The Pisces, Inc. / City Fields Foundation (CFF) investments had always been promoted to the public as being altruistically philanthropic - "gifts to the City" - even though the tens of millions of dollars in payments were largely being pocketed by CFF’s handpicked business associates.
Hirsch had claimed, “The City Fields Foundation will not force the changes on anyone". Yet, CFF was finding that more and more dollars were needed to sell the idea of SBR synthetic fields to the public - for things such as lobbyists, promotional materials, and other campaigning costs.
Hirsch had claimed, “The City Fields Foundation will not force the changes on anyone". Yet, CFF was finding that more and more dollars were needed to sell the idea of SBR synthetic fields to the public - for things such as lobbyists, promotional materials, and other campaigning costs.
The City of San Francisco also needed to protect its image. Hundreds of hours of City employee and Recreation and Park Department staff time had been spent promoting the CFF position that the styrene butadiene (SBR) installations were safe and cost effective for City taxpayers.
The City is also required to match the millions of CFF dollars in the SBR projects. The fields would need to be replaced in eight to ten years. Ginsburg's staff readily admitted that his Department had no money in its budget to replace the turf when it wore out. Currently, at least two older City synthetic turf fields are rock hard and in dire need of replacement.
The City is also required to match the millions of CFF dollars in the SBR projects. The fields would need to be replaced in eight to ten years. Ginsburg's staff readily admitted that his Department had no money in its budget to replace the turf when it wore out. Currently, at least two older City synthetic turf fields are rock hard and in dire need of replacement.
By 2010 CFF had introduced thousands of tons of SBR particulates into public parks around the City. For years CFF was given special environmental exemptions by the Planning Department -- including exemptions from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Finally, after years of public outcry, the Recreation & Park Department and the City Fields Foundation agreed that they would create an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for just one of their proposed SBR projects to submit to the Planning Department.
“This product, [SBR synthetic turf], will have practically no environmental impact.”, Hirsch assured the Planning Commission.
“This product, [SBR synthetic turf], will have practically no environmental impact.”, Hirsch assured the Planning Commission.
In 2011 Ginsburg solicited bids to prepare for the EIR cryptically describing it as a “controversial” project. He ultimately awarded Environmental Science Associates nearly half a million dollars to write a couple of reviews of the issues associated with SBR synthetic turf which Ginsburg's staff would ultimately sign off as significant or not.
CFF “Team” members Mauer and Hannan were designated to act as consultants for the report. Hirsch defended CFFs participation in the report stating that, “We were providing the community with the assurance that this project was good for the park and safe for the environment.”
CFF “Team” members Mauer and Hannan were designated to act as consultants for the report. Hirsch defended CFFs participation in the report stating that, “We were providing the community with the assurance that this project was good for the park and safe for the environment.”
The stated purpose of the EIR was to "provide information about potential significant physical environmental effects of the proposed project".
The report ended up providing no significantly new toxicological research. The public submitted hundreds of pages of comments on the report -- filling in a multitude of data gaps in areas such as cancer findings and ultra fine particle research, as well as other toxicity findings. Almost none of these as well as many other significant corrections were included in the final report -- or ultimately considered by San Francisco policy makers.
The authors declared a finding of NO POTENTIAL for a significant impact. The lead author and Environmental Review Officer who signed off on the report never publicly presented the report to any of the review hearings and retired in 2013.
The report ended up providing no significantly new toxicological research. The public submitted hundreds of pages of comments on the report -- filling in a multitude of data gaps in areas such as cancer findings and ultra fine particle research, as well as other toxicity findings. Almost none of these as well as many other significant corrections were included in the final report -- or ultimately considered by San Francisco policy makers.
The authors declared a finding of NO POTENTIAL for a significant impact. The lead author and Environmental Review Officer who signed off on the report never publicly presented the report to any of the review hearings and retired in 2013.