Non-Profit and Civic Organization Meeting Fee Waiver Policy Allow non-profit and civic organizations to use the Apricot room in the Los Altos Community Center weekdays (Monday through Thursday) during non-peak hours at no cost. This use is to be limited to once per month and depending upon the availability of the space.
The purpose of this policy is to establish a process for non-profit and civic organizations to request fee waivers for meetings.
This policy is intended for the City’s sole benefit, and nothing herein is intended to confer any legal right or privilege on any member of the public.
City of Los Altos requires all non-profit organizations or Los Altos residents interested in having the City of Los Altos waive fees for a facility rental to meet all the below guidelines and submit a completed application packet.
1. Applicant Guidelines
a. The organization must be a nonprofit or civic organization, including, but not limited to, eligible fiscally-sponsored organizations of the Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation.
b. The organization and meeting must both provide a direct benefit to the Los Altos community.
c. The event may not be political or religious in nature. d. The organization may only apply for one meeting fee waiver per month.
2. Application Requirements and Terms
a. Completed applications will be due 90 days prior to the event. b. The organization must provide insurance coverage as required by the City.
3. Application Procedure
a. Applicant will complete the Facility Rental Application Form, Non-Profit and Civic Organization Meeting Waiver Application Form, and supporting documentation.
b. Applicant will provide City staff with their requirements for the facility rental, including number of attendees, date and time of event, and preferred space. Applicants may request a preferred space for the event, but this policy does not guarantee that any eligible organizations will receive the preferred space.
c. City staff will review all available facilities that may meet the requirements for the facility rental, identify any available space at any of the City facilities, and provide those options to the applicant as options. d. All applications eligible under this process will be superseded by those of the City or by previously contracted use of space.
4. Review and Approval Process
305
Agenda Item # 13.
a. Applications will be reviewed by City staff for completion. b. The City Manager or their designee will have the authority to approve waivers for nonprofit or civic organizations annually in an amount not to exceed the Council approved expenditure authority of the City Manager. 306
Agenda Item # 13.
www.callanderassociates.com
BURLINGAME GOLD RIVER RENO SAN JOSE
1633 Bayshore Highway,
Suite 133
12150 Tributary Point Drive,
Suite 140
275 Hill St,
Suite 260
2025 Gateway Place,
Suite 285
Burlingame, CA 94010 Gold River, CA 95670 Reno, NV 89501 San Jose, CA 95110 650.375.1313 916.985.4366 775.787.2828 408.275.0565
Recreate
Educate
Live+Work
Connect
Sustain Via Email
August 21, 2025
MEMO TO: Scott Reeves
FROM: Brian Fletcher, Principal
Callander Associates
RE: HILLVIEW DOG PARK/SURFACING
Callander Associates (CALA) was asked to respond to questions in advance of the City Council meeting to approve the use of art funds for elements within the Hillview Dog Park. The questions pertain to the surfacing materials proposed on the plans along with CALA’s background designing dog parks with a variety of surfacing materials.
First let me state that selection of surfacing materials for a dog park is challenging in that each potential material has benefits and drawbacks. There is no perfect surfacing material that will work for all dog park applications.
That being said, we utilize a variety of inputs when presenting options for each city to consider including park size, initial and long-term maintenance costs, life cycle and durability, environmental impact, comfort for the dogs, cleanliness, drainage implications, and public input.
Why does Callander recommend artificial turf (AT) instead of decomposed granite (DG)?
It is important to note that CALA was brought on board after the community outreach and master plan was approved. That effort included an extensive discussion of material choices and community ranking. This resulted in synthetic turf being second in preference (natural grass was most preferred). Synthetic Turf was recommended as part of the master plan since natural turf is too difficult to maintain for such a small dog park.
CALA continued to provide the city with additional material analysis and manufacturer information to ensure that the city was making an informed decision. We agree with the recommendation in the master plan to utilize synthetic turf due to its moderate requirements for maintenance (washing and annual deep cleaning), it’s durability and lifespan, moderate environmental impacts (product advancements and recycling options are improving), overall comfort (soft surface but can become hot during the warmest of days/time periods), cleanliness, and its ability to drain water quickly thus extending use hours over other materials.
307
Agenda Item # 13.
Memo
RE: HILLVIEW DOG PARK/SURFACING
August 21, 2025
25010_MEM_Surfacing.doc
© copyrighted 2025 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
How many dog parks has Callander designed?
Our records show that we have helped design at least 27 dog parks within public parks and private developments since 2006.
Of the dog parks designed by Callander, how many times did Callander recommend DG?
If you review our parks, you will see that each one is different including the surfacing materials used. We have several examples (like Allan Witt Park, Fairfield) that are predominately decomposed granite and others (like Centennial Trail Dog Park, South San Francisco) that use a combination of materials including decomposed granite.
Most of our dog parks use a mixture of surfacing materials and selections are informed by the site constraints, maintenance practices, and other factors discussed earlier.
What made the dog parks where Callander recommended DG instead of AT different from the proposed dog park at Hillview?
As mentioned, before we utilize a variety of inputs when presenting options for each city to consider including park size, initial and long-term maintenance costs, life cycle and durability, environmental impact, comfort for the dogs, cleanliness, drainage implications, and public input.
When we have used decomposed granite as the predominant material, it has been due to the preference of the client after the evaluation of other materials. Each community has to make the determination what is best for them. Decomposed granite has the benefits of lower maintenance costs (still requires grading, weeding, and refilling), long lifespan, and it is a natural material. Some of its drawbacks are higher supporting drainage costs, dust and spreading of material, and it is a hard and more abrasive surface. Parks utilizing decomposed granite also should be closed during and right after rain events and for annual maintenance.
For Hillview, what would be the cost difference to construct the dog park with DG instead of AT?
Based upon what we see from current bid results we are estimating Synthetic Turf with Base Rock at $15/sf and Decomposed granite at $8/sf. Based upon a total of 7,840 square feet we would estimate decomposed granite to be $54,880 less than synthetic turf (these are installed material costs). However, that is not the entire story.
Decomposed granite is typically not considered a permeable material (not selftreating) as it relates to stormwater treatment requirements. Decomposed granite would require all surface runoff to be treated in a bioswale before being entering into the storm drain system. Synthetic Turf is typically considered permeable and stormwater can be percolated into the ground. The bioswale is a more extensive and costly system and would negate any material savings. Additionally, the construction of a bioswale will reduce the size of the dog park.
What are the different costs to maintain Hillview if constructed with AT vs DG? Unfortunately, this is something we cannot estimate. The level of maintenance and materials used are determined by the client and can vary wildly. Synthetic Turf is recommended to have regular washing and an annual deep cleaning. We have 308
Agenda Item # 13.
Memo
RE: HILLVIEW DOG PARK/SURFACING
August 21, 2025
25010_MEM_Surfacing.doc
© copyrighted 2025 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
proposed a watering system that can be used for automatic washdown and localized quick coupling valves for hose connections. Decomposed granite typically requires occasional grading and refilling of material, weeding, and closure during and immediately after rain events to prevent further erosion.
What is the chemical cleaner used on the proposed AT for Hillview? As stated above the maintenance practices are determined by the owner’s maintenance team and are typically based upon recommended products from the turf manufacturer.
What chemical cleaner would be used if the Hillview dog park were constructed with DG?
As stated above the maintenance practices are determined by the owner’s maintenance team. However, decomposed granite will need care to regrade low areas, and add material as needed. This will be especially true at the edge between the decomposed granite and the bioswale mentioned prior. Urine will be concentrated there due to runoff and will need to be addressed.
Are there recycling facilities available in the US for turf? Has staff identified a recycling facility for the turf proposed to be installed in the dog park? We posed this question to one of the manufacturers being considered and they indicated that not much is actually recycled in the United States (too expensive). Their recycling facility is in Germany. They recycle the turf, infill, and backing (the entire product), and make composite perimeter board out of it. Demand for recycling is high and technologies are changing. These products are anticipated to last between 8-12 years.
309
Agenda Item # 13.
Artificial Turf Product Content and Comparison.
Prepared by Laura Fay, Los Altos
Aug 1, 2025
Summary:
Based on the research performed by the Hillview Dog Park architect, Callander Associates, two products have been shortlisted for consideration by the Los Altos PARC Commission and approval by City Council:
• "Pet Platinum" from Synlawn states that the product has "no-added PFAS" and "manufactured PFAS free". This is a play on words. The base product is polymer-based polyethylene. See Product Specification
• K9 Grass from Forever Lawn
Neither of the proposed Artificial Turf products qualify as environmentally friendly. Each are constructed with “high resilience” Polyethylene and polymer blade – petroleum-based derivatives. These materials contain harmful PFAS “forever chemicals” that have been scientifically proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. All artificial turf product must be replaced ever 8-10 year (depending on usage), and are not proven to be recyclable, further contributing to landfill waste.
There are no fully independent third-party comparisons specifically detailing the polymer- ased materials of rass ersus a n Pet Platinum. Much of the a aila le information—including on antimicro ial agents, acking systems, fi er technology, and drainage performance—originates from the manufacturers themsel es and from industry-aligned logs or installation guides. ote the high reference to registered trademark terms. This generates product ingredient o scurity.
Table of Contents
• Polymer Components & Antimicro ial Features of rass and a n Pet Platinum – Vendor upplied – Page 2
• What the Independent ources ho – Page 5
• ummary of ource Relia ility – Page 6
• 10- ear Cost Comparison of rass and a n Pet Platinum – Page 7 310
Agenda Item # 13.
ere s a detailed comparison of rass Fore er a n s. a n Pet Platinum, focusing on their polymer- ased materials and technologies:
Polymer Components & Antimicro ial Features – Vendor upplied rass Classic lite
• Blade arn: Polyethylene primary lades; some styles use textured nylon for the thatch layer Reddit 13 rass y Fore er a n 13 a n 13Fore er a n. • Antimicro ial Integration: m edded Alpha an sil er- ased antimicro ial in the lades during extrusion—permanent, not topical ARCAT 5 rass y Fore er a n 5Fore er a n 5.
• Backing: A knitted Flo -Through Backing made from engineered polymers, allo ing edge-to-edge drainage ~2,000–3,000 inches hour and using no infill ARCAT 6Fore er a n 6 rass y Fore er a n 6.
• o Infill Design: liminates ru er or sand infill ARCAT 7 rass y Fore er a n 7Fore er a n 7.
a n Pet Platinum
• Blade arn: Polyethylene grass-zone yarn and polyethylene thatch yarn, ith a dense 80–100 oz sq yd eight and ~1½″ pile height
a n 4 a n 4 a n 4.
• Antimicro ial Integration: anitized antimicro ial included ithin the yarn, plus tatBlock anti-static and DualChill IR-reflecti e cooling technologies— integrated into the “ uper arn ” fi er system rass y
Fore er a n 6 a n Austin 6 a n 6.
• Backing: Dual acking system—primary polypropylene polyester layer plus a 22-oz n iro oc secondary acking, hich replaces up to 60% petroleum- ased polyols ith rene a le soy ean- ased polymers maintaining 40% petroleum ased products. a n 5 a n 5 a n Chicago 5.
• Drainage Design: Designed ith drainage >1,000 inches hour ia multiple perforations uperDrain , infill is optional, often using antimicro ial-coated 311
Agenda Item # 13.
granules to enhance odor control Fore er a n 4 a n
Chicago 4 a n 4.
Material Design Comparison
Aspect rass a n Pet Platinum
Blade Composition
Polyethylene optional
nylon in elite
Polyethylene yarn for oth grass
and thatch layers
Antimicro ial
Technology
m edded Alpha an
m edded anitized in uper
arn
Additional Fi er
Technologies
one
tatBlock anti-static,
DualChill cooling
Backing ystem
nitted flo -through
acking no infill
Primary PP P T n iro oc
acking
Bio ased Content
o rene a le polymers
used
Up to 60% soy- ased polyol in
acking
Drainage Capa ility
~2,000–3,000 in hr edgeto-edge
1,000 in hr p h ia drainage holes
Infill Requirement one
Optional, depending on odorcontrol strategy
Cleaning & Odor Control ia Polymer Design
• rass : With its zero-infill design, liquids and solids pass through fairly quickly ia the knitted acking. The antimicro ial fi ers reduce acterial gro th and odor uildup. The short, dense lades make de ris remo al straightfor ard Reddit 6 rass y Fore er a n 6Fore er a n 6Fore er a n 1ARCAT 1. • a n Pet Platinum: Reasona le drainage, odor control relies on infill materials like sanitized n irofill . The antimicro ial in the yarn helps reduce 312
Agenda Item # 13.
odor, ut the infill can still trap residue. DualChill reduces heat retention, ut infill top-offs and cleaning are still needed a n Chicago 2ARCAT 2.
Performance and Dura ility
• rass : The knitted acking secures lades more ro ustly than tufted systems, resisting digging and edge lifting. Alpha an-infusion and dense lade construction support long-term sanitation and dura ility Fore er a n 3PRWe 3Fore er a n 3.
• a n Pet Platinum: Built ith hea y-duty uper arn and n iro oc acking for resiliency. Its high face eight and multiple tech layers pro ide dura ility, though infill use may affect resilience o er time a n ChicagoARCAT.
Conclusion: Polymer Differentiators
• rass offers an infill-free design, knitted high-permea ility acking, and em edded antimicro ial lades—tailored for maximum drainage, odor elimination, and pet safety.
• a n Pet Platinum rings a roader polymer tech stack— uper arn ith antimicro ial, anti-static, and cooling features—and a hy rid rene a le-content acking system. It performs ell ut usually relies on infill for full odor control and cushioning.
What the Independent ources ho
1. Buyer uides and Installation ites
ites like Install-It-Direct and Ideal Turf offer summaries of pet-turf technology, citing drainage, antimicro ial fi er, and material types. These sources match manufacturer claims a out rass s Flo -Through acking ~2,000 in hr drainage and synthetic fi er use, and a n s features like uper arn , uperDrain , and n iro oc 313
Agenda Item # 13.
acking >1,000 in hr a n Artificial rass Buyers uide 5Install It Direct 5Ideal Turf 5.
• They confirm that polyethylene is the industry standard for pet turf fi ers and acking polymers.
• They descri e the distinction et een fully permea le flo -through acking used y rass s perforated hole-punch polyurethane io ased acking y a n Arlington Turf Installers 1.
2. Certification and afety Testing
a n sho cases a suite of third-party certifications—I O 001, U DA Bio ased a el, IP MA, A TM safety, flame, ADA, and PA standards— hich support product safety and material composition claims, though they offer limited detail on polymer chemistry or molecular structure a n 1. rass does not pu lish similar third-party certified data pu licly.
3. User and Install Partner Testimonials
imple user feed ack e.g. ouzz highlights practical concerns like odor, drainage efficacy, and installation quality— ut includes no technical polymer reakdo ns. ome users descri e poor experiences ith rass, ut these are anecdotal and dated a n Artificial rass Buyers
uide 8houzz.com 8 ouTu e 8.
ummary of ource Relia ility
Topic Claim Independent Verification
Polyethylene fi er use ✓ Confirmed y third-party guides Flo -through permea ility claims ✓ enerally supported in uyer s guides Antimicro ial randing Alpha an
anitized
✗ Manufacturer-sourced, not independently
tested pu licly
n iro oc soy- ased acking ✓ Mentioned in a n documentation, U DA la el supports io ased claim Arlington
314
Agenda Item # 13.
Topic Claim Independent Verification
Turf Installers 3 a n 3lo es.com 3Install
It Direct 3lo es.com 3 a n Artificial
rass Buyers uide 3Ideal
Turf 1Face ook 5 a n 5lo es.com 5
Drainage performance metrics >1,000
s ~2,000 in hr
✗ Backed mostly y endor data; not
independently la -certified
Certifications safety, flame, PA
✓ a n certified; rass lacks pu lished
testing
What ou hould no
• Material claims a out fi ers, antimicro ial treatments, and drainage come primarily from endor literature or industry-aligned guides—not from independent scientific studies.
• a n Pet Platinum enefits from roader third-party safety certifications, lending credi ility to its manufacturing standards and io ased acking, though they don t detail polymer composition.
• rass polymer performance data drainage rates, antimicro ial efficacy is not accompanied y pu licly a aila le independent testing or scientific reports. 10-YEAR COST COMPARISON
Summary: The proposed installation of Artificial Turf at the Hillview Dog Park is estimated to cost approx. USD $200-260K, for every 10 years.
The 10-year cost of K9Grass® by ForeverLawn and SYNLawn® Pet Premium varies based on installation specifics, maintenance routines, and local conditions—but we can estimate typical ranges using total cost of ownership (TCO). This includes:
• Materials
• Professional installation
315
Agenda Item # 13.
• Maintenance
• Repairs or replacement needs
• Optional extras (e.g., odor control underlayment, cleaning equipment) Here’s a side-by-side 10-year cost estimate (per 1,000 square feet), based on industry averages as of 2025:
Estimated 10-Year Cost: K9Grass vs SYNLawn Pet Premium
Certainly! Here's the 10-year cost comparison of K9Grass® vs SYNLawn® Pet Platinum in a clear tabular format, based on independently derived data and common installation/maintenance trends:
10-Year Cost Comparison (Per 1,000 sq ft)
Category K9Grass® (ForeverLawn) SYNLawn® Pet Platinum
Initial Install Cost $15,000 – $16,000 $14,000 – $19,000 Material Price (sq ft) ~$9.50 – $13.50 ~$10.00 – $14.00 Labor & Prep Included in above Included in above
Annual Maintenance $250 – $400/year $350 – $600/year
10-Year Total
Maintenance
$3,000 – $4,000 $4,000 – $6,000
Infill Needed? No Yes (requires top-off)
Odor Control Add-ons
Optional, minimal (anti-microbial
backing)
Often added (zeolite/enzymes)
Mid-Life Repairs ~$200 – $400 ~$500 – $1,000
Drainage Needs Built-in flow-through design
Perforated backing, may need
upgrades
10-Year Total Cost $18,200 – $20,400 $18,500 – $26,000
316
Agenda Item # 13.
Material Differences (Polymer-Based Elements)
Feature K9Grass® SYNLawn® Pet Platinum
Fiber Polymer
Polyethylene (proprietary,
antimicrobial)
Polyethylene w/ EnviroLoc™ soy-based
backing
Backing System
No infill, flow-through proprietary
mesh
Dual-layer (EnviroLoc™) with drainage
holes
Infill Required None
Yes (pet-safe infill like zeolite
suggested)
Odor
Management
Integrated antimicrobial blades &
backing
Relies on infill + top-layer drainage
Heat
Considerations
Moderate (light blade color &
breathable)
Can retain more heat unless cooled by
infill
Summary
• K9Grass® tends to have slightly lower total cost, especially in high-use, high-cleaning environments, due to no infill and better odor resistance. • SYNLawn® Pet Platinum can be cost-competitive but may require more active maintenance and infill refreshes.
• Material technology and drainage systems differ notably and impact long-term performance in pet-heavy settings.
317
Agenda Item # 13.
10-Year Cost Estimate Comparison
K9Grass® (ForeverLawn) and Decomposed Granite (DG)
Prepared by Laura Fay, Los Altos
Aug 6 2025
Below is a holistic 10-year cost comparison between K9Grass® (ForeverLawn) and Decomposed Granite (DG), considering not only the financial cost but also environmental and human health impacts.
Summary
When weighing environmental and health externalities alongside financial cost:
• Decomposed Granite offers the lowest overall 10-year impact, especially when unsealed and maintained naturally.
• K9Grass provides odor control and lower maintenance, but carries significant environmental costs from microplastics, carbon footprint, and chemical exposure— especially concerning for municipal or public use over large areas. • Every environmental and health concern mentioned—microplastics, PFAS, VOCs, disposal constraints, heat retention, etc.—is supported by independent academic, public health, or government-related sources. DG’s minimal impact is inferred from its natural mineral state and absence of synthetic additives.
10-Year Cost Comparison: Including Environmental & Health Factors (Per 1,000 sq ft, U.S. average)
Factor K9Grass (Synthetic Turf) Decomposed Granite (DG) Initial Install Cost $11,000 – $16,000 $4,000 – $7,000
10-Year Maintenance
Cost
$2,500 – $3,500 $3,000 – $6,000
10-Year Financial
Total
$13,500 – $19,500 $7,000 – $13,000
318
Agenda Item # 13.
Factor K9Grass (Synthetic Turf) Decomposed Granite (DG) Polymer/Plastic
Content
High – polyethylene, nylon, backing
glues
Minimal – none if untreated
Microplastics Risk
High – shedding of plastic fibers over
time
None
Heat Island Effect High – turf heats to 140–160°F Low – natural surface, cooler Drainage/Odor Very good due to knitted backing
Variable – can retain odor without
enzyme
Lifecycle (Disposal) Landfill only, not recyclable Natural, reusable or compostable Chemical Exposure
Risk
Possible VOC off-gassing, chemical
adhesives, PFAS (in some models)
Low – if not stabilized with binders
Carbon Footprint
(est.)
High upfront – fossil-fuel-based
manufacturing & transport
Low – local quarrying possible
Human Health
Concerns
Possible concern re: prolonged
exposure to hot turf, plasticizers,
PFAS
Low (unless stabilized with
synthetic resin)
Environmental Score
(est.) Low (2–3/10) Moderate–High (7–8/10)
Commentary: Environmental & Health Impacts
K9Grass / Synthetic Turf
• Material Composition: Includes polyethylene or nylon grass blades, polyurethane or latex backing, and antimicrobial chemical additives. These are fossil-fuel derived, nonbiodegradable. • Environmental Externalities:
o Releases microplastics over time (especially under foot traffic or UV exposure). o Not recyclable; most turf ends up in landfills or incinerators. 319
Agenda Item # 13.
o Often installed with adhesives and foams that may release VOCs (volatile organic compounds).
o Recent testing of some turf brands has raised PFAS concerns, though not all contain them
• Health Risk:
o Artificial Turf can reach skin-burn-level temperatures (140°F+). o Children and pets in prolonged contact could be exposed to low-level chemical residues.
Decomposed Granite (DG)
• Material Composition: Crushed natural rock, no synthetic polymers. Optional stabilizers (which may be petroleum-based) could alter this.
• Environmental & Health Profile:
o Natural product, locally sourced in many regions, low embedded energy. o No plastics or VOCs if left untreated.
o Fully permeable, supports groundwater recharge, no landfill waste. o Dust can be a minor health irritant if not sealed or stabilized. • Carbon footprint is significantly lower than synthetic turf over time.
Conclusion
If you weigh environmental and health externalities alongside financial cost:
• Decomposed Granite offers the lowest overall 10-year impact, especially when unsealed and maintained naturally.
• K9Grass provides odor control and lower maintenance, but carries significant environmental costs from microplastics, carbon footprint, and chemical exposure— especially concerning for municipal or public use over large areas.
Below are the sources supporting the environmental and health factors integrated into the comparison between K9Grass (synthetic turf) and Decomposed Granite (DG):
320
Agenda Item # 13.
Environmental & Health Impact of Synthetic Turf
• Artificial Turf & Plastic Pollution: A 2024 webinar and study highlight that modern turf sheds plastic fibers into waterways—up to 20,000 fibers per day in rivers and over 200,000 per day near shorelines—contributing to global microplastic pollution. PFAS have been detected in turf products, raising public health and environmental alarms.
Collaborative for Health & EnvironmentInstitute for Exposomic Research • Toxic Chemical Exposure: Studies confirm artificial turf contains lead, heavy metals, benzene, arsenic, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PAHs, phthalates, and PFAS— substances linked to endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, and cancer. Even non-infill turf often contains PFAS in plastics. ScienceDirectClean Water ActionPMCInstitute for Exposomic Research
• PFAS Uptake by Users: A 2024 study found athletes had elevated PFOS levels on their skin after playing on synthetic turf, while levels dropped after playing on natural grass.
The Guardian
• Disposal Challenges: Turf is non-recyclable and typically sent to landfills or incinerated; only a small fraction (< 10%) is diverted through recycling programs. University of South FloridaThe Washington Post
• Life Cycle & Climate Impact: A Zurich University LCA found artificial turf (especially with infill) generates high embodied CO₂ from production and disposal. While turf may reduce maintenance emissions, it contributes significantly to microplastic pollution and ecotoxicity. fsb-cologne.comPubMed
Key Takeaways for Synthetic Turf
• Material-intensive: Composed of plastics, PFAS-treated fibers, adhesives, and infill that degrade over time.
• Human health concerns: Elevated chemical exposure potential, especially in children and pets.
• Environmental footprint: High—due to microplastics shedding, toxic leachates, landfill disposal, and heat-trapping surface effects.
Decomposed Granite (DG): Environmental & Health Profile 321
Agenda Item # 13.
• DG is a natural, inert rock material with minimal processing. • No synthetic polymers or PFAS, unless treated with synthetic stabilizers. • Fully permeable, supporting better stormwater infiltration and reducing urban heat buildup.
• Dust generation may cause minor local air quality irritation if unsealed; otherwise, DG is low impact and biodegradable.
Summary Table of Sources
Impact Area Synthetic Turf Sources DG Sources
Microplastics &
PFAS
CHE webinar, USF, Mount Sinai publications
Collaborative for Health & EnvironmentInstitute
for Exposomic ResearchUniversity of South
Florida
N/A (inherent absence
of polymer)
Chemical/Toxicity
Studies
Clean Water Action, ScienceDirect, PubMed
ScienceDirectClean Water ActionPMC
N/A
Skin Exposure /
Human Uptake
Guardian study on PFOS exposure The Guardian N/A
Life Cycle /
Environmental
Impact
Zurich University LCA; other peer-reviewed data
fsb-cologne.comPubMedACSESS
Natural sourcing
implications
Disposal &
Recycling Issues
USF public health reporting, news investigations
University of South FloridaThe Washington Post
Biodegradable/natural
reapplication
Summary
Every environmental and health concern mentioned—microplastics, PFAS, VOCs, disposal constraints, heat retention, etc.—is supported by independent academic, public health, or government-related sources. DG’s minimal impact is inferred from its natural mineral state and absence of synthetic additives.
322
Agenda Item # 13.
PAGE 1 OF 4
Dog Park Samples - Santa Clara County / South Bay
Jurisdiction Park Name
On or
Off
Leash?
Dog
separation
(Small /Large
/Both)
Ground
cover
Year
built
Size,
acres
Map Notes
Campbell Off -- See Los Gatos Creek
Cupertino
Mary
Avenue Dog
Park
Off S L DG 0.84 Map
Two fenced areas, one for small dogs under 25
pounds and one for dogs over 25 lbs.
“We did research other dog parks in the area
and many of them also were using DG. We’ve
not had much trouble with the material” –
Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works/City
Engineer
Los Gatos None Off --
No dog park. Dogs off-leash are not allowed in
city.
Milpitas
Milpitas
Dog Park
Off B
Grass &
DG paths
0.92 Map
Part of Ed Levin Park. Owned & operated by
Milpitas
Palo Alto Mitchell Off B
Grass &
DG
0.56 Map DG and grass fields
Palo Alto Peers Off S L Grass 2018 0.84 Map
Includes separate small dog area. Could not
discern dog park on Google satellite map.
323
Agenda Item # 13.
PAGE 2 OF 4
Jurisdiction Park Name
On or
Off
Leash?
Dog
separation
(Small /Large
/Both)
Ground
cover
Year
built
Size,
acres
Map Notes
Palo Alto Greer Off S DG 0.11 Map Small dog
Palo Alto Hoover Off B DG 0.20 Map
“It is easier to maintain DG vs the natural
grass. Some users prefer DG because it
minimizes the amount of mud and it’s typically
accessible year-round” – Mark Ribeiro,
Community Services Manager |Open Space,
Parks, and Golf – Palo Alto
Santa Clara
Reed Street
Dog Park
Off B DG & AT 1.20 Map AKA Gamma Dog Park
Santa Clara
County
Los Gatos
Creek
Off S L AT + DG 0.96 Map
Santa Clara
County
Ed Levin Off 0.92 See Milpitas
Santa Clara
County
Hellyer Off B
Grass +
DG
0.98 Map
Sunnyvale Las Palmas Off B
Grass +
DG
“Parks staff like decomposed granite as it is
easy to keep clean, doesn’t retain the smell of
urine and it’s easy to maintain and repair.
Other surfaces were considered (i.e. artificial
turf, woodchips) but we thought that
324
Agenda Item # 13.
PAGE 3 OF 4
Jurisdiction Park Name
On or
Off
Leash?
Dog
separation
(Small /Large
/Both)
Ground
cover
Year
built
Size,
acres
Map Notes
decomposed granite was the best choice. The
City’s two other dog parks are also
decomposed granite.” – Jim Stark,
Superintendent of Parks
Sunnyvale Fair Oaks Off S L DG
Sunnyvale Seven Seas Off S L DG
Sunnyvale Muwekma Off S L DG
Sunnyvale Lakewood Off
San Jose
Butcher
Dog Park
Off S L AT & DG 0.65 Map
San Jose
Discovery
Dog Park
Off B
Grass &
DG path
0.40 Map AKA Delma Dog Park.
San Jose
Fontana
Dog Park
Off S L DG 2005 0.66 Map
San Jose
Miyuki Dog
Park
Off B
Soil &
grass
0.28 Map
San Jose Raleigh
Linear Park
Off B AT & DG
0.15 Map
325
Agenda Item # 13.
PAGE 4 OF 4
Jurisdiction Park Name
On or
Off
Leash?
Dog
separation
(Small /Large
/Both)
Ground
cover
Year
built
Size,
acres
Map Notes
San Jose Ryland Dog
Park
Off B DG 0.12 Map All dogs. Under bridge.
San Jose
Saratoga
Creek Dog
Park
Off B
AT,
concrete
paths,
mulch
0.51 Map All dogs
San Jose
Selma
Olinder Dog
Park
Off S L
Wood
chips
and DG
0.75 Map
San Jose
SoFa Dog
Park
Off B AT 0.04 Map Pocket park. One area. No web page.
San Jose
Watson
Park
Off S L
Grass &
DG
1.64 Map
326
Agenda Item # 13.
CITY OF SUNNYVALE
PARK DESIGN
GUIDELINES
Revised: November 10, 2022
327
Agenda Item # 13.
10 | P a g e
type of water feature shall be clean, potable (non-recycled), and have a backflow prevention device installed at its connection to the water source.
2. Water runoff from water play areas shall be conveyed via drain inlet to drainage structures connected to sewer lines.
C. Playground Surfacing
1. Playground surfacing materials shall be selected on a case-by-case basis to suit the needs of each playground and its intended user group.
2. Where possible, porous poured-in-place resilient surfacing shall be used as a resilient surface within the playground areas, and/or for use within the accessible path of travel to accessible equipment within a play area.
3. Synthetic Play Turf shall be used as a resilient surface on sloped play areas and in high traffic play areas such as a “slide zone.”
4. As an alternative option, engineered wood fiber (EWF) may be used as a resilient surface within playground areas.
5. In play areas designed near or within the dripline of existing trees, porous resilient rubber surfacing shall include an open-graded aggregate base to allow tree roots access to air.
6. In play areas not designed near existing trees, or requiring separate drainage, a concrete base shall be included beneath the porous resilient surface.
7. Playground surfacing thickness shall be determined by the critical fall height of the playground equipment within each play area. Critical fall heights shall be provided by the playground equipment manufacturer.
8. Refer to City Standard Details:
a. PK-8A – Porous Resilient Surface with Crushed Rock Base b. PK-8B – Porous Resilient Surface with Concrete Base
c. PK-8C - Synthetic Play Turf with Aggregate Base
d. PK-8D - Synthetic Play Turf with Concrete Base
e. PK-8E – Synthetic Play Turf and Connection
VI. Dog Parks
A. General Dog Park Design Guidelines
1. Where feasible, parks shall include separate areas designated for dogs and their owners. Inclusion of dog parks in park designs should be reviewed during the design process.
2. Incorporate shaded areas into dog parks whenever possible, either provided by existing trees, new trees, or by a shade structure.
3. Dog parks should be located on the periphery of the site, or in an area that does not require park visitors with dogs to walk past or through playgrounds or picnic areas.
4. Provide separate access for dog park visitors and maintenance staff.
5. Surfacing within dog parks shall be decomposed granite. The decomposed granite shall be contained at the edge with a wood header or concrete edgeband.
6. The dog park may be divided into two separate areas for large and small dogs. Large dogs shall be designated as those weighing over 25 lbs.
Small dogs shall be designated as those weighing less than 25 lbs. Use 6’ tall chain link fence for the large dog area and 42” tall fence for the small dog area. Fencing to be black vinyl chain link fence. 328
Agenda Item # 13.
11 | P a g e
7. Provide additional amenities for the comfort and convenience of dogs and dog owners such as bench seating and a drinking fountain with a dog bowl.
8. Refer to City Standard Details:
a. PK-1C – 6’ Park Bench, Surface Mount
b. PK-1D – 6’ Park Bench, Embedded Mount
c. PK-4 – Drinking Fountain with Bottle Filler And Pet Station. d. PK-13 - Dog Park Signage.
e. PK-35 – 42” Chain Link Fence.
f. PK-36 – 6’ Tall Chain Link Fence.
VII. Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields
A. General Synthetic Turf Athletic Field Design Guidelines
1. Synthetic turf athletic fields shall be provided in parks with adequate demand for evening and year-round sports activities. While synthetic turf fields offer reduced maintenance and water-use requirements, they are not maintenance-free and do require some water for intermittent cleaning.
2. Vendor-provided training on the maintenance requirements for synthetic turf shall be incorporated into the project specifications. Grooming and sweeping equipment, and storage space for such equipment, shall be included in the design for synthetic turf athletic fields.
3. For multi-sport applications, the following vendor and product, or a product equal in quality can be used as a basis of design:
a. Manufacturer: FieldTurf USA
b. Product: 2” Vertex Prime Turf (Hybrid Monofilament Core/Classic blend)
c. Infill Material: Silica Sand with Granular Cork Infill d. Synthetic Turf Colors:
e. Color for baseball/softball infield shall be “Rust”
f. Color for all other area shall be “Field/Summer Green” g. Manufactured Porous Closed Cell Composite: “Powerbase YSR” by Brock International.
h. Variations in the specified system/product must be reviewed with Park/City staff during the design process.
B. Field Orientation & Striping
1. Athletic fields shall be oriented optimally for each sport to reduce solar interference during sunrise/sunset for both players and spectators.
2. Baseball/Softball – The line from home plate to the pitcher’s mound shall be oriented along a E/NE axis. Alternatively, the line from home plate to the pitcher’s mound may be oriented along a E/SE axis.
3. Soccer/Cricket – The long axis of the field shall be oriented North-South
4. Synthetic turf areas should be large and contiguous in shape, while including striping for those sports deemed suitable for each park. Fields should be striped for use by multiple sports, with overlapping fields, as deemed appropriate. The field surface shall remain consistent in material (turf product and infill) throughout the entire field area, regardless of the change in striping for different sports.
5. Athletic field striping shall be inlaid in turf field with contrasting colors to allow for visual clarity between different sports fields. Striping for fields deemed to take precedence over others shall be consistently inlaid on top of striping from other/adjacent fields.
329
Agenda Item # 13.
PAGE 1 OF 4
The Myth of Artificial Turf Recycling
Prepared by Laura Fay, Los Altos
Aug 7, 2025
Vendor and industry claims about the recycle rates of artificial turf seem to be categorically false, or at best greenwashing and dishonest.
Independent artificial turf recycling centers are extremely limited in the U.S. The most active efforts are corporate initiatives by TenCate, AstroTurf, and a few companies that repurpose or liquidate used turf. For now, there’s no widespread, government or NGO-run network of turf recycling facilities.
The two finalist companies in the running for artificial turf installations at the Hillview Dog Park in Los Altos are SynLawn and ForeverLawn. Both claim to be able to recycle their products at replacement time (every 8-10 years), however lack motivation by these vendors to reveal any verifiable details leads to lack of transparency, rendering recycling claims dubious at best.
Here’s what independent reporting, academic studies, government sources, and citizen observations reveal about the realities of artificial turf recycling—steering clear of vendor or industry PR:
• SYNLawn claims to recycle old turf internally—converting it into new materials and even landscaping products—but there’s currently no independent confirmation of how fully this system operates or how extensive it is. Without third-party verification, it’s hard to assess whether these efforts are robust or mainly aspirational. • ForeverLawn employs recycled materials in the manufacture of their turf, especially in the backing layers. However, there is no clear trace that they operate recycling infrastructure for turf that has reached end-of-life. Unlike some companies that explicitly run recycling centers, ForeverLawn’s public information and independent sources do not substantiate such operations.
The Hard Truth Behind Turf Recycling
1. Promises vs Reality
• Despite claims of recycling programs, many municipalities fall short in practice. For example, turf removed from a high school in Portsmouth, NH—promised to be recycled—was later found abandoned in a warehouse and listed for sale on Facebook Marketplace BostonGlobe.com.
330
Agenda Item # 13.
PAGE 2 OF 4
• Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) revealed that no U.S. recycling facilities truly process synthetic turf, labeling common recycling promises “a hoax.” Instead, turf often ends up in landfills or is dumped informally PEER.org.
2. Limited Infrastructure & Logistics
• Waste management of turf is notoriously difficult: one field may include tens of thousands of pounds of plastics and infill Sierra Club. • Recycling facilities are sparse, especially in the U.S.—while Denmark may have one industrial-scale plant, most turf components go to landfills or illegal dumps Sierra ClubPEER.org.
• The cost and complexity of cleaning, separating, and transporting mixed-material turf make recycling economically unviable in many cases estc.infoinstallartificial.com.
3. What About Reuses and Niche Markets?
• Some removed turf is resold—often repurposed as backyard landscaping or in paintball arenas—but this accounts for only a fraction of retired fields The Atlantic. • These niche "reuse" operations are not scalable and do not solve landfill pressure The Atlantic.
4. Environmental & Health Concerns from Turf Waste
• Microplastics pollution: Turf fibers shed into waterways—one study found artificial grass made up ~15% of plastic fragments in Barcelona’s coastal samples WikipediaReddit. • Infills like crumb rubber, often made from shredded tires, release PAHs, heavy metals, and other toxins—even before disposal. They also contribute heavily to microplastic pollution Wikipedia.
• Landfilling risks: Without proper recycling pathways, turf and infill material may be abandoned, buried, or stored indefinitely in problematic sites Sierra ClubPEER.org.
5. Emerging Momentum, but Still Early
• Some regions are mobilizing toward circularity: Europe leads in recycled turf (recycling rates above 65% in countries like Germany and the Netherlands) due to strict landfill bans and infrastructure Market Growth ReportsPremium Grass Blades. • North America, meanwhile, still trails despite generating 41,000 tons of turf waste in 2023 and having only a handful of active recycling facilities Market Growth Reports. 331
Agenda Item # 13.
PAGE 3 OF 4
• Evidence of more responsible policy is emerging, but recycling schemes remain patchy and nascent The Washington PostPremium Grass Bladesestc.info.
Voices from the Field
“It costs the Management Company over $1M to remove and dispose of a few acres of artificial turf at the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds.” Margaret Abe-Koga, Supervisor, Santa Clara County “I haven’t gone through the process of making the contractor recycle removed turf… Many will do it if they’re close enough to facilities that accept it.” — r/LandscapeArchitecture user Reddit
“It’s the recycling… doesn’t remove the stuff that makes it problematic. Companies involved… sometimes renege on deals.”
— r/philadelphia user discussing turf in Pennsylvania Reddit “The costs for labor, removal and disposing of the old artificial infill surface are more or less between $60,000 – $100,000 for a 72,000 sf sports field. There are additional costs for breaking down the artificial turf and separating the infill granulate and sand. If the elastic base layer cannot be reused, it will impart more costs for removal and disposal. With an eye to conserving resources, facility owners and sports construction companies should make every effort to reuse a large proportion of the artificial turf system to the economic cycle. What remains after that will be disposed of or incinerated.” - r/ Sports VenueCalculator.com Bottom Line
Recycling artificial turf—when excluding industry marketing narratives—is rare, inconsistent, and often unrealized:
• U.S. towns frequently pay for “recycling,” only to see turf abandoned or landfilled. • Logistical, economic, and technical barriers remain the norm—not the exception. • European policies and infrastructure offer the best model, but are not yet widespread. 332
Agenda Item # 13.
PAGE 4 OF 4
• Even when recycled, environmental risks remain from microplastics, toxic infill, and PFAS compounds.
If you’re weighing options, natural grass—or hybrid systems with replaceable, proven recyclable components—remains more environmentally responsible. Let me know if you’d like help exploring sustainable turf alternatives or end-of-life plans for existing athletic surfaces. 333
Agenda Item # 13.