Dear City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission -

Thank you to all Council Members for carefully evaluating this resolution. In particular, we wish to thank Mayor Fergusson, and Councilmen Cohen and Robinson for voting against it. Menlo Park City School Board voted the following night (Wed. night) to install a new smaller natural grass field at Encinal School. School Board President Terry Thygesen also pledged that any proposal for an artificial turf field for a large soccer field (at Encinal Elementary School) would not be raised again. We were very pleased with both outcomes.

We want to assure the Council, particularly Mr. Cline and Mr. Boyle, that we are not against the installation of a soccer field for older teenagers in Menlo Park. But we did strongly believe that taking over what will be the sole remaining grass play ground at Encinal Elementary School to build an artificial turf field designed for older teenage soccer was not the right decision. It was not the right decision for Menlo Park, Encinal Elementary School, or the surrounding neighborhoods.

Our understanding is that any adult-sized soccer field built in Menlo Park would be used by teenage soccer leagues which include a "huge number who live in other places and use the fields." This seems to have been suggested by Councilman Boyle (then speaking as a resident) in his comments during a May 23, 2006 Menlo City Council and Community Development Agency meeting. As the City continues its search for sites to build "adult-sized" soccer fields, we respectfully suggest that Council refocus on partnership options (with other cities including Atherton, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, etc) and whether Menlo Park taxpayers should pay 100% of the associated costs (refer to past recommendations in the Parks and Recreation Task Force Report on Status of Playing Fields, April 26, 2006). Perhaps the joint-development of soccer field/s at San Mateo County Flood Park might be an option. We found an Internet article that suggests Berkeley may have been successful in building such joint-use soccer fields in partnership with Albany, Richmond, El Cerrito, Emeryville, and East Bay Regional Parks District--through a joint powers agreement.

The next suggestion may also have already been addressed by the Council. But we were wondering if it is timely to reassess the Menlo Park City "regulations" in regards to collecting recreation-in-lieu or development impact fees under California Assembly Bill AB 1600. Are Menlo Park taxpayers getting the best deal we can? Again, referring to the 2006 Report on the Status of Menlo Park Fields, we support their recommendations "#16: The City should require inclusion of open space/park space in any new development within the City. New development should be reviewed for feasibility of including playing fields whenever possible." For example, we have heard that our neighboring city Palo Alto received the land that they use for artificial turf soccer fields (at El Camino Real and Page Mill Roads) from Stanford as a concession for granting certain development rights.

Finally, we encourage both the Council and Parks and Recreation Commission to continually re-evaluate the possible environmental and health hazards surrounding the installation of artificial turf. While we did not take as strong a stand on this issue as other groups did in the recent Council meeting, the more we learn the more we question some Council members' assertions that all "experts" are really in agreement that artificial turf is totally safe-at least at this point in time. At the very least, we suggest that Menlo Park will need to do an environmental impact report under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if Menlo decides to build an artificial turf field at another location. The Menlo City staff report associated with this resolution admitted that the City had not had a chance to fully investigate the health and environmental concerns raised by residents. Shouldn't a comprehensive investigation be done before Menlo approves its use for other projects/fields?

We are not experts in this field. But, without even doing extensive research, we located reports on the Internet that at least raised questions, and the questions were not just from the sod "lobby" (a concern raised by both the City and School District). For example, a report by what appears to be an "agency" within Sweden at www.kemi.se/upload/Trycksaker/Pdf/PM/PM3_06_eng.pdf raises at least local environmental concerns. The report also points to the fact that Norwegian authorities have similar concerns. And it points to the fact that Denmark is pushing for language in European Union standards that would caution against selecting synthetic turf that contain substances of a "very high concern" (that is, ground up tires). Another article at WebMD discussed NFL player "turf burns" and concerns surrounding controlling related staph infections. Our teenage soccer players are not NFL players and they may not get as many turf burns, but if they get some, there may be problems.
Thank you for considering our comments. Again, we appreciate the time and effort each Council and Commission member takes to represent all residents' interests.

Judy Font, Elizabeth Blois and Other Concerned Felton Gables Residents
Received on Mon Apr 9 21:04:05 2007