• 2023 Market Report
  • San Carlos Neighborhoods
    • Alder Manor
    • Beverly Terrace
    • Clearfield Park
    • Cordes
    • Howard Park
    • White Oaks
  • About
    • About
    • Testimonials
    • Bob’s Production
  • Contact
  • Commitment to Mental Health Awareness
  • San Carlos Blog

  • 2023 Market Report
  • San Carlos Neighborhoods
    • Alder Manor
    • Beverly Terrace
    • Clearfield Park
    • Cordes
    • Howard Park
    • White Oaks
  • About
    • About
    • Testimonials
    • Bob’s Production
  • Contact
  • Commitment to Mental Health Awareness

The Synthetic Turf Issue….It's Baaaaack

August 19, 2010

image006
It seems fitting that the longest running internal battle in the history of San Carlos has taken yet another bizarre turn.  Fasten your seat belts, synthetic turf is once again making in headlines in San Carlos.
The History
For those of you who have been living under a rock or are new to San Carlos, here’s a brief synopsis of the history:
The ten year debate over synthetic turf and its possible installation in San Carlos has been the subject of heated debate, public outcry, commission meetings, city council meetings, studies and a lawsuit. The issue has been struck down by city council and then revisited and approved. The Parks and Recreation Department in San Carlos first started looking at installing synthetic turf back in 2000.  The City did this primarily for one reason:  increase playable hours.  Back in 2000 the City of San Carlos commissioned a report that examined their current parks and fields.  The “Mahady Report” as it is now known, basically said that San Carlos fields would face dire effects, including field failure, in the upcoming years because the amount of traffic on current fields was simply more than the fields could support.  The recommendation was for the City to add more fields or turn one or more of the fields to synthetic turf and have that particular field take some of the play load from other fields that were overused.  It was initially believed that Highlands Field and Stadium Field (located directly behind Highlands Field) were the best two options for synthetic turf installation because of their size and ability to take the burden off of other fields.  Stadium Field was scrapped early on in the process because it was ruled too dangerous for firetruck/emergency access to the field.  The only real road access was from vehicles coming up Madera and eventually up to Elston Court.  Additionally, all involved believed that without the benefit of lights, the field would not be getting enough bang for the buck.  Lights at Stadium Field were viewed as not being practical.  Highlands Park already had lights installed, making it that more attractive and it remained the primary focus of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Over the years other sites were discussed.  Most prominently, the field at Heather School was discussed in addition to Highlands Field, but it was ultimately ruled out after the San Carlos School Board and the City did not see eye to eye on the field.  Others that were looked at included Burton Park, Tierra Linda Middle School’s field and Crestview Park.  However, none could match attractiveness of Highlands Park, with its size and lights.  The City finally authorized the installation on synthetic turf amid heated debate and construction began on the new field.
The Lawsuit
In the mean time, a group called Save Highlands Park, sued the City in 2009, claiming that the documentation the City used to approve the synthetic turf installation was not stringent enough.  The City believed that the lawsuit was ultimately without merit and began the process of hiring a contractor and starting the installation.
The Ruling
On Tuesday, Judge Marie Weiner of the San Mateo County Superior Court, finally submitted her ruling on the Save Highlands Park lawsuit.  The result has both sides claiming victory. The somewhat confusing ruling essentially said two things: (1) the synthetic turf, itself, is acceptable; and (2) the City failed to adequately study the effects of the increased traffic on the environment.
The City is claiming victory because the ruling did not stop the project from continuing.  Save Highlands Park is claiming victory because Judge Weiner backed the group’s argument that the city rushed the project and ignored their own data on the impact of traffic on the environment.
Both groups seemed to be somewhat surprised that the other is claiming victory.  One thing is for sure, both groups will now spend more money on legal fees to gain further answers into the vague ruling.  The City Council will be discussing the results of the ruling at their upcoming meeting.
Analysis
Having been involved with this issue since 2000, I can see why the City is claiming victory.  Much of the debate surrounding synthetic turf was on the actual turf itself.  Was synthetic turf a favorable playing surface?  Was it likely to cause more injuries?  Did it take away from the mostly natural state of the park?  Were there any hazardous effects from playing on synthetic turf?….these were all questions put before the city as measures of concern if synthetic turf was to be installed. Judge Weiner seems to have stated that the turf itself, is fine.  Her real concern seems to be a secondary problem, that being any possible environmental issues with increased traffic going to the field.  Combined this part of the ruling with the lack of any type of injunction against stopping work on the installation of the synthetic field, and you can see why the City feels victorious in the ruling.  On the other hand, the vagueness of the ruling and the concern stated by Judge Weiner over the inadequate study and analysis for possible environmental effects due to increased traffic would be a logical point in favor of Save Highlands Park. Stay tuned as this seemingly endless issue reclaims San Carlos headlines in the weeks to come.
Disclosure
*  Over the years I have written a few articles on the blog regarding the synthetic turf issue.  In each article I feel that it is important to disclose that I was on the Parks and Recreation Commission from 2003 through 2005, and ultimately resigned my position on the commission, largely due to the frustration surrounding this particular issue.  While on the commission I did vote in favor of the installation of synthetic turf.

Share

Featured  / San Carlos Community Issues

Bob Bredel

6 Comments


Dan R.
August 19, 2010 at 8:02 am
Reply

Nothing surprises me in this debate anymore. It is a complete joke that it has taken 10yrs to get this done while cities up and down the peninsula have had no problems changing some surfaces to synthetic turf to provide services to the youth of their communities. Not enough study has been done!!! Only 10 years+.



dennis brown
August 19, 2010 at 8:24 am
Reply

i agree with danr.. i rwc they just put the turf in..no questions asked..hawes field was recently demolished for the hethc hetchy pipes.. when it is rebuilt rumor has it the field will be turf.. no questions asked…no opposition..unless it comes from san carlos folks..lol



Bill
August 19, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Reply

Yes, I hope the turf opponents are happy that the city is now incurring even more legal cost to fight this ridiculous and endless battle. In a time when city services are being cut left and right, a few Highlands grumpypants are adding to the city’s woes and delaying a project that will benefit so many. For the good of the city, please stop!



Izzy
August 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Reply

Finally… they have already scraped the site and it looks like they are working as fast as they can, which is good. Maybe we’ll even see a playable surface before the end of soccer season (yea, I know I’m dreaming)!
I wonder what will happen if the opponents get an injunction at this point or at some point down the road. It would be too bad to stop the progress!
The real sad part in all of this is the 10+ years (my kids have almost outgrown youth sports) and that the city couldn’t convince the school district to do something with Heather. That field is a mess of “land mine” gopher holes.



Kris
August 25, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Reply

I’ve always said that if the people who live in the houses by Heather and Highlands don’t want to live across from a park that actually gets used by the kids (safely, with no massive gopher holes etc)…I’d trade houses with them any time! Our kids were 7 and 9 when this fight started. Unless the progress continues quickly, I may be a grandmother by the time it gets done!



GM
September 6, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Reply

Hopefully when this is all done and the turf is installed the city can sue the Save Highlands Park group, for the extra cost to the city.



Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • 2008-2023 SCEF Diamond Sponsor

    San Carlos Education Foundation

    Since 2008 I am proud to have donated auction items and cash totaling $300,000 to the San Carlos Education Foundation.
    Learn More
  • Subscribe

    Get it straight from the top! Bob Bredel is the #1 Realtor for total San Carlos sales volume 2008-2022. Never miss out on San Carlos news by getting our blog in your inbox. As an added bonus, receive quarterly real estate market reports.

    • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

  • Ask Bob Bredel

    Bob Bredel

    Got a question about San Carlos or the real estate market? Bob can help.
    Contact Bob


  • Christie's International Real Estate Sereno

  • Contact

    Bob Bredel
    650-520-9343
    bob@bredelhomes.com

             

  • Address

    Christie’s International Real Estate Sereno
    662 Laurel Street, Suite A
    San Carlos, California 94070

  • Subscribe

    Subscribe to receive notifications when new posts are added to the San Carlos Blog.

    • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.


  • © 2023 San Carlos Blog
  • Privacy Policy
  • CalDRE: 01493564
Website by Style Agent

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}