Debbie,
It sounds like you're saying that the Beach Chalet field *is* currently enjoying heavy use. That would make sense, since it's heavy human use that usually does most to degrade such a field. But if this is the case, then it doesn't seem like replacing grass with turf will do much to address the field shortage, since the field's in use either way. If Rec & Park would just stop shutting grass fields when it rains, and put the money it wants to spend on this new project into maintaining existing fields... The current reality of public use also means that the environmental angle isn't really critters vs. public use. It's public use with critters vs. public use without critters.
I also didn't mention the stadium lighting. That is actually more objectionable to me even than the artificial turf. Those excessively bright white lights constitute visual pollution of the night vista for miles around. I'm imagining for instance being in the De Young Museum in the park in the evening, looking out of their windows toward the Pacific, and seeing that ugly, artificial glare at the end of the park instead of nature where the trees meet the ocean. No amount of process, or Superior Court decisions, is going to make me think that would be a positive change!
We do apparently agree however that a well-maintained grass field would be the best solution. Maybe the soccer (and lacrosse?) community could adopt maintenance and upkeep of the field they use, or seek the support of your private donor(s) who are willing to fund the plastic turf and stadium lights in doing so, instead of leaving the task to the city government that isn't doing it properly? Many turf opponents would probably be willing to pitch in and help. That would be more of a win-win solution that it seems like the whole community could get behind.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))