7 9
8 8
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Community Services
Meeting Date: November 17, 2025
Report #:2508-5070
TITLE
Approval of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems: Findings and Recommendation for El Camino Park Synthetic Turf Replacement as Recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission; CEQA status - categorically and statutorily exempt.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council:
1. Receive and accept the findings and recommendations of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems for the City of Palo Alto Playing Fields (Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D, Appendix E, Appendix F); and
2. Direct staff to proceed with replacement of the synthetic turf at El Camino Park in a manner consistent with the Study’s findings and recommendations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Study and Assessment of Turf Systems for the City of Palo Alto Playing Fields provides a comprehensive evaluation of synthetic, natural, and hybrid turf systems with respect to playability, environmental health, cost efficiency, and community priorities. The purpose of the study was to inform future turf replacement decisions, particularly for El Camino Park, where the existing synthetic field has reached the end of its service life.
Following an extensive data analysis and robust stakeholder engagement process, findings indicate that synthetic turf offers the most reliable and cost-effective option for maintaining field capacity and equitable community access at heavily programmed locations, while natural grass systems present opportunities for long-term improvement through a focused pilot program. Based on these findings, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Study and direct staff to proceed with resurfacing El Camino Park with synthetic turf consistent with current environmental standards and best practices, while advancing a parallel pilot to enhance natural grass field performance citywide.
7 9
8 8
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto’s Community Services Department manages natural and synthetic athletic fields citywide, including El Camino Park, Stanford-Palo Alto Playing Fields (Mayfield), and Cubberley Community Center. The synthetic field at El Camino Park is at its end of life and requires replacement.
A Capital Improvement Project (PG-24000) to replace El Camino Park’s synthetic turf was included in the FY 2024 Adopted Capital Budget. However, at the Finance Committee’s May 21, 20241 meeting recommended the City Council direct staff to conduct additional study to provide informed decisions on future field selections. Focusing on the environmental, health, safety, and cost impacts of synthetic and natural turf, the study was incorporated into the FY 2025 Budget2.
Additionally, the replacement of El Camino Park’s synthetic turf was placed on hold pending the study’s findings. Replacement of the Stanford-Palo Alto Community Playing Fields (PG-26000) was approved June 9, 20253, and is currently underway with completion anticipated in December, 2025. This phased approach helps maintain field availability while the study progresses. The goal is to provide the City Council with the necessary data needed to make informed decisions about future field installations and renovations. The report includes sixteen sections encompassing acknowledgments, background, community feedback, data analysis, and topic-specific findings. These sections address playability, life cycle costs, health and environmental impacts, City park inventory and field availability, a case study of El Camino Park, and supporting materials such as a glossary, references, and appendices.
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors considered prohibiting new installation of synthetic turf on County property in January 2025. The report included a Public Health Department Review of Scientific Literature of the potential health risks associated with artificial turf.4. To avoid duplication of effort, the City’s scope of work was adjusted to incorporate the County’s findings on environmental and health impacts. The community engagement and maintenance components of the study were conducted by City staff. This item was first scheduled to be discussed at the August 26, 2025 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting5, 1 Finance Committee, May 21, 2024; Agenda Item #1; SR# 2402-2664, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=0&type=7&uid=543c404f-2b05-4cbb-b9df-75ffb768545d 2 City Council, June 17, 2024; Agenda Item #28; SR# 2406-3140, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=73983&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=004d1d0a-4344-4816- ab2d-c044073c40cb
3 City Council, June 9, 2025; Agenda Item #9; SR #2501-3998, https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=182834&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=a59660f1-1e15-47f0- beac-c9d5573bbaab
4 Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, January 28, 2025, Agenda Item #13, SR# 122722; https://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=16789 5 Parks and Recreation Commission, August 26, 2025, Agenda Item #6, SR# 2508-5075, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17508 7 9
8 8
however,only public comment was heard due to the late hour, and this item was placed the following month’s agenda.
On September 23, 202511, the Parks and Recreation Commission heard a staff presentation, reviewed the Draft Turf Study and provided feedback. On October 28, 202512 an updated draft returned to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a recommendation to the City Council.
ANALYSIS
Following the September Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and community feedback received during the public comment phase, staff and the consultant refined the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems for the City of Palo Alto Playing Fields to clarify methodologies, strengthen environmental and health findings, and improve overall readability. These refinements did not alter the overall conclusions of the study.
Key updates incorporated into the final draft include:
• Refinement of the Executive Summary and Recommendations • Community Comments Summary Page and Response to each comment • Enhanced graphics, tables, and formatting to improve clarity and accessibility of key data The key findings by sections are as follows:
Playability and Carrying Capacity
The City’s synthetic turf fields are heavily programmed year-round for youth leagues, adult sports, and community recreation, while natural grass fields are more seasonally used. The City’s approach to concentrate programming on synthetic turf during periods when natural grass recovery is limited represents a strategic use of resources. Synthetic turf fields can sustain approximately three to four times more use than native-soil grass fields before surface conditions deteriorate. Several of the City’s natural grass fields are currently operating near or above sustainable capacity. Hybrid grass systems may enhance stability but do not substantially increase total carrying capacity. Maintaining all fields within their sustainable limits is critical to ensuring safe, playable, and cost-effective operations.
Cost Efficiency
A 20-year life cycle analysis found that synthetic turf provides the lowest cost per playable hour, approximately $79 per hour, when used within its capacity. This advantage is due to extended usability and lower weather-related downtime. However, synthetic turf systems 11 Parks and Recreation Commission, September 23, 2025, Agenda Item #4, SR# 2509-5208, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17515 12 Parks and Recreation Commission, October 28, 2025, Agenda Item #5, SR# 2510-5333, https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17522 7 9
8 8
require greater capital investment, requiring about $3.5 million for a synthetic turf field over 20 years compared to $1.8 million for a native-soil natural grass field. In contrast, natural grass fields are less expensive to construct, but offer lower playable hours and require higher ongoing maintenance, resulting in $179-$203 per hour when utilized within their carrying capacities.
Environmental and Health Considerations
Synthetic turf contributes microplastics through fiber and infill wear, maintenance, and weather exposure. Using natural or organic infills can reduce but not eliminate this migration.
The study also examined PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in turf materials. While there is growing awareness and concern associated with PFAS, research efforts to assess potential impacts and mitigation practices continue. There is currently no industry standard for PFAS thresholds nor a PFAS-free certification. Manufacturers’ “PFAS-reduced” or “PFAS-free” claims can be independently verified through material testing.
Maintenance and Operations
The City’s current turf maintenance program aligns with industry standards and reflects a reasonable, sustainable approach to turf management. Continued investment in staff training, monitoring tools, and programming adjustments will be needed to ensure long-term durability, safety, and equity in field access. Maintenance best practices continue to evolve as equipment and materials improve.
Community Input
Public engagement included focus groups, meetings, and written comments. Key themes included safety, access, scheduling conflicts, equity, environmental impacts, and sustainability.
Sports organizations generally favored synthetic turf for its reliability and scheduling flexibility.
Environmental advocates emphasized reducing plastic use, improving stormwater quality, and protecting public health.
El Camino Park Case Study
El Camino Park’s synthetic turf field, installed in 2015, has reached the end of its service life.
Converting to natural grass would cost an estimated $1.5–$2 million, take approximately 18 months, and require three to four additional grass fields to offset displaced use (about 2,753 annual hours). The additional fields are not readily available in the City’s inventory. Given current demand and programming levels, resurfacing the field with synthetic turf would maintain reliability and scheduling consistency, while providing time to evaluate natural grass performance improvements elsewhere.
General Recommendations
The Turf Study emphasizes the importance of balancing environmental and health considerations with the community’s ongoing need for equitable and reliable field access. 7 9
8 8
Based on the study’s findings and the Parks and Recreation Commission’s deliberations, staff and the Commission recommend resurfacing El Camino Park with synthetic turf consistent with current environmental standards and best practices, while concurrently implementing a pilot program to enhance the playability and carrying capacity of the City’s natural grass fields.
This balanced approach would:
Maintain short-term field capacity and ensure continued community access. Engage an agronomy expert to refine maintenance practices, establish measurable performance benchmarks, and identify opportunities to optimize performance of existing native-soil fields and expand or enhance natural grass field inventory. Support long-term field management and capital planning decisions that incorporate higher-performing natural grass systems as technology, research, and policy evolve.
The Parks and Recreation Commission considered the Turf Study and recommendations at its October 28, 2025 meeting. The Commission voted 4–1 in support of resurfacing El Camino Park with synthetic turf and advancing the natural grass pilot program, with two commissioners absent. Draft Action meeting minutes are included as Attachment A.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
A Capital Improvement Project (PG-24000) to replace El Camino Park’s synthetic turf was included in the FY 2024 Adopted Capital Budget. The Turf Study was incorporated into the FY 2025 Budget and funded through PG-24000 in the amount of $139,613. The current project balance for PG-24000 after the turf study is approximately $660,000.
If the City Council supports the staff and Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation to replace the existing surface with synthetic turf, the project cost is anticipated to range between $1.0 million and $1.3 million, with construction targeted for Spring 2026.
As part of the recommendation, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission also proposes establishing a pilot program to evaluate and enhance the performance of existing natural grass fields. The pilot would focus on three core principles: 1. Optimization of existing native-soil fields through improved soil health, turf cultivar, drainage, and irrigation practices; 2.
Implementation of higher-performing sand-based field profiles to evaluate durability and playability under intensive use and seasonal conditions; and 3. Integration of additional natural grass fields into the City’s athletic inventory to meet current and future demand. The specific cost of this pilot will depend on the number of test sites, scope of agronomic evaluation, and level of maintenance adjustment undertaken. The costs would be refined during program development and could be funded through future operating budgets or existing park maintenance allocations.
7 9
8 8
Alternatively, if City Council directs staff to replace El Camino Park with natural grass, staff estimates the project would require 18 months or longer for design, procurement, removal, and installation, at a cost between $1.5 million and $2.0 million. In either scenario, the project will require a future budget adjustment at the Mid-Year Budget Review.
In addition, based on the study’s findings, maintaining current user capacity and field availability under a natural grass scenario would require the City to either acquire additional land or redevelop existing land to construct two to three additional athletic fields.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Robust stakeholder engagement played a central role in the development of the Turf Study and in shaping the final recommendations. Throughout the process, City staff facilitated multiple opportunities for public input and stakeholder dialogue. In July 2025, three focus groups were held representing El Camino Park field users, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, and the Parks and Recreation Commission Playing Fields Ad Hoc Committee. Standardized questions were distributed in advance, with participants invited to provide written and/or verbal feedback during virtual discussions. A summary of the focus group outreach, questionnaire, and responses are included in Appendix C of the report.
The City also maintained a dedicated project webpage to provide transparent, up to date information and encourage community participation. Interested members of the public could sign up for project updates, which were distributed through online newsletters. The draft Study was released for public review on August 13, 2025, initiating a formal community engagement comment period that ran through September 3, 2025.
During this period, and through subsequent Parks and Recreation Commission meetings on August 26, and September 23 the City received a total of 32 public comments, including 22 submitted online and 10 provided during Commission meetings. In total, 21 unique contributors shared perspectives. Appendix F of the report summarizes these comments and provides a table of key themes and responses.
This extensive engagement process ensured that the study and resulting recommendations reflect a broad range of community values and viewpoints related to environmental health, playability, and equitable access to athletic fields.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is exempt from CEQA review under section 15306 (information gathering) and 15262 (feasibility and planning studies) of the CEQA Guidelines because the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems for the City of Palo Alto Playing Fields involves basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities, as well as feasibility studies for future action. Approval of this report does not legally bind the City to a 7 9
8 8
specific project or allocate funding for such project. CEQA review of specific turf replacement projects will occur as required by law.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment A: Parks and Recreation Commission Special Meeting 10.28.25 Draft Action Minutes
APPROVED BY:
Kristen O'Kane, Community Services Director