Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

San Carlos Turf Conversion 010809rev4


Published on

San Carlos City Council Presentation on Synthetic Turf Conversion Environmental Review

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

San Carlos Turf Conversion 010809rev4

  1. 2. Project Vicinity
  2. 3. Project Site The Project Site is the Lower Athletic Field (Highlands Field) located within Highlands Park Near Melendy Drive and Aberdeen Drive
  3. 4. The Project
  4. 5. Purpose of the Initial Study <ul><li>State CEQA Sec. 15063: </li></ul><ul><li>Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration; </li></ul><ul><li>Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration; </li></ul>
  5. 6. Purpose of the Initial Study <ul><li>Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; </li></ul><ul><li>Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; </li></ul>
  6. 7. Purpose of the Initial Study <ul><li>Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; </li></ul><ul><li>SUMMARY </li></ul><ul><li>CEQA documents are intended to be disclosure documents to inform decision-makers. </li></ul>
  7. 8. Close-up of Artificial Turf
  8. 9. Modern Synthetic Turf
  9. 10. Technical Studies Prepared <ul><li>Biological Resources study – PMC </li></ul><ul><li>Air Quality analysis – PMC </li></ul><ul><li>Human Health Hazards review (including COCs and bacteriological issues) – LFR, Inc. </li></ul><ul><li>Drainage analysis – LFR, Inc. </li></ul><ul><li>Noise analysis – Ambient </li></ul><ul><li>Traffic study – PMC </li></ul>
  10. 11. Issues Raised for Artificial Turf <ul><li>Lead from “grass” pigment </li></ul><ul><li>Heavy metal substances from crumb rubber </li></ul><ul><li>Irritation from rubber pellets </li></ul><ul><li>Increase in injuries – ACL, foot lock, concussion, turf toe </li></ul><ul><li>Heat exposure/turf burn </li></ul><ul><li>Staphyloccus aureus (MRSA) – antibiotic-resistant bacteria </li></ul>
  11. 12. San Carlos Specifications <ul><li>No lead in the pigment </li></ul><ul><li>Combination sand/rubber field that does not play as hot as other rubber </li></ul><ul><li>Cryogenic rubber v. Ambient </li></ul>
  12. 13. Air Quality <ul><li>No significant impacts based on BAAQMD criteria GHG or CO 2 </li></ul><ul><li>VOC gases from crumb rubber did not pose a health concern for athletes, officials or spectators </li></ul><ul><li>Use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction would minimize impacts from equipment and site disturbance </li></ul>
  13. 14. Reports Reviewed for Health Hazard Assessment <ul><li>Review of 16 Published Reports Prepared in 2006 through 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Reports Sponsored by: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Agencies and States Agencies in New Jersey, New York, California, and Connecticut </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The countries France,  Norway and Sweden </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Penn State, NJ School of Medicine, NCSU-Raleigh,  and University of Utah </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communities and Consumer Protection Groups </li></ul></ul>
  14. 15. Hazards: Overview of Reports <ul><li>Conclusions varied and in general… </li></ul><ul><li>Reports using a quantitative risk assessment approach conclude that newer turf is safe (CalEPA; Bainbridge) </li></ul><ul><li>Reports using qualitative approach conclude that data gaps exist (EHHI; Swedish Chemical Agency) </li></ul>
  15. 16. Balancing Act <ul><li>Increase Field Use and Physical Activity </li></ul><ul><li>All Weather Play </li></ul><ul><li>Water Conservation </li></ul><ul><li>Decreases Exposure to Herbicides and Fertilizers </li></ul><ul><li>Decreased Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Public Perception and Concern </li></ul><ul><li>Potential Exposure to Low Levels of Compounds Used in Tire Manufacturing </li></ul><ul><li>Increased Field Temperature on Hot Days </li></ul>
  16. 17. Summary of Chemicals Discussed in Most Reports
  17. 18. Turf or No Turf No Hiding from Chemicals <ul><li>Benzene in Redwood City Air -> 0.53 ppb 1 </li></ul><ul><li>California EPA Benzene in indoor Air Health Screening Level -> 0.026 ppb </li></ul><ul><li>Arsenic in San Carlos Area Soils -> 3 to 14 ppm 2 </li></ul><ul><li>California EPA Arsenic in Soil Health Screening Level -> 0.07 ppm </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 = BAAQMD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 = LBNL, 2002 </li></ul></ul>
  18. 19. Drainage <ul><li>LFR Professional Engineer performed review </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluated current drainage plans provided by San Carlos </li></ul><ul><li>The “Rational Method” used to calculate peak storm water flow rate </li></ul><ul><li>Current Capacity = 6.5 cfs </li></ul><ul><li>Estimated peak with turf = 6.1 cfs </li></ul>
  19. 20. Noise <ul><li>Noise from projected traffic increases was determined to be less than significant </li></ul><ul><li>Weekday practice periods would see the greatest increase in usage (3pm-10pm) </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed project would result in average daily increase approximately of 34.9 (over existing) and 5.5 (over pre-2002) percent for weekday practice events </li></ul><ul><li>Nearest residences approximately 60-75 feet </li></ul>
  20. 21. Nearest Residences
  21. 22. Traffic and Parking <ul><li>The traffic analysis was based on fall and spring peak hour PM trips </li></ul><ul><li>Determined that both trip generation and parking would result in less than significant impacts </li></ul><ul><li>Highlands Park provides 96 parking spaces - with up to six times more capacity during the week than is needed to meet the demand </li></ul>
  22. 23. Traffic Study Intersections <ul><li>Traffic Study Intersections </li></ul><ul><li>Melendy Drive and Hewitt Drive/Aberdeen Drive </li></ul><ul><li>Alameda de las Pulgas and Melendy Drive/Rockridge Road </li></ul><ul><li>San Carlos Avenue and Alameda de Las Pulgas </li></ul><ul><li>Brittan Avenue and Alameda de Las Pulgas </li></ul>
  23. 24. Traffic <ul><li>Two intersections would go from LOS C to LOS D </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For Alameda/Melendy (non-signalized) for one hour/day during peak PM times with all projects (cumulative) there would be an additional 12.3 seconds delay </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For Alameda/San Carlos (signalized), the difference is noted as volume-to-capacity (v/c) where under cumulative there would be a 1% increase </li></ul></ul>
  24. 25. Parking <ul><li>Parking increase to capacity would possibly only occur for special events </li></ul><ul><li>For existing fall conditions, the peak hours experienced an overlap during soccer practice, which extended the time to 6:00 PM. All other calculations were based on a peak period of 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM (Table XV.8) </li></ul>
  25. 26. Ample Parking Available
  26. 27. Parking Available Along Park Frontage
  27. 28. Summary of Initial Study <ul><li>All impacts identified in the Initial Study have been determined to be either less than significant or mitigable to a less than significant level based on studies performed and reviewed, therefore there is no environmental impact that would trigger the need for an EIR </li></ul><ul><li>Two additional studies pending by EPA and CIWMB/OEHHA (SB 1277) anticipated to have similar conclusions to previous studies based on science available today </li></ul>