City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative, Proposition H (November 2014)
|Voting on Property|
|Not on ballot|
- 1 Election results
- 2 Competing measure
- 3 Background
- 4 Text of measure
- 5 Support
- 6 Opposition
- 7 Path to the ballot
- 8 Related measures
- 9 See also
- 10 External links
- 11 Additional reading
- 12 References
A City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative, Proposition H ballot question was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of San Francisco, California. It was defeated.
If approved, Proposition H would have enacted an initiative called "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act." This initiative, designed and backed by the Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park, would have required all fields in the western portion of the Golden Gate Park to remain natural grass fields and would have prohibited the construction of any nighttime lighting for these fields.
The measure was triggered by the city's plan to renovate the Beach Chalet soccer fields on the western edge of the Golden Gate Park. The city council referred a competing measure to the ballot - Proposition I - that sought to authorize the project. Prop. I was approved.
|City of San Francisco, Proposition H|
Election results via: City and County of San Francisco Registrar of Voters
The competing council-referred measure, which was approved, was designed to allow improvements, renovations and developments of recreational areas that have been approved by the state-mandated environmental review, the California Coastal Commission and any other relevant regulatory board or entity to go forward unfettered by delays caused by appeals, petitions and other protests. The measure had a poison clause that would have invalidated Proposition H if the competing initiative had been approved. If both this measure and the competing initiative had been approved, the one with the most "yes" votes would have taken precedence with regard to the Golden Gate Park Beach Chalet soccer fields. Proposition I, however, had provisions that extended beyond the scope of Proposition H. These provisions that did not directly conflict with the competing measure would have stayed intact even if Prop. H had been approved.
Both Proposition H and the competing measure referred by the city council were triggered by proposed renovations of the Beach Chalet soccer fields on the western edge of Golden Gate Park. These renovations were first planned and approved by the city's Recreation and Park Commission in 2010. The Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park filed appeals to the city to keep the project from going forward. They delayed the project, but were ultimately ignored. The city approved a plan to begin a $14 million renovation of all four soccer fields in the Beach Chalet area on the western edge of the park. The plan included replacing the grass with synthetic turf, installing lighting, installing benches for players, erecting bleachers for 1,000 spectators, setting up a barbecue area and constructing a community room and renovated bathrooms. This Proposition H initiative was the last effort of the coalition to preserve the fields as natural grass.
Text of measure
The Ballot Simplification Committee provided the following statement explaining Proposition H:
THE WAY IT IS NOW:
The City’s Recreation and Park Department operates and maintains Golden Gate Park (Park). The Park includes athletic fields located west of Crossover Drive which begins on the north side of the Park at 25th Avenue and ends on the south side at 19th Avenue.
The largest of the athletic fields west of Crossover Drive are the Polo Fields and the Beach Chalet Athletic Fields. These fields are all natural grass and do not have lights.
The Recreation and Park Commission, the Planning Commission and the California Coastal Commission have approved a project that includes replacing the grass at Beach Chalet Athletic Fields with artificial turf. That plan would also install field lighting to allow for nighttime use.
This voter initiative opposes the artificial turf and nighttime lighting.
Proposition H would require the City to keep all athletic fields in Golden Gate Park west of Crossover Drive as natural grass.
Proposition H would also prohibit nighttime sports field lighting in these areas.
A “YES” VOTE MEANS: If you vote “yes,” you want to require the City to keep natural grass at all athletic fields in Golden Gate Park west of Crossover Drive and to prohibit nighttime sports field lighting in these areas.
A “NO” VOTE MEANS: If you vote “no,” you do not want to require the City to keep natural grass at all athletic fields in Golden Gate Park west of Crossover Drive and you do not want to prohibit nighttime sports field lighting in these areas.
—San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee
The full text of the initiative measure:
- Note: Supporters of this initiative measure were opposed to the competing city council-referred measure.
The group behind this initiative was called the Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park.
According to the coalition's website the following groups supported the initiative:
- Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
- Take Back Our Parks
- SF Ocean Edge
- Sunset Parkside Education and Action Committee (SPEAK)
- Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
- San Francisco Green Party
- San Francisco Watershed Protection Alliance
Arguments in favor
Supporters of the initiative believed there were significant harmful effects of artificial turf and believed enjoyment of the park would be impaired by the proposed renovations. The Coalition pointed out that the park was “designed and managed to afford opportunities for all to experience beauty, tranquility, recreation, and relief from urban pressures” and that these opportunities were put at risk by putting in plastic grass and artificial lighting.
The Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park website featured the following statement supporting this initiative and opposing the proposed artificial turf project it would have prohibited:
Coalition members have numerous concerns about the negative impacts of the proposed Beach Chalet project. These concerns include:
Supporters of the initiative believe this issue must be taken to the voters because the decision-makers in the City and the California Coastal Commission disregarded a wealth of information about the harmful effects of artificial turf, night lighting, and the inappropriateness of a sports stadium in the naturalistic western end of Golden Gate Park. Thousands of concerned residents signed petitions, wrote letters, testified at hearings, and publically protested the Beach Chalet project. Nevertheless, the decision-makers turned a deaf ear to this outcry and are allowing the project to go forward.
—Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park
The following videos were featured on the Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park website:
- Note: Many opponents of this initiative supported the competing city council-referred measure that allowed the Chalet Beach renovation project.
The city council approved the plans to renovate the Beach Chalet field and opposed this initiative to block the project.
Opponents of this initiative insisted that the park would be much more enjoyable and accessible to residents, including youth, if the renovations were allowed to go forward. Those who supported the renovation project, advocating the competing measure, Proposition I, also said that converting the fields to artificial turf would save countless gallons of irrigation water in a time when California is experiencing an extreme water shortage.
In an opinion piece on The Richmond District of San Francisco blog, Sarah B. wrote the following in favor of the Beach Chalet renovations:
Artificial turf is already in use in several fields across the city, and the lower maintenance and increased playing time it offers make it a sound choice.
And unlike many city projects, half of the $8.9 million renovation costs would be shared by the City Fields Foundation who to date, have renovated five facilities in the city. They know what works and so far, have been very successful in their efforts.
In its current condition, the Beach Chalet fields can host just over 4,000 hours of play in a year. With the renovations in place, the amount of hours for both soccer and lacrosse games to take place would almost be tripled.
In a time when the game of soccer is on the rise, kids are in need of more physical activity and city budgets are being slashed, why wouldn’t we say yes to this project? Let’s turn Beach Chalet into the sports facility it was always meant to be. It would be a great benefit to soccer enthusiasts throughout San Francisco, and would be a facility that all of the Richmond District would be proud to have, especially this one.
The San Francisco Chronicle online featured an opinion piece advocating the renovation project that would be prohibited by this initiative and criticizing opponents of the project. Below is an excerpt from the article:
The package would be a blessing for the city's soccer players. The $8.9 million cost will be split by the city and the City Parks Foundation, largely supported by the Fisher family, who started the Gap clothing chain. Along with the new fields, there will be lighting to allow play up to 10 p.m. in an area that's largely shrouded from nearby homes. The existing turf - so heavily used that one of the four fields is rotated out of use for restoration - has been devoted to soccer for decades.
Why the need to explain the background and benefits? Because even a use as benign as improved soccer fields has generated opposition. Almost any change in Golden Gate Park draws fire, and some nature lovers want to hang on to the grass at all costs and fear impacts on wildlife. Though a swath of studies have failed to find any definitive harm from the artificial turf, some opponents cite health worries.
These doubts shouldn't prevail. A popular and growing sport deserves public support. A creative use of public and private money in tough budget times should be encouraged. Families weighing a move out of the city can take rundown sports facilities off their checklist. The city should get behind an encouraging idea that improves sports and parks.
—Opinion piece featured by the San Francisco Chronicle
Path to the ballot
According to city election code, 9,702 signatures from registered San Francisco voters was required to qualify this initiative for the ballot. On July 7, 2014, the Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park turned in about 15,000 signatures. Since the city elections office certified enough of the submitted signatures were valid, the initiative went before voters on November 4, 2014.
- Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot
- San Francisco City and County, California ballot measures
- November 4, 2014 ballot measures in California
- San Francisco Elections Department website
- Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park website, accessed July 14, 2014
- San Francisco Chronicle online, "Dueling S.F. artificial-turf measures headed for voters’ arena," September 27, 2014
- San Francisco Appeal, "Competing Ballot Measures Would Ask Voters To Make Decision On Beach Chalet Astro-Turf Plan," June 17, 2014
- San Francisco Chronicle online, "Signatures filed for 3 S.F, ballot measures," July 7, 2014
- San Francisco Business Times, "Prop B. Breakthrough: Forest City proposes height limit increase for S.F.’s Pier 70 project," May 15, 2014
- San Francisco Elections Office website, "Proposition H Simplification Digest," archived September 9, 2014
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- San Francisco Government website, "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act," accessed July 14, 2014
- Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park website, accessed July 14, 2014
- Coalition to Protect Golden Gate Park website, "About the Action To Protect Golden Gate Park," archived July 14, 2014
- The Richmond District of San Francisco blog, "Say yes to the new Beach Chalet soccer fields," archived July 14, 2014
- San Francisco Chronicle online, "Soccer in Golden Gate Park," January 11, 2010, archived July 14, 2014
State of California
|Ballot measures by year||
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 |
|State executive offices||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities |