Log in

Forgot password?

Search the site...

4 minutes reading

What's next

Home sweet dumpster: Cozy Brooklyn 1-bedroom

Oakland artist Gregory Kloehn has repurposed a dumpster into a live-in sleeper complete with sun deck and barbecue grill.

America’s Cup sailors tumble into SF Bay

Two Emirates Team New Zealand sailors were flung overboard Sunday in a grim reminder of the deadly Artemis accident.

Post a comment


  1. Rubber tire crumbs are toxic industrial waste. The disposal of rubber tires is highly regulated in California and other states. Yet for reasons that remain a mystery, the City of San Francisco and City Fields Foundation insist that artificial turf fields padded with tire crumb does not pose health and environmental risks. As demonstrated at Friday’s hearing, however, under the facts and the law it is clear that this material should not be used on soccer fields, especially where young children play.

    The City states that these may be the most heavily scrutinized fields in the country. Sadly, that is not the case. Yet the City failed to consider dozens of scientific studies published in academic journals, including the leading chemical journal “Chemosphere”, which conclude that these fields pose a health risk. The City also ignored the expertise of some of the country’s leading environmental health experts, as well as public comments from environmental leaders, science teachers and research scientists.

    New York City Parks and Recreation Department and the Los Angeles Unified School District do not allow artificial turf with rubber tire crumb because it is a health hazard. Yet San Francisco, which prides itself on being the country’s “greenest” city is fighting to be allowed to expose our youth to the toxins in this material.

    Our City’s Precautionary Principle says “err on the side of caution.” This is embodied in our Municipal Code. Yet when it comes to protecting the health of our youth, the City is ignoring its own Code.

    In addition to the City’s erroneous conclusion that the turf it plans to use is safe, the City has also erred by failing to consider an alternative site for this project. If it is true that artificial turf provides more play time, then safe, non-toxic artificial turf fields should be installed at West Sunset Playground, just 8 blocks from the Beach Chalet fields. Golden Gate Park is unique and must be protected from development. The western end of the park should not become the site of a major sports complex with stadium seating, night lights, and synthetic grass.

    For the sake of our children and for the sake of Golden Gate Park, let us hope the court will find in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, stop the project, and order a supplemental Environmental Impact Report that will thorougly consider these important issues.

  2. Thanks for the videographer for filming the fields, so that folks can see what will be lost.

    An additional newvideo illustrates the negative impact that the 7 acre artificial turf/150,000 watt sports-lighted Beach Chalet project will have on the beauty and habitat of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park and Ocean Beach. Thanks to Rasa Gustaitis for producing this video, Andrej Zdravicz’s (AZ) beautiful photography, and editing by Eli Noyes, Alligator Planet. AZ is an internationally known filmmaker who specializes in filming natural phenomena — the movement of air, water, and wind. AZ’s installation ‘Water Waves – Time Horizon’ can be seen currently at the Exploratorium. Alligator Planet LLC provides production management, creative, strategic and financial consulting services to the global animation entertainment industry.

    We hope that people who appreciate and love the coast will Watch the video, “Like” it, and forward the link to friends and family all over the world! “Beach Chalet Fields Renovation” on Youtube – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAhM4X8CPow

  3. Here’s more information:

    The over 200 appellants and organizations that thought the Coastal Commission would protect our parkland were appalled at not only the Commission’s final decision but also the fact that there was no real discussion of the project from the standpoint of either wildlife or the damage from the 150,000 watts of lights that will shine on the California Coast from dusk until 10:00 p.m. every night of the year! More can be learned from the article in the June, 2013, Westside Observer, article “California Coast Debacle” http://www.westsideobserver.com/2012/soccer.html#jun13 “California Coast Debacle” June

  4. The Beach Chalet soccer complex means the loss of over 7 acres of green grass to 7 acres of artificial turf, made up of gravel, plastic carpet, and potentially toxic tire waste infill; 150,000 watts of sports lighting, lighted until 10:00 pm every night of the year and located just a few hundred feet from Ocean Beach; loss of plantings to over 1 acre of new paving; loss of over 55 trees; loss of more parkland to seating for over 1,000 visitors; expansion of the parking lot by 33% – in a City that brags about being “transit first.” Loss of carbon sequestration equal to planting over 7,000 trees and having them grow for 10 years. Loss of the night sky to families at Ocean Beach, who visit to view the sunset, to gaze at the stars, or to sit by the fire rings. These plastic fields will have to be replaced in 8 years, with no money in the budget to pay for replacements.

    Rec and park is always crying poor – how are they going to pay for replacement fields? Does anyone think that San Francisco will have more money in 8 years than it has now? Will soccer players have fewer fields after over 30 acres of artificial turf fields have worn out and there is no funding to replace them?

    Add to all of this, placement of this project in a tsunami zone. What will be the impact on the park and on the aquifer under the park (from which San Franciscans will soon be drinking) when a tidal wave spreads tons of tire waste throughout the park?

    The Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Golden Gate Audubon Society, as well as over 10,000 people who signed petitions, postcards, and wrote personal letters, are opposed to this project. Also opposed are Viking Soccer Parents for Green Grass in Golden Gate Park and Educators for Photosynthesis, an organization of teachers.

    And don’t forget the 44-member, city-wide neighborhood organization, the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, as well as every major historic preservation organization — national, state, and local. People who oppose the terrible damage that this project will do to Golden Gate Park and Ocean Beach range from very young soccer players to grand-parents and cover a wide variety of occupations. In one sense this is a generational issue – do we destroy this area or do we protect it for future generations?

    Many professionals are also lined up against the project. Dr. Travis Longcore, the leading expert on the impacts of artificial lighting on wildlife, wrote a 24-page report detailing the damage this project will do to wildlife in this area. Wayne M. Donaldson, past State Historic Preservation Officer and currently the Chairman of the United States Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) detailed the unmitigated damage this hard-edged and paved sports complex will do to the beauty and character of Golden Gate Park.

    There is a feasible alternative to this project. Renovate the Beach Chalet fields with real grass and state of the art construction, new irrigation, gopher controls and new sod. Renovate the West Sunset Playground with a safe (not SBR rubber) artificial turf and some lighting — there are lights in that area already, and the new lights do not have to be bright enough for TV sports!

    The San Francisco Department of Recreation and Park, by refusing to even consider this alternative, has introduced a lot of strife into a situation that could have been resolved peacefully and positively for everyone involved.

    Learn the facts — go to the website or to Facebook SF Ocean Edge or to Flickr SF Ocean Edge or to twitter @SFOceanEdge.