An synthetic turf soccer field at Crocker Amazon park on Feb. 20, 2026. Photo by Mariana Garcia.

The ballfields at Crocker Amazon Park, at the southernmost edge of McLaren Park, have seen better days.

Gopher holes and soggy turf routinely keep the diamonds closed for well over a month during the wet spring months. When, in 2025, San Francisco’s parks department announced a $45 million project to revamp the park — split 50/50 between the San Francisco Giants and the city’s 2020 Health and Recovery bond — officials expected gratitude. 

Instead, they got a fight. A group called Keep Crocker Real is pressuring local officials to vote down the renovation plan. 

Their beef: In the proposal, the new ballfields have synthetic turf instead of real grass. 

Among the officials in their crosshairs: The Rec and Park Commission, which will vote on  whether to greenlight the renovation plan in the coming months. The Board of Supervisors, which has final approval. Supervisor Chyanne Chen, whose district includes Crocker Amazon.  

Chen said her inbox is flooded with emails about the turf war. She’s routinely approached by people both in her district and citywide, passionately arguing their case. But she doesn’t have much, if any, control over the process. 

Representatives of the Recreation and Parks Department have not offered a version of the Crocker Amazon revamp that does not include synthetic turf, meaning that anyone who votes against the plan is not only voting down 20 acres of synthetic turf, but the entire rebuilding project.

Keep Crocker Real formed shortly after Rec and Parks released the plan. While some live in District 11, several of its key members hail from other districts — including Bob Hall (the Panhandle in District 5), Susan Mullaney (Inner Sunset in District 7) and Sophie Constantinou, (St. Mary’s Park, which borders District 11). 

Chen appreciates the investment that’s coming into the “forgotten” District 11, she said. Her daughter used to play games at Crocker Amazon’s soccer field, which was originally renovated with synthetic turf in 2008 and then upgraded with new turf in 2024.

It was a sunny day at Crocker Amazon park on Feb. 20, 2026. Photo by Mariana Garcia.

At a recent Recreation and Park Commission meeting, five members of Keep Crocker Real showed up to urge them to vote down the plan. 

“We should not cover our earth with plastic,” said Mary Fecher, of Keep Crocker Real. “We have enough asphalt, cement and things like that. We’re in a climate crisis right now. San Francisco should not be a part of that climate crisis.”

Some local cities, such as Millbrae in San Mateo County, are attempting to ban artificial turf, but San Francisco is not one of them.

To make its case, Keep Crocker Real cites tests done by San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission on stormwater runoff from existing artificial turf at Garfield Square in the Mission District and South Sunset Playground.

Those tests found a chemical inventory washing off with every rain — including phthalates and heavy metals. A 2024 follow-up test at two other city turf fields found elevated levels of chromium, copper and zinc.

The testing did not make any comparisons to runoff from local natural-grass fields.

Rec and Parks has, so far, chosen to argue that not all fake grass is bad grass. At the Thursday meeting, the commission unanimously passed something called the Rec and Park Synthetic Turf Program Policy.

The non-binding policy sets recommendations for what types of synthetic turfs city departments should buy.

It discourages components like crumb rubber, which is made from used tires, and recommends independent chemical testing before each new turf installation and recycling old turf domestically rather than attempting to ship it overseas.

Keep Crocker Real disputes that all of the above are improvements, or even possible.

A soccer field at Crocker Amazon has synthetic turf on Feb. 20, 2026. Photo by Mariana Garcia.

Currently, the city has and maintains 12 artificial turf fields, including some at Crocker Amazon.

Katherine Gillespie, the president of the San Francisco Little League and an Outer Sunset resident, spoke out at the meeting in favor of the turf, on the grounds that it was more important to get kids outside and playing ball than worrying about fake grass.

“It is critical for communities to promote policies and develop infrastructure that encourage sport and recreation,” Gillespie said. 

Catherine Dodd, a public health nurse and former deputy chief of staff to Mayor Gavin Newsom for Health and Human Services who dialed in for public comments, agreed that there is a need for “more physical activity for kids and to get them away from screens.” However, Dodd added, that doesn’t mean that artificial turf is an unalloyed good.  

“We don’t need to expose them to dangerous chemicals that have both short-term and long-term health effects,” Dodd said of the city’s baseball-playing children. “Please base it on science, not just on hours of play.”

When asked if she personally supported the turf, Chen hedged. She wants to “achieve an appropriate balance,” she said.

Chen, for her part, said that balance means hoping that Rec and Parks can be persuaded to have one of the five ballfields currently designed to be turf — the one on the north side — to be real grass instead.

“So that we can preserve nature,” Chen said. “But then at the same time, continue to maximize outdoor playtime for the community.”

Handmade cardboard signs with drawings and messages about birds and nature are displayed outdoors on a low concrete wall next to bushes with yellow flowers.
Two weeks ago, Keep Crocker Real organized a sign making event at Hummingbird Farm for residents who oppose installing artificial turf at the park, according to Bob Hall. Photo by Bob Hall.

Mullaney, who lives in District 7, and Hall, who lives in District 5, were less interested in negotiation. At the Thursday meeting, both floated the idea of voting Chen out.

“I don’t have enough experience to know, but I think if enough of the residents say, ‘Fuck you, we don’t want this’ or something similar,” said Mullaney, “We’d have to vote out Chyanne Chen … before her term ends.”

“It’s the Sunset Dunes kind of process,” Hall added. “Get rid of the supervisor.”

After publication, Mullaney and Hall confirmed that they were not pursuing a recall.

There is one key difference between Crocker Amazon and Sunset Dunes. Joel Engardio was recalled as District 4 supervisor for not only openly advocating for Sunset Dunes, but for signing it onto the ballot.

Chen, meanwhile, said she is “urging” Rec and Parks to listen to what the community has to say about the renovation proposal. 

“I really strongly urge the [Rec and Park] commissioners to ensure that community input is the foundation of any plan,” Chen said. “This is really important.”

Follow Us

Xueer works on data and covers the Excelsior. She graduated from UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism with a Master's Degree. She joined Mission Local as part of the California Local News Fellowship in 2023. Xueer is a bilingual journalist fluent in Mandarin. In her downtime, she enjoys cooking, scuba diving and photography.

Join the Conversation

20 Comments

  1. To Rec & Park and SF Giants leaders and elected officials, again, I want to voice my thoughts:

    It is an outrage that the SF Parks & Rec and the Giants would propose putting in more artificial tuff and cut down more trees in McLaren Park and Crocker Amazon. I live by the park and I say NO to this insane idea.

    This planet is experiencing global warming, rapid climate change and the LAST thing we need is more destruction of our trees and natural sod.

    Do the Giants play on artificial turf? NO THEY DO NOT!

    We (and there are many) will vote out the people who would do this grave injustice to nature in SF. You have already destroyed way too many trees over the last couple of years.

    Cease!

    Thank you for reading,

    Lance Mellon Portola District

    Keep Crocker Real

    +3
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  2. If you ever visit the artificial soccer pitches around SF (at Kimbell playground, and behind the Beach Chalet, among other sites), you’ll be alarmed at how much that fake turf disintegrates. The kids literally kick up clouds of microplastics as they trot along. It’s beyond horrifying, and I’ve been mystified why SF allows it. It off-gasses like crazy in the heat, and all the particulates ultimately enter the waterways. I believe in elevating this as a city-wide environmental issue. Thanks for the report, ML.

    +2
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  3. The turf fields must be a big money maker for rec and park. As a D11 resident, I don’t want trees cut down and plastic fields just so private leagues can pay to play there. Keep our parks green. Our supervisor’s being a little wishy-washy over this.That being said, I’m super annoyed that non-D-11 residents are going as far as to threaten our Supervisor with recall- D11 doesn’t play that kind of hateful, vindictive, resource-consuming politics.

    +2
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  4. You’ve got to be f*cking kidding me.

    Recall a supervisor over artificial turf? For a decision she doesn’t even make and has no control over?

    The right-wing “centrists” who pushed the school board recall have led us directly to this.

    +3
    -2
    votes. Sign in to vote
    1. Was not the right wing whatever or dark money that pushed the school board recalled but parents and teachers, feed up with the dysfunctional school board.

      0
      0
      votes. Sign in to vote
  5. I am one of the co-founders of Keep Crocker Real. I am a D11 resident and also a gardener at the city parks. I keep on the down low for fear of department reprisal. KCR at this point has a majority of members from D11.
    I appreciate the article and think it does a good job giving an overview of the turf issue. As large of an issue is the effects RPDs plan will have on the character of the park. Right now there is a great balance between the athletic fields, open space and the playground. RPD’s construction project will forever upset that balance. RPD only sees the weekend athletes not the neighbors who are there every day sometimes thrice a day.
    To be clear Los Angeles, New York City, Maine and Massachusetts have all passed bans or moratoriums on artificial turf. The opposition position is not a marginal one but an emerging one.
    Rec/Park is very data light when trying to quantify the need for this destruction project. I believe they want to turn it into a sports complex and will eventually privatize it. We need to preserve what’s great about the park and listen to the community. They gave us 2 meetings when most other projects of this size would have 5-10. Its frankly insulting and that is what Chen should be most upset about.

    +2
    -1
    votes. Sign in to vote
  6. Noting an error in the article: Millbrae already enacted a complete ban on artificial turf for city owned property and homeowners.

    +1
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  7. One thing the article re: Amazon Park leaves out should be included in the conversation. Rec and Park no only wants to replace the grass with Astroturf. They also plan to cut down trees. The tree removal plot is a big part of the project that people object to. Rec and Park has gone from planting and nurturing nature to covering parks with concrete and Astroturf. Who decided this is the new direction for Rec and Park to go?

    +1
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  8. To Rec & Park leaders and elected officials, again, I want to voice my thoughts:

    It is an outrage that the SF Parks & Rec and the Giants would propose putting in more artificial tuff and cut down more trees in McLaren Park and Crocker Amazon. I live by the park and I say NO to this insane idea.

    This planet is experiencing global warming, rapid climate change and the LAST thing we need is more destruction of our trees and natural sod.

    Do the Giants play on artificial turf? NO THEY DO NOT!

    We (and there are many) will vote out the people who would do this grave injustice to nature in SF. You have already destroyed way too many trees over the last couple of years.

    Cease!

    Thank you for reading,

    Lance Mellon Portola District

    Keep Crocker Real

    +1
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  9. No mention here of the Fields Foundation, the “nonprofit” run by the elitist Fishers and who are paying for this. It is great to see citizens fighting this.

    No mention here of the way RPD and Fields (thanks to dissolute lobbyist Alex Clemens) astroturfed the Beach Chalet soccer fields and turned them into a stadium-like complex with huge lights that disrupt the nocturnal patterns of animals in the park.

    Notice how the RPD press release obfuscates the astroturf, never naming it directly!

    https://sfrecpark.org/1664/Crocker-Amazon-Soccer-Fields

    +1
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  10. Plastic grass to save money, and increase playing time. With that thinking, let’s just replace all the trees and bushes in Golden Gate park with plastic ones. We’ll save lots of money and water. Hooray, and they’ll last longer for the public to enjoy. Are these San Francisco values? No way – and our kids? They deserve the best. That means real grass ballfields, properly maintained.

    +1
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  11. The grass soccer fields in the city are universally shitty (sometimes literally, covered either with goose or dog poop). They are uneven and riddled with gopher holes. Then they close at the first whiff of rain. The tire crumble covering the turf fields is creepy! But the turf fields stay open in the rain. I’d be interested in the cost discrepancy. How much does it cost to maintain a grass v. turf field?

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  12. The plan already includes one natural grass field. Also, for every tree removed 2 trees will be put in its place. Also, key to remember that Crocker is NOT a park. It is and has always been an athletic facility for the whole City. Not just a place for locals to walk their dogs. (btw the plan also included two NEW dog parks on natural ground)

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  13. As someone that actually lives in D11 AND has kids that want to be able to use the fields @ Crocker as much as possible, let me please say how misguided these folks are. And some are just outright rude and ridiculous (almost like Blue MAGA). Anyone that’s attended a community meeting about this topic can attest for how rude some of them act – booing and hissing *kids* who were just trying to make their voices heard.

    And the fact that most don’t even live here – and now talking about recalls of our Supervisor?? GTFOH! Stay in your district. Find other things to waste your time and money on. This is D11 biz.

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  14. Those turf fields have brought thousands of families joy, so many soccer games played. A recall is insane and would never win.

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  15. Dear Xueer Lu,
    Thanks for writing about this important issue regarding our (the Excelsior) community’s Crocker Amazon park. However, your article failed to mention a few key parts:
    1) The current plan includes cutting down dozens of the trees in our park;
    2) Crocker Amazon is a mixuse park that is used by the entire community, not just kids playing soccer or baseball and in this plan we will lose that much needed green space; 3) Instead of using the grant on artificial plastic turf, why not instead invest that money in the current green space to fix and maintain what is already there? (For example the grass and gopher issue you mentioned but what about the current ballpark structures and restrooms that have been closed /boarded up for years?) This would be a nice way to create jobs and essentially more community in the process.
    4) Parking is already scarce in this neighborhood and new ball fields will create more issues. Again, thank you for bringing attention to this important issue, as The Excelsior community deserves better than this plan.

    0
    -1
    votes. Sign in to vote
  16. Seems like we are dealing with bog standard SF poitics. A vocal, but organized and whiny minority (cough, cough – Bicycle Coalition, I’m looking at you) pushing their (minority) beliefs at the expense of regular kids and families. D11 is pretty blue collar for San Francisco and I have a hard time believing there will be significant opposition to giving their kids more local options for recreation. Probably not a coincidence that the most obviously obnoxious people quotd in the article were carpetbagging in D5 and D7 residents.

    0
    -2
    votes. Sign in to vote
Leave a comment
Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and easy-to-follow rules.

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