[No. 10] Retired judge explains how 5 city supervisors seek to subvert a voters’ initiative with more than 15,000 signatures in order to convert 7 acres of grass fields at Beach Chalet to artificial turf. On You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5qt66jWZg8&feature=youtu.be (uploaded by SF Parks, 27 October 2014).
|
[No. 09] San Francisco, California: Bully Ball debuts. Bully Ball chronicles the ongoing history of an epic battle waged by a group of concerned citizens in the San Francisco area against the unholy alliance among politicians, boosters and the artificial turf industry hell-bent on the spoliation of one of the country’s prized open spaces—Golden Gate Park. Those who have visited our SanFranciscoBrief page here are urged to follow the story on Bully Ball. This blog/article offers “journalists and other media producers a different type of resource to enhance the cut and dry science regarding stories about sbr synthetic turf impacts,” stated the Bully Ball’s advance copy. “It is intended to offer a political and sociological perspective for educational and reference purposes,” according to the statement. The written article is available copyright free. Much of the visual content is as well. The format is mobile device friendly. Visit Bully Ball at http://qwrt4.weebly.com/blog and http://qwrt4.weebly.com/bully-ball .
|
[No. 08] California Coastal Commission’s Staff Report does not want artificial grass at the Beach Chalet (Golden Gate Park). A Staff Report, issued on 26 April 2013 by the California Costal Commission (CCC) put the breaks on the steamrolling plans by City and County of San Francisco to renovate the Beach Chalet athletic fields facility in the western edge of Golden Gate Park, roughly 1,000 feet inland from Ocean Beach, in San Francisco (City). The renovation would have included replacing the existing grass fields with artificial turf, installing ten 60-foot tall sets of field lights, installing spectator seating (for approximately 1,000 spectators), replacing the existing 8-foot perimeter metal chain-link fence with a 3.5-foot vinyl chain-link fence (with eight 16-foot tall sections behind soccer goal post end lines), installing concrete paths around and through the facility, and creating a public plaza with play structures, barbecue pits, and tables.
A group of individuals and organizations had opposed the project appealed the development permit to a number of bodies, but with little success in curbing or modifying the projects obnoxious elements. On 5 October 2012, the opponents appealed to the CCC, arguing that the City’s decision was inconsistent with the City of San Francisco Local Coastal Program (LCP) because the approved project did not protect the naturalistic quality of the western end of Golden Gate Park, including in terms of its historic status; was contrary to the mandate for reforestation by removing over 55 trees; did not preserve the natural characteristics of the Cliff House/Sutro Baths area; and did not protect the Richmond and Sunset residential areas from traffic and visitor impacts.
The Staff Report on Appeal Number: A-2-SNF-12-020, dated 26 April 2013, recommended that the Commission find that the appeals raise substantial LCP conformance issues and that the Commission take jurisdiction over the coastal development permit (CDP). The Staff Report further recommended that the Commission approve a CDP for a modified renovation project to address LCP requirements for the site. The LCP requires that development “emphasize the naturalistic landscape qualities of the western end of the park for visitor use”. LCP certification documents indicate that the intent and goal of the LCP was to ensure protection of the unique pastoral landscape character of the Park. The City-approved project will modify the existing Beach Chalet fields area in a way that will alter its naturalistic character, including through the introduction of project elements that would significantly change its spatial organization and setting (e.g., artificial turf, field lights, seating areas, fending, concrete paths, etc.). The City found that the project would cause significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to the fields area in this respect, including in light of Golden Gate Park’s significant historic status (i.e., it is on the National and California Registers of Historic Places as a historic district), but approved the project via a statement of overriding considerations.
Therefore, the Staff Report recommended that Commission approve a revised project that addresses the naturalistic setting and character of the Park and that would include the redoing the natural turf fields with natural grass (including with enhanced foundation and drainage) and maximizing revegetation efforts with an eye towards emphasizing naturalistic spatial organization for the fields area; eliminating and/or reducing field lighting (and limiting lighting otherwise to that necessary for public safety); modifying fencing (including because existing fencing which has altered the character of the site is currently unpermitted); modifying seating to be informal bench seating (e.g., intermittent benches) and/or more limited linear seating forms integrated with perimeter paths and landscaping; and modifying paths to be decomposed granite or equivalent as opposed to concrete.
The Staff report is available here.
|
[No. 07] San Francisco, California: Artificial turf gets thumbs down at mayoral debate. On 19 September 2011 candidates running for mayoralty of San Francisco’s Richmond District faced off in a debate. According to the news report in RichmondSF.blog (20 September 2011), “Last night, the Planning Association for the Richmond hosted a debate at the Richmond Rec Center, featuring a large field of candidates in the race for San Francisco Mayor. The format of the debate included four questions that were pertinent to the Richmond District neighborhood, addressing issues like empty storefronts, public transit on Geary Boulevard and proposed projects in Golden Gate Park.” “Candidates that attended the debate included City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Supervisor Bevan Dufty, State Senator Leland Yee, Supervisor John Avalos, Supervisor David Chiu, Assessor Phil Ting, Joanna Rees, Public Defender Jeff Adachi, Cesar Ascarrunz, Paul Currier, former Supervisor Tony Hall, Wilma Pang, and Terry Joan Baum. The candidates not in attendance were current Mayor Ed Lee, former Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, and Emil Lawrence.”
With respect to Golden Gate Park, “[t]wo major projects are currently undergoing environmental reviews … The first is a water treatment plant in the southwest corner of the park. The second is a proposal to replace the Beach Chalet soccer fields with artificial turf and lighting, enabling the fields to be used year round and for more hours.”
The candidate Joanna Rees “explained that [the soccer jersey she was wearing] was her daughter’s jersey and though all her children grew up playing soccer in the city, she is against the artificial turf fields because she ‘wants to listen to the neighbors that don’t want it.’” David Chiu “said that he had “healthy skepticism for both of the Golden Gate Park proposals. ‘I got to play on real grass, in real light,’ Chiu said about his youth soccer experience (not in San Francisco).’” “The only candidate in favor of the artificial turf fields project was Bevan Dufty who said ‘I’ve seen these fields transform Garfield Park,’ referring to one of the first fields that was changed over to artificial turf.” “In another puzzling response, candidate Paul Currier loudly proclaimed ‘If kids want to play on plastic grass, they can go to Treasure Island.’” “Candidate Wilma Pang started her response more succinctly, stating ‘The two ideas are not so great, they SUCK.’” “Terry Baum, the green party-endorsed candidate in the race, called the proposed artificial turf soccer fields ‘an idiotic decision,’ and a poor response to a shortage of Rec & Park gardeners to properly care for the existing fields.” “Cesar Ascarrunz opposed the fields due to his own soccer experience. ‘I was a professional soccer player. I hate artificial turf.’” Source: Sarah B., “Highlisghts from the Richmond District mayoral Debate,” in RichmondSF.blog, 20 September 2011, available at http://richmondsfblog.com/2011/09/20/highlights-from-the-richmond-district-mayoral-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-60447
|
[No. 06] Golden Gate Park, California: San Francisco Rec & Park Department proposes to take the axe to a national jewel. A project proposed by the San Francisco’s Recreation and Park Department seeks to turn the western end of Golden Gate Park into an urban soccer stadium, complete with 6 acres of artificial turf fields, 60-foot sports lighting, and additional concrete and other paving for more parking. The project has the support of the City Fields Foundation, which is just a front for propagation of more synthetic playing surfaces for the youth under the guise of fighting obesity, expanding playing opportunities, etc. – all laudable goals, no doubt. The question however if this site is an appropriate venue for such a project.
The project is not without its critics. The Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance (“GGPPA”) www.goldengateparkpreservation.org is a union of many conservationist and environmental concerns, which is dedicated to preserving the heritage of open space in Golden Gate Park for the use of San Franciscans today and for the enjoyment of future generations. According to its mission statement, “Ever since its creation in the 1800's Golden Gate Park has been a treasured landscape for all San Franciscans. Since that time, there have been many threats to its continuing as open space. As San Francisco becomes more dense and urbanized, the need for un-programmed open space becomes greater. There is a tendency on the part of some to look at open space and to say, ‘What can we build here?’ or ‘How can we activate this space?’ GGPPA believes that open space has value for itself -- it is a place to unwind, to relax, and to reconnect with nature. Experiencing nature in our parkland is something that everyone can do, without paying a fee and no matter their physical condition or age -- young children and seniors alike can enjoy the pleasures of a quiet meadow in the early morning or the sunset over the ocean.”
Now all that is being cast aside to accommodate the avaricious appetite of organized sports, who manage through a dubious “private-public sector alliance” to steak large acres of public lands into semi-private game preserves – be it in public school, municipal parks, or such treasures as state or national parks around the country.
The grassroots organization SF Ocean Edge www.sfoceanedge.org and its partner organizations have been working for over a year to modify the proposal. The group believes that the project is in appropriate: As outlined in the GGP Master Plan, the area in the western end of Golden Gate Park is supposed to remain more “wild” and natural than the rest of the Park. “In addition, the sports lighting will diminish the enjoyment of Ocean Beach in the evening and at sunset,” the group asserts. The group has proposed an alternative – the renovation of the current natural grass playing fields with real grass and no night lighting.
SF Ocean Edge has established an interactive website, calling on all concerned to participate in their effort to stave off the planned devastation of this natural setting. You may access the website at http://home.earthlink.net/~sfoceanedge/index.html and contact
Katherine Howard, a member of the steering committee at sfoceanedge@earthlink.net for further information.
|
[No. 03] City of San Francisco’s Synthetic Playfields Task Force Report: A Preview. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. August 3, 2008. In February 2008, the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department convened a task force to tackle the question of health an environmental concerns raised by synthetic playfields. For details, see on this page http://www.synturf.org/sanfranciscobrief.html (Item No. 1). The Synthetic Playfields Task Force has completed its work and the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department will be issuing its findings and department recommendations to San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission at the end of August 2008. SynTurf.org has obtained a copy of the draft of Report to San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission, dated July 25, 2008.
The Report has 8 Parts: Executive Summary, Introduction and Purpose, Background and History, Overview of Public Concerns, Task Force Process and Proceedings, Key Findings and Department Recommendations, Conclusion, and Acknowledgements. The gut of the Report is contained in Part V (Task Force Process and Proceedings), which contains the conclusions of each “study group” that was set up to look into a specific issue: (a) bacteria/staph infection; (b) climate change and urban heat island effects; (c) ecosystem; (d) injuries; (e) material composition: overall chemical composition and flammability; (f) material composition: off gassing; (g) material composition: ingestion – inhalation of turf product materials; (h) material composition: lead; (i) obesity; (j) turf products: alternative field products; and (k) turf products: recyclability.
The report contains only one significant finding and one significant recommendation that could make a difference to longevity of grass fields in the San Francisco area. First, the study group that looked into “Climate Change and Urban Heat Island Effects” stated synthetic turf materials constituted an impervious surface (Draft, p.14). This might be the first instance of a municipality actually taking note of this revelation that has been around for some time. Until now, the purveyors of turf fields had managed to convince the unsuspecting public and policymakers that turf is a pervious surface, because it is porous. Water on a turf field actually seeps into the sub-base and is conducted by perforated pipes away from the field, often into sewer or storm water drains. The upshot of this draining system is that it deprives the ground from recharge. That makes the surface impervious, even if a minute amount of water does make its way past the sub-base’s compacted gravel bed. The notion that permeable carpet an impervious turf field it does not make, is implicit in the impervious surface ordinance for the City of Lewiston, Maine. It defines an impervious surface as “those areas that prevent or impede the infiltration of stormwater into the soil as it entered in natural conditions prior to development. Impervious areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, sidewalks, walkways, patio areas, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, compacted gravel surfaces, awnings and other fabric or plastic covering, and other surfaces that prevent or impede the natural infiltration of stormwater runoff which exited prior to development.”
Second, the Climate/Urban Heat Island Effects study group also found, “Urban heat islands are created when natural areas are replaced by impervious surfaces like rooftops and asphalt, which absorb heat during the day, and continue to do so after the sun sets.” Because turf fields are impervious surfaces, turf “temperatures are higher than natural grass.” Draft p. 14.
On the basis of these findings, in evaluating future fields, Rec & Park Department “[will] identify opportunities to convert asphalt play space into synthetic turf.” This makes it sound like turf is better than asphalt! Every heat effect study that has compared turf with asphalt temperatures has concluded that turf fields run higher than asphalt. Besides, the asphalted playgrounds are usually not of the acreage that could accommodate a turf playing field, or they are suited for a specific sport like basketball, skateboarding and alike. A better site selection for a turf field, ever so, would be to install turf fields in lieu of parking lots or even above highways and wide roads (air right).
The Climate/Urban Heat Effect study group made no specific recommendations about public health hazard of turf fields running hot in the summer months, other than to have the Rec & Park Department conduct or participate in field temperature testing at existing synthetic turf fields. Draft, p.3.
The study group that looked into the affect of turf fields on the “Ecosystem” did not prepare a formal written summary for the Task Force. Made up of a member of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and a member of the Audubon Society, the group “did not find independent studies that specifically addressed this topic in relation to synthetic turf playfields.” But, the group managed to summarize its concerns about issues of potential biodiversity loss and habitat fragmentation. It recommended, “When considering sites for field renovations with synthetic turf, the Department should consider sensitive species occurring in parks. One suggestion [is] to consider the installation of turf on a case-by-case basis. For example, consider the difference between ecological impacts of removing existing grass versus asphalt for replacement with synthetic field.” Draft, p. 16.
A part form the foregoing findings/recommendations, very little else in this Report is worth praising on balance, objectivity or thoroughness.
The study group that looked into bacteria/staph infection was made up of two members of San Francisco Department of Public Health and a member of the Athletic League. They collectively missed the point about the relationship between artificial turf and staph infections, perhaps in part because their research was lacking in breadth and scope. “Originally the study group could not find literature on bacterial growth on synthetic turf playfields” and it was only during the writing of the Draft Report that suddenly a study from Penn State was brought to the attention of the group. Draft, p. 13. This is the same study that most purveyors of artificial turf quote in order to dispel the notion that turf causes staph infection. Turf by itself does not cause infection but, by focusing on bacterial and microbial populations in artificial turf, the study group missed the point about the connection between staph infection and turf .The research that the study group consulted (Draft, Appendix) pointed to higher incidence of skin abrasion on turf than grass. And because skin abrasion acts like a portal for staph bacteria, then an increased incidence of skin abrasions on turf is likely to result in higher incidence of staph infection regardless of where the bacteria resides or where the athlete comes into contact with the bacteria. While most of the cases of staph infection in one study had turf burns, the study group decided to dismiss the evidence by claiming that a higher portion of the people who did not get staph infection also had turf burns. All this suggests about the people who did not get staph infection is they were spared contact with or entry of the bacteria into their system. For a full briefing on this issue, see http://www.synturf.org/staphturfbrief.html and http://www.synturf.org/staphnews.html .
The Report’s section on “Injuries” begins with a common lamentation among the proponents of turf fields that many a player has suffered sprained ankles as the result of playing on grass fields. Obviously, this kind of set up is designed to subconsciously bamboozle the public to think that players who play on artificial turf do not sprain their ankles. No amount of evidence, particular as contrived by turf peddlers, can hide the fact that an occasional sprained or twisted ankle is an evolutionary byproduct of being a homo erectus. The “Injuries” study group did not find a single study that concluded artificial turf is safer than natural grass. Instead, the balance of the studies came down to an equal safety record, more tending to natural grass. This issue will never be resolved until public health officials start keeping statistics on injuries in correlation with the type of surface, surface conditions, nature of injury (impact or non-impact), etc.
One cannot be certain of why an injury occurs all of the time. But, for now, there are two sources of information on which one could build a database about the effect of playing on artificial turf. There is a vast body of literature about the various aspects of turf’s effect on muscles, joints and ligature. There are also testimonial of athletes who in one shape or another recount the physical hardships associated with playing on turf. When it comes to comparing turf with grass, athletes also have registered their preference for grass (disdain of turf) in a variety of surveys. For a summary, go to http://www.synturf.org/health.html and http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html .
The Report’s discussion of “Material Composition” takes up four parts. After a general discussion of “Overall Chemical Composition and Flammability” of turf fields, the study group recommended Rec & Park Department to choose turf products that are lead-free and zinc-free. Draft, p. 19. In the part about “Off Gassing,” the study group “did not consider the level of off-gassing adverse to human health based on the studies they review.” Draft, p. 19.That is because no study to date has actually focused on this issue. But, the studies that the group consulted all do tell what emits from turf fields and what they do or are capable of doing to health and the environment. One excellent and seminal study on this topic is carried out by Environment and Human Health, Inc. of North Haven, Connecticut. The study group recommended testing of fields for off-gassing in real-world conditions.
Insofar as “Ingestion – Inhalation of Turf Product Materials” is concerned, the study group noted the existence of gaps in the data and recommended more research. The group noted, determining if the recycled tire infill is a pollution source and health risk in the outdoors and indoors requires further research. Draft, pp. 19 and 21.
The study group that looked into “Lead” did not prepare a written statement, largely because it believed that “it is unclear whether all artificial turf contains lead.” So, it recommended Rec & Park Department to buy non-nylon and lead-free turf. Draft, p. 22.
The Report’s part on “Obesity” does not have any relationship to turf whatsoever. The proponents of turf fields like to introduce this element into the mix because it suggests, albeit erroneously, turf fields increase opportunity for physical activity and therefore by having more turf fields children can avoid getting obese and obese people already can get physical activity, get healthy and slim down. The implication is, because they are not well maintained or cannot be used incessantly, natural grass fields discourage physical activity and/or restrict use of fields. The fact is getting physical activity is not compulsory. Lifestyles and diet and other factors, including biomedical and pharmacological, contribute to obesity. The absence or limited availability of natural grass playing fields is rampant in most of the world and yet obesity is not a problem in most countries and cultures. Turf is a part of a youth sports culture that, in the words of Tom Farrey, is a race to make champions of our children, for reasons that may have nothing to do with sports and exercise. His book is entitled, Game Plan: The All-American Race to Make Champions of Our Children (ESPN, 2008).
The Report’s “Part J” discusses alternative field products in terms of variations that exist in the turf industry’s ever-evolving technology. The study group recommends obtaining Material Data Safety Sheets for all the components of the turf field in order to insure the product complies with safety and health requirements. Draft, p. 24. The study group has not a single sentence on alternatives available also in natural grass industry. The thrust of this part is clearly to make artificial turf more palatable by placating some of the concerns raised by the public.
The Report’s last Part is about “Recyclability” of turf. The study group recommends installing a product whose manufacture would vouch for recycling the old carpet into other consumer products. Draft, p. 24. The study group assumes an artificial turf field “to have a lifetime of 12+ years.” Draft, p. 24. This is shown to be an exception. A more realistic life-span for turf is 8-9 years. See http://www.synturf.org/maintenancereplacement.html .
“Once they are worn down and require removal,” the study group stated, “the material will need to be lanfilled, unless an alternative solution is identified.” In one instance, the group noted, in Larchmont, Califronia, when an 80,000 sq. ft. filed required replacing, it created 400 tons of debris that the city needed to manage.
Long before a venue replaces the carpet, every day, while in use, the worn out parts of the field – fiber (carpet fuzz) and in-fill (crumb rubber and silica), in the tons annually, part from the surface of the field and enter the environment. If this unmitigated release or migration of hazardous material – in whatever form -- into the environment causes no loss of sleep, then the disposal of the carcass of a carpet and associated debris is not an issue.
The Report is a masterpiece of obfuscation. It defends the use of artificial playfields and promotes the continued installation of artificial turf fields in the San Francisco area for some time to come. The Report’s tone is defensive of Recreation and Park Department’s long-held view that the turf fields are fine and the answer to increasing need for playing surfaces. With a few exceptions, there is not much critical thinking or even adequate research into the topics that the Task Force has addressed.
|
[No. 02] San Francisco is on line! This information package is put together by a concerned citizens' group. The group aims to save the parks around San Francisco from being ripped out and turned into lifeless turf fields. The presentation is worth a very good look. http://sfparks.googlepages.com/release. [SynTurf.org Editor's Note: This is definitively an award winning candidate for SynTurf.org's 2008 "Environmental of the Year Award"].
|
[No. 01] The San Francisco Brief: California Dreaming, A Future without Turf?
By Guive Mirfendereski, SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. March 21, 2008.
The Recreation and Park Department of the City of San Francisco has announced plans to set up a Synthetic Playfields Task Force. The Task Force is scheduled to meet in early April to tackle the question of health and environmental concerns raised by the proliferation of artificial turf in San Francisco.
The ides for the task force originated with the Planning Director, Dawn Kamalanathan, who in a memorandum, dated February 27, 2008, stated the following as the reason for the suggestion:
Over the past decade, park jurisdictions across the country have installed synthetic turf on playfields for the material’s known maintenance benefits and an improved play experience. Recent concerns regarding potential environmental and health impacts have caused many of these jurisdictions to initiate additional research and discussion on the overall advantages and disadvantages of synthetic turf. Given dramatic variances in the climate, usage, and context in which synthetic turf is used, each jurisdiction is moving through its own process to determine how to responsibly move forward with playfield renovations. The Department proposes convening a Task Force, comprised of professional experts and citizens, to clarify and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the use of synthetic turf on playfields in San Francisco.
To tackle such a weighty issue the Task Force is scheduled to meet all of 6 to 8 hours in four sittings. April 8 from 6 to 8 PM, and also April 30 from 6 to 8 PM, and May 13 from 6-8 PM and (if necessary) May 20 from 6-8 PM.
According to the announcement: “To facilitate a thorough and well-informed discussion,” the Task Force will consist of 5 “subject matter experts,” who will offer expertise on:
climate change and recycling policy, public health impacts and risks (e.g. physical health, respiratory disease, etc.), water quality and conservation, and toxicity of synthetic turf materials. [Note: SynTurf.org counts only four subject matters].
In addition to the “body of experts.” the Task Force will also have 9 additional members picked as follows from the community: 1 from the Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee (PROSAC), 2 from citywide park policy and advocacy organizations, 2 from park and field users, 2 from neighbors (those affected by impacts of park uses), and 2 from schools and other youth serving organizations.
This is already setting up to be sham proceeding. The Task Force is supposed to be “comprised of professional experts and citizens, to clarify and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the use of synthetic turf.” There is no indication as to what criteria will govern the weighing of pros and cons of artificial turf. The comparison should be between the advantages of natural grass against the disadvantages of artificial turf. That will constitute an objective matrix for analysis in a process that requires of the community participants to “be fair and objective in deliberating with fellow task force members.”
The majority of the Task Force’s membership already favors artificial turf, because the logic of the earlier installations is still what prompted municipalities to install synthetic fields and playgrounds –maintenance savings, weather-proof and “safe” playing surface. These “selling” points for synthetic turf (also add no need to water, to mow, use pesticides or fertilizer) are based on the propaganda and commercial puffery of the purveyors of this product which, too, requires a long list of –cidal treatments from pesticides to bactericide to keep them safe and sanitary.
Artificial turf field has absolutely no redeeming environmental value. In terms of health risks to and adverse therapeutic effects on living organisms, recent research indicates serious doubts as to whether artificial turf contributes to wellness. The industry and policymakers are fond of reciting statistics about obesity and overcrowded fields as reasons why more playing time is necessary in municipal parks. Neither natural grass nor artificial turf causes obesity: sedentary lifestyles (may be genes) and lousy nutrition cause obesity.
That level of concentration of play on an area naturally wears out natural grass playing fields. This can be minimized with budgeting playtime across a wider time line. Also here is one publication called "Sustainable Turf Care" published by the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (www.attra.ncat.org) that may help demystify the secrets of maintaining a decent natural grass playing field. It is available at
http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/turfcare.html and at http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/turfcare.pdf.
For this Task Force not to be a sham proceeding, the Task Force should begin its work by establishing a few working principles. First, give full faith and credit to the precautionary principle. Second, not be swayed by “expert” review of the existing literature, as most of them are either biased toward the industry or have failed to ask the right questions. Third, not be swayed by what is politically expedient or popular. Fourth, hear out university agricultural extension experts on emerging new technologies that make natural grass all the more high performance and less costly to maintain. Fifth, hear from financial experts as to the cost of installation, maintenance (including repair of damage caused by vandalism, lighting, security fences and cameras), replacement of the carpet, mat and infill every 8 to 10 years, and actual cost and externalities associated with disposal of the Sixth, not promote the use of artificial turf because it uses recycled rubber, plastics or tires. Seventh, consider the ramification of turning open multipurpose parks into semi-private restricted multi-sport venues. Eighth, require a site-specific environmental assessment study for every proposed installation of an artificial turf field.
The announcement for the establishment of the Synthetic Playfields Task Force may be found at http://www.parks.sfgov.org/site/recpark_page.asp?id=77040. The February 27, 2008, memorandum recommending the setting up of the Task Force is available at
http://www.parks.sfgov.org/wcm_recpark/SyntheticPFTF/SRCSFTF0308.pdf or click here. The Task Force’s proposed meeting schedule is available at http://www.parks.sfgov.org/wcm_recpark/SyntheticPFTF/SFTFMeetingSchedule0308.pdf or click here.
|
|
