The Board of Supervisors’ meeting, held to decide whether to approve the EIR, lasted over 9 hours and had virtually no substantive discussion about the health risks -- but a lot of fawning over the children.
Supervisor David Campos did note though, “I do think with something like public health, or issues of that nature are raised, that it’s helpful to have the Department of Public Health be here and actually provide some testimony on that. So I’m surprised they are not here”, (although this didn’t stop Campos from voting to approve the report).
Supervisor David Campos did note though, “I do think with something like public health, or issues of that nature are raised, that it’s helpful to have the Department of Public Health be here and actually provide some testimony on that. So I’m surprised they are not here”, (although this didn’t stop Campos from voting to approve the report).
The representative for the Recreation & Park Department admitted to Board of Supervisors' President David Chiu that she not only hadn’t brought anybody from the Health Department with her, but that she wasn’t qualified to answer health questions herself saying, “This is uh, I’d have to say not my area of expertise”. She nevertheless unequivocally proclaimed, “There isn’t evidence that there is an elevated health risk with the fields.” No Supervisor challenged this claim.
The Supervisors did not pursue the shortcomings in the reports’ analysis of toxicity any further and without any meaningful discussion about the cancer risks associated with styrene butadiene (SBR) public health issues, the Board voted to accept the EIR.
“This is for the kids”, Ginsburg insisted, “Honestly, this is not bulls***".
“This is for the kids”, Ginsburg insisted, “Honestly, this is not bulls***".
Because this City Fields Foundation (CFF) project was located within California’s Pacific Ocean Coastal zone, the EIR was required to be approved by the California Coastal Commission. Coastal Commission Staff recommended that the Commission reject the SBR synthetic turf -- but in an unusual move, the Commission unanimously voted to let the project go ahead, completely rejecting the report by their own staff.
One Commissioner made a motion to reject the SBR project as per the staff recommendations, but eventually left the meeting and did not return to cast his vote.
One Commissioner made a motion to reject the SBR project as per the staff recommendations, but eventually left the meeting and did not return to cast his vote.
The various Commissions became a redundant blur of "Commissioner-speak". Other inexplicable gestures had been made by other Commissioners throughout the process.
One Commissioner said she was “conflicted with this project.” She added, “There is so much that we do not know about the potentially injurious nature of the fields”. Nonetheless, she voted for the SBR project.
“This was a very hard one for me,” another Commissioner said, raising doubts that “seven acres of plastic would be a natural and healthful condition.” One Commissioner worried, "but the rubber particles that are found in the environment are more and more found in the food chain of wildlife. And that is of great concern". They both voted to approve the SBR project.
One Commissioner said she was “conflicted with this project.” She added, “There is so much that we do not know about the potentially injurious nature of the fields”. Nonetheless, she voted for the SBR project.
“This was a very hard one for me,” another Commissioner said, raising doubts that “seven acres of plastic would be a natural and healthful condition.” One Commissioner worried, "but the rubber particles that are found in the environment are more and more found in the food chain of wildlife. And that is of great concern". They both voted to approve the SBR project.
A single Commissioner on the Planning Commission voted against the SBR project -- expressing concern about "the long-term exposure to this material, [the effects of SBR on children], the effects of which we do not know yet”. (Curiously, months later when a virtually identical CFF project with SBR came up for a vote, the same Commissioner, without explanation, altered her position to vote to be in favor of the CFF project).
Most Commissioners were more blunt, saying for instance how they personally liked synthetic turf more than grass, “it stays green”, one said. One California Coastal Commissioner noted that she intended to replace the lawn at her Southern California home with synthetic turf, and called recommendation against SBR synthetic turf made by the Coastal Commission's staff “arrogant”.
Most Commissioners were more blunt, saying for instance how they personally liked synthetic turf more than grass, “it stays green”, one said. One California Coastal Commissioner noted that she intended to replace the lawn at her Southern California home with synthetic turf, and called recommendation against SBR synthetic turf made by the Coastal Commission's staff “arrogant”.
Meanwhile, as hearings continued to distract the public’s attention, CFF was breaking ground on the other multimillion dollar CFF SBR synthetic turf project in the Ocean View neighborhood, and construction began.