Cool Planet


Thoughts about synthetic turf for Belmont

At Belmont’s Parks & Rec Commission meeting on December 2, it was helpful to hear more about why the City wants to replace the natural grass field with synthetic turf. The maintenance “nightmare” and resulting huge amounts of water required to irrigate the aging field are significant problems.

I’m pleased that Belmont’s proposed field wouldn’t use crumb rubber infill material. That stuff has caused a lot of concern elsewhere because of the toxic chemicals found in the recycled rubber. Crumb rubber fields can also absorb a tremendous amount of heat on hot days. On a 98° day, the surface temperatures of crumb rubber synthetic fields have been measured as high as 200° degrees. Instead, Belmont plans to use an alternate infill material such as a mixture of cork and coconut husks.

While Parks & Rec Director Jonathan Gervais and his staff presented an extensive explanation of the proposed field, I had several questions…

Question: What are the grass blades made of? Do they contain lead?
I asked this because for a while, Glendale, Arizona, gave rebates to residents who installed artificial turf as a water-saving alternative. They stopped after the Center for Disease Control and Prevention released an advisory in June 2008 associating artificial turf with a potential exposure to lead dust, created as the artificial grass fibers age and wear.
Response: I was assured that the grass blades Belmont is planning to install don’t contain lead.

Question: What kind of monthly maintenance needs to be done?
I asked this because I had been told that some artificial turf fields are sprayed with antibiotics. Since the Belmont Sports Complex is situated right next to a slough that runs into the Bay, the run-off would be hazardous to marine life.
Response: Jonathan had never heard of monthly maintenance being required, much less using antibiotics. The field is only cleaned when there’s a spill or an incident that warrants it. And even then, he didn’t think antibiotics were part of the clean-up. He said he would check with Italgreen, a company that installs the new type of synthetic fields, to confirm. Jonathan also pointed out that at present, fertilizers on the field may be running off into the slough.

Question: Have studies been done about the potential heat levels this type of synthetic turf field can reach?
It makes sense that the alternative infill material would have lower temperatures than crumb rubber, but it would be good to know the maximum temperatures expected.
Response: Jonathan wasn’t aware of any third-party studies measuring heat levels, but planned to check with Italgreen.

In addition to my questions, I made a couple of comments:
• Replacing natural grass with a carbon neutral surface allows more CO2 to stay in the atmosphere. I’ve read that in order to offset the loss of carbon sequestration for just one playing field, you’d have to plant 1,861 trees (and those trees would have to have grown for 10 years).
Response: Jonathan wondered if that statistic took into account the offsetting benefit of not needing to mow the grass with a diesel powered mower. Good question. One of the other Commissioners suggested that the Sierra Club may have a perspective and data on this issue.

• I offered the idea that if we’re going to having to completely dig up the field to install the synthetic turf — including excavating down to establish a new drainage system — why not incorporate a cistern underneath? The collected water could be used to irrigate the field itself (if it were rebuilt with natural turf), and/or water the secondary fields at the Sports Complex. A cistern installed on the Open Charter Magnet Elementary School campus in Los Angeles has a capacity of 110,000 gallons and cost $673,925 to install (just $60,015 for the cistern itself). It irrigates the ball field and surrounding landscaping. Last week someone told me that Mountain View is installing a cistern underneath a field, but I couldn’t find any information about it.

In the end, our Commission voted 8 to 1 in favor of going after a grant from the State of California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (Proposition 84) to fund the installation of a synthetic field at the Belmont Sports Complex. (I was the one who voted against it.) Since that meeting, I’ve given this issue even more thought…

The need to save water is a very real concern. In fact, a state law will soon require us to reduce our water use by 20% per capita by 2020. Personally, I’d love to see us consider other water conservation efforts in our community before installing synthetic turf (that’s why I voted the way I did). For instance, could we use reclaimed water on the site? To maximize the water captured in one or more cisterns, could we channel rainwater from the soon-to-be-built bike bridge nearby? In fact, if we divert rainwater from streets to keep it from reaching the Bay, we might be able to qualify for funds from the Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPP).

All that said, I know it’s hard to say no to the possibility of increasing the Sports Complex’s playable hours by as much as 61 percent. I’m sure there’s more research and community brainstorming that could be and will be done in the future to find additional playing space. But in the meantime, reconstructing the north field at the Belmont Sports Complex with synthetic turf certainly seems like an attractive solution.

The City Council votes on the issue on in just a few hours. If the council members vote in favor of pursuing a grant to re-do the field, I would love to see us incorporate a cistern into the plans and even a community tree-planting program to mitigate the reduction of carbon sequestration. Who knows? Incorporating these additional environmentally focused elements might make our grant application even stronger.

The City Council will be meeting on Tuesday, January 12 at 7:30 pm in City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, in the City Council Chambers on the 2nd floor. To see the staff report on this issue, visit Belmont’s website. If you’d like a chance to speak (three minutes per person), just fill out a sheet when you come in the door.



Synthetic turf vs. natural turf

The issue of synthetic turf vs. natural turf reminds me of the trees vs. solar battle from 2008. That’s because an environmental justification is used on both sides of the issue. Synthetic turf saves water and uses recycled materials. Natural turf preserves oxygen-producing, CO2-using green plants.

The turf issue is on my mind this week because on December 2, Belmont’s Park & Rec Commission will consider whether or not to pursue a grant to install synthetic turf at the Belmont Sports Complex. The justification in a nutshell is that synthetic turf would increase the field’s playable hours while reducing the cost of maintenance and watering over time. The staff report for the meeting describes the key issues to be considered:
• relative installation costs
• expected life span of the athletic fields
• relative annual maintenance costs
• respective capacities for playable hours
• relative safety
• relative impacts on the environment

The data provided show that the finances “pencil.” The health and environmental issues aren’t so simple. In doing a quick Google search, I found endless information on both sides. The Synthetic Turf Council lists third-party research that supports their assertion that synthetic fields are safe and have negligible environmental impact. A June 4, 2009 CBS article states that “EPA scientists are worried that they don’t have enough information about potential health risks from chemicals in the rubber material.”

The date of certain information was difficult to pinpoint. For instance, an undated CBS 5 News segment on YouTube referenced a state investigation into synthetic turf (prompted by SB 1277 authored by State Senator Abel Maldonado) and that a year before, “the state banned synthetic turf fields that were found to contain lead.” I learned that SB 1277 eventually got watered down, however. An analysis of the bill by State Senator Joe Simitian called for more research.

In addition to the high temperatures that synthetic fields can reach on hot days, the biggest concerns about synthetic turf seem to be related to toxic chemicals found in the rubber materials. Belmont’s staff report references “the latest generation of synthetic turf” however, and explains that instead of using cryogenic rubber for the infill material, alternative compositions are available, including coated sand, and a mixture of cork and coconut husks.

If you have an opinion as to whether Belmont should install synthetic turf at the Sports Complex, please come to the Commission meeting to express your views. If you can’t make it in person, you can send an email to the Parks & Rec Commissioners in advance of the meeting (PRComm@belmont.gov).

The Parks & Rec Commission meeting will be Wednesday, December 2 at 7:00 pm in City Hall, One Twin Pines Lane, in the City Council Chambers on the 2nd floor. If you’d like a chance to speak (three minutes per person), just fill out a sheet when you come in the door.