As West Hollywood City Council prepares to sign off on a contractor Monday night to complete expansions to the off-leash dog area at Hart Park, City Hall has announced it will proceed with resurfacing the area with synthetic turf, despite calls to the contrary from the community.
City staff is recommending that the council award the contractor to Stoss Inc., to provide design, engineering and documentation services for the Hart Park Improvements Project in the amount of $359,295, plus a 22% contingency for related services in the amount of $80,705 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $440,000.
As well as re-surfacing the dog area, the plan calls for dividing it into sections for small and large dogs.
Community members had protested both ideas, but the turf drew their particular ire in light of moves by the state of California, which which removed synthetic turf from the list of drought-tolerant landscaping options and restored authority to local jurisdictions to regulate synthetic turf due to potential health risks, and by the city of Los Angeles, which has begun studying the impacts of synthetic turf and may impose restrictions that could affect the city as a leaseholder of the park.
In terms of surface material, a primary issue raised by the community is the presence of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in some synthetic turf products. PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment and are linked to various health risks, including cancer. Another key concern is the heat generated by synthetic turf when it is exposed to direct sunlight, which can create uncomfortable or even dangerous conditions for both humans and animals.
In the staff report, City Hall addresses concerns about older, petroleum-based synthetic turf products traditionally made from nylon, polypropylene or polyethylene, all of which are non-biodegradable and potentially harmful. However, in recent years, newer synthetic turf products have been developed that are more eco-friendly, non-toxic, and even partially biodegradable. The city says that the dog-friendly synthetic turf specified for use in Hart Park is manufactured without PFAS and is designed for better drainage and easier cleaning compared to traditional synthetic turf. These newer options are made with plant-based materials, such as sugar cane, and backed with renewable soybean oil layers. Additionally, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) now certifies certain synthetic turf products that meet specific standards for sustainability and environmental responsibility.
Beyond synthetic turf, other surface materials were considered during the community and commission engagement process. Wood chips, also known as mulch, were an obvious choice as they are a natural and renewable by-product of the lumber industry. While wood chips offer benefits, such as holding moisture, reducing soil temperatures, and being relatively inexpensive, they also present several drawbacks, according to the city.
They are not compact enough for accessibility purposes, absorb urine and require frequent replacement to avoid unpleasant smells. The color of the mulch also makes it difficult to spot dog waste or potentially hazardous items like needles. Furthermore, wood chips pose a safety risk to dogs due to the possibility of abrasions to their paws or injury if ingested. The sawdust from the chipping process can create additional dust issues, particularly when dogs run across the surface, and the wood chips need to be regularly raked, replenished and replaced. On average, staff estimates the chips must be replenished once a month and replaced once a year, requiring more frequent closures of the dog park. In contrast, synthetic turf requires daily cleaning but needs replacement far less often — only every seven to ten years, depending on usage.
The report acknowledges that there is no perfect solution to address all community concerns regarding the dog park’s surface material and configuration. The final design will need to balance various factors, including human and animal health, environmental impact, sustainability, accessibility, maintenance, drainage, hygiene, material durability, and the comfort of the dogs. The recommended solution—non-PFAS, non-toxic, partially biodegradable synthetic turf with a potential division of the park for small and large dogs—represents a balanced approach that takes into account the multiple factors and viewpoints raised during the public outreach process. This design, which has been approved by both the PFC and DAB and previously endorsed by the Council, will serve as the basis for construction documents and specifications prepared by Stoss, Inc.
UPDATE: As of the city council meeting on 9/16, the council has accepted the unanimous verdict of the scientific community and abandoned their plans to put toxic artificial turf on our beloved park. Thanks to them for finally accepting science.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. All one has to do is walk by the dog parks in West Hollywood Park and take a whiff, especially on a hot day. Does anyone seriously believe the City will be washing the proposed plastic grass in Hart Park every day? And does this mean the park will be closed for a time every day for said wash down, or is the City planning on this daily washing when the park is closed between midnight and 6 am? As Bob Claster says so astutely and simply below, if it ain’t… Read more »
Bad! Bad Idea ! Just what WeHo needs, more space-wasting, polluting plastics. Go bare instead.
Don’t people understand this is PLASTIC GRASS? Who wants that???
The City of LA actually owns Hart park and leases it to West Hollywood. LA is considering a citywide ban of this turf product due to its harmful properties and many cities around the globe have already done so. Again, why isn’t the Council taking a second look at this?
I’m glad to hear there’s talk amongst those involved to consider legal action, either before this project starts or after it’s completed.
Why is West Hollywood constantly wasting taxpayer monies for projects residents don’t want???
West Hollywood has had a very long history of hiring high paid consultants to “listen to the community” only to skew the results to what they had in mind all along. In this case, the community outreach was interrupted by Covid and it never reconvened. Many of us were at the initial outreach and the overwhelming support was to keep wood chips. One idea the city unveiled at the time was to have some wood chips and some turf. 🤦🏻♂️ Nearly 100 people recently signed a petition to keep the wood chips. Although Bob Claster has taken the lead in… Read more »
There is no such thing as safe non-PFAs artificial turf. Doesn’t exist. There is a mountain of reputable, independent, authoritative scientific evidence on the subject, but the city chooses instead to accept the self-serving deceptive claims of the petrochemical profiteers who sell the stuff. Many municipalities across the country have banned it, and more are joining them all the time. The wood chips have been in place at the park for 25 years with no problems. There are no unpleasant smells. For that, you have to go to the West Hollywood park where dogs urinate on plastic all day. The… Read more »
Thanks for this info!
Sigh
FINALLY, FIVE: Consideration of potential upgrades and improvements went through an extensive community engagement process, including in-park meetings, pop up events, surveys, as well as public meetings before the Disability Advisory Board and Public Facilities, Recreation, and Infrastructure Commission, as noted in the “Background / Analysis” section of this report. Since the time of that community outreach, there has been much additional scientific research that was unavailable in the decision-making process, nor was it available to those you polled in the outreach. The definitive, exhaustive study by the Santa Clara County Medical Association (which can be found easily online) was… Read more »
FOUR “the desirability of separating small and large dogs to avoid unintended harm,” This was clearly written by someone who has not spent any time at our park. Dogs of all sizes coexist beautifully there. However, one of the key features of the park is the fact that dogs have room to run. The drawing of the proposed separation of the park into two separate sections would absolutely eliminate that. There are no instances of “unintended harm.” It ain’t broke. Don’t fix it. By the way, everytime I go to a park that has a separate section for small dogs, that section is almost always entirely… Read more »
THREE Speaking of smells, has anyone considered that the Schrager group who just paid more than $100 Million for what was The Standard and are about to renovate and reopen it, might not think that “urine stench” would be an effective selling point for those terraced rooms that overlook the park? That smell would be unavoidable if the park were covered with plastic turf that gets urinated on by hundreds of dogs. Certainly those terraces would be unusable. “(Artificial turf) was less likely to spread disease than wood chips,” What diseases, specifically, are they referring to? The wood chip surface does… Read more »
TWO In all the beautiful graphics of the SynTurf site, you cannot find anything resembling an independent lab analysis of their products, which, of course, they’d be only too happy to share if such a thing existed. I have no idea why they choose to believe the commercial claims of these petrochemical companies rather than the mountain of irrefutable reputable scientific evidence we’ve provided them. Most of the dishonesty and deception in the Staff Report concerns the current wood chip surface at the park. “Through the years, concerns have been raised about the wood chips surfacing material at… Read more »