HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2016-05-04 (2)TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
May 4, 2016
Agenda Item:
STAFF REPORT
To:
From:
Subject:
Reviewed By:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Department of Public Works
Proposed McKegney Green Soccer Field Upgrade
BACKGROUND
From Spring 2015 until early this year, staff has met with representatives of the Tiburon
Peninsula Soccer Club (TPSC), outside consultants, Councilmember O'Donnell and Mayor
Tollini regarding the condition of McKegney Green and a potential project to upgrade the field.
The playing field at McKegney Green was constructed in 1975. The existing field is about
200,000 SF (4.6 acres) of natural turf. This 200,000 SF includes a sand field that is 330 feet by
225 feet or about 75,000 SF (1.8 acres). This sand field includes a 10" layer of sand beneath it
for improved drainage. The entire field is crowned to drain to both sides at 2 - 3%.
Since its construction, the McKegney playing field has received minimal maintenance including
reseeding, limited resodding, and repairs to drainage and irrigation as needed. For instance, in
2014, Public Works spent about $10,000 in maintenance on the field. The playing field is
currently in poor condition, with the field surface exhibiting significant inconsistency in the areas
of tuff growth, wear resistance and drainage. In addition, the irrigation and drainage systems are
aged and operating beyond their expected useful life, resulting in some areas that are too dry for
proper growth and other areas that are muddy and tear up easily under the stress of play.
Comparatively, Mill Valley schedules their sand fields for resodding and irrigation repairs every
5 to 8 years.
Council discussed McKegney Green on March 2, 2016, and voted unanimously to authorize a
pre—design scoping study to better determine the project requirements for a possible renovation of
Mckegney Field. Staff engaged Abbey Arnold Associates for that study on March 4, 2016. The
issue was also discussed at the Council Retreat on April 1, 2016. These discussions centered on
how the elevated levels of salt found in the soil, and recycled water used for irrigation, might
affect the project. Council requested that we investigate turf grasses used near salt water on golf
courses in the Bay Area to see if these might be suitable for use on the McKegney project. The
pre -design study is now complete and includes information related to: existing soil conditions,
irrigation water sources, and biological considerations at the site. Based on this information, the
consultant has provided 5 possible options for improving the existing field with their associated
estimates of probable cost.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 5
'1 -own Council Meeting
May 4, 2016
ANALYSIS
Before discussing the individual options, it is important to understand the possible implications of
three items:
1. Alternative natural turf
2. Recycled water versus potable water
3. Natural turf versus artificial turf
Alternative Turf
Staff was asked to investigate the availability of alternative turf grass species that may tolerate the
existing conditions at McKegney Green. The consultant has identified only one species,
Paspalum, which we could consider.
Paspalum, which has demonstrated an ability to better tolerate high level of salts in irrigation
water, is a warm weather, drought tolerant turf grass. It has been used for golf courses and
athletic fields in Florida, Georgia, Texas and Southern California, but has been used successfully
only on Bay Area golf courses. Athletic fields receive far greater stress than golf courses and, to
our knowledge, Paspalum has not yet been used for an athletic field in the Bay Area. Paspalum
was considered by the consultant for an earlier project in Brentwood but rejected as the soil
temperatures were too low for it to recover from the wear and tear of play. Soil temperatures in
Tiburon are only slightly higher, and therefore, the use of Paspalum on McKegney Green would
be experimental. Nonetheless, it is the only turf species identified that may tolerate the salt levels
in the existing irrigation system without providing a new potable water source for the field. In
this scenario, Paspalum would be used with recycled water, and no irrigation available in the
winter. While Paspalum is drought tolerant, a dry winter could result in additional stress and
limited ability to recover from seasonal use.
Potable and Recycled Water
The field is currently watered with recycled secondary water under a permit granted in 1988. A
new or revised permit would require this recycled water have tertiary treatment. Moreover, the
water is very high in salts due to seawater intrusion in the sewer system. This seawater intrusion
has increased over the last 5 to 10 years. This level of salinity makes the water unsuitable for
most typical turf grasses. Mill Valley also uses this recycled water, but only after blending it with
up to 75% potable water. The existing permit limits the amount of recycled water we can use,
and does not allow any irrigation from November 15 through April 15, further stressing the turf
during dry winters. The Town currently pays about $17,000 per year for recycled water, which
includes the water used at South of Knoll Park as well as McKegney Green.
Adding potable water irrigation would provide many benefits, but would increase applicable
estimated project costs by approximately $310,000. This would eliminate salt problems and
allow winter irrigation when needed. Potable water would also allow for the use of Bermuda
hybrid grasses normally used on athletic fields in the Bay Area.
Natural and Artificial Turf
Natural turf limits the use of the field. The consultant states a ratio of 1 hour of play to 10 hours
of rest should be observed. This results in a maximum play time of about 800 hours per year
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 5
Town Council Meeting
May 4, 2016
assuming year around play. Play could be further reduced when winter irrigation and rain are
limited, drainage is poor, the field is wet, or the ability to move the goal posts is limited by the
size of the field. All, or some of these conditions are likely to occur in options 1, 1.a. and 2
discussed below. In option 3, the size of the field would allow the periodic relocation of goal
posts, mitigating that factor. With all natural turf options, the annual maintenance costs are
higher than artificial turf, and it is recommended the turf sod be completely replaced every 10
years.
An artificial turf field has lower estimated annual maintenance costs, and allows a greater
amount of play, normally around 1500 hours per year, up to a maximum of 3,000 hours per year.
However, the fabric would need to be replaced every 10 -12 years. Assuming 1,500 hour per year
use for artificial turf and 800 hour per year use for a sand based field (the upper recommended
maximum), the cost per hour of play for artificial turf is lower than the cost per hour of play for a
sand field. The consultant notes that artificial turf has been a "game changer" where it has been
installed. That is to say, "if you build it, they will come." This presents a potential issue with
artificial turf, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Option 3 discussed below. If they do come, where
will they park? Further, artificial turf will need to be protected and fenced, changing the nature of
the existing McKegney Green field. For this reason, the CEQA consultant noted, "The artificial
turf might increase the duration and frequency of field use, in turn, affecting parking or traffic,
therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration could be necessary."
Project Options
The consultant provided five options for improving the existing field. The minimum project
simply repairs the existing sand field. The largest project converts all of the existing usable area
to an artificial turf playing area. The report and background documents are attached. Diagrams
of each option as well as their associated probable estimate of costs are included in the report.
The proposed options are as follows:
1. Re -sod only the existing sand -based portion of the field. This will result in a 75,000
SF sand -based field. This would include upgrades to the existing irrigation. Drainage
problems will not be addressed, potentially resulting in wet areas that will tear more
easily. The size of this field does not allow moving of goal posts to avoid concentrated
wear. Estimated cost: $685K.
1a. Re -sod only the existing sand -based field and add improved drainage. This is similar
to option 1 except that drainage would be improved to reduce potential wet areas and
increase the ability of the field to leach salt in the winter. Estimated cost: $864K.
2. Re -sod 150,000 SF of the existing field. This rehabilitates the entire existing playing
area without any re -grading to maximize the useable area. The result is a 150,000 SF
playing area that includes a 75,000 SF sand -based field and 75,000 SF of non -sand based
field. This would allow play on a sand -based field and practice or junior games on dirt
based fields, increasing the functionality of the fields. This would include upgrades to the
drainage and existing irrigation. This option restores McKegney playfield to its original
1975 functionality. Estimated cost: $1.1M. (Note that a Verde Design estimate for a
similar field was supplied by the project proponents at $1.1 M).
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 5
Town Council Meeting
May 4, 2016
Note: Options 1, la and 2 would utilize Paspalum turf. These options could be improved with
installation of a potable water irrigation system at an additional cost of about $310K. If a potable
water irrigation system is added, it is recommended that the drainage be improved (as indicated in
options 1 a and 2), and a more typical Bermuda type turf be utilized as opposed to the Paspalum
turf described above. This would result in more consistent year-round watering, more play time,
better recovery and reduced experimental risk associated with using Paspalum.
3. Construct a 200,000 SF sand based field. Remove about 200,000 SF of sod, re -grade to
maximize the usable area, and replace with a 200,000 SF sand based sod field with
185,000 SF of playable area. This option allows multiple sand fields and moving of goal
posts to reduce high intensity wear, and includes installation of a potable water irrigation
system and improved drainage. Adding potable water will be needed due to the increase
in water use. This option would allow for a full 800 hours of play per year. Estimated
cost: $2.6M. (Note that a Verde Design estimate for a similar field but 150,000 SF field
and without a new potable water source was supplied by the resident proponents.
Adjusting for size and adding a potable water source, the Verde estimate would be $2.5
M).
4. Create a 185,000 SF artificial turf field. This includes fencing which would be required
to keep dogs off the field. This field allows a greater amount of play, up to 3,000 hours
per year. Maintenance and water costs are lower. However, the fabric would need to be
replaced every 10 -12 years. Estimated cost $3.1M.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Options range in estimated probable cost from $685K to $3.1M. Comparisons with estimates for
similar fields by Verde Design as supplied by the project proponents are consistent with these
estimates.
TPSC has discussed a partnership for the funding. The amount they might be able to contribute is
not yet clear. There have been discussions of additional funding if an artificial turf field was
constructed. All these discussions are preliminary and no commitment has been made.
Annual irrigation/maintenance/capital reserve costs for natural turf are expected to range from
$71K to $103K per year depending on the option selected. An artificial field would require less
in annual maintenance, at approximately $8K per year, but would require setting aside $100K per
year for future turf fabric replacement, for a total annualized maintenance cost of approximately
$108K.
Revenue from field rentals would partially offset these annual costs. Currently we charge
$35/hour for use of the existing field. For the natural turf field options, we estimate the annual
revenue could range from $17.5K to $27.5K per year. For the artificial turf option, we estimate
revenue could range fiom $40K to $50K per year. It is important to note the higher revenue
numbers for both the natural and artificial turf options assume a level of use significantly higher
than the current utilization. This increased use is likely to create issues related to parking and
traffic impacts. These issues have not been analyzed as part of this report.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 5
Town Council Meeting
May 4, 2016
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Town Council:
1. Receive the Staff Report, and provide direction to staff regarding the proposed McKegney
Green Project.
Prepared by: Patrick Barnes, Director of Public Works
Exhibits:
1. McKegney Green Athletic Field Study (Abbey Arnold Associates)
2. Existing Conditions/Site Analysis, (1 sheet)
3. Field Plans (5 sheets)
4. Preliminary Construction Estimates (5 sheets)
5. McKegney Field Irrigation Upgrades and Expansion letter (Brelje and Race)
6. Biological Issues letter (Kelly Biological)
7. Soil Analysis Reports (Waypoint Analytical)
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 5
abey 4arnold
'JDSCAPE ARC01I7ECTS
April 25, 2016
Patrick Barnes
Public Works Director
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Subject: McKegney Green Athletic Field Study
Attachments: Existing Conditions/Site Analysis, (1- 11 X 17 Site Plan)
Field Plans (5- 11x17, Colored Site Plans)
Preliminary Construction Estimate for each Plan (5- 8.5 x 11)
Project Synopsis:
The Town of Tiburon Staff asked that we evaluate options available to the Town regarding
upgrading the McKegney Green athletic field. Currently the field is used by youth athletics from
mid Spring through Fall by the local youth soccer clubs and is closed for repairs during the rainy
season, (November thru April).
FIELD DESCRIPTION
The existing field was installed in the late 1970's and includes about 200,000 sf (4.6 acres) of
natural turf. Of that 200,000 sf, about 80,000 sf (1.8 acres) has a 10" layer of sand beneath it for
improved drainage. This sand area is 220' by 350 feet, the size of a regulation soccer field.
DRAINAGE
The entire field is crowned to drain to both sides at 2 to 3%. The storm water runoff from the
crown on the east side of the field feeds into a swale that ultimately enters a storm drain system
which daylights into the bay. On the west side, the runoff sheet flows across the gravel
maintenance roadway, eventually all the way to the rip rap boulders at the shoreline. At no time
does the Town irrigation water enter the storm drains, only rain water during heavy rain events
makes its way into the system.
CURRENT PERMIT
The field is operating under a permit granted in 1976 and updated in 1987 to use reclaimed water
from the local water treatment facility. The current `secondary' level water treatment is within
the limits of the original permit requirement. This type of treatment would no longer be allowed
if a similar project were to be presented to the Regional Water Quality Board. Current
regulations would require tertiary level of treatment, (refer to attached BRCE report regarding
treatment levels and associated costs for upgrading to tertiary from the current secondary).
911L&±
WATER QUALITY
As mentioned in the BRCE report, the levels of salt in the water currently being delivered by
SASM to the Richardson Bay facility are very high due to the leaky infrastructure of the sewer
system. The high levels of salty bay water entering the water treatment plant can only be
mitigated by a very expensive main line replacement program. Salt is not something that can be
treated/removed from the water, except by a reverse osmosis system, which is energy intensive
and expensive to build. Mill Valley currently uses a tertiary level treatment system for their
fields, but have been `blending' in MMWD water, (up to 75% of fresh to 25% of reclaimed), to
relieve the issues caused by the excess salt.
Proposed Approaches to Field Upgrades:
Plan 1 -
Plan la -
Remove existing turf and organic matter at the sand based area only.
Replace irrigation equipment `in-place'. Import 6" of new drainage sand. Install
Paspalum salt resistant sod turf. This approach would be considered a maintenance
project. (75,000 sf of field available for athletics).
• Paspalum is a warm weather grass that is salt tolerant. It has been used for
golf courses in the Bay Area and sports fields in warmer climates such as
Southern California, Texas, Florida and Georgia. Sports fields get
significantly more wear than golf courses. Paspalum has not been used for a
sports field in the Bay area. But nonetheless, this is the only grass which will
tolerate the level of salts in the recycled water.
• Without adding drainage, this solution would result in ponding and wet areas
that would wear easily.
• Paspalum is very drought tolerant, but the inability to water during a dry
winter will further stress the grass during its recovery season.
Retain existing field's turf layout and grades. Replace irrigation equipment `in-
place', replace far north and south portions of the turf with planted stormwater
treatment areas, remove existing turf at existing sand based portion of the field, add
subsurface drainage at sand area, (route runoff to treatment areas), add 9" of new
sand, Install Paspalum salt resistant sod turf. This approach would be considered a
maintenance project. (75,000 sf of field available for athletics).
• The advantage to this approach over Plan 1 is that it will better drain the salts
from the soil and eliminate areas where water currently ponds.
Plan 2- Retain existing field's turf layout and grades. Replace irrigation equipment `in-
place', remove existing turf, amend soil and sand, replace turf. This approach would
be considered a maintenance project, (150,000 sf of field available for athletics).
Plan 3- Retain the existing turfs total surface area and re -grade. This entails the removal of
existing turf, regrading to create more useable turf area, (removal of deep swale on
the east side of the field), import a 12" depth `drained' sand section, replace entire
2 of 6
irrigation system, install sand based sod turf Upgrade irrigation water to either
blended reclaimed water or use all domestic water. This approach also requires
treatment of storm water, (bioswales), (185,000 sf of field available for athletics).
Plan 4- Remove all turf, regrade, replace the playing field area with a non -crumb rubber
artificial turf field. Sloped surrounding areas would be landscaped with low water
use plants and, for health and safety reasons, a fence would be installed to prevent
dog access.
Field Uses and Associated Size Requirements
The field presented represents a full sized adult level AYSO sanctioned size for soccer, (75 x 110
yds). The expanded field will allow the flexibility to line the field to allow the addition of two
U10 sized fields.
Lacrosse has a definitive requirement of 60x110 yards which would fit within the proposed
fields.
Soil or Sand Based Natural vs. Artificial Turf
The use of artificial turf for communities with limited open space for athletic fields has proven to
be a very worthy investment. Previous projects designed by my firm, have been `game
changers' for the local athletic programs, The Branson School and Bentley School. My
recommendation, due to the drought and intensity of use, that an artificial turf field be installed.
There are benefits to natural turf, but the downsides are significant for Tiburon due to lack of
park space and intensity of use.
An artificial turf field can be used during daylight hours and is not affected by weather. Normal
use is around 1,500 hours per year, but could be used more if necessary. Annual maintenance
of artificial turf is dependent on field location (leaf drop and removal). If the field is used
intensely, a professional maintenance program is about $5,000 per year, plus leaf removal, (more
intense in fall, and minimal the remainder of the year).
A natural turf field, to remain in a safe and playable condition, can be used much less (800
hours/year). The number of use hours would decrease during particularly rainy years due to field
closures. These closures are necessary to reduce damage to the field. (Natural turf= Sand Based
Bermuda/Rye).
The following are the Pros and Cons:
Pros- Natural:
1. Lower installation costs.
2. Natural turf is a living thing and helps the environment with carbon uptake and oxygen
production.
3. It has lower surface temperatures.
3 of 6
Cons- Sand Based Natural:
1. Additional maintenance costs per year for natural turf, (water, labor, equipment,
materials) $45,000.
2. The field would use approximately 5,000,000 gallons of water per year.
3. Fertilizer and some pesticide use is necessary.
4. Requires mowing, edging, aerating, verti-cutting, vacuuming, sod patching/replacement.
Turf should be completely replaced every 10 years.
5. Can only be used about 800 hours per year, less during rainy years. Natural turf has a
very limited amount of time the field can be used continuously. There is a recommended
ratio of 10 hours of rest for every 1 hour of use. So, if the field is used intensively for 6
hours a day during a weekend tournament, theoretically the field needs to rest for the next
3 days... no use at all for those 3 days to allow the turf to recover. These 'use' numbers
are based on averages, so they will be affected by maintenance, weather, types of use and
user types (adult vs. children). The turf manager would have to adjust rest periods based
on post tournament field inspections.
Pros- Artificial:
1. Reduced maintenance.
2. Can be used up to 3,000 hours per year.
3. Does not require irrigation.
4. Can be used rain or shine.
5. Safer (impact attenuation and levelleven playing surface).
6. Almost no field closures.
7. No limits on continuous use, no rest period required.
Cons- Artificial:
1. Field needs to be replaced in 10 -12 years, requiring annual funding of $100K per year
for future `turf only' replacement.
2. More expensive to install.
3. Surface temperature is higher than natural turf on hot days (+20 degrees).
Field Use Benefits
If the Town utilizes the fields as many hours as other similar municipalities do (+/-1,500 hours
per year), the cost per hour of use are less (approx. $200/hr, vs. $380/hr.), and the benefits to
programming flexibility are significant. These costs are for the entire 2-3 field facility,
(depending on final field layout).
Cost / Hour formula for 10 year use cycle:
Field Cost field only) + 10 times Annual Maintenance and Field replacement Costs = total costs
over 10 years. Total divided by 10 years, then divide by total yearly hours.
Artificial Turf
Field Cost- $3,000,000
Annual Maintenance- $7,000
Field Replacement- $100,000 (annual funding toward new field)
4 of 6
Annual Hours of Use- 1,500
3,000,000 + 1,070,000= 4,070,000/10= 407,000 per year
407,000 / 1,500 hrs. = $271/hr.
Natural Turf
Field Cost- $2,400,000
Annual Maintenance- $75,000
Sod Replacement- $20,000
Annual Hours of Use- 800
2,400,000 + 950,000= 3,350,000/10= 335,000 per year
335,000 / 800 hrs. = $418/hr.
Environmental and Permitting Issues.
As a part of our scope we are working with both BRCE (water quality engineering) and Kelly
Biological (environmental permitting), to understand the effects of each approach on water
issues, their costs both long term and installation, and possible permitting issues.
WATER USE (EFFECT ON EXISTING PERMIT)
(Reference- BRCE Memorandum dated 03-31-16)
The current permit allows the Town to use 50,000 gallons per day of the treated secondary
reclaimed water. Since the turf area does not change in any of the `Plans', BRCE feels that as
long as the total daily water use is not increased, the current permit would remain as is.
The main issue with the current reclaimed water has become the levels of salt in the water. Salt
cannot be removed with either secondary or tertiary treatment, so a suggestion was offered up to
`blend' MMWD water with the reclaimed water to reduce and dilute the salt. This approach
would possibly reduce the amount of MMWD water required for the project, but the total savings
would be more than offset by the Town's possible increased per unit' charges expected for the
reclaimed water, if their total use is decreased. The Town is paying Richardson Bay Sanitary
District $3.38 per CCF, (which is less than their cost for producing the water). MMWD Tier 1
Rates would be $3.80 per CCF. If the Town switched to all MMWD water, the total additional
cost for the domestic water would be approximately $2,000 annually ($15,850 vs $17,850). The
possibility of the rates for the reclaimed water going up negates the effectiveness of blending.
PERMITTING
(Reference- Kelly Biological Memorandum dated 03-30-16)
The bottom line of this analysis is that since the Town, in Plans 1, la, 2 and 3, is not proposing
to change the shape, quantity or type of use, that no BCDC, CEQA or Fish and Game Permitting
would be required. Also noted, the proposed changes do not affect migratory birds, endangered
species, or waterways. There is the possibility that NPDES regulations for construction activities
would create the need for a full Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and associated
monitoring during the installation of Plans 3 and 4 (shown in Opinions of Probable Costs).
5 of 6
For Plan 4, the installation of an artificial turf surface, due to the nature of the surface, would
probably create an increase in use, thus the possible need for a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The increase in use, year around, would impact parking at Blackies Pasture and surrounding
neighborhoods. The exact amount would to be a separate study. The fact that the turf would be
playable year around and during any weather thus adds 5 -6 months of extra athletic practices
and games annually, indicates a change in use, intensity and duration. Truly the only limiting
factor for the use of this type of field is daylight.
CONCLUSION
After this analysis the team understands that the entire project revolves around the current
condition of the reclaimed water. The discovery that salt levels in the water supplied by SASM
have risen dramatically over the last 5-10 years changes the original question as well as the
subsequent solutions.
For athletic field turf normally used in the Bay Area, we can only recommend the use of natural
turf if SASM can deliver secondary water that is not detrimental to the turf (not likely), and
allow the Town to continue its 50,000 gallon per day use under the current permit. It appears
that the alternate solution of using domestic water and the high initial cost for MMWD
allotments and meter charges, would make the cost of a natural turf field very expensive when
considering the high costs per hour for the field's use.
Paspalum can withstand salty water and has been used in Southern California and along the Gulf
Coast for many years. It has also been used locally for golf courses along the shore of the San
Francisco Bay with much success. In Southern California it has been used for soccer and
baseball is documented. Paspalum looks very much like Bermuda grass, but its color is a bit
brighter of a green. It requires a minimum soil temperature of 60 degrees, which is right about
the coastal Bay Area's minimum temperature, which means it will be somewhat of a gamble to
say it will be 100% successful and thrive as a soccer field. That said, our irrigation water's
condition leaves us no other long term alternative. In the overall budget, the actual turf related
costs are moderate in its effect on the budget.
We still feel from an athletic venue perspective, even with the initial higher costs and probable
increase in the field's use, as well as the associated impact on parking, the installation of
artificial turf becomes an approach that still needs to be considered as a long term solution.
Paspalum is the stop gap `experimental' approach that can be implemented until the funding,
permitting, and political hurdles can be overcome for an artificial turf installation.
Peter Arnold, PLA
6 of 6
•i
f
`C T -$ --_. J
•
1.;.: r'
1
r
r
r
TIBURON BL'
r
.44
t
w
+l— I,
+ I II
I 1'
:1
I
r
11
J
j V
•
r-....------,
�tir
',"'a...,
-2-- .
':7:11 ..
•:`
•
-^•`4-Rr
•r
-may
`"% _!—
'-'!..t"-'''-;'-;...4:'.
:ti::r.
•:'moi,•.'+',':�w
+— a',,:4'•,
r
• . i�L,t
. . •Sa
y
`
14.4
...�.,
~r:� `-
', -moi•''^•
`..
?
r
.44
t
w
+l— I,
+ I II
I 1'
:1
I
r
11
J
j V
•
TIBURON BLVD.
•-••:•-'1•••SY.7:.
a'r
• .....
"Nr‘..1.:....".:•V''''.-.;-..'
r''', l • +t, ''''''•,... ''';"1 .....r.,4......,C•VTh'V.1
'Z''‘`':!:''......11:?:;••• 2...r. ..• ';'•44.1.14::
ls2t:'......:41.4.
---f' • ..,,e•v.-"-o-
.--4,:,::- 0--
1,...4 „ ,.......
7.•,'.44;:-..:..ktZ•
.L.... .7.. l',.....-.
, ....e.V.1r."....
•
^-,..::-.,...."'4,72.-
• :"i.•
.,.„...,
4. ..":::'.:4-4',:-.
t"Z''''''',.....•
.4„,..--•••,:.:...7„-,14:4:•:...,;,
-
Q
'L.;
''''...(Z.O.L.-.-141'...
l'.
••••--,
‘v
: " I,.
"e,,--;....11:,',-;•-*!--,.....,.:-.:-`,''
7 —"It, ''••-•:
,...14..,,'-‘4.•.,,."•......
4.t•>•71.$,:....1tP45--.:0;....LrZ.,4..4......•
'....". '''''''' • •
t ...4..".•'''':'.14
'
4Z-...... • ..,...41,:,
.4. ',...--.•
...._
.4-:•-,-;
",,,_ • --:
jedlit,
• 2..1.2....C.!
7..
1r,,.
`•`;‘,.1..'1`
1---,..
.t ,-,....'''It'''....,'-',e'Vr..
..,:',..i...::-.1 T.S4.:‘1.1.t...yt
: L. t ',,-1'.....t.Qtt.'
.- -.,. 'S...
'':-,-;:l. ':e.4":.`:
r,Z"—•,..
-.... •••••.,z,:ft.,-,
..
--, • •-•,..1",•-e..?":.
-,•-.!4---,..,::,7074;.
.-
••••••••;
;;7•14.,
.o.,-:.
1V.,'"..t•
,..:.,...:...
Z.Si.
r'.1t:','
'It •.',..''
•-••••• '
e,z,, ;N.?.
-,.....,.•••:„.e
• ••,..;;
„
•-•e-'-'1.".. -,'-f
'•-, ., ,1......
'''''.....::.'".•1:i... -i-
.;L.'"'":"71..1'''.d-.•
""•.•,..'''''`STI..
• '7....?......1.:.--r,./
..i. .c.'7,..:„..'.'
'``Q.,":•,.....7',.....
'`' "";'‘..• :1,--,,-"''''.
`,Thi.. -1'.....
1•••,L„••••,.:..„...•:,-,
'''.'••:•.....-. '''••
. ,....:7-.,.. •e-4.7.:12;,2
,.... v•; -,....:C -:.r.:--:......)'7,,...1.2.7.,....1
e•••:...... --t-:..•
'' - 41::'•-:.
...--.,11,,L•••., ••••i-4:'"-•
t'Ll
..,,, -
ti.,.,Tr..:::*
., r ii.. -4.2:.r...,..,,
: "?...,..:
'N.1.2% r•
„.......
e"'d . • ••
Iii,
‘.:-.1:::s
•*".•••-•-pi:‘::•%•••..
• ""•••
....., •
...' '
• %".•
'""
QL,.... .
......!s•.•••••:.;
vt...1/4..:,..rt.....,:e.
..,,-‘,...,..z.:..0,-.7
•
.....
• --....w...•
t.:, ..>...,
,...
."1.1... .
*".., .'"•-,.•
,,.:4,..: 1.14
.....::"...,,
...• .,1
„..,:.-]
,....:;•-. • ...1
n....,
. .........:-.,i•s•--
, r,.... .•,-,--,
-...Z.,7'.• ,..•----,,,,4-
-...!:••.7...• ^:•7t -Z-1 • •
... .•,...,. . ....- •
,- • -,..--, -..: -•• • • ••72.,.!z•
• ••••1
.......•..,.
-•,L :-,
L.
0
0
w
0
z
" eg
z 2=
z r
WziN
I.22
0
0
wr
LIMIT OF EXISTING TURF
1'1
z
J
UPGRADE of NATURAL TURF FIELD
L.
I )
0Akk\‘‘‘
• '0,
1 "
..?•__ix•• •
'5: :•:
6
RICAARDSON BAY
LL
u.
ce
.J S
at
z Fcf;
5 "6 d
c
"uJ4 g A a
ta TF -c2
(n
0
0.
Q.
b
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
Date: 04/25/2016
Project: McKegney Green Athletic Field Study, Tiburon CA
Plan 1- Renovate Existing Sand Field , As Is with current water source, (salt issues will remain)
Item # Description
1 Mobilization/SWPPP/Staking
2 Demolition, Turf Removal to 6" depth
3 Rough Grading
4 Fine Grading
5 Irrigation
6 Sand Section
7 Sod Turf
8 SWPPP-Monitoring
9 Maint Equip, (Aerator, Verticutter, Reel Mower)
Abey Arnold Associates, Landscape Architects, RLA 2616
Quantity Unit
1 LS
75,000 SF
2,000 CY
75,000 SF
75,000 SF
2,000 CY
100,000 SF
1 lump
1 lump
Price
$35,000.00
$1.00
$10.00
$0.15
$1.50
$65.00
$1.00
$12,000.00
$75,000.00
Sub Total
10% Contingency
10% Softcosts
Grand Total
Total
$35,000.00
$75,000.00
$20,000.00
$11,250.00
$112,500.00
$130,000.00
$100,000.00
$12,000.00
$75,000.00
$570,750.00
$57,075.00
$57,075.00
$684,900.00
k,
z/
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
Date: 04/25/2016
Project: McKegney Green Athletic Field Study, Tiburon CA
Plan la- Renovate Exist. Sand Field , With Drainage with current water source, (salt issues will remain)
Item # Description
1 Mobilization/SWPPP/Staking
2 Demolition, Turf Removal to 6" depth
3 Rough Grading
4 Fine Grading
5 Irrigation
6 Sand Section
7 New Drainage Lines w/ deep trenches
8 Sod Turf
9 Storm Drainage Treatment Areas
10 SWPPP-Monitoring
11 Maint Equip, (Aerator, Verticutter, Reel Mower)
Abey Arnold Associates, Landscape Architects, RLA 2616
Quantity
1
75,000
2,000
75,000
75,000
2,000
2,500
100,000
0.25
1
1
Unit
LS
SF
CY
SF
SF
CY
LF
SF
acre
lump
lump
Price
$35,000.00
$1.00
$10.00
$0.15
$1.50
$65.00
$35.00
$1.00
$250,000.00
$12,000.00
$75,000.00
Sub Total
10% Contingency
10% Softcosts
Grand Total
Total
$35,000.00
$75,000.00
$20,000.00
$11,250.00
$112,500.00
$130,000.00
$87,500.00
$100,000.00
$62,500.00
$12,000.00
$75,000.00
$720,750.00
$72,075.00
$72,075.00
$864,900.00
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
Date: 04/25/2016
Project: McKegney Green Athletic Field Study, Tiburon CA
Plan 2- Renovate Entire Existing Field , As Is with current water source, (salt issues will remain)
Item # Description
1 Mobilization/SWPPP/Staking
2 Demolition, Turf Removal
3 Rough Grading
4 Fine Grading
5 Irrigation, Replace Mailine, Valves and Heads
6 Soil Preparation- Native Soil
7 Soil Preparation- Sand Section
8 New Sod
9 French Drain
10 SWPPP- Monitoring
11 Maint Equip, (Aerator, Verticutter, Reel Mower)
Abey Arnold Associates, Landscape Architects, RLA 2616
Quantity Unit Price
1 LS $50,000.00
150,000 SF $1.15
5,000 CY $10.00
150,000 SF $0.15
200,000 SF $1.00
75,000 SF $1.00
75,000 SF $1.25
150,000 SF $1.00
500 LF $30.00
1 lump $15,000.00
1 lump $75,000.00
Sub Total
10% Contingency
10% Softcosts
Grand Total
Total
$50,000.00
$172,500.00
$50,000.00
$22,500.00
$200,000.00
$75,000.00
$93,750.00
$150,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$75,000.00
$918,750.00
$91,875.00
$91,875.00
$1,102,500.00
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
Date: 04/25/2016
Project: McKegney Green Athletic Field Study, Tiburon CA
Plan 3- Regrade and Expand Sand Based Turf Area's Useable Surface, (using all MMWD water)
Item # Description
1 Mobilization/SWPPP/Staking
2 Demolition, Turf Removal to 6" depth
3 Rough Grading
4 Fine Grading
5 Irrigation
6 MMWD Allotment, Meter, Fees
7 Sand Section
8 New Drainage Lines w/ deep trenches
9 Sod Turf
10 Storm Drainage Treatment Areas
11 SWPPP-Monitoring
12 Maint Equip, (Aerator, Verticutter, Reel Mower)
Abey Arnold Associates, Landscape Architects, RLA 2616
Quantity Unit
1 LS
200,000 SF
6,000 CY
200,000 SF
200,000 SF
1 lump
7,500 CY
6,000 LF
200,000 SF
0.25 acre
1 lump
1 lump
Price
$50,000.00
$1.00
$10.00
$0.15
$1.75
$310,000.00
$65.00
$35.00
$1.00
$250,000.00
$15,000.00
$75,000.00
Sub Total
10% Contingency
15% Softcosts
Grand Total
Total
$50,000.00
$200,000.00
$60,000.00
$30,000.00
$350, 000.00
$310, 000.00
$487, 500.00
$210,000.00
$200,000.00
$62,500.00
$15,000.00
$75,000.00
$2,050,000.00
$205,000.00
$307,500.00
$2,562,500.00
PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
Date: 04/25/2016
Project: McKegney Green Athletic Field Study, Tiburon CA
Plan 4- Replace Natural Turf with Artificial Turf
Item # Description Quantity Unit Price Total
1 Mobilization/SWPPP/Staking 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00
2 Demolition, Turf Removal 200,000 SF $0.75 $150,000.00
3 Rough Grading 6,000 CY $10.00 $60,000.00
4 Lime Treat Subgrade at Artif. Turf 180,000 SF $0.75 $135,000.00
5 Fine Grading 200,000 SF $0.15 $30,000.00
6 Irrigation, for Turf, QCV's at 100' o.c. at perimeter 1,200 LF $30.00 $36,000.00
7 MMWD Allotment, Meter, Fees 1 lump $35,000.00 $35,000.00
8 Containment Curbing 1,900 LF $40.00 $76,000.00
9 Fencing, 4' height 1,900 LF $60.00 $114,000.00
10 Artificial Turf (with Brock pad) 180,000 SF $8.00 $1,440,000.00
11 New Drainage Lines w/ deep trenches 2,300 LF $30.00 $69,000.00
12 Base Rock leveling course for Synthetic Turf 1,600 CY $60.00 $96,000.00
13 Storm Drainage, Area Drains, Adjust existing 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
14 Storm Water Treatment 0.25 acre $250,000.00 $62,500.00
15 Irrigation system- Stormwater areas. 25,000 SF $1.75 $43,750.00
16 SWPPP-Monitoring 1 lump $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Sub Total $2,422,250.00
10% Contingency $242,225.00
20% Softcosts $484,450.00
Grand Total $3,148,925.00
Abey Arnold Associates, Landscape Architects, RLA 2616
Brelje & Race
Am• CONSULTING ENGINEERS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pat Barnes, Town Engineer, Town of Tiburon
FROM: Sean Jeane and Sophia Grubb
SUBJECT: McKegney Field Irrigation Upgrades and Expansion
B&R File No. 4279.00
DATE: March 31, 2016
BACKGROUND
In 1979 the Sewerage Agency of South Marin (SASH) was formed as a Joint Powers Agency to
provide the residents of Southern Marin County with wastewater collection, treatment, water
reclamation and disposal. Six agencies make up SASM including the Richardson Bay Sanitary
District (RBSD). Wastewater collected by the separate agencies is treated at the SASM wastewater
treatment plant located in the City of Mill Valley. The SASM plant produces secondary effluent that
is then delivered to recycled water customers or deep water discharged into San Francisco Bay.
RBSD holds a 1988 water reclamation permit (permit) which allows them to divert up to 50,000
gallons per day (gpd) of secondary effluent from SASM for spray irrigation on two playing fields,
McKegney Green and South Knoll, both owned by the Town of Tiburon (Tiburon) and located
immediately southeast of the RBSD facility. Currently Tiburon is purchasing the recycled water
under an informal agreement from RBSD at a relatively low rate. The total area of irrigated turf is
approximately 204,000 square feet. While allowing up to 50,000 gpd, the permit also states that an
average of 39,000 gpd is irrigated from April to October.
The RBSD treatment facility in Tiburon diverts secondary' recycled water from a 6 inch tap off the
36 inch SASM effluent discharge line that runs along the perimeter of Richardson Bay. RBSD
initially directs the water into a series of three polishing ponds. The polished water is then
chlorinated and passed through a metal screen and sand filter. Although RBSD performs this
additional treatment, the recycled water does not meet tertiary standards and is therefore still
considered secondary effluent. The filtered effluent is stored in a 60,000 gallon tank and pumped to
the adjacent fields for irrigation.
Currently the fields are irrigated from June through October four days each week. Irrigation water
use based on irrigated area should currently be approximately 40,425 gpd for each watering day or
roughly 10.8 acre feet per year.
The use of secondary treated wastewater would not be permitted today for spray irrigation on playing fields under
current Title 22 requirements.
475 Aviation Blvd., Suite 120 • Santa Rosa, CA 95403 • v: 707-576-1322
www.brce.com
gkAt6-tts
Town of Tiburon attn_ Pat Barnes
March 31, 2016
Page 2of4
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Abey Arnold Associates have prepared several improvement options, some of which will modify the
McKegney and the South Knoll fields by regrading portions to expand the playing surfaces that are
currently being irrigated and by altering the underlying soil to reduce recycled water runoff and
improve irrigation efficiency. Based on these proposed changes, the revised annual irrigation volume
required has been estimated by Abey Arnold Associates to be 13.6 acre feet per year, assuming turf
irrigation from April through October.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCREASING RECYCLED WATER USE
1) Potential New Permit Language
Any increase above the currently permitted irrigation volume would trigger a review and likely
update of the RBSD permit. An update could potentially require treatment to tertiary standards for
continued spray irrigation. The current capacity of the RBSD treatment plant and the permitted
reclaimed water limits are expected to be adequate to supply the irrigation demand for the planned
project. During the summer peak, June and July, the average water use is projected at 42,000 gpd
applied four days each week. This demand is within the permitted maximum allowed diversion of
50,000 gpd. The projected average irrigated volume from April through October is estimated to be
approximately 36,300 gpd, which remains within the permitted average of 39,000 gpd. The limiting
element of the RBSD facility is the 60,000 gallon storage tank. This volume is adequate for both the
maximum daily limit and the projected maximum daily water use.
2) Salt Concentrations in Effluent
Elevated salt concentration in the SASM plant effluent is a known issue, particularly during summer
for peak irrigation. As the ground becomes less saturated into the summer months, inflow and
infiltration is almost exclusively saltwater from the bay. Abey Arnold Associates provided
information indicating that sodium concentrations above 70 mg/L and chloride concentrations
above 350 mg/L are detrimental to turf health and growth. Chloride concentrations less than 100
mg/L are acceptable for turf irrigation; however, concentrations between 100 and 350 mg/L will
cause the turf to be unhealthy.
The sodium and chloride concentrations of the secondary effluent are not currently know; however,
SASM provided 2015 conductivity data for the April through October irrigation season.
Conductivity is directly related to total dissolved solids (TDS) which consists mainly of various salts.
To correlate conductivity to sodium and chloride concentrations, knowing the TDS makeup is
necessary; however, the typical makeup of the effluent's TDS is also unknown. By assuming a range
of sodium chloride (NaCl) concentration to TDS concentration ratios in the SASM effluent, it is
possible to make a reasonable estimation of the range of sodium and chloride concentrations to
roughly predict the irrigation water quality. The results of these estimations are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Estimated Sodium and Chloride Concentrations in SASM Reclaimed Water
% NaCI
Sodium Concentration
(mg/L)
Chloride Concentration
(mg/L)
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
20%
168.7
503.2
260.2
776.0
50%
421.9
1,258.0
650.6
1,939.9
70%
590.6
1,761.1
910.8
2,715.9
Town of Tiburon attn. Pat Barnes
March 31, 2016
Page 3 of 4
Table 1 shows that even if sodium chloride constituted only 20 percent of the TDS, the calculated
average sodium concentration is rnore than double the allowable limit and the average chloride
concentration would likewise cause unhealthy turf. The maximum calculated chloride concentration
would be damaging to the turf. It is likely that the sodium chloride percentage of the TDS is much
greater than 20 percent, and potentially as high as 70 percent. In order to provide irrigation water
that would not damage the turf, salt concentrations will need to be significantly reduced in the
effluent. This can be accomplished by blending with water with lower concentrations or by
treatment methods.
3) Potential Recycled Water Rate Increase
The rate Tiburon pays for reclaimed water could be raised by RBSD should the required irrigation
volume change. RBSD staff have stated that the long-standing informal agreement between RBSD
and Tiburon does not cover the true expenses to deliver water. According to RBSD staff, they
collect less than the actual cost of chemicals alone, and staff time and electricity costs are not
included in the rate. Should the volume of water Tiburon purchases from RBSD change, there
would be justification for the informal agreement to be revisited and the cost of the recycled water
renegotiated. Currently, Tiburon pays $3.38 per unit (1 unit equals 748 gallons or 1 CCF).
ALTERNATIVE IRRIGATION OPTIONS
There are three potential solutions to the issues outlined above: irrigation with a blend of secondary
effluent and potable water; irrigation with potable water only, and; further treatment of the
secondary effluent. For either of the potable options, a connection to the Marin Municipal Water
District (MMWD) would need to be established. MIvIWD would establish an "allotment volume",
for base charges under a tiered rate structure. The allotment volume may be less than the needed
irrigation volume, meaning the overage charges could be at a considerably higher rate (tier one
charges are $3.80 per CCF and the allotment would be roughly 10.2 AF). Potable water from
MMWD has an average sodium concentration of 20 mg/L, to reduce the concentration of sodium
in the irrigation water to 70 mg/L, as much as 90 percent of the total irrigated volume would need
to be potable water. The blending method may not be able to keep potable water demands within
the tier one allotment volume causing the cost differential between the blending and potable only
options to be minimal.
Additionally, the mixed secondary effluent and potable water could be considered all secondary
effluent, triggering a permit update to current Title 22 standards. An update could potentially
require tertiary treatment of the reclaimed water.' Upgrading the RBSD facility to treat the effluent
to tertiary standards would be Tiburon's sole financial responsibility as RBSD's only recycled water
customer and would significantly increase the cost of the recycled water.
Further treatment of the effluent to remove salts would include extremely expensive treatment
options such as electrodialysis or reverse osmosis and are not considered feasible solutions.
2 Tertiary standards include a chlorine disinfection process following filtration that provides a CT value of not less than
450 milligram-ininutes per liter at all times with a modal contact time of at least 90 minutes or a disinfection process
that, when combined with the filtration process, has been demonstrated to inactivate and/or remove 99.999 percent of
the plaque -forming units of F -specific bacteriophage MS2 or polio virus in the wastewater. To provide this kind of
treatment, various and complicated infrastructure would have to be constructed. The capital costs of implementing
tertiary treatment would be approximately $250,000. Ongoing treatment, maintenance and sampling costs would
increase overall costs significantly and the cost of tertiary water would be higher than potable water. Additionally, unless
reverse osmosis is used, treating the effluent to tertiary standards would not remove salts.
Town of Tiburon attn. Pat Barnes
March 31, 2016
Paan 4 of 4
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that irrigation be switched completely from salty secondary effluent to a potable
water source. Irrigating with potable water only would remove the regulatory risks associated with
the blending option; any cost savings associated with blending would be minimal, and; keeping the
irrigation water as completely secondary effluent runs the risk of having unhealthy turf due to
existing high salt concentrations. Additionally, the Regional Water Quality Control Board has the
right to revisit the permit at any time, meaning that the regulatory risk of having to upgrade to
tertiary treatment is still present should irrigation with secondary effluent continue.
The actual costs associated with blending would be dependent on several factors, the determination
of which are beyond the scope of this memorandum.
KeIIy Biological Consulting
San Anselmo, CA 94960
San Anselmo (415) 482-9703
Truckee (530) 582-9713
CeII (530) 249-2662
TO: Peter Arnold, PLA, Abey Arnold Associates
FROM: Micki Kelly, PWS, Principal, Kelly Biological Consulting
DATE: March 30, 2016
RE: Biological Issues for the McKegney Green Project, Tiburon, CA
1.0 Summary
Tiburon Peninsula Soccer Club is proposing to improve the McKegney Green play field in
Tiburon, California. The purpose of this memo is to provide a preliminary evaluation of
biological and related regulatory constraints. It should be noted that KeIIy Biological
Consulting can provide their best professional expertise; however, only the agencies can
make the final determine on issues within their jurisdiction. Given the assumptions
discussed below, the project would not impact sensitive biological resources. An NPDES
permit may be required. A BCDC permit would not be needed. It could be considered CEQA
exempt per Section 15301(h); however, for Alternative 3 artificial turf might increase the
duration and frequency of field use, in turn, affecting parking or traffic, therefore a
Mitigated Neg Dec could be necessary for that alternative. The final decision on the CEQA
approach would be made by the Town.
2.0 Site Overview
The site is an active turf playfield in the Town of Tiburon, within Marin County (Latitude
37.892958/ Longitude -122.485517) (Figure 1. Site Vicinity). There is a paved bike path to
the northeast of the field and a gravel maintenance road to the southwest. Southwest of
the maintenance road is a strip of mowed lawn and a dirt single track path. The path is
adjacent to the rocky shoreline of the Bay. There is no salt marsh in this area. To the south
of the field is a small knoll; to the north are treatment ponds and a dogleg in the bike path.
3.0 Regulatory
This section provides a summary of the regulations addressed in this document. After each
regulation are bullets discussing the project's biological or regulatory issues.
3.1 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development (BCDC)
BCDC has regulatory responsibility over development in San Francisco Bay and along the Bay's
shoreline. BCDC is guided in its decisions by the McAteer-Petris Act, the San Francisco Bay Plan, and
other plans for specific areas around the Bay.
Sx/144/f ( 1
> As stated in BCDC's Bay Plan Map 4 "Along the shoreline in San Francisco and Marin
Counties, the Commission's jurisdiction extends 100 feet inland" (http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/).
At this site BCDC's jurisdiction extends 100 feet from the shoreline and includes a portion of
the field. Initial communication with BCDC indicates that a BCDC permit would not be
required for turf replacement (Ethan Lavine, BCDC, pers. comm. March 30, 2016).
3.2 Clean Water Act (CWA)
The CWA provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters. Section 404 identifies the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Jurisdiction over fill materials in essentially all water bodies, including wetlands.
All federal agencies are required to avoid impacts to wetlands whenever there is a practicable
alternative. Section 404 established a permit program administered by USACE regulating the
discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US (including wetlands).
Section 401of the CWA requires that an applicant for a federal permit that allows activities
resulting in a discharge to waters of the U.S., obtain a state certification that the discharge complies
with other provisions of CWA. The Regional Water Quality Boards (RWQCB) administers the
certification program in California. The guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material
into the aquatic system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse
impacts.
Section 402 of the CWA (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES) requires
dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than
one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more
acres, to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Construction activity
subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling,
or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original
line, grade, or capacity of the facility.
> The Bay would be considered CWA Section 404 "other waters". There will be no direct
impacts to the Bay. Indirect impacts would be avoided through the use of appropriate
temporary and permanent BMPs (such as temporary silt fencing and permanent bioswales).
In addition, no irrigation runoff or stormwater containing pollutants (including fertilizer,
pesticides, etc.) should enter the Bay. No CWA 404 or 401 fill permit would be required.
> Disturbance of more than 1 acre may require a NPDES or Stormwater permit. However, the
project could be considered an exempt maintenance project. The project engineers or the
RWQCB should be able to provide additional insight.
3.3 Section 10 of Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
The Rivers and Harbors Act requires permits for all structures in navigable waters of the U.S such as
riprap and activities such as dredging. The term navigable waters of the United States and all other
terms relating to the geographic scope of jurisdiction are defined at 33 CFR part 329. Generally,
navigable waters are that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to the mean high
2
water mark, and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use
to transport interstate or foreign commerce. The Bay is considered a navigable water subject to the
Rivers and Harbors Act.
> The project would not require a Section 10 permit. In addition, the bullets listed under the
CWA section would protect the Bay from indirect impacts.
3.4 California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California's counterpart to the Clean Water Act is the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Pursuant to Porter -Cologne, any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste that
could affect the quality of the waters of the state are usually required to file a report of the
discharge with the appropriate RWCQB. The RWQCB is increasingly requiring Waste Discharge
Requirement (WDR) permits for impacts to Waters of the State.
• The only Water of the State is the Bay, which is also a CWA 404 "other waters" and
addressed above. The project is not expected to require a permit. The project hydrologist or
engineer should be consulted to determine if a permit would be needed for using treated
waste water.
3.5 California Fish and Game Code Series 1600 series (Streams and Lakes in California)
Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to the jurisdiction of
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and
Game Code.
➢ This project would not require a 1600 series stream and lake permit.
3.6 Special -Status Species (Multiple Regulations)
Special -status species include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are
proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal
Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act. These acts afford protection to both
listed and proposed species. In addition, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of
Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and
habitat trends continue, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, and
CDFW special -status invertebrates are all considered special -status species. Although CDFW Species
of Special Concern generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Plant species on the California Native Plant Society
(CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory with California Rare Plant Rank of 1 or 2 are also
considered special -status plant species and must be considered under CEQA. Rank 3 and Rank 4
species are afforded little or no protection under CEQA. The following paragraphs discuss some of
the key regulations.
Federal Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC
1531 et seq.), was enacted to provide a means to identify and protect endangered and threatened
species. Under the Section 9 of the ESA, it is unlawful to take any listed species. "Take" is defined
as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or
3
collecting a listed species. "Harass" is defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission, which
creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt
normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
"Harm" is defined as an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife and may include significant
habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding,
or sheltering. Actions that may result in "take" of a federal -listed species are subject to USFWS or
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) permit issuance and monitoring. Section 7 of ESA
requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for such species.
Essential Fish Habitat. The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976
was established to conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast, as well as
anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United States, by exercising (A)
sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all fish within
the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dated March 10, 1983,
and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic zone over such
anadromous species, Continental Shelf fishery resources, and fishery resources in special areas.
California Endangered Species Act. CDFW is responsible for administering California Endangered
Species Act (CESA, CDFG Code §§2050, et seq.), which prohibits take of species that have been
listed, or are considered for listing (candidate species) as threatened or endangered species within
the State of California. CESA allows for incidental take of state listed species through issuance of an
Incidental Take Permit, or through a Consistency Determination in coordination with a Biological
Opinion issued by the USFWS (CDFW Code Section 2081). In contrast with federal law, the
definition of "take" under CESA involves actual harm to one or more members of a listed species
and does not extend to modification of habitat not involving direct take.
Special status species that are known known to occur in the vicinity of the project are a
shown on Figure 2. Maintenance trucks use the gravel road adjacent to the turf at least
several times a day while maintaining the restroom and play area south of knoll and mowing
and irrigating the turf on both sides of the knoll. Also, the public and dogs walkers use the
dirt single track path dozens of time a day. Given the active management of the lawn
(mowing etc.) and the level of activity of the adjacent paths, special status species would
not be expected in the work area.
> In addition, water quality protection measures discussed above would protect aquatic
species that are known to occur in the Bay
3.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
This treaty with Canada, Mexico and Japan makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any
manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds. The law applies to the removal of
nests (such as swallow nests on bridges) occupied by migratory birds during the breeding season.
California Fish and Game Code (Sec 3500) also prohibits the destruction of any nest, egg, or
nestling.
4
➢ There are no plans to remove trees, shrubs, or structures that could provide nesting
habitat. Given the active use of the lawn and adjacent path it is unlikely that
protected ground nesting birds would nest there. The project is not likely to affect
species protected pursuant to the MBTA.
3.8 CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a statute that requires state and local agencies to
identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those
impacts, if feasible. The CEQA guidelines include a list of classes of projects which were determined
not to have a significant effect on the environment and are exempt from the provisions of CEQA
(CCR, Chapter 3.Article 19.).
Categorical Exemptions Section 15301 includes "Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the operation,
repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no
expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." Sub section
(h) identifies maintenance of existing landscaping as exempt
(http://resources.ca.gov/cega/guidelines/).
> Provided that there are no substantial impacts the natural turf alternatives would likely be
CEQA exempt [per Section 15301 (h)]. The artificial turf might increase the duration and
frequency of field use, in turn, affecting parking or traffic, therefore a Mitigated Neg Dec
could be necessary. The final decision on the CEQA approach would be made by the Town.
4.0 Proposed Alternatives
Three alternatives are proposed for McKegney Green. A description of each alternative is followed
with a discussion of the biological and regulatory issues.
Alternative 1 is to leave the turf and its associated systems in place and to do maintenance
upgrades, (replace irrigation rotor heads, remote control valves, and controller, amend the existing
soil, and resod). The current turf has a large swale along one side and a 'sand based' soccer field set
into the fill soil. Approximately 80,000 sf of the total 204,000 sf is sand, the rest is the clay fill soil.
Discussion of Alternative 1. From a regulatory perspective this could be considered a basic
maintenance project. Assuming that the amendments would not enter the Bay via
stormwater runoff or irrigation runoff and that the work (including staging) is restricted to
existing disturbed areas, there would be no impacts to biological resources. It could be
considered CEQA exempt per Section 15301(h).
Alternative 2 upgrades the entire natural turf field. This involves removing all existing turf, then re-
grading the entire turf area (204,000 sf), installing a new sand based subsurface drainage system
that daylights into a bioswale which treats the runoff before it goes into the Bay. This alternative
would also, install new irrigation and new sand based turf. This approach will increase the 'useable'
area of turf by more than two fold.
5
Discussion of Alternative 2. Similar to Alternative 1, from a regulatory perspective this could
be considered a basic maintenance project. The plans include a bioswale/treatment area to
improve stormwater runoff water quality therefor the amendments would be less likely to
enter the Bay via stormwater runoff or irrigation runoff. Assuming that the work (including
staging) is restricted to existing disturbed areas, there would be no impacts to biological
resources. It could be considered CEQA exempt per Section 15301(h); though the final
determination would be made by the Town. An NPDES Permit may be required.
Alternative 3 installs an artificial turf field. This approach would create the need for fencing to keep
dogs off of the turf. The turf drainage system would be tied into the existing storm drains.
Discussion of Alternative 3. Similar to Alternative 2, from a regulatory perspective this could
be considered a basic maintenance project. Assuming that the work (including staging) is
restricted to existing disturbed areas and there is no discharge to the Bay, there would be
no impacts to biological resources. It could be considered CEQA exempt per Section
15301(h); however, the artificial turf might increase the duration and frequency of field use,
in turn, affecting parking or traffic, therefore a Mitigated Neg Dec could be necessary. The
final decision on the CEQA approach would be made by the Town. An NPDES Permit may be
required.
6
i ure . Vicinity T a.
I G FIELD and SURROU DI G
2
Figure 2. CNDDB Map
co
0 \ s
o o - -
2 2{ 2 2
ƒ ƒ
'-3(17 71 M El El
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Comm. (130m)
0
0CO
§
(5 W 3
Ct.
Terrestrial Comm.
E E E
0 0 0
0 0 %
§ 0 \ 0 0
$
* 0 •
Aquatic Comm. (circular)
❑
Multiple (specific)
! 5
O z
/ \ / a 7-:o
a u0
-ƒ2
z ƒ $ 2 0 0
in to
ƒ (/)2-
0-00
March 29, 2016
References
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson
Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
CDFW. 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California
Fish and Game Code. Environmental Services Division, Sacramento, CA.
CDFW. 2009. List of California Vegetation Alliances. Biogeographic Data Branch. Vegetation Classification
and Mapping Program, Sacramento, CA.
CDFW. 2015. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch,
Sacramento, CA.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. CNPS,
Sacramento, California. Online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org ; most recently accessed: April 2015.
California Resource Agency. 2016. CEQA guidelines. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631.
Federal Register. November 13, 1986. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army,
33 CFR Parts 320 through 330, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. Vol. 51, No. 219;
page 41217..
NMFS. 2007. Essential Fish Habitat. Online at: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/index.html ;
most recently accessed: April 2015.
Sawyer, J., T. Keeler -Wolf and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California
Native Plant Society, Berkeley, CA.
Shuford, W.D., and T. Gardali (Eds). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of
species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California.
Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and CDFG, Sacramento.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, third edition. The Peterson Field
Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, NY.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0).
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume I -III:
Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System,
California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
9
Waypoint.
ANALYTICAL
4741 East Hunter Ave. Suite A
Anaheim, CA 92807
Main 714-282-8777 ° Fax 714-282-8575
www.waypointanalytical.com
SOIL ANALYSIS
f Send To :
Abey Arnold Associates
1005 'A' Street
# 305
San Rafael CA 94901
•
Project :
McKegney Field
Tiburon
Job # 1602
Report No : 16-076-0106
Dust No : 03256
Date Printed : 03/22/2016
Date Received 03/16/2016
Page : 1 of 2
Lab Number : 32547
J
Sample Id : Sand Base
SATURATION EXTRACT - PLANT SUITABILITY
Test
Result
Sufficiency
Effect on Plant Growth
NO3-N
Result
Factor
0.3
;" ,
' Sensitive Crops M
Restri A
;r_
7
z
;
-
: i_
__.-2
Salinity (ECe)
2.6 dS/m
1.2
Potassium (K)
225 ppm
1.7
Sodium Adsorption
Ratio (SAR)*
16.22
Potassium - sat. ext.
0.7 meq/L
`.
Calcium (Ca)
709 ppm
0.5
.._ ;;L_._L,t;�oi
Boron (B)
0.70 ppm
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (CI)
22.8 meq/L
Total
Exchangeable
Cations(TEC)
78 meq/kg
l
Magnesium (Mg)
273 ppm
1.5
Carbonate (CO3)
2.1 meq/L
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Fluoride (F)
Structure and water infiltration of mineral soils potentially adversely affected at SAR values higher than 6.
Test
pH
Result
7.6 s.u.
Strongly Moderately Slightly
Acidic Acidic Acidic
Neutral
Slightly Moderately Strongly Qualitative
Alkaline Alkaline _ Alkaline - Lime
Low
EXTRACTABLE NUTRIENTS
Test
Sufficiency
SOIL TEST RATINGS
NO3-N
Result
Factor
0.3
;" ,
.'" Low Medlum Optimum
I
1
Ve
Available -N
13 ppm
" 1
2 ppm
Phosphorus (P) - Olsen
29 ppm
1.2
Potassium (K)
225 ppm
1.7
1
NH4-N
11 ppm
Potassium - sat. ext.
0.7 meq/L
1
Calcium (Ca)
709 ppm
0.5
.._ ;;L_._L,t;�oi
Calcium - sat. ext.
1.9 meq/L
Total
Exchangeable
Cations(TEC)
78 meq/kg
l
Magnesium (Mg)
273 ppm
1.5
Magnesium - sat. ext.
2.1 meq/L
Copper (Cu)
0.9 ppm
0.9
Zinc (Zn)
3 ppm
0.6
Manganese (Mn)
7 ppm
0.8
Iron (Fe)
79 ppm
2.1
1
Boron (B) - sat. ext.
0.70 ppm
2.3
Sulfate - sat. ext.
4.8 meq/L
1.6
Exch Aluminum
I
I
Cu, Zn, Mn and Fe were analyzed by DTPA extract.
Half Sat
20
Organic
Matter
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Weight Percent of Sample Passing 2mm Screen
Gravel Sand
Coarse Fine Very Coarse Coarse Med. to Very Fine
1-2 0.5-1 0 05- 5
Graphical interpretation is a general guide. Optimum levels will vary by crop and objectives.
Silt
.002-.05
Clay
0-.002
USDA Soil
Classification
2x 124!2,/ L
Waypoint.
ANALYTICAL
4741 East Hunter Ave. Suite A
Anaheim, CA 92807
Main 714-282-8777 ° Fax 714-282-8575
www.waypointanalytical.com
SOIL ANALYSIS
Send To :
Abey Arnold Associates
1005 'A' Street
# 305
San Rafael CA 94901
Project :
McKegney Field
Tiburon
Job # 1602
Report No : 16-076-0106
Cust No : 03256
Date Printed : 03/22/2016
Date Received 03/16/2016
Page : 2 of 2
Lab Number : 32548
Sample Id : Soil Base
SATURATION EXTRACT - PLANT SUITABILITY
Test
Result
='
Negligible
Effect
on Plant Growth
-a -- .
Restn __.
g +ai
o,,lyTolerara,=
-_ Satista ,
Factor
0.4
Sensitive Crops'
Restricted
: F
Salinity (ECe)
6.3 dSim
Phosphorus (P) - Olsen
46 ppm
1.1
1
Sodium Adsorption
Ratio (SAR) •
22.16
Potassium (K)
318 ppm
1.1
1
Boron (B)
0.84 ppm
Sodium (Na)
50.4 meq/L
ti
Chloride (CI)
Calcium (Ca)
1788 ppm
0.5
Calcium - sat. ext.
Carbonate (CO3)
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Fluoride (F)
I
* Structure and water infiltration of mineral soils potentially adversely affected at SAR values higher than 6.
Test
pH
Result
7.4 s.u.
Strongly Moderately Slightly
Acidic Acidic Acidic
Neutral
Slightly Moderately Strongly Qualitative
Alkaline Alkaline Alkaline Lime
Low
EXTRACTABLE NUTRIENTS
Test
Available -N
Sufficiency
SOIL TEST RATINGS
NO3-N
Result
30 ppm
Factor
0.4
_tip, ; Low Medium Optimum Very Hi e, °.
8 ppm
it
Phosphorus (P) - Olsen
46 ppm
1.1
1
NH4-N
22 ppm
Total
Exchangeable
Cations(TEC)
232 meq/kg
Potassium (K)
318 ppm
1.1
1
Potassium - sat. ext.
0.6 meg1L
�I
Calcium (Ca)
1788 ppm
0.5
Calcium - sat. ext.
3.8 meq/L
I
Magnesium (Mg)
965 ppm
1.9
Magnesium - sat. ext.
6.6 meq/L
Copper (Cu)
3.7 ppm
1.2
Zinc (Zn)
7 ppm
0.6
Manganese (Mn)
20 ppm
0.8
I
Iron (Fe)
184 ppm
1.6
Boron (B) - sat. ext.
0.84 ppm
2.8
Sulfate - sat. ext.
10.3 meq/L
3.4
Exch Aluminum
Cu, Zn, Mn and Fe were analyzed by DTPA extract.
Half Sat
34 %
Organic
Matter
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Gravel
Coarse Fine
5-12 2-5
Weight Percent of Sample Passing 2mm Screen
Sand
Very Coarse Coarse Med. to Very Fine
1-2 0.5-1 0.05-0.5
Graphical interpretation is a general guide. Optimum levels will vary by crop and objectives.
Silt
.002-.05
Clay
0-.002
USDA Soil
Classification