In 2006, Gap founder Don Fisher’s sons – Bob, Bill and John – established the nonprofit City Fields Foundation. The Foundation quickly partnered with the City to form the Playfields Initiative, dedicated to installing synthetic turf and lighting at San Francisco’s athletic fields.  Within the year two athletic fields, Garfield Park and Silver Terrace, were outfitted with synthetic turf, lights, and new fencing.   Over the next two years the Playfields Initiative invested $45 million, a bit less than half of which was paid for by the City, to install synthetic turf at more than 15 playing fields in the Sunset, Mission, Excelsior, Visitacion Valley, and Western Addition neighborhoods.  In 2008 San Franciscans passed Proposition A, the Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond, which allocated $185 million in bond money for capital improvements to parks.  A portion of the funds was earmarked to match private money to renovate athletic fields with synthetic turf and lights.

When a natural grass field is replaced with artificial turf bulldozers remove the upper two feet of soil and sod. The remaining surface is tamped down. A trench is dug around the periphery of the field to accommodate PVC pipes for drainage. A layer of gravel and a layer of plastic sheeting are laid down, which is then covered with the turf and infill, which is often rubber.

In late 2007 the Playfield’s Initiative identified the playing field at Potrero Hill’s Arkansas Street Recreation Center as a possible candidate for artificial turf.  “At a meeting in the community in November 2007, representatives from Rec and Park and from City Fields Foundation came to talk to us,” said Hill resident Leah Grant, a founding member of Friends of Potrero Hill, a neighborhood group that opposes the installation of artificial turf.  “One of the people from RPD said he represented the stakeholders who wanted to convert the field to artificial turf; as if we, the people who live here and use the park every day, were not stakeholders.  We organized a petition and collected hundreds of signatures from neighbors opposing the installation of artificial turf.”

Community opposition kept artificial turf off of Potrero Hill and the Louis Sutter Playground in McLaren Park.  Debate over the turf now centers on its proposed installation on four soccer fields at the western end of Golden Gate Park, known as the Beach Chalet soccer fields.  “Our goal is to provide play spaces for children in San Francisco,” said Patrick Hannan, City Fields Foundation’s director of communications and planning.  “In 2004, Rec and Park commissioned an independent recreation assessment,” explained Hannan.  “The results showed that we were short about 35 soccer fields and 30 baseball fields.”

By replacing natural grass with artificial turf and adding lighting to athletic fields  “we can address the shortage. Ground sports – like football, soccer, and lacrosse—really tear up a field,” explained Hannan.  At the Beach Chalet soccer fields one field is always out of play so the grass can rejuvenate.  All of the fields are locked on Mondays, and for four months of the year, the fields are closed to allow them to revitalize.  Synthetic turf, according to Hannan, “can absorb more play without degradation of the site.”  Hannan pointed out that last year a 14-year-old girl playing soccer broke her ankle on one of the Beach Chalet fields, which are uneven from wear and gopher holes.

Synthetic turf opponents acknowledge the shortage of safe playing fields.  But they’d like to see the problem addressed in a different way. “In every situation where synthetic turf has been installed in San Francisco, it’s replacing natural ground with what is essentially a paved surface,” said Pinky Kushner, an executive committee member of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter, which opposes the replacement of natural grass with artificial turf anywhere in the City.

In 2008, the City formed the Synthetic Playfields Task Force, a 16-member committee of residents and government employees that reviewed the available literature on synthetic turf.  One of the Task Force’s recommendations was to cover spaces that are currently asphalt with synthetic turf as an alternative to covering natural areas. “Why can’t we put synthetic turf on top of a parking lot?” asked Pinky Kushner.  “Why not atop a parking garage? Why do we have to cover our precious open space with synthetic turf?”  Rec and Park did not respond to the View’s inquiries about whether the possibility of asphalt conversion had been fully explored.   

Hannan pointed out that “every regulation soccer field” that’s covered with synthetic turf “saves 1.5 million gallons of water per year.” Kushner countered that the City exhibits “inconsistency over the water issue. San Francisco uses a lot of water to keep lush lawns—for example, in Civic Center—and for the non-native plantings along Van Ness Avenue.” Why, she asked, doesn’t the City use water to properly irrigate and maintain natural grass playing fields and emphasize native, low-water plants elsewhere? A properly cared-for field would provide a much safer playing surface than an uneven, poorly maintained grass field, she added.

Last month San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission unanimously approved plans to proceed with the installation of artificial turf and lighting at the Beach Chalet fields. The changes are expected to cost $12.5 million.  “If that money were spent on planting and maintaining natural grass, it would go a long way,” said Mark Welther, executive director of the Golden Gate Audubon Society, which opposes installation of synthetic turf at the Beach Chalet fields.  “Under CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act],” said Welther, “whenever a project will have significant environmental impacts, an EIR [Environmental Impact Report] is required. But in the case of the Beach Chalet project, the SF Planning Department has granted an exemption to the EIR process. As it stands now, the plan includes removing about 60 trees, adding 60-foot-tall stadium lights, and replacing the grass with synthetic turf.” According to the City Fields Foundation’s web site, the changes will result in nearly 9,600 hours of additional use every year. “CEQA guidelines don’t apply when a project involves negligible or no expansion of use. But I don’t see how you can call 9,600 hours of additional use negligible.”

“We’re in favor of soccer,” said Welther. “And we’re realistic about the use of artificial turf.  But it definitely seems that there are better and worse places to install it.  We want a complete environmental review of the potential impacts of this project as part of a fair, open, legal, and transparent process. That way, the public will have access to full information so they can make an informed decision about whether or not they’d like to see this go forward.”  An EIR would address a number of questions, including whether drought-tolerant or low-water grasses could be used instead of synthetic turf; how synthetic material will impact the migratory pattern of birds on the Pacific Flyway; and potential aesthetic implications.

A previous concern of synthetic turf opponents – that pigment used to color the turf contained unsafe levels of lead – seems to have been addressed, thanks to the efforts of the Center for Environmental Health (CEH).  CEH tests products for toxic chemicals and heavy metals, and promotes products and practices that are safe for public health and the environment.  The Oakland-based nonprofit bases much of its work on Proposition 65—the California State Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act—which was passed by voters in 1986. “Prop 65 allows what is called private enforcement of the law, which means that anyone can take legal action to enforce it,” explained Caroline Cox, CEH’s research director.  When testing revealed potentially unsafe levels of lead in synthetic turf, CEH issued letters to synthetic turf manufacturers operating in California. “Our notices said, ‘We think you’re in violation of Prop 65. We’ll sue you in 60 days [for exposing California residents to lead],’” said Cox. “When we started litigation in summer 2008, most of the companies reformulated their turf process to remove the lead. At this point in 2010, most of the concern about lead in turf products has to do with synthetic turf that was installed in the past.  Within a few weeks after initiating our legal action, we had meetings with artificial turf companies that told us the lead was gone from their products; this reformulation wasn’t difficult for them, which raises a question: Why hadn’t it been done earlier?”

“Our next step is to appeal the Planning Department’s categorical exemption of the EIR in the Beach Chalet project to the Board of Supervisors,” said Kathy Howard, a steering committee member of both the Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance and SF Ocean Edge, an organization of San Francisco environmental, preservation, and neighborhood groups. “We don’t want to see a unique multi-use area with natural beauty and views become a single-use area,” she added.

Check SF Ocean Edge’s web site to learn about their appeal of the Planning Department’s categorical exemption: sfoceanedge.org.  CEH offers free drop-in lead testing. If you have concerns about the lead levels of artificial turf at your home, playground, or school, Cox recommends bringing in six loose blades of turf for testing, without cutting or tearing the turf. Drop-in testing is available Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from noon to six at CEH, 2201 Broadway, Suite 302, Oakland. To learn more about Proposition 65: http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html. For information about CEQA: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/more/faq.html#who.