The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education has approved a controversial campus renovation plan for Franklin Elementary School that includes replacing the natural grass field with synthetic turf, while simultaneously ordering an independent study to verify safety claims made by the product manufacturer.
The board adopted the staff-recommended plan last week during their regular meeting, culminating a six-year development process.
The renovation plan addresses challenges posed by Franklin's limited 5.6-acre campus, which is less than half the 11.7 acres recommended by the California Department of Education for a school serving 600 students. At full buildout, the project will increase campus building area by approximately 29,286 square feet, from 63,002 to 92,288 square feet.
District officials argue the current grass field faces severe overuse problems, receiving up to 10 hours of heavy use daily, seven days a week, with less than a month of rest annually. School officials said this has resulted in an uneven surface with bare patches of hard dirt and muddy areas that potentially increase injury risks.
Franklin Principal Eran Zeevi said the field is overused and that he has no concerns about an artificial surface impacting the use of the space as the fake grass is still usable for most activities and the school has access to other open spaces on campus.
“There's a lot of, like, potholes, a lot of mud areas, and that causes injuries when it's slippery and there's no grass and it's just mud, we do have quite a bit of injury,” he said.
The approved plan proposes using TenCate Pivot Play synthetic turf or a similar product, which the district describes as the latest generation of artificial playing surfaces. Officials emphasize this newer turf contains no infill materials, complies with California Proposition 65 and international toy standards, and is manufactured without PFAS "forever chemicals."
District materials also claim the synthetic field can be played on "from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., 365 days per year, rain or shine, on an even, well-maintained safe playing surface."
However, a significant number of community members remain unconvinced or outright opposed to the synthetic material. Parents and community members attending the meeting said they didn’t believe the plastic grass was safe, no matter what the manufacturer said, and claimed the surfaces are unsafe.
Critics have circulated a petition urging reconsideration, citing concerns about exposure to microplastics, extreme surface temperatures on sunny days, and potential environmental impacts including microplastic shedding into soil and nearby waterways.
Some opponents suggested converting asphalt areas to green space instead, following an initiative underway in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Others advocated for organic, drought-tolerant natural grass alternatives.
The district responded to the concerns saying the modern synthetic turf has been reformulated to eliminate toxic materials, will be managed through regular cleaning, and reflects "current industry improvements to retain less heat and increase user safety over natural turf."
Boardmembers and staff repeatedly cited the multi-year planning process for the plan and said the current wave of last-minute criticism is something that happens frequently.
“It is a problem that we consistently have, and as a problem we consistently have across the board, where it is hard to get people to pay attention to the projects we're working on,” said Carey Upton, Chief Operations Officer.
Upton said that community meetings draw a few people and that plans are made based on that participation. He said large changes at this point in the process would both delay and increase costs for the project.
Community members at the meeting said the characterization of their lack of participation was insulting and that any approval of the plan should at least delay decisions on the field material.
However, those concerns were largely ignored by the School Board who approved the staff recommendation, including the synthetic field.
“I'm sorry, I know, there are people here who dislike turf. I understand that. I understand it, but I don't believe that our educators would come to us and present something that had not been vetted in any capacity,” said Boardmember Jon Kean who said the material chosen is an educational decision. “If a turf field allows us to educate our children better in the day, then that's what we should do.”
In an attempt to allay fears, the board did direct staff to conduct an independent review of the proposed material’s safety claims. While the Board is not required to alter the plan based on the result of that study, staff said they had about a year to revisit the decision and that swapping to grass is possible even after approving the overall plan.
Aside from the field, the four-phase renovation plan includes removing and demolishing seven permanent buildings, two modulars, and seven portable buildings; constructing seven new buildings; removing approximately 11 ornamental and non-native trees while planting at least 11 new trees.
Officials emphasized that despite the artificial turf, the campus plan anticipates an overall increase in grass and natural areas for play, reflection, and learning, with outdoor learning green space increasing by eight percent.
Implementation of the project will not increase the school's capacity or change attendance boundaries. The district plans to move forward with design and engineering of the first phase immediately, with the remaining three phases occurring when funding becomes available.
The synthetic turf surface is scheduled for replacement every eight to 10 years, with district officials arguing that over a 20-year period, the installation and replacement costs are comparable to maintaining an overused grass field.