal $14,247,758 2026-2027 Phase 1, Building 1 - 104 Rental Units $125,540,701 2028-2029 Phase 2, Building 2 - 91 Rental Units $115,862,000 2030-2031 Phase 3, Building 3 - 82 Ownership Units $135,235,509 Phased Project Implementation Cost Estimate (2019 – 2031) $395,248,199 Historic / Sunk Land Costs Lumberyard Property (2007) $18,250,000 Aspen Mini Storage (2020) $11,000,000 Triangle Portion of Burlingame Lot 1A (Prorated Estimate) $250,000 Land Cost Subtotal $29,500,000 Total Estimated Project Cost with Phased Implementation and Historic Costs $424,748,199 Cash flow in the City’s 150 Housing Development Fund will be able to support the implementation through City development of Phase 0, which will prepare the site for the development of the vertical housing Phases 1, 2 and 3. Staff is planning to seek public private partnership (PPP) development of the housing development Phases 1, 2, and 3. Any such PPPs are TBD but are expected to include financing, construction, tenant qualification, occupancy, maintenance and long-term operation. The project team estimates that the City will need to bear the burden of funding approximately 85% of the total cost to implement the project, while state, federal and other funding sources could fund approximately 15% of project costs. Any future non-City funding is only tentatively estimated at this time and final actual information on non-City funding sources is TBD. Non-City funding sources are currently estimated as follows: 1.5% State and Federal Grants 0.4% Philanthropic Sources 2.5% Subordinate Debt (State) 2.5% Low Income Housing Tax Credit Equity 8.1% Commercial Mortgages and Sales Revenues 15.0% Total Potential Non-City Funding (Estimate Only) 5 Page 5 of 8 To help fund the implementation of Phase 1, staff has tentatively proposed a bond issuance of $70 million in City debt financing. Any such debt financing utilizing bond issuances are TBD pending future Council approval and any other approvals as necessary. With conservative revenue projections in the current 150 Fund long range planning, there remains a significant funding gap for the implementation of Phases 2 and 3, roughly in the amount of $150 million. While the 150 Fund revenues tend to outperform conservative revenue estimates, economic circumstances suggest that we should remain conservative in our future projections. Due to the Phase 2 and 3 funding gap, and to provide flexibility for the future implementation of Phases 2 and 3, it may be advisable to allow for a longer vested rights period in the project approval ordinance and to reassess actual 150 Housing Fund revenue performance as time moves forward. Overall project subsidies will be further studied as the planning and design process move forward. Ongoing development of estimates for future project revenues from rents and unit sales will be studied along with potential PPP agreement terms, which are typically related to overall net operating income of the facilities to be managed through any such PPP agreements. The project estimate above does include infrastructure improvements such as the proposed Hwy 82 traffic signal at the Lumberyard entrance and the on-site transportation station. But no operational costs are included, nor are any transportation vehicles or operation of any alternate transportation services. Further study and Council decisions may be needed for any such additional elements. Update on Enterprise Green Communities Plus Sustainability Certification: The project remains on track to meet the goal of offsetting 75% of energy consumed on site with renewable energy generated on site. This is done not only by generating energy on site with the solar photovoltaic system, but also by designing buildings that are highly energy efficient with very low Energy Use Intensity (EUI). Designing for a low EUI and for solar PV generation entails: • Enhanced insulation and low air infiltration approaches • Energy efficient heating/cooling systems • Energy efficient water heating systems • Heat recovery systems • Maximizing area of solar array • Analysis of HVAC and plumbing system alternatives for best performance and value • Path forward with Aspen Electric requires on site battery storage system Enterprise Green Communities also has a Resilience component which focuses on proactively designing for day-to-day conservation of resources, new climate challenges, hazard mitigation preparedness, and strengthening cultural connections. The focus on hazard mitigation preparedness requires that we recognize considerations for hazards such as wildfire, air quality, new disease vectors, extreme events, loss of power, drought and mud flows. The focus on cultural resilience provides mental health benefits such as increased sense of shared ownership, social accountability, and sense of belonging. Milestones completed to date toward the Enterprise Green Communities Plus certification include: 6 Page 6 of 8 • Sustainability Charrette • Context Map • Social Determinants of Health Analysis • Project Priority Survey • Cultural Resilience / Responsive Design Assessment • Multi-Hazard Vulnerability / Climate Resilient Design Assessment Resilient Design Assessment Matrix Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Air Sample Testing A final report is attached from the recent volatile organic compound (VOC) air sample testing conducted by Air Resource Specialists (ARS) at the Lumberyard project site. Summary of conclusions are as follows: • 24-hour sampling was conducted on the Lumberyard project site at the Building 3 location • Measured concentrations of possible air toxics using 24-hour sampling showed ambient concentrations at safe levels • No air toxics were observed at ambient concentrations that would generate potential adverse health effects via inhalation • Any discernable volatile organic compound (VOC) impacts (such as odor) are likely occurring on a much smaller timescale than 24-hour averages can measure • Results are similar to Pitkin County study from 2020-2021 which took measurements further to the north, at the North 40 fire station. 7 Page 7 of 8 Transportation Impact Analysis: A draft transportation impact analysis (TIA) report from Fehr & Peers is attached. City Transportation and Engineering staff have reviewed and provided initial comments on the draft, and the design team anticipates submitting a Final TIA to the City by June 3, 2022. Based on the feedback received, changes to the key findings of the report are not expected. The study analyzed project trip generation and existing transportation impacts as well as 2025 and 2045 future impacts. Level of service (LOS) was also part of the analysis, along with travel times, traffic safety, greenhouse gas emissions and potential means of transportation mitigation (alternate transportation modes). The analysis in the TIA was conservative in analyzing the project’s impacts to delay and travel times. In the analysis, Fehr & Peers assumed no reductions to the Lumberyard project trip generation for any potential future transit ridership. The analysis also assumed that any down valley housing vacated by newly relocating Lumberyard residents would be refilled with Aspen workers by 2025. (i.e. F&P assumed that people who move into any vacated downvalley housing would also be commuting to Aspen.) Key findings of the draft TIA report are summarized below: • The city should construct a traffic signal at the Aspen Lumberyard driveway • The city should provide improved bus service to the Aspen Lumberyard • About half of residents will relocate from down valley housing • Employment opportunities in Aspen will grow with or without the Aspen Lumberyard project • Right after people move into the Aspen Lumberyard, travel times on Hwy 82 will increase by about one minute during rush hour • Thereafter, the project will not significantly further increase travel times on Hwy 82 • Through improved transit, the City can further reduce vehicle trips • The project will reduce CO2 emissions from commuter transportation by 500,000 to 600,000 pounds per year • Providing housing closer to Aspen will always reduce CO2 emissions compared to people living down valley • Investing in transportation services like transit is critical to mitigate the effects of growth on travel times on CO 82 8 Staff Recommendations on Transportation Alternatives: •For a dedicated transportation route from Rubey Park to Lumberyard, 30-minute service comparable to the Burlingame route would be recommended. Service should include stops between Rubey Park and Lumberyard. Operating 30-minute service would require two transportation vehicles. •For a dedicated transportation route from Rubey Park which would loop around the Lumberyard, AABC and airport, a partnership with Pitkin County would be recommended. •A WE-Cycle station is recommended. •Additional study is needed for options around feeder services and buy-ups. A circulator alone may not save much money since most costs are in hourly operations, regardless of route. •Car sharing is recommended only as an option by moving an existing car-share vehicle to the Lumberyard location, not by procuring an additional vehicle. Ongoing transportation discussions and public dialogue are expected to occur up to and during the public hearing process for the approval of the housing development. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Moving into the next phase of design, Design Development (DD), and drafting the development application will require additional professional services to be contracted by the City. Staff will be bringing such additional services requests to Council in upcoming regular meetings on Council’s consent calendar. Staff anticipates that any such services will be able to be performed within the existing 2022 project budget since about 35% of the 2022 project budget have been used to date. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council carefully review and provide direction on the following requests: 1.Is the design represented in this 100% Schematic Design package acceptable to use as the basis of the development application? 2.Are there any specific areas Council would like the team to prioritize in the next, Design Development, stage of the design process? 3.What areas of the design would Council like input on moving into Design Development? ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Work session presentation slides including appendix with VOC Air Sample Testing Report and Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Report Page 8 of 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 AIR MONITORING DATA REPORT CITY OF ASPEN February 18 – February 20, 2022 February 25 – March 2, 2022 Prepared for: Chris Everson Affordable Housing Development Senior Project Manager City of Aspen, Capital Asset Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Prepared by: 1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite F Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-484-7941 www.air-resource.com April 2022 68 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 1 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 1.0 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND This report provides a summary of the air quality monitoring data collected in Aspen, Colorado from the period of February 18 to March 2, 2022. Data were collected by Air Resource Specialists, Inc. (ARS) on behalf of the City of Aspen to assess ambient air quality impacts due to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the location for the proposed Aspen Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project (AHP) The monitoring site was located at approximately 39o 12’ 55” North and 106 o 51’ 39’’ West along Colorado Highway 82 (CO-82), just south of the Mountain Rescue Aspen building, and across from the southern portion of the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (KASE) property. Monitoring equipment was located in a field approximately 100 feet south of the Mountain Rescue Aspen parking lot and approximately 100 feet east of the nearest lane of traffic on CO-82. The monitoring equipment was secured by locked fencing for the duration of the study. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 show the monitoring location in small and large scales, respectively. Figure 1-1 City of Aspen AHP Monitoring Location – Aspen, Colorado 69 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 2 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Figure 1-2 City of Aspen AHP Monitoring Location (Enlarged) – Aspen, Colorado The area outlined in red in the above figures highlights the boundary of the proposed Aspen Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project (AHP). Other areas on the map, symbolized as green diamonds, were noted as possible pollution sources. Historically, complaints have been made by residents in neighborhoods in the vicinity of KASE about odors believed to be associated with airport operations. The presence of these odors has generated concerns about potential health effects associated with airport-related emissions. A previous monitoring effort conducted by Pitkin County attempted to perform some assessments based upon these complaints. The City of Aspen’s focus is to help determine potential impacts from pollution that future residents of the AHP may experience. While pollution source apportionment cannot be accomplished with this monitoring effort alone, it is believed that airport emissions from KASE and traffic-related emissions from CO-82 contribute significantly to pollutant concentrations in this area. Ongoing complaints of odors that residents attribute to jet fuel or airport activities are a concern. Additionally, during times of high traffic volume and congestion, southbound CO-82 traffic backs up from the traffic light south of the AHP directly adjacent to the AHP. Temperature inversions during the winter months can trap these and other pollution sources close to the ground, exacerbating potential impacts. The goal of this monitoring effort was to measure VOC concentrations during a temperature inversion to observe the air quality impacts at the AHP. 70 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 3 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 2.0 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING METHODS EPA Compendium Method TO-15 - Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Collected In Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) sampling methods were utilized for this study. Following Method TO-15, samples were collected by introducing air into specially prepared stainless-steel canisters. Pace Analytical provided ARS with clean and pre-evacuated canisters. The internal surface of each canister was passivated to prevent any loss of the compounds of interest through absorption or reaction with the internal surface. All canisters were assigned a unique identification tag and were equipped with 24-hour flow controllers, which allow them to sample ambient air uniformly over a 24-hour period using the pressure differential between the atmosphere and the canister. ARS performed leak checks on equipment received from the laboratory and provided Entech Instruments TM1200 timers for controlling when sampling started and ended. ARS also performed leak checks on these timers prior to deployment. Each canister with flow controller and timer was fully assembled at ARS. The City of Aspen provided security fencing for the sampling location prior to deployment. The sampling location was identified through consultation between City of Aspen representatives and ARS project staff. Figures 2-1 through 2-4 present photographs of the monitoring site from the north, west, south, and east, respectively. Figure 2-1 Monitoring Site from the North 71 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 4 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Figure 2-2 Monitoring Site from the West Figure 2-3 Monitoring Site from the South 72 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 5 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Figure 2-4 Monitoring Site from the East ARS deployed a meteorological monitoring tripod in support the VOC monitoring, which included wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, and relative humidity. All equipment was battery-powered and was tested at ARS, during installation, and at the end of the monitoring. ARS transported all equipment to the field for sampling. At the sampling location, ARS installed the assembled canisters on tripods and installed the meteorological monitoring tripod. The sampling height was approximately 6 feet from the ground. The monitoring effort was intended to be a single deployment; however, there were problems with canisters provided by the laboratory initially and an issue with the meteorological measurement system constructed by ARS. A second deployment was performed to re-conduct the monitoring. A timeline of events is included in Table 2-1 73 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 6 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Table 2-1 Project Timeline DATE ACTIVITY Tuesday, 2/15/2022 Deployment of equipment Thursday, 2/17/2022 First Sample Day (invalid) Friday, 2/18/2022 Sample Day (valid) Saturday, 2/19/2022 Sample Day (valid) Sunday, 2/20/2022 Sample Day (valid) Monday, 2/21/2022 Sample recovery by ARS Thursday, 2/24/2022 Redeployment Friday, 2/25/2022 Sample Day (valid) Saturday, 2/26/2022 Sample Day (valid) Sunday, 2/27/2022 Sample Day (valid) Monday, 2/28/2022 Sample Day (valid) Tuesday, 3/1/2022 Sample Day (valid) Wednesday, 3/2/2022 Sample Day (valid) Thursday, 3/3/2022 Sample and equipment recovery by ARS Jannette Whitcomb, Senior Environmental Health Specialist with the City Aspen, provided oversight of the monitoring location. Ms. Whitcomb visited the station almost every day to verify operations and report vacuum gauge pressure for all samples. This task was essential to quality control and identifying any compromised samples. Ms. Whitcomb also prepared a “grab” sample using a canister at the Paepcke Park bus stop in Aspen on 3/1/2022 at approximately 5:00pm MST, during the evening commute. This “instantaneous” sample was used for comparison purposes. The location of the “grab” sample in relation to the AHP monitoring site is shown in Figure 2-5. Each sample collected, except the “grab” sample, represents the average VOC concentration measured midnight to midnight (24-hours) on a particular sample day. For of each sampling day, the timer associated with that sample day would close the (timer) solenoid valve which sealed the canister from further sampling. Additionally, Ms. Whitcomb verified that the canister manual valves were closed following each sampling day. At the conclusion of each deployment, ARS retrieved the canisters, logged relevant data on the chain- of-custody (COC) form, and shipped the canisters back to the laboratory for analysis. Upon receipt at the laboratory, the COC form was processed with the canisters in accordance with the laboratory’s standard operating procedure (SOP). A sample from each canister was prepared and analyzed using a high-resolution gas chromatograph coupled to a mass spectrometer (GC/MS) for identification of the target VOCs. 74 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 7 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Figure 2-5 Location of Grab Sample in Relation to AHP Monitoring Site The procedure allowed for quantification of air concentrations for approximately 60 different VOC compounds. Table 2-2 lists the different TO-15 compounds available from the testing method along with the typical minimum reporting limit provided by the laboratory. The TO-15 compounds that have been quantified are generally associated with pollutants designated under the Clean Air Act as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). 75 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 8 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Table 2-2 Listing of TO-15 Analytical Compounds and Typical Minimum Reporting Limits Compound CAS # Reporting Limit (µg/m3) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 1.1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 0.7 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 0.56 1,1,2-Trichloroflouromethane 75-69-4 1.6 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 0.82 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 0.81 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 7.5 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 1 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 0.78 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 1.2 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.41 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 0.94 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 1 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 0.45 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 1.2 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 3.1 2-Butanone (MEK) 78-93-3 3 2-Hexanone 591-78-6 4.2 2-Propanol 67-63-0 2.5 Benzene 71-43-2 0.32 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 1.4 Bromoform 75-25-2 5.2 Bromomethane 74-83-9 0.79 Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 0.63 Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 1.3 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 0.94 Chloroethane 75-00-3 0.54 Chloroform 67-66-3 0.5 Chloromethane 74-87-3 0.42 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 0.81 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 0.92 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 1.7 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 1 - continued - 76 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 9 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Table 2-2 (continued) Listing of TO-15 Analytical Compounds and Typical Minimum Reporting Limits Compound CAS # Reporting Limit (µg/m3) Ethanol 64-17-5 1.9 Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 1.4 Ethanol 64-17-5 1.9 Ethyl Acetate 141-78-6 0.73 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 0.88 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 5.4 m,p-Xylene 108-38-3, 106-42-3 1.8 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 108-10-1 4.2 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether 1634-04-4 3.7 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 3.5 n-Heptane 142-82-5 0.83 n-Hexane 110-54-3 0.72 Napthalene 91-20-3 2.7 o-Xylene 95-47-6 0.88 Propylene 115-07-1 0.35 Styrene 100-42-5 0.87 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 0.9 Toluene 108-88-3 0.77 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-60-5 0.81 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 0.92 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 0.55 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 1.1 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 0.72 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 0.26 77 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 10 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 3.0 MONITORING DATA AND DISCUSSION The following section describes the ambient air quality data collected at the AHP monitoring site using USEPA Compendium Method TO-15. The TO-15 sampling methods were summarized in the prior section and these methods were applied for the collected samples. 3.1 TO-15 Monitoring Data The concentration levels of compounds measured by Method TO-15 at the AHP monitoring site are summarized in Table 3-1. Only those compounds which were detected in one or more of the TO-15 are listed in Table 3-1. If a specific compound was “Not Detected” (ND) in all samples, it is not listed. Table 3-1 AHP TO-15 Air Monitoring Concentrations for Detected Compounds (all data in micrograms per cubic meter) Feb 18 FRI Feb 19 SAT Feb 20 SUN Feb 25 FRI Feb 26 SAT Feb 27 SUN Feb 28 MON Mar 1 TUES Mar 2 WED GRAB RfC Acetone 4.82 7.20 4.66 5.47 4.66 5.56 4.66 3.59 5.99 -- Benzene 0.652 1.83 30 Chloromethane 1.37 1.20 1.45 1.17 1.20 1.28 1.27 1.48 1.25 1.25 90 Cyclohexane 0.857 6000 Ethanol 2.45 35.8 39.8 7.52 2.79 33.0 3.90 8.09 4.07 15.5 -- Trichlorofluoromethane 1.33 1.24 1.48 1.23 1.16 1.24 1.24 1.40 1.29 1.26 -- Dichlorodifluoromethane 2.29 2.28 2.41 2.40 2.42 2.43 2.43 2.65 2.41 2.40 -- Heptane 1.04 -- Methylene Chloride 4.31 3000 Tetrachloroethylene 1.49 1.37 2.22 2.22 40 Toluene 4.41 5000 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1.06 60 m&p-Xylene 2.96 100 o-Xylene 1.07 100 Compounds not listed were below reporting limit on all sample days Not Detected on the sampling day Not all compounds have a USEPA RfC. 78 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 11 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Safe exposure levels via inhalation for the compounds of interest were assessed for those pollutants where a “Reference Concentration” (RfC) has been established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Where available, RfC concentrations are listed in Table 3-1 for the various compounds detected. According to USEPA, the RfC is “an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.” RfC concentrations for various chemicals are available via the USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) website. Only some of the compounds of interest have an established RfC. Below, there is specific information about each of the compounds detected during this study. The reporting detection limit is the lowest concentration that a compound can be detected by the analysis. It does not necessarily mean that the compound was not present in the sample. Acetone was found in a majority, but not all, of the collected samples. Acetone is a solvent that may be used for cleaning of plastic, metal, and composite products. Common uses include cleaning materials for grease, oil, resin, ink, permanent marker, adhesive, and paint. Acetone may also be present as a constituent of wildfire smoke/biomass burning and/or mobile source emissions. Acetone does not have an RfC. Nevertheless, data from the USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) website suggests that concentrations need to be quite high (e.g., 100 ppm or higher) before adverse effects from inhalation of acetone would occur. Measured concentrations of acetone in the TO-15 samples were substantially lower than these levels. Benzene in the atmosphere is usually from emissions from burning hydrocarbons, vehicle exhaust, and evaporation at gas stations. Benzene is constituent of petroleum and a major industrial chemical. It is an aromatic compound belonging to a group referred to as BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes). Benzene is a known carcinogen and an important air toxic. Benzene was only detected in two samples, which were well below the RfC of 30 micrograms per cubic meter. Chloromethane, trichlorofluoromethane, and dichlorodifluoromethane are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which were commonly used in the past as refrigerants (R-40, R-11 or Freon 11, R-12 or Freon 12, respectively) and as propellants for consumer products such as aerosol spray cans. Use of these compounds has been discontinued in the United States and other parts of the developed world. However, CFCs are very stable and are unlikely to degrade in the atmosphere, so their presence in the TO-15 air samples likely comes from residual concentrations caused by historical emissions of these compounds and/or global transport of emissions from areas of the world where use of these chemicals continues. While chloromethane has an RfC of 90 micrograms per cubic meter, but ambient concentrations measured in the study approximately about 1 microgram per cubic meter. An RfC has not been developed by USEPA for trichlorofluoromethane and dichlorodifluoromethane. The persistent nature and uniform concentration of these compounds can be used as an informal quality control check. Cyclohexane is a solvent used in the chemical industry and in the production intermediates for nylon manufacturing. It can be found in gasoline and household solvents. It was only present in the “grab” sample at a concentration well below the RfC of 6000 micograms per cubic meter. Ethanol in the atmosphere is generally attributable to its use as a transportation fuel, both as a biofuel and as an additive in gasoline, and biogenic sources. Ethanol as a fuel is introduced into the atmosphere through incomplete combustion (tailpipe emissions) and through evaporative emissions from fuel tanks and gas stations. Ethanol (also known as ethyl alcohol) is not listed as a toxic substance by the USEPA IRIS website. Inhalation exposure to normal ambient concentrations of ethanol vapors is not believed to result in harmful effects to the public. Ethanol was detected in all samples at a variety of concentrations. Heptane is solvent used in the chemical industry and a significant component of gasoline. It can be found in many household solvents. It does not have a RfC. It was only present in the “grab” sample at low concentration. 79 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 12 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Methylene chloride is an industrial solvent and a propellant for aerosols. It was detected in only one sample at a concentration well below the RfC of 3000 micrograms per cubic meter. Tetrachloroethylene (tetrachloroethene, perchloroethylene) is a chlorocarbon used in the dry cleaning of fabrics and a solvent for degreasing. Most tetrachloroethylene produced is released to the atmosphere. Unlike CFCs, tetrachloroethylene has a much shorter life in the atmosphere. The concentrations of tetrachloroethylene detected was just above the reporting detection limit (RDL) for the analysis. It is likely that tetrachloroethylene was present in all the samples. Concentrations detected were well below the RfC of 40 micrograms per cubic meter. Toluene (a BTEX compound) is a gasoline additive and solvent. It is present in petroleum at lower levels than benzene and is a byproduct of gasoline production as well. Its presence in the ambient air is usually due to gasoline or vehicle emissions. Toluene was only detected in one sample at a concentration well below the RfC of 5000 micrograms per cubic meter. 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene is a constituent of petroleum and, by extension, gasoline. It is one isomer of trimethylbenzenes (TMBs), of which there are three. Vehicle emissions are the primary source of this compound in ambient air. It was only detected in one sample at a concentration well below the RfC of 60 micrograms per cubic meter. Xylenes (BTEX compounds) has three isomers that occur in petroleum in small concentrations. Its presence in the ambient air is usually due to gasoline or vehicle emissions. Xylenes are also used as industrial solvents. The m-xylene and p-xylene are not separated from each other in the TO-15 analysis and are reported as one. Xylenes were detected in one sample at concentrations well below the RfC of 100 micrograms per cubic meter. Overall, the measured concentrations of possible air toxics via Method TO-15 at the AHP air monitoring site showed ambient concentrations were at safe levels and that no air toxics were observed on sampling days at ambient concentrations that would generate potential adverse health effects via inhalation. 3.2 Vehicle and Air Traffic Data Table 3-2 provides vehicle traffic count data for the sampling days during the monitoring period. The table breaks out the data from the initial deployment from the re-deployment. There are 7 days of data for the re- deployment to minimize biases when making comparisons to previous years due to day-of-the-week differences. The traffic count data presented are for CO-82 eastbound and westbound traffic at the CO-82 and Cemetery Lane intersection. For the data from 2/18 through 2/20, one can observe day-of-week biases in 2021 and 2022. In 2022, these dates coincide with President’s Day weekend. For the data from 2/24 through 3/2, one can observe small changes from year to year. The decrease in 2021 traffic counts is likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which didn’t disrupt travel in the United States until later in 2020. Traffic is markedly lower on weekends compared to weekdays. 80 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 13 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Table 3-2 Traffic Counts for TO-15 Sampling Days Highway 82 and Cemetery Lane – Aspen, CO DATE 2019 2020 2021 2022 2/18 M 47,068 T NA Th 45,922 F 52,403 2/19 T 46,529 W 49,683 F 47,755 Sa 43,762 2/20 W 49,251 Th 50,232 Sa 37,186 Su 41,504 TOTAL 142,848 99,915 130,863 137,669 AVERAGE 47,616 49,958 43,621 45,890 % of 2019 +4.9% -8.4% -3.6% 2/24 Su NA M 43,522 W 46,326 Th 47,782 2/25 M NA T 42,880 Th 47,558 F 49,834 2/26 T NA W 48,213 F 48,584 Sa 39,196 2/27 W 47,798 Th 48,640 Sa 33,408 Su 37,309 2/28 Th NA F 51,264 Su 33,630 M 46,962 2/29 Sa 41,889 3/1 F 44,810 Su 36,044 M 44,647 T 47,963 3/2 Sa 38,175 T 45,197 W 48,862 TOTAL 130,783 312,452 299,350 317,908 AVERAGE 43,594 44,636 42,764 45,415 % of 2019 +2.4% -1.9% +4.2% Table 3-3 provides aircraft departure data from KASE for the sampling days during the monitoring period. The table breaks out the data from the initial deployment from the re-deployment. There are 7 days of data for the re-deployment to minimize biases when making comparisons to previous years due to day-of-the-week differences. 81 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 14 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Table 3-3 KASE Aircraft Operations (Departures) DATE 2019 2020 2021 2022 2/18 M 178 T 123 Th 88 F 132 2/19 T 55 W 83 F 83 Sa 135 2/20 W 70 Th 95 Sa 94 Su 120 TOTAL 303 301 265 387 AVERAGE 101 100 88 129 % of 2019 -0.7% -12.5% +27.7% 2/24 Su 120 M 49 W 64 Th 43 2/25 M 73 T 47 Th 74 F 85 2/26 T 68 W 70 F 71 Sa 137 2/27 W 63 Th 74 Sa 22 Su 141 2/28 Th 69 F 77 Su 112 M 111 2/29 Sa 106 3/1 F 49 Su 114 M 82 T 78 3/2 Sa 57 T 72 W 101 TOTAL 499 537 497 696 AVERAGE 71 77 71 99 % of 2019 +7.6% -0.4% +39.5% For the data from 2/18 through 2/20, one can observe day-of-week biases in 2021 and 2022. In 2019, 2/18 is President’s Day and has the highest number of departures from KASE in Table 3-3. In 2022, these dates coincide with President’s Day weekend. For the data from 2/24 through 3/2, there are rather large changes year to year. The decrease in 2021 air traffic counts is lower due COVID-19 pandemic. Air traffic is markedly higher on weekends compared to weekdays, especially in 2022. Air traffic in 2022 is significantly higher than any of the previous years reported. 3.3 Meteorological Data Figures 3-1 through 3-2 present a wind rose overlaying a map of the monitoring area and a time series plot of meteorological measurements collected at the AHP monitoring site. The wind rose on the map is representative of the monitoring period from 2/25/2022 through 3/2/2022. Over this period, winds were generally either from the north-northwest or south, which would be the expected wind patterns based on the orientation of the Roaring Fork River Valley at the AHP monitoring location and considering possible obstruction from the Mountain Rescue Aspen building. Winds were generally calm or very light, with highest average hourly wind speed of 2.2 m/s (4.9 mph) and a highest average 1-minute wind speed of 4.2 m/s (9.4 mph). The average wind speed over the monitoring period was 0.9 m/s (2.0 mph). 82 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 15 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Figure 3-1 AHP Monitoring Site Wind Rose Overlay February 25 - March 2, 2022 Figure 3-2 presents a time series plot of the ambient temperature and scalar wind speed which can be utilized to identify temperature inversions during the monitoring period. A temperature inversion is a reversal of the normal behavior of temperature in the atmosphere. Normally, temperature decreases as elevation or altitude increases. During an inversion, the behavior is opposite and cold air and pollutants are trapped against the Earth’s surface. On the morning of 2/27/2022, it is possible that area experienced a mild inversion. 83 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 16 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 Figure 3-2 AHP Monitoring Site Ambient Temperature and Scalar Wind Speed Time Series February 25 - March 2, 2022 84 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 17 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 4.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION Throughout the February 18 to March 2, 2022, monitoring period meteorological conditions were generally calm; the presence of a strong temperature inversion did not occur during the study period. It is believed that a strong temperature inversion, which can happen during winter months, can trap pollution close to the ground resulting in elevated concentrations of VOCs and other pollutants. Overall, the measured concentrations of possible air toxics via Method TO-15 using 24-hour sampling at the AHP air monitoring site showed ambient concentrations were at safe levels and that no air toxics were observed on sampling days at ambient concentrations that would generate potential adverse health effects via inhalation. That does not imply that there are no VOC impacts at AHP site. The monitoring effort occurred over a very short period and is not completely representative of the air quality. The monitoring effort doesn’t address odor nuisances or acute health impacts. Based on this data and historical air quality complaints from residents in nearby neighborhoods, it is likely that VOC impacts are on a much smaller timescale than 24-hour averages can measure. If there are significant VOC concentrations for a period of an hour or less with otherwise “clean” air for the remainder of the day, actual VOC concentrations sampled by the canister can easily be below detectable limits. As previously reported in the Pitkin County TO-15 data report, “markers” for aircraft emissions may be identified in the TO-15 data. Based upon emissions data from Air Emissions Guide for Air Force Mobile Sources (January 2013), published by the United States Air Force (USAF), Air Force Civil Engineer Center, the most prevalent speciated VOCs in aircraft emissions would be acetone, benzoic acid, formaldehyde, and methylene chloride. Only acetone and methylene chloride are analyzed for in the TO-15 Method. Acetone was detected in all samples, and has other potential sources as described earlier. However, methylene chloride was only detected in one sample on February 20. While aircraft departures were relatively high during the day, methylene chloride wasn’t detected on other days of equal or greater air traffic. The challenges in assessing any pollution impacts at the AHP monitoring site are making measurements at the ideal time where meteorology and pollution sources maximize concentrations at the monitoring site. This situation may be very short-lived when making 24-hour integrated measurements. To further investigate the impacts of VOCs, ARS believes that employing VOC sensor technology that can trigger a canister (“grab” sample) when a target level of total VOCs is detected is key to understanding acute air quality impacts and addressing community concerns. This approach could yield data showing the highest possible VOC concentrations present during an event that may be consistent with what the community might experience over very short periods. Impacts from vehicle traffic and airport related emissions would more likely be detected. The data collected from these triggered “grab” samples would be comparable to the “grab” sample collected at the Paepcke Park bus stop. The Paepcke Park bus stop sample did show impacts from vehicle exhaust, which was expected at the AHP monitoring site but generally observed during the monitoring effort. 85 City of Aspen Air Monitoring Data Report, Page 18 By Air Resource Specialists, Inc., April 2022 APPENDIX 86 N 0° NNE NE 45° ENE E 90° ESE SE 135° SSE S 180° SSW SW 225° WSW W 270° WNW NW 315° NNW 10% 20% Calm 28.47% 144 Collected /144 Valid (100.0%) Collection Statistics Include: Hourly Wind Direction and Wind Speed Key Wind Speed (m/s) Calm < 0.5 0.5-0.9 1.0-3.9 4.0-6.9 7.0-9.9 10.0-12.9 13.0-15.9 16.0-18.9 19.0+ City of Aspen Wind Rose 2/25/2022 - 3/2/2022 87 ANALYTICAL REPORT February 28, 2022 Air Resource Specialists Sample Delivery Group:L1464568 Samples Received:02/23/2022 Project Number:ASPEN-AHP Description:VOC Survey Report To:Christian Kirk 1901 Sharp Point Drive Suite F Fort Collins, CO 80525 Entire Report Reviewed By: February 28, 2022 [Preliminary Report] Chris Ward Project Manager Results relate only to the items tested or calibrated and are reported as rounded values. This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. Where applicable, sampling conducted by Pace Analytical National is performed per guidance provided in laboratory standard operating procedures ENV-SOP-MTJL-0067 and ENV-SOP-MTJL-0068. Where sampling conducted by the customer, results relate to the accuracy of the information provided, and as the samples are received. Pace Analytical National 12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 615-758-5858 800-767-5859 www.pacenational.com 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 1 of 17 March 01, 2022 Chris Ward Project Manager ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 1 of 17 88 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cp: Cover Page 1 Tc: Table of Contents 2 Ss: Sample Summary 3 Cn: Case Narrative 4 Sr: Sample Results 5 FRIDAY-5103 L1464568-01 5 SATURDAY-7680 L1464568-02 7 SUNDAY-12097 L1464568-03 9 Qc: Quality Control Summary 11 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 11 Gl: Glossary of Terms 15 Al: Accreditations & Locations 16 Sc: Sample Chain of Custody 17 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 2 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 2 of 17 89 SAMPLE SUMMARY Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time FRIDAY-5103 L1464568-01 Air C. Kirk 02/18/22 00:00 02/23/22 14:30 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1823125 1 02/24/22 17:18 02/24/22 17:18 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time SATURDAY-7680 L1464568-02 Air C. Kirk 02/18/22 00:00 02/23/22 14:30 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1823125 1 02/24/22 18:02 02/24/22 18:02 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time SUNDAY-12097 L1464568-03 Air C. Kirk 02/18/22 00:00 02/23/22 14:30 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1823125 1 02/24/22 19:06 02/24/22 19:06 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 3 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 3 of 17 90 CASE NARRATIVE All sample aliquots were received at the correct temperature, in the proper containers, with the appropriate preservatives, and within method specified holding times, unless qualified or notated within the report. Where applicable, all MDL (LOD) and RDL (LOQ) values reported for environmental samples have been corrected for the dilution factor used in the analysis. All Method and Batch Quality Control are within established criteria except where addressed in this case narrative, a non-conformance form or properly qualified within the sample results. By my digital signature below, I affirm to the best of my knowledge, all problems/anomalies observed by the laboratory as having the potential to affect the quality of the data have been identified by the laboratory, and no information or data have been knowingly withheld that would affect the quality of the data. [Preliminary Report] Chris Ward Project Manager 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 4 of 17 Chris Ward Project Manager ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 4 of 17 91 SAMPLE RESULTS - 01 L1464568 FRIDAY-5103 Collected date/time: 02/18/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 Acetone 67-64-1 58.10 1.25 2.97 2.03 4.82 1 WG1823125 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.200 0.626 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Benzene 71-43-2 78.10 0.200 0.639 0.204 0.652 1 WG1823125 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 127 0.200 1.04 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 164 0.200 1.34 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Bromoform 75-25-2 253 0.600 6.21 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.90 0.200 0.776 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.10 2.00 4.43 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.10 0.200 0.622 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 154 0.200 1.26 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.50 0.200 0.528 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chloroform 67-66-3 119 0.200 0.973 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.50 0.200 0.413 0.661 1.37 1 WG1823125 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126 0.200 1.03 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.20 0.200 0.689 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208 0.200 1.70 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 188 0.200 1.54 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.200 0.810 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.200 0.802 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1823125 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1823125 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1823125 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1823125 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.10 1.25 2.36 1.30 2.45 1 WG1823125 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1823125 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.40 0.200 1.12 0.237 1.33 1 WG1823125 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.92 0.200 0.989 0.464 2.29 1 WG1823125 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.40 0.200 1.53 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 171 0.200 1.40 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Heptane 142-82-5 100 0.200 0.818 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 261 0.630 6.73 ND ND 1 WG1823125 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.20 0.630 2.22 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 120.20 0.200 0.983 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 84.90 0.200 0.694 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Methyl Butyl Ketone 591-78-6 100 1.25 5.11 ND ND 1 WG1823125 2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 72.10 1.25 3.69 ND ND 1 WG1823125 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 100.10 1.25 5.12 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 0.200 0.819 ND ND 1 WG1823125 MTBE 1634-04-4 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128 0.630 3.30 ND ND 1 WG1823125 2-Propanol 67-63-0 60.10 1.25 3.07 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Propene 115-07-1 42.10 1.25 2.15 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Styrene 100-42-5 104 0.200 0.851 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 168 0.200 1.37 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.200 1.36 0.219 1.49 1 WG1823125 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.10 0.200 0.590 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Toluene 108-88-3 92.10 0.500 1.88 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181 0.630 4.66 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 5 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 5 of 17 92 SAMPLE RESULTS - 01 L1464568 FRIDAY-5103 Collected date/time: 02/18/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.200 1.07 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1823125 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.22 0.200 0.934 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.200 0.511 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 106.95 0.200 0.875 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.10 0.200 0.704 ND ND 1 WG1823125 m&p-Xylene 1330-20-7 106 0.400 1.73 ND ND 1 WG1823125 o-Xylene 95-47-6 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1823125 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 83.6 WG1823125 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 6 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 6 of 17 93 SAMPLE RESULTS - 02 L1464568 SATURDAY-7680 Collected date/time: 02/18/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 Acetone 67-64-1 58.10 1.25 2.97 3.03 7.20 1 WG1823125 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.200 0.626 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Benzene 71-43-2 78.10 0.200 0.639 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 127 0.200 1.04 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 164 0.200 1.34 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Bromoform 75-25-2 253 0.600 6.21 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.90 0.200 0.776 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.10 2.00 4.43 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.10 0.200 0.622 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 154 0.200 1.26 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.50 0.200 0.528 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chloroform 67-66-3 119 0.200 0.973 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.50 0.200 0.413 0.581 1.20 1 WG1823125 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126 0.200 1.03 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.20 0.200 0.689 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208 0.200 1.70 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 188 0.200 1.54 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.200 0.810 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.200 0.802 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1823125 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1823125 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1823125 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1823125 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.10 1.25 2.36 19.0 35.8 1 WG1823125 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1823125 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.40 0.200 1.12 0.221 1.24 1 WG1823125 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.92 0.200 0.989 0.462 2.28 1 WG1823125 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.40 0.200 1.53 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 171 0.200 1.40 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Heptane 142-82-5 100 0.200 0.818 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 261 0.630 6.73 ND ND 1 WG1823125 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.20 0.630 2.22 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 120.20 0.200 0.983 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 84.90 0.200 0.694 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Methyl Butyl Ketone 591-78-6 100 1.25 5.11 ND ND 1 WG1823125 2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 72.10 1.25 3.69 ND ND 1 WG1823125 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 100.10 1.25 5.12 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 0.200 0.819 ND ND 1 WG1823125 MTBE 1634-04-4 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128 0.630 3.30 ND ND 1 WG1823125 2-Propanol 67-63-0 60.10 1.25 3.07 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Propene 115-07-1 42.10 1.25 2.15 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Styrene 100-42-5 104 0.200 0.851 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 168 0.200 1.37 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.200 1.36 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.10 0.200 0.590 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Toluene 108-88-3 92.10 0.500 1.88 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181 0.630 4.66 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 7 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 7 of 17 94 SAMPLE RESULTS - 02 L1464568 SATURDAY-7680 Collected date/time: 02/18/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.200 1.07 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1823125 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.22 0.200 0.934 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.200 0.511 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 106.95 0.200 0.875 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.10 0.200 0.704 ND ND 1 WG1823125 m&p-Xylene 1330-20-7 106 0.400 1.73 ND ND 1 WG1823125 o-Xylene 95-47-6 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1823125 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 80.7 WG1823125 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 8 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 8 of 17 95 SAMPLE RESULTS - 03 L1464568 SUNDAY-12097 Collected date/time: 02/18/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 Acetone 67-64-1 58.10 1.25 2.97 1.96 4.66 1 WG1823125 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.200 0.626 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Benzene 71-43-2 78.10 0.200 0.639 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 127 0.200 1.04 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 164 0.200 1.34 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Bromoform 75-25-2 253 0.600 6.21 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.90 0.200 0.776 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.10 2.00 4.43 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.10 0.200 0.622 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 154 0.200 1.26 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.50 0.200 0.528 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chloroform 67-66-3 119 0.200 0.973 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.50 0.200 0.413 0.701 1.45 1 WG1823125 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126 0.200 1.03 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.20 0.200 0.689 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208 0.200 1.70 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 188 0.200 1.54 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.200 0.810 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.200 0.802 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1823125 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1823125 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1823125 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1823125 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.10 1.25 2.36 21.1 39.8 1 WG1823125 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1823125 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.40 0.200 1.12 0.264 1.48 1 WG1823125 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.92 0.200 0.989 0.488 2.41 1 WG1823125 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.40 0.200 1.53 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 171 0.200 1.40 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Heptane 142-82-5 100 0.200 0.818 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 261 0.630 6.73 ND ND 1 WG1823125 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.20 0.630 2.22 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 120.20 0.200 0.983 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 84.90 0.200 0.694 1.24 4.31 1 WG1823125 Methyl Butyl Ketone 591-78-6 100 1.25 5.11 ND ND 1 WG1823125 2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 72.10 1.25 3.69 ND ND 1 WG1823125 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 100.10 1.25 5.12 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 0.200 0.819 ND ND 1 WG1823125 MTBE 1634-04-4 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128 0.630 3.30 ND ND 1 WG1823125 2-Propanol 67-63-0 60.10 1.25 3.07 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Propene 115-07-1 42.10 1.25 2.15 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Styrene 100-42-5 104 0.200 0.851 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 168 0.200 1.37 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.200 1.36 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.10 0.200 0.590 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Toluene 108-88-3 92.10 0.500 1.88 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181 0.630 4.66 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 9 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 9 of 17 96 SAMPLE RESULTS - 03 L1464568 SUNDAY-12097 Collected date/time: 02/18/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.200 1.07 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1823125 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1823125 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.22 0.200 0.934 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.200 0.511 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 106.95 0.200 0.875 ND ND 1 WG1823125 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.10 0.200 0.704 ND ND 1 WG1823125 m&p-Xylene 1330-20-7 106 0.400 1.73 ND ND 1 WG1823125 o-Xylene 95-47-6 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1823125 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 82.2 WG1823125 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 10 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 10 of 17 97 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1823125 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1464568-01,02,03 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3763585-3 02/24/22 10:33 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv Acetone U 0.584 1.25 Allyl Chloride U 0.114 0.200 Benzene U 0.0715 0.200 Benzyl Chloride U 0.0598 0.200 Bromodichloromethane U 0.0702 0.200 Bromoform U 0.0732 0.600 Bromomethane U 0.0982 0.200 1,3-Butadiene U 0.104 2.00 Carbon disulfide U 0.102 0.200 Carbon tetrachloride U 0.0732 0.200 Chlorobenzene U 0.0832 0.200 Chloroethane U 0.0996 0.200 Chloroform U 0.0717 0.200 Chloromethane U 0.103 0.200 2-Chlorotoluene U 0.0828 0.200 Cyclohexane U 0.0753 0.200 Dibromochloromethane U 0.0727 0.200 1,2-Dibromoethane U 0.0721 0.200 1,2-Dichlorobenzene U 0.128 0.200 1,3-Dichlorobenzene U 0.182 0.200 1,4-Dichlorobenzene U 0.0557 0.200 1,2-Dichloroethane U 0.0700 0.200 1,1-Dichloroethane U 0.0723 0.200 1,1-Dichloroethene U 0.0762 0.200 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene U 0.0784 0.200 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene U 0.0673 0.200 1,2-Dichloropropane U 0.0760 0.200 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U 0.0689 0.200 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene U 0.0728 0.200 1,4-Dioxane U 0.0833 0.200 Ethylbenzene U 0.0835 0.200 4-Ethyltoluene U 0.0783 0.200 Trichlorofluoromethane U 0.0819 0.200 Dichlorodifluoromethane U 0.137 0.200 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane U 0.0793 0.200 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane U 0.0890 0.200 Heptane U 0.104 0.200 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene U 0.105 0.630 n-Hexane U 0.206 0.630 Isopropylbenzene U 0.0777 0.200 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 11 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 11 of 17 98 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1823125 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1464568-01,02,03 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3763585-3 02/24/22 10:33 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv Methylene Chloride U 0.0979 0.200 Methyl Butyl Ketone U 0.133 1.25 2-Butanone (MEK)U 0.0814 1.25 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) U 0.0765 1.25 Methyl Methacrylate U 0.0876 0.200 MTBE U 0.0647 0.200 Naphthalene U 0.350 0.630 2-Propanol U 0.264 1.25 Propene 0.137 J 0.0932 1.25 Styrene U 0.0788 0.200 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane U 0.0743 0.200 Tetrachloroethylene U 0.0814 0.200 Tetrahydrofuran U 0.0734 0.200 Toluene U 0.0870 0.500 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene U 0.148 0.630 1,1,1-Trichloroethane U 0.0736 0.200 1,1,2-Trichloroethane U 0.0775 0.200 Trichloroethylene U 0.0680 0.200 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene U 0.0764 0.200 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene U 0.0779 0.200 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane U 0.133 0.200 Vinyl chloride U 0.0949 0.200 Vinyl Bromide U 0.0852 0.200 Vinyl acetate U 0.116 0.200 m&p-Xylene U 0.135 0.400 o-Xylene U 0.0828 0.200 Ethanol U 0.265 1.25 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 83.8 60.0-140 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3763585-1 02/24/22 09:08 • (LCSD) R3763585-2 02/24/22 09:51 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv %%%%% Ethanol 3.75 3.33 3.42 88.8 91.2 55.0-148 2.67 25 Propene 3.75 3.52 3.47 93.9 92.5 64.0-144 1.43 25 Dichlorodifluoromethane 3.75 4.11 4.02 110 107 64.0-139 2.21 25 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 3.75 4.09 4.05 109 108 70.0-130 0.983 25 Chloromethane 3.75 3.93 3.84 105 102 70.0-130 2.32 25 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 12 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 12 of 17 99 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1823125 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1464568-01,02,03 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3763585-1 02/24/22 09:08 • (LCSD) R3763585-2 02/24/22 09:51 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv %%%%% Vinyl chloride 3.75 3.57 3.61 95.2 96.3 70.0-130 1.11 25 1,3-Butadiene 3.75 3.33 3.51 88.8 93.6 70.0-130 5.26 25 Bromomethane 3.75 3.61 3.71 96.3 98.9 70.0-130 2.73 25 Chloroethane 3.75 3.54 3.76 94.4 100 70.0-130 6.03 25 Trichlorofluoromethane 3.75 3.89 3.89 104 104 70.0-130 0.000 25 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 3.75 3.89 3.92 104 105 70.0-130 0.768 25 1,1-Dichloroethene 3.75 3.64 3.62 97.1 96.5 70.0-130 0.551 25 1,1-Dichloroethane 3.75 3.75 3.76 100 100 70.0-130 0.266 25 Acetone 3.75 3.34 3.38 89.1 90.1 70.0-130 1.19 25 2-Propanol 3.75 3.31 3.37 88.3 89.9 70.0-139 1.80 25 Carbon disulfide 3.75 3.52 3.55 93.9 94.7 70.0-130 0.849 25 Methylene Chloride 3.75 3.54 3.46 94.4 92.3 70.0-130 2.29 25 MTBE 3.75 3.67 3.69 97.9 98.4 70.0-130 0.543 25 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.75 3.65 3.67 97.3 97.9 70.0-130 0.546 25 n-Hexane 3.75 3.57 3.65 95.2 97.3 70.0-130 2.22 25 Vinyl acetate 3.75 3.07 2.94 81.9 78.4 70.0-130 4.33 25 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 3.75 3.77 3.75 101 100 70.0-130 0.532 25 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.75 3.73 3.70 99.5 98.7 70.0-130 0.808 25 Chloroform 3.75 3.80 3.80 101 101 70.0-130 0.000 25 Cyclohexane 3.75 3.99 3.90 106 104 70.0-130 2.28 25 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 3.75 3.99 3.89 106 104 70.0-130 2.54 25 Carbon tetrachloride 3.75 4.01 3.97 107 106 70.0-130 1.00 25 Benzene 3.75 4.00 3.94 107 105 70.0-130 1.51 25 1,2-Dichloroethane 3.75 3.85 3.78 103 101 70.0-130 1.83 25 Heptane 3.75 3.66 3.59 97.6 95.7 70.0-130 1.93 25 Trichloroethylene 3.75 4.12 4.04 110 108 70.0-130 1.96 25 1,2-Dichloropropane 3.75 3.96 3.86 106 103 70.0-130 2.56 25 1,4-Dioxane 3.75 4.07 3.97 109 106 70.0-140 2.49 25 Bromodichloromethane 3.75 4.00 3.91 107 104 70.0-130 2.28 25 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 3.75 4.04 3.88 108 103 70.0-130 4.04 25 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 3.75 3.76 3.59 100 95.7 70.0-139 4.63 25 Toluene 3.75 4.14 4.04 110 108 70.0-130 2.44 25 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 3.75 3.96 3.82 106 102 70.0-130 3.60 25 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.75 4.20 4.11 112 110 70.0-130 2.17 25 Tetrachloroethylene 3.75 4.51 4.43 120 118 70.0-130 1.79 25 Methyl Butyl Ketone 3.75 3.82 3.78 102 101 70.0-149 1.05 25 Dibromochloromethane 3.75 4.28 4.22 114 113 70.0-130 1.41 25 1,2-Dibromoethane 3.75 4.23 4.12 113 110 70.0-130 2.63 25 Chlorobenzene 3.75 4.46 4.34 119 116 70.0-130 2.73 25 Ethylbenzene 3.75 4.12 4.07 110 109 70.0-130 1.22 25 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 13 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 13 of 17 100 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1823125 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1464568-01,02,03 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3763585-1 02/24/22 09:08 • (LCSD) R3763585-2 02/24/22 09:51 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv %%%%% m&p-Xylene 7.50 8.29 8.24 111 110 70.0-130 0.605 25 o-Xylene 3.75 4.05 4.02 108 107 70.0-130 0.743 25 Styrene 3.75 4.30 4.26 115 114 70.0-130 0.935 25 Bromoform 3.75 4.23 4.18 113 111 70.0-130 1.19 25 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 3.75 3.66 3.65 97.6 97.3 70.0-130 0.274 25 4-Ethyltoluene 3.75 3.77 3.68 101 98.1 70.0-130 2.42 25 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 3.75 3.97 3.85 106 103 70.0-130 3.07 25 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 3.75 3.80 3.70 101 98.7 70.0-130 2.67 25 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 3.75 4.01 3.92 107 105 70.0-130 2.27 25 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 3.75 4.17 4.08 111 109 70.0-130 2.18 25 Benzyl Chloride 3.75 3.84 3.76 102 100 70.0-152 2.11 25 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 3.75 4.03 3.98 107 106 70.0-130 1.25 25 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 3.75 4.41 4.19 118 112 70.0-160 5.12 25 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 3.75 4.60 4.39 123 117 70.0-151 4.67 25 Naphthalene 3.75 4.08 3.98 109 106 70.0-159 2.48 25 Allyl Chloride 3.75 3.08 3.12 82.1 83.2 70.0-130 1.29 25 2-Chlorotoluene 3.75 3.87 3.81 103 102 70.0-130 1.56 25 Methyl Methacrylate 3.75 3.70 3.57 98.7 95.2 70.0-130 3.58 25 Tetrahydrofuran 3.75 3.38 3.37 90.1 89.9 70.0-137 0.296 25 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 3.75 3.82 3.79 102 101 70.0-130 0.788 25 Vinyl Bromide 3.75 3.73 3.82 99.5 102 70.0-130 2.38 25 Isopropylbenzene 3.75 4.19 4.18 112 111 70.0-130 0.239 25 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 85.2 86.7 60.0-140 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 14 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 14 of 17 101 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Guide to Reading and Understanding Your Laboratory Report The information below is designed to better explain the various terms used in your report of analytical results from the Laboratory. This is not intended as a comprehensive explanation, and if you have additional questions please contact your project representative. Results Disclaimer - Information that may be provided by the customer, and contained within this report, include Permit Limits, Project Name, Sample ID, Sample Matrix, Sample Preservation, Field Blanks, Field Spikes, Field Duplicates, On-Site Data, Sampling Collection Dates/Times, and Sampling Location. Results relate to the accuracy of this information provided, and as the samples are received. Abbreviations and Definitions MDL Method Detection Limit. ND Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable). RDL Reported Detection Limit. Rec.Recovery. RPD Relative Percent Difference. SDG Sample Delivery Group. (S) Surrogate (Surrogate Standard) - Analytes added to every blank, sample, Laboratory Control Sample/Duplicate and Matrix Spike/Duplicate; used to evaluate analytical efficiency by measuring recovery. Surrogates are not expected to be detected in all environmental media. U Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable). Analyte The name of the particular compound or analysis performed. Some Analyses and Methods will have multiple analytes reported. Dilution If the sample matrix contains an interfering material, the sample preparation volume or weight values differ from the standard, or if concentrations of analytes in the sample are higher than the highest limit of concentration that the laboratory can accurately report, the sample may be diluted for analysis. If a value different than 1 is used in this field, the result reported has already been corrected for this factor. Limits These are the target % recovery ranges or % difference value that the laboratory has historically determined as normal for the method and analyte being reported. Successful QC Sample analysis will target all analytes recovered or duplicated within these ranges. Qualifier This column provides a letter and/or number designation that corresponds to additional information concerning the result reported. If a Qualifier is present, a definition per Qualifier is provided within the Glossary and Definitions page and potentially a discussion of possible implications of the Qualifier in the Case Narrative if applicable. Result The actual analytical final result (corrected for any sample specific characteristics) reported for your sample. If there was no measurable result returned for a specific analyte, the result in this column may state “ND” (Not Detected) or “BDL” (Below Detectable Levels). The information in the results column should always be accompanied by either an MDL (Method Detection Limit) or RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) that defines the lowest value that the laboratory could detect or report for this analyte. Uncertainty (Radiochemistry)Confidence level of 2 sigma. Case Narrative (Cn) A brief discussion about the included sample results, including a discussion of any non-conformances to protocol observed either at sample receipt by the laboratory from the field or during the analytical process. If present, there will be a section in the Case Narrative to discuss the meaning of any data qualifiers used in the report. Quality Control Summary (Qc) This section of the report includes the results of the laboratory quality control analyses required by procedure or analytical methods to assist in evaluating the validity of the results reported for your samples. These analyses are not being performed on your samples typically, but on laboratory generated material. Sample Chain of Custody (Sc) This is the document created in the field when your samples were initially collected. This is used to verify the time and date of collection, the person collecting the samples, and the analyses that the laboratory is requested to perform. This chain of custody also documents all persons (excluding commercial shippers) that have had control or possession of the samples from the time of collection until delivery to the laboratory for analysis. Sample Results (Sr) This section of your report will provide the results of all testing performed on your samples. These results are provided by sample ID and are separated by the analyses performed on each sample. The header line of each analysis section for each sample will provide the name and method number for the analysis reported. Sample Summary (Ss)This section of the Analytical Report defines the specific analyses performed for each sample ID, including the dates and times of preparation and/or analysis. Qualifier Description J The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate. 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 15 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 15 of 17 102 Pace Analytical National 12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 Alabama 40660 Nebraska NE-OS-15-05 Alaska 17-026 Nevada TN000032021-1 Arizona AZ0612 New Hampshire 2975 Arkansas 88-0469 New Jersey–NELAP TN002 California 2932 New Mexico ¹TN00003 Colorado TN00003 New York 11742 Connecticut PH-0197 North Carolina Env375 Florida E87487 North Carolina ¹DW21704 Georgia NELAP North Carolina ³41 Georgia ¹923 North Dakota R-140 Idaho TN00003 Ohio–VAP CL0069 Illinois 200008 Oklahoma 9915 Indiana C-TN-01 Oregon TN200002 Iowa 364 Pennsylvania 68-02979 Kansas E-10277 Rhode Island LAO00356 Kentucky ¹ ⁶KY90010 South Carolina 84004002 Kentucky ²16 South Dakota n/a Louisiana AI30792 Tennessee ¹ ⁴2006 Louisiana LA018 Texas T104704245-20-18 Maine TN00003 Texas ⁵LAB0152 Maryland 324 Utah TN000032021-11 Massachusetts M-TN003 Vermont VT2006 Michigan 9958 Virginia 110033 Minnesota 047-999-395 Washington C847 Mississippi TN00003 West Virginia 233 Missouri 340 Wisconsin 998093910 Montana CERT0086 Wyoming A2LA A2LA – ISO 17025 1461.01 AIHA-LAP,LLC EMLAP 100789 A2LA – ISO 17025 ⁵1461.02 DOD 1461.01 Canada 1461.01 USDA P330-15-00234 EPA–Crypto TN00003 ACCREDITATIONS & LOCATIONS ¹ Drinking Water ² Underground Storage Tanks ³ Aquatic Toxicity ⁴ Chemical/Microbiological ⁵ Mold ⁶ Wastewater n/a Accreditation not applicable * Not all certifications held by the laboratory are applicable to the results reported in the attached report. * Accreditation is only applicable to the test methods specified on each scope of accreditation held by Pace Analytical. 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 02/28/22 19:32 16 of 17 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1464568 03/01/22 11:11 16 of 17 103 104 ANALYTICAL REPORT March 08, 2022 Air Resource Specialists Sample Delivery Group:L1468257 Samples Received:03/05/2022 Project Number:ASPEN-AHP Description:VOC Survey Report To:Christian Kirk 1901 Sharp Point Drive Suite F Fort Collins, CO 80525 Entire Report Reviewed By: March 08, 2022 [Preliminary Report] Chris Ward Project Manager Results relate only to the items tested or calibrated and are reported as rounded values. This test report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. Where applicable, sampling conducted by Pace Analytical National is performed per guidance provided in laboratory standard operating procedures ENV-SOP-MTJL-0067 and ENV-SOP-MTJL-0068. Where sampling conducted by the customer, results relate to the accuracy of the information provided, and as the samples are received. Pace Analytical National 12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 615-758-5858 800-767-5859 www.pacenational.com 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 1 of 26 March 08, 2022 Chris Ward Project Manager ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 1 of 26 105 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cp: Cover Page 1 Tc: Table of Contents 2 Ss: Sample Summary 3 Cn: Case Narrative 4 Sr: Sample Results 5 FRIDAY-11871 L1468257-01 5 SATURDAY-9834 L1468257-02 7 SUNDAY-11214 L1468257-03 9 MONDAY-10007 L1468257-04 11 TUESDAY-8961 L1468257-05 13 WEDNESDAY-9348 L1468257-06 15 GRAB#1-7348 L1468257-07 17 Qc: Quality Control Summary 19 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 19 Gl: Glossary of Terms 24 Al: Accreditations & Locations 25 Sc: Sample Chain of Custody 26 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 2 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 2 of 26 106 SAMPLE SUMMARY Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time FRIDAY-11871 L1468257-01 Air C. Kirk 02/25/22 00:00 03/05/22 09:30 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1828106 1 03/06/22 20:35 03/06/22 20:35 FKG Mt. Juliet, TN Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1828488 1 03/07/22 12:15 03/07/22 12:15 DAH Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time SATURDAY-9834 L1468257-02 Air C. Kirk 02/26/22 00:00 03/05/22 09:30 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1828106 1 03/06/22 21:15 03/06/22 21:15 FKG Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time SUNDAY-11214 L1468257-03 Air C. Kirk 02/27/22 00:00 03/05/22 09:30 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1828106 1 03/06/22 21:54 03/06/22 21:54 FKG Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time MONDAY-10007 L1468257-04 Air C. Kirk 02/28/22 00:00 03/05/22 09:30 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1828106 1 03/06/22 22:35 03/06/22 22:35 FKG Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time TUESDAY-8961 L1468257-05 Air C. Kirk 03/01/22 00:00 03/05/22 09:30 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1828106 1 03/07/22 00:45 03/07/22 00:45 FKG Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time WEDNESDAY-9348 L1468257-06 Air C. Kirk 03/02/22 00:00 03/05/22 09:30 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1828106 1 03/06/22 23:15 03/06/22 23:15 FKG Mt. Juliet, TN Collected by Collected date/time Received date/time GRAB#1-7348 L1468257-07 Air C. Kirk 03/01/22 17:13 03/05/22 09:30 Method Batch Dilution Preparation Analysis Analyst Location date/time date/time Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 WG1828106 1 03/06/22 23:56 03/06/22 23:56 FKG Mt. Juliet, TN 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 3 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 3 of 26 107 CASE NARRATIVE All sample aliquots were received at the correct temperature, in the proper containers, with the appropriate preservatives, and within method specified holding times, unless qualified or notated within the report. Where applicable, all MDL (LOD) and RDL (LOQ) values reported for environmental samples have been corrected for the dilution factor used in the analysis. All Method and Batch Quality Control are within established criteria except where addressed in this case narrative, a non-conformance form or properly qualified within the sample results. By my digital signature below, I affirm to the best of my knowledge, all problems/anomalies observed by the laboratory as having the potential to affect the quality of the data have been identified by the laboratory, and no information or data have been knowingly withheld that would affect the quality of the data. [Preliminary Report] Chris Ward Project Manager 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 4 of 26 Chris Ward Project Manager ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 4 of 26 108 SAMPLE RESULTS - 01 L1468257 FRIDAY-11871 Collected date/time: 02/25/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 Acetone 67-64-1 58.10 1.25 2.97 2.30 5.47 1 WG1828488 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.200 0.626 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzene 71-43-2 78.10 0.200 0.639 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 127 0.200 1.04 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 164 0.200 1.34 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromoform 75-25-2 253 0.600 6.21 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.90 0.200 0.776 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.10 2.00 4.43 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.10 0.200 0.622 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 154 0.200 1.26 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.50 0.200 0.528 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroform 67-66-3 119 0.200 0.973 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.50 0.200 0.413 0.566 1.17 1 WG1828106 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126 0.200 1.03 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.20 0.200 0.689 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208 0.200 1.70 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 188 0.200 1.54 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.200 0.810 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.200 0.802 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.10 1.25 2.36 3.99 7.52 1 WG1828106 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.40 0.200 1.12 0.218 1.23 1 WG1828106 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.92 0.200 0.989 0.485 2.40 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.40 0.200 1.53 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 171 0.200 1.40 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Heptane 142-82-5 100 0.200 0.818 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 261 0.630 6.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.20 0.630 2.22 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 120.20 0.200 0.983 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 84.90 0.200 0.694 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl Butyl Ketone 591-78-6 100 1.25 5.11 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 72.10 1.25 3.69 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 100.10 1.25 5.12 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 0.200 0.819 ND ND 1 WG1828106 MTBE 1634-04-4 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128 0.630 3.30 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Propanol 67-63-0 60.10 1.25 3.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Propene 115-07-1 42.10 1.25 2.15 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Styrene 100-42-5 104 0.200 0.851 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 168 0.200 1.37 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.200 1.36 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.10 0.200 0.590 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Toluene 108-88-3 92.10 0.500 1.88 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181 0.630 4.66 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 5 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 5 of 26 109 SAMPLE RESULTS - 01 L1468257 FRIDAY-11871 Collected date/time: 02/25/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.200 1.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.22 0.200 0.934 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.200 0.511 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 106.95 0.200 0.875 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.10 0.200 0.704 ND ND 1 WG1828106 m&p-Xylene 1330-20-7 106 0.400 1.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 o-Xylene 95-47-6 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 97.9 WG1828106 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 96.1 WG1828488 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 6 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 6 of 26 110 SAMPLE RESULTS - 02 L1468257 SATURDAY-9834 Collected date/time: 02/26/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 Acetone 67-64-1 58.10 1.25 2.97 1.96 4.66 1 WG1828106 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.200 0.626 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzene 71-43-2 78.10 0.200 0.639 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 127 0.200 1.04 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 164 0.200 1.34 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromoform 75-25-2 253 0.600 6.21 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.90 0.200 0.776 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.10 2.00 4.43 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.10 0.200 0.622 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 154 0.200 1.26 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.50 0.200 0.528 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroform 67-66-3 119 0.200 0.973 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.50 0.200 0.413 0.580 1.20 1 WG1828106 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126 0.200 1.03 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.20 0.200 0.689 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208 0.200 1.70 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 188 0.200 1.54 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.200 0.810 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.200 0.802 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.10 1.25 2.36 1.48 2.79 1 WG1828106 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.40 0.200 1.12 0.207 1.16 1 WG1828106 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.92 0.200 0.989 0.490 2.42 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.40 0.200 1.53 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 171 0.200 1.40 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Heptane 142-82-5 100 0.200 0.818 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 261 0.630 6.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.20 0.630 2.22 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 120.20 0.200 0.983 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 84.90 0.200 0.694 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl Butyl Ketone 591-78-6 100 1.25 5.11 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 72.10 1.25 3.69 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 100.10 1.25 5.12 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 0.200 0.819 ND ND 1 WG1828106 MTBE 1634-04-4 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128 0.630 3.30 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Propanol 67-63-0 60.10 1.25 3.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Propene 115-07-1 42.10 1.25 2.15 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Styrene 100-42-5 104 0.200 0.851 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 168 0.200 1.37 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.200 1.36 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.10 0.200 0.590 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Toluene 108-88-3 92.10 0.500 1.88 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181 0.630 4.66 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 7 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 7 of 26 111 SAMPLE RESULTS - 02 L1468257 SATURDAY-9834 Collected date/time: 02/26/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.200 1.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.22 0.200 0.934 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.200 0.511 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 106.95 0.200 0.875 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.10 0.200 0.704 ND ND 1 WG1828106 m&p-Xylene 1330-20-7 106 0.400 1.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 o-Xylene 95-47-6 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 98.5 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 8 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 8 of 26 112 SAMPLE RESULTS - 03 L1468257 SUNDAY-11214 Collected date/time: 02/27/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 Acetone 67-64-1 58.10 1.25 2.97 2.34 5.56 1 WG1828106 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.200 0.626 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzene 71-43-2 78.10 0.200 0.639 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 127 0.200 1.04 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 164 0.200 1.34 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromoform 75-25-2 253 0.600 6.21 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.90 0.200 0.776 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.10 2.00 4.43 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.10 0.200 0.622 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 154 0.200 1.26 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.50 0.200 0.528 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroform 67-66-3 119 0.200 0.973 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.50 0.200 0.413 0.619 1.28 1 WG1828106 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126 0.200 1.03 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.20 0.200 0.689 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208 0.200 1.70 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 188 0.200 1.54 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.200 0.810 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.200 0.802 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.10 1.25 2.36 17.5 33.0 1 WG1828106 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.40 0.200 1.12 0.220 1.24 1 WG1828106 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.92 0.200 0.989 0.491 2.43 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.40 0.200 1.53 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 171 0.200 1.40 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Heptane 142-82-5 100 0.200 0.818 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 261 0.630 6.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.20 0.630 2.22 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 120.20 0.200 0.983 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 84.90 0.200 0.694 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl Butyl Ketone 591-78-6 100 1.25 5.11 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 72.10 1.25 3.69 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 100.10 1.25 5.12 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 0.200 0.819 ND ND 1 WG1828106 MTBE 1634-04-4 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128 0.630 3.30 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Propanol 67-63-0 60.10 1.25 3.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Propene 115-07-1 42.10 1.25 2.15 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Styrene 100-42-5 104 0.200 0.851 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 168 0.200 1.37 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.200 1.36 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.10 0.200 0.590 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Toluene 108-88-3 92.10 0.500 1.88 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181 0.630 4.66 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 9 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 9 of 26 113 SAMPLE RESULTS - 03 L1468257 SUNDAY-11214 Collected date/time: 02/27/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.200 1.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.22 0.200 0.934 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.200 0.511 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 106.95 0.200 0.875 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.10 0.200 0.704 ND ND 1 WG1828106 m&p-Xylene 1330-20-7 106 0.400 1.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 o-Xylene 95-47-6 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 99.5 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 10 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 10 of 26 114 SAMPLE RESULTS - 04 L1468257 MONDAY-10007 Collected date/time: 02/28/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 Acetone 67-64-1 58.10 1.25 2.97 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.200 0.626 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzene 71-43-2 78.10 0.200 0.639 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 127 0.200 1.04 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 164 0.200 1.34 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromoform 75-25-2 253 0.600 6.21 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.90 0.200 0.776 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.10 2.00 4.43 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.10 0.200 0.622 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 154 0.200 1.26 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.50 0.200 0.528 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroform 67-66-3 119 0.200 0.973 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.50 0.200 0.413 0.614 1.27 1 WG1828106 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126 0.200 1.03 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.20 0.200 0.689 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208 0.200 1.70 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 188 0.200 1.54 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.200 0.810 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.200 0.802 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.10 1.25 2.36 2.07 3.90 1 WG1828106 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.40 0.200 1.12 0.220 1.24 1 WG1828106 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.92 0.200 0.989 0.492 2.43 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.40 0.200 1.53 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 171 0.200 1.40 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Heptane 142-82-5 100 0.200 0.818 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 261 0.630 6.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.20 0.630 2.22 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 120.20 0.200 0.983 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 84.90 0.200 0.694 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl Butyl Ketone 591-78-6 100 1.25 5.11 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 72.10 1.25 3.69 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 100.10 1.25 5.12 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 0.200 0.819 ND ND 1 WG1828106 MTBE 1634-04-4 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128 0.630 3.30 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Propanol 67-63-0 60.10 1.25 3.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Propene 115-07-1 42.10 1.25 2.15 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Styrene 100-42-5 104 0.200 0.851 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 168 0.200 1.37 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.200 1.36 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.10 0.200 0.590 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Toluene 108-88-3 92.10 0.500 1.88 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181 0.630 4.66 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 11 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 11 of 26 115 SAMPLE RESULTS - 04 L1468257 MONDAY-10007 Collected date/time: 02/28/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.200 1.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.22 0.200 0.934 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.200 0.511 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 106.95 0.200 0.875 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.10 0.200 0.704 ND ND 1 WG1828106 m&p-Xylene 1330-20-7 106 0.400 1.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 o-Xylene 95-47-6 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 97.6 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 12 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 12 of 26 116 SAMPLE RESULTS - 05 L1468257 TUESDAY-8961 Collected date/time: 03/01/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 Acetone 67-64-1 58.10 1.25 2.97 1.96 4.66 1 WG1828106 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.200 0.626 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzene 71-43-2 78.10 0.200 0.639 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 127 0.200 1.04 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 164 0.200 1.34 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromoform 75-25-2 253 0.600 6.21 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.90 0.200 0.776 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.10 2.00 4.43 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.10 0.200 0.622 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 154 0.200 1.26 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.50 0.200 0.528 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroform 67-66-3 119 0.200 0.973 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.50 0.200 0.413 0.718 1.48 1 WG1828106 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126 0.200 1.03 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.20 0.200 0.689 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208 0.200 1.70 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 188 0.200 1.54 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.200 0.810 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.200 0.802 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.10 1.25 2.36 4.29 8.09 1 WG1828106 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.40 0.200 1.12 0.250 1.40 1 WG1828106 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.92 0.200 0.989 0.536 2.65 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.40 0.200 1.53 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 171 0.200 1.40 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Heptane 142-82-5 100 0.200 0.818 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 261 0.630 6.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.20 0.630 2.22 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 120.20 0.200 0.983 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 84.90 0.200 0.694 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl Butyl Ketone 591-78-6 100 1.25 5.11 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 72.10 1.25 3.69 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 100.10 1.25 5.12 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 0.200 0.819 ND ND 1 WG1828106 MTBE 1634-04-4 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128 0.630 3.30 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Propanol 67-63-0 60.10 1.25 3.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Propene 115-07-1 42.10 1.25 2.15 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Styrene 100-42-5 104 0.200 0.851 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 168 0.200 1.37 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.200 1.36 0.202 1.37 1 WG1828106 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.10 0.200 0.590 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Toluene 108-88-3 92.10 0.500 1.88 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181 0.630 4.66 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 13 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 13 of 26 117 SAMPLE RESULTS - 05 L1468257 TUESDAY-8961 Collected date/time: 03/01/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.200 1.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.22 0.200 0.934 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.200 0.511 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 106.95 0.200 0.875 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.10 0.200 0.704 ND ND 1 WG1828106 m&p-Xylene 1330-20-7 106 0.400 1.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 o-Xylene 95-47-6 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 101 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 14 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 14 of 26 118 SAMPLE RESULTS - 06 L1468257 WEDNESDAY-9348 Collected date/time: 03/02/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 Acetone 67-64-1 58.10 1.25 2.97 1.51 3.59 1 WG1828106 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.200 0.626 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzene 71-43-2 78.10 0.200 0.639 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 127 0.200 1.04 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 164 0.200 1.34 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromoform 75-25-2 253 0.600 6.21 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.90 0.200 0.776 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.10 2.00 4.43 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.10 0.200 0.622 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 154 0.200 1.26 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.50 0.200 0.528 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroform 67-66-3 119 0.200 0.973 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.50 0.200 0.413 0.605 1.25 1 WG1828106 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126 0.200 1.03 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.20 0.200 0.689 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208 0.200 1.70 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 188 0.200 1.54 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.200 0.810 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.200 0.802 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.10 1.25 2.36 2.16 4.07 1 WG1828106 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.40 0.200 1.12 0.229 1.29 1 WG1828106 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.92 0.200 0.989 0.488 2.41 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.40 0.200 1.53 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 171 0.200 1.40 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Heptane 142-82-5 100 0.200 0.818 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 261 0.630 6.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.20 0.630 2.22 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 120.20 0.200 0.983 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 84.90 0.200 0.694 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl Butyl Ketone 591-78-6 100 1.25 5.11 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 72.10 1.25 3.69 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 100.10 1.25 5.12 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 0.200 0.819 ND ND 1 WG1828106 MTBE 1634-04-4 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128 0.630 3.30 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Propanol 67-63-0 60.10 1.25 3.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Propene 115-07-1 42.10 1.25 2.15 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Styrene 100-42-5 104 0.200 0.851 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 168 0.200 1.37 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.200 1.36 0.327 2.22 1 WG1828106 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.10 0.200 0.590 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Toluene 108-88-3 92.10 0.500 1.88 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181 0.630 4.66 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 15 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 15 of 26 119 SAMPLE RESULTS - 06 L1468257 WEDNESDAY-9348 Collected date/time: 03/02/22 00:00 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.200 1.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.22 0.200 0.934 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.200 0.511 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 106.95 0.200 0.875 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.10 0.200 0.704 ND ND 1 WG1828106 m&p-Xylene 1330-20-7 106 0.400 1.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 o-Xylene 95-47-6 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 99.3 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 16 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 16 of 26 120 SAMPLE RESULTS - 07 L1468257 GRAB#1-7348 Collected date/time: 03/01/22 17:13 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 Acetone 67-64-1 58.10 1.25 2.97 2.52 5.99 1 WG1828106 Allyl chloride 107-05-1 76.53 0.200 0.626 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Benzene 71-43-2 78.10 0.200 0.639 0.572 1.83 1 WG1828106 Benzyl Chloride 100-44-7 127 0.200 1.04 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 164 0.200 1.34 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromoform 75-25-2 253 0.600 6.21 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Bromomethane 74-83-9 94.90 0.200 0.776 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Butadiene 106-99-0 54.10 2.00 4.43 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 76.10 0.200 0.622 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 154 0.200 1.26 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroethane 75-00-3 64.50 0.200 0.528 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloroform 67-66-3 119 0.200 0.973 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Chloromethane 74-87-3 50.50 0.200 0.413 0.607 1.25 1 WG1828106 2-Chlorotoluene 95-49-8 126 0.200 1.03 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Cyclohexane 110-82-7 84.20 0.200 0.689 0.249 0.857 1 WG1828106 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 208 0.200 1.70 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4 188 0.200 1.54 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 147 0.200 1.20 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 99 0.200 0.810 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 98 0.200 0.802 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 96.90 0.200 0.793 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 113 0.200 0.924 ND ND 1 WG1828106 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 111 0.200 0.908 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Ethanol 64-17-5 46.10 1.25 2.36 8.21 15.5 1 WG1828106 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 106 0.200 0.867 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 137.40 0.200 1.12 0.225 1.26 1 WG1828106 Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 120.92 0.200 0.989 0.486 2.40 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 76-13-1 187.40 0.200 1.53 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 76-14-2 171 0.200 1.40 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Heptane 142-82-5 100 0.200 0.818 0.254 1.04 1 WG1828106 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 87-68-3 261 0.630 6.73 ND ND 1 WG1828106 n-Hexane 110-54-3 86.20 0.630 2.22 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 120.20 0.200 0.983 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 84.90 0.200 0.694 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl Butyl Ketone 591-78-6 100 1.25 5.11 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Butanone (MEK)78-93-3 72.10 1.25 3.69 ND ND 1 WG1828106 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 108-10-1 100.10 1.25 5.12 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6 100.12 0.200 0.819 ND ND 1 WG1828106 MTBE 1634-04-4 88.10 0.200 0.721 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Naphthalene 91-20-3 128 0.630 3.30 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2-Propanol 67-63-0 60.10 1.25 3.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Propene 115-07-1 42.10 1.25 2.15 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Styrene 100-42-5 104 0.200 0.851 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 168 0.200 1.37 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 166 0.200 1.36 0.327 2.22 1 WG1828106 Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 72.10 0.200 0.590 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Toluene 108-88-3 92.10 0.500 1.88 1.17 4.41 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 181 0.630 4.66 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 17 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 17 of 26 121 SAMPLE RESULTS - 07 L1468257 GRAB#1-7348 Collected date/time: 03/01/22 17:13 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 CAS # Mol. Wt. RDL1 RDL2 Result Result Qualifier Dilution Batch Analyte ppbv ug/m3 ppbv ug/m3 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 133 0.200 1.09 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 131 0.200 1.07 ND ND 1 WG1828106 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 120 0.200 0.982 0.215 1.06 1 WG1828106 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 120 0.200 0.982 ND ND 1 WG1828106 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 540-84-1 114.22 0.200 0.934 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 62.50 0.200 0.511 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2 106.95 0.200 0.875 ND ND 1 WG1828106 Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 86.10 0.200 0.704 ND ND 1 WG1828106 m&p-Xylene 1330-20-7 106 0.400 1.73 0.683 2.96 1 WG1828106 o-Xylene 95-47-6 106 0.200 0.867 0.246 1.07 1 WG1828106 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 460-00-4 175 60.0-140 97.7 WG1828106 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 18 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 18 of 26 122 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1828106 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1468257-01,02,03,04,05,06,07 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3767010-3 03/06/22 09:52 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv Acetone U 0.584 1.25 Allyl Chloride U 0.114 0.200 Benzene U 0.0715 0.200 Benzyl Chloride U 0.0598 0.200 Bromodichloromethane U 0.0702 0.200 Bromoform U 0.0732 0.600 Bromomethane U 0.0982 0.200 1,3-Butadiene U 0.104 2.00 Carbon disulfide U 0.102 0.200 Carbon tetrachloride U 0.0732 0.200 Chlorobenzene U 0.0832 0.200 Chloroethane U 0.0996 0.200 Chloroform U 0.0717 0.200 Chloromethane U 0.103 0.200 2-Chlorotoluene U 0.0828 0.200 Cyclohexane U 0.0753 0.200 Dibromochloromethane U 0.0727 0.200 1,2-Dibromoethane U 0.0721 0.200 1,2-Dichlorobenzene U 0.128 0.200 1,3-Dichlorobenzene U 0.182 0.200 1,4-Dichlorobenzene U 0.0557 0.200 1,2-Dichloroethane U 0.0700 0.200 1,1-Dichloroethane U 0.0723 0.200 1,1-Dichloroethene U 0.0762 0.200 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene U 0.0784 0.200 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene U 0.0673 0.200 1,2-Dichloropropane U 0.0760 0.200 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U 0.0689 0.200 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene U 0.0728 0.200 1,4-Dioxane U 0.0833 0.200 Ethanol U 0.265 1.25 Ethylbenzene U 0.0835 0.200 4-Ethyltoluene U 0.0783 0.200 Trichlorofluoromethane U 0.0819 0.200 Dichlorodifluoromethane U 0.137 0.200 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane U 0.0793 0.200 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane U 0.0890 0.200 Heptane U 0.104 0.200 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene U 0.105 0.630 n-Hexane U 0.206 0.630 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 19 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 19 of 26 123 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1828106 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1468257-01,02,03,04,05,06,07 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3767010-3 03/06/22 09:52 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv Isopropylbenzene U 0.0777 0.200 Methylene Chloride U 0.0979 0.200 Methyl Butyl Ketone U 0.133 1.25 2-Butanone (MEK)U 0.0814 1.25 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) U 0.0765 1.25 Methyl Methacrylate U 0.0876 0.200 MTBE U 0.0647 0.200 Naphthalene U 0.350 0.630 2-Propanol U 0.264 1.25 Propene U 0.0932 1.25 Styrene U 0.0788 0.200 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane U 0.0743 0.200 Tetrachloroethylene U 0.0814 0.200 Tetrahydrofuran U 0.0734 0.200 Toluene U 0.0870 0.500 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene U 0.148 0.630 1,1,1-Trichloroethane U 0.0736 0.200 1,1,2-Trichloroethane U 0.0775 0.200 Trichloroethylene U 0.0680 0.200 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene U 0.0764 0.200 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene U 0.0779 0.200 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane U 0.133 0.200 Vinyl chloride U 0.0949 0.200 Vinyl Bromide U 0.0852 0.200 Vinyl acetate U 0.116 0.200 m&p-Xylene U 0.135 0.400 o-Xylene U 0.0828 0.200 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 98.2 60.0-140 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3767010-1 03/06/22 08:34 • (LCSD) R3767010-2 03/06/22 09:13 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv %%%%% Acetone 3.75 3.84 3.81 102 102 70.0-130 0.784 25 Allyl Chloride 3.75 3.90 4.12 104 110 70.0-130 5.49 25 Benzene 3.75 3.95 3.90 105 104 70.0-130 1.27 25 Benzyl Chloride 3.75 4.03 4.02 107 107 70.0-152 0.248 25 Bromodichloromethane 3.75 3.95 3.92 105 105 70.0-130 0.762 25 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 20 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 20 of 26 124 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1828106 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1468257-01,02,03,04,05,06,07 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3767010-1 03/06/22 08:34 • (LCSD) R3767010-2 03/06/22 09:13 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv %%%%% Bromoform 3.75 3.86 3.84 103 102 70.0-130 0.519 25 Bromomethane 3.75 3.77 3.78 101 101 70.0-130 0.265 25 1,3-Butadiene 3.75 3.86 3.75 103 100 70.0-130 2.89 25 Carbon disulfide 3.75 3.88 3.88 103 103 70.0-130 0.000 25 Carbon tetrachloride 3.75 3.82 3.83 102 102 70.0-130 0.261 25 Chlorobenzene 3.75 3.94 3.94 105 105 70.0-130 0.000 25 Chloroethane 3.75 3.80 3.83 101 102 70.0-130 0.786 25 Chloroform 3.75 3.84 3.87 102 103 70.0-130 0.778 25 Chloromethane 3.75 3.87 3.89 103 104 70.0-130 0.515 25 2-Chlorotoluene 3.75 3.94 3.93 105 105 70.0-130 0.254 25 Cyclohexane 3.75 3.89 3.89 104 104 70.0-130 0.000 25 Dibromochloromethane 3.75 3.97 3.94 106 105 70.0-130 0.759 25 1,2-Dibromoethane 3.75 3.94 3.94 105 105 70.0-130 0.000 25 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 3.75 3.95 3.93 105 105 70.0-130 0.508 25 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 3.75 3.94 3.95 105 105 70.0-130 0.253 25 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 3.75 4.02 4.03 107 107 70.0-130 0.248 25 1,2-Dichloroethane 3.75 3.87 3.91 103 104 70.0-130 1.03 25 1,1-Dichloroethane 3.75 3.85 3.90 103 104 70.0-130 1.29 25 1,1-Dichloroethene 3.75 3.89 3.91 104 104 70.0-130 0.513 25 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.75 3.93 3.86 105 103 70.0-130 1.80 25 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 3.75 3.86 3.88 103 103 70.0-130 0.517 25 1,2-Dichloropropane 3.75 3.94 3.93 105 105 70.0-130 0.254 25 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 3.75 3.91 3.89 104 104 70.0-130 0.513 25 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 3.75 3.97 3.91 106 104 70.0-130 1.52 25 1,4-Dioxane 3.75 3.99 3.88 106 103 70.0-140 2.80 25 Ethanol 3.75 4.04 4.02 108 107 55.0-148 0.496 25 Ethylbenzene 3.75 3.91 3.88 104 103 70.0-130 0.770 25 4-Ethyltoluene 3.75 4.01 3.99 107 106 70.0-130 0.500 25 Trichlorofluoromethane 3.75 3.87 3.89 103 104 70.0-130 0.515 25 Dichlorodifluoromethane 3.75 3.90 3.89 104 104 64.0-139 0.257 25 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 3.75 3.81 3.83 102 102 70.0-130 0.524 25 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 3.75 3.89 3.89 104 104 70.0-130 0.000 25 Heptane 3.75 4.05 4.00 108 107 70.0-130 1.24 25 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene 3.75 3.93 3.86 105 103 70.0-151 1.80 25 n-Hexane 3.75 3.89 3.90 104 104 70.0-130 0.257 25 Isopropylbenzene 3.75 3.98 3.96 106 106 70.0-130 0.504 25 Methylene Chloride 3.75 3.88 3.90 103 104 70.0-130 0.514 25 Methyl Butyl Ketone 3.75 4.07 4.08 109 109 70.0-149 0.245 25 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 3.75 3.86 3.86 103 103 70.0-130 0.000 25 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 3.75 3.99 3.98 106 106 70.0-139 0.251 25 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 21 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 21 of 26 125 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1828106 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1468257-01,02,03,04,05,06,07 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3767010-1 03/06/22 08:34 • (LCSD) R3767010-2 03/06/22 09:13 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv %%%%% Methyl Methacrylate 3.75 3.98 3.92 106 105 70.0-130 1.52 25 MTBE 3.75 3.86 3.84 103 102 70.0-130 0.519 25 Naphthalene 3.75 4.18 4.20 111 112 70.0-159 0.477 25 2-Propanol 3.75 3.81 3.81 102 102 70.0-139 0.000 25 Propene 3.75 3.85 3.91 103 104 64.0-144 1.55 25 Styrene 3.75 3.99 3.99 106 106 70.0-130 0.000 25 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 3.75 3.90 3.89 104 104 70.0-130 0.257 25 Tetrachloroethylene 3.75 3.93 3.91 105 104 70.0-130 0.510 25 Tetrahydrofuran 3.75 3.92 3.92 105 105 70.0-137 0.000 25 Toluene 3.75 3.94 3.91 105 104 70.0-130 0.764 25 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 3.75 3.99 4.01 106 107 70.0-160 0.500 25 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 3.75 3.85 3.85 103 103 70.0-130 0.000 25 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.75 3.92 3.91 105 104 70.0-130 0.255 25 Trichloroethylene 3.75 3.90 3.87 104 103 70.0-130 0.772 25 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 3.75 4.01 4.02 107 107 70.0-130 0.249 25 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 3.75 4.02 3.98 107 106 70.0-130 1.00 25 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 3.75 3.88 3.92 103 105 70.0-130 1.03 25 Vinyl chloride 3.75 3.90 3.93 104 105 70.0-130 0.766 25 Vinyl Bromide 3.75 3.80 3.85 101 103 70.0-130 1.31 25 Vinyl acetate 3.75 3.75 3.66 100 97.6 70.0-130 2.43 25 m&p-Xylene 7.50 7.92 7.88 106 105 70.0-130 0.506 25 o-Xylene 3.75 3.98 3.93 106 105 70.0-130 1.26 25 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 98.5 98.5 60.0-140 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 22 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 22 of 26 126 QUALITY CONTROL SUMMARYWG1828488 Volatile Organic Compounds (MS) by Method TO-15 L1468257-01 Method Blank (MB) (MB) R3767343-3 03/07/22 10:20 MB Result MB Qualifier MB MDL MB RDL Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv Acetone U 0.584 1.25 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 95.2 60.0-140 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) • Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCSD) (LCS) R3767343-1 03/07/22 09:01 • (LCSD) R3767343-2 03/07/22 09:41 Spike Amount LCS Result LCSD Result LCS Rec. LCSD Rec. Rec. Limits LCS Qualifier LCSD Qualifier RPD RPD Limits Analyte ppbv ppbv ppbv %%%%% Acetone 3.75 3.89 3.96 104 106 70.0-130 1.78 25 (S) 1,4-Bromofluorobenzene 95.9 96.3 60.0-140 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 23 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 23 of 26 127 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Guide to Reading and Understanding Your Laboratory Report The information below is designed to better explain the various terms used in your report of analytical results from the Laboratory. This is not intended as a comprehensive explanation, and if you have additional questions please contact your project representative. Results Disclaimer - Information that may be provided by the customer, and contained within this report, include Permit Limits, Project Name, Sample ID, Sample Matrix, Sample Preservation, Field Blanks, Field Spikes, Field Duplicates, On-Site Data, Sampling Collection Dates/Times, and Sampling Location. Results relate to the accuracy of this information provided, and as the samples are received. Abbreviations and Definitions MDL Method Detection Limit. ND Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable). RDL Reported Detection Limit. Rec.Recovery. RPD Relative Percent Difference. SDG Sample Delivery Group. (S) Surrogate (Surrogate Standard) - Analytes added to every blank, sample, Laboratory Control Sample/Duplicate and Matrix Spike/Duplicate; used to evaluate analytical efficiency by measuring recovery. Surrogates are not expected to be detected in all environmental media. U Not detected at the Reporting Limit (or MDL where applicable). Analyte The name of the particular compound or analysis performed. Some Analyses and Methods will have multiple analytes reported. Dilution If the sample matrix contains an interfering material, the sample preparation volume or weight values differ from the standard, or if concentrations of analytes in the sample are higher than the highest limit of concentration that the laboratory can accurately report, the sample may be diluted for analysis. If a value different than 1 is used in this field, the result reported has already been corrected for this factor. Limits These are the target % recovery ranges or % difference value that the laboratory has historically determined as normal for the method and analyte being reported. Successful QC Sample analysis will target all analytes recovered or duplicated within these ranges. Qualifier This column provides a letter and/or number designation that corresponds to additional information concerning the result reported. If a Qualifier is present, a definition per Qualifier is provided within the Glossary and Definitions page and potentially a discussion of possible implications of the Qualifier in the Case Narrative if applicable. Result The actual analytical final result (corrected for any sample specific characteristics) reported for your sample. If there was no measurable result returned for a specific analyte, the result in this column may state “ND” (Not Detected) or “BDL” (Below Detectable Levels). The information in the results column should always be accompanied by either an MDL (Method Detection Limit) or RDL (Reporting Detection Limit) that defines the lowest value that the laboratory could detect or report for this analyte. Uncertainty (Radiochemistry)Confidence level of 2 sigma. Case Narrative (Cn) A brief discussion about the included sample results, including a discussion of any non-conformances to protocol observed either at sample receipt by the laboratory from the field or during the analytical process. If present, there will be a section in the Case Narrative to discuss the meaning of any data qualifiers used in the report. Quality Control Summary (Qc) This section of the report includes the results of the laboratory quality control analyses required by procedure or analytical methods to assist in evaluating the validity of the results reported for your samples. These analyses are not being performed on your samples typically, but on laboratory generated material. Sample Chain of Custody (Sc) This is the document created in the field when your samples were initially collected. This is used to verify the time and date of collection, the person collecting the samples, and the analyses that the laboratory is requested to perform. This chain of custody also documents all persons (excluding commercial shippers) that have had control or possession of the samples from the time of collection until delivery to the laboratory for analysis. Sample Results (Sr) This section of your report will provide the results of all testing performed on your samples. These results are provided by sample ID and are separated by the analyses performed on each sample. The header line of each analysis section for each sample will provide the name and method number for the analysis reported. Sample Summary (Ss)This section of the Analytical Report defines the specific analyses performed for each sample ID, including the dates and times of preparation and/or analysis. Qualifier Description The remainder of this page intentionally left blank, there are no qualifiers applied to this SDG. 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 24 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 24 of 26 128 Pace Analytical National 12065 Lebanon Rd Mount Juliet, TN 37122 Alabama 40660 Nebraska NE-OS-15-05 Alaska 17-026 Nevada TN000032021-1 Arizona AZ0612 New Hampshire 2975 Arkansas 88-0469 New Jersey–NELAP TN002 California 2932 New Mexico ¹TN00003 Colorado TN00003 New York 11742 Connecticut PH-0197 North Carolina Env375 Florida E87487 North Carolina ¹DW21704 Georgia NELAP North Carolina ³41 Georgia ¹923 North Dakota R-140 Idaho TN00003 Ohio–VAP CL0069 Illinois 200008 Oklahoma 9915 Indiana C-TN-01 Oregon TN200002 Iowa 364 Pennsylvania 68-02979 Kansas E-10277 Rhode Island LAO00356 Kentucky ¹ ⁶KY90010 South Carolina 84004002 Kentucky ²16 South Dakota n/a Louisiana AI30792 Tennessee ¹ ⁴2006 Louisiana LA018 Texas T104704245-20-18 Maine TN00003 Texas ⁵LAB0152 Maryland 324 Utah TN000032021-11 Massachusetts M-TN003 Vermont VT2006 Michigan 9958 Virginia 110033 Minnesota 047-999-395 Washington C847 Mississippi TN00003 West Virginia 233 Missouri 340 Wisconsin 998093910 Montana CERT0086 Wyoming A2LA A2LA – ISO 17025 1461.01 AIHA-LAP,LLC EMLAP 100789 A2LA – ISO 17025 ⁵1461.02 DOD 1461.01 Canada 1461.01 USDA P330-15-00234 EPA–Crypto TN00003 ACCREDITATIONS & LOCATIONS ¹ Drinking Water ² Underground Storage Tanks ³ Aquatic Toxicity ⁴ Chemical/Microbiological ⁵ Mold ⁶ Wastewater n/a Accreditation not applicable * Not all certifications held by the laboratory are applicable to the results reported in the attached report. * Accreditation is only applicable to the test methods specified on each scope of accreditation held by Pace Analytical. 1 Cp 2 Tc 3 Ss 4 Cn 5 Sr 6 Qc 7 Gl 8 Al 9 Sc ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 09:01 25 of 26 ACCOUNT:PROJECT:SDG:DATE/TIME:PAGE: Air Resource Specialists ASPEN-AHP L1468257 03/08/22 10:17 25 of 26 129 130 Aspen Lumberyard DRAFT Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: City of Aspen April 29, 2022 DN20-0720 Registered Colorado Professional Engineer in charge: [Hold for stamp] 131 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 6 Existing Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................ 12 2025 & 2045 Background Conditions ....................................................................................... 20 2025 & 2045 Plus Project Conditions ........................................................................................ 23 Proposed Mitigation Program ................................................................................................... 28 Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 47 Monitoring & Reporting Requirements ................................................................................... 48 Appendices Appendix A: MMLOS & TDM Spreadsheets 132 List of Figures Figure 1: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2: Location Map ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: CO 82 North of Snowmass Creek Road - 2019 Traffic Volume Data ............................................................ 9 Figure 4: Turning Movement Counts – Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 10 Figure 5: Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6: Project Only Trips ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 7: Turning Movement Counts – Existing Plus Project Conditions .................................................................... 15 Figure 8: Turning Movement Counts – 2025 .......................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 9: Turning Movement Counts – 2045 .......................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 10: Turning Movement Counts – 2025 Plus Project Conditions ....................................................................... 23 Figure 11: Turning Movement Counts – 2045 Plus Project Conditions ....................................................................... 25 Figure 12: Rubey Park to One Stop at Aspen Lumberyard ............................................................................................... 31 Figure 13: Rubey Park to Multi-stop Aspen Lumberyard Loop ...................................................................................... 33 Figure 14: Rubey Park to One Stop at Aspen Lumberyard Plus AABC, Airport Loop ............................................ 35 Figure 15: Rubey Park to Burlingame Ranch Loop Plus One Stop as Aspen Lumberyard ................................... 37 Figure 16: Rubey Park to Burlingame Ranch Loop, One Stop at Aspen Lumberyard Plus AABC, Airport Loop ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 17: Circulator Only Around Aspen Lumberyard, AABC, and Airport (Not to Aspen Core) ..................... 41 Figure 18: RFTA Snowmass Village Route ............................................................................................................................... 43 133 List of Tables Table 1: Seasonal Adjustment Calculations .............................................................................................................................. 9 Table 2: Level of Service – Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3: Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................................. 12 Table 4: Level of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions ............................................................................................ 16 Table 5: Level of Service – 2025 Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 21 Table 6: Level of Service – 2045 Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 22 Table 7: Level of Service – 2025 Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................. 24 Table 8: Level of Service – 2045 Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................. 26 Table 9: Travel Time Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 10: Option 1 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 32 Table 11: Option 2 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 34 Table 12: Option 3 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 36 Table 13: Option 4 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 38 Table 14: Option 5 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 40 Table 15: Option 6 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 42 Table 16: Option 7 Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 44 134 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 1 Executive Summary This report includes a Transportation Impact Analysis of the Aspen Lumberyard project consistent with the requirements of the City of Aspen’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The Aspen Lumberyard project is located at the site of the existing Builders FirstSource in the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC). The project will provide 276 units of affordable housing for approximately 500 residents. CO 82, multiple RFTA services, and the regional bikeways system serve the project site. This report documents the existing conditions of the transportation system, traffic generation of the proposed project, impacts of the proposed project to level of service (vehicle delay) and vehicle travel time, and proposed mitigation measures. The study area includes CO 82 from the Aspen Airport Business Center to the Maroon Creek Road roundabout. This analysis is conservative in that it analyzes the impact of the project’s maximum trip generation. While the city proposes extensive mitigation to reduce trip generation, the traffic analysis in this report presents a worst-case scenario for project trip generation. In the near term, right after people move from down valley housing to the Aspen Lumberyard, the Aspen Lumberyard project will add approximately 50 vehicle trips to the transportation system. This will result in travel times on CO 82 increasing by about a minute during rush hour. By 2025 and 2045, regional traffic growth will cause traffic congestion and delays on CO 82 to increase with or without the project. With the addition of project traffic, peak hour travel times on CO 82 will increase by two to four minutes with the addition of unmitigated project trips. Over a year, the project’s reduction in commuter miles will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 500,000- 600,000 pounds per year. The city aims to aggressively reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the Aspen Lumberyard project by operating dedicated service to/from the Aspen Lumberyard, by buying additional RFTA service, and/or by providing services to better connect the Airport RFTA stops to the Aspen Lumberyard. The city also proposes to provide Aspen Lumberyard residents with bus passes and bike share memberships. We propose these strategies as mitigation measures for the project, as well as constructing a traffic signal at the CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway intersection. While it is beyond the purview of a Transportation Impact Analysis to comment on affordable housing, there is a relationship between the Aspen Lumberyard project and reducing traffic congestion on CO 82. Specifically, reducing future traffic congestion either from regional growth or from a specific project like the Aspen Lumberyard requires providing high-quality transit service. Agencies throughout Colorado’s mountain communities, including Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley, are struggling to hire and retain bus operators, largely owing to the high cost of living and lack of affordable housing in these communities. 135 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 2 Currently, the City of Aspen and RFTA are operating less service than desired because of a lack of bus operators. Thus, affordable housing is essential for the city to increase person-mobility into and out of Aspen into the future. Lastly, providing housing close to Aspen will always reduce CO2 emissions compared to people living further down valley. People living close to Aspen are also more likely to travel to Aspen by bus or biking. 136 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 3 Introduction This Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) analyzes potential transportation impacts resulting from the proposed Aspen Lumberyard development in Aspen, Colorado. Fehr & Peers prepared this TIA in conformance with Aspen’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for a Level Two TIA. Project Description The proposed Aspen Lumberyard development is on the site currently occupied by Builders FirstSource and Aspen Mini Storage on State Highway (SH) 82. The Aspen Lumberyard development will construct affordable, multifamily housing on the site and provide a connection between Woodward Lane and the existing Builders FirstSource Driveway. Project Applicant The City of Aspen is the project applicant. Chris Everson is leading the project on behalf of the city. Chris Everson chris.everson@aspen.gov 970.429.1834 Type & Size of Development The proposed Aspen Lumberyard development includes 276 units of affordable, multifamily housing: 128 1-bedroom units, 106 2-bedroom units, and 42 3-bedroom units. The development will house approximately 520 residents. 137 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 4 Site Plan Figure 1: Site Plan 138 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 5 Location Map Figure 2: Location Map 139 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 6 Existing Conditions This section describes the existing conditions of the roadway system, transit routes, pedestrian and bicycle routes, crash history, and the existing traffic volumes and intersection level of service at the study intersections. Existing Roadway System State Highway 82 (CO 82) is a four-lane, north-south arterial roadway within the study area. It connects Interstate 70 in Glenwood Springs to Aspen through towns such as Carbondale, Basalt, and Snowmass. CO 82 provides regional mobility and provides access to a wide range of land uses including residential, commercial, industrial, and natural/conservation uses. CO 82 has a posted speed limit ranging from 45 to 55 MPH within the study area. Baltic Avenue is two-lane, east-west collector located north of the project. Baltic Avenue connects the Aspen Airport Business Center to CO 82 at a traffic signal. Baltic Avenue has a posted speed limit of 20 MPH. Sage Way is two-lane, north-south collector located north of the project. Sage Way runs parallel to CO 82 on the east side, providing north-south access within the Aspen Airport Business Center. Sage Way has a posted speed limit of 20 MPH. 200 Road is two-lane, east-west collector located north of the project. 200 Road connects the Aspen Airport Business Center to CO 82 with right-in, right-out access. 200 Road has a posted speed limit of 20 MPH. The Aspen Lumberyard driveway is an existing private access from CO 82 to the existing Builders FirstSource and Mountain Rescue Aspen. It currently has full access to CO 82. Fehr & Peers did not observe any sight distance limitations at the driveway. An Access Control Plan for CO 82 identifies the driveway as the location for a future traffic signal. Harmony Roadway is a two-lane, east-west collector located south of the project. Harmony Road generally connects residential uses to CO 82 at a traffic signal. Harmony Road has a posted speed limit of 20 MPH. Owl Creek Road is a two-lane collector located south of the project. Owl Creek Road connects to the Town of Snowmass Village, serves as access to Buttermilk Ski Resort, and otherwise provides access to rural residential properties. It connects to CO 82 at a traffic signal. Owl Creek Road has a posted speed limit of 30 MPH. Truscott Place is a two-lane local street south of the project. Truscott Place serves multifamily residential uses and the Aspen Golf Club. Truscott Place has a posted speed limit of 15 MPH. 140 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 7 Maroon Creek Road is a two-lane collector located south of the project. Maroon Creek Road serves a variety of uses including residential, Aspen Middle School, the Aspen Recreation Center, and Aspen Highlands Ski Resort. Maroon Creek Road has a posted speed limit of 30 MPH. Transit Routes The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA)provides public transportation services in the area. RFTA has a pair of stops at the Aspen Airport Business Center approximately ¼-mile from the Aspen Lumberyard development. The following RFTA routes serve these stops: • VelociRFTA (Bus Rapid Transit or BRT) – offers rapid transit between Glenwood Springs and Aspen with limited stops and frequency of 12 minutes or less during peak hours. • Roaring Fork Valley Local and Express – offers transit between Glenwood Springs and Aspen with more frequent stops. Frequency is 30 minutes during peak hours. • Snowmass Village – connects the Snowmass Village Mall to Aspen via Brush Creek Road and CO 82. Frequency is 15 minutes during peak hours Pedestrian & Bicycle Routes Two primary trails connect the Aspen Lumberyard development to the downtown Aspen: the Rio Grande Trail, which parallels the Roaring Fork River and the Aspen Airport Business Center Trail which parallels CO 82. The Stein Connector and Berlingorge Trail connect the Aspen Airport Business Center and Aspen Lumberyard development to the Rio Grand Trail. The Aspen Airport Business Center Trail connects directly to the Aspen Lumberyard Development. Sidewalks are intermittently available within the Aspen Airport Business Center, most notably along the west side of Sage Way connecting 200 Road to the RFTA stops and commercial destinations near Baltic Avenue. Study Intersections Fehr & Peers included the following study intersections in this transportation impact analysis: 1. Sage Way/Baltic Avenue (side-street STOP) 2. CO 82/Baltic Avenue (traffic signal) 3. CO 82/200 Road (side-street STOP) 4. CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway (side-street STOP) 5. CO 82/Harmony Road (traffic signal) 6. CO 82/Owl Creek Road (traffic signal) 7. CO 82/Truscott Place (traffic signal) 8. CO 82/Maroon Creek Road (roundabout) 141 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 8 Crash Data Fehr & Peers obtained five years of crash data from 2015 to 2019 (pre COVID-19) for study intersections on CO 82 from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 217 crashes occurred during the five- year period, including one that resulted in a serious injury. Approximately half of crashes occurred in snowy, icy, or wet conditions and approximately half of crashes were rear end crashes. • Sage Way/Baltic Avenue – there was no crash data available at this intersection. • CO 82/Baltic Avenue – five crashes occurred at this intersection. Two were rear end crashes. • CO 82/200 Road – three crashes occurred at this intersection. • CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway – seven crashes occurred at this intersection. Four were rear end crashes. Two crashes occurred as a result of changing lanes. • CO 82/Harmony Road – 20 crashes occurred at this intersection. There were ten rear end crashes and seven left turn crashes. • CO 82/Owl Creek Road – 34 crashes occurred at this intersection. 19 of the crashes were rear end crashes and 8 were the result of making a left turn. • CO 82/Truscott Place – four crashes occurred at this intersection. Two were rear end crashes. • CO 82/Maroon Creek Road/Castle Creek Road – 64 crashes occurred at this intersection. 25 of the crashes were rear end crashes, 17 of the crashes were sideswipe crashes, and 11 of the crashes were broadside crashes. • CO 82/Mile Marker 38 – 15 crashes occurred at this location, the southbound on-ramp from the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport to CO 82. 33 percent of crashes were rear end crashes. Daily Traffic Volumes Fehr & Peers collected daily traffic volumes at two locations near the project: CO 82 within the vicinity of the Aspen Lumberyard development and CO 82 north of Snowmass Creek Road. Per the Aspen TIA Guidelines, the peak hour traffic volumes were seasonally adjusted to represent the typical average day of the year (the 30th highest hour). We counted the location north of Snowmass Creek Road because this is the location of a CDOT continuous count station (ID 000236) so that we could seasonally adjust AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts. At CO 82 near the Aspen Lumberyard Development, we counted Wednesday, January 19, 2022 and Thursday, January 20, 2022. The daily traffic volume across both days was approximately 19,000 vehicles per day. At CO 82 north of Snowmass Creek Road, we counted Thursday, January 13, 2022. The daily traffic volume was approximately 23,100 vehicles per day. 142 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 9 Hourly traffic data from 2019 at CO 82 north of Snowmass Creek Road (CDOT Continuous Count Location ID 000236) was plotted for the entire year to determine the day with the 30th highest hourly value. Figure 3 displays the plot for traffic data for 2019. The 30th highest hour is 2,377 vehicles and occurs on August 6, 2019. They daily volume for August 6, 2019 was 26,065. Table 1 displays the calculations for the seasonal adjustment factor for the daily volumes, AM peak hour volumes, and PM peak hour volumes by comparing the volumes from the historical data where the 30th highest hour occurs to the 2022 counts collected on January 13, 2022. It was determined that 1.13 be used for the AM seasonal adjustment and applied to AM peak hour turning movement counts and 1.05 be used for the PM seasonal adjustment and applied to PM peak hour turning movement counts. Figure 3: CO 82 North of Snowmass Creek Road - 2019 Traffic Volume Data Table 1: Seasonal Adjustment Calculations Daily Volumes AM Peak Volumes PM Peak Volumes 2019 Historical (8/9/19)* 26,065 2,218 2,377 2022 Counts (1/13/22) 23,052 1,966 2,273 Calculated Adjustment 1.13 1.13 1.05 *Day where the 30th highest hour occurs. Source: Fehr & Peers. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 12434857279691211145316951937217924212663290531473389363138734115435745994841508353255567580960516293653567777019726175037745798782298471Hourly VolumesValues 143 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 10 Level of Service – Existing Fehr & Peers collected turning movement counts at study intersections on Wednesday, January 12, 2022 and Thursday, January 13, 2022. We adjusted the turning movement counts to represent the typical average day of the year (30th highest hour) by the factor described in the Daily Traffic Volumes section. Figure 4 shows the Existing Conditions turning movement counts. Figure 4: Turning Movement Counts – Existing Conditions 144 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 11 Fehr & Peers calculated level of service per Highway Capacity Manual methodology using a calibrated SimTraffic model. Table 2 shows Existing Conditions level of service. Table 2: Level of Service – Existing Conditions Intersection AM Delay/LOS PM Delay/LOS 1. Sage Way/Baltic Avenue (side-street STOP) 6/A (NB) 11/B (NB) 2. CO 82/Baltic Avenue (traffic signal) 20/B 17/B 3. CO 82/200 Road (side-street STOP) 3/A (WB) 9/A (WB) 4. CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway (side-street STOP) 4/A (WB) 13/B (WB) 5. CO 82/Harmony Road (traffic signal) >80/F 8/A 6. CO 82/Owl Creek Road (traffic signal) 49/D 59/E 7. CO 82/Truscott Place (traffic signal) >80/F 11/B 8. CO 82/Maroon Creek Road (roundabout) 80/F 30/D Source: Fehr & Peers. In the AM peak hour, southbound queueing on CO 82 extends from the roundabout at Maroon Creek Road to past 200 Road. As a result, the traffic signals at CO 82/Truscott Place, CO 82/Owl Creek Road, and CO 82/Harmony Road all operate at LOS D or worse. Although the southbound approaches at CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway and CO 82/200 Road operate at LOS F, the STOP-controlled approaches operate at LOS A to LOS B. In the PM peak hour, northbound queueing on CO 82 extends from the roundabout at Maroon Creek Road towards downtown Aspen. Although the CO 82/Maroon Creek Road roundabout operates at overall LOS D, the northbound CO 82 approach operates at LOS F. 145 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 12 Existing Plus Project Conditions Trip Generation Fehr & Peers estimated the vehicle trip generation from the Aspen Lumberyard project using the rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. We averaged per resident rates from low-rise multifamily housing (ITE Code 220), mid-rise multifamily housing (ITE Code 221), and high-rise multifamily housing (ITE Code 222) to determine the 0.19 trips per resident per hour rate. Table 3 provides the trip generation. Table 3: Project Trip Generation Unit Count Residents AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour x0.19 Entering (18%) Exiting (18%) x0.19 Entering (68%) Exiting (32%) 276 Units 519 99 18 81 99 67 32 Source: Fehr & Peers. According to a survey of possible Aspen Lumberyard residents, approximately half of Aspen Lumberyard residents will relocate to the Aspen Lumberyard from down valley housing. The other half will relocate from housing in Aspen. In the existing plus project condition, Fehr & Peers assumed that new Aspen-area employees do not move into down valley housing vacated by incoming Aspen Lumberyard residents. To account for this, Fehr & Peers reduced traffic volumes from/to down valley by a magnitude of half of the project’s trip generation. Trip Distribution Fehr & Peers estimated the external trip distribution values using AirSage data representing trips made from 2017 to 2018. Figure 5 shows the project trip distribution. The trip distribution is as follows: • CO 82 (north of Baltic Avenue) o Inbound: 60% in AM, 30% in PM o Outbound: 30% in AM, 60% in PM • CO 82 (south of Aspen Lumberyard) o Inbound: 30% in AM, 60% in PM o Outbound: 60% in AM, 30% in PM • Aspen/Pitkin County Airport o Inbound: 2% in AM, 2% in PM o Outbound: 2% in AM, 2% in PM • Within the Aspen Airport Business Center o Inbound: 8% in AM, 8% in PM o Outbound: 8% in AM, 8% in PM 146 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 13 Figure 5: Project Trip Distribution 147 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 14 Project Only Trips Figure 6 shows project only trips for the Existing Plus Project Conditions. To derive project only trips, Fehr & Peers applied the trip distribution to the trip generation and added these volumes to the Existing Conditions turning movement counts Figure 6: Project Only Trips 148 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 15 Level of Service – Existing Plus Project Figure 7 shows the Existing Plus Project Conditions turning movement counts. Figure 7: Turning Movement Counts – Existing Plus Project Conditions 149 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 16 Table 4 shows Existing Plus Project Conditions level of service. Table 4: Level of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection AM Delay/LOS PM Delay/LOS Existing Existing Plus Project Existing Existing Plus Project 1. Sage Way/Baltic Avenue (side-street STOP) 6/A (NB) 11/B (NB) 7/A (NB) 8/A (NB) 2. CO 82/Baltic Avenue (traffic signal) 20/B 17/B 17/B 17/B 3. CO 82/200 Road (side-street STOP) 3/A (WB) 9/A (WB) 4/A (WB) 9/A (WB) 4. CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway (side-street STOP) 4/A (WB) 13/B (WB) 29/D (WB) 27/C (WB) 5. CO 82/Harmony Road (traffic signal) >80/F 8/A >80/F 9/A 6. CO 82/Owl Creek Road (traffic signal) 49/D 59/E 46/D 62/E 7. CO 82/Truscott Place (traffic signal) >80/F 11/B >80/F 10/B 8. CO 82/Maroon Creek Road (roundabout) 80/F 30/D 68/F 32/D Source: Fehr & Peers. Overall, the Aspen Lumberyard project causes only minor changes to intersection level of service. At the CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway intersection, the addition of project traffic causes the westbound approach to change from LOS A to LOS D in the AM peak hour. Aspen’s significance criteria states that LOS D or worse may be acceptable for left turns or minor street unsignalized movements. The Traffic Signal Warrants section of this report discusses signalizing this intersection which would address level of service for the westbound movement. At other study intersections, Aspen’s significance criteria states that where existing LOS is already less than LOS C, the project should include mitigation to maintain the LOS and not degrade it further. The Proposed Mitigation Program discusses mitigation to improve level of service at these intersections. 150 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 17 VMT & GHG Emissions Analysis Fehr & Peers analyzed the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) effects of the project and associated GHG emissions effects. On average, each existing commute trip from down valley to Aspen is 16-miles, according to Location Based Services data available from AirSage. Eliminating a two-way vehicle commute trip from down valley saves 32 vehicle miles of travel per day, 2,600 commuter miles per day, or 650,000 commuter miles per year. The project’s reduction in commuter miles will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 500,000-600,000 pounds per year. These estimates are based on the following assumptions: • 276 project units with at least one Aspen-based employee each • Half of the project’s residents move to the Aspen Lumberyard from down valley • 60% approximate existing drive alone mode share in Pitkin County • 250 workdays per year • 0.89 lb CO2 per mile traveled MMLOS for Transit, Pedestrians, & Bicyclists The Proposed Mitigation Program section of this report details MMLOS measures associated with the project for the Existing Plus Project, 2025 Plus Project, and 2045 Plus Project scenarios. Traffic Signal Warrants Fehr & Peers analyzed the CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway using the peak hour signal warrant from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Using the existing plus project volumes, the peak hour signal warrant is met. In developing the existing plus project volumes, Fehr & Peers added project trips to existing counts without backing out existing traffic attributed to the Builders FirstSource or the Mountain Rescue Aspen. However, when the project connects Woodward Lane to the Aspen Lumberyard Driveway, some amount of traffic is likely to divert from using Baltic Avenue to the Aspen Lumberyard Driveway to access CO 82. When considering the combined effect of the removal of Builders FirstSource traffic, the addition of Aspen Lumberyard traffic, and the addition of diverted traffic from Baltic Avenue, the peak hour signal warrant will most likely be met. As a result, we recommend a traffic signal at this location. 151 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 18 Project Impacts The project has significant impacts to off-site traffic operations: • At the CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway, the project causes the westbound approach that currently operates at LOS A to operate at LOS F. • South of the Aspen Lumberyard Driveway, the project adds traffic to intersections already operating worse than LOS C. • The project adds more than 10 peak hour trips. Mitigation for these impacts is described in the Proposed Mitigation Program section. Access & Circulation Design The following is a summary of the access and circulation for the Aspen Lumberyard project: • Sight distance limitations, distance from adjacent driveways and intersections, potential for shared access facilities, and demonstration that number of proposed driveways is the fewest necessary, access points to provide safe and efficient multi-modal flow – the project will draw access from the single existing Builders FirstSource driveway, sharing access with Mountain Rescue Aspen. This is an existing and future access location according to the Access Control Plan for CO 82. It is over 650 feet from the nearest CO 82 access location at 200 Road. According to AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the intersection sight distance for passenger cars design value for a speed of 45 mph is 500 feet; based on an aerial review, this sight distance is available. Additionally, a traffic signal is proposed at the Aspen 152 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 19 Lumberyard driveway based on traffic analysis and signal warrants presented elsewhere in this report. • Internal circulation design, including adequacy of queueing – the proposed circulation design disperses parking throughout the site to minimize concentration of traffic to any one point. There is approximately 140 feet of storage from the traffic signal at CO 82. • Pedestrian circulation system on-site and along frontage – the project will reconstruct pedestrian facilities adjacent to CO 82. Additionally, the project includes an extensive system of internal walkways between buildings, to the on-site bus stop, and to the Aspen Airport Business Center Trail. • Impact to existing transit routes and facilities – existing transit routes operate exclusively on CO 82. Nothing in the project’s site plan will affect transit routes or facilities. Bus lanes (bus on shoulder) exist in the southbound direction so that buses can operate freely from adjacent travel lanes. 153 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 20 2025 & 2045 Background Conditions Trip Generation for Approved Projects There are no known, approved projects in the study area. Therefore, Fehr & Peers calculated growth in the study area using CDOT’s 20-year factor. Background Trips – 2025 & 2045 The 20-year factor from CDOT count stations on CO 82 were used to determine the 2025 and 2045 forecasts. There are three CDOT count stations within the proximity of the Aspen Lumberyard project study area: CO 82 north of the AABC (Station ID 103522), CO 82 north of the Maroon Creek Road roundabout (Station ID 103523), and CO 82 south of the Maroon Creek Road roundabout (Station ID 103524). The 20-year factor at each station location is 1.07. The 1.07 20-year factor was extrapolated to determine 2025 and 2045 traffic forecasts. Other Transportation Improvements There are improvements planned for the Maroon Creek Road roundabout that are expected to improve operational performance. The improvements to the roundabout were assumed for the 2025 and 2045 Conditions. The improvements to the roundabout include the following: • Update lane configurations at the SH82 southbound approach – convert the right lane from right- only to a combined through/right • Update lane configurations at the Maroon Creek Road approach – convert the right-lane from right-only to a combined through/right • Update pavement markings and install overhead signage on all approaches to clarify lane configurations and improve lane utilization. With these improvements, operations are expected to improve the overall capacity at the roundabout to reduce southbound delay on CO 82 in the AM peak hour and northbound delay on CO 82 in the PM peak hour. 154 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 21 Level of Service – 2025 & 2045 Figure 8 shows the 2025 turning movement counts. Figure 8: Turning Movement Counts – 2025 Table 5 shows 2025 level of service. Table 5: Level of Service – 2025 Conditions Intersection AM Delay/LOS PM Delay/LOS 1. Sage Way/Baltic Avenue (side-street STOP) 6/A (NB) 10/A (NB) 2. CO 82/Baltic Avenue (traffic signal) 17/B 18/B 3. CO 82/200 Road (side-street STOP) 3/A (WB) 10/A (WB) 4. CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway (side-street STOP) >50/F (WB) 14/C (WB) 5. CO 82/Harmony Road (traffic signal) >80/F 9/A 6. CO 82/Owl Creek Road (traffic signal) 46/D 62/E 7. CO 82/Truscott Place (traffic signal) >80/F 10/B 8. CO 82/Maroon Creek Road (roundabout) 20/C 17/C Source: Fehr & Peers. 155 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 22 Figure 9 shows the 2045 turning movement counts. Figure 9: Turning Movement Counts – 2045 Table 6 shows 2045 level of service. Table 6: Level of Service – 2045 Conditions Intersection AM Delay/LOS PM Delay/LOS 1. Sage Way/Baltic Avenue (side-street STOP) 8/A (NB) 12/B (NB) 2. CO 82/Baltic Avenue (traffic signal) 28/C 19/B 3. CO 82/200 Road (side-street STOP) 3/A (WB) 8/A (WB) 4. CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway (side-street STOP) >50/F (WB) 17/C (WB) 5. CO 82/Harmony Road (traffic signal) >80/F 9/A 6. CO 82/Owl Creek Road (traffic signal) 48/D 63/E 7. CO 82/Truscott Place (traffic signal) >80/F 35/D 8. CO 82/Maroon Creek Road (roundabout) 29/D 23/C Source: Fehr & Peers. 156 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 23 2025 & 2045 Plus Project Conditions Trip Generation Fehr & Peers used the same project trip generation estimates for 2025 plus project and 2045 plus project as we used for existing plus project. However, unlike the existing plus project analysis where we accounted for residents relocating from down valley housing and reduced traffic volumes from/to down valley by a magnitude of half of the project’s trip generation, we made no such reductions in the 2025 plus project or 2045 plus project scenarios. This assumption reflects the possibility that down valley housing vacated by incoming Aspen Lumberyard residents is re-occupied by Aspen area employees by 2025 or 2045. Trip Distribution Fehr & Peers used the same project trip distribution for 2025 plus project and 2045 plus project as we used for existing plus project. Project Only Trips The project only trips for 2025 plus project and 2045 plus project are the same as existing plus project. Level of Service – 2025 & 2045 Plus Project Figure 10 shows the 2025 Plus Project Conditions turning movement counts. Figure 10: Turning Movement Counts – 2025 Plus Project Conditions 157 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 24 Table 7 shows 2025 Plus Project Conditions level of service. Table 7: Level of Service – 2025 Plus Project Conditions Intersection AM Delay/LOS PM Delay/LOS 2025 2025 Plus Project 2025 2025 Plus Project 1. Sage Way/Baltic Avenue (side-street STOP) 6/A (NB) 49/E (NB) 10/A (NB) 11/B (NB) 2. CO 82/Baltic Avenue (traffic signal) 17/B 65/E 18/B 17/B 3. CO 82/200 Road (side-street STOP) 3/A (WB) 4/A (WB) 10/A (WB) 9/A (WB) 4. CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway (side-street STOP) >50/F (WB) >80/F (overall) 26/C (WB) 14/C (WB) 3/A (overall) 24/C (WB) 5. CO 82/Harmony Road (traffic signal) >80/F >80/F 9/A 9/A 6. CO 82/Owl Creek Road (traffic signal) 46/D 51/D 62/E 62/E 7. CO 82/Truscott Place (traffic signal) >80/F >80/F 10/B 12/B 8. CO 82/Maroon Creek Road (roundabout) 20/C 22/C 17/C 18/C Source: Fehr & Peers. 158 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 25 Figure 11 shows the 2045 Plus Project Conditions turning movement counts. Figure 11: Turning Movement Counts – 2045 Plus Project Conditions 159 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 26 Table 8 shows 2045 Plus Project Conditions level of service. Table 8: Level of Service – 2045 Plus Project Conditions Intersection AM Delay/LOS PM Delay/LOS 2045 2045 Plus Project 2045 2045 Plus Project 1. Sage Way/Baltic Avenue (side-street STOP) 8/A (NB) 7/A (NB) 12/B (NB) 12/B (NB) 2. CO 82/Baltic Avenue (traffic signal) 28/C >80/F 19/B 18/B 3. CO 82/200 Road (side-street STOP) 3/A (WB) 4/A (WB) 8/A (WB) 8/A (WB) 4. CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway (side-street STOP) >50/F (WB) >80/F (overall) 29/C (WB) 17/C (WB) 1/A (overall) 18/C (WB) 5. CO 82/Harmony Road (traffic signal) >80/F >80/F 9/A 9/A 6. CO 82/Owl Creek Road (traffic signal) 48/D 53/D 63/E 61/E 7. CO 82/Truscott Place (traffic signal) >80/F >80/F 35/D 29/D 8. CO 82/Maroon Creek Road (roundabout) 29/D 33/D 23/C 27/D Source: Fehr & Peers. MMLOS for Transit, Pedestrians, & Bicyclists The Proposed Mitigation Program section of this report details MMLOS measures associated with the project for the Existing Plus Project, 2025 Plus Project, and 2045 Plus Project scenarios. Traffic Signal Warrants Fehr & Peers analyzed the CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway for the existing plus project scenario. There, we found that the peak hour signal warrant is met at this location. As a result, we recommend a traffic signal at this location. 160 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 27 Project Impacts The project has significant impacts to off-site traffic operations: • At the CO 82/Baltic Avenue intersection, the addition of the traffic signal as the Aspen Lumberyard Driveway causes queue spillback to Baltic Avenue that reduces level of service to worse than LOS C. Note that this is not entirely new queueing, but queueing shifted from further south as a result of the new traffic signal. The Proposed Mitigation Program section discusses the travel time effects associated with the signalization of the Aspen Lumberyard Driveway. • Elsewhere in the study area, the project adds traffic to intersections already operating worse than LOS C. • The project adds more than 10 peak hour trips. Mitigation for these impacts is described in the Proposed Mitigation Program section. 161 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 28 Proposed Mitigation Program Proposed Significant Impact Mitigation The proposed Aspen Lumberyard project results in significant impacts. The project proposes infrastructure, TDM, and MMLOS measures to mitigate these impacts. TDM and MMLOS measures are intended to mitigate impacts resulting from adding traffic to intersections operating worse than LOS C and the project adding more than 10 peak hour trips to the network. Of the project’s 99 peak hour trips generated, 21 net trips require mitigation. Appendix A contains MMLOS and TDM spreadsheets for the project. Infrastructure Measures This study found a significant impact to level of service at the CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway intersection. In the Existing Plus Project Conditions scenario, the MUTCD’s peak hour signal warrant is met. As mitigation, the project will install a traffic signal at this intersection, consistent with CDOT’s Access Control Plan for CO 82. Fehr & Peers studied the impact to southbound AM peak hour travel time, the direction and peak hour of congestion in the study area, of the project with a signal at the CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Drive intersection. Table 9 shows travel times on CO 82. Table 9: Travel Time Analysis Direction Existing Existing Plus Project 2025 2025 Plus Project 2045 2045 Plus Project Southbound AM peak hour 26 min 26 min 23 min 24.6 min 26.3 min 29.8 min Source: Fehr & Peers. This travel time analysis shows that the project adds minimal travel time in Existing Plus Project Conditions. By 2025, the project adds approximately two minutes to CO 82 southbound travel time in the AM peak hour. 2025 travel times improve compared to existing because of the planned striping and signing improvements to the roundabout. By 2045, the project adds approximately four minutes to CO 82 southbound travel time in the AM peak hour. 162 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 29 TDM Measure Details The proposed Aspen Lumberyard project will implement the following TDM measures: • Transit system improvement strategies – the City of Aspen will fund dedicated transit services to the Aspen Lumberyard project site and other nearby areas. Two options for these services are described below in the Additional Transit Measure Details section. Serving other nearby areas is intended to reduce the 21 net trips requiring mitigation. • Transit access improvements – the site plan for the Aspen Lumberyard project includes walkway improvements to connect the project to RFTA stops on CO 82. • Transit fare subsidy – the City of Aspen will fund bus passes for Aspen Lumberyard residents. • Bikeshare program- the City of Aspen will work with WE-cycle to establish a WE-cycle station on- site and will fund bikeshare program memberships for Aspen Lumberyard residents. MMLOS Measure Details The proposed Aspen Lumberyard project includes a variety of MMLOS measures as a part of its site plan that will have a trip reducing effect: • Sidewalk widths greater than the minimum • Large-scale landscaping • New/improved crosswalks • Enhanced pedestrian access points from the right-of-way • Enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveways • Minor bicycle improvements • Bicycle parking • Basic transit amenities: seating/bench, trash receptacle, transit system information, shelter/shade, enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting, ADA improvements • New bus stop 163 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 30 Additional Transit Measure Details The analysis using Aspen’s TDM and MMLOS spreadsheets shows that further trip mitigation is necessary to mitigate the project’s impacts. In particular, the city’s TDM and MMLOS spreadsheets are oriented towards commercial projects rather than residential projects, so a more comprehensive set of transit improvements is necessary. To minimize the project’s trip generation, Fehr & Peers developed and analyzed several options for serving the project with new or improved transit services: 1. Rubey Park to one stop at Aspen Lumberyard 2. Rubey Park to multi-stop Aspen Lumberyard loop 3. Rubey Park to one stop at Aspen Lumberyard plus AABC, Airport loop 4. Rubey Park to Burlingame Ranch loop plus one stop at Aspen Lumberyard 5. Rubey Park to Burlingame Ranch loop, one stop at Aspen Lumberyard plus AABC, Airport loop 6. Circulator only around Aspen Lumberyard, AABC to Airport (not to Aspen core) 7. Service Buy-up on RFTA’s Snowmass Village route 164 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 31 Option 1: Rubey Park to One Stop at Aspen Lumberyard This option would connect Rubey Park directly to the Aspen Lumberyard with no stops in-between. This route would stop at the Aspen Lumberyard site once before returning to Rubey Park and primarily serve future Aspen Lumberyard residents traveling between their residences and the Aspen downtown core. This would be the most direct and time-efficient route between the two destinations. The suggested characteristics of this transit route would include: • Roundtrip route length: 7.9 miles • Roundtrip bus travel time: 28 minutes • Frequency: 15-minute peak, 30-minute off peak • Hours of operation: 6:00 AM – 9:00 PM • Peak hours: 6:00 AM – 9:00 AM, 3:00 PM – 6:00 PM • Number of buses required: 2 during peak, 1 during off peak • Estimated daily revenue service hours: 21 hours Figure 12 shows the Option 1 route. Figure 12: Rubey Park to One Stop at Aspen Lumberyard 165 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 32 Table 10 shows the advantages and disadvantages of Option 1. Table 10: Option 1 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages • Direct route for resident use into Aspen core and back • Highly convenient for Aspen Lumberyard residents • Dedicated Aspen Lumberyard service ensures bus capacity for residents • Only serves Aspen Lumberyard residents, with relatively small market size, so overall ridership and ridership per hour could be low • Service duplicates existing Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) routes serve area, such as VelociRFTA BRT, Snowmass Village route, and Valley Local with high levels of service • Expensive to operate Source: Fehr & Peers. Fehr & Peers also examined this option in 2020 under the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies for the Aspen Lumberyard project. We found that a shuttle between the Aspen Lumberyard and Rubey Park/downtown will cost approximately $600,000 to $750,000 for annual operations cost plus approximately $250,000 to $300,000 in capital costs for three buses (two active buses plus one spare) upon startup and every five to seven years thereafter for vehicle replacement. 166 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 33 Option 2: Rubey Park to Multi-stop Aspen Lumberyard Loop This option would connect Rubey Park directly with multiple stops at the Aspen Lumberyard with no stops in-between. This route would primarily serve Aspen Lumberyard residents going between the Aspen core for work or leisure and back. The suggested characteristics of this transit route would include: • Roundtrip route length: 8.2 miles • Roundtrip bus travel time: 30 minutes • Frequency: 15-minute peak, 30-minute off peak • Hours of operation: 6:00 AM – 9:00 PM • Peak hours: 6:00 AM – 9:00 AM, 3:00 PM – 6:00 PM • Number of buses required: 2 during peak, 1 during off peak • Estimated daily revenue service hours: 21 hours Figure 13 shows the Option 2 route. Figure 13: Rubey Park to Multi-stop Aspen Lumberyard Loop 167 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 34 Table 11 shows the advantages and disadvantages of Option 2. Table 11: Option 2 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages • Direct route for resident use into Aspen core and back • Highly convenient for Aspen Lumberyard residents; almost front door service with multiple Aspen Lumberyard stops • Dedicated Aspen Lumberyard service ensures bus capacity for residents • Only serves Aspen Lumberyard residents, with relatively small market size, so overall ridership and ridership per hour could be low • Service duplicates existing RFTA routes serve area, such as VelociRFTA BRT, Snowmass Village route, and Valley Local with high levels of service • Aspen Lumberyard site is compact, creating comfortable walk times and not requiring multiple stops • Expensive to operate Source: Fehr & Peers. 168 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 35 Option 3: Rubey Park to One Stop at Aspen Lumberyard plus AABC, Airport Loop This option would connect Rubey Park with the Aspen Lumberyard, as well as the AABC and Aspen Airport. The first stop would be at the Aspen Lumberyard and then use the existing bus stops located at the AABC and Airport before returning to Rubey Park. The suggested characteristics of this transit route would include: • Roundtrip route length: 8.5 miles • Roundtrip bus travel time: 36 minutes • Frequency: 15-minute peak, 30-minute off peak • Hours of operation: 6:00 AM – 9:00 PM • Peak hours: 6:00 AM – 9:00 AM, 3:00 PM – 6:00 PM • Number of buses required: 3 during peak, 2 during off peak • Estimated daily revenue service hours: 36 hours Figure 14 shows the Option 3 route. Figure 14: Rubey Park to One Stop at Aspen Lumberyard Plus AABC, Airport Loop 169 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 36 Table 12 shows the advantages and disadvantages of Option 3. Table 12: Option 3 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages • Connects to more points within AABC and Aspen Lumberyard area, providing additional opportunities to serve a larger market • Could provide higher level of convenience to people traveling to/from the Airport and downtown • Dedicated Aspen Lumberyard service ensures bus capacity for residents • Service duplicates existing RFTA routes serve area, such as VelociRFTA BRT, Snowmass Village route, Burlingame shuttle, and Valley Local with high levels of service • Creates slightly longer travel times for Aspen Lumberyard residents • Requires more vehicles to operate than Options 1 and 2 • Expensive to operate Source: Fehr & Peers. 170 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 37 Option 4: Rubey Park to Burlingame Ranch Loop Plus One Stop at Aspen Lumberyard This option is similar to Option 1 with the addition of a stop at Burlingame Ranch before returning to Rubey Park. With no other intermediate stops, this route would only serve the Burlingame Ranch and Aspen Lumberyard development residents traveling to and from the Aspen core. The suggested characteristics of this transit route would include: • Roundtrip route length: 10.2 miles • Roundtrip bus travel time: 42 minutes • Frequency: 15-minute peak, 30-minute off peak • Hours of operation: 6:00 AM – 9:00 PM • Peak hours: 6:00 AM – 9:00 AM, 3:00 PM – 6:00 PM • Number of buses required: 3 during peak, 2 during off peak • Estimated daily revenue service hours: 36 hours Figure 15 shows the Option 4 route. Figure 15: Rubey Park to Burlingame Ranch Loop Plus One Stop as Aspen Lumberyard 171 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 38 Table 13 shows the advantages and disadvantages of Option 4. Table 13: Option 4 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages • Connects to Burlingame Ranch, providing an additional market opportunity to increase ridership • Could provide higher level of frequency for Burlingame Ranch residents than exists today with current route (assuming route timing of new route is offset from existing route) • Dedicated Aspen Lumberyard service ensures bus capacity for residents • Indirect (more travel time) route for those traveling between Aspen Lumberyard and Aspen core (indirect, inconvenient) • The existing Burlingame Ranch shuttle connects Burlingame Ranch to Aspen core and other existing RFTA routes serve the Aspen Lumberyard area • Expensive to operate • Requires more vehicles to operate than Options 1 and 2 Source: Fehr & Peers. 172 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 39 Option 5: Rubey Park to Burlingame Ranch Loop, One Stop at Aspen Lumberyard Plus AABC, Airport Loop This option is similar to Option 4 that uses the existing Burlingame Ranch loop and connects to the Aspen Lumberyard, but this option adds additional stops within AABC and the Airport before returning to Rubey Park. New bus stops are added in this option to reach areas in the AABC that are father from the existing AABC Airport DV existing bus stop. The route then loops into the Airport for a final stop at the existing bus stop. The suggested characteristics of this transit route would include: • Roundtrip route length: 10.5 miles • Roundtrip bus travel time: 58 minutes • Frequency: 15-minute peak, 30-minute off peak • Hours of operation: 6:00 AM – 9:00 PM • Peak hours: 6:00 AM – 9:00 AM, 3:00 PM – 6:00 PM • Number of buses required: 4 during peak, 2 during off peak • Estimated daily revenue service hours: 42 hours Figure 16 shows the Option 5 route. Figure 16: Rubey Park to Burlingame Ranch Loop, One Stop at Aspen Lumberyard Plus AABC, Airport Loop 173 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 40 Table 14 shows the advantages and disadvantages of Option 5. Table 14: Option 5 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages • This route services a larger area with more origins and destinations, which could increase ridership on this route • Better access to AABC with additional stops closer to businesses • Connects to Burlingame Ranch, providing an additional market opportunity to increase ridership • Could provide higher level of frequency for Burlingame Ranch residents than exists today with current route (assuming route timing of new route is offset from existing route • Dedicated Aspen Lumberyard service ensures bus capacity for residents • Indirect (more travel time) route for those traveling between Aspen Lumberyard and Aspen core (indirect, inconvenient) • The existing Burlingame Ranch shuttle connects Burlingame Ranch to Aspen core and other existing RFTA routes serve Aspen Lumberyard area • Expensive to operate • Requires more vehicles to operate than Options 1, 2, 3, and 4 Source: Fehr & Peers. 174 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 41 Option 6: Circulator Only Around Aspen Lumberyard, AABC to Airport (Not to Aspen Core) This option is a circulator shuttle route that loops around the Airport, AABC, and Aspen Lumberyard areas. The routing within the AABC could be adjusted to include other nearby destinations such as the Aspen Animal Shelter or Mountain Rescue Aspen, if desired. The suggested characteristics of this transit route would include: • Roundtrip route length: 1.8 miles • Roundtrip bus travel time: 18 minutes • Frequency: 20-minute all-day (peak and off peak) • Hours of operation: 6:00 AM – 9:00 PM • Number of buses required: 1 • Estimated daily revenue service hours: 15 hours Figure 17 shows the Option 6 route. Figure 17: Circulator Only Around Aspen Lumberyard, AABC, and Airport (Not to Aspen Core) 175 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 42 Table 15 shows the advantages and disadvantages of Option 6. Table 15: Option 6 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages • Frequent and consistent connections for points served around the circulator loop • Provides and first and last mile connection for Airport, AABC, and Aspen Lumberyard that are most helpful during winter season when walking and biking are challenging • Could serve other housing areas along the circulator route • Least expensive of all options • Small service area • Slow, circuitous, one-way route that may take longer to ride than walking • Circulator is duplicating what is walkable for most people to/from existing bus routes Source: Fehr & Peers. This option could be operated with microtransit covering the entire Aspen Airport and AABC area as microtransit zone that provides point-to-point service within that zone and to/from the RFTA airport bus stop. 176 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 43 Option 7: Service Buy-up on RFTA’s Snowmass Village Route A final option for consideration that does not require the development of a new route or service is for service buy-up (purchase of service to increase frequency/capacity) for the existing RFTA Snowmass Village route. Under this option, Aspen would contract with RFTA to purchase expanded service, similar to other routes that Aspen pays for and RFTA operates. In addition to buying up more frequency, this option would require additional enhancements to the Snowmass Village route so that the route operates from Snowmass Village to Aspen all year (currently, the Snowmass Village requires a connection at the Brush Creek Intercept Lot during certain months). Figure 18 shows the Option 7 route. Figure 18: RFTA Snowmass Village Route 177 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 44 Table 16 shows the advantages and disadvantages of Option 7. Table 16: Option 7 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages • Leverages existing routes and services • Could be more cost effective • Benefits the entire corridor and could be more effective at reducing overall CO 82 traffic by adding service accessible to anyone along the route • Easier to implement than other options • Does not provide dedicated service for the Aspen Lumberyard • May require a first/last mile solution for the Aspen Lumberyard using a circulator (or microtransit zone) similar to Option 6 Source: Fehr & Peers. Transit Conclusions & Recommendations Options Analysis Based on the services characteristics and high-level analysis of advantages and disadvantages, Fehr & Peers recommends that Option 4 (Rubey Park to Burlingame Ranch loop plus one stop at Aspen Lumberyard) and Option 7 (service buy-up on RFTA’s Snowmass Village route) be considered further, since they are highly feasible, leverage existing resources, and provide more benefits than other options. We do not recommend pursuing Options 1, 2, 3, and 5 as these options would be duplicating existing RFTA service levels to the AABC and nearby the Aspen Lumberyard. RFTA already serves these areas with high frequency and good coverage, so we do not see much benefit in these scenarios, given the cost and likely low overall ridership. If the city pursues Option 4 (Rubey Park to Burlingame Ranch loop plus one stop at Aspen Lumberyard), we recommend combining this route with the existing Burlingame shuttle to provide greater frequency for Burlingame Ranch. Additionally, Burlingame Ranch does not have good access to RFTA services, so improved transit to both Burlingame Ranch and the Aspen Lumberyard can have a greater impact on reducing vehicle trips. If the city pursues Option 7 (service buy-up on RFTA’s Snowmass Village route), we recommend also pursuing Option 6 (circulator only around Aspen Lumberyard, AABC to Airport) as a way to provide first/last mile connectivity for the Aspen Lumberyard and AABC. Overall, pending acquisition of additional data, our preliminary finding is that Option 4 will most reduce vehicle trip generation associated with the Aspen Lumberyard project itself. However, Option 7 may more significantly reduce vehicle traffic on CO 82 since it serves a greater market area. 178 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 45 Data Needs & Next Steps Fehr & Peers has recently discussed data needs with RFTA staff, who have indicated that they can provide necessary data on excess passenger capacity by time of day on existing routes serving the AABC and Aspen Lumberyard area along CO 82. This will help inform further analysis and refined recommendations. RFTA can also provide capacity and cost information for the existing Burlingame shuttle to better analyze Option 4. Both the city and RFTA currently report that delivery of existing transit services is difficult because of driver shortages. Once further analysis and refined recommendations are complete, we plan to carry forward multiple options so that the city and RFTA can best determine how to implement service once the Aspen Lumberyard project is closer to occupancy. 179 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 46 Enforcement, Financing, & Implementation Responsibility As the project applicant, the City of Aspen will be responsible for ensuring implementation of the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The various MMLOS measures for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users will be constructed as a part of the buildout of the project. The City of Aspen will fund TDM measures including transit system improvement strategies, transit fare subsidies, and bikeshare program memberships. 180 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 47 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on this study, Fehr & Peers concludes and recommends the following: 1. In the near term and with regional growth by 2025, increased vehicle trips resulting from the Aspen Lumberyard will not significantly increase traffic congestion or travel times on CO 82 from the Airport to downtown Aspen. 2. The city should construct a traffic signal at the CO 82/Aspen Lumberyard Driveway intersection before occupancy of the project. 3. In the near-term, about half of Aspen Lumberyard residents will relocate from down valley housing. The other half will relocate from housing in Aspen. Over time, it is possible that down valley housing vacated by Aspen Lumberyard residents will fill with other Aspen-based employees. 4. In the near term, right after people move from down valley housing to the Aspen Lumberyard, the Aspen Lumberyard project will add approximately 50 vehicle trips to the transportation system. This will result in travel times on CO 82 increasing by about a minute during rush hour. 5. Over a year, the project’s reduction in commuter miles will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 500,000-600,000 pounds per year. 6. The city and/or RFTA should provide improved bus service to the Aspen Lumberyard, either by operating dedicated service to/from the Aspen Lumberyard, by buying additional RFTA service, and/or by providing services to better connect the Airport RFTA stops to the Aspen Lumberyard. 7. Through new or improved transit services, the city aims to aggressively reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the Aspen Lumberyard project. 8. Providing housing close to Aspen will always reduce CO2 emissions compared to people living further down valley. People living close to Aspen are also more likely to travel to Aspen by bus or biking. 9. Investing in transportation infrastructure and services, including transit service, bikeways, and Transportation Demand Management programs, is critical to mitigate the effects of growth on traffic congestion and travel times on CO 82. 10. Employment opportunities in Aspen will grow in the future, with or without the Aspen Lumberyard project. Regional growth by 2045 will cause traffic congestion and travel times on CO 82 to increase. 181 Aspen Lumberyard Transportation Impact Analysis April 29, 2022 48 Monitoring & Reporting Requirements The city will complete vehicle trip data collection and a tenant survey once a year for three years to monitor trip generation and mode share. If the city finds that the project is not in compliance with the TDM requirements, the city will evaluate additional strategies for implementation. 182 Appendix A: MMLOS & TDM Spreadsheets 183 = input= calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Major Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 38005 CO 82, Aspen, CO Aspen Lumberyard Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Name: Chris Everson, City of Aspen Company: City of Aspen Address Phone: 970-429-1834 Email: chris.everson@aspen.gov Trip Generation 4/25/2022 Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense for Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions 184 = input = calculation 72 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?Yes 5 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 5 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? NA 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?NA 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?NA 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. Yes 5 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. Yes 5 10 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?No 0 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. Yes 5 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?Yes 5 10 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 25PedestriansSubtotalAdditional Proposed ImprovementsTOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED:Pedestrian RoutesTraffic Calming and Pedestrian NetworkDriveways, Parking, and Access ConsiderationsMMLOS Input Page Subtotal SubtotalSidewalk Condition on Adjacent BlocksSidewalk Condition on Project FrontageSubtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal Pedestrian Total* 185 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?NA 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?NA 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?Yes 5 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 5 Bicycle Parking27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5 5 10 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?Yes 3 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?Yes 3 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?Yes 3 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?Yes 4 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?Yes 4 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?Yes 5 22 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?No 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?No 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?Yes 15 15 37TransitBasic AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Enhanced AmenitiesSubtotal Subtotal Bicycles Total* Transit Total*BicyclesModifications to Existing Bicycle Paths186 Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the company size? What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?Yes What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? 50% What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips?17% What is the level of implementation?<50% of lines (within project) improved Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?Yes What is the extent of access improvements? Within Project and Connecting Off-site 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 2.92% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?Yes What percentage of employees are eligible?100% What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)?100% Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?No How many employee memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees are eligble?0% Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?Yes How many memberships have been purchased?<100 What percentage of employees/guests are eligble?100% Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?NA What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?No What percentage of employees/guests are eligible? 3.29% 2.92% 6.11% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. 21 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions TDM Input Page 1.50% 0.00% 0.00%Commute Trip Reduction Programs StrategiesOnsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Neighborhood/Site Enhancements Strategies0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 13.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.94% 2.00% 0.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTransit System Improvements Strategies1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. 187 DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated AM/PM 99.0 72 6.05 78.05 20.95 The net trips to be mitigated is greater than 0. The project shall propose additional mitigation measures. A minimum of five TDM measures must be utilized for major projects. Please return to Sheet "3. TDM" and select a minimum of five measures. There will be extensive landscaping included with the construction of the internal site which includes open spaces and detached sidewalks. Explain the proposed improved crosswalk and how this improvement benefits the pedestian experience and the site as a whole. An improved crosswalk includes measures such as incorporating a corner bulb out or defining a crosswalk path with colored concrete. Simply re-striping a crosswalk will not recieve credit. This measure must be pre-approved by City staff. There are several proposed crosswalks within the site plan. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. The proposed Aspen Lumberyard development is on the site currently occupied by Builders FirstSource and Aspen Mini Storage on CO 82. The Aspen Lumberyard development will construct affordable, multifamily housing on the site and provide a connection between Woodward Lane and the existing Builders FirstSource Driveway MMLOS In the space provided desicribe what new landscaping is proposed and how the proposed landscaping plan enhances the pedestrian experience. This measure is only applicable to large scale projects and requires more extensive landscaping then a few plantings or lawn area. The project shall establish extensive landscaping which significantly benefits the site and improves the pedestrian comfort and experience. Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Name: Chris Everson, City of Aspen Company: City of Aspen Address Phone: 970-429-1834 Email: chris.everson@aspen.gov Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 4/29/2022 Aspen Lumberyard 38005 CO-82, Aspen, CO Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED 188 Describe the proposed enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting. It is recommended that their be enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting along the pedestrian paths within the Aspen Lumberyard project site. Explain the proposed bus stop ADA improvements. The proposed bus stop will be designed to be ADA compatible In the space provided explain the proposed bus pull-out at an existing stop. It is recommended that there be seating/bench at the location of the proposed bus stop within the Aspen Lumberyard project site. Explain the proposed transit system information (signage). N/A Explain the proposed shelter/shade and the location for which existing bus stop. It is recommended that their be shelter/shade at the location for the proposed bus stop within the Aspen Lumberyard project site. Explain the enhanced pedestrian interaction at driveway areas or alley crossings. There must be an existing deficiency on the proposed site to select this mesaure. If the project will increase interaction between pedestrians and vehicles at a driveway this should be mitigated by implementing improvements to that area. New signage, striping, mirrors, and other approved devices are examples to address pedestrian- vehicle conflicts at driveways. The intersection of the Aspen Lumberyard Driveway and CO 82 is proposed to be a signalized intersection so pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at the driveway will be mitigated by having a pedestrian crossing signal at the driveway. Explain any additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff. N/A Describe the proposed seating/bench and the bench location for which existing bus stop. Describe the enhanced pedestrian access point(s). This measure is to improve pedestrian access to the site from the ROW. It includes adding additional access points which prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from crossing a street, improvements to the project's ADA ramps in the ROW, and improvements to existing access points. There is an existing detached sidewalk along CO 82. The site plan will connect proposed pedestrian infrastructure within the project site to the existing facilities on CO 82. 189 Explain below the transit fare subsidy strategy. The successful project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes for the RFTA valley system. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the project, with additional points being provided for larger subsidies. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project. All residents will be eligible for subsidized transit passes. Provide details in the space provided for the proposed carshare participation. Carshare programs have been linked to increased use of alternative transportation modes and reduced SOV trips. The successful project will provide access to Aspen’s CAR TO GO carshare program. Trip reduction potential will depend on the level to which the development participates. Car share memberships can be provided to all employees or residents of new developments. N/A TDM Explain the proposed shared shuttle service strategy in the space below. The use of hotel or other customer service vehicles to shuttle employees can maximize the use of on-site resources while reducing SOV trips. The successful project will creatively consider the use of necessary business vehicles for shuttle purposes. For example, a health club with a guest shuttle could provide employee transfers to a transit center or park and ride. Note, the provision of a hotel shuttle alone does not qualify for this measure. N/A Explain the proposed network expansion strategy below. The successful project will expand the local transit network by adding or modifying existing transit service to enhance the service near the project site. This will encourage the use of transit and therefore reduce SOV trips. The successful project will work with City of Aspen staff to develop a plan that offers the best trip reduction opportunity. Note this is only applicable to major projects. The proposed network expansion strategy will expand the existing Burlingame shuttle to have an additional stop at the Aspen Lumberyard. The existing frequency is proposed to be 15 minutes in the peak period and 30 minutes in the off-peak period. N/A Explain the new proposed bus stop and describe which amenities will be provided. The new proposed bus stop will be located on the west side of the site, just north of the Aspen Lumberyard Driveway entrance/exit. Recommended amentities include shade/shelter and bench/seating. Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. N/A 190 The mitigation measures will be implemented when the Aspen Lumberyard site opens. The site will be monitored for three years to determine the effectiveness of the TDM measures and additional strategies may be evaluated for implementation if necessary. Monitoring and Reporting Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. Vehicle Trip Data and a tenant survey will be sent out once a year for three years to monitor mode share. If it is found that the project site is not in compliance with the TDM requirements, the project team will evaluate additional strategies for implementation and resubmit the TDM Report. Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. As the project applicant, the City of Aspen will be responsible for ensuring implementation of the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The various MMLOS measures for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users will be constructed as a part of buildout of the project. The City of Aspen will fund TDM measures including transit system improvement strategies, transit fare subsidies, and bikeshare program memberships. Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. Bus Stop Shelter/Shade Bus Stop Pedestrian Scale Lighting Bus Stop ADA Improvements Proposed New Bus Stop Enhanced Pedestrian Interaction at Driveway Areas Bicycle Parking Bus Stop Seating/Bench Bus Stop Trash Recepticle Transit System Information Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk Landscape Plan Crosswalk Improvement(s) 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Enhanced Pedestrian Access Point All residents will be eligible for the WE-cycle program membership. Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. N/A MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Provide details for the proposed bike share program participation. Bike sharing provides access to a fleet of bicycles for short trips, thus reducing SOV travel. The successful project will provide memberships to the existing WE-cycle program. Include details on how many WE- cycle memberships will be purchased and whether these will be made available to guests, employees, or both. 191 Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council FROM:Jen Phelan, Development Manager THROUGH:Scott Miller, Public Works Director MEETING DATE:May 16, 2022 RE:City facilities remodel and use plan-Armory programming and design direction REQUEST OF COUNCIL:Staff is requesting direction on the design and programming of the Armory,allowing staff to move forward with development of schematic design. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: At the February 7, 2022,work session, City Council considered staff’s public engagement proposal for the Armory and provided direction on how to advance the remodel of both the Armory and Old Power House (OPH). Subsequently,Council confirmed its direction by adopting Resolution No. 23 (Series of 2022)(Exhibit A). The resolution identified programming for the Armory to include “as much community space as possible,”as well as Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA),and the Sister Cities community meeting room.The resolution also memorialized the OPH for housing of city departments and established seven guiding principles “to frame the outreach, community discussion, and the staff recommendations” for the Armory. To date, staff has collected baseline information, engaged the public through different forms of outreach, and provided a progress update to Council through an information-only memo.A paper outlining the history of the Armory with photo documentation of the building over time has been completed,and a building materials assessment for the historically designated structure is underway.Community outreach has been undertaken using a variety of techniques, including two online questionnaires, an open house, and two focus group meetings to solicit community feedback.With the public feedback the city has collected and the history paper on the Armory, a number of broad themes can inform the programming and remodel of the building. Remodel and use of the Armory over time. Built in 1892, the Armory was originally constructed as a two- story building, not the three stories and basement that exist today. Changes in its use, additions and remodels have occurred over time. After the Silver Crash of 1893, the demand for silver and its price plummeted, dramatically affecting the economy of Aspen. Although many buildings in the city were not 192 Page 2 of 8 maintained due to the crippled economy, in 1906 new owners of the building (the Fraternal Hall Association) added aheat plant off the alley,an entrance canopy over the sidewalk on Galena Street, and an extended roof along the Hopkins Avenue façade (although it appears that more improvements were planned than executed). Beginning in the late 1940s, the city began to occupy part of the Armory and in 1952 an addition was built (again along the alley) to house city vehicles. In 1955 plans were developed to remodel and modernize the building with an estimated cost of $4,000 -$5,000, although only a partial remodel was undertaken by adding an office, repairing the roof, reworking the entry, and enlarging the ground floor windows on the Galena façade. A subsequent remodel occurred on the now third floor of the Armory with the addition of offices and some changes to the ground floor in 1959. In the sixties a mezzanine space which was part of the ground level was converted into an entire second floor resulting in the original second floor becoming the present day third floor. In the 1970s, an extensive remodel was designed but not implemented, rather, it seems a portionof the plan was implementedwith the construction of the alley canopy, new windows on the east facade, and the addition ofinterior, vertical circulation to the third floor. Elevator service was added in the 1980s and in 1994, a plan for construction of the basement was implemented, along with repairs to exterior masonry and changes to the Hopkins facade. With regard to the use of the building, besides initially providing a space for the local militia to organize and train, the building offered meeting space on the original second floor, via an exterior entrance, for local lodges. In addition to providing meeting space for benevolent orders, various social engagements were also hosted in the building. After the Silver Crash of1893, the building was still used for galas, lodge meetings and dance instruction, albeit at a slower pace. Indoorbasketballandbaseballadded to the useof the building over the years, as well as the introduction of moving pictures. Roller-skating during the Quiet Years also occurred in the building and city offices beganto occupythe building in the forties while still accommodating other events and organizations in the building. Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society Courtesy of Aspen Historical Society 193 Page 3 of 8 Recent public engagement. Overall, the city had approximately 460 participants who provided their thoughts on how the Armory should be programmed and remodeled. The initial form of public engagement was through a community questionnaire on Aspen Community Voice and was advertised on multiple platforms. 296 people completed the questionnaire while 975 people visited the site. Of the people that took the questionnaire, the greatest proportion self-identified as Aspen residents. The initial focus of the questionnaire (Exhibit D) was on ranking the guiding principles, questions associated with unmet community needs, programming of the building, operational characteristics, and questions on the remodel. Overall, the results of the first questionnaire indicate: Most participants support the project’s guiding principles and ranked “The programming at the Armory should focus on unmet needs within the community,” as the top principle. The top three unmet needs ranked by the respondents are: casual dining, multi-purpose space (meetings or events), and non-profit services. These are also considered best fits for the Armory. Lower price point retail and co-working space round out the top five. While 70.3% of the participantsbelievethe list of unmet needs identified by the survey is adequate, 29.7% suggested additional uses for consideration, including community center, affordable housing and 12 step support space. 58.4% of the respondents would like to see the Armory provide a social benefit for the community and feel that that access should be for the general community, with 60.5% stating any unprogrammed space within the building should focus on the needs for local residents. Respondents want to see Conner Park accommodate both active and passive uses. Maintaining the existing amount of square footage on the site is preferred in any redevelopment scenario. A majority of respondents said to take the time, if needed, for a more thorough renovation. Most respondents considered the Armory a high or somewhat high priority that should receive additional funds if necessary. The second round of outreach (Exhibit E) included an additional questionnaire to confirm what the city heard and to drill down on the initialresultsto refine understanding. An open house and two focus group meetings were also conducted. Although similar forms of advertising were undertaken for the second questionnaire, responses were less than half of the initial response (122). The results of the second questionnaire, open house, and focus groups indicate: Adding some suggested uses during the initial questionnaire, the top three ranked uses shifted slightly, with the additionof one new use category, community center, to the top ranked items in addition to the original uses of casual dining and multi-purpose space. Non-profit services and lower price point retail rounded out the top five. Maintaining the historic feel of the building is important as well as having a functional, bright, ecologically friendly, and inviting building. A majority of respondents want to maintain the overall square footage of the building and include exploration around an addition or other ways to open up the internal spaces. The respondents were somewhat split on whether the remodel should focus on design flexibility for changing needs or focus on specific community preferences. 194 Page 4 of 8 Although 61.5% of the respondents thought private dollars should be considered if additional funding is necessary, a majority of respondents thought that the city should manage and lease the Armory to ensure the building remains accessible to the community. The open house and focus groups added more qualitative input, confirming the top ranked guiding principle from the online questionnaire and ranking the top preferred community uses as casual dining, lower price point retail, multipurpose space, community center and social services. At the focus groups, the importance of the Armory providing a vital community space was emphasized. STAFF DISCUSSION: Proposed reuse of the Armory. As confirmed by City Council,the ACRA visitor center and offices, and a Sister Cities room will be part of the programming for the Armory, with the majority of the building’s square footage to be used for community space. ACRA’s relocation to downtown provides the organization the opportunityto create a premiervisitor centerand welcome experience for all.Serving as an information hubforvisitors and the community, the chamber currently provides local supportservices such as selling tree permits for the USFS. To enhance the welcome center service offerings, for both visitors and residents, some initial discussion has occurred regarding the inclusion of a USFS presence in complement with the visitor center space for USFS personnel to provide forest service information. Staff has identified several broad themes based on the research and outreach that has been undertaken to date. With regard to the building‘s use, it has a long history of serving as a public facing community hub, having hosted many community events over time including lodge meetings, dances, galas, and athletic pursuits. Even after the city initially began to occupy the building, it still accommodated multiple uses. Thecurrent public outreach identified an overarching theme from the participants to create a space that is accessible to the community and inviting to a broad age demographic. Additionally, the top community responses for programming the balance of the building include: casual dining community center multi-purpose space non-profit services lower price point retail co-working (dropped from 5th to 6th in the second round of engagement when community center was added as a potential use). Staff heard comments that the community needs a place to gather, that the Armory should be the heart of town, a community living room with the ability to eat, experience entertainment, shop or just hang out. The building has a finite amount of space, so staff will be looking at prioritization of the uses for future space planning. As City Council considers the programming to fill the balance of the building, Councilshould be aware that how the building is anticipated to be used in the future may affect the overall land use entitlements. The building is currently considered an Essential Public Facility as it housed governmentaloperations, if dining or retail is proposed, a change in use to restaurant/retail will trigger a growth management review. Remodel of the Armory. As part of the outreach, staff suggested three redevelopment scenarios for the Armory, from the minimal amount necessary to an extensive overhaul. These three design concepts 195 Page 5 of 8 (Exhibit B) have been developed to provide an idea of potential building footprint and square footage. High level cost estimating has also been applied to each scenario (Exhibit C). The scenarios are described as: Option A, ‘A light Touch’:This option would maintain the existing footprint, floors, and square footage while incorporating improved ADA access (especially the second floor), an overhaul of building systems as needed such as electrical, heating/cooling, and some repair and restoration of the exterior shell are included. +/- 18,500 s.f. Estimated cost per square foot, at $600 - $850 per s.f. = $11 - $16 million Option B, ‘Somewhere in the Middle’:This option would provide a ground floor addition to the Armory along the alley, with a full basement underneath. The head height of the new basement would match that of the existing basement and allow for connectivity. To increase head heighton the ground floor of the Armory and restore it closer to its original form, the second story would be removed. All new systems would be installed in the building. +/- 18,270 s.f. Estimated cost per square foot, at $1,000 - $1,250 per s.f. = $18 - $23 million 196 Page 6 of 8 Option C, ‘The Works’:This final option is essentially a duplicate of Option B, except for the basement. The existing basement would be expanded along the perimeter to existing walls and the depth would be increased overall in the basement providing for greater floor to ceiling heights. +/- 19,490 s.f. Estimated cost per square foot, at $1,100 - $1,350 per s.f. = $21.5 – $26.5 million Currently, a lifetime budget of $7.5 million is allocated for the Armory, which is less than the forecasted amount needed for Option A.Anything beyond this amount is unfunded. For $7.5million,a ‘Fluff and Buff’ of the building has been estimated. The existing layout would be maintained other than to level the second story for accessibility improvements, it would ensure HVAC systems and windows are operable, and include a fresh coat of paint and flooring. Depending on the direction Council provides for the extent of a remodel, staff will need to determine if and how a budget over $7.5 million might be funded as well as options for recoupment of expenditures which can be brought back to Councilat a later date. Council is scheduled to have a work session on June 20th to discuss capitalasset work plan priorities, so staff could target sometimeafter the June work session Staff is seeking direction from Council on the following points that will guide the remodel and programming process: A. Providedirection onprogrammingfor the Armory. Staff would like receive direction on the future programming of the Armory. Based on community feedback, the top five uses have been identified as: casual dining community center multi-purpose space non-profit services lower price point retail (co-working dropped from 5 th to 6th in the second round of engagement when community center was added as a potential use) Staff has interpreted community center to mean more of a community hub, a gathering place for all ages rather than a senior or youth center. Besides incorporating ACRA and Sister Cities room, staff would like to confirm with Council, 1) what type of programming should the balance of the building incorporate?Recognizing that the building contains a finite amount of useable space, and that the community response appears to be geared towards a mixed-use experience, staff will need to study the feasibility and proportion of any mix that will encourage a vital, livelily, engaging space. A secondary question with regard to operations in the building has to do with the programming of ACRA’s visitor center space. As a welcoming center to the community, this space can serve as a center to feature information from multiple organizations. Based on the concept of one stop shopping and recognizing the synergy that may be present between different organizations, staff is interested in seeing if Council supports,2) reviewing the potential feasibility for the USFS to have a presence in complement with the visitor center space associated with ACRA to provide forest service information. 197 Page 7 of 8 B. Provide direction on the extent of remodel of the Armory. Staff would also like to get direction on what level of remodel City Council would ideally like to pursuefor the Armory. Public engagement participants did suggest that taking the time for a thorough remodel is okay, that the remodel should maintain the historic integrity of the buildingand provide a functional, bright, ecologically friendly, and inviting experience. The respondents were somewhat split on design flexibility for changing needs (although that did rank slightly higher) or focusing on specific community preferences. There is concern on the potential loss of square footage. Staff is requesting confirmation on the preferred extent of aremodel.Staff would like direction on the following two questions: 1) Should the remodel focus on designing a flexible space/floor plan to accommodate the changing needs of the community?And, with regard to the form and volume of the building, 2) Which redevelopment option is the preferred remodel target: Option A1, ‘Fluff and Buff’ - $7.5 million Option A, ‘A light Touch’ - $11 - $16 million Option B, ‘Somewhere in the Middle’ - $18 - $23 million Option C, ‘The Works’- $21.5 - $26.5 million Next Steps: Staff met the timeline target with the outreach processbut if City Council’s preferred direction is more than a ‘Fluff and Buff’, staff recommends a temporary pause on moving forward with schematic designas additional funding will be necessary.The city should have amore thorough discussion on funding options including the potential for a public private partnership and grant opportunities and determine if the preferred remodel direction is financially feasible given other obligations. Once this threshold question is adequately resolved, an updated timeline can be developed to accommodate the proposed programing and final design direction including more accurate forecasting for land use entitlements, construction document development, permit review, construction costs, and a construction schedule. Once staff moves into schematic design with Charles Cunniffe Architects, other items need to also be considered. Staff will start considering at: Any design changes to Conner Park. Identification and development of a use floor plan. Further consideration of funding and any potential recoupment of expenditures over time. Options for structuring the potential leasing and management of the building. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests confirmation and/or direction on items A and B of the memo so that staff may advance the remodel and programming process. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Resolution No 23 (Series of 2022) Exhibit B: Initial design concepts, Charles Cunniffe Architects Exhibit C: Initial cost estimating, Concept One Group Exhibit D: Public Engagement Report, round 1 Exhibit E: Public Engagement Report, round 2 Adopted ‘Guiding Principles’ for the remodel and programming of the Armory. The programming at the Armory should focus on unmet needs within the community. 198 Page 8 of 8 The uses within the Armory should provide meaningful and affordable participation in programs and offerings. The remodel will respect the historic context and contribute to Aspen’s small-town character. The building remodel will incorporate sustainable systems showing a commitment to the environment. The Armory should be able to be used by a diverse range of people. The operational structure of the Armory should limit the public financial burden of operating and maintaining the building. The programming of the Armory should contribute to a lively and diverse downtown. 199 RESOLUTION NO. 023 SERIES OF 2022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER REGARDING THE STRATEGIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMODEL AND REUSE PLAN FOR THE ARMORY(130 S. GALENA ST.), OLD POWER HOUSE (490 N. MILL ST.),AND THE MAIN STREET CABIN 630 W. MAIN ST.) WHEREAS, the former city hall (AKA the Armory) is newly vacant due to the construction of a new city hall, the Old Power House (OPH) currently accommodates the Capital Asset department and Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA), and the Main Street cabin houses the Special Events and Transportation departments; and, WHEREAS,the city is considering options for the future remodel and reuse of all three buildings; and, WHEREAS, City Council reviewed the conceptual programming of the OPH and Armory in work session on August 2, 2021, indicating that city staff offices should be removed from the Armory and Main Street cabin,the offices concentrated in the OPH, and that the Main Street cabin should be a residential use to support city operations; and, WHEREAS, a remodel and reuse plan for the Armory and the OPH was presented by city staff to the City Council at a work session on February 7,2022,that outlined suggested initial programming for each building and a public engagement process and timeline to gather community feedback; and, WHEREAS,city staff seeks direction on the strategies and principles to be used guide the remodel and reuse process for the Armory; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution confirms direction provided to the City Manager for advancing the remodel and reuse plans for the Armory, OPH,and Main Street cabin. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Confirmation of Requested Council Direction: The initial strategies to advance the remodel and reuse plan are: 1. City staff will progress the remodel and reuse plan anticipating that the OPH will house city departments and the Main Street cabin will become city-employee housing. 2. City staff will evaluate how the OPH may support outdoor programming of lawn space adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and contain historic interpretation elements. Resolution 023-2022 City Buildings Reuse Plan Policy Resolution Page 1 of 2 200 3. City staff will progress the remodel and reuse plan for the Armory anticipating that the Armory will house as much community use as possible and include the Sister Cities Community Meeting Room,the primary ACRA visitor center,and primary ACRA office space. 4. Staff will conduct an efficient public engagement process as identified in the Council work session of February 7, 2022, with the anticipated completion being at the end of April 2022,to identify the potential community uses for the Armory. 5. The following guiding principles will frame the outreach,community discussion,and the staff recommendations to City Council: A. The remodel will respect the historic context and contribute to Aspen's small- town character. B. The building remodel will incorporate sustainable systems showing a commitment to the environment. C. The Armory should be able to be used by a diverse range of people. D. The uses within the Armory should provide meaningful and affordable participation in programs and offerings. E. The operational structure of the Armory should limit the public financial burden of operating and maintaining the building. F. The programming of the Armory should contribute to a lively and diverse downtown. G. The programming of the Armory should focus on unmet needs within the community. These principles will be used as a basis for the research, community engagement, and work product by city staff. FINALLY,adopted this 22nd day of February 2022. Torre, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: lak&J"—q 7,-a- Nicole Henning, City erk es R True,City Attorney Resolution 023-2022 City Buildings Reuse Plan Policy Resolution Page 2 of 2 201 UP UP A A B B 6 6 1 1 A.3 A.3 C C C.6 C.6 D D D.7 D.7 E E 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5A 5A B.4 B.4 EL.= CEILING 8'-6" ELEVATOR LEASABLE AREA SUMMARY BASEMENT 3230.1 SF FIRST FLOOR 5458.0 SF SECOND FLOOR 5237.3 SF THIRD FLOOR 4576.1 SF TOTAL 18,501.5 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:19:43 PMA-1 1837 BASEMENT FLOOR PLANARMORY130 S GALENA STASPEN, COISSUE: DATE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN - OPTION A 202 UP DN UP A A B B 6 6 1 1 A.3 A.3 C C C.6 C.6 D D D.7 D.7 E E 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5A 5A B.4 B.4 EL.= CEILING 8'-0" ELEVATOR LEASABLE AREA SUMMARY BASEMENT 3230.1 SF FIRST FLOOR 5458.0 SF SECOND FLOOR 5237.3 SF THIRD FLOOR 4576.1 SF TOTAL 18,501.5 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:19:43 PMA-2 1837 FIRST FLOOR PLANARMORY 130 S GALENA STASPEN, COISSUE: DATE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OPTION A 203 UP DN UP DN A A B B 6 6 1 1 A.3 A.3 C C C.6 C.6 D D D.7 D.7 E E 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5A 5A B.4 B.4 OPEN TO BELOW OVERFRAMING AT EXISTING FLOOR OVERFRAMING AT EXISTING FLOOR ALIGN OVERFRAMING TO EXISTING ELEVATED FLOOR MODIFY STAIRS AND RAILS PER NEW FLOOR ELEVATION MODIFY STAIRS AND RAILS PER NEW FLOOR ELEVATION EL.= CEILING 9'-6" ELEVATOR LEASABLE AREA SUMMARY BASEMENT 3230.1 SF FIRST FLOOR 5458.0 SF SECOND FLOOR 5237.3 SF THIRD FLOOR 4576.1 SF TOTAL 18,501.5 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:19:44 PMA-3 1837 SECOND FLOOR PLANARMORY130 S GALENA STASPEN, COISSUE: DATE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN - OPTION A 204 DN DN A A B B 6 6 1 1 A.3 A.3 C C C.6 C.6 D D D.7 D.7 E E 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5A 5A B.4 B.4 EL.= CEILING 16'-0" LEASABLE AREA SUMMARY BASEMENT 3230.1 SF FIRST FLOOR 5458.0 SF SECOND FLOOR 5237.3 SF THIRD FLOOR 4576.1 SF TOTAL 18,501.5 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:19:44 PMA-4 1837 THIRD FLOOR PLANARMORY 130 S GALENA STASPEN, COISSUE: DATE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN - OPTION A 205 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:19:52 PMA-5 1837 NORTHWEST 3D VIEWARMORY 130 S GALENA STASPEN, COISSUE: DATE: 1 NORTHWEST 3D VIEW - OPTION A 206 1ST FLOOR 7917'-2 3/8" 1ST FLOOR 7917'-2 3/8" 2ND FLOOR 109'-4" 2ND FLOOR 109'-4" BASEMENT 89'-6" BASEMENT 89'-6" 3RD FLOOR 121'-4" 3RD FLOOR 121'-4" CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:19:53 PMA-6 1837 SOUTHEAST 3D SECTIONARMORY130 S GALENA STASPEN, COISSUE: DATE: 1 SOUTHEAST 3D SECTION - OPTION A 207 UP UPUP UP 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 A A A.3 A.3 B B B.4 B.4 C C E E D.7 D.7 D D C.6 C.6 ELEVATOR EL.= CEILING 8'-6" LEASABLE AREA SUMMARY BASEMENT 6,302.3 SF MAIN FLOOR 7,567.3 SF UPPER FLOOR 4,396.5 SF TOTAL 18,266.1 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:36:25 PMB-1 2119 BASEMENT FLOOR PLANARMORY REMODEL130 S. GALENAASPEN, COLORADO3/16" = 1'-0" 1 BASEMENT PLAN - OPTION B ISSUE: DATE: 208 DN DN DN UP UP DN DN 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 A A A.3 A.3 B B B.4 B.4 C C E E D.7 D.7 D D C.6 C.6 16'-3"20'-7"17'-7"17'-7"19'-3"5'-0"11'-0"6'-6"9'-6"9'-6"6'-6"11'-0"5'-0"ELEVATOR EL.= CEILING 18'-0" LEASABLE AREA SUMMARY BASEMENT 6,302.3 SF MAIN FLOOR 7,567.3 SF UPPER FLOOR 4,396.5 SF TOTAL 18,266.1 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:36:25 PMB-2 2119 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANARMORY REMODEL130 S. GALENAASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN - OPTION B 209 DN DN 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 A A A.3 A.3 B B B.4 B.4 C C E E D.7 D.7 D D C.6 C.6 ELEVATOR EL.= CEILING 16'-0" LEASABLE AREA SUMMARY BASEMENT 6,302.3 SF MAIN FLOOR 7,567.3 SF UPPER FLOOR 4,396.5 SF TOTAL 18,266.1 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:36:26 PMB-3 2119 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANARMORY REMODEL130 S. GALENAASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 UPPER FLOOR PLAN - OPTION B 210 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:52:49 PMB-4 2119 NORTHWEST 3D VIEWARMORY REMODEL130 S. GALENAASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE: 1 NORTHWEST 3D VIEW - OPTION B 211 1ST FLOOR 100'-0" 1ST FLOOR 100'-0" BASEMENT 89'-6" BASEMENT 89'-6" 3RD FLOOR 121'-4" 3RD FLOOR 121'-4" CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:36:26 PMB-5 2119 SOUTHEAST 3D SECTIONARMORY REMODEL130 S. GALENAASPEN, COLORADO1 SOUTHEAST 3D SECTION - OPTION B ISSUE: DATE: 212 UP UPUP UP 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 A A A.3 A.3 B B B.4 B.4 C C E E D.7 D.7 D D C.6 C.6 ELEVATOR EL.= CEILING 10'-0" LEASABLE AREA SUMMARY BASEMENT 7,524.8 SF MAIN FLOOR 7,567.3 SF UPPER FLOOR 4,396.5 SF TOTAL 19,488.6 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:51:08 PMC-1 2119 BASEMENT FLOOR PLANARMORY REMODEL130 S. GALENAASPEN, COLORADO3/16" = 1'-0" 1 BASEMENT PLAN - OPTION C ISSUE: DATE: 213 DN DN DN UP UP DN DN 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 A A A.3 A.3 B B B.4 B.4 C C E E D.7 D.7 D D C.6 C.6 16'-3"20'-7"17'-7"17'-7"19'-3"5'-0"11'-0"6'-6"9'-6"9'-6"6'-6"11'-0"5'-0"ELEVATOR EL.= CEILING 18'-0" LEASABLE AREA SUMMARY BASEMENT 7,524.8 SF MAIN FLOOR 7,567.3 SF UPPER FLOOR 4,396.5 SF TOTAL 19,488.6 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:51:08 PMC-2 2119 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANARMORY REMODEL130 S. GALENAASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 MAIN FLOOR PLAN - OPTION C 214 DN DN 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 A A A.3 A.3 B B B.4 B.4 C C E E D.7 D.7 D D C.6 C.6 ELEVATOR EL.= CEILING 16'-0" LEASABLE AREA SUMMARY BASEMENT 7,524.8 SF MAIN FLOOR 7,567.3 SF UPPER FLOOR 4,396.5 SF TOTAL 19,488.6 SF CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:51:08 PMC-3 2119 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANARMORY REMODEL130 S. GALENAASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 UPPER FLOOR PLAN - OPTION C 215 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:51:16 PMC-4 2119 NORTHWEST 3D VIEWARMORY REMODEL130 S. GALENAASPEN, COLORADOISSUE: DATE: 1 NORTHWEST 3D VIEW - OPTION C 216 1ST FLOOR 100'-0" 1ST FLOOR 100'-0" BASEMENT 88'-0" BASEMENT 88'-0" 3RD FLOOR 121'-4" 3RD FLOOR 121'-4" CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS COPYRIGHT CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTSC 610 EAST HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, CO 81611 TEL: 970.925.5590 FAX: 970.920.4557 cunniffe.com SHEET NO. JOB NO.5/6/2022 2:51:17 PMC-5 2119 SOUTHEAST 3D SECTIONARMORY REMODEL130 S. GALENAASPEN, COLORADO1 SOUTHEAST 3D SECTION - OPTION C ISSUE: DATE: 217 183 North 12th St.| Carbondale, CO 81623 | www.ConceptOneGroup.com | (970) 456-6470 Exhibit C May 7, 2022 Jen Phelan City Of Aspen Asset Department 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen,Colorado 81611 RE: Rough Order of Magnitude Armory Project Cost We have been asked to model project cost for the design options dated 04.30.2022 by Charles Cunniffe Architects -Options A, B, and C. Estimated costs are based on data from the New City Hall, the Wheeler Opera House historic preservation, and the current market trends. While we do not have a crystal ball, we feel that the information provided will help facilitate an informed discussion. We will outline below the assumptions used in the modeling.We understand that the final design may include design details from each option. Included in the estimated costs are all phases of the project, public outreach, design, entitlement, through construction and Commissioning. Option A.1: Option A.1 will deliver a fluff and buff of the original configuration as it currently exists. The main focus of this option will be to level the floor on the second level, but will leave the layout as is.There will be new paint and floor coverings throughout the building. All existing HVAC and MEP systems will be upgraded and maintained to function properly. All windows and doors will be evaluated and fixed so that all operate properly. 18,500 sf -$400 per square foot = $7.5MM Option A: Option A will deliver approximately the same square footage as is currently in the Armory -18,500 sf (square feet). The main focus of this renovation would be to accommodate improved ADA access according to current code and improve egress.Once programming is determined,the restroom and sustainability measures would improve the functionality and operation of the building. The finishes would be similar to the new City Hall. The Structure would remain as is with the exception of floor leveling for ADA access. The historic preservation of the shell is included in our modeling: 18,500 sf –$600 -$850 Per Square foot = $11MM -$16MM Option B: Option B will deliver 18,270 sf. This is accommodated by completely restructuring the existing building while protecting and historically preserving the existing shell. It includes adding an addition with a full basement on the alley side of the building to accommodate the loss of square footage when the existing second floor is removed to return the building to its historic configuration. The current basement will also be shored and expanded on the north side with the same existing ceiling height to accommodate the new addition. This is a complete demolition and build back of the interior of the existing building. The interior finishes will be similar to the new City Hall -modern and sustainable. 218 2 18,270 sf – $1000 – $1250 per square foot = $18MM – 23MM Option C: Option C will deliver 19,490 sf. This option is almost exactly the same as Option B in all areas except the basement. The basement will be shored during the restructure of the building and expanded on the south side to the limits of the existing south wall realizing the additional square footage. The floor to ceiling height will be increased from 8’6” to 10’. 19,490 sf - $1100 – 1350 per square foot = $21.5MM – $26.5MM 219 ASPEN'S ARMORY HALL ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT February 2022 Engagement Phase February 22, 2022-March 18, 2022 220 CONTENTS Engagement Summary Overview Engagement Window and Goals Previous Project Engagement Aspen Community Voice Page Questionnaire Emails and Comments Ideas Distribution Channels Print and Digital Presence Email Aspen Community Voice (ACV) Page Visitor Summary Participant Summary Tool, Widget and Traffic Summary Questionnaire Content/Questions Complete Responses Report Emails and Comments ACV Direct Email Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 2 2 5 7 11 64 221 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY OVERVIEW ENGAGEMENT WINDOWS AND GOALS The current phase of engagement occurred between February 22 and March 18, 2022. The goal for this engagement window was to encourage the community to be active in the development of staff recommendations to Council by providing feedback the Guiding Principles, community needs and preferences, and investment commitment (time and financial) for the remodel and future programming of Aspen’s Armory Hall. Engagement levels deployed included Inform (keep informed) and Consult (lis- ten/acknowledge concerns and ideas and incorporate feedback into decision-making process). PREVIOUS PROJECT ENGAGEMENT Staff brought to this conversation a knowledge of past conversations related to the future of Aspen’s Armory Hall, including expressed desire community access and use. However, these are broad terms and staff sought to better understand what access and use could look like and what programming may be compatible with these. ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE (ACV) PAGE Over the course of the site being open between February 24 and March 18, 2022 (questionnaire live dates), a total of: •975 people visited at least one page •731 clicked on something on the site •296 took the questionnaire •33 contributed a new comment or idea through the Ideas Widget QUESTIONNAIRE Demographics A total of 296 individuals responded to the Community Values questionnaire. The largest demographic group of respondents in a question about self-identification answered that they identified as Aspen resi- dents (227). Other responses showed 53 identified as Aspen business owners, 33 as down valley com- muters, and 2 as Visitors. Respondents could select more than one category if applicable. General Observations Unlike many Aspen initiatives, staff observed several key themes and submitted ideas which stood above the rest. •A majority of participants (70.3%) supported the project’s guiding principles. •Casual Dining, Multipurpose Space, Non-Profit Services, and Lover Price Point Retail ranked highest as community space and programming needs desired most in Aspen. Office Space – C working Space round out the top five. While 59% of participants believed the list of options was sufficient, 41% submitted ideas they felt were missing from consideration. Of the ideas submitted, staff observed these themes emerging consistently: •Senior Center •12-Step Support Space •Affordable Housing •Community Center Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 3 222 The top five proposed uses were confirmed in a question asking what needed community use may best work within the Armory as results indicated: •Multipurpose Space (186) •Restaurant – Casual Dining – 157 •Non-Profit Services (154) •Retail – Lower Price Point (93) •Office Space – Coworking (84) Approximately 58% of the participants indicated that future use should focus on a Social need in the community. Similarly, 64% expressed that future access be for the general community and not necessari- ly for specific individual or group use. The Questionnaire also inquired about adjacent space use and what type of use would make the Ar- mory a good neighbor in the future. Support was shown for both day and evening potential hours of operation. 67.9% indicated that Conner Park should have a mix of passive and active recreational uses. A desire to maintain the alley parking was high, with 62% stating that was very important or important to them. Recognizing that the Aspen Chamber and Resort Association (ACRA) would be housed in part of the Ar- mory, the questionnaire probed what audience the remainder of the space should serve. Overwhelming- ly, 60.5$ stated it should have a Local Resident focus, followed by 37.8% suggesting it serve a mix of local and visitor community members. The questionnaire tested the water on our community’s preferences around the physical remodel such as maintaining it as a three-story facility or returning it to a two-story facility, patience for time to re- model, and funding preferences. While follow-up engagement will take a deeper dive into these areas, initial understanding and support indicates that our community is open to taking time on the remodel. Responses to whether the City should prioritize funding the Armory’s remodel and future programming and how to pay for that (City only or Public-Private Partnership) were mixed. Again, staff will explore these areas further in the next outreach efforts. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 4 IDEAS Twenty-seven ideas were shared with the community on the Aspen Community Voice Ideas page. Other community members were able to vote on or comment on these ideas as well. Much as witnessed in the questionnaire, top ideas supported a Food Hall concept (Casual Dining), Non-Profit Support, Community Center (senior, youth or multi-generational), and Housing. These ideas, and the feedback they generated form the community, are available to peruse on ACV. 223 DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS Print & Digital Presence PRESS RELEASE • February 24, 2022: City Seeks Community Input on Future Programming Opti ons for Historic Armory Hall WEBSITE • Homepage Newsfl ash: Feb. 22-March 18, 2022 • News Page: City Seeks Community Input on Future Programming Opti ons for Historic Armory Hall • Aspen Community Voice Aspen’s Armory Hall Project Page MEDIA COVERAGE • Aspen Daily News: March 4, 2022 | Opinion: Food court at the Armory • Aspen Daily News: Feb. 25, 2022 | News in Brief (City of Aspen seeks input on Armory Hall) • Aspen Daily News: Feb. 8, 2022 | Aspen City Council supports plan to remodel and repurpose historic city buildings • Vail Daily: Feb. 8, 2022 | Public process about to begin on how to return old Aspen City Hall to community • Aspen Times: Feb. 7, 2022 | Public process about to begin on how to return old Aspen City Hall to community PRINT ADS • Aspen Times: ¼ Ads on March 17 and 18 • Aspen Daily News: ¼ Ads on March 17 and 18 DIGITAL ADS • Aspen Times: 30K Impressions in standard slots, March 11-18 • Aspen Daily News: 300x250 slot, March 9-18, 2022 FACEBOOK March 3, 2022: Armory Questi onnaire Link to ACV for Armory Questi onnaire • 388 Post Impressions • 383 Post Reach • 3 Post Engagement March 17, 2022: Armory Questi onnaire Closes Tomorrow Link to ACV for Armory Questi onnaire • 234 Post Impressions • 239 Post Reach • 5 Post Engagement Aspen'sArmoryHall TheCityofAspen isdeveloping along-termstrategy fortheremodeland futureprogramming useofAspen’s ArmoryHall. Weinviteyouto shareyourideas andyourthoughts aboutcommunity valuesandwhatpublic accessmeanstoyou. You know its history. HELP Envision its future! OnlinequestionnaireopenthroughApril18. Visitwww.aspencommunityvoice.com Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 5 224 INSTAGRAM March 3, 2022: Armory Questionnaire Link to ACV for Armory Questionnaire • 382 Post Impressions •361Post Reach •6 Post Interactions March 17, 2022: Armory Questionnaire Closes Tomorrow Link to ACV for Armory Questionnaire • 308 Post Impressions •292 Post Reach •6 Post Interactions TWITTER March 3, 2022: Armory Questionnaire Link to ACV for Armory Questionnaire • 146 Post Impressions •1 Engagements March 17, 2022: Armory Questionnaire Closes Tomorrow Link to ACV for Armory Questionnaire149 Post Impressions •3 Engagements • 3 Link Clicks Email Presence ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE February 25, 2022: Subject: Aspen seeks input on the Armory’s future programming and remodel options • 2,569 Sent •1,763 Open Rate • 228 Click Through March 17, 2022: Subject: One day left to take the Aspen’s Armory Hall Questionnaire + other “engaging” up- dates • 2691 Sent •1764 Open Rate • 192 Click Through OTHER ACRA Membership Newsletter Week of March 7, 2022 issue ComDev Newsletter Week of March 7, 2022 issue Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 6 225 Aspen Community Voice Page Visitor Summary Highlights TOTAL VISITS 1.5K MAX VISITORS PER DAY 181 NEW REGISTRATIONS 99 ENGAGED VISITORS 426 INFORMED VISITORS 731 AWARE VISITORS 975 Pageviews Visitors Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 7 226 Participant Summary ENGAGED INFORMED AWARE 426 ENGAGED PARTICIPANTS 000 00296 000 000 000 000 001 000 1071333 Registered Unverified Anonymous Contributed on Forums Participated in Surveys Contributed to Newsfeeds Participated in Quick Polls Posted on Guestbooks Contributed to Stories Asked Questions Placed Pins on Places Contributed to Ideas * A single engaged participant can perform multiple actions 426 (43.7%) (%) * Calculated as a percentage of total visits to the Project ENGAGED INFORMED AWARE 731INFORMED PARTICIPANTS 0 0 1 9 0 0 375 426 Participants Viewed a video Viewed a photo Downloaded a document Visited the Key Dates page Visited an FAQ list Page Visited Instagram Page Visited Multiple Project Pages Contributed to a tool (engaged) * A single informed participant can perform multiple actions Armory Hall 731 (75.0%) (%) * Calculated as a percentage of total visits to the Project ENGAGED INFORMED AWARE 975 AWARE PARTICIPANTS 975 Participants Visited at least one Page * Aware user could have also performed an Informed or Engaged Action 975Armory Hall * Total list of unique visitors to the project Armory Hall Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 8 227 Engagement Tools Summary Information Widget Summary 0 FORUM TOPICS 1 SURVEYS 0 NEWS FEEDS 0 QUICK POLLS 0 GUESTBOOKS 1 STORIES 1 Q&A'S 0 PLACES DOCUMENTS 3 0 PHOTOS 0 VIDEOS 0 FAQS 1 KEY DATES Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 9 228 Traffic Sources Summary Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 10 229 QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire Content Introduction What is your idea of community use and access? How do you prioriti ze community values around environmental and fi nancial sustainability, small town character and historic context, community needs and programming opportuniti es? We want to hear more from you on these topics as the City develops a long-term strategy for the remodel and future programming use of Armory Hall (Armory), located at 130 South Ga- lena Street. Built in 1891, the Armory has a long, rich history in the City of Aspen and we now have an opportunity to explore what its future story will be. We invite you to take this short questi onnaire (approx. 12 minutes) to share your thoughts with us about your values and prioriti es as the City seeks to balance needs and preferences with funding and logisti cs. Informati on gathered here will be shared with City Council to help inform the decisions made around programming and remodeling opti ons at the Armory. This survey will close on Sunday, March 13, 2022, at 5 p.m. Questions 1. The list below outlines several guiding principles developed by research, previous commu- nity conversati ons, and policy directi ve from Aspen City Council. These guiding principles allow the City of Aspen to ensure decision-making and directi on on this project supports the commu- nity’s vision. Please rank in order of priority from most important (1) to least important (7) the principles that should guide the redevelopment of the Armory building. a. The building remodel will incorporate sustainable systems showing a commitment to the environment. b. The Armory should be able to be used by a diverse range of people. c. The uses within the Armory should provide meaningful and aff ordable parti cipati on in programs and off erings. d. The operati onal structure of the Armory should limit the public fi nancial burden of operati ng and maintaining the building. e. The remodel will respect the historic context and contribute to Aspen’s small-town character. f. The programming of the Armory should contribute to a lively and diverse downtown. g. The programming at the Armory should focus on unmet needs within the community 2. Is there another principle you think should be considered that was not listed above? a. No, I think the list above is good. b. Yes, this list should also include (please specify) Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 11 230 Questions - Continued 3. When considering the variety of community space and programming needs in Aspen, which do you think our community needs most? a.Retail – Higher Price Point b. Retail - Mid-Range Price Point c. Retail – Lower Price Point d. Restaurants – Fine Dining e. Restaurants – Casual Dining f.Office Space –Private g. Office Space - Coworking h. Non-Profit Services i.Multipurpose Space – Meetings or Events 4. Is there another programming need you think should be considered that was not listed above? a. No, I think the list above is good. b.Yes, this list should also include (please specify) 5. When considering the variety of community space and programming needs in Aspen, which do you view as being one which could be best met within the Armory building? a. Retail – Higher Price Point b. Retail - Mid-Range Price Point c. Retail – Lower Price Point d. Restaurants – Fine Dining e. Restaurants – Casual Dining f.Office Space –Private g. Office Space - Coworking h. Non-Profit Services i.Multipurpose Space – Meetings or Events j. Other (please specify) 6. Programming options can offer a variety of perceived community benefits. Which community benefit listed below would you like the reuse of the Armory to focus on: a. Economic b. Cultural c. Social 7. The Armory is designated as a historic resource and is located within Aspen’s Downtown Commerical Core Historict District adjacent to Connor Park. This location is in the Public Zone District. Any future use will need to be compatible with the setting and Aspen’s Land Use Code. Some proposed uses may easily fit into the current zoning while others may require zoning changes with additional work to achieve any modifications or updates. From your perspective, which of the following considerations are important for future programming to make the Armory a “good neighbor?” a.Parking b. Hours of operations c. Number of Occupants d.Noise e. Community Benefits f. Public Access g. Other (please specify) Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 12 231 Questions - Continued 8. Considering hours of operation, would you prefer to see future uses of the Armory focus on? a. Primarily Daytime Usage (typical business hours, weekdays) b. Primarily Evening Usage (after-business hours and weekends) c. Both Daytime and Evening Usage 9.How important is it to ensure that the adjacent Connor Park is activated with: a. Passive Recreation Use (Individual Use) b. Active Recreation Use (Programmed Use) c. A Mix of Both 10. How important is it to maintain the off-street parking along the alley behind the Armory? a.Very Important b. Somewhat Important c. Not Important 11. From your perspective, if parking is maintained within the alley behind the Armory should this parking area be open to: a.All downtown core visitors b. Occupants or visitors to the Armory Building 12. Community access to the Armory could be programmed in a variety of ways from community meeting space to reserve to businesses that may be frequented by community members. Understanding this, will help us further appreciate community expectations related to access. In your perspective, which type of community access would you prefer to see at the Armory? a.Community access for individual or group use (meeting, co-working, event space) b. Access to services that benefit the community housed in the building (non-profits, retail, or restaurant services) 13.How important is community access to the Armory to you? a.Very Important b. Somewhat Important c. Not Important 14. Currently, The Aspen Chamber and Resort Association (ACRA) is planned to occupy part of the Armory in the future. Besides ACRA, what do you believe should be the focus for additional space programming needs: a. Local Residents b. Visitors c. Both Local Residents and Visitors 15. Presently the Armory is fully accessible by the rear entrance off of the alley and contains an elevator internally to access each floor; however, within each floor, accessibility canbe limited. Making interior adjustments to the building would be necessary to accommodate a fully accessible and inclusive community space. Regardless of potential future use, how important is it to have the space publicly available and accessible for people of all abilities? a. It’s very important for the Armory to remain fully accessible to the public all of the time with ADA accreditation b. It would be nice for the Armory to be somewhat accessible to the public for at least some of the time c. It is not necessarily important for the Armory (or some portion of the Armory) to be accessible to the public. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 13 232 Questions - Continued 16.Should the remodel of the Armory maximize the square footage within the existing footprint (three levels and a basement) or consider reducing the square footage by returning the building closer to its original form (two levels and basement)? a.Maximize the square footage b. Return the building to its original form 17.Currently, Pitkin County has leased space in the Armory while their courts undergo renovation. Remodeling the Armory for future use will also require time once the County vacates in fall/winter 2022. Depending on the ideas proposed, the level of required renovation may vary from minimum renovations necessary, a to the studs remodel, or expanding the footprint of the existing building. The extent of the renovation will impact the timeline to have the Armory occupied again with programming. In your perspective, would you prefer to see the Armory: a.Be back up and running as quickly as possible b. Take time, if needed, for more thorough renovation 18. City Council and staff have developed a capital investment strategy that outlines key capital needs for the City. Funding has been earmarked for remodel of both these buildings; however, the extent of public engagement, decisions on the programming and remodel of the properties will affect the timeline and costs associated with the projects. Recognizing limited taxpayer dollars and the need to focus on core amenities and services, what priority is the Armory compared to other capital? a. The Armory is a high priority and additional funds, if needed, should be provided to ensure the building is ready for long-term future use b. The Armory is somewhat of a priority that should receive additional funds, if needed, once other core amenities are taken care of c. The Armory is important, but we should spend the minimum required to update it for this project 19.If extensive remodel is determined to be a need, should the City maintain responsibility for the renovation expense or seek a private-public partnership opportunity? a. Yes b. No 20. If the budget and community access were limitless, and you had a magic wand, what would your dream use of the Armory be? 21. Please select the option(s) that best describes your age: a.Under 19 b. 20-30 c.31-40 d. 41-50 e. 51-60 f. 61-70 g. 70+ 22. Please select the option(s) that best describes you. a. Aspen resident b. Aspen business owner c.Commuter d. Visitor e. Other – please specify Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 14 233 COMPLETE COMMUNITY VALUES QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 15 234 Q1 The list below outlines several guiding principles developed by research, previous community conversations, and policy directive from Aspen City Council. These guiding principles allow the City of Aspen to ensure decision-making and direction on th... OPTIONS AVG. RANK The programming at the Armory should focus on unmet needs within the community. 3.39 The uses within the Armory should provide meaningful and affordable participation in programs and offerings. 3.44 The remodel will respect the historic context and contribute to Aspen’s small-town character. 3.76 The programming of the Armory should contribute to a lively and diverse downtown. 3.84 The Armory should be able to be used by a diverse range of people. 4.11 The building remodel will incorporate sustainable systems showing a commitment to the environment. 4.44 The operational structure of the Armory should limit the public financial burden of operating and maintaining the building. 5.03 Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Ranking Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 16 235 Q2 Is there another principle you think should be considered that was not listed above? 208 (70.3%) 208 (70.3%) 88 (29.7%) 88 (29.7%) No, I think the list above is good.Yes, this list should also include (please specify) Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 17 236 Q3 When considering the variety of community space and programming needs in Aspen, which do you think our community needs most?Please rank in order of priority from most needed (1) to least needed (9). OPTIONS AVG. RANK Retaurant - Casual Dining 3.13 Multipurpose Space - Meetings or Events 3.38 Non-Profit Services 3.48 Retail - Lower Price Point 3.69 Office Space - Coworking 4.69 Retail - Mid-Range Price Point 5.33 Office Space - Private 6.35 Restaurant - Fine Dining 7.25 Retail - Higher Price Point 7.70 Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Ranking Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 18 237 Q4 Is there another programming need you think should be considered that was not listed above? 175 (59.1%) 175 (59.1%) 121 (40.9%) 121 (40.9%) No, I think the list above is good.Yes, this list should also include (please specify). Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 19 238 Q5 When considering the variety of community space and programming needs in Aspen, which do you view as being one which could be best met within the Armory building? (Select all the apply) Retail - Higher Price Point Retail - MId-Range Price Point Retail - Lower Price Point Restaurant - Fine Dining Restaurant - Casual Dining Office Space - Private Office Space - Coworking Non-Profit Services Multipurpose Space - Meetings or Events Other (please specify) Question options 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 2 20 93 3 157 18 84 154 186 75 Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Checkbox Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 20 239 Q6 Programming options can offer a variety of perceived community benefits. Which community benefit listed below would you like the reuse of the Armory to focus on: 53 (17.9%) 53 (17.9%) 70 (23.6%) 70 (23.6%) 173 (58.4%) 173 (58.4%) Economic Cultural Social Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 21 240 Q7 The Armory is designated as a historic resource and is located within Aspen’s Downtown Commercial Core Historic District adjacent to Conner Park. This location is in the Public Zone District. Any future use will need to be compatible with the setti... Parking Hours of Operation Number of Occupants Noise Community Benefit Public Access Other (please specify) Question options 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 67 93 52 63 254 197 24 Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Checkbox Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 22 241 Q8 Considering hours of operation, would you prefer to see future uses of the Armory focus on? (Select all the apply) Primarily Daytime Usage (typical business hours, weekdays)Primarily Evening Usage (after-business hours and weekends) Question options 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 244 200 Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Checkbox Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 23 242 Q9 How important is it to ensure that the adjacent Conner Park is activated with: 85 (28.7%) 85 (28.7%) 10 (3.4%) 10 (3.4%) 201 (67.9%) 201 (67.9%) Passive Recreation Use (Individual Use)Active Recreation Use (Programmed Use)A Mix of Both Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 24 243 Q10 How important is it to maintain the off-street parking along the alley behind the Armory? 116 (39.2%) 116 (39.2%) 66 (22.3%) 66 (22.3%) 61 (20.6%) 61 (20.6%) 29 (9.8%) 29 (9.8%) 24 (8.1%) 24 (8.1%) Very Important Important Neither Important or Unimportant Unimportant Not Important At All Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 25 244 Q11 Community access to the Armory could be programmed in a variety of ways from community meeting and event space or businesses/services that may be frequented by the public. Understanding this will help us further appreciate community expectations re... 106 (35.8%) 106 (35.8%) 190 (64.2%) 190 (64.2%) Community access for specific individual or group use (meeting, co-working, event space). General access to services that benefit the community housed in the building (non-profits, retail, or restaurant services). Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 26 245 Q12 How important is community access to the Armory to you? 177 (59.8%) 177 (59.8%) 78 (26.4%) 78 (26.4%) 34 (11.5%) 34 (11.5%)2 (0.7%) 2 (0.7%)5 (1.7%) 5 (1.7%) Very Important Important Neither Important or Unimportant Unimportant Not Important At All Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 27 246 Q13 Currently, The Aspen Chamber and Resort Association (ACRA) is planned to occupy part of the Armory in the future. What do you believe should be the focus for additional space programming needs: 179 (60.5%) 179 (60.5%) 5 (1.7%) 5 (1.7%) 112 (37.8%) 112 (37.8%) Local Residents Visitors A MIx of Both Local Residents and Visitors Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 28 247 Q14 Should the remodel of the Armory maximize the square footage within the existing footprint (three levels and a basement) or consider reducing the square footage by returning the building closer to its original form (two levels and existing basement)? 239 (80.7%) 239 (80.7%) 57 (19.3%) 57 (19.3%) Maintain current existing footprint and square footage (three levels + basement). Reduce the building to its original footprint (two levels + basement). Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 29 248 Q15 Currently, Pitkin County has leased space in the Armory while their courts undergo renovation. Remodeling the Armory for future use will also require time once the County vacates in fall/winter 2022.Depending on the ideas proposed, the level of req... 84 (28.4%) 84 (28.4%) 212 (71.6%) 212 (71.6%) Be back up and running as quickly as possible.Take time, if needed, for more thorough renovation. Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 30 249 Q16 City Council and staff have developed a capital investment strategy that outlines key capital needs for the City. Funding has been earmarked for remodel of the Armory; however, the extent of public engagement, decisions on the programming and remod... 137 (46.3%) 137 (46.3%) 117 (39.5%) 117 (39.5%) 42 (14.2%) 42 (14.2%) The Armory is a high priority and additional funds, if needed, should be provided to ensure the building is ready for long-term future use. The Armory is somewhat of a priority that should receive additional funds, if needed, once other core amenities are taken care of. The Armory is important, but we should spend the minimum required to update it for this project. Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 31 250 Q17 If extensive remodel is determined to be a need, should the City maintain responsibility for the renovation expense or seek a private-public partnership opportunity? 87 (29.4%) 87 (29.4%) 124 (41.9%) 124 (41.9%) 85 (28.7%) 85 (28.7%) Tne City should seek a private-public partnership.The City should maintain responsibility.I'm unsure. Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 32 251 Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 08:59 AM The following businesses would be housed there - a non profit, a small casual breakfast and lunch cafe/ coffee shop, and another non profit or for profit business. Activate the outdoor space for both private and community use. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 09:13 AM A social club for locals, like the Elks or Eagles. Membership would be granted with a local address, and the facility would include dining opportunities, recreation areas for kids and adults, and spaces that could be reserved by locals for private events. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 09:45 AM Food Hall with restaurants & retail stalls. Some event space as well. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 09:51 AM A food hall setup where startup and low cost food vendors can co-op and pay for a food stall and there is shared seating and a shared bar and the space can be open from breakfast through evening for dinner. Even TVs for locals to gather and watch things like x games and football. Tables in the park too for outdoor enjoyment. This would be a major benefit to locals who are losing low cost restaurants and struggling to feel a sense of community. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 12:48 PM childcare Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 12:48 PM A food-court style market building (similar to Union Building in Denver or Ferry Building in San Francisco) with several low-cost, take-away food stall options combined with a beverage program. Combine this with informal gathering community space where people can meet to eat and drink all day and into early evening. There are currently no coffee shops open at night in Aspen for meetings after work that don't involve alcohol. Conversely, we've lost most affordable places to grab a beer without going to a bar scene. And obviously we need low-cost, creative food. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 12:55 PM Mental wellness. Courses. Experiences. Trainings lectures Q18 If the budget and community access were limitless, and you had a magic wand, what would your dream use of the Armory be? Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 33 252 Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 12:55 PM Main Hall: casual dining food hall with effectively subsidized rent that has the dual purpose of (1) providing cheaper casual dining options for locals; and (2) incubating local F&B talent as future restauranteurs. Upstairs: Co-working space reserved for locals, to help locals launch small businesses. Basement: indoor children's play area to provide local small children with a "playground" during the winter in their younger years. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 12:59 PM I would love to see a space for a variety of classes and workshops Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:06 PM An indoor mall, full of luxury retail and exclusive eateries. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:07 PM A year round indoor food court with small scale restaurant spaces, craft and artisanal shops. Create opportunities that allow locally owned businesses to affordably rent spaces that provide locals with a great dining and retail options. Have some courage and do something radical for once - to restore some semblance of affordability for our town. The last thing we need is office space for APCHA. Retail and lodging demand is at its peak and APCHA only serves to primarily promote lodging interests and ASC. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:08 PM Affordable housing Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:08 PM A mixed use marketplace. Retail and food service on lower floors, office on upper floors. Keep it low key local focused, like Old Town Marketplace in Longmont. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:10 PM An open space for eating, chatting, meeting surrounded by local Pop up vendors coffee, pizzas, Craft eateries, Drinks etc… (similar to the successful denver central market). Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:12 PM FOOD COURT----EVERYONE LOVES THE IDEA AND WE HAVE A STRONG NEED FOR LOCALS AND VISITORS AS WELL--there are no places left here in Aspen like we use to have--the charm would come back and much needed here---take a survey on that and you will see a huge favor of this Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:20 PM A food court and gathering space with rotating retail booths. A volunteer commission can be set up to select vendors. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 34 253 Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:23 PM A shared community space for a "in-town" senior center and childcare services. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:24 PM Food court Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:28 PM Community. activity center to provide and promote core values of Aspen Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:31 PM It should be accessible, it should be comfortable and have a good image, people should be able to engage in an array of activities, and, it should be sociable. If restaurants end up being the decision - perhaps food hall type approach where locals can afford to eat. Aspen has become corporate and priced out of many people's range Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:41 PM Event space on the ground floor w/ a raised ceiling and employee housing on the top floor. Aspen has very little affordable space for social events in particular. Numerous wedding events now buyout restaurants as the best alternative. These events can be for locals or be an economic engine for so many businesses. Parking should be a minor issue as it is walkable from most hotels or the hotels can drop/pick up guests conveniently. That said, the old art museum is the better space for such a use as it adds the lawn areas. But, this community should embrace such a venue as other mountain communities have. It's just a rentable space, not a business itself. Other businesses would serve the event; caterers, transportation, event planners, performers, hotels. ACRA should not occupy this space. Other than the kiosks, they are an administrative group working 9-5 with holidays and weekends off. Debbie Braun has never committed to altering schedules to actually accommodate hours when visitors are most likely to seek them out. They are best situated out of the core. Thank you Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:41 PM Fill a community need. House some early childcare educators and build daycare that can use the park. Or have some actually affordable dining options the could share seating space or be primarily take out / use the park. I think The list in this survey is incomplete. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:45 PM I would not put ACRA there. While I understand that a successful chamber is important, other community needs are much more important. If you put ACRA in there - it will define the overall use of Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 35 254 the building. I do not see ACRA as a community organization - they represent our business environment to visitors. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 01:55 PM 1. The Amory would be a place for civil dialogue where residents could come together to address and solve major challenges facing our community. 2. The Armory would offer some ground floor affordable retail spaces. Possibly affordable dining, as well. 3. The Armory would offer some upstairs office space for non-profit organizations. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:00 PM Some employee housing, A nice coworking space where community members and ACRA members could work. A little coffee shop/ causal restaurant. Maybe similar style to Peaches. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:01 PM Locals mingling space with cafe, happy hour, fun events, etc. so many of us are priced out of all social events in town now. It is a reason many good people are moving away. We need to retain a real town. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:16 PM A location where the community has to go to attend support groups for substance abuse, grief, family help, cancer, etc. as well as young adults who need an affordable shared office space to work and develop businesses. A true community center supporting locals and the public in a myriad of ways. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:17 PM Restaurant, bar and dining for LOCALS. NOT HIGH END. Space to have markets through the winter maybe? Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:18 PM multi-use community space that serves all Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:18 PM Tear it down and put in open space. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:21 PM housing! Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:24 PM Historical museum of Aspen located somewhere in the building with photographs, old newspaper clippings and memorabilia. Aspen is rich in history and everyone including tourists and locals would enjoy being able to visit. A historical account of events and characters Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 36 255 would be delightful for all to see! Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:28 PM A thriving marketplace of local handmade goods and food in conjunction with a visitor center so visitors get a flavor of local aspenites and are encouraged to patronize local vendors before going out to spend money at chain stores etc. Additionally it gives locals the price point opportunity they need to eat and shop in their own town. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:37 PM Affordable restaurants and retail spaces Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:55 PM Senior center or senior and community center. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 02:57 PM A lively space(s) on the street level (including cafe), with more openings to outdoor spaces. Event and meeting spaces downstairs. Remainder with nonprofits, art studios and co-working. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 03:04 PM a community exhibition space, an emergency clinic, meeting spaces Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 03:17 PM A community meeting place where people hang out and talk (over coffee, etc. since these places don't exist in Aspen anymore). Some local workspace would also be good, along with some nonprofits. If you could get a food court in there that would be great for the public. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 03:30 PM Casual food-hall with variety of affordable food vendors, small local retail vendors ("makers") Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 03:33 PM Have a restaurant or two and shops that are run by locals for local pocketbooks. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 03:35 PM Locally owned restaurants and stores. Ma & Pa affordable spaces and completely restrict any corporate entrance or other city office space. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 03:50 PM Food, local merchandise. Like the summer market kind of. The rent is what prevents so much good stuff from happening here. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 37 256 Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 03:56 PM Year round farmers market Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 04:08 PM An event space for the performing arts. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 04:45 PM a locals bar/restaurant space with reasonable food & beverage offerings & a music venue or event space when possible. a place to meet & mingle with the locals! Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 05:39 PM As I expressed prior, I believe that our primary concern should be a safe space where locals and out of town visitors can go to attend AA, NA, Alonon and other mental health meetings. If we can not create a permanent space for our communities mental health, where are we morally. PLEASE consider what is really important to the health of our beautiful community. Thank you Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 05:39 PM a cool food court for local, affordable food vendors and restaurants Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 06:10 PM Restaurant and performance space Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 06:11 PM An affordable restaurant/food retail space for locally grown food. NOT a crazy, loud party space where alcohol/weed is the focus, just lovely place to eat, enjoy perhaps some acoustic music, sit in the park and to purchase locally produced food products, (fresh and preserved). The rest of the space should be used for creatives, with an accompanying small gallery/performance space. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 06:20 PM Inexpensive local restaurant, house a nonprofit, be a space for residents to congregate as a community. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 06:26 PM A affordable public use and meeting space Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 06:35 PM A true Community Center with access to and programming for all ages that reflect the community's need and desire for interesting and inexpensive gathering places to have fun, eat, drink, listen to music, meet, talk, dance, and buy local farmer's market products and crafts Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 38 257 Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 07:42 PM Not ACRA. Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 08:00 PM Primarily a Senior Center with shared space for other activities Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 10:26 PM Dancing Screen Name Redacted 2/25/2022 10:45 PM Mixed-use work and food/entertainment Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 07:07 AM I see the armory as a community center. For meeting space. There are no affordable community meeting spaces in town with the exception of the library. It should also support social and cultural services like the red brick does currently. Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 07:08 AM A community space for non profits, 12 step programs, a wellness center where all seek refuge and peace. Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 07:55 AM there is an acute need, & always has been, & demand for mental health programs. a permanent place is an upmost necessity for organizations such as AA, NA, Alnon & others. Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 08:54 AM seasonal housing..get vibrancy, youth and chip away at the housing issues...no cars allowed for renters.... Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 09:00 AM A dedicated performing arts center. Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 09:03 AM No changes to the exterior except structural necessities. Top floor is one large community event space with a kitchen (diy wedding receptions, kids birthdays, community thanksgiving, if it’s not in use it could be a space for locals to eat their bag lunch). 2 floors dedicated to locally serving low end retail. Rent controlled office space for small locally serving businesses, make the rules stringent on what is locally serving. A cheap lunch spot would be great. Screen Name Redacted classes and educational programing. one-off events Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 39 258 2/26/2022 09:14 AM Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 09:20 AM Community programs building geared towards supporting the mental health of aspen residents and visitors. A permanent meeting space for 12 Step programs like AA, NA, ALANON and AlATeen (youth addiction program) and other youth mental health programs. Addiction and mental health are inextricably linked, we can not support and improve the mental health of a community without ensuring people have ready access to the 12 Step programs like AA and NA. Yet, these programs have no permanent meeting space in Aspen or Snowmass and as a result of COVID, have been drastically reduced. Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 09:23 AM Anything that does NOT take business from exiting full rent paying business in town it needs to only be used for what we do not already have! and at market price rentals Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 10:15 AM Indoor marketplace limited to only local businesses (no chains) where local retailers and food stands/ casual eateries can get a space that's affordable - to provide interesting options for shopping and browsing and adding more vitality to the city with more variety - bring back the non-big-brand retailers. Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 03:47 PM Space for small cultural non-profits, for exhibitions, small practice and peformance spaces Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 04:28 PM Organic food market, space for non profits, meeting space for nonprofits but notACRA Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 06:18 PM AA Meetings and support groups Screen Name Redacted 2/26/2022 11:11 PM A community Center that would reach out and offer services not offered. Non profits to support families, a permanent space for groups like AA to meet. Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 07:11 AM Unsure, but public access to restrooms is essential. Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 09:06 AM A gathering place for many folks, locals oriented, vital, welcoming with multi uses, and a big space for larger gatherings at a very Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 40 259 Affordable rate. Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 12:53 PM I would like a dedicated room of the Armory to be used as a 12 Step group support meeting place for AA, NA, Alanon and other support groups hosted by non-profits. The rest of the building could be used for affordable casual dining for community use and low cost retail stores. Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 01:22 PM There should be one priority for this building: Quality, low cost dining options are evaporating rapidly in Aspen. As are affordable social (bar and restaurant) options for locals. A multi-restaurant, brew pub combination is the key use for this space. Many such spaces have been created in LoDo/RINO Denver in recent years. Many combined with or near coworking spaces. We need places LOCALS can gather and dine. Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 01:27 PM Meeting spaces for local action groups, non profit mental health services for our teens, 12 Step meeting place Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 01:29 PM A vibrant place for "mom and pop" retail businesses, a low-cost restaurant (like LIttle Annies used to be) with counter seating, meeting rooms for 12-step programs like Al Anon and AA. Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 04:55 PM Recreation classes. Community shed. Affordable place to eat dinner out. Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 08:21 PM More than anything I hope that this space is adequately utilized by the City. Lack of space is an ongoing problem for all, and to see another downtown building in a prime location sit empty, especially by the City's doing, would be incredibly frustrating. We all know the woes of our town - no affordable housing, dining, or shopping - so let's not waste another building with something that doesn't actually support the community. Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 08:45 PM A mix of community services, cultural groups and a permanent hub for 12 Step meetings and other support groups. Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 08:46 PM 12 step permanent meeting spaces - multiple rooms, and other community meeting rooms. WE NEED THIS. Cub scouts, everything. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 41 260 Screen Name Redacted 2/27/2022 10:18 PM Affordable market style eateries, child care, mental health services. Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 06:42 AM Co-Working and fitness/health center. Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 07:40 AM A community space for non profit groups. Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 07:45 AM Community space Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 08:39 AM Food hall with coworking space and community rooms, things locals need and can afford. Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 12:12 PM Food court (affordable - but really accessible to locals, not like the Public House having one secret burger or Clarks Oyster Bar and counting as affordable) Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 12:29 PM ACRA should be in the City's new building overlooking Rio Grande Park. Main floor could be locally owned small businesses , studio rentals on the upper floors. Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 12:50 PM Food Hall Ground Level. Co-work in upper levels, Beer graden in Conner Prk, meeting space in basment. NO ACRA/keep them at Rio Grande location where visitors can park for info Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 01:04 PM Food and Beverage hall, providing space for local start-ups to experiment and feed workers in the community. Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 01:47 PM Food court concept - multiple smaller, quicker restaurants that are very reasonably priced and accessible for all income levels. Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 05:12 PM Similar to Third Street Center in Carbondale Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 05:31 PM Mixed use retail, restaurants in a food hall style, casual but trendy. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 42 261 Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 08:05 PM I would like to see dedicated space for 12 step programs (AA, NA and Alanon) as well as mental health nonprofits. These groups provide a vital service for the community. Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 10:37 PM An amazing place for the teens of this community to go. Screen Name Redacted 2/28/2022 10:56 PM Somewhere affordable where families and non-profits could plan events. Include an informal gathering space? 3rd St Center in Carbondale is an interesting model. Include rotating Aspen history displays? Screen Name Redacted 3/01/2022 06:54 AM Affordable food options. Not necessarily a single restaurant. Affordable anything, quite honestly. Screen Name Redacted 3/01/2022 07:33 AM City Hall Screen Name Redacted 3/01/2022 07:35 AM A community building for community people maybe a place for homeless people to get food the basics Screen Name Redacted 3/01/2022 08:49 AM We have lost almost all affordable community assets in the past few years. Locals can no longer go to their favorite local watering hole because they no longer exist. Creating a space for the community to congregate and have meaningful conversations is greatly needed. A casual dining experience with a variety of pop up restaurants could provide that experience to the community. I envision a similar experience to the "Time Out Market" which exists in many locations throughout the world. Screen Name Redacted 3/01/2022 10:12 AM Meeting space for local, community service groups such as A.A, N.A. and addiction recovery. Space for primarily local events that maintain community and Aspen tradition such as World Cup, Winterskol, and numerous other events Screen Name Redacted 3/01/2022 04:02 PM Locals Restaurant and office space Screen Name Redacted 3/01/2022 04:13 PM I’d have it completely opened up showing the old bricks and having it look similar to Covent Gardens in London. It could become the most exciting venue in Aspen. People would love visiting it and mingling Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 43 262 with friends there. It would be such a draw to Aspen’s fun downtown area. Screen Name Redacted 3/01/2022 04:22 PM FOOD COURT---FOOD COURT----WE NEED THIS TO GET BACK TO THE ASPEN THAT ONCE WAS Screen Name Redacted 3/01/2022 08:02 PM meeting rooms for 12 step programs Screen Name Redacted 3/02/2022 09:46 AM It would be great if Recovery Resources could be housed there. They offer essential services to the community that are not being met elsewhere. Having a presence downtown Aspen would be incredibly helpful to clients. Screen Name Redacted 3/02/2022 11:35 AM Food court ran by valley locals. Local goods Screen Name Redacted 3/02/2022 04:07 PM Support services for Aspen's recovery community, including meeting space for 12 step groups and others, as well as community-based resilience services provided by local non-profits. Screen Name Redacted 3/02/2022 07:40 PM muli purpose full building renovation and expansion make it as fresh and new as it was 100 years ago Screen Name Redacted 3/03/2022 12:35 PM casal food space, coffee space, meeting space, community programs and entertainment Screen Name Redacted 3/04/2022 08:41 AM a food court/gathering place where locals can afford to eat Screen Name Redacted 3/04/2022 09:20 AM Community gathering place that includes medium cost dining options Screen Name Redacted 3/04/2022 10:24 AM "I would like a dedicated space in the Armory building to be used for 12 step meeting groups (AA, NA, Alanon) and mental health support groups from local non-profits." Screen Name Redacted 3/04/2022 10:51 AM I've added my ideas to the web site's Community Driven Ideas section for the Armory's future use. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 44 263 Screen Name Redacted 3/04/2022 11:38 AM 1. FOOD COURT 2. COMMUNITY MODERATE RETAIL NEEDS, PUBLIC OFFICE & MEETING SPACE Screen Name Redacted 3/04/2022 01:43 PM A food court that carters to locals and allows local chefs and bakers to have a place in this community Screen Name Redacted 3/04/2022 01:43 PM Food Court, AA (and similar groups) Meeting space Screen Name Redacted 3/04/2022 04:23 PM a space where local business start-ups (retail/food service/personal services) could have small spaces (street farmers market concept) to launch their businesses to Aspen Screen Name Redacted 3/04/2022 08:35 PM I like the idea of a food court that is affordable fun and lovely as well as other affordable offerings for the community. Screen Name Redacted 3/04/2022 11:26 PM Restore the original top floor to its full extent. Screen Name Redacted 3/05/2022 09:27 AM I would love to see a place where people can mingle and grab a bite to eat quickly and cheaply Screen Name Redacted 3/05/2022 09:45 AM Food hall or additional employee housing Screen Name Redacted 3/06/2022 12:43 PM Food court and event areas where casually meeting fiends in a communal environment. Screen Name Redacted 3/06/2022 03:05 PM The Generations Center concept… Please see ideas board. Screen Name Redacted 3/06/2022 09:13 PM It would be great to see a mixed-use model, much like the Power House that was voted on and supported years ago before being subjected to a lawsuit. Screen Name Redacted 3/07/2022 08:29 AM There is no current public performance & rehearsal space in summer for performing arts orgs. AMF takes the Wheeler & ASD and both the Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 45 264 DIstrict & Black Box Theaters have been unavailable after early June through Late August. Small arts orgs were told that the old Powerhouse would be available, We used to be able to use the Top floor above Tasters Pizza near the Library. Then were told the Library itself would be available & outside of the Library on the grass was lost as a performance space after the renovation. A dedicated year round intimate performance space is desperately needed in the downtown core. The Wheeler is just too big and expensive and the Black box is not available at all times or in summer. Sadly the park next to the wheeler was voted down for a black box. It feels like the promises over the years we have been given are now abandoned. Screen Name Redacted 3/07/2022 08:52 AM Kick out ACRA. They are only bringing tourists to town and aren't contributing to the local support network. Don't have private individuals or private events. Only public and free/cheap events, if events at all. I would see this turned into a true locally serving building that houses local artists, chefs, makers, and non-profits that serve our workforce. Anyone could visit any time of day and get a cheap meal, see a mental health counselor, get a neck massage, or buy a gift for a loved one. It would be the go-to spot for locals seeking to to increase their happiness or nourish themselves or just take a break from the hustler of downtown. Please don't have wealthy business people co-working - those people can go elsewhere. Please make it feel open and welcoming to all, but especially our workforce. Connor Park is one of the only locations where Latino workers can currently eat their lunch and feel safe. Please keep the park and the building as a respite for those who make our town function everyday. Screen Name Redacted 3/07/2022 02:31 PM A Community Space that allows for multiple uses. Some permanent or semi-permanent programming and some flexible programming. Restore the historic building and spaces to something that's more fitting of the building (2 levels and basement) while looking for opportunity to maximizing the site with an addition for more multi-use functions Screen Name Redacted 3/08/2022 12:17 PM A family low price restaurant and general retail goods targeting locals by giving low rent and guaranteed pricing. The city can recover some costs with rent Screen Name Redacted 3/08/2022 04:43 PM I would love to see a mix of restaurants/retail and office/meeting space. There are so few affordable restaurant options left in town that it would be terrific if the Armory could earmark space for this purpose. I like the food stall layout in other cities where different vendors have small spaces for limited menus. It is so hard for restaurants to survive Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 46 265 here given the rents, so it would be nice if the city could provide space at a more affordable rate. It would also be wonderful if part of the Armory included office space for community groups and events as well as local startups. The Armory could serve as an incubator for small locally owned businesses that would have a positive economic impact. The astronomical rents here make it difficult for startups to afford office space. There are also very few options for community groups to find space for regular meetings. The only space I'm aware of is at the library and the meeting rooms are quite small. Whatever the city decides to do, it would be great if priority could be given to local usage. I know we need the tourists economically, but this town is starting to feel like it is oriented primarily to serving tourists to the exclusion of people who live here. I don't know how to accomplish this legally, but I'd love for the city to at least explore how to ensure that locals don't get overrun by tourists. Screen Name Redacted 3/08/2022 07:54 PM Affordable dining with counter service restaurants, beer garden and family friendly seating and dining in the adjacent park. Pretty please?! Screen Name Redacted 3/09/2022 05:12 PM Affordable dining/pool hall/arcade games. An affordable place for locals to spend time and grab a bite to eat where teens would also have a "night life" and something to do to stay out of trouble. Maybe a "food court" type concept on the first floor and bowling alley/arcade in the basement (I've never been in the basement so not sure if this is feasible??) This could also be open to visitors. Perhaps some sort of office spaces or co-working spaces on higher floors (not sure if the demand is there for that?) or transform higher floors to affordable housing units. Screen Name Redacted 3/10/2022 02:17 PM Meeting space for AA, Alanon, Alateen and NA. These groups are vital in the success of any community as 1-4 residences have a need for these not for profit meetings. We need a permanent space to call home. We can get more membership and the best results if we are in one place where we can be found and make it as welcoming as possible instead of being shuffled around town in churches and basements. We don't need any more food venues, retail or office space. We need a safe - consistent space for adults and children effected by alcohol and drug addiction to get the support they need to heal and receive support. This is a crisis. Thank you! Screen Name Redacted 3/10/2022 11:51 PM Locally Owned and Locally Affordable Screen Name Redacted It would be turned back into a local's community hall. A place people Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 47 266 3/11/2022 07:54 AM can rent out for birthdays, graduations, fundraisers. It would also have occasional city sponsored events. The upper levels could be used for locals for offices & businesses that have a focus in the non- profit or environmental sectors. Screen Name Redacted 3/11/2022 10:12 AM Add value to our community by providing a space to support the vitality of our local color Screen Name Redacted 3/11/2022 10:34 AM The homeless population in Aspen has forever been a problem with no real solution in place. Perhaps this space could be used for sheltering the homeless but with more strict rules in place for them and be goal-oriented i.e. seeking some sort of educational degree, or trade school, or helping them seek and secure employment. Screen Name Redacted 3/11/2022 11:28 AM Recovery Resources would like the option to lease a space in the Armory for a Resilience Center. The community does not have community connection point for resources. Our mission is "Empower our community members to overcome adversity by building strength, resilience and meaningful connections.” Vision: “Create a safe space where community members can access key support services, build meaningful connections and engage in diverse opportunities for developing personal strength and resilience.” Core Pillars: Access: Direct, clear pathways to key health and social support services Connection: Opportunities to connect with peers, chosen communities and support networks Resilience: Opportunities to develop the personal strength and resilience needed to thrive beyond adversity Screen Name Redacted 3/11/2022 12:40 PM A resiliency center for the less fortunate in our community. Services like teaching life skills, providing mental health, assisting companies to reach these individuals with their services. Providing court related services and classes, DUI, Pretrial, Useful community services, Day Reporting. Case management for these individuals. Screen Name Redacted 3/12/2022 02:24 AM Community center...one place protected for locals, in a neighborhood occupied by locals, free of Mark Hunt Fat City Greed, as a community center for Locals seeking service, sustainability, support, and cultural significance. Keep Commerce in the core, create and care for community in a unique environment that keeps Aspen unique. AND NO BOTTLED WATER!!!!! Screen Name Redacted Indifferent Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 48 267 3/12/2022 09:29 AM Screen Name Redacted 3/12/2022 03:46 PM Dining and retail options that are low cost as well as unique and will draw consumers from across the socio-economic spectrum. Screen Name Redacted 3/13/2022 11:36 AM If the budget and community access were limitless, I would ensure adequate space to address and provide mental health services to the community. Screen Name Redacted 3/13/2022 12:40 PM A place where recovery groups can meet!!!! Screen Name Redacted 3/13/2022 12:50 PM Consider building a new Pitkin County Jail there. Screen Name Redacted 3/13/2022 04:57 PM Casual dining and food court featuring local foods and chefs, affordable for locals. Screen Name Redacted 3/13/2022 09:26 PM To support the drug & alcohol crisis in the community Screen Name Redacted 3/14/2022 08:48 AM Build a ton of seasonal employee housing, or "low income" apartments. Screen Name Redacted 3/14/2022 10:06 AM Community Outreach to assist the immediate needs of homeless individuals Screen Name Redacted 3/14/2022 12:54 PM Lots of activity - business incubator, love the idea of food trucks, affordable and fun place to spend time. Screen Name Redacted 3/14/2022 01:36 PM In the absence of magic wands or limitless budgets, both federal and state funds are available to restore our Armory. The U.S. National Parks Service Historic Revitalization (Paul Bruhn) grant program (quote) "enable(s) the rehabilitation of of historic properties...and foster economic development of rural communities...including architectural and engineering services and physical building preservation," Also, History Colorado, the state historic preservation office (SHPO), administers a State Historical Fund (SHF). Local tax money might be leveraged to seek private foundation grants that may well require matching or other proof of financial commitment. If I may comment on Question 11: In a private-public partnership, one Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 49 268 wonders to what goal does the private party aim? And how does that private goal benefit the Aspen community, the public who is Armory owner, and taxpayer? Over several years, I have shared a vision with other citizens and friends of Aspen of the Armory as a Marketplace and Community Commons before City Council. Our advocacy and views have been too lengthy and complex to summarize in a survey. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to participate in this community survey regarding the future of the Armory, but I reserve the right as a citizen to further my advocacy before Council as otherwise provided by law and democratic processes. Screen Name Redacted 3/14/2022 02:47 PM food court that is affordable for vendors to be able to provide affordable food for locals. Screen Name Redacted 3/15/2022 03:30 PM Catering to the locals with lower priced items, clothing & food Screen Name Redacted 3/15/2022 05:02 PM Food Court plus co working seating in the dining area. One floor dedicated to retail. A deck that extends into Connor Park where there is seating and games. The ceilings are currently very low. A renovation for two floors above ground is essential. What benefit does ACRA provide me? I don't want them in my public buildings anymore. Screen Name Redacted 3/15/2022 07:25 PM The Armory would provide a hub of human service resource including food security/food distribution, workforce development training, computer access, benefit application, support group meeting space, day shelter services for individuals experiencing homelessness to connect to resources. Screen Name Redacted 3/16/2022 07:56 AM Be able to provide mobile food distribution w/ storage space, workforce training center with compute access, day center connection points for social services and support group meeting rooms. Screen Name Redacted 3/16/2022 12:15 PM I would like for the Armory to be a space where the community meets, that is easily transformed to different uses, from farmers market, to conference room, to high school dance/ basketball game. Bridge games for the elderly and youth gatherings and classes Screen Name Redacted 3/16/2022 10:03 PM My vision is to utilize the central core location of the historic Armory to create a viable community gathering place to meet with friends, enjoy an AFFORDABLE meal (maybe a Food Court concept such as Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 50 269 in Asheville, NC), purchase local crafts, food, (like a year round Farmer's Market), attend a program, etc. This concept focuses on an unmet need in Aspen which is an affordable gathering place for community members and visitors. Screen Name Redacted 3/16/2022 10:17 PM A community center that includes small businesses, community space for programing and multi use, art studios and craft creators that can sell their wares. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 05:59 AM multi - use some community, some housing Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 08:05 AM A mixed use facility that fosters public engagement and education. One great component would be a hands-on science center focusing on science and engineering topics relevant to Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 11:03 AM Well there isn't enough childcare in town, why not make this building more childcare offered to locals? Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 11:37 AM The Armory may be a great location for a new community senior center. It could possibly also include child care and/or other public/community services. Maybe include a small, casual cafe/restaurant. The local community is losing so much to big money. We need to hang onto something! Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 04:45 PM I would like to see the Armory used as office space for City and County departments. It’s a grand building and I would hate to see it go to Real Estate companies, retail or businesses locals can’t afford to frequent. We are being priced out of most things in Aspen. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 05:15 PM A shared restaurant space like the ones in almost every other city. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 05:18 PM Community space for HOAs and local organizations to meet. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 05:25 PM Reception for Visitors, ACRA Offices, and a coffee shop serving onto the park weather permitting. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 51 270 Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 07:24 PM Employee Housing Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 07:24 PM The city is spectacular at wasting enough money! Public usage and access rather than just those who are in the know! Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 07:30 PM Food hall Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 07:30 PM a local's focused food-court and shopping space focusing on locally made products Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 07:33 PM A combo of small local proprietors for dining (food court style) and retail. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 07:42 PM First floor food court with restaurants like big wrap and 520. 2nd floor office Basement artist studios Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 07:46 PM A place where community organizations that focus on Aspen residents, such as the Rotary Club, can meet and utilize the space. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 07:47 PM Meeting space for Rotary and other groups that benefit the community and provide great social connections between local residents. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 07:55 PM school, museum, not ACRA which is owned by the ski co Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 08:00 PM Using some space for my small business for a small event, having an affordable sandwich and beer available for purchase or catering the event and watching the sunset from the roof :) Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 08:27 PM Mixed use retail/restaurant and residential or boutique hotel with historical significance operated by high-end private hotel group. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 08:32 PM I love the idea of community work spaces, but frankly, as an in-home service, small business owner, the library meets most of my needs for wifi, office work, etc. I love the idea of a space that low-budget local businesses can hold events. I love the idea of supporting the low- budget local community for events and socialization. If we don't start Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 52 271 standing up for the lower 99% of the working class, we won't have any of it left. We need to take something like this for "us", the middle class trying to make a high quality life here - the Armory can help facilitate those kinds of activities and I appreciate the City's vision toward that kind of use for this kind of space. Happy to chat further, James Spencer 110 Aspen Vlg 781-856-5725 James.spencer.pt@gmail.com Ajaxphysicaltherapy.com Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 08:34 PM A locals spot for gathering (food) and shopping (Local Affordable Mom and Pop Shops) Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 08:53 PM Available space for local retail & restaurants. No more big chain retail stores & restaurants that can be found anyplace. I hear visitors complain that there is nothing special about shopping here. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 08:55 PM homeless shelter in part of it Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 08:58 PM Childcare would be very high on the list. We also need a better space to serve our most vulnerable, unhoused people. An overall community center, where there were services, activities and community building for everyone--maybe a coffeehouse vibe. We absolutely need to prioritize locals, not visitors, with this project. We have lost so very much of our sense of community over the last 5-10 years, and the trend sped up exponentially in COVID. This space is a chance to get some of that back. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 09:23 PM A multi restaurant space serving families and young people — the model is Eatily (NYC) but could be less high brow than that. All restaurants in aspen could be invited to have a booth for sit down or take out service at a lower price point. Would give aspen a hipped, certainly more affordable feel. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 09:27 PM I think I have said use for social activities (like the dance club I mentioned) but also other things where locals could get together which is something we don't have now. Really tired of the City sucking up to the tourists (Yes, I know we need their money but we seem to be doing fine on that front as of now, so I don't see why we should not devote the Armory to locals stuff). And, again, I am really opposed the City being a landlord for other activities that are currently offered by private landlords, like office space, retail space or restaurants. When will the City Council learn that that is NOT THEIR JOB. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 53 272 Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 09:30 PM To house non profits rent free Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 09:36 PM Subsidized office space/think tank for any local business who are dedicated to improving our community. Weather that be a significant environmental impact (alternative transportation, net zero, off grid systems) or economic or social impact. Maybe APCHA moves in, WeCycle, local solar companies any business dedicated to helping our climate and community with tangible outcomes. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 09:36 PM soup kitchen, tea shop, pancake shop Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 09:42 PM I would love it to be some kind of place for locals to go w multiple options— food etc Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 09:42 PM I would not tear off the additions. I would do modest improvements and let the uses evolve before making any more investments regardless of how much money I had. The first mix of uses and users may not be the ultimate best fit. Let's try some things and see what really works. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 09:56 PM community open dance hall type space on the upper level, small shops and market on the main level Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 10:03 PM A gathering place for locals and visitors; a place to eat, drink, socialize, learn/teach, meet; where RFV kids could work to gain initial work experience. Create an environment that is inviting for everyone; hip, smart, energy efficient... a show piece of architecture and sustainability. CO working spaces. Private offices that are affordable for local businesses on the upper floor, where the businesses could share reception, office machines, etc Loft space could possibly be added to the upper floor. Be sure the new design is tasteful in respecting the historic, but bringing the latest in technology and low carbon footprint construction. This is an amazing opportunity for this community.... let's take the time to do it right. Aspen wants to continue to be a leader in the "resort".... this could be a new standard of construction, design and innovation that will want to be imitated by other towns. Screen Name Redacted Co-working space by day and event facility by night Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 54 273 3/17/2022 10:08 PM Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 10:11 PM food court, meeting space, non profit offices, space for teens. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 10:15 PM Restaurant spaces for dining of all types, open to visitors, who will bring more money to our town. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 10:22 PM Anything for the benefit of locals Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 10:44 PM A local music venue. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 10:44 PM 3 large open floors. Basement multi-use, could host large local/regional art exhibits, smaller music venues, lectures. Floor 1 and 2, tall ceilings, featuring. historic beams and construction, wide open space, affordable food court, maybe affordable coop grocery store with local/regional farmers. Not sure upstairs affordable vendors for art, clothing...or space for non-profits. Most important is to not feel guilty driving in to enjoy the Armory from North 40, Snowmass or Basalt b/c the current bus system is not convenient, easily accessible, time efficient or green enough. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 10:45 PM Why don't you reach out to the 'old timers' - if there are any left - who remember what it used to be, for their ideas? Sure, we're not roller skating anymore, but their ideas about bringing the community together could be invaluable. Screen Name Redacted 3/17/2022 10:56 PM Reasonably priced food court Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 01:32 AM Meeting/event space Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 01:57 AM The Tippler 2 Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 07:00 AM An active food court for lunch and casual dining (like stationary food trucks) and affordable event space for non-profits and weddings, anniversary celebrations, etc. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 55 274 Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 07:00 AM I think it would house affordable businesses, and budding nonprofits. I think the city gives too much to ACRA and they should learn to stand on their two feet. They are an established nonprofit and the should make way for the next generation, that is the only way to maintain affordability in this town. What they do is important, but they have been in the community long enough and they need to grow up as an institution. There are other art and culture nonprofits that are starting out, say Dance Aspen, and the only place that is affordable to eat is Big wrap, like we need more local eats, and affordable retail. The thrift store the only affordable spot in town to buy clothes for locals. Otherwise we order everything online and that isn’t good for the environment. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 07:42 AM Forest service, chamber, rotary, Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 07:46 AM Tool Lending Library with workshop space and community-expert-led classes; shared workspaces (daily use to longer-term rentals) with a grab-and-go cafeteria; teen and family after-school and evening programming. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 07:47 AM A hub for LOCAL art and LOCAL business Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 07:56 AM An affordable well-used shared space, that adds a local business flavor to Aspen. art gallery, coffee shop, shared office spaces, meetings at night. I would also open it now remodel in the future, Aspen is quickly losing businesses and galleries that make it unique. Local people seem to be leaving because even with housing there is no where to go have a beer, dinner or coffee within their budget. Town seems to be high-end chain restaurants and shops. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 08:16 AM Affordable restaurants, and bars for locals. They’re basically non- existent now. No tourists Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 08:20 AM Used for mental health, substance abuse, aa, na meetings, counseling, Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 08:29 AM classical music practice rooms and performances Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 56 275 Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 08:37 AM Visitor Center Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 08:57 AM A public music studio for jam bands Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 09:02 AM An indoor basketball court, futsal court, racquetball court, sports center, etc. a facility where locals would have ability to play sports that are not typically an option during the cold and winter seasons Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 09:14 AM A building where local vendors could showcase their goods and services for a more modest income price point Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 09:26 AM dance hall, rehearsal space, replace Victorias, hire full time local staff to manage and maintain. I want to see familiar faces over and over and over. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 09:27 AM I’d love to explore the possibility of creating a space similar to the one in Boulder that houses many restaurants that allow communal dining and socializing. This would allow lower entry price for new businesses, lower cost dining options and a place for community to congregate in an affordable way. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 10:00 AM Combination of activities we need from casual place to have a reasonably priced beer, to a place where local artisans can thrive again as they did as part of Aspen’s history, be it in the “A’s” at Galena and Durant, or in the Brand Building (Dior and Gucci can be seen there today). It’s not too late to save this important part of the town’s heritage. It may be too late for some to come back to commercial space, but this is an opportunity to address those components that have evaporated from Aspen. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 10:10 AM The existing exterior structure with an open gallery in the center taking advantage of light from the skylights all the way down to the ground or a lower level. Some farmer's market type stalls determined/vetted by the city including rotating vendors of fresh food and arts and crafts, reasonably priced accessories, for sale, repair shop (reasonably priced shoe and clothing repair, etc, rotating art for sale, low to mid level retail and inexpensive food choices. Dining tables in the center that can double as a gathering space. Allow people to bring their own lunch. Areas to post what is happening in the community. Areas for non-profits to let people know what services Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 57 276 are available. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 10:17 AM The Armory could be an inspiring example of an historic renovation that: produces more energy than it consumes, provides a community agora for the sale of Colorado produced produce and products as well as a large meeting space for Not for Profit and community oriented events and activities. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 10:19 AM An AFFORDABLE bar and restaurant, co-working space, space for community center-type uses, small performance space Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 10:44 AM I have to start by going back to the previous slide and opposing ACRA use of the space as its offices. What a deadening idea. Again, a Public Market along the lines of the Aspen Saturday Market, but interior akin to Faneuil Hall or Pike Place with an emphasis on 1) Local Food Products 2) Local Crafts 3) Retail stalls/engagement for local nonprofits such as Red Brick, ACES, Anderson Ranch etc. 4) Potentially casual/takeout dining of some sort. Non-local stores/outlets/investment groups should be banned from use and office space should NOT occupy more than the basement level of the Armory. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 10:58 AM A casual, affordable restaurant. One where you can order, get a number and sit down. Enough with the expensive, fine dining options in Aspen! Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 11:13 AM City offices!!! Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 11:16 AM We are desperately lacking fun activities such as an arcade, bowling alley, etc. A mixed use including a restaurant or something similar. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 11:19 AM So if I had a magic wand, I would encoursge ACRA to go back into the Armory, create a meeting space or two and maybe one or two retail stores and/or a casual walk through restaurant (like BoG Wrap or 420 that offers good breakfast/lunch options).I would then definitely want the Powerhouse to be made into a more family friendly space for kids like it was proposed a while ago. A science center or some sort of hands-on entity that utilizes the outside space and married well with the Rio Grande Park, the John Denver park and Theater Aspen idea would be amazing! In my opinion, the misuse of that space has been the biggest missed opportunity and the most frustrating thing Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 58 277 about our town resources for a couple of years now. We need to create a family friendly engagement area for community and visitors alike Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 11:39 AM A cultural use - History of Aspen Museum whose pedagogical bent would be to reconcile what 'small town' means in the context of 20thC Modernism. A both/and approach that would embrace its physical development in the context of it's actual history. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 02:33 PM A fabulous event space on top floor and a fun shopping space for local companies on lower and tourist info services affordable eateries Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 02:41 PM The historic integrity of the Armory structure should be maintained. I have long advocated for retaining some City government presence in the Armory structure like the Mayor, Council, City manager or Clerks offices as it has been our City Hall for many decades. I think it is a travesty that the City spent so much on a new City Hall that is so totally out of character with the community. Now the historic Pitkin County Courthouse remodel of a historic gem will be going the same way and we have a County Administrative building that is "Anywhere USA". Both the new City and County buildings, when you are inside, could just as easily be in Colorado Springs or any suburban location and for me that is not a ringing endorsement. I think the Armory should be for community uses that reinforce community involvement and engagement. It should reflect Aspen's character. While the interior of City Hall is anything but historic, perhaps this is an opportunity to bring back some of its historic character. It should not be for a "food court" or an "at risk adolescent center". It needs to engage many parts of the community and not be privatized by any one use. I do not feel it is an appropriate place for ACRA offices. Just like the old Art Museum/Power House should be engaged for community use and community engagement on its grounds by the river, not ACRA offices or other City offices. ACRA should find their own office space in an office building, not a community building. Aspen loses its community character each and every day and City policies have contributed quite a bit to this loss. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 02:44 PM Really nice recreation center for our community. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 02:55 PM indoor food court with small food stands and affordable food. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 59 278 Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 02:58 PM My dream use of the Armory would be a science center, planetarium, and education center open to community use for local residents and visitors to the Aspen community. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 03:28 PM vegetarian well priced cafe on top, eclectic mix of mid range clothing, maybe jewelry, crafts an employee housing unit or two downstairs, not necessarily APCHA Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 04:17 PM Early childhood education/infant care on top floor with a separate secure entrance & elevator, historical aspen themed cafe and gift shop on the main floor, basement multipurpose room for tumbling around, pot lucks/community events, glow in the dark put put, and storage for aforementioned businesses. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 04:40 PM This is a crazy question. The city just spent a zillion dollars on a new city hall and has not yet finished or occupied the old youth center. There is no such thing as a limitless budget even here. Do it wisely with a plan to recover costs. That’s the smart thing to do with community funds. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 05:01 PM The Armory should provide a venue that will support and further vitality in town. It should offer events and programming focused on bringing the community together. If restaurants and/or retail are housed there, they should be geared to locals and provide options that are more affordable than the high end business es that currently dominate in downtown. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 05:05 PM A community gathering place for events, meetings, presentations, lectures, indoor markets. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 09:35 PM A science center to educate both local and tourist families on STEM subjects of interest and importance through ongoing programs and events. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 10:30 PM A building that serves the public of all ages. Use by ACRA is a good start. Something that non-profit groups can meet weekly or monthly. Also have food service so breakfast and lunch meeting can be held. Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 10:45 PM A place of community gathering and a place where community services ( NGO) are located....a place serving local Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 60 279 people,employees Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 11:11 PM Takeout food, meeting & event spaced, local exhibits, community & group gatherings Screen Name Redacted 3/18/2022 11:14 PM A variety of affordable food opportunities - f**k the greedy landlords & restauranteurs that will oppose this Optional question (241 response(s), 55 skipped) Question type: Essay Question The screen names and specific contact information provided has been redacted in this public- facing report. Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 61 280 Q19 Please select the option(s) that best describes your age: 9 (3.0%) 9 (3.0%) 52 (17.6%) 52 (17.6%) 62 (20.9%) 62 (20.9%) 68 (23.0%) 68 (23.0%) 56 (18.9%) 56 (18.9%) 49 (16.6%) 49 (16.6%)0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 70+Under 19 Question options Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 62 281 Q20 Please select the option(s) that best describes you. Aspen Resident Aspen Business Owner Commuter Visitor Other (please specify) Question options 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 227 53 33 2 34 Mandatory Question (296 response(s)) Question type: Checkbox Question Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 63 282 EMAILS AND COMMENTS Comments Collected via ACV or Direct Email Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 64 283 Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 65 284 Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 66 285 Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 67 286 Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 68 287 Armory Engagement Report | February 2022 | 69 288 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 1 ASPEN’S ARMORY HALL ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT April 2022 Engagement Phase April 4, 2022 - April 25, 2022 289 2 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 290 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 3 CONTENTS ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW 4 ² Engagement Window and Goals ² Engagement History ² Aspen Community Voice Page ² Questionnaire ² Focus Groups ² Open House ² Ideas and Comments DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS 8 ² Print ² Digital ² Email ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE (ACV) WEBSITE 10 ² Visitor Summary ² Participant Summary ² Engagement Tools Summary ² Information Widget Summary ² Traffic Sources Summary ² Total Project Visitor Summary ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT 14 FOCUS GROUPS REPORT 33 OPEN HOUSE REPORT 42 IDEAS AND COMMENTS 49 ² ACV Widgets ² Email APPENDICES 52 ² Appendix A: Online Questionnaire Contents ² Appendix B: Focus Group Materials ² Appendix C: Open House Materials 291 4 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW ENGAGEMENT WINDOWS AND GOALS A critical component to the Aspen’s Armory Hall project is public engagement. The importance of public involvement in the decision-making process is a priority for the City of Aspen. Thorough the project a primary goal has been to create awareness and listen to a broad cross-section of our community. Engagement levels deployed included In- form (keep informed) and Consult (listen/ acknowledge concerns and ideas and incorporate feedback into decision-making process). The objective moving into this phase of community engagement for As- pen’s Armory Hall was to pick up on the previous community out- reach and use that as a basis to confirm the use priorities and take a deeper dive into areas like future operations, funding and extent of the remodel. The current phase of engagement occurred between April 6 and April 24, 2022. The goal for this engagement window was to continue encouraging community participa- tion in informing the development of staff recommendations to Council regarding the future use and remodel of the Armory. The overall objective moving into April 2022 was to gather public feedback to help direct Aspen City Council to move forward with a use that meets a perceived community need and vision. Through an online questionnaire, open house, focus groups and project website, the team presented multiple options to gain understanding about the community’s vision. Participants were asked to confirm the priority access and uses (iden- tified in the initial survey), then help rank which of these top uses would be best served in the Armory space and meet community needs. The current outreach opportunities also sought to gain more insight for future operations, facility maintenane, and funding as it relates to impact on the remodel’s extent. ENGAGEMENT HISTORY Staff brought to this conversation a knowledge of past engagement related to the future of Aspen’s Armory Hall, including an xpressed desire for community access and use. The current engagement phase builds upon the previous engagement window and effort on the proj- ect which included broad reach tools and targeted conversations. Staff have incorporated previous feedback from Council, community partners like ACRA, and community feedback to evolve the engagement approach through the process. 292 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 5 ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE (ACV) PAGE For the second round of engagement, the ACV site was open for input between April 6 and April 24, 2022 (questionnaire live dates). During this time, a total of: • 397 people visited at least one page • 224 clicked on something on the site • 122 took the questionnaire • 2 contributed a comment or question When looking at the entire engagement process including the initial round earlier this year in February and March, the project has had a total of: • 2.1K total page visits • 502 engaged visitors • 901 Informed visitors • 1.3K aware visitors • 125 new registrations • 418 participated in at least one of the questionnaires • 251 visited or contributed to at least one of 31 submitted ideas QUESTIONNAIRE Demographics A total of 122 individuals responded to the Refining Future Options questionnaire. The largest demographic group of respondents in a question about self-identification answered that they identified as Aspen residents (). Other responses showed identified as Aspen business owners, 33 as down valley commuters, part-time resident and as Visitors. Respondents could select more than one category if applicable. General Observations While the specific use desired were varied and many, staff observed several key themes and feedback which rose to the top. Primarily, the community wants to ensure as much access to as many members of the community as possible in future programming with a focus on afford- ability. Additionally, there is tolerance for taking time to complete the remodel correctly and explore options to supplement funding if necessary. The results of the questionnaire demonstrated that the community’s top identified needs were consistent with the results of the first questionnaire in February. The top results indicated prefer- ence for two uses presented to the community, and one which rose to the top as a communi- ty crowd-sources idea: • Casual Dining - Lower Price Point (51.2%) • Multipurpose Space - Meeting or Events (47.2%) • Community Center (50.4%) Participants were then asked to rank how space in the Armory should be prioritized. This exer- cise was designed to help staff identify which of the many suggested uses and needs would rise to the top for the greater community. As with the confirmation question, the three top uses were: • Community Center (54.9%) • Multipurpose Space - Meeting or Events (50.8%) • Casual Dining - Lower Price Point (48.4%) It should be noted that 46.7% of those responding ranked Casual Dining as being a “some- what, “low,” or “not a” priority. This illustrated how diverse community views are as to essential needs; however, Casual Dining still ranked higher on the priority list than other proposed uses. 293 6 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 Other observations from the questionnaire include: • Maintaining the historic feel of the building is important as well as having a functional, bright, ecologically friendly, and inviting building. • A majority of respondents (59%) want to maintain the overall square footage of the building and include exploration around an addition or other ways to open up the internal spaces. • The respondents were somewhat split on whether the remodel should focus design flexibility for changing needs (54.9%) or focus on specific community preferences (45.1%) . • Although 61.5% of the respondents thought private dollars should be considered if additional funding is necessary, a majority of respondents (43.4%) thought that the city should manage and lease the Armory to ensure the building remains accessible to the community (63.1%). • 59.85 supported longer-term leases; however, focus group discussions represented an opposite take on this result with a preference for more entrepreneurial, short-term leases • The community was split on whether future lease rates in the Armory should cover the cost of operational and capital expenses (50.%) or be supplemented through either City or private funding (50%) IDEAS AND COMMENTS The majority of feedback was submitted through either the questionnaire, the open house, or focus groups; however, comments re contributed to the “Questions and Comments” tab on ACV and those emailed directly to staff are included in the detailed “Ideas and Comments” section alongside email alongside feedback captured from direct emails. FOCUS GROUPS This summary intends to share the general sentiments at the focus groups. Demographics A total of 22 individuals participated in either a virtual or an in-person focus group discussion. These participants represented a mix of residents (full or part-time), business owners, commut- ers, and visitors. As staff observed in the initial questionnaire feedback that opinions on what were the most essential uses for the Armory were diverse, interested parties answered a screen- er question on what they felt were the top three uses for the facility in the future. This allowed staff to bring the various points of view together and better understand house some of these uses could co-mingle in the future space. With the exception of a party interested in Afford- able Housing at the virtual session, a representative for each use was at each discussion. General Observations As with the questionnaire, special interests for use varied in the focus group discussions, howev- er, staff observed the following themes emerge: • The facility should serve as many in the general community as possible; while Affordable Housing and Childcare are important in the community, these options would limit how many could actually access and use the facility regularly • Flexibility is essential; this notion included the use of space (unarticulated, movable partitions) to operations (shorter term leases, access to many groups versus office space for few) to infrastructure (ensure technology, storage, loading, allows for many needs/uses). • Opportunity exists to bring back a “heart” or “core” to Aspen, particularly with affordable options to support a sense of connection and community with locals • Both groups identified a social, gathering component related to food; however, the extent of that food presence varied between groups. One group had more agreement around Casual Dining in the sense of a food hall full of “cheap eats,” whereas the other group saw a food truck outside or small cafe bar presence to support other uses indoors. 294 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 7 OPEN HOUSE Demographics The open house followed a drop-in format where once participants signed-in, they could go at their own pace to review project display boards and share input directly with staff attending. The event was held in-person at City Hall on a weekday evening between 4-6 p.m. Thirty-two community members participated. Community members were provided dot stickers to vote on several exercises or use markers to write comments directly on the boards. These exercises echoed questions asked in the simultaneous online questionnaire for this phase of engagement, as well as two visioning exercises. Specifically, participants were asked to share their opinions on: • The preferred future community use for the Armory. • The building aesthetics. • Preferred meeting space size (should the future use include meeting spaces). • Extent of the remodel. General Observations Community feedback indicated alignment with the results gathered through the online questionnaire and focus groups. Participants confirmed and supported the top future programming uses as: • Casual Dining - Lower Price Point (24.3%) • Retail - Lower Price Point (22.9%) • Multipurpose Space - Meeting or Events (20%) • Community Center (17.1%) Unlike the questionnaire or focus groups, lower price point retail emerged in the top four uses. Other observations from the open house include: • Maintaining the historic feel of the building is important as well as having a functional, inviting, ecologically friendly building. • Flexibility remained important with 65.4% of participants expressing a need for a mix of space sizes in the remodel • 70.8% supported “the works” for the remodel such as exploring an addition like an expanded basement or into the alley to maintain floorspace while also offering options to open-up the interior of the building • Creating a vibrant “heart,” :core,” or “center” for Aspen were ideas commonly expressed on the future visioning exercise. 295 8 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS PRINT & DIGITAL PRESENCE PRESS RELEASE • April 7, 2022: City of Aspen Moves into Second Phase of Armory Hall Long-Term Strategy Development Process WEBSITE • Homepage Newsflash: April 7- 24, 2022 • News Page: City of Aspen Moves into Second Phase of Armory Hall Long-Term Strategy Development Process • Aspen Community Voice: Aspen’s Armory Hall Project Page MEDIA COVERAGE • The Aspen Times: April 10, 2022 | Next use for former Aspen City Hall close to being decided • Aspen Daily News: April 11, 2022 | City to seek community input on future of the Armory • The Aspen Times: April 21, 2022 | Guest commentary: Aspen Armory – Getting back to historic roots PRINT ADS • Aspen Times: ¼ Ads on April 12, 13, 18, 20 and 22 • Aspen Daily News: ¼ Ads on April 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 22 DIGITAL ADS • Aspen Times: 30K Impressions in standard slots, April 8-24, 2022 • Aspen Daily News: 300x250 slot, April 8-24, 2022 FACEBOOK • April 7, 2022: Round two has opened Link to ACV for Information and Questionnaire • 277 Post Impressions • 264 Post Reach • 10 Post Engagement • April 12, 2022: Event Post for Open House Link to ACV for Information and Questionnaire • 49 Post Reach INSTAGRAM • April 7, 2022: Round two has opened Link to ACV for Information and Questionnaire • 447 Post Impressions • 419 Accounts Reached • 5 Post Interactions • April 12, 2022: Open House Invite Link to ACV for Information and Questionnaire • 316 Post Impressions • 301 Accounts Reached • 8 Post Interactions 296 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 9 TWITTER • April 7, 2022: Round two has opened Link to ACV for Information and Questionnaire • 157 Post Impressions • 2 Engagements • 1 Detail Expand • April 12, 2022: Open House Invite Link to ACV for Information and Questionnaire • 151 Post Impressions • 2 Engagements • 2 Detail Expands EMAIL PRESENCE ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE • April 8, 2022 Subject: Aspen Armory Update and Engagement Opportunity April 8 Round Up • 2,844 Sent • 2,126 Open Rate • 55 Click Through OTHER • ACRA Membership Newsletter Week of April 18, 2022 issue 297 10 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE (ACV) WEBSITE VISITOR SUMMARY: APRIL 4 THROUGH APRIL 25, 2022 VISITOR HIGHLIGHTS 122 Engaged Visitors 538 Total Visits 114 Max Visitors Per Day 397 Aware Visitors 23 New Registrations 224 Informed Visitors 298 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 11 PARTICIPANT SUMMARY 299 12 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 ENGAGEMENT TOOLS SUMMARY INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY 300 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 13 TRAFFIC SOURCES SUMMARY TOTAL PROJECT VISITOR SUMMARY FEBRUARY 21, 2022 THROUGH MAY 9, 2022 502 Engaged Visitors 2.1 K Total Visits 181 Max Visitors Per Day 1.3K Aware Visitors 125 New Registrations 901 Informed Visitors 301 14 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 REFINING FUTURE OPTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT 4 April 2022 - 25 April 2022 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE 302 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 15 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Casual Dining (51.2%) Multipurpose Space - Meeting or Events (47.2%) Community Center (50.4%) Q1. The Armory Hall Community Values Questionnaire results indicated that the following guiding principles resonated most with community members: • Programming should focus on unmet needs within the community • Uses within the building should provide meaningful, affordable participation in programs and offerings • The remodel will respect the historic context and contribute to Aspen’s small-town character Additionally, the questionnaire showed that Aspen community members preferred five top proposed use ideas or supported several concepts that were not included in the initial list. Considering the information shared above, please select the top three uses from the Community Values questionnaire’s resulting combined list that you feel would best serve our community and fit within the context of the Armory. (You can only select up to three answers.) 303 16 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q2. As referenced above, several uses were identified in the results of the first questionnaire as BOTH a perceived need in the community AND a preferred use that could be met within the Armory. Assuming results for the top preferred uses are similarly reflected in this questionnaire and recognizing the Armory remodel may be asked to accommodate a mix of future programming uses, please identify how you would prefer to see space prioritized within the building. Mark each use as one of the following: Not a Priority, Low Priority, Somewhat Priority, Neutral, Moderate Priority, High Priority, Essential Priority 50.8%41.0% 36.0%52.3% % of Participants who ranked the selection‘s priority as Essential, High or Moderate HIGHEST RANKED PRIORITY USES: • Community Center • Multipurpose - Meetings or Events • Restaurants - Casual Dining LOWEST RANKED PRIORITY USES: • Retail - Lower Price Point • Affordable Housing • Office Space - Coworking 48.4%46.7% % of Participants who ranked the selection’s priority as Not a Priority, Low or Somewhat 27.0%68.0% 18.0%64.8% 29.5%58.2% 24.6%65.6% 54.9%33.6% 27.0%62.3% 304 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 17 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Bright (37.4%) Functional (44.7%) Historic (48.8%) Ecologically Friendly (35.8%) Inviting (30.1%) Efficient (26.9%)Simple (24.6%) Q3. As staff considers the aesthetics and design appeal of the remodel, share how you would like the Armory to feel and look once work is completed? Please select your top five adjectives. 305 18 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) RESPONSE 1 what a crazy number of options which are not defined How can anyone make sense of this? 2 Universal design (Age Friendly) 3 I prefer business on lower/main levels, housing upstairs. ***Please consider the con- cept behind Avanti in Denver and Boulder, where rotating start up businesses (in their case, restaurants, but could apply to any locally owned businesss incl retail). https:// boulder.avantifandb.com/about-us/ 4 Mom and Pop stores =where local people can shop and restaurants that are afford- able. Meeting spaces in the basement. 5 Open with a balcony 6 Flexible 5 Open with a balcony 6 Flexible 7 Open up the entire inside and bring in light from the skylights. Keep the brick walls showing the historic ambiance of this grand old lady. 8 Educational venue 9 Brick and Wood; Open Plan 306 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 19 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q4. The option of a building addition could offer a possible means to maintain existing square footage while also allowing for taller ceilings by removing one floor. An addition could also increase overall square footage if the remodel kept the existing three-story layout. We’d like to know which path forward would be more important to you: 59.0% Maintain square footage and explore addition or opening up internal space 307 20 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q5. As shared above, the initial questionnaire indicated that parking along the alley was important or somewhat important to maintain. If an addition is needed to achieve square footage requirements for future programming use, would the removal of some of the alley parking be acceptable to you? 61.5% Willing to remove some alley parking 308 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 21 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q6. The Armory has evolved over time, enduring several remodels. As the City focuses on this next phase of the building’s life, should this remodel be designed to: 54.9% Remodel should focus on flexibility for changing needs over time 309 22 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q7. Currently, the City has budgeted $7.5 million for the design, necessary land use approvals, and remodel of the Armory. If additional funding is necessary to execute the community’s preferred vision for the building, should the City seek private dollars to cover the balance? 61.5% If needed, City should seek private dollars to fund 310 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 23 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q8. Recognizing the City will maintain ownership of the Armory, how should it address lease management and operations of the facility? (Select all that apply) City manage leasing (43.4%) City manage operations (51.6%) Third-party manage operations (44.26%) Third-party manage leasing (31.72%) 311 24 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q9. If you answered above that the City is the best party to manage and/or lease the facility, what are the reasons you believe this. This information will help us further appreciate communi- ty expectations related to site management. Ensure access to the community (63.1%) 312 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 25 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) RESPONSE 1 i do not think the City is the best option to run the Armory 2 city should NOT manage or lease, not it’s job Should contract with companies who are experienced in these functions 3 There are enough very intelligent, enthusiastic people who work for the City of Aspen to create a management team who really cares about this community and the effort that has gone into this project. Pay them rather than a 3rd party. 4 Others are more equipped to manage the property 5 Transparency to avoid abuse and corruption like we have with APCHA 6 Na 5 Open with a balcony 6 Flexible 7 The City can expand its internal services rather than contracting out services that it can provide. It’s more expensive to contract than to support and/or hire your own staff. Also, the City can work with the local workforce and community members rather than contracting with service providers that reside outside of City limits-a con- cern that has risen to the top in other current City of Aspen community engagement projects. 8 Hopefully less expensive than a third party management arrangement, and allows coordination with other city-run facilities, venues, and public resources. 9 Third party is best 10 Na 11 Will keep any notion of special interest out of a community building. 12 Adding another layer of costs for management will make the space less affordable for local use. The Wheeler restaurant is a good example. No one can make that work, while the Red Mountain Grille is thriving. Adding a management layer requires the addition of another set of profit margins be figured into the numbers. Aspen is facing an affordable restaurant food desert and locals can’t shop here! 13 did not answer that the City is the best party to manage 14 I didn’t indicate the city is the best entity to manage 15 i didn’t answer the city should manage ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT 313 26 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) RESPONSE 16 This is likely the most important issue at hand. The moment we release decision mak- ing from the control of the city is the moment we open up this prime real estate to be co-opted by others that do not directly serve the community. We keep our city gov- ernment accountable for their actions and decisions. We elect the elected because we trust them to work in our best interests. This building is likely the greatest opportuni- ty for our community to have a place to gather, if it’s not protected to the utmost de- gree I fear the community could disappear. Locals are leaving permanently, weekly. This place serves us. Maybe it will help to knit the community together, maybe it will help to retain the community. 17 A professional commercial real estate broker should be involved in the leasing to lo- cally owned businesses. Rates affordable. Again, see the Avanti concept mentioned earlier: https://boulder.avantifandb.com/about-us/ A member of the Commercial Core & Lodging Commission could advise. COA should oversee maintenance and operations. 18 The city should stay out of the business of property management as much as possi- ble, it is not a governmental core competency 19 While I think the City should contract with a third-party to manage the leasing of the building and probably also for O&M of the building, I think it is critical that the City se- lect a manager who is local and has the best needs and interests of the community in mind (i.e., NOT Mark Hunt, etc.). I could potentially envision that the third-party be a non-profit. 20 I think the City is equipped and will be a good landlord for leasing out the space/ spaces. The maintenance I think can be contracted out to a property manager, even though its small it engages more of the community. 21 The City has plenty is money to maintain the building. Also They will be collecting rent from the tenants. Why spend more money hiring a company to manage it. 22 To ensure that locals can lease the space and ensure that the space is best used for the community 23 Aspen has nearly completely lost mid-priced restaurants. Rent controlled leasing would allow lower priced restaurants and a food court. Too much of Aspen’s com- mercial real estate is controlled by too few 24 Ensures that the property is used in the way that it is intended, for the community use, and maintenance of a City owned property. 25 ? 26 Due to what is happening with restaurant and retail pricing, the city is losing “third places” where the community can intersect with itself--those “community living room” places. As those places disappear, it becomes critical for the city to activate the spaces it controls: the Wheeler, the restaurant space in the new city office build- ing, and the Armory. We are not succeeding on any of those fronts. 27 Did not select the City to manage and/or lease. Too time consuming for the City and some of the City’s leases have not been successful. Leave it to the pros. ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT 314 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 27 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) RESPONSE 28 Cost. A 3rd party will need to make a profit. The City will need to cover costs. A 3rd party will seek tenants willing to pay the most. The City can target the best fit for the community. 29 either city or apcha as an affordable housing complex 30 did not answer that way in previous question 31 n/a 32 The City already provides an over abundance of community use buildings/spaces. The city should maintain the building but allow professionals to lease the spaces at below market rents if they serve as an affordable local restaurant, established com- munity organization or affordable retail. 33 I support the City maintaining control over lessees but leaving maintenance in the hands of private business. I feel that shared control would allow tenants and ven- dors operating in the Armory to provide the input needed to meet the needs of the building collectively whereas the City would be better off directing all building and facilities maintenance staff on repairing employee housing. 34 I don’t think the city should do any managing or leasing . The city can’t make their ups mind about anything and nothing would happen. Get it out of the cities hands and into an independent operator 35 City cannot manage.. Look at tasters space, below Bruno Cucelli(Cooper St pier) space, Bentleys... They do a lousy job 36 Too much government involvement with little expertise. 37 Remember the Red Brick! I believe the City does a great job managing golf course, rec center, open space, etc. Why not this building? 38 The City owns it so should provide oversight of a 3rd party who would be account- able to the City. The decisions on the leaseholders should be made by the City ac- cording to the purposes CC determines during this process. ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT 315 28 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q10. If the final recommended use (or mixed-use) allows for retail, restaurant, meeting, or non-profit/co-working office space, what approach should be taken towards leasing to different interested entities? 59.8% encourage longer-term relationships with leases 50.0% Rents should be subsidized{ 316 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 29 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q11. If the final recommended use (or mixed-use) allows for retail, restaurant, meeting, or non-profit/co-working office space, what approach should be taken towards the rental rates for these spaces? 50.0% Rents rates should cover facility operational and capital costs 50.0% Rents should be subsidized{ 317 30 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q12. Please select the option(s) that best describes your age: 318 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 31 ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT Q13. Please select the option(s) that best describe you. 319 32 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) RESPONSE 1 half year resident 2 Pitkin County resident. 3 Basalt resident business owner that operates primarily in aspen 4 Snowmass 5 Non-profit executive (volunteer) 6 Long time home and business owner concerned we are losing the last of the “local- ness” in our community. 5 Open with a balcony 6 Flexible 7 Live in Old Snowmass--Aspen Science Center is on ACP campus 8 downvalley resident 9 Former Aspen resident who lives down valley and continues to work in Aspen 10 Aspen native, now a part-time resident 11 City Employee 12 Aspen employee 13 Aspen native who grew up living in town, that now lives down valley due to cost, and commutes daily to Aspen to work in the nonprofit community. 14 own in aspen. live dv 15 Snowmass resident ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE REPORT 320 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 33 FOCUS GROUPS REPORT PARTICIPANT AND SESSION OVERVIEW Demographics A total of 22 individuals participated in either a virtual or an in-person focus group discussion. These participants represented a mix of residents (full or part-time), business owners, commut- ers, and visitors. As staff observed in the initial questionnaire that feedback that opinions on what were the most essential uses for the Armory were diverse, interested parties answered a screener ques- tion on what they felt were the top three uses for the facility in the future. This allowed staff to bring the various points of view together and better understand house some of these uses could co-mingle in the future space. With the exception of a party interested in Affordable Housing at the virtual session, a representative for each use was at each discussion. Agenda Each focus group followed the same discussion format: • Welcome, Purpose of Meeting, and Agreements • Participant Introductions • Brief Project Background & Highlights of Questionnaire Themes • Discussion (we explore these three themes) o Limited Space/Multiple Community Needs o Remodel Options o Operational Vision • Next Steps and Wrap Up HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF THEMES • The facility should serve as many in the general community as possible; while Affordable Housing and Childcare are important in the community, these options would limit how many could actually access and use the facility regularly • Flexibility is essential; this notion included the use of space (unarticulated, movable partitions) to operations (shorter term leases, access to many groups versus office space for few) to infrastructure (ensure technology, storage, loading, allows for many needs/uses). • Opportunity exists to bring back a “heart” or “core” to Aspen, particularly with affordable options to support a sense of connection and community with locals • Both groups identified a social, gathering component related to food; however, the extent of that food presence varied between groups. One group had more agreement around Casual Dining in the sense of a food hall full of “cheap eats,” whereas the other group saw a food truck outside or small cafe bar presence to support other uses indoors. 321 34 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 #TOPIC: LIMITED SPACE WITH MULTIPLE NEEDS 1 Depending on use, maybe able to accommodate special interest groups 2 Recovery and 12 Step community has no permanent space for meetings; individuals and programs not currently supported 3 Considering remodel options - meeting spaces for all community use could be on upper floor 4 Considering remodel options - ACRA designated in a spot that serves their purpose but also supports other community access 5 Recovery groups: supported groups don’t have resources to support community needs currently, suicide rates (county) high 6 There is a need for casual dining - different vendors, stalls, days, open to Conner Park in the summers, revert back to original of being multipurpose and create somewhere for people to “be” 5 Casual dining, but food stands rather than dedicated “one restaurant” space, want to see something that increases visitor foot traffic to the building; Housing is needed as well, but not a good use in this facility - wold serve 4 people versus 400 6 Families have nowhere to gather in town, locals are being priced out, civic life hap- pens in restaurants/eateries/food halls/public markets; Want to see the spaces a s a whole(e.g. 1940s photos) with shared tables, no table service, a gathering place for people; Also a gathering place for non-profits like Aspen Words to rent spaces for less than 130 people, space for local businesses; rentals prices for affordability; maybe model it like the Red Brick building as an on-ramp for organizations and businesses to get started on a time-limited basis; Should encourage flow and serve casual dining, multipurpose and non-profit needs in community 7 Casual dining - not competitive to other local restaurants - it is a different product. If restaurants feel threatened - maybe they need to think about that and how to better serve diverse and local community 8 COVID kept people indoors and isolated for two years, now we can go out, but can[t afford to go out; quality of life in Aspen is diminishing - a squeak to the wheels of As- pen; we need affordable pricing and quality food court 9 Space should be open to everyone, it is too expensive to eat out, to socialize as a community; the town relies on tourism, must support, but also need to support locals; have lots of architectural ideas; needs to embrace history and its place in Aspen like no other building in Aspen has; lower floor could be market space, central kitchen for restaurants (cheap eats) to share, public restrooms; Also serve as an incubator space for schools to be involved - next generation of business/entrepreneurship; create a mezzanine overlooking shops and market place; top two floors should be unarticulat- ed, serve as meeting/office space for sister cities, arts and crafts, classrooms; make use of light, movable partitions throughout to make space flexible; push back lower floor partitions to create event space; ACRA visitor center on main floor, offices up- stairs to preserve space ; booth space, environmental design; 10 Food trucks in the alley space to create outdoor community gathering areas; like Clark’s Market; food trucks city rules; should not become a private property FOCUS GROUP COMBINED SESSION NOTES 322 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 35 #TOPIC: LIMITED SPACE WITH MULTIPLE NEEDS 11 Food trucks can be a significant investment, local restaurants pushed against them, option for them but maybe not based on regulations; Cottage laws - but maybe cre- ate kitchen/commercial kitchen for locals to use; roll-up door to Conner Park 12 Needs to support community, support local entrepreneurs 13 Must be flexible - unarticulated spaced so it can evolve as needs in community do; also need to anticipate those needs to support with infrastructure; need to anticipate tech shifts, be able to modify; design-wise - come in off street, look down to base- ment so it becomes part of entryway; flexible to accommodate different needs (e.g., would recovery groups want a separate entrance?); Celebrate its history - share that with the community; Housing or childcare in this space isn’t viable - too few people served; make space efficient and flexible so it can continue to evolve 14 Meeting space for all community access - board meetings, etc.; Also consider what programming may look like for the day, or the night; Like the idea of being able to support multiple needs like mental health or incubator spaces; leases should be designed to help start or kick-off a business, prove their model and also serves com- munity as well 15 Flexible is nice, but maybe include some closed off spaces as well if privacy is need- ed; 16 Definitely have lost the spaces in town for people to just gather, could serve/solve this need 17 This could be the last opportunity in town to create a space like this - for the commu- nity and locals to gather together 18 Other ideas resonate, thinking the Fleet in San Diego, local places for people to con- vene and a comfortable place to be; not exclusive, visitors/seasonal welcome, the place to go to feel like a local; should include educational, experiential opportuni- ties as well; look at history and location - center of town, rich area - hub in the wheel that interaction occurs regularly; community access to address unmet needs - which is no place to convene; need an interactive space that can accommodate that; focus on youth; mixed use programming space, keep it flexible and open; childcare is important in community, but should not have dedicated space here - if program- ming, should be flexible like other uses; programming in space needs to complement ACRA message, be year round, there is enough space to enrich and engage our community here. How to put a programming scheme in place that is vital, enticing, has energy. 19 I want to be able to say in five years that this place didn’t exist before, but now we have the“heart of Aspen” 20 It is more than one building, it is valuable real estate - can be open and accessible to the community 365 days a year, bring the Saturday Market into Aspen year round 21 Have the Armory for the entire community, and exciting place for locals and tourists - thinking like Aspen Pedestrian Malls; The Armory is an exciting piece of real estate - take this grand old building and enter it street level to see a market commons, glass elevators, farmers’ market that could be year round, spaces for locals, students, entrepreneurs, likes ACRA as part of the building 22 Not a fan of ACRA in there, why , what space will they take 23 Maybe put kitchen area on bottom floor - movable kiosks, leave space for dances, theater, other group activities like playing bridge; 323 36 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 #TOPIC: LIMITED SPACE WITH MULTIPLE NEEDS 24 Grew up here, spent time at the ARC - what would that have been if family hadn’t donated; Need to support mom and pop places, last standing one now is Hickory House; Let’s support the Aspen Idea - tough for non-profits to find a niche here; No venue for performance unless you are another organization, nothing for small events like the school district theater, Wheeler accommodates 500. Multi-use, multi-acces- sible space for 100 people, maybe 70-80. A flex space could work; concerns about “old promises” of the City (Powerhouse history), want to make sure this space is multi- purpose, multi-accessible to serve the most, every day 25 Flexible seating, pull-out benches 26 ACRA supports business memberships, organizations, supports local business commu- nity and visitors, have several locations but Armory will be the flagship, he goal and focus on creating a welcoming space this could be a great experience for them to be directly back in the community with resources as they promote destination man- agement and responsible tourism; Could be a welcoming space to serve everyone - business, locals, visitors; supply services and historical part of the event arm of Aspen; should be a process on getting space, be accessible; ACRA will house +/- 16 full time people 27 Vision - marketplace, open area, great vitality, center for younger people (JHS, HS age) to learn how to make a living, internships, have a purpose - hang out as well; growth aspect - no chains, local only, no high end, workforce reasonable costs for things; space should be flexible as well; maybe look at expansion of building to ac- commodate all uses, include non-profits; expand floor space where alley parking is, build underground parking 28 Thinking like a student union (seating/bleacher, movable, flexible); adapt to people gathering for variety of reasons 29 Cafe included in lobby, an in between space 30 Flexible, maybe theater has cabaret style seating - table and chairs, pull out as-need- ed for theater or other activities, comfortable 31 Maybe like the Library - design for storage and flexibility (e.g. chairs, tables); also think community kitchen and bathroom options 32 Community center, anyone can be in there and is a place to go, be, do things 33 Be a spot to host events, multi use, but remember to include infrastructure to support all uses (e.g., back prep space/kitchen, storage, AV/tech); like library example - abil- ity to pull things out as needed, then stow away; ability to elevate rentals or not; also think parking - groups can bring in portable staging 34 Infrastructure considerations essential - back of house functions, some office, flexible and truly shared and dynamic to support entrepreneurial youth - maintain energy in the building; Open access/animation/anyone any time has something to do there 35 Should feel open, include mezzanine 36 Don’t want to lose space - what about glass floor options to keep open but keep space 37 Casual dining - but not as a destination, something that serves the rest of the building 324 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 37 #TOPIC: LIMITED SPACE WITH MULTIPLE NEEDS 24Grew up here, spent time at the ARC - what would that have been if family hadn’t donated; Need to support mom and pop places, last standing one now is Hickory House; Let’s support the Aspen Idea - tough for non-profits to find a niche here; No venue for performance unless you are another organization, nothing for small events like the school district theater, Wheeler accommodates 500. Multi-use, multi-acces- sible space for 100 people, maybe 70-80. A flex space could work; concerns about “old promises” of the City (Powerhouse history), want to make sure this space is multi- purpose, multi-accessible to serve the most, every day 25Flexible seating, pull-out benches 26ACRA supports business memberships, organizations, supports local business commu- nity and visitors, have several locations but Armory will be the flagship, he goal and focus on creating a welcoming space this could be a great experience for them to be directly back in the community with resources as they promote destination man- agement and responsible tourism; Could be a welcoming space to serve everyone - business, locals, visitors; supply services and historical part of the event arm of Aspen; should be a process on getting space, be accessible; ACRA will house +/- 16 full time people 27Vision - marketplace, open area, great vitality, center for younger people (JHS, HS age) to learn how to make a living, internships, have a purpose - hang out as well; growth aspect - no chains, local only, no high end, workforce reasonable costs for things; space should be flexible as well; maybe look at expansion of building to ac- commodate all uses, include non-profits; expand floor space where alley parking is, build underground parking 28Thinking like a student union (seating/bleacher, movable, flexible); adapt to people gathering for variety of reasons 29Cafe included in lobby, an in between space 30Flexible, maybe theater has cabaret style seating - table and chairs, pull out as-need- ed for theater or other activities, comfortable 31Maybe like the Library - design for storage and flexibility (e.g. chairs, tables); also think community kitchen and bathroom options 32Community center, anyone can be in there and is a place to go, be, do things 33Be a spot to host events, multi use, but remember to include infrastructure to support all uses (e.g., back prep space/kitchen, storage, AV/tech); like library example - abil- ity to pull things out as needed, then stow away; ability to elevate rentals or not; also think parking - groups can bring in portable staging 34Infrastructure considerations essential - back of house functions, some office, flexible and truly shared and dynamic to support entrepreneurial youth - maintain energy in the building; Open access/animation/anyone any time has something to do there 35Should feel open, include mezzanine 36Don’t want to lose space - what about glass floor options to keep open but keep space 37Casual dining - but not as a destination, something that serves the rest of the building #TOPIC: LIMITED SPACE WITH MULTIPLE NEEDS 38 Multi space market - main floor, upper level could look down and house back of house needs (office), meeting rooms; whole building should be a vibrant space; take advantage of sky light; 39 Think about outdoor space, spillover cafe with open-up options/doors, make it part of the visit/experience, draw people in from the outside 40 Another example - the art museum - top floor is cafe opens up to outdoors, also multi use space 41 Support local arts (painters, bread-makers, etc.) by creating art studio space in the basement. the roof-top venue idea is fabulous; make is affordable - what is consid- ered affordable/criteria 325 38 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 #TOPIC: OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 1 Example of Aspen Words - saw it run as part of the City versus being in a City man- aged building (Red Brick); this is a successful model, natural interfaces; If incubator in this space could work similarly; also incubator spaces could be a way for some to get a foothold in this community with their business, be a starter spot. 2 Meeting spaces should be widely available to the community, it is challenging to have permanent meeting space as they are in high demand; maybe rotate sched- ule so it is more fair, focus on frequency versus permanency 3 Food hall should be permanent spaces in design where space is tester/starter - then once proven business can grow elsewhere; could be like a library model - space to eat - invite people in to work in community space; maybe have anchor spots like coffee shop but no specific business stays permanently; look at annual renewal or change 4 Thinking retail like a co-op, get a lot of shops in there, also welcomes visitors to town to experience or shop “made in Aspen,” retail pricing should be accessible to all; maybe an annual lease or 7 months; maybe ACRA can help manage the lease, space, etc. onsite, partner with local businesses, and serve community/visitors 5 Ideas can float together, specific needs can be met by more fluid space 6 Should be 100% incubator model - food, meeting, office - very few places in there should have a permanent spot; Include coworking/shared work space; may need some private/blocked office spaces (e.g. ACRA) for privacy or business needs; short term leases are important, don’t plan on permanent residency - maybe 1-2 years maximum; test ideas for six months to really occupy the space; ideas/building ha- bitants should contribute to the vitality of the community; not really a community center, but a gathering place for the community; should develop criteria for applica- tion to have a space, as well as guidelines to occupying; think like Saturday Market - in and out; will need to measure/evaluation how they are doing and how model is working 7 Price point is important consideration - businesses should stay viable/functional, oth- erwise you are preventing someone else from going into that space 8 Should be a union (student union) like feel - a community version of that 9 Maybe two-three things that are more permanent like a cafe (three-five years), lost of different things but a few things that are set: ACRA, small café; keep the rest of the building flexible for lots of different things; Anchors things like ACRA, market type space (not specific vendors), keep lessees/vendors on a rotation; programming the same/consistent - actual business change 10 Programming provides design challenges, so much can be done with mobility. Think about anchor relationships that add value and works with the in and out, not everything needs to be permanent, but need signature experiences. Should be col- laborative 11 Aspen Emporium requires a year lease for product - small space but can fit a lot in there; need to embrace competition in town, restaurants may get upset if casual dining included, but need to acknowledge what affordable is for locals 12 Agree with maintaining flexibility; not competitive with restaurants as this is in and out food, less expensive/casual 326 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 39 #TOPIC: OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 13 Prioritize longer terms for non-profits; multi use space is most important; Too many of- fices will dilute the multi-purpose functionality. Look at Tacaw; small guys run business out of homes, keep more space for public use 14 Red Brick model could work here - facilitate leases, etc.; this is a difficult task as to who gets what and when 15 Lighting, power, service elevator, need back of house to support functionality and flexibility 16 Can be challenging in small town for non-profits to fund raise; Partner tenants, could be fundraising spaces. 17 Funding: Creative grant environment, match or leverage existing creative funds/ grant writing 18 More funds, do the remodel right. 19 Do it, do it right. It will take money to do this type of building in town. Raise the money 20 Park in the parking garage. City keeps taking great buildings (OPH), this needs to be for the community, a place to gather. 19 City can prepare the building for multifunction use; specific internet can come from tenant needs 20 Parking not that important, make it for the most people, community space for the people of Aspen. 21 Parking garage is two blocks away, need to push people to be less car dependent and use transportation system, 22 23 Get more funding from private sector, $7.5M doesn’t go far 24 Make center of community, take advantage of property, build out basement, park- ing underneath or build our on parking #TOPIC: ONE WORD DESCRIPTION 1 Vitality 2 Uplifting 3 History 4 Social 5 Community Resource 6 Friendly 327 40 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 #TOPIC: ROUND ROBIN FINAL THOUGHTS 1 Have to remember that eyes are bigger than stomach - space is finite - so focus on flexibility, nice spaces in a variety of sizes and some privacy allowances 2 Different people invited in, keep an open mind, stay progressive, utilize the building and design for function 3 Opportunity for community good here 4 Vitality or summer market where locals and visitors can interact, but also office/meet- ing spaces for people to meet in a variety of ways 5 Hope -and excitement - don’t take it from the community, we need a gathering space, a living room for everyone; highlight shorter-term leases 6 We can do this - if funding an issue - look at state (grant) or private funding options 7 City keeps taking great buildings (OPH), this needs to be for the community, a place to gather. 8 This project should reflect the specialness of Aspen, resonate with the community and represent the community. 9 Best location, could be exciting, keep it affordable. 10 Seconds two comments (8 an 9) above 11 Make it benefit the most people possible 12 Don’t overlook building infrastructure to support flexibility into the future 13 This is the best location in town, needs to be special to the community and become the most exciting place in town 14 Keep it accessible and affordable - need a place for local people to go 15 Anxious for it to be done, but take the time to do it right; people shouldn’t have to go down valley to be out and social 328 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 41 FOCUS GROUP FOLLOW-UP #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) RESPONSE 1 To be told that Sister Cities will have a permanent room in the redesigned Armory while vital recovery programs that reach hundreds and hundreds of local adults and youth has to jockey for a space, that is very disheartening. I am a support and big advocate of Sister Cities. The opportunities it offers our local students at the Aspen Middle and High Schools is unparalleled. My youngest son can not wait to be old enough to apply. But the SC Executive Committee meets once a month in the current City Hall room. Recovery groups meet every single day. The impact recovery groups have across the community is vast, not just to the individuals at the meetings but to the community police officers, fire fighters, social workers and judges who see the damage and injury untreated addiction causes every single day. A dedicated room for Recovery and Mental Wellness non-profits who have a lasting impact on Aspen for beyond that of giving a similar room to Sister Cities. 2 Thank you for giving (name redacted) and I the opportunity to share our thoughts about the future Armory with you and Jen. I wanted to just add a few things about the Recovery community meetings. 1. Aspen recovery meetings tend to be btwn 12-24 people. But in season some of these can be 50 people or more with 2nd home owners and visitors. They get packed on Christmas & New Year’s weeks. Having a large room or flexible space that opens from a smaller to bigger room is ideal. 2. Before COVID there were 3-4 AA meetings every weekday starting at 8am going until 8:30pm. They were scattered throughout the city. Add in the Narcotics Anony- mous meetings and the AL-ANON groups and an Armory space would be occupied by recovery groups all day almost every day. Just wanted to clarify these points. I know at least one recovery friend who couldn’t make it to last night’s virtual Armory meeting because of his child’s school event. But I hope he shares his thoughts with you via email. 329 42 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 OPEN HOUSE REPORT SESSION OVERVIEW This summary intends to share the general observations at the open house event, not to interpret what this feedback means. The Aspen’s Armory Hall project hosted an Open House on April13 from 4-6 p.m. at City Hall in the Pearl Pass room, 32 community members participated. The open house followed a drop-in format where once participants signed-in, they could go at their own pace to review project display boards and share input directly with staff attending. Additionally, community members were provided dot stickers to vote on several exercises or use markers to write comments directly on the boards. These exercises echoed questions asked in the simultaneous online questionnaire for this phase of engagement, as well as two visioning exercises. Specifically, participants were asked to share their opinions on: • The preferred future community use for the Armory. • The building aesthetics. • Preferred meeting space size (should the future use include meeting spaces). • Extent of the remodel. Note: See Appendix C for Open House Materials. OPEN HOUSE RESPONSES Preferred Community Use Based on the results of the Community Values Questionnaire, the top guiding principles for the Armory’s reuse and remodel were ranked as: • Programming should focus on unmet needs within the community. • Uses within the building should provide meaningful, affordable participation in programs and offerings. • The remodel will respect the historic context and contribute to Aspen’s small-town character. Results also indicated a top five in the list of options for consideration and four ideas which emerged as frequently submitted by the community. Participants were asked to consider this information, then given three dot stick- ers to select the top three uses they felt would best serve the community in the context of the Armory. Seventy dot (or partial dot) votes were placed on the board. 330 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 43 This exercise produced the following results: • 24.3% for Restaurants - Casual Dining • 22.9% for Retail - Lower Price Point • 20% for Multipurpose Space - Meetings or Events • 17.1% for Community Center • 7.1% for Non-Profit Services • 5.7% for Office Space - Coworking • 1.4% for Childcare • 1.4% for Social Services • 0% for Affordable Housing Building Aesthetics Participants were also asked to consider the future design and aesthetics of the Armory’s remodel. Specifically, staff asked the com- munity to review a broad list of terms asso- ciated with various architecture styles and select the top three which reflected how they hope the new facility will feel once a remodel is completed. This exercise produced the following results: • 15.4% Historic • 10.7% Functional • 9.2% Artistic • 9.2% Inviting • 9.2% Ecologically Friendly • 9.2% Inviting • 7.7% Bright • 7.7% Contemporary • 7.1% for Non-Profit Services • 6.2% Efficient • 4.6% Inspiring • 4.6% Innovative • 3.1% Cozy • 3.1% Industrial • 1.5% Voluminous • 1.5% Distinctive • 1.5% Modern • 1.5% Minimalist • 1.5% Timeless • 1.5% Simple • 0.0% for Interconnected, Sectioned, Institutional, Professional, Private, Classic, Luxurious and Traditional Meeting Spaces Multipurpose Space for meeting or events was a proposed use which has ranked high in community feedback during the initial round of engagement. However, multipurpose space can be configured in a variety of ways. Attendees were asked to provide input to help the City better understand how the community may envision these spaces be designed and used. Through a dot voting exercise, participants could weigh in on whether spaces should be larger or smaller in size, or if a mix of sizing was preferred. 331 44 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 The various size options were described in the terms below and results demonstrated the following support for: • 65.4% MIX of Different Spaces • 23.0% LARGE Spaces Approx. 50-60 people - Space for event-type gatherings like weddings, banquets, art shows and performances. • 11.5% MEDIUM Spaces Approx. 20 people - Space for meetings like classes, HOAs, clubs and support groups. • 0.0% SMALL Spaces Approx. 6 people - Space to accommodate specialized, individual use or one-on-one meeting needs. Extent of Remodel Considering the Armory is 130 years old and that the cost to remodel it would vary based upon finances available and the scope of the work, the City sought to better understand our community’s preferences to what degree of remodel should be considered in this project. Through a dot voting exercise, participants could share their thoughts on various approaches: • A LIGHT TOUCH which would likely maintain the existing footprint and number of floors (e.g., basement, ground level, historic mezzanine which is currently the second floor, and historic second floor which currently serves as a third floor). • THE WORKS which would likely involve an alley addition with a basement, removing the added second floor, excavating the existing basement to match overall footprint, and increasing floor to ceiling heights throughout the building. • SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN which could include larger alterations to the existing footprint like removing the added second floor OR exploring an addition to the building (with or without a basement). Results indicated a preference for: • 70.8% The Works • 20.8% Somewhere in Between • 8.3% A Light Touch Additionally, several community members wrote in comments to expand on their thoughts. These included: • “While I think a overhaul is exciting I think it is more important to get the building programmed ASAP” (A Light Touch) • “Suggest retaining all 4 floors with basement and street-level mezzanine as marketplace commons. Top 2 balcony levels for co-working spaces for non-profits” (The Works) • “ Agree with the works - but why remove the second floor??Better to retain all possible space. Make top floors into balconies” (The Works) 332 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 45 The Open House format provided an opportunity for the project team to explore how our community might define success for this project. To achieve this, the team asks participant to share their thoughts on two visioning exercises. Future Vision Exercise #1 Attendees put themselves five years in the future, when the Armory remodel is complete and the building is an active community space. They were asked to share what they picture them- selves doing in the Armory on a typical visit to the Armory and what they are experiencing. Thirty-four participants contributed responses: #FUTURE VISION EXERCISE #1 RESPONSES 1 Meeting place for friends and youth to be - giving then purpose 2 Drinking, socializing, eating affordable food, playing cards/bridge, community danc- es 3 Bulk Grocery store? Local farm to table store like Skips! 4 Enjoying time w/friends drinking beers/coffee - enjoying outside. Eating delish local affordable food. 5 Healthy snacks and beverages, dancing, yoga, roller skating, book club, creative space for arts and crafts 6 Indoor Farmer’s Market 7 Eating, drinking, shopping, dancing, visiting 8 Like the Torpedo Factory in Alex, VA, open center, small booths to rent, local only artists, food booths bottom dance floor 9 Community focus for activities and welcoming, especially to young Aspenites 10 Marketplace commons with local foods and arts and crafts at affordable prices for social interaction w/ local start-up’s and entrepreneurship 11 Eating Lunch in a food hall with indoor games to replace Eric’s an be Ryhos, outdoor space to drink coffee beers outdoor games like cornhole! 12 A market place that has everything 13 How exciting would it be to have a marketplace year round - lunch, dinner @ afford- able prices instead of expensive fine dining 14 Co-working and engaging w/all of the other great activities and hanging out (eat- ing) 15 Meeting rooms for recovery classes workshops 16 Bring something back to normal for locals 17 Interacting with friends and visitors in a shared dining areas 18 Talk to Harry Teague for idea 19 How about square dancing in Aspen? 20 Vibrant with local children and youth 333 46 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 #FUTURE VISION EXERCISE #1 RESPONSES 21 Random run in with friends and acquaintances 22 Facilitating sound and (ceremonial?) journey events, integrating groups, attending community events social and (meeting?) with groups 23 Open market place 24 Bakers’ Collective or Co-op 25 Care to make space inviting (i.e. AAM) 26 Marketplace w/affordable offerings, where people pop-in all day going to eat, so- cialize and shop 27 No retail 28 Senior Center 29 Going to events meeting friends for lunch 30 Artist Co-op “open” Artisan spaces for display and sales 31 If we don’t do something for locals they will move to find a better quality of life 32 No business commercial or retail 33 Locals are so upset they have no more op no option anymore to socialize with friends. You hardly see locals in restaurants anymore. 34 No business commercial or retail 334 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 47 #FUTURE VISION EXERCISE #2 RESPONSES 1 Focus on local youth 2 Affordability to local working people 3 Affordability to day-trippers 4 Make it be the “core” place where people want to go. Keep the history f the building 5 *Affordable *Affordable *Affordable 6 The space is vibrant and serves the workforce 7 Easy to find, welcoming, gets knowns as a “can’t miss experience” of Aspen 8 Lively, interactive, welcoming, local, food, multi use sm. theater dance 9 No retail!!* 10 * Agreed!! 11 * Agreedx2!! 12 A space the community is proud of and wants to use. 13 Heavily used by the entire community. 14 Flexible and multipurpose uses for the community - focus on the youth perhaps a “student” union feel and a place for junior high and high school kids to have jobs to learn how to be in the work place, making and managing money - customers ser- vice, etc. , a place for growth and learning 15 You listened to what the community wanted 16 A fun place to be and socialize and have a burger salad - coffee and not “break the bank” 17 Vibrant, affordable, active, multi-use, anchor tenants, co-working, etc. 18 Event space to honor and display local art and host visiting speakers and musicians 19 No commercial usage 20 Bright and beautiful gathering spaces for fun, creativity, education and celebration 21 Market place for local vendors and entrepreneurs Future Vision Exercise #2 The exercise asked attendees to image that a future use (or uses) is decided and construc- tion work for the remodel is complete. Participants then shared how they would consider the reopening to be a success. Twenty-six participants contributed responses: 335 48 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 #FUTURE VISION EXERCISE #2 RESPONSES 22 Vibrant, affordable, multi-use, anchor tenants, co-working, etc. 23 Busy, convivial, fun, lively, and great design 24 It’s a success if it is welcoming an people gather to interact, socialize, enjoy what is there! 25 Rotating events, local showcases, classes, meet-up space, seasonal markets, a mix of community gathering 26 I feel very strongly that this should be at the heart a flexible spaces that serves the entire community. Think...cooking classes, art, events, lectures, rentals, events, clubs, kids, seniors, teens, etc. Nothing permanent. No restaurants but incubator for 6 mos or less is okay. Basically community center!! 336 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 49 IDEAS & COMMENTS COMMENTS COLLECTED VIA ACV OR DIRECT EMAIL #DATE COMMENT/RESPONSE 1C 04-10-2022 @1:38PM EMAIL FROM COMMUNITY MEMBER I am Out of town and can not do either date. My thoughts are Al- coholics Anonymous/ Alanon / OA needs a space to meet. 10-15 people at least 5 days and as many as 7 days a week. 1R 04-12-2022 @ 4:16PM RESPONSE FROM COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER Thank you for emailing. I’m sorry that the focus group dates and Open House don’t coincide with your schedule. You can still participate and share your input through the online survey at https://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/aspen-ar- mory-hall. I’ve also noted your comments below and will include them in the engagement report. 2C 04-11-2022 @ 8:25AM EMAIL FROM COMMUNITY MEMBER Thanks for providing me with the opportunity to complete the sur- vey. FYI, the first question dealing with prioritizing use of the space had as its highest scaled response “Moderate Priority”, was that correct? If there was a higher level like, “Highest Priority” it did not show on my screen, so I selected “Moderate Priority” for my highest value. If this was not the highest value, I would like all of my “Mod- erate Priority” responses to rank as the highest value available. Thanks! 3C 04-12-2022 @ 7:35AM EMAIL FROM COMMUNITY MEMBER I am looking forward to participation in the virtual focus group on Thursday, April 14, at 6:00PM MDT. I believe I have signed up for this, but have not received a confirmation yet so I’m checking in via email to ensure my information is in order. I also have a col- league who would like to attend the open house on Wednesday, April 13. Is there a separate sign up to attend the open house? Please advise. (Name and contact information redacted). 2 & 3R 04-12-2022 @ 4:32PM RESPONSE FROM COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER I see you emailed on couple of times with different questions, so I’ll answer all here in one email for you. Responding to your ranking question below. I believe you may have needed to scroll further right on the screen as the priority range included: • Not a priority • Low priority • Somewhat Priority • Neutral • Moderate Priority • High Priority • Essential Priority It sounds like know that would change your answers a bit. I’ve send a question into our engagement platform help team to see if we are able to edit your answers. Or, if we can delete your response so you can take the survey again (if you wish). I’ll let you know what I 337 50 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 #DATE COMMENT/RESPONSE 2 & 3R Continued hear back before we do either option (if possible). If I find neither is possible, I’ll work with you to get your preferred answers reflected in the overall results. We’ll try the “easy” way first though. On the focus group question, I do see that you submitted the form to participate in the Thursday, Virtual session. I’ll be send that invite invitation out 24-hour in advance (so by 6 p.m. tomorrow eve- ning). We are trying to make sure we have representation of all the interests expressed through the screener question, then take people in the order they signed up within their respective preferred use ideas. Watch for your email invite with more information tomor- row evening. Finally, the open house invites our community in as they can to drop-by, learn, chat with us, and participate in a few activities. Your colleague is welcome to join, there is no pre-registration re- quired for that event. Thank you for your interest, and your willingness to share your input with us on this project around the Armory’s future. Pleas email me directly if you have any further questions and I’ll follow-up with you when I learn what we can do to update your answers to the one question. 2 & 3R 04-12-2022 @ 4:43PM RESPONSE FROM COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER Unfortunately, we are unable to edit a question on the question- naire. We can, however, have the application delete your entire submission so you can retake it and make sure that your answers reflect what you intended. Please let me know if you would like me to have that submission tossed so you can resubmit before I take that action. 4C 04-14-2022 @4:52PM EMAIL FROM COMMUNITY MEMBER I know that the ideas submission portion of the Armory Hall has closed, however in reviewing some of the comments I wanted to add to the Food Hall concept and offer some successful exam- ples I have seen first hand. Check out the Oxbow Public Market in Napa Valley, as well as The Pearl Food Hall in San Antonio. Both are a community hub, and incubator for small businesses and en- trepreneurs. Something like this would ADD to the vitality of down- town Aspen, and increase engagement of the local community. As we have seen so many great businesses get torn down, rebuilt, and then inaccessible for us locals - this would provide a meeting place, and open new doors, instead of closing them. There are a lot of great ideas that have come up - some which could be suitable in the basement or upper level - but the main level truly should serve anyone and everyone in our town. If food trucks will forever be banned, then it is imperative to find a way to feed the workforce. Let’s make this something we can all rally around and get excited about, bring our families into and be eager to share and be proud of. 4R 04-14-2022 @ 5:08PM RESPONSE FROM COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER We’ll include your feedback as part of the engagement report summary. 338 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 51 #DATE COMMENT/RESPONSE 5C 04-22-2022 @8:38AM ACV IDEA FROM COMMUNITY MEMBER We need to support locals Aspen has very little opportunity for locals here to socialize and meet with freinds for an inexpensive dinner or lunch. If this is not addressed soon, then most of the workers will be leaving for a better quality of life---which I see already happening. This will also give visitors a chance to experience others options than fine dining every night 4.15 Community member called several City office, including the Mayor’s, asking for someone to please mail a copy of the question- naire. She is 80 years old and indicated that her and her laptop are not super equipped, but she would like to respond and give feedback on the hall. If someone could please mail it to her that would be appreciated. 04-19-2022 @10:33AM EMAIL Thank you for the message and the invite to participate in one of the roundtable discussions. I have not officially spoken up yet, but I know there has been some discussion about recovery meetings potentially having a space within the Armory to call home. I am (on the board) of the Car- bondale nonprofit The Meeting Place (www.meetingplacecarbon- dale.org). We provide a space for recovery meetings of all types, regardless of the rent donation they may be able to make or not. A few community members have reached out to me about The Meeting Place potentially having a second location in Aspen. This could be a possibility, if the Armory were to lease space to non- profits for long-terms (such as the Third Street Center in Carbon- dale). I understand that the City many be some time away from making those sorts of decisions, but I wanted to just put it out there. I could also imagine a space that functions more like the Red Brick, with some spaces that can be rented thru the City (on an hourly basis). I am happy to discuss this in more detail if that would be helpful, or communicate the possibility in a more formal manner. 339 52 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 APPENDICES ² APPENDIX A: ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENT ² APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP MATERIALS ² APPENDIX C: OPEN HOUSE MATERIALS 340 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 53 APPENDIX A ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENT REFINING FUTURE OPTIONS INTRODUCTION This questionnaire is designed to confirm the community’s preferred programming uses for the Armory. It will also further explore ideas around interior aesthetics, space considerations, fund- ing and future operational support. The City is treating this as a feedback form, not a statisti- cally valid survey, and will not be counting “votes.” All input will be considered and balanced against the project’s guiding principles as future use and remodel options are developed. We invite you to take this short questionnaire (approx. 10 minutes) to add your voice to this conversation as the City seeks to balance diverse needs and preferences with resources and logistics. Information gathered here will help inform the preferred programming and remodel- ing recommendations that will be shared with City Council on May 16. The survey will be available through Sunday, April 24, 2022, at 11:59 p.m. Aspen’s Armory Hall project sets out a vision for the future programming and remodel options for this facility’s next phase in life. As part of the planning and community engagement pro- cess, the City hosted a Community Values Questionnaire earlier this year. As the City continues to develop the long-term strategy for the Armory, the project team is soliciting your input once more to refine the community’s programming preferences as well as the scope of remodeling considerations. The project’s follow-up questionnaire includes infor- mation and questions about the following: • Community access and programming preferences verification • Future interior aesthetics and space considerations • Remodel funding and future operations support clarification The complete results report for the previous Community Values questionnaire is available in the “Documents” section on the project page. QUESTIONS Future Use and Programming Prioritization The Armory Hall Community Values Questionnaire results indicated that the following guiding principles resonated most with community members: • Programming should focus on unmet needs within the community • Uses within the building should provide meaningful, affordable participation in programs and offerings • The remodel will respect the historic context and contribute to Aspen’s small-town character Additionally, the questionnaire showed that Aspen community members preferred five top proposed use ideas or supported several concepts that were not included in the initial list. 341 54 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED 1. Considering the information shared above, please select the top three uses from the Community Values questionnaire’s resulting combined list that you feel would best serve our community and fit within the context of the Armory. (You can only select up to three answers) a. Affordable Housing b. Childcare c. Community Center d. Multipurpose Space – Meetings or Events e. Non-Profit Services f. Office Space - Coworking g. Restaurants – Casual Dining h. Retail – Lower Price Point i. Social Services 2. As referenced above, several uses were identified in the results of the first questionnaire as BOTH a perceived need in the community AND a preferred use that could be met within the Armory. Assuming results for the top preferred uses are similarly reflected in this questionnaire and recognizing the Armory remodel may be asked to accommodate a mix of future programming uses, please identify how you would prefer to see space prioritized within the building. Mark each use as one of the following: Not a Priority, Low Priority, Somewhat Priority, Neutral, Moderate Priority, High Priority, Essential Priority a. Affordable Housing b. Childcare c. Community Center d. Multipurpose Space – Meetings or Events e. Non-Profit Services f. Office Space - Coworking g. Restaurants – Casual Dining h. Retail – Lower Price Point i. Social Services Building Aesthetics and Design Preferences In the previous questionnaire, staff sought to understand the community’s level of commitment and preferences for the physical remodel of the building. We learned that a majority of com- munity members (71%) preferred the City to take the time needed for a more thorough reno- vation. Similarly, 80% of the participants expressed a preference to maintain the current footprint and square footage of the facility. Staff would like to take a deeper dive into what the community envisions when invited back in to experience the remodeled space. Since its construction in 1892, the Armory has undergone more than one remodel. We’re like to share some context to how it has evolved over time as we consider its next iteration. Please review the images below of the original facility footprint, historic photos, and images of current conditions before addressing the next questions. We also invite you to check out The History of the Aspen Armory in the “Documents” section on the project page. 342 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 55 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Below/following are pictures depicting the Armory in past days. ORIGINAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT EXTERIOR OF THE ARMORY CIRCA 1937 ADDITIONS CIRCA 1940S © Aspen Historical Society © Aspen Historical Society © Aspen Historical Society 343 56 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED ADDITIONS CIRCA 1940S 1949 INTERIOR VIEW © Aspen Historical Society © Aspen Historical Society 344 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 57 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED 1977 EXTERIOR OF THE ARMORY 1994 REMODEL OF THE ARMORY © Aspen Historical Society © Aspen Historical Society 345 58 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Building Aesthetics and Design Preferences Please review the images below of the original facility footprint, historic photos, and images of current conditions before addressing the next questions. Below are pictures depicting the Armory in 2022. 2022 EXTERIOR OF THE ARMORY BASEMENT LEVEL Basement Layout © Aspen Historical Society 346 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 59 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Basement - Sister Cities Room Basement - Former Council Chambers Basement - Utility Space 347 60 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED GROUND LEVEL Ground Level Layout Ground Level - Foyer (lowest ceiling point is 7’4”) 348 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 61 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Ground Level - Office/Closet Nook Ground Level - Kitchen 349 62 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Ground Level - Entrance off Galena SECOND LEVEL Second Level Layout 350 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 63 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Second Level - Office A Second Level - Office B 351 64 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Second Level - Office C Second Level - Restroom 352 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 65 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Second Level - Conference Room Second Level Interior Office Foyer - non ADA Compliant 353 66 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Second Level Back Stairwell THIRD LEVEL Third Level Layout 354 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 67 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Third Level Office A Third Level Office B 355 68 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Third Level Office C Third Level Kitchen Area 356 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 69 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Third Level Entrance from Front Stairwell Third Level Conference Room 357 70 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Third Level Front Stairwell Third Level Elevator Access 358 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 71 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED 3. As staff considers the aesthetics and design appeal of the remodel, share how you would like the Armory to feel and look once work is completed? Please select your top five adjectives. a. Artistic o. Interconnected b. Bright p. Inviting c. Classic q. Luxurious d. Contemporary r. Minimalist e. Cozy s. Modern f. Distinctive t. Multi-Story g. Ecologically Friendly u. Private h. Efficient v. Professional i. Functional w. Sectioned j. Historic x. Simple k. Industrial y. Timeless l. Innovative z. Traditional m. Inspiring aa. Voluminous n. Institutional bb. Whimsical cc. Other (please specify) Path Forward In the first questionnaire, the community showed a preference to maximize the square footage of the existing footprint of the building (three levels and a basement) rather reduce usable space and return the building closer to its original form (two levels and a basement). Results also indicated a preference to maintain off-street parking along the alley. Historically, the building was two stories above grade as shown below. © Aspen Historical Society 359 72 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED Later, an additional floor was added. The current ground floor to ceiling height is approximate- ly 7’4” at its lowest location. 360 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 73 QUESTIONS - CONTINUED 4. The option of a building addition could offer a possible means to maintain existing square footage while also allowing for taller ceilings by removing one floor. An addition could also increase overall square footage if the remodel kept the existing three-story layout. We’d like to know which path forward would be more important to you: a. To increase the overall square footage with an addition to the facility. b. To maintain the overall square footage of the building, including exploration around an addition or other ways to open up the internal spaces like ceiling heights. c. To maintain the overall square footage of the building without an addition, the existing ceiling heights are fine. 5. As shared above, the initial questionnaire indicated that parking along the alley was important or somewhat important to maintain. If an addition iis needed to achieve square footage requirements for future programming use, would the removal of some of the alley parking be acceptable to you? a. No b. Yes 6. The Armory has evolved over time, enduring several remodels. As the City focuses on this next phase of the building’s life, should this remodel be designed to: a. Focus on flexibility to allow for changing needs of the community over time. b. Focus on specific community use preferences identified for now and the immediate future. Funding and Operations 7. Currently, the City has budgeted $7.5 million for the design, necessary land use approvals, and remodel of the Armory. If additional funding is necessary to execute the community’s preferred vision for the building, should the City seek private dollars to cover the balance? a. No b. Yes Ongoing Maintenance and Management 8. Recognizing the City will maintain ownership of the Armory, how should it address lease management and operations of the facility? (Select all that apply) a. The City should contract a third-party to manage the leasing of the building. b. The City should contract a third-party to manage operations and maintenance of the building. c. The City should manage the leasing of the building. d. The City should manage operations and maintenance of the building. 9. If you answered above that the City is the best party to manage and/or lease the facility, what are the reasons you believe this. This information will help us further appreciate community expectations related to site management. a. Will be the best neighbor for the Downtown Core. b. Ensures the Armory remains accessible to the community. c. Will be the best steward for the integrity of the structure. d. Provides opportunities for short-term or long-term community use. e. Other (please specify) 361 74 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 10. If the final recommended use (or mixed-use) allows for retail, restaurant, meeting, or non-profit/co-working office space, what approach should be taken towards leasing to different interested entities? a. Leases should be managed to support an incubator-type of environment where access to space and opportunity is equitable for emerging community businesses, organizations, and individual members. b. Leases should be managed to encourage longer-term relationships with businesses, organizations, and individual members who support community needs and character. 11. If the final recommended use (or mixed-use) allows for retail, restaurant, meeting, or non-profit/co-working office space, what approach should be taken towards the rental rates for these spaces? a. The rents should be set a rate where operational and capital costs associated with building operations and maintenance are self-sufficient. b. The rents should be subsidized by the City of Aspen. c. The rents should be subsidized through a public-private partnership. Demographics Please tell us a little about yourself. 12. Please select the option(s) that best describes your age: a. Under 19 b. 20-30 c. 31-40 d. 41-50 e. 51-60 f. 61-70 g. 71+ 13. Please select the option(s) that best describe you. a. Aspen Business Owner b. Commuter c. Visitor d. Aspen Resident e. Other (please specify) Conclusion Thank you for taking our survey. Your feedback will be shared with Council at a May 16 work session. A full engagement report will also be posted to the project page at that time. 362 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 75 APPENDIX B FOCUS GROUP MATERIALS Interest Form Please complete the following form if you are interested and available to participate in a 90-minute, (in-person focus group on April 12, 10-11:30 a.m./ virtual focus group on April 14, 6-7:30 p.m.) This session intends to provide a forum for staff to listen to you as we seek to better under- stand your ideas about community needs. The sessions also will allow participants to listen to and learn from one another about the diverse views and needs staff heard in the initial round of project engagement. With multiple needs and limited space, these sessions will help inform recommendations to City Council about the future remodel and programming options for Aspen’s Armory Hall. The focus group will be limited to 12 participants. If more interest is expressed than spaces available, the City will consider hosting additional sessions. Those selected to participate will receive an invite with more information 24-hours in advance of the session. Please also consider taking the second project questionnaire currently available on Aspen- CommunityVoice.com. If you are not selected to participate in a focus session, we invite you to attend an Open House Meeting on Wednesday, April 13, 4-6:30 p.m., at City Hall’s Pearl Pass Conference Room at 427 Rio Grande Place 3rd Floor. We appreciate your willingness to engage with us more on this topic and are excited to hear more from you. Please submit your answer to the following question, as this will help ensure we include par- ticipants representing a range of ideas in the discussion. The first Armory Hall questionnaire indicated that the community preferred five top use ideas. Additionally, the questionnaire’s results supported several common concepts not included in the initial use idea list. Please select the top three uses you feel would best serve our community needs and fit within the context of the Armory facility from the resulting combined list. Note: if you select more than three, the survey will not allow you to hit “Done;” please limit yourself to your top three responses. • Restaurants - Casual Dining • Multipurpose Space - Meetings or Events • Non-Profit Services • Retail - Lower Price Point • Office Space - Coworking • Childcare • Affordable Housing • Community Center • Social Services Please share a good email to send you an invite to the session if you are selected to participate. This email will be provided to you 24 hours in advance of the session. • Name: • Email Address: 363 76 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 In-Person Group Participant Invite Happy Monday, Thank you so much for agreeing to participate in our in-person focus group for the Aspen’s Ar- mory Hall project tomorrow, April 12, at 10 a.m.; details regarding your attendance are includ- ed below. We truly appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts to help us chart our course and set the Armory up for future success. Please Join Us: Topic: Aspen’s Armory Hall Time: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 @ 10-11:30 a.m. Location: City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place, 3rd Floor, Pearl Pass Room (this is the room which overlooks Rio Grande Park) The group size has been limited to 12 participants so that we are able to have time to hear from all present; please do not forward this invite to others as we are at capacity tomorrow. We will not record this meeting, but staff will take notes from your input during the session. Your participation is completely voluntary, and all of your responses will remain anonymous. We will meet for approximately 90 minutes. As much of the time dedicated to listening to your responses on open-ended questions about the future use and remodel of Aspen’s Armory Hall, and themes which emerged in the recent questionnaire, we encourage you to take a few minutes to review in advance the project information on Aspen Community Voice. Also attached to this invitation are a quick look at the Armory’s history, the project overview with highlights gleaned from the first questionnaire, and images from the current conditions at the facility so you have some context on what a remodel may entail. AGENDA We’ll do our best to start on time and stick to this agenda so that the majority of the session is dedicated to listening to you and each other. • 10:00 Welcome, Purpose of Meeting, and Agreements • 10:05 Participant Introductions • 10:10 Brief Project Background & Highlights of Questionnaire Themes • 10:15 Discussion o Limited Space/Multiple Community Needs o Remodel Options o Operational Vision • 11:20 Next Steps and Wrap Up Please come prepared to share your thoughts and to listen to other’s input as we have a diverse group. This is a generative process where everyone’s ideas contribute to a greater final product. We value partnership, innovation, stewardship, and service at the City of Aspen and look forward to respectful and exciting dialogue. Once the focus groups, open house, and second questionnaire are completed, a report that highlights the major themes heard will be shared with City Council and on the aspencommuni- tyvoice.com project page. If you are no longer able to attend, please email me at denise.white@aspen.gov to let me know so that we can offer your spot to another community member. Cheers! 364 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 77 Virtual Group Participant Invite Good evening, Thank you so much for agreeing to participate in our virtual focus group for the Aspen’s Armory Hall project tomorrow, April 14, at 6 p.m.; details regarding your attendance are included below. We truly appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts to help us chart our course and set the Armory up for future success. Please Join Us: Topic: Aspen’s Armory Hall Time: Thursday, April 14, 2022 @ 6-7:30 p.m. Location: On Zoom at (link redacted) Meeting ID: (link redacted) Passcode: (link redacted) While we hope to see your lovely faces on screen, but if you need to use a dial-in number instead, you can call 1-720-707-2699 and Meeting ID# 843 683 5892. Please test the link earlier in the day if you can to make sure your system is set-up for Zoom meetings. You should see a message saying “Please wait for the host to start this meeting” and an option to test your audio settings. The group size has been limited to 12 participants so that we are able to have time to hear from all present; please do not forward this invite to others as we are at capacity tomorrow. We will not record this meeting, but staff will take notes from your input during the session. Your participation is completely voluntary, and all of your responses will remain anonymous. We will meet for approximately 90 minutes. As much of the time dedicated to listening to your responses on open-ended questions about the future use and remodel of Aspen’s Armory Hall, and themes which emerged in the recent questionnaire, we encourage you to take a few minutes to review in advance the project information on Aspen Community Voice. Also attached to this invitation are a quick look at the Armory’s history, the project overview with highlights gleaned from the first questionnaire, and images from the current conditions at the facility so you have some context on what a remodel may entail. AGENDA We’ll do our best to start on time and stick to this agenda so that the majority of the session is dedicated to listening to you and each other. • 6:00 Welcome, Purpose of Meeting, and Agreements • 6:05 Participant Introductions • 6:10 Brief Project Background & Highlights of Questionnaire Themes • 6:15 Discussion (we explore these three themes) o Limited Space/Multiple Community Needs o Remodel Options o Operational Vision • 7:20 Next Steps and Wrap Up Please come prepared to share your thoughts and to listen to other’s input as we have a diverse group. This is a generative process where everyone’s ideas contribute to a greater final product. We value partnership, innovation, stewardship, and service at the City of Aspen and look for- ward to respectful and exciting dialogue. Once this window of engagement is completed on April 24, a report that highlights the major themes heard will be shared with City Council (May 16) and on the aspencommunityvoice.com project page. If you are no longer able to attend, please email me at denise.white@aspen.gov to let me know so that we can offer your spot to another community member. Cheers! 365 78 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 Focus Group Advance Materials Focus Group Slide Deck | April 12 - In Person 366 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 79 Focus Group Slide Deck | April 14 - Virtual 367 80 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 368 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 81 APPENDIX C OPEN HOUSE MATERIALS Project One-Sheet 369 82 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 Display Board 1 370 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 83 Display Board 2 371 84 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 Display Board 3 372 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 85 Display Board 4 373 86 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 Display Board 5 374 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 87 Display Board 6 375 88 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 Display Board 7 376 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 89 Display Board 8 377 90 | Armory Engagement Report | April 2022 Display Board 9 378 April 2022 | Armory Engagement Report | 91 379