Turf or grass? Turf or grass? (June 18, 2003)

Council to weigh practicality versus cost

by Bill D'Agostino

When the City Council publicly debates the $2.5 million sports complex offer from Stanford University next week, one issue with lasting consequence will be whether to outfit the new playing fields with grass or synthetic turf.

Stanford has agreed to build the city two soccer fields with lighting and one practice field on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. However, the university will only spring for natural grass, so adding synthetic turf would cost the city $600,000 to $1 million.

"We've already stretched things so far that we just could not -- in good conscience -- pay for that extra amount," Larry Horton, Stanford's director of government and community relations, said.

The funds for synthetic turf could come from state bonds dedicated for city parks and development fees already paid to the city, City Manager Frank Benest said.

Last month, the council's Finance Committee wrestled with allocating those same funds for placing turf on the field at Cubberley Community Center, or another already existing field. When asked if turfing the Stanford field would replace the other fields, Benest said: "Certainly, we would point to the Mayfield opportunity."

"I think council needs to talk about that," said Councilman Vic Ojakian, who worked on the committee that hashed out the deal with Stanford.

Proponents of synthetic turf said it's financially beneficial and environmentally sound. Most importantly, the turf would allow the field to be used many more days a year, since there won't be as much time devoted to maintenance, according to former Mayor Mike Cobb.

"If you use it hard, with lights year-round, you're going to chew it up pretty fast," noted Cobb, one of the leaders of "Got Space?" a new group formed to advocate more fields for Palo Alto.

Last year, the group visited Menlo Atherton High School's field as well as other local cities and schools that used synthetic turf, and came away impressed.

"I wasn't Mr. Turf at all when this thing started," Cobb said.

Lower maintenance and water costs are the key to why turf would pay for itself after five to six years, Cobb said.

"I think I'll be for it, depending on the cost obviously," Councilman Jim Burch said.

Turf enthusiasts also ague it would have a major environmental benefit, saving gallons of water required to irrigate fields and not requiring pesticides.

But Councilwoman Nancy Lytle said in an e-mail that she was "not a proponent of this turf but I recognize it might be our only quick fix for today's baby boom.

"I would rather we raise our park and field acreage so we can support real grass, bugs, oxygen and those types of natural things in parks," Lytle added.

In the landmark real estate deal announced last week, Stanford agreed to build the fields -- complete with lighting, restrooms and parking -- and lease the land to the city for $1 a year for 51 years. In return, Stanford would get a guarantee of approved development in its research park, but would also build housing to off-set the new jobs.

City and university administrators hope the fields could be built by fall 2004, once an agreement is fully hashed out and environmental analyses are completed and approved.

So far, Lytle is one of the few people publicly questioning the deal, announced with much fanfare by smiling city and university officials at a press conference last week.

Lytle wondered if the Page Mill/ El Camino Real site is the best location for such a sports complex, and also questioned why the deal was hashed out in private, with only a small subcommittee of council members giving input.

"There is no compelling and urgent public interest that would drive us to using a closed door process in this instance," Lytle added.

E-mail Bill D'Agostino at bdagostino@paweekly.com