Anda di halaman 1dari 16

1

By: Joshua Mayo


Date: November 27th, 2017
Professor Neil Schaefer

Clashing Perspectives on the Bonita Vista Track and Field Project

(A1) The Proposal: The proposal is to implement replacements, upgrades, and

improvements on Bonita Vista High Schools existing athletic fields including

replacement of the track with synthetic materials, replacement of the natural turf with

artificial turf, additional stadium seating, a new ticket booth, an ADA accessible entrance,

a new public address (PA) and speaker system, and a new stadium lighting system. The

Sweetwater Union High School District proposed this Bonita Vista High School Track

and Field Project on the existing Bonita Vista High School campus in the City of Chula

Vista on July 19th, 2017 to the Districts Governing Board, who will also make the final

decision.

(A2) Context and Historical Background: As mentioned before, the Bonita Vista High

School Track and Field project is to be located in the Southern Californian suburban city

of Chula Vista, which also lies in San Diego county. Bonita Vista High School (BVHS)

has had a grass field and dirt track since its opening in 1966, but has recently fallen

behind its neighboring schools, now being one of the only schools with a natural track

and field and the only school in the district without stadium lighting. Because of this,

BVHS currently hosts evening football game off-campus at the nearby Southwestern

College. The proposal for a new track and field for BVHS has been floating around for

several years and almost came to fruition in 2014 before it was discarded due to

insufficient funds. I am personally connected to this proposal in that I am from Chula

Vista and I went to school there for many years before continuing my education at the
2

University of California, Santa Cruz. The high school I graduated from, Eastlake High

School, is in fact Bonita Vista High Schools main rival in both sports and academics. I

myself have seen the dirt track before but I have never stepped onto it. This is because,

even though I ran both cross country and track and field in high school, I never had to

compete on the track as it was considered so inferior that the Bonita Vista team never

hosted a meet there.

(A3) Key Elements of the Proposal:

The Installation of a new lighting system at the BVHS football field which would

include four 90-foot-tall galvanized steel poles, two of which would be installed

on the home side of the BVHS football field, while the other two would be

installed on the visitors side (all of the information in this paragraph is derived

from Sweetwater Union High School District, 07/19/2017, page ES-1) . On the

four poles, LED luminaries would be installed at a height of 90 feet and 25 feet.

Specifically, 16 TLC (Total Lighting Control)-LED-1150 fixtures (1,150 watts

each fixture) would be installed at a 90-foot mounting height on the four poles.

Additionally, one TLC-LED-1150 fixture would be installed at a 25-foot

mounting height on each of the four poles as well. An electrical components

enclosure would also be attached to each pole and the poles would be installed

into the ground and anchored in place by a precast concrete base.

The installation of a public address (PA) system that would include four 3,000

watt speakers installed on a proposed press box building (all of the information in

this paragraph is derived from Sweetwater Union High School District,

07/19/2017, page ES-1, ES-2). The press box would fit in with a proposed
3

bleacher system with the height ranging from between 10 to 20 feet off the

ground, and the press box would be located centrally along the top level of the

home side bleachers. Of the four speakers, two of them would be open while the

other two would be enclosed. Additionally, two of the speakers would be aimed

towards the visitor sides bleachers while the other two would be aimed towards

the home sides bleachers.

Numerous replacements, upgrades and improvements to Bonita Vista High

Schools eastern athletic field (all of the information in this paragraph is derived

from Sweetwater Union High School District, 07/19/2017, page ES-2). Firstly,

this would include the replacement of the existing natural turf (grass) surface

athletic field and dirt surface track with a synthetic grass system and an all-

weather track surface. Secondly, this would also include the replacement of the

existing bleacher system, which currently has a capacity of about 760 spectators,

with new permanent steel bleachers which would have a capacity for 2,000

spectators on the home sides bleachers and 1,000 spectators on the visitor sides

bleachers. Lastly, this would include a point of entry plaza at the southern end of

the existing football field that would involve new concrete paver areas, irrigated

tree and shrub landscape areas, handicap accessible ramps and stairs with hand

railing, a concessions and restroom building, and a new ticket booth.

(B) Arguments made for the Proposal:

(B1) 1st Pro-side Argument: The installment of synthetic turf would save a

substantial amount of water. This is because synthetic track and fields dont need

nearly as much water to maintain them as natural track and fields do. In fact, according to
4

the Synthetic Turf Council, Depending on the region of the country, one full-size

synthetic turf sports field saves 500,000 to 1,000,000 gallons of water each year

(Synthetic Turf Council, 2016, page 7). Additionally, Every square meter of natural

grass replaced with synthetic saves 2,200 gallons per year, and Synthetic turf conserves

4 to 8 billion gallons water annually (ActGlobal, 05/15/2015, para. 2).

(B2) 2nd Pro-side Argument: The installment of synthetic turf would eliminate the

need for pesticides and fertilizers that are commonly used on natural turf. This has

significant health and environmental implications due to the fact that pesticides and

fertilizers are a principal cause of water pollution. For instance, according to the EPA,

Approximately 375,000 acres of lakes, 1,900 miles of rivers and streams and 550 square

miles of estuaries in Florida are hurt by nutrient pollution and, this Nutrient pollution

comes from wastewater, urban stormwater, industry, and excess fertilizer and manure that

flow off the land into waterways (EPA, 11/30/2017, para. 1).

(B3) 3rd Pro-side Argument: The installment of synthetic turf would lower pollution

by helping reduce noxious emissions from maintenance equipment and mowers.

According to the EPA, Lawn mowers emit high levels of carbon monoxide, a poisonous

gas, as well as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that contribute to the formation of

ground level ozone, a noxious pollutant that impairs lung function, inhibits plant growth

and is a key ingredient of smog ( EPA, 05/1996, para. 1). Also according to the EPA,

push mowers emit as much pollution in one hour as 11 cars do, and a riding mower emits

as much as 34 mowers (EPA, 04/17/2017, para. 4).

(B4) 4th Pro-side Argument: Synthetic turf can serve as a way to reuse tires and

recycled rubber that would otherwise end up in landfills. According to Rick Doyle,
5

president of the Synthetic Turf Council, The synthetic turf industry recycles about one-

twelfth of the 300 million auto tires that are withdrawn from use each year (Luz

Claudio, 03/2008, para. 42). This is significant because Recycling saves impressive

amounts of energy, which ultimately reduces greenhouse gas emissions. For example,

recycling four tires reduces CO2 by about 323 pounds, which is equivalent to 18 gallons

of gasoline (RecycledRubberFacts.org, 11/29/2017, para. 2). Recycling rubber would

also have economic benefits as the industry generates more than $1.6 billion annually in

economic activity and provides nearly 8,000 good paying jobs

(RecycledRubberFacts.org, 11/29/2017, para. 2).

(B5) 5th Pro-side Argument: Synthetic turf and all-weather track and fields are

considerably more durable than natural grass and dirt tracks. Synthetic turf can

actually be utilized for around 3,000 hours per year with no rest required, this is more

than three times that of natural grass (Synthetic Turf Council, 2016, page 9). In addition,

unlike natural track and fields which are usually in poor condition during the winter

months and the dry season, synthetic track and fields are consistent and can be used for a

larger variety of sports/events (ActGlobal, 05/15/2015, para. 7-8). Because of this,

student athletes such as varsity cross country and track and field captain, Isaiah Labra

(619-400-7459, 11/30/2017), hope for a new track because if a synthetic track and field

were to be installed, a lot more athletes would be able to use the track and field year-

round and in all kinds of weather. According to Labra, this in turn would be significantly

beneficial to the schools sport teams as they would not be bound by weather

constrictions, and it would be beneficial even to those who are not currently doing a sport

as it would encourage more students to be active and exercise.


6

(B6) 6th Pro-side Argument: Synthetic turf is a highly cost-effective investment. For

example, The cost of installing and maintaining a synthetic turf sports field over a 20-

year period (including one replacement field) is over three times less expensive per event

than the cost of a grass field over the same period of time (Synthetic Turf Council,

05/15/2015, page 10). This is because more events and sports can use the synthetic turf

sports field, which ultimately brings in more money for the school.

(B7) 7th Pro-side Argument: The installment of a synthetic track and field would

decrease the risk of injury. There are several studies that back up this claim, for

instance, one 2004 NCAA study among schools across the country comparing injury

rates between natural and synthetic turf showed that injury rates during practice was 4.4%

on natural turf versus 3.5% on synthetic turf (Synthetic Turf Council, 05/15/2015, page

9). Furthermore, Fifa Quality Turf has been extensively benchmarked and tested against

natural grass for player safety and performance measures as well (Act.Global,

11/29/2107, para. 16). Bonita Vistas natural track and field in particular is in poor

condition, and is even potentially hazardous due to its numerous potholes and dirt kick

up. As stated by Labra (619-400-7459, 11/30/2017), There has been problems with the

infield because of the holes and thick grass. There are many cases where people have

twisted an ankle and hurt themselves while exercising or practicing on it. Because of

this, Bonita Vista students like Labra firmly believe that a new synthetic track and field

would provide a safer and healthier environment for everyone who would use it .

(B8) 8th Pro-side Argument: A renovated track and field would make Bonita Vista

High School equitable with the other schools in the district and would give Bonita

Vista a cleaner look. Almost every other high school in the district have a synthetic track
7

and field on which they host sports games and community events, BVHS is one of the

select few who do not. Thus, the outdated track and field gives BVHS an unappealing

image which in turn discredits the school as a high performing public institution.

According to Labra (619-400-7459, 11/30/2017), having a renovated track would be the

beginning of taking BVHS out the old category, and it would change the look of the

school to be more positive and lively. Additionally, Labra states that the new track would

attract more students who would use it and provide a healthy and active environment in

which students would be more motivated to work out and try out for a sport.

(C) Arguments made against the Proposal:

(C1) 1st Con-side Argument: Synthetic turf requires a carbon offset, Natural grass

does not. Several studies reinforce this claim. For example, a 2006 Athena institute study

that researched how much a school would need to do in order to offset the carbon

footprint of an artificial field, found that 1,861 (+23%) coniferous trees would need to

be planted to achieve a 10-year carbon neutral synthetic turf installation (All of the

information in this paragraph is derived from Millar/Loan, 12/05/2017, p. 6). In contrast,

a study titled Technical Assessment of the Carbon Sequestration Potential of Managed

Turfgrass in the United States, by Dr. Ranajit Sahu showed that the net carbon intake of

well-managed lawns was 4 to 7 times higher than the carbon output of mowing and thus

did not need a carbon offset.

(C2) 2nd Con-side Argument: Synthetic turfs rubber infill may be toxic in cases of

dermal and/or ingestional exposure. Due to the relatively recent development of new-

generation synthetic turf, the potential effects and long term consequences are not yet

known, however, the recycled crumb rubber used for the infill does contain a number of
8

chemicals that are known or suspected to cause health effects (All of the information in

this paragraph is derived from Claudio, 03/2008, para. 14-21). In addition, the 2007

Environment and Health, Inc (EHHI) report Artificial Turf analyzed the potential toxic

compounds in crumb rubber and found 25 chemical species with 7299% certainty

using mass spectrometrygas chromatography, including the carcinogen butylated

hydroxyanisole and the corrosive 4-(t-octyl) phenol. Thus, rubber infill has become a

main source of concern, especially since the crumbs can become airborne and are easily

tracked into homes on clothes and athletic gear.

(C3) 3rd Con-side Argument: The implementation of the project would have

significant impact in relation to noise level (noise pollution). According to the

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bonita Vista High School Track and Field

Project, the noise level has several Thresholds of Significance that may spur

controversy over the project (All of the information in this paragraph is derived from

from Sweetwater Union High School District, 07/19/2017, p. 86-87). These include

Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in

the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies and

A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project. Thus, these among other noise disturbances would

have a lasting effect on the nearby neighborhoods if the project were to be passed.

(C4) 4th Con-side Argument: The implementation of the project would have a

significant impact in relation to aesthetics as well as light pollution. The EIR for the

project also lists Thresholds of Significance for impacts in aesthetics that may catalyze

more controversy over the project (All of the information in this paragraph is derived
9

from from Sweetwater Union High School District, 07/19/2017, p. 63). These include

Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and Create a new

source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views

in the area. Consequently, nearby homes would have permanent impacts to aesthetics if

the project were to be passed.

(C5) 5th Con-side Argument: The implementation of the project would have a

significant impact in relation to traffic and circulation. In addition to increased noise

and damaged aesthetics, the EIR also lists Thresholds of Significance for impacts

related to traffic and circulation that may further intensify the controversy over the

project All of the information in this paragraph is derived from from Sweetwater Union

High School District, 07/19/2017, p. 107). These include Result in a change to air traffic

patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in

substantial safety risks and Conflicts with adopted policies, plans or programs

regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the

performance or safety of such facilities. Furthermore, the implementation of the project

would also Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or

dangerous intersection) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment), thus directly

impacting the neighboring homes in the area.

(C6) 6th Con-side Argument: The installation of a new synthetic track and field

would be overly expensive. In fact, according to figures analyzed by David Millar of

Red Hen Turf Farm and Aron Loan of Bluegrass Enterprises, natural grass is about

$70,000 cheaper per year than artificial grass (All of the information in this paragraph is
10

derived from Millar/Loan, 12/05/2017, p. 7-9). This is because total construction costs

can amount to $900,00, and when the field has to be replaced (every 8 to 12 years), the

total cost would add up to 540,000. These prices coupled with the occasional repairs from

damaged fibers, liquid spills, etc, would make it very costly for a school like Bonita Vista

to go through with this project, especially since more than just a new track and field

would be built if the proposal was approved.

(C7) 7th Con-side Argument: The Installation of a synthetic track and field would

increase the risk of injury. One reason for this this is because while artificial turf

generally gives better traction than natural grass, it also is less likely to release an

athletes planted cleat, and as a result players are more likely to suffer joint injuries on

synthetic turf (Millar/Loan, 12/05/2017, p. 5). Major athletic organizations have also

shown to support this argument with all professional baseball teams in the MLB choosing

to play on natural grass, and with NFL player surveys reporting stats such as 84% of

NFL players believe they had more injuries when they played on artificial grass over

natural grass (Millar/Loan, 12/05/2017, p. 5). Additionally, there is evidence that

synthetic turf harbors more bacteria including an industry study that found that, infill

containing a sand/rubber mixture had 50,000 times higher levels of bacteria than infill

made of rubber alone (Claudio, 03/2008, para. 26). This is alarming since the bacteria

would spread easily with injuries and turf burns made on the synthetic turf.

(C8) 8th Con-side Argument: The installation of a track and field would attract an

abundant amount of heat which would have serious consequences. Several physical

properties of synthetic turf including dark pigments, low-density mass, and the inability

to vaporize water and cool the surrounding air make it really easy for the turf to increase
11

temperature when hit by the sun (Claudio, 03/2008, para. 36). In fact, according to

studies by Columbia University research scientist Stuart Gaffin, Direct temperature

measurements conducted during site visits showed that synthetic turf fields can get up to

60 hotter than grass, with surface temperatures reaching 160F on summer days

Additionally, (Claudio, 03/2008, para. 35). Increased temperatures raise other concerns as

well such as the fact that Elevated temperatures can also increase the rate at which toxic

chemicals, such as benzothiazole and toluene, are released from some artificial fields into

the surrounding air (Peeples, 06/09/2015, para. 23). Additionally, artificial turf can also

raise local air temperatures by several degrees, and since water does not penetrate

through artificial turf as fast as it does through natural ground so there could also be more

localized flooding (Peeples, 06/09/2015, para. 25).

(D) Analysis and Conclusion:

Based on the information gathered and after looking at both the arguments for and

against the Bonita Vista Track and Field Project, I personally think that the Pro-side

arguments make a stronger case. Therefore, I believe that the proposal should be

approved and all the implementations discussed in the project should be carried out.

For starters, the Pro-side has a lot of strong environmental arguments backed up

by stats and research. As stated before, the installation of a synthetic track and field

would not only save water, but also lower the use of pesticides and fertilizers, decrease

pollution outputted by maintenance equipment (such as mowers), and make good use of

recycled rubber. Additionally, although the data provided for these arguments was just

generally talking about synthetic track and fields, I am fairly confident that the data

would be the same if it came specifically from Bonita Vista. This is because my
12

interviewee who currently goes to the school, Isaiah Labra (619-400-7459, 11/30/2017),

was able to confirm with me that BVHS does use pesticides and mowers to maintain their

field. I am not dismissing the environmental cons that come with synthetic track fields

however. It is true that synthetic track and fields need a carbon offset and that the rubber

may be toxic. But, compared to the positive environmental impacts it would bring, I

believe that these negatives are minimal, especially since the main con arguments such as

that rubber might be toxic is not a completely true statement as it has not been proven

to be significantly harmful. To me, the use of pesticides and fertilizers is much more

alarming, especially knowing that theyve had very negative consequences on peoples

health in the past. Also, the fact that rubber would be reused if a new track was built is a

big plus considering that otherwise it would just add to an already growing landfill pile.

Additionally, with BVHS being located in southern california, an area that just recently

came out of a drought and water shortage, a synthetic field would help to conserve a lot

of much needed water. Thus, even though the positive environmental impacts would be

mostly indirect, I believe that they far outweigh the opposing arguments, and therefore

make the pro-side argument a much stronger case.

Another reason I side with the Pro-side argument is because, between the

contradictory arguments between the two sides, I believe the Pro-sides argument is more

correct in relation to BVHSs specific case. The first of the contradictory arguments is

that synthetic track and fields are cost-effective investments versus synthetic track and

fields are overly expensive. For these opposing arguments, I think the Co-side is correct

to an extent because the project would be very expensive and would take money away

from other school projects/programs. However, I also believe that it would be a strong
13

investment and that the school would ultimately benefit because the track would allow

for further school projects/programs and thus pay back itself. Additionally, although I

was unfortunately not able to interview Sweetwater Union High School District Project

Coordinator Larry Moen, I was able to find a document in which the total proposed fee

for the project ($28,000) was sent to Mr. Moen (Webb, 09/06/2017, para. 5). In

comparison, this fee is much less than that proposed by the con-side. The second

contradiction is that synthetic track and fields increase risk of injury vs synthetic track

and fields decrease risk of injury. And again, I have to side with the Pro-side that

synthetic track and fields are safer because in BVHS specific case, a synthetic track and

field would be much safer than the natural one that they have now. Ive seen BVHS

current track and field and it isnt pretty, much less a safe base for intense exercise.

During my interview with Labra, I asked him about this contradiction specifically

because I wanted to know if he thought it was safe since hes much more familiar with it,

and sure enough he responded that it had caused various injuries and needs to be replaced

to fix its hazards. Thus, overall I believe that even if the project were to not be

implemented, a refurbishing of the natural track and field would have to be done to make

it safer for athletes.

Lastly, and probably the most personal reason I believe the project should be

implemented is because it would have a really positive impact on the school itself and the

community around it. It is true that the temporary construction would have some impacts

in aesthetics, noise, and traffic for the surrounding homes as the EIR indicated, but these

impacts are pretty small considering most of the changes would be temporary and the rest

would go by mostly unnoticed by the majority of the surrounding neighborhood. Also, as


14

Labra also explained, the construction may be bothersome for a short while, but its for a

good cause, and with most of the surrounding community having kids that attend or will

attend the school, the majority of the community is for the project too and thus wouldnt

mind the temporary disturbances. Being from Chula Vista myself and attending BVHS

rival school, I am very aware that Bonita Vista has a bad representation for being old

and run-down because all the other schools have newer facilities and synthetic sport

fields. So I know, without a doubt, that this project would mean a lot to the students and

community of Bonita Vista, thus adding to my conclusion that the project should be

implemented.

(E) Works Cited and Interviewees

ActGlobal. (Retrieved 11/29/2017) Benefits of Synthetic Turf vs. Natural Grass.


ActGlobal. http://www.actglobal.com/blog/benefits-of-synthetic-turf-vs-natural-
grass/ (05/15/2015)

Bonita Vista Crusader. (Retrieved 12/08/2017) No Plans for New Track. Bonita Vista
Crusader. http://bonitavistacrusader.org/?p=966 (10/22/2014)

Claudio, Luz. (Retrieved 11/30/2017) Synthetic Turf: Health Debate Takes Root.
Environmental Health Perspectives.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265067/ (03/2008)

EPA. (Retrieved 11/30/2017) EPAs Standards to Address Nutrient Pollution in Floridas


Lakes and Flowing Waters. EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/floridafaq-
2010.pdf

EPA. (Retrieved 11/30/2017) Your Yard and Clean Air. EPA.


https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/tiff2png.cgi/P1009Z0Z.PNG?-r+75+-
g+7+D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C95THRU99%5CTIFF%5
C00002493%5CP1009Z0Z.TIF (05/1996)
15

EPA. (Retrieved 11/30/2017) Small Engine Rule to Bring Big Emission Cuts. EPA.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27
/0cb7669b182b145d852572c0005e415a!OpenDocument (04/17/2017)

Labra, Isaiah. (11/30/2017). Bonita Vista cross country and track and field captain. Phone
Call Interview. Email: Phone: (619) 400-7459

Millar, D./Loan, A. (Retrieved 12/05/2017). The Dirt on Turf. redhenturf.com.


http://www.redhenturf.com/pdfs/TheTruthAboutArtificialTurf.pdf

Peeples, Lynne. (Retrieved 12/07/2017). Artificial Grass May Save Water, But Does It
Endanger People? Huffingtonpost.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/09/artificial-turf-drought-
california_n_7523132.html

RecycledRubberFacts.org. (Retrieved 11/29/2017) The Many Benefits of Recycled


Rubber. RecycledRubberFacts.org.
https://www.recycledrubberfacts.org/environmental/

Sweetwater Union High School District. (Retrieved 10/26/2017). Environmental Impact


Report for the Bonita Vista High School Track and Field Project. Sweetwater
Union High School District.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9zm6GSINUBYVzdsQjNwTlVPQUU/view
(07/19/2017)

Synthetic Turf Council. (Retrieved 11/29/2017). Synthetic Turf 360 A Guide for Todays
Synthetic Turf. Synthetic Turf Council.
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/ST
C_brochure.pdf (2016)

Webb, Robert. (Retrieved 12/07/2017). Bonita Vista Master Plan. Webb Cliff
Architecture
and Engineering. CI_-_BVH_Master_Plan_-
_Webb_Cleff_Architecture___Engineering__Inc._-_Proposal_-
_Prop_O_Bond_2_-_ig.pdf (09/06/2017)

(F) Appendix
16

Bonita Vistas natural track and field (Bonita Vista Crusader, 10/22/2014)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai