Item 13 Public Comment — Palo Alto City Council, January 12, 2026

From: Amy Chu
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Palo Alto Turf Fields
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 11:51:37 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
I wanted to express my interest as a resident of Palo Alto and children who use the fields within the city in the maintenance

of turf fields for the community. Especially in wet winters, these fields are essential for the physical, mental and social health of my children to continue playing their sports and having access to fields year-round. While we love the grass fields in the summer and in good conditions, they frequently are not well-maintained compared to the more consistent conditions of the turf. We believe the benefits outweigh any downsides of turf.

Thank you.

Amy Chu - Parent of 2 boys attending PAUSD schools and participate in PASC soccer programs
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Ulysses Hui
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: TURF FIELDS AT EL CAMINO PARK ARE VITAL FOR OUR CHILDREN Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 11:50:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park with new and improved turf (and NOT natural grass).

1. There is already a serious dearth of playing fields for our children (and adult rec leagues for all ages) for soccer, lacrosse, flag football, and other sports in this area. These team sports are only growing in popularity--a positive development, which should be encouraged and supported.

2. Outdoor team sports are pro-social and promote healthy habits ,
which are so essential in this day of isolating screen-time, pre- diabetes in children, and school pressure and stress. Players want to take care of their own health and generally have a healthier self- image!

3. While it's bad enough that a change to grass fields would cut usage of playing fields by up to 50% or more, the reality is that during certain times (winter, rainy season, dry season, resodding, etc.), grass fields are 100% unavailable, especially when it matters most for kids to be active, social, and outside.

4. Grass fields are often more dangerous for our athletes, due to potholes, sprinkler holes, and other irregularities that develop over time or very quickly. Even if meticulously maintained, you can only fill a pothole with sand, which is not a full fix. I have seen a number of lower leg and other injuries caused or exacerbated by such conditions endemic to grass fields.

5. It seems like a gamble, if not
fiduciarily irresponsible, to invest in
grass fields, given the increase in extreme weather events, deluges, mega-drought or suburban fires in the foreseeable future.

6. Finally, please let the players (some young adults) and their families This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
(and taxpayers!) have a say in what playing surfaces are best when weighing all the trade-offs between the different options.

El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Accordingly, I most strongly urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay and support the physical and mental health and well-being of our children and our (and your) community.

Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Sincerely,
Ulysses Hui
Resident
From: Roger Pierno
To: Council, City
Subject: Synthetic turf at El Camino Park
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 11:50:07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Honorable Council Members,

I am writing to you today to urge you to approve the installation of synthetic turf at El Camino Park and to maintain the synthetic turf fields at all other locations in the City. I am a 67 year old long-time resident of Palo Alto who plays soccer in Palo Alto every weekend throughout the year, rain or shine. I look forward to my games each week as I enjoy the competition and benefit from the exercise. On occasions when I cannot play, I actually feel a little bit depressed.

Synthetic turf fields are the only type of field that facilitates high use, year around play.

Natural grass turf fields are closed during and after rain which may be weeks at a time.

Natural turf also requires constant maintenance, including water, fertilizer, mowing, and patching; synthetic turf requires nothing for many years.

Synthetic turf is also safer to play on than natural turf, especially the modern type of synthetic turf used at Mayfield. Synthetic turf maintains its smooth, even surface for many years while natural turf develops holes and bare spots and can become quite hard during summer months. Case in point, I played on a JLS natural turf field while Mayfield turf was being replaced last year. While playing I injured my foot due to the very poor field conditions at JLS, an injury that would not have happened on synthetic turf.

Synthetic turf is the best alternative available to meet the goals of the City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan and it is the recommended alternative the by City’s consultant, Lloyd Sports + Engineering.

Thank you for your valuable time.

Respectfully,

Roger Pierno,
1200 College Avenue
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Elbra Mammone
To: Council, City
Cc: Christopher Mammone
Subject: Mayfield Turf field
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 11:49:30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
I am a resident and soccer mom in Palo Alto and would like to know if Mayfield was recently updated with a less chemically laden (PFAS or others) turf field? Also is Cubberly the same or an older turf field?
I know that El Camino will be updated with a better turf since it's being redone with is great. I appreciate the information.

Thank you so much!
Best,
Elbra Beitsayad
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Klaus Bachmann
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Subject: Synthetic Turf for our kids
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 11:32:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Best,

Klaus Bachmann
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Marsha
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith Cc: Council, City
Subject: El Camino Park
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 11:05:50 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park.

As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents.

Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Sincerely,
Marsha Habib
Marsha Sayuri Habib
Oya Organics

(510) 847-5358
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: DeeDee Schroeder
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Tonight"s City Council meeting - El Camino Park - support for year-round synthetic turf - thank you! Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 11:03:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member (my son plays on the U17 team with Silicon Valley Soccer Academy), I very much appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am so grateful to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is an important and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for the city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability local athletes and families depend on year-round. I cannot tell you enough how the availability of synthetic fields - available year round for frequent use to support training for high level soccer competition -- is fundamental and critical to my son's physical and mental health. He's actually a happy teenage boy! This is huge. And maintaining the synthetic turf is foundational to this statistically unusual achievement.

Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Sincerely,
DeeDee Schroeder
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Sally Au-Yeung
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: El Camino Park - in support of turf field
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 10:57:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park.

Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Sincerely,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Sally Au-Yeung
From: Cynthia Fan
To: Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Cc: ParkRec Commission
Subject: 1/12/26 Item 13 — Resolve that the Turf Study Findings Shall Not Be Used to Inform Future Decisions Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 10:39:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Good morning City Council,
As a friendly amendment or companion action to any motions you consider today, January 12, 2026, regarding Council Item 13, I respectfully urge City Council to take the following action:

Resolve that the findings of the Study and Assessment of Turf Systems for the City of Palo Alto Playing Fields, finalized November 3, 2025, shall not be relied upon to inform future athletic field surface decisions.

Here is the rationale for this action:

None of the turf study’s findings should serve as a credible basis for sound decision-making. I previously provided you with a detailed analysis of the report’s seven key findings, explaining why each is qualitatively and/or quantitatively problematic. That analysis is here: https://tinyurl.com/2025-11-17-fan-to-palo-alto At your 11/17/25 City Council meeting, I appreciated that you opted not to explicitly “accept” the findings of the turf study, due to its downplaying of environmental and health concerns and due to the controversy surrounding its cost and playable-hour figures and the conclusions drawn from them. However, unless City Council gets it documented publicly that the report’s findings are not to be relied upon, future decision-makers—both in Palo Alto and elsewhere—may assume you critically reviewed and generally endorse the findings. The findings are likely to be considered authoritative and used to justify further proliferation of artificial turf. Surely this is not an outcome you actively wish to support.

This concern is not hypothetical. On 12/3/25, the outgoing Parks and Rec Director for Missoula, Montana gave a presentation to her City Council to inform their decision about replacing a natural grass field with artificial turf. She explicitly cited the Palo Alto turf study findings as informing her recommendation. (Video: https://pub-
missoula.escribemeetings.com/Players/ISIStandAlonePlayer.aspx?Id=c4ce4ada- 094d-4b11-ad9a-fd4335da57e7 )
At timestamp 25:03, she states:
“I interviewed the consultants and folks working on the Palo Alto, CA study, because it felt the most similar to what we’re trying to address here today… instead of us spending $140,000 on an independent study, I thought I would borrow one.”
She then proceeds, at timestamp 30:05, to amplify one of the Palo Alto consultant’s most problematic findings:
“One synthetic turf can take up the demand of 4 to 7 natural turf fields.” (While it’s troubling that she’s citing the multipliers from the findings in Palo Alto’s draft report, it’d still be troubling if she cited the multipliers from the findings in Palo Alto’s final report, because those are still flawed as I explained in my above-referenced analysis.)
I strongly suspect that Missoula’s staff, councilmembers, and community are (a) unaware that Palo Alto City Council intentionally chose not to accept the turf study findings, (b) unaware of the turf study’s analytical flaws, and (c) unaware of the controversy surrounding the findings.

As Councilmember Burt rightly emphasized at your 11/17/25 meeting, the study improperly elevated playability and cost while downplaying the environmental and health concerns that were the very reason the study was commissioned in the first place. (11/17/25 City Council meeting, timestamp
1:52:10: https://www.youtube.com/live/6GiHOHMVQrg?
si=0e84_o5tz5ciE2l6&t=6730)
The news coverage reflected some of the controversy surrounding the report:
“Palo Alto spends $160,000 for 785 pages of what?”
(10/12/25) https://www.paloaltoonline.com/blogs/a-new-shade-of- green/2025/10/12/blog-palo-alto-spends-160000-for-785-pages-of-what/ “Split council punts on turf decision at El Camino Park” (11/17/25), describing the report as divisive https://www.paloaltoonline.com/outdoor- recreation/2025/11/17/split-council-punts-on-turf-decision-at-el-camino-park/ At your November meeting, current-mayor Veenker explicitly stated she did not want to “accept” the report due to the controversy surrounding it, and then-mayor Lauing agreed that this was “actually a good point.”
(11/17/25 meeting, timestamp
4:21:36: https://www.youtube.com/live/6GiHOHMVQrg?t=15696 )
While it’s unfortunate that that city in Montana didn’t have an easy way to recognize or confirm that the findings of Palo Alto’s turf study are not to be relied upon, this problem won’t be limited to distant communities. The Palo Alto turf study findings are likely to be cited relatively soon within the Sunnyvale and Los Gatos communities, both cities awaiting results of their independently commissioned turf studies. Additionally, at a recent meeting, Los Altos Vice Mayor Neysa Fligor suggested that the City of Los Altos rely on the Palo Alto turf study to avoid repeating similar work. These are examples I am already aware of; more are almost certain to follow.

Future decision-makers, the public, and news reporters (like the Palo Alto Daily Post’s Stephanie Lam who last week had the bogus 7x multiplier in her online piece until I alerted the editor) who lack the time to vet lengthy reports, review public comments, and watch Palo Alto council meeting recordings will understandably assume that a study commissioned by the City of Palo Alto, and not explicitly disavowed, was endorsed. That assumption will make it far harder for environmental and public-health advocates in other communities to challenge flawed conclusions presented as settled fact.

The moral of the story is simple: we do not want anyone—inside Palo Alto or beyond—basing decisions on the findings of any version of this turf study report. If you do not make your non-endorsement explicit, it will be increasingly difficult to prevent that from happening.

You can prevent ongoing misuse of this study with this simple, clear action. Please leave behind an unambiguous public record stating that the report’s findings shall not be relied upon to inform future athletic field surface decisions.

Thank you for using your leadership to serve the broader public good. Your words and actions carry influence far beyond Palo Alto, whether you intend them to or not.

Grateful for your service,
Cynthia Fan
From: Han Jun Kim
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Support for Replacing El Camino Park Turf with New Synthetic Field Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 10:04:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Sincerely,
Juha Kim
This message could be suspicious
Similar name as someone you've contacted.

No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Kim Family
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Support for Replacing El Camino Park Turf with New Synthetic Field Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 10:02:49 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recommendation to move forward with replacing the existing synthetic turf at El Camino Park with a new, improved synthetic turf field.

El Camino Park is a vital recreational space for thousands of children, families, and community members. The current field is heavily used by youth sports organizations, schools, and residents, and it has reached the end of its useful life. Replacing it with a modern synthetic turf surface will allow the park to continue serving our community safely, reliably, and year- round.

I appreciate the careful work done by City staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee.

Their recommendation reflects both the technical analysis and the practical realities of how this park is used. Synthetic turf provides consistent playing conditions, significantly reduces cancellations due to rain or field damage, and minimizes maintenance and water use — all of which benefit both the environment and the community.

Most importantly, this decision supports the health and well-being of our children. Many young athletes rely on El Camino Park as one of the few places where they can practice and play regularly. Having a safe, high-quality field makes a meaningful difference in their physical development, teamwork, and mental health.

I respectfully urge the City Council to follow the recommendation and approve the replacement of the existing synthetic turf at El Camino Park. This is a thoughtful, balanced, and forward-looking investment in our shared community spaces.

Thank you for your time and for your continued service to Palo Alto.

Sincerely,
Hye Yoon Jung
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Ling Tong
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: support for synthetic turf at El Camino Park
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 9:28:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recommendation from City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a parent of two daughters who play soccer, this field is incredibly important to our family and to many others in the community.

I appreciate the thorough and thoughtful analysis that has gone into this process, and I am especially encouraged by the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee. This shared recommendation gives me confidence that the decision is being made with both safety and long-term community benefit in mind.

El Camino Park is a vital space for youth sports, providing a reliable place for practices and games throughout the year. Upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will help ensure a safe, durable, and high-quality playing surface for young athletes like my daughters, who depend on this field to train, grow, and enjoy the sport they love.

Thank you for your dedication to maintaining Palo Alto’s recreational facilities and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I respectfully urge you to approve the recommendation and move this important project forward.

Sincerely,
Ling
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Sarah Brophy
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Subject: Turf field at El Camino
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 9:19:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear council members,
I am writing in support of retaining a turf field at El Camino Park. Both my sons have played soccer at El Camino since it opened. They are members of Palo Alto Soccer Club. They think that the field at El Camino is the best playing surface and are excited when they get to practice there rather than at the grass fields at Greer Park or Cubberley which are bumpy year-round and hard in winter.

Thanks for your consideration
Sarah Brophy
From: jianying lang
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Support for Synthetic Turf Replacement at El Camino Park Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 9:18:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park.

Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Sincerely,
PASC / SVSA Club Family Member
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: [email protected]
To: Council, City
Subject: El Camino Park Turf
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 9:14:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council members,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Sincerely,
Melissa San Juan
PASC/SVSA club parent
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: carol little
To: Council, City
Subject: Artificial Turf
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 9:14:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear City Council Members,
Please reconsider using artificial turf. It is being banned in many cities and from many fields.

It is a major contributor to microplastic pollution, cannot be recycled *(despite what the companies selling the product say) and is bad for humans.

Microplastics don’t just get into the environment, they get into each one of our bodies, including babies and children. Protect all people, animals and the environment, say no to artificial turf.

I recognize that alternatives are ha4d to find, but by saying no to artificial turf, it will force new solutions to be found.

Thank you for considering my email request.

Teresa Morris
Resident of Los Altos and resident of the planet.

From: Chris Joliet
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Support for El Camino Park Turf Replacement
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 9:07:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I hope this message finds you well.

I’m writing as a Palo Alto resident and someone who cares deeply about the health and accessibility of our local parks — especially El Camino Park. I want to express my strong support for the recent recommendation from City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move ahead with replacing the synthetic turf.

It’s encouraging to see both teams aligned on this initiative, and I truly appreciate the thoughtful analysis that’s gone into reaching this point. That level of collaboration signals real momentum, and I’m hopeful it leads to a great outcome for the community.

El Camino Park is a well-used and valued space — whether for youth sports, pickup games, or just a safe place to be active outdoors. Upgrading the turf will make a big difference in the playability, safety, and long-term durability of the field for everyone who uses it.

Thank you for your dedication to improving Palo Alto’s recreational spaces. I sincerely hope you’ll approve the recommendation and keep this much-needed project moving forward.

Sincerely,
Chris
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Tanya Meyers
To: Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City; Lauing, Ed
Subject: El Camino Park Turf - Community Support
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 9:03:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay. Sincerely,
Tanya Meyers
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Nadine
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Support for replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:52:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Sincerely,
Nadine
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Parvathi Belur
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Subject: In Support of synthetic turf on El Camino Park Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:43:07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Sincerely,
Parvathi Belur
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Jane Snyder
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Support for synthetic turf at El Camino
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:31:03 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i

Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay. Sincerely,
Jane Snyder
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Yukiko
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: El Camino Park Turf
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:29:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay. Sincerely, Thank you,
Yukiko
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: David Trounce
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: El Camino Park Field Replacement - Parent Perspective Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:22:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing as a Palo Alto parent whose child practices soccer at El Camino Park.

After following the City’s analysis and public discussion, I support moving forward with replacing the existing synthetic turf at El Camino. My view is not ideological, but practical. El Camino is a heavily used, city-critical field, and the ability to support consistent, year-round play - particularly during the winter months - matters greatly to the families and programs that rely on it. In that context, modern synthetic turf provides clear, tangible benefits in reliability, durability, and safety relative to natural grass under comparable levels of use.

I recognize and respect concerns raised about potential long-term environmental and health impacts of synthetic turf. Those concerns deserve continued scrutiny, better data, and transparent monitoring. At the same time, I am skeptical of claims that assert significant risk without clear quantification of exposure pathways, dose, or comparative risk versus real-world alternatives. In my view, policy decisions for facilities like El Camino should be grounded in evidence and proportional risk assessment, not speculation alone.

I appreciate the work City staff and the Ad Hoc Committee have done to surface tradeoffs rather than avoid them. For a high-utilization field like El Camino, replacing the turf now is a reasonable and responsible decision, provided the City continues to apply strict material standards, maintenance practices, and remains open to revisiting alternatives as better data and technologies emerge.

Thank you for your time and for the seriousness with which you are approaching this issue.

Sincerely,
David
David Trounce
[email protected]
Mobile: +1 415 425 7901
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Jaci Shanafelt
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: El Camino Park field
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:21:40 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council members,
I hope this note finds you well. Thank you for serving in this capacity to better the city of Palo Alto and all the work you do outside of this role to make the world a better place now and for the future.

I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. Thank you for your dedication to this issue, for working collaboratively to reach this consensus, and moving forward in this direction.

Blessing to you,
Jaci Shanafelt
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Sarah Reilly
To: Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Veenker, Vicki; Lauing, Ed Cc: Council, City
Subject: Re: Please Retain the Turf Fields at El Camino Park Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:21:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing and Council Members
I wrote previously in support of retaining turf fields at El Camino Park and want to first express my gratitude that I received acknowledgement of my message. I very much appreciate that the City Council recognizes when constituents reach out.

I know there is a City Council meeting this evening and I again wanted to write and advocate that the city retain turf on the El Camino Park fields. I, like many parents you may have heard from, have three children who play soccer and rely on these turf fields. We use these fields not only as members of the soccer club but my kids bike on their own to play and use the space when it is free. You move to grass fields and you take away months that the fields are not accessible (thats the reality of the rainy winter we have here). There are so few spaces for kids to play (soccer, any ball/field sport), I dont know why we would remove the opportunity for them to be active and outside (not on screens).

I hope the City Council will retain synthetic turf at El Camino Park.

Thank you for your attention and we appreciate you how consider the needs of the community in all decisions you make.

Thanks
Sarah Reilly
On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 5:35 PM Sarah Reilly <[email protected] > wrote:

Dear Mayor Lauing and Council Members
I am writing to urge you to please keep turf fields at El Camino Park. I have three sons who have played competitive sports across multiple organizations and are currently with Palo Alto Soccer Club/SVSA enjoying the ability to play soccer year round in their community and home town.

While I understand the concerns that have been raised about turf fields, I would like to urge this council not to jeopardize the ability for kids to play soccer and other sports year round. I This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
know there are some who are very concerned with this synthetic turf but the reality is that the actual long-term risks are not very well documented (in terms of robust, large N/participant studies that conclusively demonstrate a causal effect between this turf and causing cancer). And the proposed alternative of grass fields are woefully insufficient. The grass fields in this area suffer from poor grooming and maintenance which results in holes, bumps, pooling water when it rains and the inability to provide a surface that is sufficient for competitive sport play. The grass fields frankly pose other risks due to the injuries that such uneven and poorly maintained surfaces create.

I am all for the city exploring the use of newer synthetic turf. Turf has evolved quite a bit and the newer materials have improved in terms of components and potential risk. But please do not take away the ability for kids to enjoy soccer in this area. Reducing the number of turf fields would indeed do that.

I feel proud that Palo Alto has a competitive soccer club that is one of the best in the Bay Area. Reducing the ability for kids to train would indeed diminish this club. While it might seem trivial - that is sending kids to Burlingame, Santa Clara or San Jose when they could remain in their own local community and represent Palo Alto.

Thank you for your consideration. I know you all have many things on your plate so appreciate anyone reading this.

Thanks
Sarah
From: Armin L
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Parent of Two Youth Soccer Players — Support for El Camino Park Turf Replacement Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:19:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay. This is crucial for our kids’ soccer development year-round, especially during the winter months! Sincerely,
Armin Lovic
PA resident
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Eduardo Chalian
To: Stone, Greer; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George; Burt, Patrick; Veenker, Vicki; Lauing, Ed Cc: Council, City
Subject: Support for turf fields in Palo Alto
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:16:07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I’m writing as a community member to express my support for the recommendation to replace the existing worn synthetic turf at El Camino Park with a new, improved synthetic turf surface.

I appreciate the care and study that has gone into this discussion over the past year, and I recognize that this is a thoughtful moment for Palo Alto as we consider environmental, health, and recreational needs. I encourage you to move forward with the proposed synthetic turf replacement because:

1. It maximizes field availability for our community.

Synthetic turf can withstand significantly more use than natural grass — supporting over 2,000 hours of play annually compared to roughly 400–600 hours for grass — and helps ensure that youth sports, adult recreation, and community events can be reliably scheduled year-round, even after rain. This matters deeply in a dense city with limited open space.

2. It supports safety and playability.

Well-maintained synthetic turf fields offer consistent surfaces that reduce tripping hazards and uneven conditions often found on overused grass fields, thereby enhancing playability for athletes of all ages.

3. It is economically prudent for Palo Alto.

According to the city’s Turf Study, synthetic turf is less expensive to install — with costs estimated between $1 million and $1.4 million — compared to higher installation and maintenance costs for grass fields.

4. It allows flexibility for future innovation.

Synthetic turf technology is evolving. Newer systems can incorporate improved materials, reduced heat profiles, organic or safer infill options, and better recyclability practices, reducing many of the historical concerns about plastics and microplastics in playing surfaces.

These innovations should continue to be part of Palo Alto’s field planning and lifecycle management.

This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
I believe that investing in high-quality synthetic turf now will preserve valuable community resources, ensure equitable access for organized sports and informal recreation, and maintain the high standard of facilities Palo Alto residents expect.

Thank you for your time and service. I hope you will support the recommendation to replace the El Camino Park field with improved synthetic turf.

Respectfully,
Eduardo Chalian
From: David Madrigal
To: Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer
Subject: Turf Fields in Palo Alto
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 8:12:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
!
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park. As a community member, I appreciate the thorough analysis conducted throughout this process. I am particularly encouraged to see the alignment between City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. This unified direction is a significant and positive step toward ensuring our recreational facilities remain safe, high-quality, and accessible for all residents. El Camino Park is a vital resource for our city, and upgrading to a new, improved synthetic turf field will provide the durability and playability our local athletes and families depend on year-round. Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Sincerely,
--
David Madrigal
Director of Coaching PASC - Palo Alto Soccer Club - Silicon Valley Soccer Academy Developing Skills, Hearts & Minds Since 1977
This message could be suspicious
The sender's email address couldn't be verified.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Shannon Beres
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Subject: Support for Youth Turf Fields
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:47:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hi,
I am writing in support of keeping the turf fields at Mayfield, Cubberly, and El Camino fields. I have 2 daughters who play soccer competitively and taking away year round practice with closure of grass fields due to rain would decimate the sport in this area. I fully support environmental friendly city planning and would love to see grass fields at the proposed Greer Park or Cubberly sites, but please do not take away the only option the kids have to practice during the rainy season.

My daughter at Palo Alto Hiigh school gets out at 4:10 pm and Nov-February, needs a lighted field to practice on as it is dark when she leaves school adn could not make an earlier practice during daylight. Currently these options are Mayfield and El Camino so switching these to grass which would then be closed due to rain leaves no option for these kids.

Please leave the current turf fields and consider natural grass options for other non-lighted sights. Better yet, plan for light on the natural grass sites too!
Good drainage and at least twice weekly maintenance will be needed for grass fields as these get destroyed from hundreds of kids playing on them very quickly so need constant maintenance. The Greer park and JLS fields after a winter soccer tournament are hazardous for weeks after as maintenance is not properly fixing the fields after high use times. This needs to be in the planned budget when planning for future grass sites or else the fields will all become dangerous.

Sincerely,
Shannon Beres
From: Qi Shao
To: Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer Cc: Li Wen; Council, City
Subject: Support Synthetic Turf in El Camino Turf Project Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 7:43:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
This is Qi Shao, a Palo Alto resident. My two kids are playing soccer in the soccer field at Palo Alto, including the synthetic turf. I support Synthetic Turf (El Camino Turf Project) for the kids who are using these fields every day.

Please take my email vote held on Jan 12 tonight.

I support synthetic turf because it is 1) a reliably good playing surface, 2) usable for almost four times as many hours per year than grass, 3) easily maintained even with heavy use, 4) usable year round (no 3 or 4 month winter or heavy rain closures), and 5) uses millions of gallons less water per year.

The turf industry is addressing previous environmental concerns by recycling turf, eliminating PFAS from their product, using natural infills, and showing injury rates are not increased on turf and in some instances (concussions) decreased:

The entire bay area is dramatically short of athletic fields. Banning the use of artificial turf means we need to build even more fields, and we have no place to build them. Thank you for the support!
Thanks,
Qi
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Kate Sutter
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: El Camino Turf - Please say yes
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 6:18:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Good morning, I am sending this email as a palo alto citizen, mother of two and a local pediatrician to advocate for the continued use of TURF at El Camino Park. I have reviewed the draft of research paid for by the city and believe TURF would benefit our community the most. I believe availability to activity for our youth is essential, obesity and inactivity have impacted the lives of many children. Allowing our youth in palo alto to have access even when weather is poor makes sense.
thanks,
Kate Sutter
Palo alto medical group physician
From: Darrell Eng
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Subject: Support of turf at El Camino Park
Date: Monday, January 12, 2026 12:21:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
As a Palo Alto native who grew up in the 1990s and played soccer I can say that turf is the best option for playing soccer in Palo Alto. I remember numerous games being rained out during the winter at El Camino Park and the horrible playing surface from lack of maintenance and overuse throughout the rest of the year. The natural grass surface cannot support the kind of wear that the local soccer community puts on fields.

The study does not take into account many pickup soccer games and private soccer trainings that occur during the day. Many times I've seen lunch time soccer games and other activities on El Camino field when I've been driving by during the day. It is likely the study underestimated the use and only accounted for permitted activities.

The infill material used at Mayfield is natural cork and will not impact the environment. It can easily be replenished and doesn't have the concerns associated with older infill materials. My feeling is that any type of plastics used in the turf is easily offset by the savings in chemicals and fertilizers used to nurture the grass.

As a parent of a soccer playing youth I can see the numerous benefits of the turf fields for year round use and increased activity levels across all age groups. It would be a travesty to the community to lose a field and decrease the available field capacity. Currently, both Greer and Cubberly are effectively closed and fenced off for the winter to help allow the grass to regrow.

Without finding additional field space to replace El Camino Park if it were converted to natural grass the community would lose a valuable asset that allows people of all ages in the community to exercise year round.
-Darrell Eng
Native Palo Altan
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Michelle Khan
To: Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith Cc: Council, City
Subject: Support for El Camino turf field
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 10:45:54 PM
Attachments: image002.png
img-58bb1c9e-4211-4041-a697-fc989d2eb736
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear Mayor Stone and Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing in strong support of keeping El Camino as a synthetic turf field. I am a Stanford professor and a mom of a Palo Alto soccer player, and we are aware of the limited options for our kids to practice and play on in the winter months and when it rains. As it is right now, the kids are crunched into small areas to play on turf in the winter and there is not enough room for practice. If El Camino field is turned into grass, there will be even less opportunities for our players to grow and to have quality practices and games. Please approve the continuation of turf, so they can continue to grow and excel and represent the city in soccer.

Thank you for the consideration,
Michelle J. Khan, MD, MPH, FACOG (she/her)
Clinical Professor
Medical Director, PEACH Program (Prevention and Education of Anogenital Cancers and HPV-associated diseases)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Stanford University School of Medicine

President, ASCCP
Secretary, IANS

From: Cortney Jansen
To: Council, City
Subject: No artificial turf! Agenda Item #13 in the January 12, 2026 Palo Alto City Council meeting Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 10:42:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is Cortney Jansen. I am a parent and resident of Sunnyvale, with two kids who have played soccer in AYSO, including on Palo Alto fields.

I am writing to request that you reject the installation of artificial turf in Palo Alto fields. I also ask that you identify fields and a plan to being the grass field pilot, so that work on those fields can start this year.

I know you have gotten many emails about the documented negative environmental, health, and safety impacts of artificial turf. I will not repeat them here. Instead, I want to share my perspective as a soccer parent and former coach.

In Sunnyvale, both my kids now play on the artificial turf field. I hate it. As a parent, I'm forced to choose between allowing my kids to play a sport they love on a field that (even with modern generation artificial turf technology) is polluting the planet they live on and has chemicals with documented health effects. Or else, I tell them they can't play the sport, and try to explain to them why. Those are both awful situations for a parent to be in - particularly when the solution is modern regenerative grass methods that are affordable and provide plenty of playing time.

Second, my kids are in elementary school, but I already see coaches and parents who are obsessed with soccer, pushing their kids to play more and practice harder. They like to push artificial turf fields so that kids can play "year round". However, the research shows that kids should NOT play the same sport year round. If you haven't already read it, the December 29, 2025 New York Times article "As Youth Sports Professionalize, Kids Are Burning Out Fast" (gift link is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/29/business/youth-sports-stress.html? unlocked_article_code=1.D1A.u9b1.1MRQkrHT91T2&smid=url-share) provides a reasonable summary of the problems presented with pushing kids to play the same sport year round. Even as a parent of two avid players, I recognize that kids do NOT and should NOT play soccer year round. The need for artificial turf fields to support year round play is simply unnecessary.

Winter is a natural break from soccer, providing kids with time to cross train with basketball, running, biking, and other activities. And kids who play in summer can't rely on artificial turf fields either - on warm weather days, the fields get too hot. There were many documented This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
instances in the last year of kids being injured (dehydrated, burns, even death) after playing various sports on artificial turf fields.

Please stand up for our kids, our parents, and our community. Stop installing plastic fake-grass fields in our community and prioritize grass demonstration fields.

Thank you,
Cortney Jansen
Sunnyvale resident and soccer parent
From: David Semenza
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: El Camino Turf Field Decision
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 10:27:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for taking the time to read my email. I have lived in Palo Alto for a little over 11 years, and I have enjoyed every moment of it. The parks/playgrounds, art and science programming, great schools, and youth sports opportunities have been incredible. Outside of running my own business, I spend my spare time coaching my 3 kids in soccer, flag football, and basketball. I'm also a board member of Palo Alto AYSO soccer, and a division commissioner for several of the divisions, in addition to being a coach, referee, and proud parent.

I wanted to provide my thoughts on the dilemma around how to resurface El Camino Park. I understand that this is a difficult decision, and that all perspectives need to be considered. I am a strong advocate for the environment, but I think this is a scenario that we NEED to use Field Turf to resurface the field. I have seen first hand how sports can impact the lives of everyday kids. As a multisport athlete growing up in Hawaii, sports allowed me to interact with kids from different backgrounds/demographics, and it also provided invaluable life lessons along the way. I made friendships that still continue today, and developed skills like perseverance, determination, and resilience through sports. Ultimately I was recruited to play college soccer at Brown, and this opened up doors for the rest of my life. Today I live in a great home, get to run my own business, and spend my free time helping my kids and other kids benefit from the same incredible experiences I had through youth sports. My weekends are often spent going from game to game - I couldn't imagine doing something else.

There are only 3 Turf Fields in Palo Alto (Mayfield, Cubberley, and El Camino) that AYSO can access, and we typically only get 2-3 slots/week for a portion of our teams. Grass fields are often closed in the winter due to rain, and kids that don't have fields to play on end up playing video games instead of youth sports. It would be devastating to lose the fields we currently have, for what must be a small reduction in microplastics compared to other uses in the community. AYSO is a volunteer-run organization - none of us are paid a penny. As a board member, I spend countless hours recruiting players and volunteers to help make this possible. My first season as a coach was Spring 2021 - I was the only coach for U8, so we all masked up and I ran practices/scrimmages 2x/week to help get AYSO restarted after COVID (the Palo Alto division was on the verge of shutting down for good). Every year since then the This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
demands seem to rise, as getting parents to volunteer as coaches, referees, and administrators is anything but easy. Yet it is worth it - because the impact it has on kids and the community is incomprehensible. My oldest kid has several learning disabilities and high anxiety, and the main way he has been able to develop friendships in the neighborhood has been through youth sports. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, do NOT take away our few Turf Fields. It is an invaluable resource that allows us to provide maximum youth sports programming to kids on a year round basis. Thank you again for your consideration.

All the best,
David
From: Hilary Briant
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City; Paul Briant
Subject: Palo Alto Turf Sports Fields
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 9:17:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
We are writing to ask that the city of Palo Alto maintain the current turf soccer fields as turf and not convert them to grass.

Northern California gets a lot of rain during the winter and early spring, and when that happens, grass fields are typically closed. Turf fields allow teams to continue practicing and playing games even during wet weather. If these fields are converted to grass, many sports teams (not just soccer) will be forced to cancel practices, which will negatively impact youth in our community from exercising, maintaining healthy habits, and developing as athletes. All of these factors help our young people build confidence, a strong work ethic, and the importance of being a good team player.

The soccer clubs and youth sports in our town are very strong and do an excellent job of developing players, with many going on to play at the college level. These clubs rely on consistent access to fields to maintain that level of success. If field availability is reduced, players may be forced to look for clubs in other cities, which would be a real loss for our community. Our daughter’s skills have improved so much since joining SVSA and access to quality fields are essential for her future success.

Lastly, keeping strong soccer clubs in Palo Alto benefits the local economy.

Tournaments bring teams and families into town, supporting hotels, restaurants, and other local businesses. Having reliable turf fields helps ensure that Palo Alto can continue hosting these events and bringing in revenue.

I hope the council will consider these points and recognize how important turf fields are for our players, clubs, and city as a whole. Thank you for your time and for supporting youth sports in our community.

Sincerely,
Hilary & Paul Briant
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: emiko yasumoto
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City; Alessandro Magnani
Subject: Support for Replacing Synthetic Turf at El Camino Park Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 9:16:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members,
We are writing as a Palo Alto parent to express my support for replacing the existing synthetic turf at El Camino Park with a new turf field.

Our children play soccer, and they strongly prefer turf because it provides a consistent and safe playing surface. Especially during the winter months, having reliable field space is essential, as grass fields are often unusable due to weather conditions. Turf allows kids to continue playing and staying active year round.

We respectfully urge you to support the Staff and Ad Hoc Committee recommendation at the upcoming City Council meeting.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Emiko Yasumoto and Alessandro Magnani
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Mohamad Zoabi
Cc: Council, City
Subject: Urgent: Supporting Turf filed at El Camino field Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 8:57:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Dear City Council Members,
My name is Mohamad Zoabi. I am a Stanford scientist and a Palo Alto resident living in College Terrace, a father of 15YO daughter, 13YO son and 3 YO daughter, all of whom use turf fields daily for different activities.

I am writing to express my strong support for keeping El Camino Park as a turf field and to respectfully oppose any plan to convert it back to natural grass.

Maintaining this field as turf is critically important for our community, especially during the winter months. When most grass fields become unusable due to rain, mud, or maintenance closures, turf fields remain accessible and safe. This access allows our children to continue their outdoor activities—which is essential for their physical health, mental well-being, and social development. Turf fields also support families who rely on them for year-round recreation when other fields are unavailable.

Reducing access to turf fields by converting El Camino to grass would significantly affect youth sports programs, families, and the broader community.

Turf Safety and Updated Materials
We also appreciate that the updated El Camino turf will be designed similarly to Mayfield, using natural infill instead of rubber. This modern approach addresses many of the concerns residents previously raised and demonstrates that the city is following best practices in safe, sustainable field construction.

Scientific Evidence on Turf Safety
Concerns about the health hazards of synthetic turf have been discussed widely, but current scientific evidence does not support claims that turf poses significant health risks. Multiple reputable organizations have reviewed the available data:

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) concluded that exposures to chemicals from synthetic turf fields with crumb rubber infill are below levels of concern and are not expected to cause adverse health effects.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in partnership with the CDC and Consumer Product Safety Commission, found no evidence of elevated health risks from playing on synthetic turf surfaces.

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) reported that the risk of exposure to carcinogenic substances from crumb rubber fields is very low and not a cause for concern.

In contrast, natural grass fields are one of the most common triggers of skin and respiratory allergies. Many children experience rashes, hives, or asthma symptoms from grass, while there are no documented medical reports of health issues caused specifically by playing on modern synthetic turf.

Importance to Palo Alto Families
The priority for Palo Alto children and families should be to increase opportunities for safe outdoor activity, not reduce them. Preserving and expanding turf field access will allow our community to stay active year-round, support youth sports, lower screen time, improve social interaction, and protect mental and physical health.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the council to keep El Camino Park as a turf field for the benefit of the entire Palo Alto community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Mohamad Zoabi
From: David Light
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Council, City Subject: Turf Fields!
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 7:58:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hi all - hope all is well. My name is David Light and I am a soccer Coach in Palo Alto and a resident of the City Of Palo Alto. I believe Synthetic Turf Fields are ESSENTIAL for the soccer community here in Palo Alto, and any type of ban on them I think would be harmful and counterproductive to the culture and health of the city and its members. Turf fields are good for the players to experience well maintained soccer fields, and also do not get closed during rainouts.

I am strongly in favor of no restrictions to the turf Fields in Palo Alto. Thanks so much, David Light
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Jason Bau
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: El Camino Park Turf decision: Support artificial with less toxic infill Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 6:41:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to support the use of artificial turf for El Camino Park, with organic or less toxic infill.

The fields at El Camino park are one of the MOST HEAVILY used facilities in the city park system. El Camino field is allocated to at least 3 teams, each of 15-20 players, for every one of the 1.5 hr blocks on WEEKNIGHT. Estimating, this means at least 180 users every WEEKNIGHT (900 per week), not to mention the continuous games every weekend (with scheduling slots from 8am-8pm in 2 hour blocks, meaning around 20 games per weekend with 30 players per game, or 600 people per weekend. A combined traffic of 1500 people per week, most of which are youth, means it is one of the most heavily utilized recreational facilities for our young people.

Since El Camino has become an invaluable facility since its re-opening around a decade ago for providing youth a high-availability, high-capacity facility in which to exercise and play team sports, I argue the choice of surface needs to continue to support this end. Even if the field availability were cut in half, this means every week night roughly 100 youths of middle and high-school age no longer have a regular outlet for exercise, stress relief, socialization/community, self-discipline, etc. What will they turn to? My older children who went through Paly would tell you that the ritual of soccer practice and games was one of their main ballasts against the pressures of being a Paly student. If the city is serious about battling teenage mental health challenges, I suggest El Camino field is currently one of its best investments towards this end and an ideal community benefit usage of its small footprint, We should not be decreasing the capacity available to participants! With that primary consideration, and knowing the challenges of upkeep on the city's numerous grass fields in inclement weather, I support the installation of artificial turf at El Camino field.

Regarding the field material choice, as a parent, I must admit I am not without concern about the impact of synthetic materials on our children. However, I do believe that risk can be mitigated with better, organic infill on the field. Of course, if the city can invest in a super high capacity natural surface (re: expensive) that would NOT result in decreased utilization for participants (also invest the funds to continue to maintain such a field), I would be all for that This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
solution. But short of being able to offer this ideal solution, I have to advocate that the city NOT remove the availability of a resource so many have come to rely on by installing a grass field that would deteriorate and become frequently out-of-commission.

Regards,
Jason Bau
College Ave
P.S.

I have been a resident of Palo Alto since 2005, currently on College Ave. My 2 oldest children have graduated Paly and entered college, and my 2 youngest children are currently attending Paly and Greene middle school. All of them have played soccer in Palo Alto, both through AYSO and 2 soccer clubs based in the city, Palo Alto Soccer Club and Stanford Soccer Club, for a sum total of about 15 years, so I am writing from the perspective of a parent who has benefitted from the facilities the city has provided.

From: Han Jun Kim
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Support for Replacing El Camino Park Turf with New Synthetic Field Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 4:27:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recommendation to move forward with replacing the existing synthetic turf at El Camino Park with a new, improved synthetic turf field.

I appreciate the careful work done by City staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee.

Thank you for your time and for your continued service to Palo Alto.

Best Regards,
Han Jun Kim
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Robert Hall
To: Council, City
Subject: Public comments, Agenda Item 13
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 4:04:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
The headlines are everywhere. The federal government is getting rid of hallmark environmental legislation. The state of California has weakened CEQA requirements. Now smart city and county governments are needed to fill the void in this dark time for nature and communities.

Please don’t approve more microplastic-shredding artificial turf. If you decide to move forward with increasing Palo Alto’s plastic footprint, please do so with transparency so residents are informed.

Rehabilitate four acres of green space for every one you transform into plastic. Strengthen your testing and reporting requirements then create a dashboard that shows vital information so people aren’t arguing about facts. Daylight critical numbers like acres of plastic fields, tons of plastic installed, number of plastic fields recycled, tons of infill (show the various types), estimated quantity of PFAS, hours of play (separate by open play and play by paid coaches or private schools), plastic field heat index (should be easy to set up a monitoring device) and water used.

The following tests should be performed on all artificial turf components—including carpet, backing, infill, shock pads, and adhesives—by laboratories that are fully independent of the artificial turf industry and its promoters. This is necessary to credibly demonstrate whether components are truly PFAS-free.

1. Transparency and data review: Obtain and review complete raw laboratory reports for existing modified EPA Method 537 analyses, including MDLs, recoveries, and blanks. Full transparency is essential.

2. Bulk and precursor assays on representative samples (both virgin and field-aged), including:

Total Fluorine (combustion-IC)
Extractable Organic Fluorine (EOF)
TOP assay (to convert PFAS precursors into measurable PFCAs/PFSAs) Non-targeted high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) screening for unknown This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
compounds and oligomers

3. Field-aged sampling: Collect turf from installed fields of varying ages, along with adjacent soils and stormwater runoff, and analyze all samples using both targeted and bulk methods.

4. Accelerated weathering and leaching studies: Subject samples to UV exposure, heat, and mechanical abrasion, followed by synthetic rainfall leachate collection and analysis.

5. Dust, particle, and inhalation pathways: Sample turf-derived dust and analyze PFAS concentrations and particle size distributions; include artificial lung fluid bioaccessibility testing.

6. Human exposure modeling: Use measured concentrations in dust and leachate to estimate child and athlete exposure via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact, and compare results to health- based guidance values.

7. Mass balance reporting: Compare Total Fluorine, EOF, and targeted PFAS results to identify unexplained fluorine. Any unexplained organofluorine must be further investigated.

8. Independent laboratory work and peer review: Conduct all testing through accredited laboratories and subject study design and results to independent scientific peer review.

Bob Hall
San Francisco, 94117
From: Olga Collins
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Support for Replacing Synthetic Turf at El Camino Park Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 3:30:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my support for the recommendation to replace the existing synthetic turf at El Camino Park with a new, improved synthetic turf field. It is encouraging to see both City staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee aligned on this proposal, which represents a significant and positive step forward for our community! Thank you for your consideration.

Olga
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Mauro Mondino
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Subject: Letter of support to resurface El Camino Park with new turf Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 2:58:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
As a heavy user of the El Camino Park turf field (along with my children), I am writing to support the proposal to replace the field with new turf.

The field is a critical recreation resource for all ages, and a new surface would continue giving families access to the infrastructure we enjoy.

I have played several games on the new Mayfield fields and I commend your and the contractors' work for a great surface with good drainage! Hopefully, the filler will also not clump up during the summer (we'll see during the hottest months).

Thank you,
Mauro - Palo Alto resident
________________
Mauro Mondino
[email protected]
(510) 332-7777
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Stacey Kapadia
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki
Cc: Council, City; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lu, George
Subject: Re: Please preserve turf fields
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 10:41:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Hello,
I see that the council is leaning toward preserving turf at El Camino Field. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/outdoor-recreation/2026/01/07/palo-alto-edges-closer- to-approving-synthetic-turf-on-el-camino-park/
Thank you so much for considering this important issue. I'm very glad to hear that the council is likely to preserve the turf. Having a safe and available field for my children to use during the wet winter months is very important to my family. I hope you will indeed recommend to keep the turf at El Camino Field.

Thanks,
Stacey Kapadia
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 12:55 PM Stacey Kapadia <[email protected] > wrote:

Hello,
I am a parent of two teenage athletes. We strongly value the existence of turf fields around Palo Alto, specifically including El Camino Field.

While grass fields are wonderful, they are hard to maintain and often closed during the winter. Even during the dry season, the difficulty in maintenance of grass fields makes playing soccer on those fields an injury risk for my children. Greer and JLS fields have been uneven during 2025, and when my children play on those fields I worry about ankle and knee injury.

Giving children the opportunity to play on turf is important. It allows them to play throughout the rainy season and also helps avoid injury when the grass fields are in poorer condition.

Please keep the turf fields!
Thank you,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Stacey Kapadia
From: Greg Kahlert
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City; [email protected]
Subject: PASC BOD Subject: Support for retaining synthetic turf in Palo Alto Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 10:00:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Writing to you to provide my FULL support for KEEPING our Synthetic Turf fields across the city. Youth sports is a growing part of our community and a wonderful way to instill in our kids minds the positive impact of a physical lifestyle proving life long habits for continued healthy living habits. As we all know, natural grass is great, but for the demands we have for our youth, we just don't have the money to keep them maintained properly and their lack of use in the winter months limits our ability to keep kids active.

The theoretical issues with synthetic turf have mostly been resolved by the industry. Long gone are the days of turf fields smelling like old car tires rotting in the sun. Today's turf is fantastic...so much that i installed it in my back yard and love it. Less watering, less fertilizer, less maintenance and more usability make it a great solution.

As Mayfield was being worked on this fall/winter, just the loss of that one field severely impacted our sports teams. We had what looked like 15+ soccer teams working out at the same time at the cubberly football field (thankfully with temp lights) which was far from being effective training, but they made it work.

Our community lacks these robust fields for a growing youth (and adult) sports community.

We should be investing in more turf fields, not thinking of removing them.

Both of my boys play throughout PA at fields such as Cubberly, Greer, Mayfield, El Camino, etc. through both SVSA and Stanford Strikers soccer club (we come from Redwood City and love our own Red Morton athletic field which is also Turf and includes lights).

Let's continue to increase the outdoor & physical space our kids (and adults) use for physical exercise and community building...this is what brings and keeps folks coming and being a part of our community and makes the area we live in so special (Now finding ways to bring our communities closer to our bay access points is another item i'd like to raise :-). We have such an amazing interior bay that it's a shame we don't have more ways to leverage it (e.g. play park with kayak/SUP/rowboat access, restaurants, athletic fields). Let's develop kids that become stewards for the land and ocean that are steps from our homes.

This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Thanks for listening.

Greg Kahlert
3561 Altamont Way
Redwood City, CA 94062
408-832-0482
From: Oleksiy Stashok
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: Protect Palo Alto Youth Sports Fields
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 9:43:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
As a local resident and parent, I am writing to express my serious concern regarding the potential removal of artificial turf fields in our city. I fear that such a move would create a significant deficit in safe, playable spaces for our youth and negatively impact the health of our community.

While I deeply value Palo Alto’s commitment to environmental sustainability, our current grass fields cannot sustain the high volume of use our sports programs require. Particularly during the rainy season, these areas often become muddy, uneven, and unusable for weeks, leaving our children with nowhere to play.

To address these concerns, I am advocating for:

Modernized Replacement: Instead of removal, I urge the city to update aging fields with the latest eco-conscious turf technologies that balance performance with environmental responsibility.

Expanded Availability: Our community needs more durable playing surfaces, not fewer. Turf provides a consistent, safe environment for year-round activity that grass simply cannot match in this climate.

A Balanced Infrastructure: We can prioritize both the environment and youth development. High-quality turf is essential infrastructure for the physical and mental well-being of Palo Alto’s children.

I urge the Council to prioritize a plan that ensures our families have access to reliable athletic spaces. Investing in modern turf is an investment in the health and future of our community.

Thank you for your hard work and for considering my perspective on this critical issue.

Best regards,
This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Oleksiy Stashok (408-677-0484)
From: Phyllis Brown
To: Council, City
Subject: January 12 Council agenda item 13
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 9:35:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Mayor Veenker and Council members,
I am encouraged that the Council is carefully considering the complex issues related to choices about turf in City owned Palo Alto spaces. However, I don't see any reference in the staff report for the Monday agenda about how Palo Alto will dispose of the artificial turf to be removed from El Camino Park in 2026 (or how the artificial turf removed from Mayfield Park in 2025 was disposed of). Has a landfill in Santa Clara County agreed to accept artificial turf? Although artificial turf seemed to be a very strong alternative to natural turf when bids were requested for its intallation at Mayfield Park in 2015, as the report for agenda item 13 indicates, many unintended negative consequences are recognized now. I believe problems with ecologically sound disposal of artificial turf deserves more attention than what I see in the staff report for Monday's meeting.

Phyllis Brown
From: Ashish K Kaul
To: Council, City
Subject: Ashish Kaul: Support for Synthetic Turf Replacement at El Camino Park Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 9:32:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for the recent recommendation by City Staff and the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to move forward with replacing the synthetic turf at El Camino Park.

Thank you for your dedication to this issue and for working collaboratively to reach this consensus. I urge you to approve the recommendation and move this project forward without further delay.

Sincerely,
Ashish Kaul
Cell: 650-248-4252
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Viktoria Stashok
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer; Council, City
Subject: Follow-up: Request to Reconsider Removal of Turf Fields Date: Sunday, January 11, 2026 9:19:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing to follow up on my previous message regarding the city's turf fields. Since my last email, I have continued to reflect on the value these spaces provide, and I wanted to clarify my position as a parent and community member.

While I understand the dialogue surrounding the environmental impact of older installations, I want to voice my strong support for updating our aging artificial grass fields with modern, sustainable turf rather than removing them entirely.

My children and the broader Palo Alto community benefit immensely from these facilities.

Beyond just maintaining what we have, our community would actually benefit from increasing the number of turf fields. Here is why:
• Year-Round Accessibility: With the rainy season frequently making grass fields unusable, additional turf ensures our children have consistent, safe spaces to stay active without the constant risk of cancellations.
• Safety and Maintenance: Modern turf technology provides a more level and predictable playing surface than our current grass options (like those at Cubberly), which are often prone to gopher holes and mud.
• Community Health: As our population grows, the demand for high-quality athletic space increases. More turf fields would allow more kids to participate in local sports, reducing the current strain on field scheduling.

I believe we can be leaders in both environmental responsibility and youth athletics by choosing the latest eco-friendly turf materials. Please consider a plan that prioritizes the health and development of our children by investing in more—and better—turf fields.

Thank you again for your time and for considering the needs of Palo Alto families.

Best regards,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Viktoriia Stashok
6502728777
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 10:30 AM Viktoria Stashok <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing to respectfully ask the Council to reconsider the plans to remove our city’s turf fields. While I understand and appreciate the environmental concerns that may be driving this decision, the impact on our youth athletic programs—particularly during the rainy season—will be significant and deeply felt.

Turf fields currently provide a critical resource for local sports teams and families. During the winter months, when grass fields become unusable due to rain, turf is often the only reliable option for practices and games. Even this year, starting in November, many teams have already had to shorten practice times because of limited field availability. Further reducing playable space will dramatically restrict kids’ ability to train, develop skills, and participate in healthy physical activity.

The condition of the alternative grass fields underscores the urgency of this issue. For example, the Cubberly grass fields are in poor shape: large areas lack grass entirely, the surface is uneven, and the field becomes difficult—if not unsafe—to use during and after rain. These conditions make it unrealistic to treat grass as a full replacement for turf, particularly for our youngest athletes.

I strongly believe that environmental stewardship and youth sports development should not be mutually exclusive. Modern, environmentally conscious turf solutions do exist, and many communities have successfully adopted more sustainable materials and drainage systems.

With thoughtful consideration, Palo Alto can pursue improvements that both reduce environmental impact and maintain reliable access to quality playing fields.

I urge the Council to pause the removal of turf fields until a balanced plan is in place—one that considers environmental goals while ensuring our children have adequate space and opportunity to practice, play, and stay active year-round.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your willingness to listen to the concerns of families in our community. I hope you will reconsider this decision and work with residents to find a solution that supports both environmental responsibility and the well-being of our children.

Sincerely,
Viktoriia Stashok
6502728777
From: Jasmehar Kaur
To: Council, City; Ruchi Ragavan
Subject: Public Comment on Artificial Turf and Health Impacts Date: Saturday, January 10, 2026 8:17:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Council Members,
My name is Jasmehar Kaur, and I am a Girl Scout from Troop 30466. My teammate, Ruchi Ragavan, and I are working on our Silver Award project to raise awareness about the harmful effects of artificial turf and what the natural alternatives are. We’ve spoken with families and environmental professionals at local libraries and farmers' markets.

We wanted to reach out to you because Palo Alto is considering artificial turf at El Camino Park, and we want to share what we’ve learned about health, safety, and long-term impacts.

Artificial turf isn’t just “fake grass” — it’s a plastic surface often made with recycled tire crumb and other synthetic materials that shed microplastics, heat up dramatically, and release chemicals into the air, soil, and water. Natural grass does not have these downsides.

There are serious chemical exposure concerns. Government laboratory research has found that tire crumb materials — commonly used as infill in artificial turf — can release multiple harmful chemicals, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other compounds that can increase cancer risk with repeated exposure. (National Center for Health Research)
Many turf fields also contain heavy metals such as lead, which the American Academy of Pediatrics says is unsafe at any level for children due to cognitive and developmental harm.

Artificial turf fields also get extremely hot — research shows surface temperatures regularly exceed 150°F on warm days — risking heat exhaustion and burns.

Another major issue is waste: artificial turf typically needs replacement every 8–10 years, and most of that plastic ends up in landfills where it continues to shed microplastics and toxic chemicals.

Natural grass has come a long way. It is drought-tolerant, and sports-grade grass varieties well suited to our climate that can be managed organically at competitive cost, while keeping our parks cooler, healthier, and genuinely resilient.

This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
We respectfully urge the Council to pause the artificial turf plan at El Camino Park and instead invest in a pilot program for sustainably managed natural grass fields that protect health, enhance community safety, and reflect Palo Alto’s environmental values.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Jasmehar Kaur and Ruchi Ragavan
From: Jeff Greenfield
To: Council, City
Subject: Support for El Camino Park Synthetic Turf Replacement and Natural Grass Pilot Date: Saturday, January 10, 2026 3:52:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor Veenker and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to you in support of the City Council Ad Hoc and Staff recommendation for this Monday’s agenda item #13 regarding Palo Alto playing fields, particularly for moving forward with installation of a new synthetic turf field at El Camino Park.

I have been a Palo Alto resident and an active member with the local soccer community for the past 28 years as a player, coach, referee, team manager, and league president.

While the issue is multifaceted, proceeding with replacing the existing synthetic turf soccer field at El Camino Park is the reasonable decision. This heavily used facility serves a vital role in supporting recreational activities that contribute to the physical, emotional, and social well-being of both youth and adults in our community. The current field has exceeded its functional lifespan and requires urgent replacement. Moving forward with installing a modern synthetic turf with organic infill, alongside the implementation of industry-standard risk management and mitigation practices is clearly the optimal course of action.

Pursuing a natural grass pilot project with significantly increased annual playing capacity is a worthy step for our community. Being able to eventually transition from synthetic to natural grass fields is an ambitious, yet desirable goal. However, we need to be realistic and recognize that many, many unknowns are involved in this process. Unfortunately, this is not a proven technology for our specific geography.

Please consider:

Multiple iterations, including a multi-year timeline, will likely be required before a viable natural grass alternative design is demonstrated.

Maintenance of higher quality natural grass fields will require significantly more staff time and expense than our community has previously been willing to invest.

Additional natural grass fields will likely be required to allow for rotating field closures for rest, recovery, and repair.

A solution for how to maintain current playing field capacity during inclement weather on natural grass remains an open problem.

This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to you.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Exploring options to synthetic turf at Cubberley is reasonable, but we should temper our expectations. With needed replacement planned for FY2028 (18- 30 months from now), identifying a suitable natural grass alternative presents a considerable challenge. Continued innovations in eco-friendly synthetic or hybrid fields may likely offer a more viable alternative.

Thank you for your consideration and service to our community.

Sincerely,
Jeff Greenfield
From: Susan Hinton
To: Council, City
Subject: Public Comment for 11/10/2025 City Council meeting Date: Friday, January 9, 2026 9:20:08 PM
Attachments: 20260112-PA-Council-Meeting-13.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
January 9, 2026
Subject: Public Comment for January 12, 2026 agenda item #13, Study and Assessment of Palo Alto Turf Systems and Direct Staff to Proceed with El Camino Park Synthetic Turf Replacement and Natural Grass Pilot Dear Palo Alto Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Honorable Councilmembers, As you once more consider upcoming decisions regarding the field at El Camino Park, piloting organically managed grass field(s), and the baffling, inconsistent, incomplete and observably incorrect Lloyd Engineering & Sports report, I urge you to

1. Continue to not accept a bad report made by a consulting group

2. Pick a pilot field and tell staff to set a date to start work

3. Put grass into the field at El Camino Park
And to accept into the public record, the attached PDF letter.

Sincerely,
Susan Hinton
Chair, Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/plastic-pollution-prevention Powered by Mimecast
Subject: Public Comment for January 12, 2026 agenda item #13, Study and Assessment of Palo Alto Turf Systems and Direct Staff to Proceed with El Camino Park Synthetic Turf Replacement and Natural Grass Pilot
Dear Palo Alto Mayor Veenker, Vice Mayor Stone, and Honorable Councilmembers, As you once more consider upcoming decisions regarding the ﬁeld at El Camino Park, piloting organically managed grass ﬁeld(s), and the bafﬂing, inconsistent, incomplete and observably incorrect Lloyd Engineering & Sports report, I urge you to 1)Continue to not accept a bad report made by a consulting group 2)Pick a pilot ﬁeld and tell staff to set a date to start work 3)Put grass into the ﬁeld at El Camino Park
Consider that plastic sports ﬁelds have multiple layers of plastic, e.g., underneath the plastic grass there is frequently a layer of extruded polypropylene foam padding and a layer of plastic geotextile sheeting. Though the top, carpet layer, will shed pieces soonest, the other layers will eventually break into pieces as well. They will all shed microplastics and there is not a way to permanently or properly sequester them. Planted swales will reach a limit and will stop absorbing microplastics (there is not a way to then remove them from soil). Engineered drainage into a lower gravel layer will not be complete or efﬁcient and, again, separating out and removing microplastics is a fools errand. And physical, metal or ﬁber ﬁlters become prohibitively expensive when built for the smallest pieces. Besides, water is not the only way for microplastics to migrate. Wind will blow pieces into to atmosphere.

Additionally, already, in early 2026, there are new scientiﬁc cautions for microplastics:
2026 January, Journal of Hazardous Materials, From pollution to ocean warming: The climate impacts of marine microplastics
https://phys.org/news/2026-01-oceans-struggle-absorb-earth-carbon.html Phys.org reports “A new study reveals that microplastics are impairing the oceans' ability to absorb carbon dioxide, a process scientists ﬁnd crucial for regulating Earth's temperature.” 2026 January, University of California News, Fathers’ microplastic exposure tied to their children’s metabolic problems
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/fathers-microplastic-exposure-tied-their- childrens-metabolic-problems
University of California reports “A study led by biomedical scientists at the University of California, Riverside, has shown for the ﬁrst time that a father’s exposure to microplastics (MPs) can trigger metabolic dysfunctions in his offspring.” Make no mistake, acres of plastic grass affect our health, our youths’ health, and our world’s health.

Besides, though the warranties state the carpet layer will last for 8-10 years, there are caveats.

Up to half the plastic blades will break off and travel away from the ﬁelds during that time. Also Page of 14
warranties for “high foot trafﬁc” areas, such as near end zones, are limited to 2 years, even for the most “advanced” “new” plastic carpet.

Consider the experience of sister city Sunnyvale, which opened its ﬁrst set of 3 ﬁelds in April 2022. Since then there have been two sets of repairs. The ﬁrst, in 2024, was to ﬁx rips in the carpet. The second set of repairs is occurring right now, in December and January (2 months of no-use for 1/2 to 2/3 of the 3 ﬁelds). The current repairs involve redoing a large part of the drainage underneath the carpet. This means the -just a few years old- carpet must be pulled up, the current foam padding removed, and gravel and some pipes removed, ﬁxed, etc. This is neither a small nor an inexpensive undertaking though, fortunately for Sunnyvale, the company that installed the ﬁeld is paying for it.

Here are some pictures of the work. Some were taken on a sunny, dry day in December, and other pictures were taken on a rainy day, just a few days ago, in January 2026.

Workers, having pulled up the plastic carpet, the plastic foam padding, and the plastic geotextile layer, are leveling the gravel.

In the next pictures note that Sunnyvale’s ﬁelds use a combination of cork inﬁll, which I believe the Palo Alto staff has recommended. This inﬁll must be replaced and then be brushed into the plastic blades to help them stay vertical.

Page of 24

Note the “Danger” tag attached to the bags of sand inﬁll, seen in the pictures below both on the left and on the right. Also note the worker brushing inﬁll into the plastic carpet. One can’t help but wonder how much crystalline silica, or microplastics, he is inhaling.

And in the last two pictures, directly to the left, taken on a rainy day, it’s possible to see
exactly how plastic blades
and cork inﬁll migrate off the
ﬁeld and out of the plastic
carpet.

Page of 34

As seen, plastic breakage and migration is not theoretical, it is fact. These pieces will make their way into the watershed and into the air.

Note also that cork inﬁll is lightweight and ﬂoats or blows readily. This means it must be replenished often to keep the plastic blades upright so that the ﬁeld does not prematurely harden. Probably this is why sand is added as well, since it doesn’t migrate as quickly. However sand, unless processed properly (expensive for acres of sand), comes with dust and that dust, as the label states, is a breathing hazard, especially for short people such as children or athletes who fall and slide on the ﬁeld. This is especially true for goalies and athletes whose position makes falling and sliding a regular part of play. Of course they will also inhale microplastics.

I urge the Palo Alto City Council to not give in. Protect our athletes and our youth.

Replace plastic with grass. Tell staff to pick a ﬁeld and to set a concrete date to start work on an organically managed grass pilot ﬁeld. And please, do not accept a “study” that has been publicly acknowledged as being horribly ﬂawed. Set a proper example for other cities to follow.

Sincerely,
Susan Hinton
Chair, Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/plastic-pollution-prevention Page of 44
From: Laura Fay
To: Council, City
Subject: Public Comment: Agenda item #13 on Jan 12th "Study and Assessment of PA Turf Systems..." Date: Friday, January 9, 2026 2:03:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I want to voice my objection to the consideration of artificial turf at El Camino Park on the basis of environmental impact, human health considerations and full lifecycle cost to the city.

The articles below support my position.

1. Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass: A Case Study of Environmental Effects, Health Risks, Safety, and Cost PSEG Institute for Sustainability Studies, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA In sum, the cost–benefit analysis revealed that natural grass offers a lower long-term expense over a 25- year period. Artificial turf has many benefits; however, natural grass was the recommended option when considering environmental sustainability, reduced chemical exposure, lower surface temperatures, and overall cost.

2. There a good reason that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) board voted unanimously in late 2025 to ban new synthetic turf installations, following city council discussions and state legislation allowing such bans due to health concerns like chemical exposure (PFAS), high heat, injuries, and questions about water savings.

Reasons for the Ban:

Health Concerns: Worries about chemicals like PFAS (forever chemicals) leaching from turf, potential links to cancer, and other health issues.

Extreme Heat: Artificial turf gets significantly hotter than natural grass, posing burn risks and requiring watering to cool down, negating water- saving benefits.

Environmental Issues: Concerns about microplastic pollution and the material's lifecycle, according to this CBS Los Angeles article.

Safety: Reports of injuries and the removal of natural green space, with some fields having short lifespans due to material issues

3. The substitution of AT for natural grass contributes to global warming This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
https://mywikibiz.com/The_Contribution_of_Artificial_Turf_to_Global_Warming

4. Recycling AT is a myth
Even when a facility could recycle turf, the process is so labor-intensive and expensive that it rarely happens. The industry’s own trade group, the Synthetic Turf Council, admits: “The project owner has the ultimate responsibility of ensuring that the synthetic turf system is recycled, reused, repurposed and/or disposed of in a responsible manner.” That “ultimate responsibility” would fall on the City—every 8 to 10 years—at a cost in both dollars and environmental harm. In practice, the overwhelming fate of artificial turf is the landfill, no matter how “modern” it claims to be.

Palo Alto should not commit to a product with a built-in waste problem and recurring disposal costs. Please reject artificial turf at El Camino Park ew and choose a truly sustainable surface
Manufacturers may talk about recyclable designs or take-back programs, but the reality is stark: most turf is made from multiple plastics, infill materials, and adhesives fused together, making separation and recycling nearly impossible. Add sand, antimicrobial coatings, and UV stabilizers, and recyclability drops even further.

Respectfully,
Laura Fay
31-Year Santa Clara County Resident.

From: Mompetitor By Mimi Nartey
To: Council, City
Subject: Artificial Turf, Public Health, and Equitable Access to Recreation in Palo Alto Date: Friday, January 9, 2026 1:12:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Dr. Mimi Nartey. I write to you as an environmental scientist, public health research expert, former professional soccer player, and FIFA Women’s World Cup veteran, and as the President of the Playing for Keeps Nonprofit Association, a national organization dedicated to advancing equitable access to safe, durable, and sustainable recreational infrastructure for children and families.

I appreciate the seriousness with which the Council is evaluating the proposed installation of artificial turf and the concerns that have been raised regarding PFAS and microplastics. These issues deserve careful, science-based discussion. However, I respectfully submit that much of the current discourse around artificial turf— particularly calls for outright bans—rests on misconceptions that, if acted upon, risk undermining public health, youth development, and equity in access to recreation.

Artificial turf is not a disposable consumer plastic.

It is public health infrastructure.

Artificial Turf and Access to Play
Palo Alto is a city defined by its commitment to education, youth development, and evidence-based decision-making. With a large population of children and adolescents, high participation in organized youth sports, and limited athletic field acreage relative to demand, Palo Alto faces the same carrying-capacity challenges confronting many dense California communities. At the same time, California’s recurring drought conditions and water-use constraints make year-round maintenance of safe, high- This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
quality natural grass fields increasingly difficult—particularly at heavily programmed sites. In this context, artificial turf has functioned not as a replacement for open space, but as a targeted tool used selectively at high-demand locations to preserve access, safety, and reliability while allowing natural grass fields elsewhere to rest and recover. Decisions made here will not only shape local outcomes, but also serve as a policy signal for neighboring jurisdictions navigating similar pressures with far fewer resources.

Across the United States, and especially in dense urban environments, artificial turf has become one of the only viable ways to deliver consistent, year-round recreational access at scale. In my work through Playing for Keeps, I lead and advise projects ranging from small-sided community soccer fields in urban neighborhoods to full-size multi-use athletic facilities to serve thousands of children annually. These projects are often located in communities with:

Limited park acreage
High youth density
Over-programmed natural grass fields
Climate conditions that make grass maintenance unreliable or prohibitively expensive
In these contexts, artificial turf does not replace green space—it enables it to function.

When turf is removed from the list of allowable options in cities with the financial means to maintain grass, the downstream impact is not limited to that jurisdiction.

Bans and blanket prohibitions ripple outward, shaping regional norms, influencing procurement policies, and emboldening restrictions in communities that do not have Palo Alto’s resources. The result is often a two-tiered system of play: children in affluent areas retain access through alternative investments, while children in underserved communities lose fields entirely.

This dynamic is especially important to consider in the context of neighboring communities such as East Palo Alto, where families and young people already face fewer recreational resources, higher barriers to safe play, and limited access to high- quality athletic infrastructure. Policy decisions made in Palo Alto—whether intentionally or not—can shape norms, procurement standards, and funding pathways that affect whether communities like East Palo Alto are able to build or sustain functional fields at all. In these settings, artificial turf is often not a preference but a practical necessity to ensure year-round access to safe, organized play. When higher- resourced cities remove turf from the list of acceptable options, the communities most likely to lose access are those with the least margin to absorb that loss.

That outcome is not hypothetical. I have seen it firsthand.

Public Health, Equity, and Youth Development
From a public health perspective, access to safe recreational space is directly tied to outcomes related to childhood obesity, mental health, social cohesion, and academic engagement. For many children—particularly those from underserved or historically marginalized communities—organized sport and free play are among the few protective factors consistently available.

Artificial turf allows fields to be used:

More hours per day
More days per year
By multiple age groups and programs
Without seasonal closures due to rain, drought, or overuse In cities where demand dramatically exceeds supply, removing turf from consideration often means reducing access—not improving safety.

Addressing PFAS and Microplastics with Scientific Precision It is important to be clear: the turf industry is not a monolith. Materials, manufacturing processes, and infill systems vary significantly across products and generations.

Conflating all artificial turf with legacy materials or outdated formulations obscures meaningful progress that has already been made.

Current peer-reviewed research does not support the conclusion that modern artificial turf systems present a unique or disproportionate PFAS exposure risk to users compared to many everyday consumer products. Similarly, concerns about microplastics must be contextualized within broader environmental exposure pathways—such as tire wear from vehicles, synthetic textiles, and urban runoff—which dwarf potential contributions from well-designed, well-maintained turf fields.

As an environmental scientist, I strongly support rigorous testing, transparent reporting, and continuous improvement in material science. But policy decisions should be rooted in comparative risk assessment—not precautionary narratives that ignore tradeoffs.

The question before us is not whether artificial turf is “perfect.” The question is whether it meaningfully advances public health, equity, and access when evaluated alongside realistic alternatives.

In many cases, it does.

Sustainability Means Balancing Environmental, Social, and Economic Outcomes True sustainability requires us to evaluate systems holistically. Natural grass fields, particularly in urban California, often demand significant water use, chemical treatments, ongoing re-sodding, and frequent closures that limit community benefit.

Artificial turf, when responsibly specified and managed, can reduce water use, increase field longevity, and support far greater levels of community engagement.

Through Playing for Keeps, I work with municipalities, school districts, and nonprofit partners to ensure that turf installations are paired with thoughtful programming, community access guarantees, and long-term maintenance plans. The goal is not simply to install a field—but to build an asset that serves children, families, and neighborhoods for decades.

A Call for Nuance, Not Prohibition
I urge the Council to adopt a nuanced, evidence-based approach—one that allows communities to choose the best tools available to meet their public health and equity goals.

Artificial turf is not a shortcut. It is a strategic investment.

Decisions made in Palo Alto will carry influence beyond city limits. I respectfully ask that those decisions reflect not only concern for potential risks, but also recognition of the very real and measurable benefits that access to play provides—especially for children who already face too many barriers.

Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your commitment to thoughtful governance. I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional data, research summaries, or testimony as needed.

Respectfully,
Dr. Mimi Nartey
President, Playing for Keeps Nonprofit Association
Environmental Scientist | Public Health Research Expert Former Professional Soccer Player & FIFA Women’s World Cup Veteran Appendix: Scientific & Policy Context for Artificial Turf Decisions A. PFAS and Artificial Turf: What the Peer-Reviewed Literature Shows PFAS presence ≠ human health risk at harmful levels.

Peer-reviewed studies confirm that fluorinated compounds can be detected in some artificial turf components, particularly certain plastics. However, detection of fluorine or PFAS chemistry does not equate to demonstrated toxic exposure or adverse health outcomes for field users.

Testing methodology matters.

Research comparing total fluorine screening with targeted PFAS analysis shows that many studies reporting “PFAS in turf” are identifying broad fluorine signatures rather than bioavailable PFAS compounds known to drive health risk.

Exposure pathways remain limited and under active study.

Current evidence does not demonstrate that modern artificial turf systems pose a unique or disproportionate PFAS exposure risk relative to other everyday consumer or urban exposures (e.g., food packaging, textiles, household dust).

Key peer-reviewed sources:

Lauria et al., Environmental Science & Technology Letters (2022) Murphy et al., Environmental Pollution (2022)
Perkins & Field, Science of the Total Environment (2021) B. Microplastics: Contextualizing Risk and Mitigation
Microplastics are a systemic environmental issue, with the dominant sources being vehicle tire wear, synthetic textiles, and urban runoff—not athletic fields.

Artificial turf contributions are manageable through design.

Modern turf systems can significantly reduce off-site migration through:
containment edging
drainage filtration
alternative or coated infill systems
routine maintenance protocols
Policy best practice focuses on mitigation, not prohibition.

Peer-reviewed literature supports managing microplastic risk through engineering controls rather than eliminating infrastructure that delivers demonstrable public health benefits.

Key peer-reviewed sources:

Kole et al., International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2017)
Hale et al., Microplastics in the Environment (2020)
C. Water Use, Climate Resilience, and Field Carrying Capacity High-use natural grass athletic fields require intensive irrigation and recovery, especially on native soils and during dry seasons.

Artificial turf reduces water demand at peak-use sites, allowing municipalities to:
meet recreation demand during drought conditions
prevent unsafe field degradation
shift irrigation resources to lower-use natural grass areas Selective turf use is compatible with sustainability goals when applied at high- demand locations rather than universally.

Key sources:

California Department of Water Resources – Urban Water Management & Drought Planning
McNitt et al., Agronomy Journal (2008)
D. Equity and Access Implications of Turf Bans
Field access is a public health determinant.

Consistent access to safe recreational space is associated with improved physical activity, mental health, academic engagement, and social cohesion in youth.

Policy ripple effects matter.

When well-resourced cities adopt categorical bans, the downstream effect often limits infrastructure options in underserved communities—where natural grass maintenance is least feasible and field shortages are most severe.

Artificial turf often enables access where no alternative exists.

In many low-resource communities, turf is the only scalable solution for year- round play.

Key sources:

Institute of Medicine, Preventing Childhood Obesity
Sallis et al., The Lancet (2016)
E. Policy Implications for Palo Alto
The peer-reviewed evidence supports a measured, site-specific approach that:
allows turf where carrying capacity is critical,
requires material transparency and testing,
mandates microplastic containment strategies,
and preserves equitable youth access.
"You can never be overdressed or overeducated." - Oscar Wilde www.MimiNartey.com
From: promiserani
To: Council, City
Subject: Agenda item #13 - Turf
Date: Friday, January 9, 2026 12:00:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hi,
I am writing to ask the City Council to reject the use of Artificial turf on El Camino field.

While the study sessions came to the conclusion that turf should be used, their methods are flawed, are sharing misinformation, and do not take into consideration the long-term effects of plastic-containing fields for play where young people congregate. These are unsafe for babies and families that may be sitting on the fields, for players who may suffer burns, not to mention effects of plastic leaching into groundwater and loose "grass" littering our streets, going down drains. Furthermore, these fields actually use more water in the long-term. Please reconsider with respect to the health and sustainability of our community - more plastic pollution is not what we need. Instead, we need future thinking, lower-tech, and water-saving approaches.

Please vote against Artificial turf on El Camino Field.

Prerana Jayakumar
Midtown
From: Eliana Voutsadaki
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: PROPOSED REMOVAL OF SYNTHETIC TURF AT EL CAMINO PARK Date: Friday, January 9, 2026 11:00:19 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City of Palo Alto,
As a resident of Palo Alto, mother of an 11 year old soccer enthusiast (plays for PASC and AYSO) and registered Architect in the UK but also Professor of Architecture at UC Berkeley Extension and CCSF, I would like to voice my deepest concern in hearing that the city is proposing to dismantle such an important community space that contributes in the well being of so many children, providing a space that is so important to the mental health of both children and parents. This is an important space not just for soccer but other organized sports as well - to play outdoors is an important benefit and we do have an ethical obligation as parents and counselors to improve the environment for the well-being of the local community.

Kind regards,
e l i a n a v o u t s a d a k i s
BA(Hons) Architecture RIBA I, PG Dipl Architecture RIBA II, PG Dipl Professional Practice Architecture RIBA III
Registered Architect (ARB UK, TEE GR)
Professor of Architectural Graphics and History of Architecture (City College San Francisco) Instructor for Design Principles and Elements (Interior Architecture - UC Berkeley Extension) Senior Fellow Higher Education Academy, uk
tel (m): +1 415 605 3160
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Payvand Kadivar Gruin
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: PLEASE KEEP the Turf field at El Camino Park!!! Date: Friday, January 9, 2026 9:19:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to you today not just as a resident, but as a parent and neighbor deeply invested in the well- being of our community’s children. I am urging the Council to take immediate action to retain and replace the existing synthetic turf at El Camino Park.

El Camino Park is more than just a plot of land; it is a vital heartbeat for our local youth. While it is a premier destination for soccer, its value extends to every child who steps onto that field for organized sports, school activities, or weekend play.

Why This Investment Matters
The decision to maintain high-quality synthetic turf is an investment in the foundational health of our next generation:

Reliability and Accessibility: Unlike natural grass, which often becomes unusable due to weather conditions or over-use, synthetic turf provides a consistent, year-round surface. This reliability ensures that our kids don't lose out on physical activity because of a rainy week or a muddy field.

Physical Health: In an era of increasing screen time, having a safe, high-quality outdoor space is essential. Organized sports teach coordination, resilience, and the importance of physical fitness— lessons that are best learned on a field that is properly maintained and safe.

Mental Well-being: We cannot ignore the mental health crisis facing our youth. The field is a sanctuary where kids find community, build friendships, and release the stresses of academic life.

For many, the time spent at El Camino Park is the highlight of their week.

A Resource We Cannot Afford to Lose
If we allow these fields to fall into disrepair or remain unreplaced, we are effectively telling our children that their recreational spaces are not a priority. Replacing the turf isn't just a maintenance task; it’s a commitment to providing a safe "outdoor living room" for our community.

Our children deserve a space that is as hardworking and resilient as they are. I strongly encourage you to approve the funding and plans necessary to ensure El Camino Park remains a premier, safe, and reliable resource for years to come.

This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first mail to some recipients.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Thank you for your time, your leadership, and your dedication to our city's future.

Sincerely,
Payv
*************************
"it's not the years in your life, but the life in your years that counts." *************************
From: Robert Sjoquist
To: Council, City
Subject: AGENDA ITEM #13
Date: Friday, January 9, 2026 7:59:27 AM
Attachments: 010515 Soils Solutions VALUE STATEMENT.pdf 091525 California artificial turf, health and environmental concerns multiply - Los Angeles Times.pdf Artificial vs REAL GRASS.pdf
Downsides of Fake Grass.pdf
Plastic Grass Degradation.pdf
Real Grass Facts.pdf
Sonoma Regional Ragle Ranch Park report 12.24.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mayor and City Council Members
I have been asked by several people in your City to put together this compilation of articles and research that outline the many many downsides of exposing any environment but especially Sports Fields used by little people with developing internal cardiovascular and muscular systems to the chemical and physical gas and leach off issues as well as the health issues surrounding improperly cleaned and maintained Artificial Turf Sports Fields exposed to extreme heat and human residue of sweat, blood, puss and spit.

Thanks for taking the time to review some or all of this carefully compiled information and then ask yourself, (and I encourage YOU to ask any proponents of fake grass) what are the HEALTH BENEFITS of installing this decomposing garbage.

SPOILER ALERT : There are none. Their only "benefit" is the extremely false claim that public Sports Fields with fake grass are somehow more playable through a variety of environmental conditions than natural grass surfaces and that claim has been proven patently false again and again.

BTW you will probably hear the fake grass people talk about supposed "New Generation Versions" of their crap and all that the name means is that no INDEPENDENT Studies have had time to have been completed and analyzed on whatever version of plastic, rubber and / or chemical components that are part of their "New Versions" construction.

I regularly compare the Synthetic Turf industry of today to BIG Tobacco This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
from the 60's and if any of you are old enough to remember that BIG Tobacco produced hundreds of Physician Studies and University Testing showing that smoking cigarettes and using tobacco products was a healthy and NOT harmful activity which encouraged people to continue or increase the use of their incredibly harmful and we now know TOXIC products.

Fake Grass purveyors are following the same game plan today.

Thank YOU for taking the time to consider THE FACTS as relates to this extremely important topic and your plans for us and our children's healthy futures.

Robert Sjoquist
Director
Soils Solutions LLC
P.O. Box 1666
Camarillo, California 93011
805-236-9272
[email protected]
People often ask “What does Soils Solutions DO?”
Our answer is to tell them to look out of their window and most of the plants and trees that they see were NOT HERE before the 1850’s when European colonization really began to pick up in California.

At Soils Solutions our MISSION is to help to change that trend forever.

We use unique blends of Certified California Native Grass sods and sod created from other very low water using plants like KURAPIA to bring acres and acres of California Landscape back to it’s proper, correct and balanced composition of those days gone by.

In addition to requiring far less water than the NON NATIVE sods that most sod farms in California have been growing and selling to us for years these plants produce very deep and broad rooting systems which get them through any short or long term drought conditions and work to capture every drop of moisture from rain, fog, morning dew and even just high local humidity.

Their grass blades have developed here over the millenia so that they are particularly efficient at capturing whatever moisture appears in their little worlds.

Another side benefit of these grasses and groundcovers is that they grow very slowly through our Summer months so the mowing and blowing associated with those NON NATIVE sods mentioned earlier is greatly reduced through Spring and Summer and even into the Fall and Winter months.

In addition these grasses HUGE Rooting systems allow for a tall and “Meadow Like” aesthetic that resembles a natural and beautiful area of grass much like what was here for tens of thousands of years before all of those NON NATIVE plants and grasses were brought here by money making sod growers not looking to promote NATIVE.

The lush thickness of these Certified California Native grass sods also looks great mowed and maintained like the weaker NON Natives previously mentioned.

Finally along with droughts and drought cycles come occasional fires to most parts of California and these native grasses have adapted to these fire cycles so as to become fire resistant and, in the case of our KURAPIA groundcover, even fireproof.

When fire does affect an area we like to tell people to go and visit burned areas once they are safe and they will witness that the first plants to come back from out of the ash are California NATIVE grasses and plants.

Like many California Native plants fire is actually a friend to California Native grasses and KURAPIA.

SOILS SOLUTIONS ~ 985 Sterling Avenue ~ Ventura ~ California ~ 93004 8052369272 ~ www.soilssolutions.com ~ FB and IG : @soilssolutions

SCIENCE & MEDICINE
As California installs more artificial turf, health and environmental concerns multiply
Players stretch on artiﬁcial turf at Oxnard High School before a ﬂag football game. (Michael Owen Baker/For The Times) By Susanne Rust
Staff Writer | Follow
Sept. 17, 2025 3 AM PT
• California installs more fake grass than any other state each year.

Sections
• Proponents cite water savings and no need to apply pesticides.

Critics raise concerns about health risks and environmental impacts from plastic ﬁelds.
• Los Angeles will consider banning artiﬁcial turf in October.

Fields of plastic, or fake turf, are spreading across the Golden State from San Diego to Del Norte counties.

Some municipalities and school districts embrace them, saying they are good for the environment and promote kids’ activity and health. But some cities including Los Angeles are considering banning the fields, citing concerns about children’s health and the environment.

Nowhere in the country is turf growing faster than in California — on school athletic fields, city parks and residential lawns. Exact numbers are not known, but it’s estimated that 1,100 acres of the material, or the equivalent of some 870 football fields, are being installed across the state each year.

In 2025, Laguna Beach Unified School District and the San Mateo County Office of Education both received environmental accolades from the state Department of Education for, among other efforts, installing artificial turf.

Sept. 2016 photo of Laguna Beach High School’s new football ﬁeld and track. (Scott Smeltzer/Daily Pilot) “The fields do not require water, pesticides or fertilizers. They also provide year- round playing time without the need for closures for regrowth or rain damage,” said Laura Chalkley, director of communications for San Mateo Union High School District.

But a growing number of health experts, environmentalists and parents say the fields are harming children’s health and heating up the environment — and they’re pushing their cities, counties and school districts to ban them.

Terry Saucier, a Tarzana resident and chair of the SoCal Stop Artificial Turf Task Force, wants the Los Angeles city government to do that. “I wish they’d stop calling it grass,” Saucier said. “It’s carpet. They’re taking green space, grass and dirt away from kids and laying down synthetic carpets.” The L.A. City Council’s Energy and Environment Committee is now studying a a possible ban. It’s up for discussion in October. Other cities, such as San Marino and Milbrae, have already moved to prohibit the outdoor material.

A ﬂag football kicks up pellets on the artiﬁcial turf at Oxnard High School. (Michael Owen Baker/For The Times) Turf is designed to look and feel like grass. It consists of green “grass” blades, made of nylon or other plastic polymers, rooted in a plastic mat. In between the blades is a layer of fine, loose material made of recycled tires, rubber, sneaker soles, sand, olive pits or coconut.

Researchers, including Sarah Evans, assistant professor of environmental medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said a growing body of research shows these carpets have the potential to cause harm in three main ways:
burns, chemical exposure and injuries.
“These surfaces get really hot,” she said, citing research that artificial turf can reach temperatures in excess of 160 degrees, and can cause first- and second-degree burns on skin. She said her own kids complain that their “feet feel like they’re burning. Oh, my God, even with shoes on. So it’s really, really unsafe temperatures under a lot of conditions.”

Artiﬁcial turf at Oxnard High School. (Michael Owen Baker/For The Times) In addition, there are chemical exposures — including from forever chemicals, or PFAS, which have been detected in the blades; endocrine disruptors, such as phthalates, and volatile chemicals, such as benzo(a)pyrene and naphthalene. What the effects are when children and athletes play, roll and eat on the fields is not known.

Studies of these and other chemicals found in crumbled tires have shown they can cause cancer in laboratory animals if inhaled, absorbed through the skin, or ingested, she said.

There are also injuries associated with turf fields that don’t typically occur on natural fields, including in the ankle and knee, the result of how cleats grip the infill, she said.

Proponents, however, say some of these harms have not been established with certainty. And heat can be mitigated by watering the fields to keep them cool, or using natural infill products, such as ground up walnut shells or olive pits that don’t heat up as much.

The Synthetic Turf Council, a trade group for turf manufacturers, did not respond to a request for comment.

Proponents also point to a draft report from California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that examined one part of artificial turf, the loose infill, made of recycled tires. It found “no significant health risks to players, coaches, referees and spectators from on-field or off-field exposure to field-related chemicals in crumb rubber infill from synthetic turf fields based on available data.” That report came at the request of the state’s waste agency, CalRecycle in 2015.

CalRecycle asked the health hazard assessment agency to examine tire infill as a solution to the decades-old problem of millions of tires piling up in landfills. Waste officials were looking for ways to uses the old tires, and needed to know if they posed health risks to people who might recreate on the ground material.

It’s common for scientists to ask for outside review, and when the state convened an expert panel to evaluate its turf report, reviewers weren’t so sanguine about the agency’s conclusions.

Amy Kyle, one of the independent scientific advisors on the panel and a UC Berkeley environmental health scientist, said she and other advisors had concerns about several aspects of the study design and methodology — which they lodged in public discussion — but which were largely ignored.

For instance, she said, when a laboratory at UC Berkeley analyzed the chemical signatures found in the infill, they saw more than 400 chemicals but could identify only roughly 180 of them.
“That fell out of the final report ... or the final session of the study. Those results, they kind of left that all out,” she said.

In a transcript from one of the panel meetings in April, Kyle expressed concern about the report’s conclusions.
“It’s not an emergency. I wouldn’t evacuate playgrounds,” she told the agency and her fellow advisors. “But if I were advising my friend on the school board about this, I would say I would try not to use this stuff ... “
Other panelists agreed.
“I’m glad my kid mostly played on grass,” said John Balmes, professor of medicine at UC San Francisco.

Jocelyn Claude, a staff toxicologist for the state, reiterated that the report looked only at the tire infill, and should not be seen as an official California endorsement of synthetic turf. She noted that her office did not look at the blades, where PFAS chemicals have been detected.
“Since we only looked at the crumb rubber, there are limitations in what our results state and how they can be applied,” she said.

Finally, Evans and Saucier have concerns for the wider environment: microplastics that slough off the turf and the heat generated by the fields of fossil-fuel derived plastic, which can make a local area hotter.

According to the Synthetic Turf Council, the average athletic field uses 400,000 pounds of infill and 40,000 pounds of artificial turf carpet. In addition, research shows that an average synthetic turf field loses between 2,000 and 3,000 pounds of microplastic fibers every year.
“So here, from cradle to grave, we are creating product that contributes to climate change and just makes the planet hotter,” Saucier said. Turf makers say they have made improvements to their products to lower the temperature but acknowledge they can get hot.

More to Read
How U.S. Open tennis courts are helping to cut light pollution Aug. 25, 2025
Abcarian: Microplastics are just one way the world is trying to kill you
Aug. 24, 2025
Despite record amounts of trash, some Angelenos are optimistic we’ll dig our way out
Aug. 10, 2025
Susanne Rust
Susanne Rust is an award-winning investigative reporter specializing in environmental issues. She is based in the Bay Area.

Copyright © 2025, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | CA Notice of Collection | Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Plastic is NOT Fantastic in a Nutshell:
replacing living biological organisms with plastic in our environment is aesthetically, ecologically, and morally disturbing in an array of ways
plastic leaches toxins into local environments and landfills plastics contain a whole array of known toxins and MANY unknown (and undisclosed) cancer triggers plastic turf adds to urban heat island effect
plastic turf is NOT permeable nor does it retain water on site plastic turf needs to be watered to cool it down
plastic turf is more harmful to sports players due to bacteria buildup and collection (and the lack of cleaning of those caustic and toxic elements)
plastic residue from fake grass ends up in the ocean even when we don't intend it to plastic turf creates no habitat and provides no ecosystem services Microplastics in the Marine Environment
Andrady (2011) describes microplastics as "barely visible" to the human eye. He describes sources of microplastics in the marine environment as "(a) direct introduction with runoff and (b) weathering breakdown of meso- and macroplastics debris." A combination of these mechanisms would be relevant to artificial turf. He also describes the mechanisms of photodegradation, the process by which plastics, exposed to the sun, break down into microparticles. He documents and shows photos of micro-cracking/weathering of different plastics due to incoming solar radiation. While artificial turf contains UV protectant, so do other manufactured plastics.

This slows down the process, but does not halt it. (Even artificial turf companies admit to a limited lifespan for plastic turf; this is due to degradation). He discusses how the following properties provide the necessary conditions for this breakdown of plastics: direct sunlight, dry conditions, and high temperatures. As we know, these all pertain to artificial turf.

Plastics in the marine environment: the dark side of a modern gift.

Hammer el al. (2012) describe the dangers and scope of the problem of microplastics in the marine environment. This is just one of many studies describing the pathway of plastic particles absorbing persistent organic pollutants, being ingested by small organisms in the marine environment, toxins leaching out of the particles and into the organism, and then moving up the food chain to larger fish. One of their conclusions is that " alternatives to current plastic products must be found." That alternative to plastic turf already exists: California Friendly Landscapes with drought tolerant / CA native plants.

Therefore, unless there is peer-reviewed research to support the opposite (which I could not find), current findings tell us that the plastics of which artificial turf is constructed over time degrade into microplastics that will find their way into the environment via urban runoff pathways. I myself have seen visible plastic fragments on my body after visiting the new Playa Vista park, which contains artificial turf. I therefore have no doubts whatsoever as to the impacts of installing plastic turf in the environment. However, as described above, even if there are no visible fragments, micron sized (non visible) particles could be degrading off of these turfs into the environment. Finally, the negative environmental impacts of plastics in landfills are well documented.

Research by Alison J. Lipman, Ph.D. Ecology / Lecturer / Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology Senior Research Fellow / Institute of the Environment and Sustainability University of California Los Angeles
Soils Solutions LLC ~ P.O. Box 1666 ~ Camarillo ~ California ~ 93011 ~ 805-236-9272

Downsides of F AKE GRASS !!
• A BIG disadvantage is that it does not last nearly as long as natural grasses will. • Artificial grass gets hot in the Sun’s heat so hot that it can cause actual burns to the skin. • Artificial turf reduces the biodiversity of your garden as it is made of either recycled rubber or plastic which are not natural materials that wildlife, or humans should or can live in.

There are several environmental concerns associated with artificial turf including loss of wildlife habitat, contaminated runoff and migration of synthetic materials. Contaminants that are harmful to aquatic life, such as zinc, benzenes and hydrocarbons have been found in storm water runoff from artificial turf covered areas.

Chemicals of concern may be found in any of the synthetic materials used in artificial turf.

Particular concerns have been raised about the use of recycled tire materials used as an infill to hold artificial turfgrass in place and to provide cushioning.

There are other environmental concerns associated with artificial turf. Both infill particles and broken synthetic grass fibers migrate away from turf covered yards or playing fields and contribute to microplastic pollution in lakes, streams and especially the ocean.

Artificial turf will become much hotter than natural grass on even a warm day. Experts note that high temperatures may lead to potentially life-threatening heat-related illnesses for users, especially athletes. A number of studies have measured high temperatures on artificial turf including several showing natural grasses in open areas at 95 degrees and adjacent artificial turf covered areas as high as 160ºF.

What are the concerns about chemicals found in artificial turf infill made with tire crumb? A large number of chemicals are found in tire crumb. Many of these have adverse effects on human health or the environment. Some of the chemicals found in tire crumb are endocrine disrupters (e.g., phthalate esters); some are known or suspected carcinogens (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, benzene, styrene); and some are associated with other detrimental human health effects. For example, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in tire crumb infills are a particular concern due to carcinogenicity. As of August 2022, eight PAHs in tire crumb infills will be subject to new limits in the European Union.

Children are uniquely vulnerable to the effects of these toxic chemicals because their organ systems are developing rapidly and their detoxification mechanisms are immature, among other factors. For these reasons, it is particularly important to make careful choices about exposing anyone under 15 years old to any contact with Synthetic turfs.

As to eventual disposal the concern is that when these chemically laden materials have deteriorated for even a few years in the direct sun they begin to break down into truly toxic material that will NOT be accepted in standard community landfills. SO THEN WHAT ??

THE TRUTH ABOUT ARTIFICIAL VS. NATURAL TURF :

Did you know that.…
Ground rubber tires are used in some artificial fields, yet because of their toxic content they are prohibited from being disposed of in landfills or ocean dumping.

Where will this toxic material be disposed when a replacement field becomes necessary?
Temperatures on artificial fields have been documented to be upwards of 86.5 degrees hotter than natural grass fields under identical conditions. How long can players of all ages be safely exposed to this level of heat? Field sanitation that includes the removal of bodily fluids and/or animal droppings present a unique problem for artificial fields. Will antiseptic cleaners properly sanitize field? If so, how often?
Abrasive surfaces such as artificial fields can result in difficult-to-heal injuries, particularly in the presence of bacterial or viral pathogens. Are you prepared to treat these wounds properly?
Field hardness on artificial surfaces can result in serious chronic or immediate athletic injury? If additional ground tire rubber is periodically added to soften the field, is toxicity of the material also renewed?
Natural turf is preferred by 88% of NFL players, and 96% believe that artificial turf contributes to injuries.
Natural turfgrass saves energy. The front lawns of eight houses have the cooling effect of about 70 tons of air conditioning. That's amazing when the average home has an air conditioner with just a three or four ton capacity. Green turfgrass significantly lowers fire hazard risk. How would an artificial turf field fire be fought quickly while minimizing the danger to fire fighters, and reducing the release of toxic fumes?
The initial price of artificial turf is many times greater than a natural turf area.

Maintenance costs are equal or higher.
Pro soccer players like Abby Wambach say #keepitreal
Think Green-Keep it Real! Check out more #KeepItReal updates on Twitter.

Soils Solutions Inc ~ P.O. Box 1666 ~ Camarillo ~ California ~ 93012 ~ 8052369272 Real WONDERFUL Grass : “Just the FACTS Man”
Environmental Benefits :
• Improves air quality: Grass filters dust, dirt, and other airborne pollutants, which can improve respiratory health. It traps millions of tons of dust annually and releases oxygen through photosynthesis.
• Reduces erosion and runoff: The root systems of grass stabilize soil, preventing it from being washed away by wind and water. This also helps filter pollutants from stormwater, preventing them from entering waterways.
• Cools the environment: Lawns have a natural cooling effect, reducing the "urban heat island effect" and keeping outdoor spaces cooler than surfaces like concrete or asphalt.
• Improves soil health: Grass contributes organic matter to the soil as it sheds leaves and roots, improving soil structure and increasing its ability to absorb water.

Health Benefits :
• Reduces stress and improves well-being: Being in green spaces can lower blood pressure and reduce feelings of stress and anger.
• Encourages physical activity: Grass provides a soft, inviting surface for recreation and exercise.
• Offers therapeutic effects: The act of caring for turfgrass can have a positive therapeutic effect on individuals, as noted by Lawn & Landscape. • Benefits of a Mow Job : That wonderful smell of freshly mowed grass is actually a proven boost of physical and mental health as cut grass plants release tons of “Green Leaf Volatiles” which are chemicals in the plants that produce pheromone like chemicals that produce calming, uplifting and stress reducing properties.

Natural Grass Sports Field Installation and ManagementSonoma County Parks Department Case Study / How-To GuidePresented by the Petaluma Climate CommunityNovember 2024

SUMMARY
This document provides a technical and practical roadmap for the City of Petaluma to successfully

install

sustainable,

resilient,

natural

grass

sports

field

Lucchesi

Park.

Choosing

climate-aligned

natural

grass

would

prevent

third

installation

toxic,

non-recyclable

artificial

turf

that,

despite

industry

promises,

needs

closed

during

winter

and

summer

due

flooding

and

extreme

heat

hazards,

respectively.

This document draws insights from the case study of Ragle Ranch Park Field 1, the first of a nine-field

soccer

complex,

project

Sonoma

County

Regional

Parks.

Ragle

Ranch’s

installation

practices

align

with

Sebastopol’s

Integrated

Pest

Management

Policy

(IPMP)

ordinance

(no

synthetic

pesticides,

including

rodenticides),
1 demonstrating

how

climate

and

environmentally

friendly

approaches

can

deliver

high-quality,

durable

sports

fields

that

meet

community

needs

while

minimizing

environmental

impacts.

Achieving carbon neutrality requires natural grass fields, as they serve as vital carbon sinks, absorbing

carbon

dioxide

from

the

atmosphere

and

releasing

oxygen.

addition

improving

air

quality,

grass

fields

help

filter

dust

and

particulate

pollution,

contributing

healthier

environments.

Their

ability

sequester

carbon

and

mitigate

airborne

pollutants

makes

them

essential

tool

reducing

the

ecological

footprint

urban

spaces,

aligning

with

long-term

sustainability

goals.

The findings summarized in this document support the recent letter submitted to the City by numerous

Petaluma

environmental

organizations,

urging

transition

from

artificial

turf

natural

grass:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ngCdG14DB39U9T7fS2hYtGkdjq19J4Sg/view?usp=sharing These initial insights are intended solely as an exploratory starting point to encourage the City to initiate

formal

study.

This

study

would

conduct

comprehensive

cost-benefit

analysis,

including

detailed

assessments

real-world

and

local

installation

and

maintenance

costs,

ensure

active

recreation

fields

remain

good

condition

and

provide

equitable

citywide

access

across

all

districts.

The learnings emphasize key techniques of technical flexibility, soil health, and preventive care in

order

ensure

alignment

with

Petaluma’s

climate,

environmental,

and

sustainability

goals

and

comply

with

the

City

Petaluma’s

IPMP

principles.
1 https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/res5108sustainseb.pdf ● Reduce chemical Inputs: Eliminate toxic chemicals to protect human health and the environment.● Support soil microbiology/biodiversity: Build a healthy soil environment that promotes resilience

drought,

pests,

and

diseases.● Prevent runoff and leaching: Use sustainable practices to reduce water contamination and

protect

nearby

ecosystems.

Rationale: Total Cost-Benefit Analysis of Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Sports FieldsTotal cost-benefit analysis includes hard costs and soft costs such as climate, environmental, and

health

impacts.

The

focus

the

hard

cost

approximately

$150,000

for

the

Ragle

Ranch

natural

grass

field

installation,

which

compares

the

incomplete

RFP

$2,500,000

cost

Lucchesi

replacement

(excludes

recycling

cost

estimated

Republic

Services

Sonoma

County

$50,000-$70,000).

The

soft

cost

Parks

staff

labor

was

approximately

$150,000.

The

true

cost

still

being

realized

irrigation,

use,

fertilizer

and

now

potentially

soil

biology

tests

are

adding

the

overall

cost.

Natural grass has a lower total cost than artificial turf to install.

Ultimately, investing in natural grass fields not only promotes player safety and environmental health

but

aligns

with

the

City

Petaluma’s

climate

and

long-term

sustainability

goals,

offering

greener

and

responsible

alternative

artificial

turf.

Although artificial turf offers more playtime compared to natural grass due to reduced maintenance

and

rest

periods,

the

environmental

and

public

health

costs

far

outweigh

this

convenience.

The

total

costs

natural

grass

vs.

artificial

turf

sports

fields

includes

many

factors

such

budget,

playtime,

public

health

and

safety,

liability

risks,

and

climate

impacts

of:
● Destruction of soil and grass ecosystem carbon sequestration functions● Heat island effects● Environmental pollution and public health hazards related to micro- and nanoplastics, toxics,

and

forever

chemicals● Air, water, and soil pollution per micro/nano-plastics, toxics, and forever chemicals● Significant greenhouse gas emissions generated by production and disposal of artificial turf

Despite the industry's promise of “all-weather” artificial turf, this turf is prone to closure. This has been

the

case

Lucchesi

Park

and

Casa

Grande

High

School

turfs.

During the rainy season, it succumbs to drainage issues and flooding due to the impermeability of

the

base

layer

and

clogging

the

infill

drainage

system.

This

compromises

player

safety

well

usable

hours.

Although

natural

fields

require

downtime

recover,

particularly

after

heavy

rains,

sustainable

management

practices—such

rotating

fields

and

using

drought-tolerant

grass

varieties—can

extend

their

usability.

2 In summer, artificial turf becomes a heat island, reaching temperatures tens of degrees hotter than

ambient

temperature

(often

reaching

surface

temperatures

above

160°F).

This

extreme

heat

prevents

play

because

heat

stroke

incidence

rate.

Additionally,

hot

days,

synthetic

fields

release

toxic

chemicals

into

the

air,

contributing

pollution,

triggering

headaches,

and

potentially

exposing

players

substances

classified

possible

carcinogens

(Class

2B).

Natural grass offers greater utility, satisfaction, and environmental benefits than artificial turf, making

the

superior

choice

for

sports

fields

and

public

spaces.

Ultimately,

investing

natural

grass

fields

not

only

promotes

player

safety

and

environmental

health

but

aligns

with

long-term

sustainability

goals,

offering

greener

and

responsible

alternative

artificial

turf.

Please review the following documents submitted to the City of Petaluma, which offer a detailed

analysis

why

natural

grass

sports

fields

are

the

superior

choice

for

climate

sustainability:● How-to Brief for Municipalities, “Natural Sports Turf and Playground Surface Solutions:

Healthier,

Safer,

Lower

Cost,

Superior

Performance,

and

Climate-Responsible:”○ https://drive.google.com/file/d/18C-lSRHcwVR0WroVMmW75E-FGERUa Ymn/view?usp=sharing● Petaluma community’s call for City of Petaluma to ban artificial turf, “The Health and

Legal

Hazards

Plastic

Turf

Lucchesi

Park:”○ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ngCdG14DB39U9T7fS2hYtGkdjq19J4Sg/ view?usp=sharing
MethodologyThe information below is related to Field 1, the inaugural soccer field installed in 2022 at Ragle Ranch

Sebastopol.

The

purpose

was

renovate

grass

field

while

mitigating

the

impact

gophers.

Ragle

Field

1 is

pilot

project

that

still

being

evaluated

and

the

first

install

nine-field

soccer

complex

planned

for

the

Park.
2 3

The

projected

total

cost

$3.5

million

for

nine

sports

fields

(compared

Luchessi’s

$2.5

million).

Sonoma Parks: “These are very rough estimates. We are currently getting quotes on fields

3 and

4 based

landscaping

drawings

that

were

created

in-kind

WESCO.

The

step

need

landscape

architect/engineering

which

can

much

$50-$100k

have

seen

Schopflin

Regional

Park.”
Dramatically less costly than artificial turf, the Ragle Ranch project is being viewed as a potential

model

for

turf

renovation

and

installation.

3 Ragle

Ranch

officially

has

5 fields,

with

9 total

identified
2 https://www.sonomacountyparksfoundation.org/ragle-ranch-soccer-fields.html 3 Ragle Ranch Natural Grass Soccer Fields Plan(Estimates for Fundraising Purposes) The information presented in this document was provided by two sources:1. Sonoma County Regional Parks management interviews: project management, maintenance

staff,

and

consulting

natural

grass/sod

expert2. Beyond Pesticides organic land management technical resources BackgroundThe Sonoma County Regional Parks Department partnered with the local soccer community (WESCO)

install

Field

1 of

nine-field

soccer

complex

Ragle

Ranch

Sebastopol.

Per Sebastopol’s climate goals and IPMP, the practice of gopher and weasel fumigation was dropped

and

replaced

with

their

current

standards

gopher

wiring/caging

and

soil

vitality

management,

well

adoption

grass

variety

and

technologies.
“The soccer fields at Ragle Ranch Regional Park in Sebastopol have been in awful shape

for

years.

The

main

culprit

behind

the

mounds

and

holes

well-known

feature

West

County

[(gophers)].”
4 Weighing the full cost-benefit trade-offs between artificial turf and natural grass, the vision for Ragle

Ranch

was

shaped

through

meaningful

collaboration

between

the

community

and

County

Parks.

The

result

climate-conscious,

green

sports

hub

and

community

gathering

space

where

everyone

can

enjoy

the

full

spectrum

health

benefits

–

both

tangible

and

intangible

–

4 https://www.sebastopoltimes.com/p/soccer-fields-among-improvements 4 that come from playing soccer on a living, non-toxic grass-and-soil ecosystem. This model reflects

commitment

sustainability,

fostering

biodiversity,

supporting

carbon

sequestration,

and

promoting

human

well-being

through

natural

environment

that

artificial

turf

simply

cannot

replicate.

Field 1 was installed in 2022.
5 Before After

Field SpecificsField 1, a regulation-sized soccer field, was installed by Sonoma County Regional Parks' in-house

maintenance

staff

using

the

latest

technologies

for

natural

grass,

irrigation,

and

gopher

control.

The

native

soil

there

sand-clay.

Similar

artificial

turf

installations,

hardware

fabric

was

placed

beneath

the

field

prevent

gopher

damage.

The

project

incorporated

best

practices

(pre-stretched;

12-18”

overlap;

around

sprinkler

heads),

including

regular

aeration,

frequent

mowing,

soil

testing,

and

the

application

sustainable

fertilizers

and

soil

amendments

(e.g.,

proper-depth

aeration;

raptor

perch

installations).

These

practices

ensure

healthy,

resilient

playing

surface

that

meets

performance

standards

while

supporting

long-term

environmental

sustainability.

ProcessThere were two components of the installation project: 1. Installation of grass/sod2. Maintenance to ensure successful establishment of the grass/sod 5 https://www.sebastopoltimes.com/p/soccer-fields-among-improvements 5 Budget OverviewTotal install cost for Field 1, the inaugural soccer field at Ragle Ranch, was approximately $300,000

($150,000

for

field

$150,000

for

Parks

staff

labor),

excluding

irrigation

infrastructure

(compared

with

$2.5

million

for

the

Luchessi

artificial

turf

reinstallation

project).

The

total

cost

per

adjustment

and

maintenance

costs

still

being

realized

irrigation,

use,

fertilizer

and

soil

biology

tests

are

accrued.

INSTALLATION DETAILSBelow are the steps along with the considerations for installation and care for the Field 1 natural grass

soccer

field.

The

software

program

“Maintain

X”

was

used

for

the

project.

1. Site Evaluation and Soil PreparationEvaluation and documentation of existing “sandy-clay” soil conditions is the very first step.1. Assess soil texture, chemistry, and microbial health through soil testing and a baseline analysis:

sod,

top

soil,

bottom

soil.

Consideration

site

conditions

for

drainage.2. Analyze water.3. Establish a fertility baseline; conduct soil food web assessments to determine nutrient availability

and

microbial

activity.4. Create a custom plan based on the site’s specific needs; develop a fertility- and weed-control

plan

tailored

the

field's

conditions.5. Plan field layout for intelligent sprinkler placement relative to goal locations and margins on

either

side

allow

wear-management

shifting

field

lines).

Note on an organic systems approach: ● Adopt preventive measures to ensure success. ● Use organic-compatible products: Apply only approved organic products listed under

the

Organic

Materials

Review

Institute

(OMRI)

permitted

FIFRA

Section

25(b).● Feed the soil: Apply compost, organic fertilizers, microbial inoculants, and soil amendments

such

kelp,

fish

hydrolysate,

and

humic

acids

support

soil

biology.

2. Field 1 Installation Steps and TimelineFive workers installed the Ragle Ranch field. Additionally, a natural grass expert was retained as project

consultant.

Installation steps:● Grade the field.● Raise sprinklers. ● Install gopher-abatement hardware fabric with overlap, using pins and flattener/stretcher.● Add topsoil. ● Lay new sod.● Repair drainage lines and eliminate lips between the new sod and field edges. 6 ● Seed the perimeter.

Field 1 Installation timeline:● The project began in November 2022 but was paused several times due to rain and wet conditions.● Grading resumed in July 2023.● Topsoil and sod installation was completed between September and October 2023.● Perimeter seeding and final steps were completed on October 19, 2023.● Key issues: Discovered and repaired a drainage line issue. Some adjustments were needed

after

storms.

3. Maintenance StaffingThe key to long-term field maintenance is proactive measures like soil testing, irrigation adjustments,

and

grass

care.

This

includes:● Sprinkler maintenance, including nozzle adjustments (e.g., I20 and I25 replacements)● Regular soil testing and analysis● Seasonal fertilizing, aeration, and regular thatching to improve root penetration● Ensuring sprinkler heads provide even coverage and checking for field overuse or wet spots● Regular soil sampling, fungus monitoring, and application of Hydretain to retain moisture● Mower blade height adjustment and o verseed to reduce weed pressure and maintain a dense

turf● Monitoring of watering schedule, with a djustments to match seasonal needs and avoid waterlogging● Weed and pest management: Use physical (e.g., hand weeding) and biological (e.g., beneficial

insects)

controls.

Monitor

pest

thresholds

and

intervene

only

when

necessary.

Note on maintenance resources:● Hire qualified personnel, contractors with expertise in organic turf management to ensure

proper

implementation.

Provide

clear

guidelines

and

management

expectations

for

subcontracted

work.

4. Continual Monitoring and Culture of Continuous ImprovementContinuous observation, adjustment, and training is key to field success per location-specific nuances.● Test soil regularly: Perform ongoing soil tests to monitor fertility and microbial activity, ensuring

optimal

conditions

for

turf

growth.● Adjust management practices: Adapt irrigation, mowing, and fertilization practices as needed

based

weather,

field

conditions,

and

test

results.
7 Budget Details
Sonoma Parks reported total budget for the installation of the Ragle Ranch field was approximately

$300,000:

$50K

was

provided

the

community;

$100K

was

provided

County

Parks

plus

$150K

Parks

staff

labor.

Select Cost DetailsComponent Approx. Quantity Cost
Gopher wire – $18,500
Pins for gopher wire – $400
Fertilizer (60-20-10 Horizon) – $761
Amended soil 450 cubic yards @ $36 each $24,000*
Sod installation 70K sq ft $65,000
Miscellaneous – $10,000
Staff labor $150,000
* Replacing an artificial turf field with natural grass requires 2 feet of soil due to plastic turf

killing

the

existing

soil

ecosystem.

Therefore,

multiply

this

cost

(which

for

8”

deep)

3 to

calculate

the

cost

install

2 feet-deep

soil.

Note on Integrated Bid Process: When outsourcing, ensure the management program is incorporated

into

the

bidding

process

align

with

organic

management

goals.

NEXT STEPS

1. Review Ragle Ranch’s inaugural soccer field project:
https://www.sebastopoltimes.com/p/soccer-fields-among-improvements2. Connect with Ragle Ranch natural grass field installation team:a. David Robinson, Park Manager, Sonoma County Parks b. Kristine Rue, Park Maintenance Supervisor, Sonoma County Regional Parks c. Blaise Turek, Park Avenue Turf sod company3. Connect with Beyond Pesticidesa. Rika Gopinath, Community Policy and Action Manager, Beyond Pesticides 8 From: Caroline Rumptz
To: Council, City
Subject: Turf: item #13
Date: Friday, January 9, 2026 7:50:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To whom this concerns-
I’d like to add my voice to the growing numbers who oppose using artificial turf on playing fields.

This massive roll of plastic is awful for our environment, hot to play on and extremely messy as the black pellets fill cleats after a game and are dumped in cars and homes when the cleats come off.

My son had to play soccer on turf when he played for Palo Alto soccer and it was awful.

Please reconsider and use natural grass.

Thank you-
Caroline Rumptz
650-245-5133
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
From: Claire E
To: Council, City
Subject: January 12 Agenda Item #13 Comments from Claire Elliott Date: Thursday, January 8, 2026 7:30:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear City Council members,
I appreciate your time and attention to making good decisions for Palo Alto.

I have written in the past about the many health and environmental impacts of plastic turf. I hope enough of you will find these impacts significant enough to vote against plastic turf at El Camino Park.

Another very important decision I hope you will make is to reject the Turf Study as it is written. Palo Alto should not use this biased study as a framework for future decisions as was proposed by the January 12th staff report. Also, it is likely that other cities will trust that Palo Alto hired a contractor to complete a study that was unbiased and scientifically-based and use this study to inform their own decisions.

The staff report falsely states that public input on the Turf Study was not about “underlying finding of the Study.”However, many of the comments that I and others made about the study were about the report’s unbalanced and biased findings (e.g., listing more water quality concerns for natural grass fields than plastic grass!)
The study included very little information on the health impacts of microplastics, PFAS and other toxic chemicals in plastic, although this information is not difficult to find. The study also downplays the risk of PFAS in the turf by implying Palo Alto can find PFAS free turf, which is not yet possible to do.

Please vote against more plastic in our parks and also:

This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast

1. Reject the turf study as it is. Do not use it for future decision making nor allow it to remain available to the public.

2. Ask staff to create a speedy timeline for planning, funding and implementing a pilot natural grass project. Ask that they work with an agronomist experienced in design and maintenance of grass fields that have shown to provide for extended play.

Ideally the pilot project would be designed, installed and maintained by the same company so they have a vested interest in keeping the field safe and the grass healthy. This company should be able to demonstrate that they have created grass fields that are providing extended play hours.

Also, a contract should be written that holds back resources to the contractor until they show the fields are being adequately maintained.

Lastly, the pilot should include installation of lighting to allow for evening play so that the hours of play can fairly be compared with artificial turf fields with lights.

Thank you for your work on the council and for taking the time to consider my comments.

Sincerely,
Claire Elliott, PA resident, emeritus Senior Ecologist, Grassroots Ecology [email protected]
From: Magdalena Cabrera
To: Council, City
Subject: Vote NO on plastic grass and yes on a natural grass field study Date: Thursday, January 8, 2026 5:36:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello council members and Mayor,
I am writing once again to strongly urge you to vote NO on the use of artificial (PLASTIC) grass in El Camino Park and anywhere else in Palo Alto. I am referencing Item #13 of then January 12 , 2026 meeting that is coming up.

Let us be the example of truly putting the health of our children and the environment over everything else. Do not be fooled by Lloyd Consulting and their false claims and half truths. They are a business and like so many in our nation, they want as many dollars in their pockets as they can get. DO NOT be duped.

Let us not do what our nation's "leaders" are doing which is putting profits over lives. More plastic in our community is NOT the answer. In truth, it adds to the problem.

Let us be the light in the dark and walk our talk by putting a stop to adding toxic chemicals and dangerous microplastics in our ever degrading environment. Let us lead the way to a better future.

I suspect that you have heard the adage "Pay now or pay later." Even if natural grass fields and organic playground ground covers are slightly more expensive today, it is far better to pay that than pay in the health and lives of our most precious resource: our children.

Do the right thing. I beg you. Let's at least give a well installed and well managed grass field pilot study a chance.

Magdalena Cabrera
Palo Alto resident
From: Magdalena Cabrera
To: Council, City
Subject: Vote NO on artificial turf
Date: Thursday, January 8, 2026 5:19:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

Hello council members and Mayor,
I am writing once again to strongly urge you to vote NO on the use of artificial (PLASTIC) grass in El Camino Park and anywhere else in Palo Alto.

Let us not do what our nation's "leaders" are doing which is putting profits over lives. More plastic in our community is NOT the answer. In truth, it adds to the problem.

Let us be the light in the dark and walk our talk by putting a stop to adding toxic chemicals and dangerous microplastics in our ever degrading environment. Let us lead the way to a better future.

Do the right thing. I beg you.

Magdalena Cabrera
Palo Alto resident
From: Kathleen Meagher
To: Council, City
Subject: Public comment on Agenda Item #13 for 1/12/26 meeting Date: Thursday, January 8, 2026 1:41:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To the members of the Palo Alto City Council:

We are longtime residents of Santa Clara County and, while residents of Sunnyvale and not Palo Alto, we are concerned about both the environment and the health of our neighbors. We are therefore writing to express our support for retaining natural grass playing fields in your city rather than replacing them with artificial turf. (Agenda item #13 at your 1/12/26 meeting).

From a public health perspective, synthetic grass contains PFAS (“forever chemicals”). These chemicals are known carcinogens which can cause developmental delays in children, interfere with hormones, reproduction, and immunity.

According to experts, these chemicals can enter the human body through contact with skin and by breathing in the particles. Anyone in contact with this material can experience deleterious effects but any health problems will be most pronounced in children and young adults who are still growing.

In addition to direct contact, these chemicals can also leach in or through water sources, especially groundwater sources, making their way away from their source and potentially contaminating others not exposed to direct contact.

The dangers of artificial turf are well-documented in a letter from the Santa Clara County Medical Association to the Sunnyvale City Council when it was considering approval of the installation of artificial turf at Lakewood Park. SCCMA Letter to Sunnyvale .

From an environmental perspective, this turf cannot be recycled. Also, it becomes much hotter than natural grass, absorbing heat and radiating it back slowly over time contributing to the urban heat island effect. Nor will this turf absorb carbon. All of these negative characteristics of synthetic turf are in direct conflict with the sustainability and climate action goals of many county communities and the county itself.

There are alternatives that you should consider. There are newly-developed natural grasses designed for athletic and other fields that can withstand year-long play.

Putting in artificial grass is not a decision that can easily be undone. Please, carefully consider the harmful health and environmental effects of synthetic turf, all which are long term, and vote for the prohibition of any future installation of artificial turf in Palo Alto.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our views.

Respectfully,
This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
Kathleen and Paul Meagher

From: Ryan Craig
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City
Subject: In support of artificial grass fields
Date: Thursday, January 8, 2026 12:00:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
To members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I understand that you are discussing the future of artificial grass (or "synthetic turf") fields in Palo Alto parks. I write both as a long time Palo Alto resident and as someone with a direct and potentially unique perspective on the issue. I hope it has some weight in your assessment. In short, I strongly support the continuation and expansion of artificial turf fields, even while acknowledging their limitations and potential risks.

I grew up in Seattle, where Field Turf (i.e., the modern version of artificial grass) was invented and first deployed when I was in my early teens. It was created in direct response to the difficulty of maintaining natural grass fields in wet weather. I went on to play soccer at Stanford. In the 30 years since, I've played soccer multiple times nearly every week. I help run the Palo Alto Adult Soccer Association, one of our city's most unique and active community groups.

I've also been intimately close to the discussion of a potential "cancer cluster" associated with artificial grass -- especially among soccer goalkeepers (my position) in the Pacific Northwest (my hometown). Several friends and a family member have gotten sick and "fit" the profile.

All taken, however, I believe the benefits of artificial grass far outweigh the drawbacks. I hope the city council arrives at the same conclusion.

Artificial grass fields provide enormous year-round utility to a large number of Palo Alto residents. Among the thousands of us who regularly use these fields for sports, no one credibly thinks that natural grass can be a viable alternative unless the city severely restricts their use, thus effectively defeating the purpose.

Of note, we say this regretfully! We would LOVE to play on natural grass ... provided it's well maintained, void of potholes and other hazards, and not shuttered for weather.

Unfortunately, that isn't reality.

Only a few high-quality grass fields exist locally: Burgess Park in Menlo Park, Portola Town Center in Portola Valley, and Stanford's varsity fields. The circumstances of each tell the This message needs your attention
No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
story. All are closed to play during wet months when soccer has its highest participation. In dry months, access is limited to a much smaller number of participants than Palo Alto's fields currently support. Grass simply cannot withstand the wear and tear. The evidence of this is embodied by Palo Alto's fields at Terman, Cubberly, and Greer, which range from poor to flagrantly dangerous for sports. The old grass field at El Camino Park was extremely poor and thus lightly used.

It's understood that artificial grass isn't perfect. It diminishes the natural character and perhaps ecological value of our parks. It's a product of fossil fuels. In hot weather, it reflects and magnifies temperature -- perhaps of some modest risk to players. (Fortunately, the reality of a cancer cluster looks increasingly slim. And the theorized causal influence has been removed as infill material has shifted away from ground-up automotive tires.) But nor is natural grass ideal, and the evidence of its shortcomings are obvious to those of us who use the fields regularly. In an informal straw poll of Palo Alto Adult Soccer Association members, 100% would prefer to play on artificial grass over ANY of Palo Alto's current grass fields. Alarmingly, many would not play at all if games were only available on grass.

Within our organization, that includes several hundred Palo Alto residents. Extended to the other clubs who use the fields, it's likely several thousand residents.

Best guess, well-maintained grass fields could accommodate just a quarter of the current users -- and perhaps none of us from November through early March. These are kids and adults exercising, socializing. Not staring at phones.

The physical area currently devoted to natural grass athletic fields in Palo Alto runs perhaps 10:1 over artificial turf. This does not include the peripheral areas of our parks, which are grass or other natural surfaces. At many times of day -- even on weekends -- these areas are nearly empty if not being used by sports teams. Given a choice, these sports users would almost unanimously prefer artificial grass over natural grass. Yet there is a movement that seeks to limit or even eliminate artificial grass athletic fields. This seems myopic and short sighted. Thousands of us would support a thoughtful expansion of artificial grass, not the reverse.

With 40 years of first-hand experience on artificial grass, the evidence to me is overwhelming that it delivers tremendous benefits to a large number of residents at relatively modest expense (environmentally, financially, aesthetically). This doesn't dismiss the concerns about artificial grass, of which some are valid. It simply takes account of how much more enjoyment so many of us get from our parks because artificial grass fields are durable, easy to maintain, and consistently fun and safe to play on. Meanwhile, the "costs" are modest and generally mitigatable.

Exercise is good. Social activity is good. Connections among Palo Alto residents are good.

Artificial grass fields provide all these things.

Thanks for your consideration,
Ryan Craig
345 Sequoia Ave
From: Fiona Ashley
To: Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer Cc: Council, City; PASC BOD
Subject: Support for retaining synthetic turf in Palo Alto Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 9:15:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Dear Mr Lauing and members of Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for retaining synthetic turf in Palo Alto, and to urge the Palo Alto City Council to keep the turf fields already in place at El Camino Park. Removing existing turf fields is concerning on multiple levels, particularly for youth sports.

Firstly, the environmental benefits of turf fields are profound and dramatically outweigh the theoretical concerns. Specifically, turf fields save millions of gallons of water per year. They reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers that can harm groundwater and accompanying ecosystems. They also reduce the carbon footprint since they reduce lawn mowing, fuel consumption and emissions. They last 10-20 years in general. The playing surface is superior and withstands heavy use without maintenance. Moreover, the availability of the fields is far superior to grass especially in winter.

Concerns about microplastics and rubber infill have in general been overblown and mostly date from early reports. The turf industry has moved to recyclable materials in large part.

The natural grass fields in Palo Alto typically close during the months of November until March. Additionally, these fields are poorly maintained and unlikely to receive the necessary funding to bring them up to acceptable standards. If you did want to try high-performance natural grass, and provide greater maintenance, the fields at Cubberley and Geer Park would be a great place to start.

At a time when there is an epidemic of obesity among our children and physical activity levels are low, there is a desperate need to increase the utility of our lived environment to maximize exercise, especially among the youth. Concerns over the present and very real danger of child inactivity far outweigh theoretical concerns over the effects of recyclable rubber and microplastics.

As parents of two children who play competitive soccer with the Palo Alto Soccer Club/ Silicon Valley Soccer Academy, we rely on turf fields such as Mayfield, El Camino, and Cubberley to provide training year-round, especially during the winter months when grass This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

This is their first email to your company.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
fields are unavailable. If synthetic turf fields were eliminated, where would the 1,300 children from our club train? These fields are essential to maintaining a robust youth sports culture in Palo Alto.

I urge you to retain synthetic turf. The consequences of removing the few turf fields that we have would be extremely negative for our children, our sports programs, and our community as a whole. Please prioritize the needs of our youth and the future of competitive sports in Palo Alto by maintaining access to synthetic turf fields.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
Fiona Ashley
1016 Cathcart Way, Stanford, CA 94305
650 804 2250
From: Cynthia Fan
To: Council, City; City Mgr
Subject: Re: 1/12 item #13 — Pilot high-use grass w/organic mgmt experts. Reject turf study findings.

Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 3:03:21 PM
Attachments: 2025 11 17 Palo Alto City Council item 9.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.

City Council and City Manager,
Attached are comments regarding 1/12/26 City Council meeting item #13, the El Camino Park field plans and the turf study.

It is a copy of the comments I submitted for your 11/17/25 discussion. I didn’t manage to submit them in time for you to carefully review them before that meeting. Please take the time to review them in prep for revisiting the topic on 1/12/26.

Thank you,
Cynthia Fan
to: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
Re: 11/17 #9: Pilot high-use grass w/organic mgmt experts. Reject turf study ﬁndings. 11/17/25
Hi Palo Alto City Council,
As outgoing Parks and Recreation Commissioner Jeff Greenﬁeld noted, the consultant’s report needs to be credible. Unfortunately, it is not. It contains both quantitative errors and qualitative ﬂaws that call its key ﬁndings into question. The margins of error in the ﬁeld carrying capacity analysis are so wide that, based on the data, it is entirely possible that improved natural-grass ﬁelds could support today’s demand without additional artiﬁcial turf. The only way to ﬁnd out is to ﬁnally pilot construction and maintenance methods for maximizing the carrying capacity of native-soil natural grass ﬁelds. The City has discussed doing this for nearly a decade.

Continuing to postpone this work comes with a real environmental cost. Please direct staff to return with a detailed pilot plan.

Pro-plastic-turf commenters argue that the City can’t afford to maintain grass. But the consultant’s own lifecycle cost analysis shows that a plastic ﬁeld costs $3.5 million over 20 years, while a properly maintained grass ﬁeld costs $1.8 million. If you are willing to spend $3.5 million on a plastic ﬁeld, why would you be unwilling to invest more than $1.8 million to maximize the sustainable carrying capacity of grass? Bonus:

Doing so would also support local green jobs instead of the petrochemical industry.

The City’s existing grass ﬁelds would beneﬁt from improvements. So let’s improve them. Add subsurface drainage. Enrich the soil. Level surfaces. Fill holes promptly.

Maintain irrigation. Tighten the feedback loop from user complaints to repairs.

Go a step further… Leverage your unique position to make meaningful environmental change by piloting methods to dramatically increase the carrying capacity of organically-managed grass athletic ﬁelds. Learn from the professional experts who are already doing this successfully. Produce a case study that other local municipalities and school districts can replicate. Set off a domino effect that ultimately reduces the plastic-turf acreage across the Bay Area. If you don’t do this, who will? CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 1 Staff recommends that you “receive and accept” the consultant’s ﬁndings and recommendations. I urge you instead to receive the report but reject the ﬁndings noting that the ﬁndings should not guide current or future decision making. They are analytically unsound. If you ultimately choose actions similar to the consultant’s recommendations, that is your prerogative—but the rationale for those actions must be independent of these ﬂawed ﬁndings.

To help you evaluate the consultant’s ﬁndings yourself and make an informed decision about how to proceed, I’ve critically analyzed the report for you. On the next page is a copy of the consultant’s ﬁndings as summarized in the staff report. I’ve numbered them so you can jump to the section of my comments that covers each.

Regardless of how you choose to proceed with El Camino, accepting the ﬁndings of this report would leave future staff, commissioners, and councils with a misleading roadmap for renovations in 2028 (Cubberley), 2033 (Mayﬁeld), 2034 (El Camino), and any proposals to expand the City’s artiﬁcial-turf inventory. Those decisions will be far better informed by the results of a grass-ﬁeld pilot.

Continuing to install plastic turf when there is a real possibility of meeting community needs with improved natural grass runs counter to Palo Alto’s climate action, climate adaptation, and zero-waste goals.

Your job as councilmembers is to weigh the full range of evidence—not simply defer to an unexamined narrative or a consultant’s judgment.

Reject the ﬁndings, pursue the pilot, and base decisions on real data.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cynthia Fan
CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 2 Clipped from the staff report, here is staff’s summary of the consultant’s key ﬁndings:

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 3

Table of contents of my analysis of the consultant’s ﬁndings:

1. Don’t accept unsubstantiated carrying capacity ﬁnding. 5 2. Don’t accept a potentially erroneous cost eﬃciency ﬁnding. 9 3. Don’t accept the imbalanced presentation of environmental and health ﬁndings.
15 4. Don’t accept the maintenance and operation ﬁndings. 19 5. Respond to the community input ﬁndings — by educating the public. 20 6. Don’t accept the El Camino Park case study ﬁndings. 23 7. Don’t accept recommendations based on ﬂawed ﬁndings. 24 8. Do a pilot — but get 2nd opinion on sand-based. 26 CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 4

1. Don’t accept unsubstantiated carrying capacity ﬁnding.

The consultant asserts that “Synthetic turf ﬁelds can sustain approximately 3 to 4 times more use than native-soil grass ﬁelds before surface conditions deteriorate.” Because an assertion like this could be used to shape policy and justify multimillion-dollar decisions, it needs to be supported with a case study.

Otherwise, how can you and the community be assured that the consultant’s “3 to 4 times more” claim isn’t an unsubstantiated rule of thumb based simply on observations about grass ﬁelds that, if built and managed with best practices and fully utilized, could have demonstrated far greater carrying capacity? Although I submitted that feedback during the Community Engagement Comment Period on the consultant’s draft report, the consultant failed to include a valid case study in the ﬁnal report.

Citing the Santa Clara County report is inadequate. That report’s carrying capacity claim has been debunked. That report stated “Artiﬁcial turf’s durability allows for signiﬁcantly greater playing time [than grass], up to 3.5 times more.” [pg 6 of county report] However, the claim is a misrepresentation of the county’s source data. In response to a public records request, the county identiﬁed [Santa Clara County response] and provided to me the source of the 3.5 ﬁgure: a letter prepared by a representative of the Morgan Hill Outdoor Sports Center [MHOSC letter]. The letter states that “Hourly users book the [synthetic] turf ﬁelds about 3.5x the usage of a grass ﬁeld.” However, earlier in the letter, it is stated that those “grass ﬁelds have excess capacity.” Together those statements indicate that the lack of grass ﬁeld bookings reﬂects user choice, not limited ﬁeld capacity. In other words, a 3.5 booking ratio does not translate into a 3.5 carrying capacity ratio. Therefore, the county’s claim that synthetic ﬁelds allow for up to 3.5 times the carrying capacity of grass is unsubstantiated.

The consultant attempts to corroborate the “3 to 4 times more” claim by comparing a supposed 2700 annual hours of use on El Camino’s synthetic turf to a supposed maximum sustainable carrying capacity for native-soil grass of 400-600 annual hours [p57, 59]. The consultant reasons 2700 / 600 is close to 4. However, both the numerator and denominator in that ratio are wrong.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 5 An explanation of why the denominator of 400-600 is wrong:

The report identiﬁes 19 of the city’s native-soil natural grass ﬁelds as being used more than 600 annual hours, 12 of which are being used nearly 1,000 or more annual hours with 7 of those being used more than 1,300 annual hours [pg 59]. While the amount of scheduled use can be greater than or less than sustainable carrying capacity, the consultant concluded, as a key ﬁnding [pg 5], that only “several” of the city’s native-soil grass ﬁelds are operating “near or above sustainable capacity.” To summarize, the report’s data and consultant’s assessment demonstrates the city has proven it is feasible to sustain a capacity of 1,000 or more annual hours on a native-soil natural grass ﬁeld rather than only 400-600 annual hours.

Since sustainable carrying capacity is deﬁned by the report as “the amount of use a ﬁeld can sustain before its condition declines below an acceptable level for safe or quality play.” [pg 5], this means most of the city’s grass ﬁelds that are being used 1,000 hours or more are not suffering unreasonable deterioration of surface conditions.

An explanation of why the numerator of 2700 is wrong:

The actual ﬁeld reservation data provided in the report [Appendix D] indicates El Camino’s synthetic turf is used only ~2,000 annual hours, as opposed to the 2,700 asserted by the consultant [pg 59].

Although the consultant concluded that each of the city’s 4 synthetic turf systems are used at least 2,700 hours per year [pg 59], the reservation data provided in the report’s appendix indicates that none of them are used that much. The consultant made a signiﬁcant mathematical error summing the hours for Cubberley’s synthetic turf. (Perhaps it’s the same error the consultant made for El Camino’s synthetic turf back in the August draft report.) In addition, the consultant made methodological errors calculating the usage for each of the city’s 4 synthetic ﬁelds, effectively double-counting thousands of synthetic turf usage hours.

I’m puzzled by the disconnect on the double-counting issue. I can’t tell whether the consultant is misunderstanding my concern or whether he is insisting this explanation on page 59 of the report addresses my concern:

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 6 “Field reservations included both full-ﬁeld and partial-ﬁeld options, each counted as a single use hour. Whether a team used a portion or the entirety of the ﬁeld had no effect on scheduling calculations; however, full-ﬁeld use is preferred, as it helps distribute wear more evenly across the surface rather than concentrating it in localized areas.” That explanation fails to clear things up for me. I tried to get clarity by emailing staffmember Sarah Robustelli, 10/30/25, the following example/question but got no response:
“For example, the appendix shows two simultaneous reservations on January 10, 2024 for the two halves of El Camino’s synthetic ﬁeld:

El Camino Fields – Turf South | 4:00–5:30 PM | Palo Alto Soccer Club El Camino Fields – Turf North | 4:00–5:30 PM | Stanford Soccer Club These entries represent two half-ﬁeld reservations during the same 1.5- hour window. I don’t see how this could reasonably be interpreted as 3 hours of total ﬁeld use rather than 1.5 hours.

Could you clarify why the consultant’s approach—effectively double- counting concurrent partial-ﬁeld reservations—is considered acceptable by staff?”
For Cubberley’s synthetic ﬁeld, correcting for both the mathematical error and methodological error reduces annual usage by almost 1,000 hours — from 2844 hours down to 1869.

For El Camino’s synthetic ﬁeld, correcting the methodological error reduces annual usage from 2753 hours down to 2008.

Taken together, the consultant overstated usage on these two synthetic ﬁelds by roughly 1,700 hours per year.

When questioned by the Parks & Rec Commission, the consultant replied that the difference in hours was not meaningful. But it absolutely is! Based on the consultant’s rule of thumb that grass can only support 400-600 annual hours of CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 7 use, this insight saves you the cost of acquiring land and building 3 to 5 more grass ﬁelds on it. That’s meaningful.

So, back to the topic of the equivalency ratio between grass and synthetic ﬁelds, if you correct the numerator, changing it from 2,700 to 2,000, and also correct the denominator, changing it from 600 to 1,000, then synthetic turf doesn’t look quite as compelling from a carrying capacity standpoint. The 2,000 hours of use that El Camino’s synthetic ﬁeld receives compared to the conservatively feasible sustainable capacity of 1,000 or more annual hours on native-soil natural grass, represents an equivalency of 2 rather than an equivalency of 3 to 4.

After studying the characteristics and carrying capacity of over 1100 grass ﬁelds, agronomist Dr. Mick Battam concludes, “The evidence is crystal clear that many councils are justifying installing expensive synthetic ﬁelds based on ﬂawed usage data. It is incumbent on decision makers to base sports strategies and expenditure of public funds on sound science as opposed to marketing material and unsubstantiated rules of thumb… There is no scientiﬁc basis to rely on [25 hours per week] to describe the carrying capacity of all natural turf ﬁelds… The key issues holding natural turf sporting ﬁelds are a lack of knowledge to correctly identify the causes of poor turf performance and lack of funding to address them.” [Battam 3-2022] In that 2022 research, he explains that “Whilst some sites may have inadequate soil depth, others struggle because of an inappropriate turf cultivar, poor drainage and/or soil that sets hard or has low levels of fertility.

However, once these limitations have been addressed, most ﬁelds can handle very high levels of wear.” In the study, he provides data on a dozen ﬁelds that sustainably carrying 40-60+ hours per week of use. [pg 23 of Battam 2-2022] Because his research is from a different climate, those exact carrying capacities may not be feasible here, but it should be noted that the 25-hour-per week rule of thumb used to justify synthetic ﬁelds there is the same rule of thumb used by Palo Alto’s consultant to assert that even a high-perfoming grass ﬁelds proﬁle can’t typically exceed 1200 hours per year [p57] and the same rule of 25-hour-per-week thumb used by synthetic turf manufacturer Field Turf to promote synthetic turf [Field Turf].

The only way to scientiﬁcally determine the max sustainable carrying capacity for grass ﬁelds in Palo Alto is to correctly identify the causes of poor performance and address them.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 8

2. Don’t accept a potentially erroneous cost eﬃciency
ﬁnding.

If cost ﬁgures are to be used in justifying artiﬁcial turf purchases, it’s critical to get the ﬁgures right.

The consultant ﬁnds that “the 20-year ownership cost [of a synthetic turf system] is $3.5 million, compared to $1.8 million for a native soil natural grass ﬁeld.” However, the 20-year cost to own a synthetic ﬁeld appears to potentially be underestimated and the cost to own a native soil natural grass ﬁeld appears to potentially be overestimated. After revising these costs, the cost per hour of use for natural grass and synthetic ﬁelds needs to be recalculated.

The consultant’s lifecycle cost estimates are found in Appendix B.

A. Is the life cycle cost table’s estimate for synthetic ﬁelds comprehensive? Why doesn’t it include the following?
•geotextile fabric (there’s a slot for it but it’s left blank) •the inﬁll replenishment that is required every 1-2 years for non-plastic inﬁlls (per pg 41 of the consultant’s report)
•seam repairs,
•regrading,
•disposal/recycling.

According to the city’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy (accessible from the city’s “Plans, Policies, Ordinances” page), “Evaluation prices for goods and services shall factor in… total product cost over the lifetime of the product (use, maintenance, disposal).”
CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 9 B. Is the life cycle cost table’s estimate for synthetic ﬁelds renovations realistic? 100% of the city’s synthetic ﬁeld renovations are costing signiﬁcantly more than the consultant’s estimates.

How much more? $890,000 more for Mayﬁeld North, $890,000 more for Mayﬁeld South, $640,000 more for Cubberley, and up to $660,000 more for El Camino.

To break it down, the consultant’s report estimates that the cost to renovate an 80,000 square foot synthetic ﬁeld is $640K at year 10 and $760K at year 20, yet no explanation is provided for the following discrepancies. •$1,000K to $1,300K, not $640K, is what the staff report [pg 5] says it will cost to resurface El Camino’s synthetic ﬁeld system in 2025 (at approximately year 10). •$1400K, not $760K, is what the consultant’s report [pg 17] says it will cost to resurface Cubberley’s synthetic ﬁeld system in 2028 (at approximately year 20). •$1650K each, not $760K each, is what it appears to cost in 2025 (i.e. at approximately year 20) for resurfacing Mayﬁeld’s 2 synthetic ﬁeld systems (since the total is, according to the consultant’s report [pg 17], $3300K).

I asked staff to help clarify this and as of this afternoon still have no answer [O’Kane]. If it’s an anomaly, perhaps this is a sign that anomalies costing hundreds of thousands of dollars are common and the city should be planning for them rather than hinging city ﬁnancial decisions on unrealistically lowballed estimates.

C. Financial projections should be based on tentatively performing the renovations at years 8, 16, and 24, rather than years 10 and 20, because given the heavy usage in Palo Alto, the city’s experience with artiﬁcial turf systems is that they have become due for renovation at least every 8 years to keep them safe and limit pollution. (The clearest way to do this would be to extend the life cycle cost analysis from 20 years to 24 years to let the third carpet installment complete its lifecycle.)
In estimating life cycle costs, the consultant generously estimates that synthetic ﬁelds only need replacement once every 10 years. However, earlier in the report, on pg 17, the consultant admits they typically require full replacement every 8 to 10 years. This is likely why many systems are only warrantied for 8 years.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 10 For heavily used ﬁelds like Palo Alto’s, the city realistically ought to be budgeting and tentatively planning for renovations at 8 years, not 10 years. It’s ﬁscally irresponsible, based on historic data, to base ﬁnancial projections on the latter.

We are entering Mayﬁeld’s third decade of plastic carpet and are soon to enter Cubberley’s third decade and El Camino’s second decade. I suspect all were warrantied for 8 years. How many of those carpet installations remained in safe and environmentally harmless condition for 10 years? Or even the full 8 years? Or even 6 years?? The current Cubberley carpet just barely turned 6 years old and it’s shedding like crazy as Sherry Listgarten described to the Parks and Recreation commission in her August public comment [Listgarten].

The fact that the city has made a mistake in the past by leaving degrading carpets in place for 10 years doesn’t justify continuing this practice.

D. Reduce natural grass renovation costs to reﬂect that well-built, well-managed ﬁelds don’t need full replacements every 10 years.

In the consultant’s lifecycle analysis, the consultant estimates that over 20 years, a grass ﬁeld will need to be completely replaced twice, amounting to $240K in renovation costs.

A grass ﬁeld built and maintained according to best practices should not need to be completely resodded every 10 years.

Field longevity was addressed during a webinar hosted in May of 2024 by an elected ofﬁcial in D.C. in which seven national experts were asked to discuss whether properly designed, constructed, and maintained natural grass playing ﬁelds are a viable, sustainable, and affordable alternative to artiﬁcial turf. Experts Jerad Minnick and Sun Roesselain explained a grass ﬁeld can last more than 20 years without renovation. If you want to hear the details straight from the sources, a recording of the webinar is available online [D.C. meeting]. In follow-up to the webinar, the elected ofﬁcial provided his own synopsis [Sherman] of the discussion. There you will ﬁnd the list of national experts, along with their bios. Sun was the recent president of the international Sports Field Management Association. Jerad consults for Major League Soccer. They both are ﬁeld operators for nonproﬁts that provide high use sports ﬁelds for communities. So these are very credible sources to lean on. At the school district she works for, Sun says she’s never resodded an entire ﬁeld in 24 years. She did one partial re-sod and it was under $25K.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 11 E. The synthetic turf maintenance costs do not appear to be comprehensive.

In the lifecycle cost analysis, the consultant estimates that synthetic turf maintenance costs only $6K per year. Instead of breaking down the maintenance costs in the updated report as I suggested as part of the feedback the city solicited, the consultant responded [p21 of Appendix F] that “The maintenance ﬁgures were provided by the City.”
Several Sports Field Management Association turfgrass professionals have questioned that $6K ﬁgure, commenting that it appears to be curiously low. I’m puzzled why the consultant did not question staff about it.

It’s unclear whether the $6K synthetic turf maintenance estimate includes all of the following:
•the manufacturer GMAX testing package, which cost ~$8,000 for 5 GMAX tests in the Mayﬁeld contract [Field Turf contract]
•the additional GMAX testing performed to fulﬁll the twice per year best practice [Sports Field Management Association]
•the manufacturer maintenance package, like the $80,000 Field Turf maintenance package the City just bought as part of the Mayﬁeld contract [Field Turf contract] •the maintenance BrightView performs [BrightView contract] •the seam and inlay repairs that Vice Chair Greenﬁeld expressed concern about during the 10/28 PRC meeting
•daily trash pickup (noted by city staff in appendix E, pg 72) •weekly leaf debris cleanup (noted by city staff in appendix E, pg 72) •any additional routine maintenance that city staff perform Also, which ﬁgure in the life cycle cost table includes the cost of purchasing natural inﬁll materials and the labor of installing them annually or biennially? Reasons to be concerned they’re unaccounted for:

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 12 •page 39 of the report warns that alternative inﬁlls “typically have shorter lifespans compared to traditional crumb rubber”
•page 41 indicates that annual or biennial replenishment is required for the natural inﬁll products the city has transitioned to
•page 116 indicates you are planning to install cork inﬁll at El Camino. Because cork inﬁll ﬂoats, it can migrate out of position requiring that it be brushed back into place. It can also wash away, requiring replenishment.
•I’m fairly certain alternative inﬁlls are pricier than crumb rubber •page 68 actually admits that the $6K doesn’t account for major inﬁll replenishment F. After revising the costs, the cost per hour of use for natural grass and synthetic ﬁelds needs to be recalculated.

The consultant ﬁnds that “Synthetic turf provides the lowest cost per hour of use with an average of $79 per hour… Natural grass ﬁelds… $179 to $203 per hour...” It’s very possible that natural grass could provide comparable or better cost per hour of use if, as speculated above, the consultant did any of the following:
•underestimated the synthetic turf 20 year life cycle costs or •overestimated the natural grass 20 year life cycle costs or •overestimated synthetic turf usage in Palo Alto or
•underestimated how much use natural grass can support in Palo Alto Here is ONE potential example to demonstrate how much it matters for the above ﬁgures to be accurate. As explained in section 1 above, El Camino’s plastic ﬁeld is only being used ~2000 hours a year and the city has proven it is feasible to sustain a capacity of 1,000 or more annual hours on a native-soil natural grass ﬁeld. In this scenario, a grass ﬁeld would cost $89 per hour while a plastic ﬁeld would cost $88 per hour, i.e. almost equivalent.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 13 Let’s look at what happens if we also revise the synthetic ﬁeld renovation costs. Recall in section B above that the cost of the 10 year renovation of El Camino is now projected by staff to be up to $1.3M rather than the consultant’s estimated $640K, and the 20 year renovation of El Camino could be $1.65M like each of the Mayﬁeld ﬁelds. In this scenario, a grass ﬁeld would cost $89 per hour while a plastic ﬁeld would cost $127 per hour.

G. You’ve heard plenty about how grass is the most environmentally responsible choice for El Camino Park. Here are additional reasons it’s also the most ﬁscally responsible choice:
•The life cycle costs involved in continuing with artiﬁcial turf, over time, outweigh the $1.5M-$2M [pg 7] one-time cost to upgrade the artiﬁcial turf to grass. •The consultant’s report estimates it costs $3.5M every 20 years to own a plastic ﬁeld and $1.8M every 20 years to own a grass ﬁeld. This means that for every ﬁeld you prevent from being replaced with plastic turf, you save the city $1.7M every 20 years. We’re not just talking about the city’s 4 existing artiﬁcial turf systems; You’re being asked by some user groups to convert even more of the city’s grass to artiﬁcial turf.
•The $1.7M in savings for each of these 4+ ﬁelds could be used to help pay for pilot projects and enhanced grass ﬁeld construction and maintenance. In fact, even if you just replaced a ﬁeld with new grass and didn’t improve anything, that $1.7M is enough to resod the grass ﬁeld every year or two! (The life cycle cost table estimates it costs $120K to re-sod a standard, 80,000 square foot ﬁeld.) At least that’d be better than using that money for a plastic ﬁeld. •The city is underutilizing its synthetic ﬁelds assets. There is considerable excess capacity on the 3 synthetic ﬁelds at Cubberley and Mayﬁeld. According to the consultant, a synthetic ﬁeld can be programmed for 5,000 hours of annual use [pg 97], which means the city’s other 3 synthetic ﬁelds have a combined capacity of 15,000 hours per year. Since the city’s other 3 synthetic ﬁelds are reserved for a combined total of only ~7,000 hours (after correcting for the consultant’s double- counting method), that leaves ~8,000 hours per year unused. The city is spending over $10 million every 20 years to keep those assets. Their capacity should be maxxed out before trying to justify the continued expense of a 4th plastic ﬁeld.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 14

3. Don’t accept the imbalanced presentation of
environmental and health ﬁndings.

Staff digested the consultant’s report and summarized it for you in their staff report. I was in disbelief that the staff report highlighted ZERO of the environmental beneﬁts or health beneﬁts to choosing natural grass ﬁelds over plastic ones. Staff’s failure to glean and highlight these beneﬁts is your ﬁrst hint that the consultant’s presentation of environmental and health considerations was not balanced.

If the consultant’s report had been balanced, staff could have more easily recognized the importance of enumerating for you in their staff report the ways in which natural grass ﬁelds can support the city’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, Green Stormwater Infrastructure goals, and Zero Waste goals. These are supposed to factor into your decisions.

Here are 4 more examples of the lack of balance in the consultant’s executive summary on environmental health.

Example 1: To directly counter all of the beneﬁcial ecosystem services provided by grass, the consultant emphasizes that grass requires a signiﬁcant amount of fertilizers and pesticides. The consultant’s report was supposed to be custom for Palo Alto so this emphasis comes off as disingenuous once you realize the consultant elected not to disclose an accompanying summary of the following highly relevant facts which are relatively unique to Palo Alto: The city does not use synthetic fertilizers. The city applies compost and other organic inputs, which provide the added beneﬁt of reducing pest problems and disease. A large number of the city’s parks are 100% pesticide-free, and at the others, chemical pesticides are used as a last resort and the least toxic option is selected. For my peace of mind, I submitted a public records request for the 2024 pesticide logs for the grass soccer ﬁelds at Cubberley and Greer. Staff’s response stated “We do not use pesticides at Cubberley Community Center or Greer Park.” Because herbicides are a type of pesticide, it can be concluded that herbicides were therefore not used either. Praise your staff! The city has won multiple awards for its IPM program and dramatic reductions in pesticide usage. [BrightView contract].

Example 2: The consultant focuses heavily on advancements in artiﬁcial turf but makes no mention whatsoever of advancements in natural turf. A balanced assessment would mention that universities continue to develop newer turfgrass CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 15 cultivars that are more durable and require considerably less water. It would also mention that the turfgrass industry continues to advance labor-saving, eco-friendly maintenance technologies like zero-emissions equipment, smart irrigation controllers, water-management drones, autonomous mowers, autonomous line painters, etc.

These tools can enable meaningful reductions in labor costs, water inputs, need for sod patching, etc.

Example 3: PFAS is the only concerning class of chemicals in plastic turf ﬁbers that the consultant identiﬁes and suggests mitigations for. It’s imbalanced that the other ﬁve chemical classes of concern identiﬁed by the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control go unacknowledged and unmitigated: ortho-phthalates, colorants, antioxidants, light stabilizers, UV light stabilizers [Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2024].

Example 4: The consultant describes manufacturers’ pursuit of measures to expand recycling as an advancement. There is no substantiated evidence that meaningfully signiﬁcant progress has been made in this area in the last 15 years. Meanwhile mountains of plastic carpet waste are piling up around the nation. Field Turf was claiming its carpets were 100% recyclable over 15 years ago. If large-scale recycling were truly viable, why is so little turf carpet actually being recycled today? The consultant’s report provides no evidence that large-scale recycling is anything more than an industry mirage—a marketing strategy aimed at persuading environmentally conscious city leaders like you. The report fails to identify a single facility in the United States that recycles artiﬁcial turf carpets—at scale, without incineration, and in compliance with California’s standards for products marketed as “recyclable.” In fact, while the consultant’s report was being written, a high-proﬁle turf recycling facility went bankrupt after years of claiming it was “on the verge” of scaling up [Inquirer 2025]. These industry experiments repeatedly collapse, leaving the public to shoulder the cleanup. Today, 6,000 rolls of toxic turf sit abandoned—another reminder that the promise of large-scale recycling of turf is, at best, wishful thinking and, at worst, deliberate deception.

As you can see from these 4 examples of imbalance in the consultant’s executive summary, what the consultant chooses to emphasize and de-emphasize in the report inﬂuences the reader’s interpretation. The consultant may not have a bias, but these are examples of skewed reporting that I fear will guide you and other readers in the wrong direction.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 16 To help restore some balance and compensate for what you haven’t heard from staff or the consultant, here are some things I’d like to emphasize to you:
•The relentless attack on sports ﬁeld water use is misguided and has hidden costs according to the University of California Cooperative Extension. Large landscapes like sports ﬁelds, parks, and golf courses account for only 2% of the total statewide water use. “This does not seem like much when one considers the essential functions and innumerable beneﬁts that landscape plants provide to enhance the quality of our lives and make urban areas livable.” Long list provided at https:// ucanr.edu/sites/UrbanHort/ﬁles/216568.pdf
•You have no evidence to conclude that you aren’t polluting the watershed with signiﬁcant amounts of microplastics and nanoplastics from plastic turf ﬁbers. •Once dispersed, most of these nearly invisible bits of plastic are impossible to retrieve from the environment. Micro- and nano-plastics are now part of the water cycle. They are in rainwater, agriculture, and our drinking water. •The recipe for the plastics in your artiﬁcial turf system are conﬁdential trade secrets.

Plastics are made from thousands of chemicals. Many of these plastic chemicals have not been tested. Of those that have been tested, many are known hormone disruptors. When the public starts to fuss about ones that’ve been tested, manufacturers are known to make regrettable substitutions. That means they replace chemicals that have known problems with chemicals that are untested and that may be even worse.
•Fun fact: Pesticides are strictly regulated and must be registered with the EPA before use. But the thousands of chemicals used to make plastics, including those in artiﬁcial turf, are not reviewed or approved in the same way. So if you’re concerned about pesticide exposure, you should be at least as concerned about plastics. •Opting to forego crumb rubber inﬁll is much appreciated, thank you. Yes, it makes the artiﬁcial turf system less bad, but it does not make it anywhere near good. It’s deﬁnitely not enough to make it okay to buy and dispose of another 80 tons of plastic every 8-10 years to re-carpet the city’s 4 plastic ﬁelds. •It would be premature to approve moving forward today with plans for artiﬁcial turf at El Camino without an independent analysis of the raw PFAS test results from the carpet AND shockpad at Mayﬁeld. It looks like staff may be CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 17 proposing to install the same products at El Camino [p116]. PFAS have been found in these exact same products (Field Turf Vertex Prime carpet and Brock Powerbase YSR shockpad) when other communities have had them properly tested and evaluated by independent experts. You rushed into approving the Mayﬁeld installation without ﬁrst getting PFAS test results and, as far as I know, you still have no substantiated evidence to conclude that the plastic turf carpet or the shockpad that you installed at Mayﬁeld are truly PFAS free or even PFAS reduced. All you have, as far as I know, are manufacturer claims. Manufacturers are making the same hotly-contested claims now that they made years ago when PFAS was ﬁrst discovered in their products — that the PFAS detected in their products is the “safe” kind and the amount is negligible — so how do we know anything meaningful has changed, other than the marketing?
Even if you choose to move forward with artiﬁcial turf at El Camino, it’d be an environmental and public health disservice to accept a report on artiﬁcial turf with such a narrow set of highlighted ﬁndings in the executive summary. Just like the city opted not to redo the county’s review of the health literature, future Palo Alto decision makers and other cities will likely cite your consultant’s report, rather than doing their own environmental and health assessment. So accepting these ﬁndings would disservices citizens both in and beyond Palo Alto.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 18

4. Don’t accept the maintenance and operation ﬁndings.

The consultant ﬁnds that the City’s maintenance program aligns with “industry standards.” But what does that really mean? Does “industry standard” refer to true best practices in sports-ﬁeld management, or does it simply reﬂect common practices among municipalities that are often dealing with aging infrastructure, outdated equipment, underfunded maintenance budgets, insufﬁcient training, or inconsistent adherence to maintenance plans?
Having a “program” that aligns with industry standards isn’t adequate if the program isn’t being adhered to. Are we conﬁdent that the program is being adhered to? I understand that the responsibilities are shared between city staff and Brightview.

The city’s contract with Brightview requires monthly progress reports [BrightView contract pg 14]. I submitted a public records request to the city to browse them. It’s concerning that the Community Services staffmember that responded could not ﬁnd any [Koga].

Why aren’t holes ﬁlled in a timely fashion? Multiple user groups complained about holes in the city survey [report appendix C]. These are ankle-breakers. This is a safety issue. Does the city need a better reporting system? Does the city need to step up monitoring of BrightView’s work and hold them accountable to their contract? Their contract [page 30] speciﬁes holes are to be ﬁlled. Does the city need to hire an additional staff person to ﬁll holes? “Holes” seems like a solvable problem, not one that can only be solved with a plastic ﬁeld.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 19

5. Respond to the community input ﬁndings — by educating the public.

Two takeaways from the city survey:

A) There’s widespread misinformation on the subject of natural turf and artiﬁcial turf. It impedes the city’s sustainability and climate action goals. Public education is needed.

B) The city didn’t poll the soccer families or the broader community.

An outsized number of the focus group interviewees [Apendix C] were leaders of soccer organizations advocating for artiﬁcial turf. It’d be insightful to know what percentage of their membership currently stands behind them and would continue to do so if provided with a less-skewed assessment of artiﬁcial turf vs grass than the ones I’ve seen soccer organizations publicize.

Anecdotally, I could easily name dozens of moms and dads with kids in recreational and competitive soccer, ranging from kindergarten-age through high school, that are not supportive of plastic ﬁelds.

While not mentioned in the key ﬁndings, I think it’s worth highlighting that not all the soccer organizations you surveyed advocated for artiﬁcial turf. PSV Union’s survey feedback says artiﬁcial turf is dangerous for players and coaches, causes more ACL and ankle injuries, and gets too hot. They’d rather play on bad grass, dirt, or concrete than play on artiﬁcial turf. “There is an abundance of ﬁelds in Palo Alto. Very few need [artiﬁcial] turf on them. The best players in the world in the history of soccer mostly played on dirt, concrete and bad grass. They never played on [artiﬁcial] turf. Most ﬁelds in Palo Alto outside the 4pm - 8pm windows during mid-week get very little usage… Players, coaches, and parents prefer grass. User groups prefer [artiﬁcial] turf. [Artiﬁcial] turf is dangerous to player development and safety. The solution to all the cities problems is for the private user groups to invest in a soccer speciﬁc venue and not put more demands on the cities ﬁelds.”
Of the soccer organizations that did advocate for artiﬁcial turf, a common refrain was that real grass requires excessive pesticides, water, and lots of maintenance.

It also quickly becomes apparent from talking to friends and neighbors that haven’t read up on this subject that many still assume synthetic turf is an environmentally- CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 20 responsible choice, perhaps a holdover from a less-informed era when it wasn’t uncommon for agencies to pass out rebates for replacing real grass with plastic grass.

It’s important that you educate the public so they realize the beneﬁts of living lawns, living landscapes, and the city’s 30+ grass ﬁelds. People listen to you. Leverage your position on the dais and in public to educate and correct misinformation. Direct staff to post educational materials on the city website.

Educate the public that:
-Much of the city’s grass is pesticide free.
-Watered correctly, living landscapes provide invaluable environmental and community beneﬁts.
-The consultant’s lifecycle cost study—which included all maintenance needs for grass—showed that a plastic ﬁeld costs the City roughly twice as much to own as a natural grass ﬁeld. ($3.5 million vs. $1.8 million)
Why do the soccer clubs, in their survey feedback, express so much concern about the city’s maintenance costs for grass? Is the city asking them to only pay their fair share of maintenance costs rather than their fair share of lifecycle costs? Regardless of how you proceed with the athletic ﬁelds, please help curb the spread of artiﬁcial turf across private properties by directing staff to develop and post on the City website educational materials:

How about a short video like the Town of Windsor’s “Nix Artiﬁcial Turf”? [Windsor Video] That video was shared by the town’s Sustainability Coordinator in a presentation last month. [Windsor Sustainability 2025]
How about an educational factsheet? One that
“a) describes the environmental issues associated with artiﬁcial turf use, b) explains how turf use may impede the City’s climate adaptation and related sustainability objectives,
CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 21 c) provides or directs individuals to resources on alternative low cost and low maintenance natural landscaping options, and
d) promotes the beneﬁts of natural landscaping for rainwater management, urban heat mitigation, and biodiversity conservation and enhancement.” That advice comes from an August 2025 report produced under a partnership between university academics and the City of Vancouver [Klasios 2025].

That report is especially worthy of your time if you might be open to developing city policies around the use of artiﬁcial turf on private property.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 22

6. Don’t accept the El Camino Park case study ﬁndings.

The consultant ﬁnds that if El Camino’s synthetic ﬁeld were converted to natural grass, “the City would likely need to provide three to four additional native soil natural grass ﬁelds to accommodate the approximately 2,753 annual hours of displaced use.” Let’s start with the logical error. All of the use would not be displaced. The new grass ﬁeld installed in its place would be able to carry some of it.

Next, let’s talk about how much use might be displaced. As I supported above, El Camino’s synthetic ﬁeld is only used 2,008 hours per year, not 2,753. Also, as I supported above, the city has the proven ability to sustain native-soil grass ﬁelds that support 1,000 hours per year without unreasonable deterioration of surface conditions. Therefore, El Camino’s synthetic ﬁeld is only sustaining two times the use of what the city can sustain on native-soil grass. That means, you only need to add one ﬁeld, not three or four. Better yet, rather than acquire land and add another ﬁeld to the city’s inventory to absorb the displaced hours, absorb those hours across a subset of the 30+ grass ﬁelds in the city’s inventory that get less than 1000 hours of use per year. [p59]
While some of the displaced hours are in winter when the city chooses to close some of its grass ﬁelds for rest, the usage data suggests [p59] that the city ﬁgured out how to keep the JLS grass ﬁelds open in winter. If the city needs help making some of its native-soil grass soccer ﬁelds rainout proof, seek out the help of a professional consultant like sports ﬁeld manager Jerad Minnick of Natural Grass Advisory Group [NGAG]. Mr. Minnick’s credentials span the spectrum from managing a nonproﬁt soccer complex with ~20 grass ﬁelds to consulting for Major League Soccer.

Great success story: ‘5… native-soil ﬁelds were equipped with an innovative system of underground drainage channels to speed water away from the playing surface so play could continue under a wider variety of weather conditions. And the [youth tournament] showed just what a difference it all made. “Our goal was to be able to play in up to 3” [of rain]. We played after 6,” said Minnick of the ﬁve adapted native- soil ﬁelds.’ [SoccerWire]
Based on the above, it appears feasible to, with little to no long-term impact on the user groups, convert El Camino to grass and add NO additional grass ﬁelds.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 23

7. Don’t accept recommendations based on ﬂawed ﬁndings.

If you don’t accept the report’s ﬁndings, it’s unreasonable to accept recommendations based on those ﬁndings.

For a city council that has made “Climate Action & Adaptation, and Natural Environment Protection” one of its 4 priorities of 2025, how can you reconcile putting down any more artiﬁcial turf?
Installing additional artiﬁcial turf is incongruous with the city’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. Why isn’t that enough reason to stop doing it? CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 24 https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Council/City-Council- Priorities
Plastic’s Contribution to Climate Change. The Geneva Environment Network, coordinated by the United Nations, writes:
“Plastics are threatening the ability of the global community to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C, as greenhouse gases (GHG) are emitted throughout the plastic life cycle. Indeed, extraction, reﬁning and manufacture of plastics are all carbon intensive activities… At the disposal stage, incineration of plastic waste releases signiﬁcant GHG into the atmosphere, alongside toxic pollutants. Other disposal methods, including recycling, also come with their share of GHG emissions.” CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 25 https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/plastics-and- climate/
Estimated amounts of greenhouse gases released at each stage of the plastic life cycle (2019).

8. Do a pilot — but get 2nd opinion on sand-based.

Direct staff to prepare a detailed proposal to pilot a maximally-utilized, lighted, native-soil natural grass ﬁeld that has been both constructed and managed in accordance with best practices for maximizing carrying capacity and weather resilience, and also in accordance with best practices for regenerative organic management.

Until a pilot is completed in a climate comparable to Palo Alto’s, the typical sustainable carrying capacity can not be ascertained for Sustainable carrying capacity means the amount of use a ﬁeld can sustain before its condition declines to an unacceptable level. Regardless of whether the city buys any more artiﬁcial turf, we can all agree we want our grass ﬁelds to support greater carrying capacity.

We’ve been waiting for this for years. A pilot was essentially recommended by the city itself EIGHT YEARS AGO, in the 2017 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, program

2.C.1. The program called for selecting a set of natural grass ﬁelds, analyzing their soil, irrigation, drainage, and maintenance, and then upgrading them. That pilot was never done.

There’s plenty of support for a pilot. Look at who all has recommended or endorsed one.

1.Numerous members of the public.

2.The City. In 2017. In the master plan I just referenced.

3.County staff. In January 2025, they explicitly recommended to the county supervisors that administration be directed to “prepare a proposal for a time- limited natural grass playing ﬁeld project to learn and disseminate to local ﬁeld operators best practices for installation, operation, and maintenance of natural grass ﬁelds with an improved performance proﬁle… staff would consult with subject matter experts to prepare speciﬁcations… Staff would propose to partner with a local school district or city park department to identify a potential site and propose a share of one-time installation and operational and maintenance costs… There may be an opportunity for County staff to CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 26 partner with the City [of Palo Alto] on possible post-study implementation and evaluation of a natural grass athletic ﬁeld installed and maintained to speciﬁcations… It is proposed that staff of the County Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) Program, formerly the Integrated Pest Management Program, under Ofﬁce of the County Executive direction and support, work with a local city or school district partner... INRM staff would evaluate whether increased soil health and use of the most suitable grasses would encourage more resilient growth which, in turn, may allow for increased playing time and reduced closures and may be comparable to artiﬁcial turf in this respect. The results would provide useful ﬁndings and practices to school districts and municipalities that operate playing ﬁelds and could promote better playing ﬁeld turf management practices in Santa Clara County and help inform decisions around use of artiﬁcial turf… Following an appropriate pilot period, the performance characteristics and associated one-time and ongoing costs of the natural grass playing ﬁeld project would be directly calculated and the ﬁndings shared with city park departments, school districts, and other interested parties to inform their efforts relating to facilities management.”

4.City staff in today’s staff report.

5.The city consultant in the report [pg 7].

To help improve the odds this pilot is well done, direct staff to bring Parks and Recreation Commission a detailed proposal for the pilot. You’ll want to conﬁrm the pilot includes more than tips from an agronomist and slight maintenance reﬁnements.

If the elements of the pilot are weak or poorly speciﬁed, the pilot may achieve nothing more than further entrenching the claim that grass is unable to support much more than 400-1000 hours of use per year. That would fuel public speculation that some of those involved in the pilot are more motivated to demonstrate that synthetic turf is a necessity.

Note that it can not be assumed that the sustainable carrying capacities of ﬁelds managed for professional athletes represent the upper limits of what is feasible for public agencies. Fields built and managed for the purpose of community sports may achieve greater carrying capacity and require less maintenance thanks to relatively relaxed tolerances for uniform green color, turfgrass coverage [>=80% per pg 57], and evenness. For community sports, the bar is safety, not the perfection expected for camera-ready pro-level-competition.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 27 The consultant’s pilot proposal is for a sand-based ﬁeld proﬁle and maintenance reﬁnements. If you want to know how a sand-based ﬁeld performs under conventional management, ﬁnd and study another local ﬁeld that’s already sand- based. Sources say 1200 hours. Nobody has bothered to argue it can offer more, so experimenting with this is a lower priority.

The public provided case studies of native-soil natural grass ﬁelds with sustainable capacities above 2,200 annual hours, like the Middle Head Oval case study from Sydney, Australia. The consultant considered a proper evaluation of this to be out of scope, but commented that he hasn’t seen anything comparable, cautioned that “magic recipes” don’t exist, and discouraged following “proprietary methods” . To be clear, there is nothing proprietary about the methods Dr. Battam used or the research he published. The successes are not based on recipes or magic; they are based on application of best practices, soil science, and lessons learned by evaluating hundreds of community ﬁelds. I haven’t come across any published studies from any agronomists in the U.S. that have evaluated hundreds of community ﬁelds, have you? As far as I can tell, the academics on the consultant team have done nothing like this.

I agree with the consultant that, given climatic differences, we can’t use the Middle Head Oval study to conclude a sustainable carrying capacity comparable to 2,200 annual hours could be feasible in Palo Alto. However, it’s worth exploring the possibility that the vast difference between the consultant’s 600 hour max and Dr. Battam’s 2,200 hour max could be due to more than climatic differences. While it may be unrealistic to achieve a sustainable capacity of 2,200 hours in Palo Alto’s climate, perhaps with Dr. Battam’s expertise, we could increase our native-soil natural grass sustainable capacity to 1,400 hours? or 1,800 hours? Once a pilot site is selected and a local agronomist identiﬁed, consider paying Dr.

Battam for a handful of hours of his time to consult remotely to review ﬁeld condition photos, booking data, the ﬁeld design and construction specs, the ﬁeld management practices, and soil test results, and propose a set of actions to consider for the pilot, along with advice on common pitfalls to avoid. Have your local experts evaluate his input.

To maximize carrying capacity, consider the elements below for the pilot. As I explained earlier, by choosing real grass instead of plastic carpet, the city has $1.7 million spare dollars per ﬁeld to solve grass problems. “Grass costs too much to maintain” is therefore not a reasonable excuse to skimp on maintenance or these elements.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 28

1.Hire an experienced, trained sports turf manager. See “The Importance Of Sports Turf Managers for School and Municipalities” . [Parks, 2019]

2.Conﬁrm through maintenance logs that planned maintenance is comprehensive and actually being performed. It’s concerning that when I requested maintenance logs from the city via the California Public Records Act, staff found none despite having a contract for them. It’s also concerning that the turf study consultant observed that Palo Alto’s grass ﬁelds suffer as a result of constrained maintenance [report page 69]. In order to carry maximum capacity, the consultant emphasizes that ﬁelds need to be receiving consistent, high quality care. Some suggested maintenance tasks and their frequencies are found in the consultant’s report.

3.Fill holes regularly. Why isn’t this already the norm? Multiple user groups complained about holes in the city survey [report appendix C]. Does the city need a better reporting system? Does the city need to step up monitoring of BrightView’s work (the ﬁeld management company) and hold them accountable to their contract? The contract [page 30] speciﬁes holes are to be ﬁlled. Does the city need to hire an additional staff person to ﬁll holes? “Holes” seems like a solvable problem, not one that can only be solved with a plastic ﬁeld.

4.Perform targeted aeration of high trafﬁc areas more than once a month.

5.Continue with native soil, but amend it to improve the soil proﬁle. This is also recommended by the city’s 2017 Parks and Recreation Master Plan program 2.C.1.

Base the amendments on periodic testing of soil biology, not just on nutrient testing. Get a second professional opinion. I’d be wary of switching to a sand- based ﬁeld. Per the consultant’s report, sand-based ﬁelds require signiﬁcantly more money. They also require more precise maintenance, raising the risk of failure.

6.Limit soil compaction by increasing soil biology through fertilization with organics rather than synthetics.

7.Add a warm season turf cultivar. Per the consultant’s report, hybrid- bermudagrasses are “more durable under stress” and capable of withstanding “higher-intensity use” [pg 37], which means they support greater carrying capacity. Importantly, warm season grasses with good soil and drainage tend to have greater carrying capacity than cool season grasses with poorly draining soils [pg 55]. The latter describes Palo Alto’s current grass ﬁelds. The consultant CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 29 indicated bermudagrass was not well-suited to Palo Alto. A second-opinion should be gathered. Stanford has about 10 natural grass ﬁelds. Of them, only their football stadium is sand based; The rest are native soil with drainage. They have a lot of bermudagrass. For reference, they have the Latitude 36 and Tahoma 31 bermudagrass cultivars, which both play well and are cold tolerant, although it should be noted that new and improved cultivars are being developed all the time.

8.Improve drainage, as recommended by the aforementioned program 2.C.1. Do so by performing grading adjustments and also by adding subsurface drainage.

The consultant’s report encourages that “natural grass ﬁelds with subsurface drainage… typically recover more quickly from rainfall than those relying on surface runoff.” [pg 69]

9.Add temporary lights to extend evening play.

10.Improve ﬁeld slope, as recommended by the aforementioned program 2.C.1.

11.Upgrade irrigation system, recommended by the aforementioned program 2.C.1.

12.Employ smart technologies as described in the consultant’s report [pg 85].

13.Pilot modern maintenance equipment like autonomous mowers and line painters that, if deployed citywide, may provide a signiﬁcant return on investment, reducing the maintenance costs of grass.

14.Do whatever Parks Division Manager Sarah Robustelli was referring to when she said during the 9-23-25 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting that there’s “room for improvement.”

15.Track ﬁeld usage on both a natural grass ﬁeld and a synthetic ﬁeld with a tool like Intelligent Play to provide reliable data to inform future decision making. The only data we have now is booking data. Booking data can overestimate usage due to blanket bookings and other reasons. The Intelligent Play system uses cameras mounted on poles or light posts to automatically and continuously track how many people are on the ﬁeld. I think its AI software even tries to identify whether the ﬁeld is being used for soccer, football, etc. based on activity patterns observed. The software can generate a variety of usage reports. While the synthetic turf manufacturer FieldTurf incorporates Intelligent Play into its own CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 30 “Field Turf Genius” product, Intelligent Play may be the more ﬂexible option because it works on both natural grass and synthetic turf. According to their website, many organizations use it on natural grass ﬁelds to get accurate participation data and to easily access reports through their dashboard.

16.The goal should be to push boundaries. Before completing the design of the pilot, directly interview and report back on the advice of these 5 consultants regarding construction or maintenance practices the city should consider evaluating for incorporation into the high-carrying-capacity native soil natural grass community ﬁeld pilot. It’s called a “pilot” because it may involve trying something new, or at least new to our region. The city’s turf study consultant team only reported on tried and true practices that they and their professional network have experience with and what has been documented in literature. Their network and experience are not comprehensive. Literature is not exhaustive. There is nothing to be lost by simply phoning up these 5 professionals and reporting back on what is gathered. This approach is what your community has been requesting since before the turf study was even approved.
-An agronomist with proven expertise in both sports ﬁelds and organic land management.
-Greg Elliott, former sports ﬁeld manager for SF Giants, now employed by the SJ Earthquakes, with expertise in organic management and interest in high- carrying-capacity community ﬁelds.
-Jerad Minnick, Major League Soccer consultant with expertise in rainout- proof, high-carrying-capacity community ﬁelds.
-Dr. Mick Battam, certiﬁed soil scientist specializing in sports turf, consultant for New South Wales government, and practitioner responsible for the internationally-recognized case study of high-carrying-capacity native-soil natural grass community ﬁeld that I keep sharing with you. -Chip Osborne, decades of experience as a practitioner of organically- managed community ﬁelds.

17.Explore and report back on collaboration opportunities with other entities on aspects of designing, monitoring, documenting, and funding this organically- CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 31 managed, high-carrying-capacity natural grass athletic ﬁeld pilot, because the lessons learned can beneﬁt ecological sustainability throughout the region:
-County staff and multiple county supervisors have demonstrated interest in supporting a pilot. As I mentioned above, county collaboration on a pilot with the City of Palo Alto was explicitly proposed.
-Other cities and school districts that will be able to leverage what’s learned by the pilot may be interested in supporting it. Promote it as a variant of a turf study. Municipalities in our area have demonstrated interest in turf studies — Already, the county has done one, the City of Sunnyvale is doing one, the Town of Los Gatos is doing one, the City of Los Altos may consider one. This is a hot topic up and down the state… the City of Los Angeles may be doing a turf study and I heard there was interest in the Los Angeles Uniﬁed School District starting a pilot.
-University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR) and/ or UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE) may be interested in supporting a natural-grass pilot, because it advances their mission to develop, test, and share sustainable, water-efﬁcient, and health-protective land-management practices in California communities.
-Because the City of Palo Alto practices organic land management, there are academic researchers that would likely be interested in documenting a case study, and may have funding available to do so. Contact [email protected] to inquire.
-The nonproﬁt technical expertise available to public agencies via the national Parks for a Sustainable Future program should be leveraged. Unlike the city’s turf study consultant team, these program experts are focused exclusively on success with organic management of community ﬁelds.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 32 I am concerned that if you take the advice of the city’s consultant and choose a sand base for the pilot ﬁeld(s), you will not be able to exceed the 800 to 1200 annual hours of sustainable carrying capacity the consultant associates with these proﬁles [pg 57]. I do not know of any case studies of sand-based ﬁelds that exceed this. The case studies I shared that exceeded 1200 hours were for ﬁelds with amended native-soil, not a sand base.

The recommendation for a sand-based ﬁeld refers to a ﬁeld where the turfgrass is growing in a minimum of 4-8” of sand. That is how the consultant describes two of the three natural grass ﬁeld infrastructure proﬁles [pg 46-48]:

1.Native soil natural grass ﬁeld: Sod atop native soil that’s been modiﬁed or amended.

2.Sand-capped natural grass ﬁeld: Sod atop a sand rootzone that is about 4-8” thick.

3.Full-sand-based natural grass ﬁeld: Sod atop a full sand rootzone, i.e. in the style of the U.S. Golf Association which means about 12” of sand, with subsurface drainage — a system referred to as a “perched water table system” .

I am skeptical that sand is the optimal medium for turfgrass that is managed organically. A major perk of organically managed grass is its resilience. That resilience is made possible by a ﬂourishing soil biome, the living ecosystem within the soil.

While soil microbes require soil, organic matter, and mineral diversity, sand is inorganic and has relatively small amounts of silt, clay, and organic matter. A sand- based ﬁeld therefore has relatively little capacity to hold nutrients, compost tea, or water, or serve as an optimal habitat for soil microbes. For this reason, I’m skeptical that sand is the optimal medium for supporting the biological life that makes turfgrass resilient.

I am also concerned that if a sand-based proﬁle is chosen for the pilot ﬁeld(s), the pilot may amount to an expensive failure. According to the consultant, sand-based ﬁelds have lifecycle costs that are double those of native-soil ﬁelds [pg 68]. Sand- based ﬁelds may seem appealing because they offer quick drainage, but the downside is that quick drainage means irrigation and other inputs can also run through it more quickly, necessitating more of them and necessitating more precise CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 33 timing. My impression is that you have to be really on top of your maintenance because nutrients and water can be quickly depleted and weaken the grass. For a grounds team dedicated to maintaining a ﬁeld for professional-level sports, this level of attention may be reasonable, but for a public agency, this seems like it’d be easy to screw up. I’m surprised the consultant even recommended a sand base for a pilot if they want the pilot to succeed. Dr. Andrew McNitt on your consultant team said in a webinar that he generally advises against sand-based ﬁelds for public agencies because of the high risk of failure.

If the reason a sand base was proposed for the pilot is for its quick drainage, as an alternative please consider native soil with subsurface drainage. For reference, I believe Stanford has about 10 grass athletic ﬁelds and only 1 is sand-based; the rest are amended native soil with drainage.

Since the proposed pilot is for a sand-based ﬁeld and the city has no sand based ﬁelds, the pilot program being proposed would require reconstructing the ﬁeld(s). I am so relieved you’re open to reconstruction. If instead of a sand-based rootzone, you choose to pilot with a native-soil rootzone but you only incorporate amendments into the top layer of soil rather than tilling them in more deeply, I fear it will take two to three years to see the durability improvements we are looking for. So reconstruction deﬁnitely seems like the way to go. For reference, Middle Head Oval is an amended native-soil ﬁeld, not a sand-based ﬁeld. The reconstruction of the Middle Head Oval site was performed, under Dr. Battam’s oversight, by tilling in the amendments with a blecavator.

To summarize, I urge you to seek out an agronomist that has expertise in organic management of sports ﬁelds and get a second opinion on whether turfgrass under regenerative organic management might be more durable and weather-resilient with drainage and with a rootzone that is amended native-soil rather than sand-based.

CF comments on City Council 11/17/25 agenda item 9 — Page 34 From: Andrea Wald
To: Council, City
Subject: Agenda item #13 - Jan 12th City Council meeting Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 12:37:14 PM
Attachments: Downsides of Artificial Turf - Dr Kyla Bennett - 2025.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
i
Meant to send to the general email so it will be part of the agenda packet.

Thanks.

Andrea
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Andrea Wald <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 7:50 AM
Subject: Agenda item #13 - Jan 12th City Council meeting To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I am still hopeful that community input on this highly sensitive but very vital issue (for our environment and the health of all) is still being considered when you vote on Monday night.

I receive almost daily new information pertaining to this issue from an environmental and health standpoint. There are so many of us that are truly concerned about what we, as a society, are doing to this planet and how it will affect us all - specifically future generations.

What I'd like to share today is quite current. I hope you will take the time to look at this material. It will hopefully help you come to the best conclusion - meaning that artificial turf should not be voted for.

Link below is to the recording of a recent meeting in Missoula - rather long meeting so below this I've pulled out the most important part that I believe is worth taking a look at, as well as the attached written submission by Kyla Bennett prior to the meeting.

This message needs your attention
This is a personal email address.

Mark Safe Report
Powered by Mimecast
https://pub-missoula.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=6708be99-cd95-4f6b-9f5a- 451ba9f6c5af&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=8&Tab=attachments The link below brings you directly to the video of Kyla Bennett's presentation - under 5 minutes. I've also attached her letter that is part of the agenda packet - it provides her credentials and a bit more detailed information on why artificial turf should not be used. She is highly recognized as one of the experts in this area - from an environmental and health perspective.
https://tinyurl.com/kbennett-artifturfdownsides
Two more links below that are worth watching.

I am suggesting only that you listen to the brief intro (about 3 min) by Judith Enck, CEO of Beyond Plastics. This zoom is from July 31, 2025 and dealt with how to do a better job of avoiding plastic packaging. Her organization's focus is on plastics in general - WE ALL KNOW THE WORLD IS DROWNING IN THIS STUFF - but her point is that we need to reduce the total amount of plastic in our environment. Recycling is not the solution. Artificial turf, as noted by Kyla Bennett, is not being recycled. Burning or repurposing is not truly solving the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTjB2KBAXPw
And although a rather long (1 1/2 hr) podcast: "A Health and Environmental Emergency - The Plastics Crisis" which deals with plastics in general, knowing that artificial turf is plastic and that it is harming our environment and health and that there is something that can and does work: natural grass - I urge you to watch it if you have the bandwidth. Totally eye opening. https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/reality-roundtable-15 I am hopeful that City Council members will realize that they can do the right thing and not approve artificial turf. Why not be a leader that others will follow? This is a difficult decision and one that will not please everyone, but in the long run it is the right one.

Thank you for your consideration and for all you do for your community.

Sincerely,
Andrea Wald
Co-founder, Community for Natural Play Surfaces

KYLA BENNETT
P.O. Box 574
Easton, MA 02356
W: (508)230-9933

EDUCATION

NORTHWESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW, LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE
Portland, Oregon, J.D., December, 1989
Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law
Honors: Recipient, Natural Resources Scholarship 1987-89; Honorable Mention, Appellate Brief, 1988;
Member of Environmental Law Review
Graduated Cum Laude

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
Storrs, Connecticut
Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, May, 1987
Honors: Recipient, Graduate School Fellowship, 1984-87 Summer Research Scholarship, 1985-86

BARD COLLEGE
Annandale-on-Hudson, New York
B.A. in Animal Behavior, May, 1982
Honors: Recipient, New York State Regents Scholarship, 1979-82

EMPLOYMENT

11/01 to Director, Northeast and MidAtlantic PEER/Science Policy Advisor present PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, North Easton, MA. Work with alliance of local, state, and federal scientists, law enforcement officers, land managers, and other professionals dedicated to upholding environmental laws; protecting public employees who protect the New England environment. Provide scientific, legal, public relations and policy support to public environmental employees throughout New England.

Areas of expertise include per-and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) contamination, artificial turf health impacts, wetlands, and wildlife.

9/99 Deputy Director and Acting Director, Habitat for Animals to 10/01 INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE, Yarmouthport, MA Responsible for developing, implementing and coordinating preservation of wildlife habitat around the world. Worked with thirteen country offices in China, Africa, Europe, Canada, Latin America, Australia, India, and Russia to protect wildlife from human encroachments, industry, poaching, and other habitat threats. Oversee annual budget of $3 million.

5/96 to Wetlands Enforcement Coordinator
9/99 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Boston, MA
Responsible for enforcing Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act throughout New England. Responsible for writing administrative complaints and penalties, and litigation reports; acted as counsel for other enforcement cases.

3/90 Wetlands Protection Specialist
to 5/96 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Boston, MA
Responsible for Section 404 permit and EIS review for the State of Maine.

Also responsible for wetlands enforcement actions throughout New England.

8/89 Legal Extern
to 12/89 CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, Boston, MA
Responsible for researching environmental and legal issues, writing memoranda, legal briefs, and assisting attorneys with their cases.

PUBLICATIONS

Donley, N., Cox, C., Bennett, K., Temkin, A.M., Andrews, D.Q., Naidenko, O. V. Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment, Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 132(7), July 2024. doi.org/10.1289/EHP13954

Corkeron, P., Bennett, K., Moore, MJ. US budget riders compromise conservation. Science. 2023 Feb 24; 379(6634):766. doi: 10.1126/science.adg6235. Epub 2023 Feb 2023.

Bennett, K. Can We Save the North Atlantic Right Whale? Journal of the American Cetacean Society, Vol. 44(2), 2021.

Comment, Mismanaging Endangered and Exotic Species in National Parks, 20(2) Envtl. L. 415, 1990.

Meyers, G. and Bennett, K., Answering the Call of the Wild: United States Participation in International Wildlife Law, 7 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 75, 1989.

ACTIVITIES

Boardmember, Northwestern Environmental Defense Center (1987-1989); Chairperson, Wildlife subcommittee, Environmental Law Caucus (1987- 1988); Chairperson and member, Moose Hill Audubon Sanctuary Advisory Committee (1990 -1994); Volunteer Naturalist, Borderland State Park, Easton, MA (1993 - present); Member, Easton Conservation Commission (2005 – 2011); Member, Easton Climate Change Action Committee (2024-present)

SKILLS

Statistical analyses, public speaking, technical and legal writing, wildlife habitat assessments, vernal pool certification, wetland delineation, NEPA analysis, PFAS contamination issues, member of Massachusetts Bar since 1990, Master Herpetologist certificate from Amphibian Foundation.

1 RE: Downsides of Artificial Turf

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is extremely concerned about the proliferation of artificial turf installations around the country. We are providing comments on the adverse impacts of artificial turf so you can make an informed decision, particularly in regard to per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and several misstatements of facts/errata that are commonly presented by landscape architects and consultants at various municipal meetings. Our specific comments are set forth below.

What are PFAS? PFAS are a large family of chemicals that number between 6,5041 and 12,0392 human-made chemicals that provide heat, stain, and water resistance. Yet, due to the strong carbon-fluorine bonds that occur in these molecules, PFAS do not easily break down in the environment and are called “forever chemicals.” Well-studied PFAS are toxic to humans in concentrations as small as parts per quadrillion (ppq).3 While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have a consistent definition of PFAS, most states define PFAS as any chemical with at least one fully fluorinated carbon. Regardless of which definition is used, the adverse health impacts of PFAS are undeniable.

Specifically, PFAS are associated with cancer and are linked to growth, learning, and behavioral problems in infants and children; fertility and pregnancy problems, including pre-eclampsia; interference with natural human hormones; increased cholesterol; and immune system problems.4 Epidemiological studies have found decreased antibody response to vaccines,5 and

1 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-natl-test-strategy.pdf 2 ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, PFAS Master List of PFAS
Substances, https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical_lists/pfasmaster 3 CAL. OFFICE OF ENVTL. HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, Announcement of Availability of a Draft Technical Support Document and Public Workshop for Proposed Public Health Goals for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid in Drinking Water, (July 22, 2021) https://oehha.ca.gov/water/crnr/announcement-availability-draft-technical-support-document-and-public-workshop- proposed.
4 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, (May 2021), https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf 5 Sunderland, E. M. et. al., A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects, 29 JOURNAL

2 associations between blood serum PFAS levels and both immune system hypersensitivity and autoimmune disorders like asthma and ulcerative colitis.6 The negative immune system effects of PFAS are extremely concerning given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a “Statement on Potential Intersection between PFAS Exposure and COVID-19,” which recognized the “evidence from human and animal studies that PFAS exposure may reduce antibody responses to vaccines . . . and may reduce infectious disease resistance.”7 Most recently, PFAS exposure has been found to be associated with mortality from cardiovascular disease,8 and with chemotherapy resistance.9

Numerous studies have found toxicity in legacy PFAS, such as PFOS and PFOA. Yet, as scientists study newer replacement PFAS, they are finding similar adverse toxicological outcomes in the new PFAS they test.10 A compilation of PFAS toxicity studies shows that virtually every PFAS examined is correlated with adverse health outcomes.11 Finally, it is worth noting that a peer-reviewed article from 2023 concludes that “there are cancer risks probability occurs as a result of chemical exposure from artificial turf.”12

It is also important to note that several PFAS are subject to California’s Prop 65. One of the PFAS on California’s Prop 65 list is PFOA,13 which is found in roughly three-quarters of artificial turf.14

Routes of exposure for PFAS include ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption. While ingestion of PFAS is the most common route of exposure, scientists are finding that inhalation and dermal absorption are important routes of exposure. The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that people working with PFAS “may be exposed to PFAS by inhaling them, getting them on their skin, and swallowing them.”15 Moreover, recent work shows that firefighters can be exposed to PFAS through “ingestion or inhalation, or direct contact with the skin and dermal absorption.”16 Recent studies have shown

OF EXPOSURE SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, no. 2, (2018), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30470793/.
6 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), 39 (May 2016), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 05/documents/pfoa_health_advisory_final_508.pdf.
7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Statement on Potential Intersection between PFAS Exposure and COVID-19, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health- effects/index.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2021).
8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-024-01074-2 9 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572100024001807 10 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/pfas/index.html 11 https://pfasproject.com/pfas-toxic-database/
12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14928
13 https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/pfos-perfluorooctane-sulfonate-or-perfluorooctane-sulfonic-acid 14https://curate.nd.edu/articles/thesis/Development_of_Analytical_Methods_for_Highly_Selective_and_Sensitive_A nalysis_of_Compounds_Relevant_to_Human_Health_and_the_Environment/24869502 15 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-
effects/exposure.html#:~:text=Workers%20may%20be%20exposed%20to,your%20body%20through%20your%20s kin.
16 https://www.sffcpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/6.23.2020-DR-PEASLEE-STUDY-ANOTHER-PATHYWAY- FOR-FIREFIGHTER-EXPOSURE-TO-PFAS-FIREFIGHTER-TEXTILES.pdf 3 that some PFAS can migrate from car seat fabric to sweat, showing a potential dermal exposure route.17 Finally, PEER conducted a preliminary study which indicates that children playing on artificial turf do pick PFAS up on their skin.18 Additional research is being conducted on this issue.

To date, there are per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in all brands of artificial turf tested by NGOs. In 2019, scientists from PEER and The Ecology Center discovered PFAS in the blades and backing of artificial turf. Since then, artificial turf manufacturers and consultants have conceded that PFAS are added to the machines to assist in the extrusion of the hot plastic, but PFAS are also used as “a slip agent that is intentionally added to the molten hydrocarbons to make the plastic grass blades free of defects.”19 In other words, PFAS are used in the base material itself. In fact, every sample of dozens of artificial turf samples, regardless of the manufacturer, shows PFAS20 in the grass blades, the backing, and sometimes the shock pad and the infill. Moreover, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedures (SPLPs) show that these PFAS leach off the fields into surrounding waters; indeed, 12 ppt of just six PFAS will leach off a brand new field.21,22

Landscape architects/consultants often promise that certification from the turf manufacturer shows that PFAS are not used in the manufacturing of the artificial turf system. Certification from the industry itself claiming the products are PFAS-free will not necessarily protect a town or city from contamination. Landscape architects/consultants also often state one or more of the following:

• the synthetic turf system shall be considered “PFAS free” according to REACH and/or California’s Prop 65;
• the turf system shall be non-detect (ND) for 30 PFAS compounds tested via EPA Method 537 Modified; or
• they will provide a statement from the vendor that the turf does not contain and is not manufactured with PFAS.

These statements show a lack of understanding of PFAS, its regulation, toxicity, and testing regimens. First, REACH and Prop 65 do not regulate the same PFAS chemicals that many states regulate. Second, PFAS chemistry is complicated, and precursor PFAS can have terminal end products that are regulated PFAS themselves; therefore, the best way to protect surrounding soil and water is to prohibit any PFAS in the turf materials. To protect themselves, cities and towns should require: 1) all components of the turf, including infill, should be tested using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) acid treatment before testing for targeted

17 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749120361650?via%3Dihub 18 https://peer.org/pfas-in-artificial-turf-coats-players-skin/ 19 https://oakbluffs.zoom.us/rec/play/XRPkH-
Yd8joprhyIovKEPo3SpdVyri6t5Intk1wSyaXPB10ZXZ6U_IUjX9npl9X4DduJgE7gjIndVKMS.qSRjKd7F9cH_sF- e?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=oO_jk5lWTT-Y7W-
V3an6Yw.1652118740167.3adaa7e26df2bb777484f4cc1217465c&_x_zm_rhtaid=887 20 Dr. Graham Peaslee and Kristen Mello, NEWMOA Conference, April 6, 2022 21 Id.
22 https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/2021-02-26%20%28TurfAnalysisReport_FINAL%29.pdf 4 (not total organic fluorine) PFAS23; 2) those tests should be done by an independent laboratory with low detection limits; and 3) any amount of targeted PFAS should be prohibited.

Recently, some turf manufacturers are claiming that they have halted use of fluoropolymers, and therefore their products are now “PFAS-free” or have “non-detectable PFAS.” PEER has not yet seen any independent laboratory test supporting these claims. We will continue to review these laboratory tests as they become publicly available, but to date, turf companies have not released the full reports to the public.

Even minute amounts of PFAS are dangerous. In April of 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final drinking water limits for six PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS.24 The limits are 4 ppt for both PFOA and PFOS individually, but EPA also proposed health-based, non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) of zero because “there is no dose below which either chemical is considered safe.”25 Now that these proposed regulations are finalized, all states will have to comply with them.

Given that we are seeing these PFAS leaching off artificial turf, it is important to assess the impacts to the groundwater, surface water, and soils from the PFAS in these products. Indeed, Dr Graham Peaslee of Notre Dame University estimates that one artificial turf field will leach 12 mg of PFAS/year, which in turn will contaminate roughly 800,000 gallons of water. It appears that as a field ages and is subject to ultraviolet light, abrasion, and acidic rain, even more PFAS will leach off. Legal liability issues should be considered, as municipalities can be considered a responsible party in the contamination of drinking water wells, surface water, groundwater, and soils from artificial turf.

Artificial turf does not save water. Proponents of artificial turf, particularly in drought stricken areas, often tout the water-saving properties of artificial turf. A 2017 study in New Mexico concluded that “in order to provide a cool, playable surface, irrigation amounts for artificial turf are greater than for natural warm-season turf” (emphasis added).26 This study was confirmed in 2020 when researchers found that “that the amount of water required to maintain [artificial turf] temperatures at levels comparable to irrigated [natural turf] over a 24-h period exceed the water requirements of Bermuda grass [natural turf] in the same environment.”27 In fact, a member of the Synthetic Turf Council claims that irrigation systems for artificial turf must be “over- engineered” and that “a large amount of water has to be dumped evenly across the whole field— and quickly because players will want to play immediately. And the cooling effect only lasts about an hour, maybe less.”28 Therefore, it is important for cities and towns to consider recent scientific studies regarding the necessity of watering artificial turf to maintain cool enough temperatures to play.

23 SPLP tests measure materials that leach off the field due to rainfall; it measures organic and inorganic compounds present in the artificial turf system, and reveals what will enter the soil, groundwater, or nearby surface waters. 24 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/pfas-npdwr_prepubfederalregisternotice_4.8.24.pdf 25 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/29/2023-05471/pfas-national-primary-drinking-water- regulation-rulemaking
26 https://scisoc.confex.com/crops/2017am/webprogram/Handout/Paper106290/Ahmed%20Kanaan.pdf 27 Kanaan, A. et al., Water Requirements for Cooling Artificial Turf, J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(10): 05020004 28 https://www.parksandrecbusiness.com/articles/2016/10/part-2-watering-synthetic-turf 5 So-called “organic” infills are not necessarily safe from a heat or chemical perspective. We are now hearing landscape architects/consultants saying that if they use one of the “organic” infills – like BrockFILL, coconut husks, walnut shells, and the like – the temperature of the field will be 20 to 40 degrees lower than those artificial turf fields with crumb rubber infill. This is not true.

While using infill other than crumb rubber can reduce the temperature of artificial turf by a few degrees, it is not a significant reduction. One study concluded that the mean temperature on fields with sand/thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) infill was 45.6ºC (114ºF); a sand/organic infill had a mean temperature of 48.1ºC (118.6ºF), and a sand/black crumb rubber infill had a mean temperature of 53.5ºC (128.3ºF).29 Another study concluded that, “synthetic turf infill does not affect surface temperature as much as fibres.”30 In addition, another researcher concluded:

Although it is common to blame the sunlight’s interaction with the black crumb rubber for the hot surface, the fibers also significantly contribute to a field’s temperature.

Anyone who has spent time working with traditional (non-infilled) Astroturf-type surfaces can tell you that those fields also got extremely hot and they do not contain any crumb rubber…it is obvious that there is no “magic bullet” available to dramatically lower the surface temperature of synthetic turf. Reductions of five or even ten degrees offer little comfort when temperatures can still exceed 150° F.31

These “organic” infills are not organic as organic food certified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); while the word “organic” sounds non-toxic, it is not necessarily. Indeed, a 2021 study32 conducted for Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, found that BrockFILL, one of the more popular organic infills, contained:

• Barium levels of 112 µg/L (ppb);
• Cadmium at a concentration of 0.042 mg/kg (ppm);
• Selenium at concentrations of 0.656 mg/kg (ppm);
• Zinc at concentrations of 85 µg/L (ppb);
• Phenol at a concentration of 6.9 mg/kg (ppm)
• 2-methylphenol (o-cresol) and 3-methylphenol (m-cresol) at concentrations of 8.8 µg/L and 16 µg/L (ppb), respectively;
• 2,4-dimethylphenol at a concentration of 1.8 µg/L (ppb); and • Benzyl alcohol at a concentration of 15 µg/L (ppb).

29 Lauren A. Petrass, Dara M. Twomey, Jack T. Harvey, Understanding how the Components of a Synthetic Turf System Contribute to Increased Surface Temperature, Procedia Engineering, V olume 72, 2014, Pages 943-948, ISSN 1877-7058, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.159 30 Thomsa, A. W. et al., Models for predicting surface temperatures on synthetic turf playing surfaces, Procedia Engineering 72 ( 2014 ) 895 – 900
31 Serensits, T.J. Is there any way to cool synthetic turf? SportsTurf 2011, 27, 20–22. https://sturf.lib.msu.edu/article/2011jun20.pdf
32 https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/2021-02-26%20%28TurfAnalysisReport_FINAL%29.pdf

6 Therefore, it is important to consider that these alternative infills do not significantly reduce the heat island effect, and that they may contain chemicals of concern.

Artificial turf results in greenhouse gas emissions. Recent research shows that “the substitution of artificial grass for natural grass contributes to global warming.”33 Additionally:

…artificial grass reaches significantly greater temperatures than those reached by natural grass under the same meteorological conditions... artificial grass creates an additional amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere. With the number of nationwide artificial grass installations, a typical result yields an additional energy deposited into the atmosphere during moderately warm summer days of 10 to 20 gigawatts.34

More recent research conducted this year states that artificial turf “can significantly increase ground surface temperatures and consequently increase ambient air temperatures near the ground as well as its surroundings.”35 Indeed, the scientists conclude that, “[c]oncerning climate mitigation, replacing natural ground with heat-absorbent artificial turf may be counter- productive.”36 Syntehtic turf is frequently made from the plastic polyethylene, and when polyethylene is exposed to ultraviolet light, it releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas.37

It is also important to note that EPA considers artificial turf to be an impervious surface,38 which exacerbates runoff and contamination of adjacent waterways. This is especially critical with climate change bringing frequent torrential rain (rain bombs) and other storms.

The majority of existing artificial turf studies focus on the dangers of crumb rubber infill.

Most studies often cited by proponents of artificial turf were conducted before PFAS was discovered in the products in 2019, and recent studies showing risk or harm are often not included. Therefore, any study on the health effects of artificial turf conducted prior to 2019 will not assess risks from PFAS. Moreover, more recent reports from both EPA and the State of California focused only on crumb rubber infill, not the plastic blades and backing. These reports are not risk assessments for artificial turf.

Artificial turf results in the discharge of nano and microplastics. Both the grass blades of the plastic turf and infill migrate off the field and get into soils and waters. Hundreds of pounds of microplastics shed off these fields each year, despite industry’s claims that they do not break.39 In fact, research from Sweden indicates that microplastics coming off artificial turf fields is the second largest source of microplastics in the environment.40 Recent research shows that fibers from artificial grass accounted for 15% of plastic pieces larger than 5 millimeters in all microplastics within 1 kilometer of the shore; they found 213,200 pieces of artificial turf floating

33 Golden, L.M., Sustainability and Climate Change. Dec 2021.436-449. http://doi.org/10.1089/scc.2021.0038 34 Id.
35 Shi, Y . and C.Y . Jim, Developing a Thermal Suitability Index to assess artificial turf applications for various site- weather and user-activity scenarios, Landscape and Urban Planning, V olume 2017 (2022). 36 Id.
37 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q9NHwhVtY0ygHCcZDHhufkfcRdGFA35k/view 38 https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/ma/2016fpd/appendix-a-2016-ma-sms4-gp-mod.pdf 39 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8OLBfWmt7g&t=2s
40 https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1549783/FULLTEXT01.pdf 7 in water per square kilometer.41 A brand new study that is coming out this fall found that in New York, green microplastics from artificial turf “ris[e] significantly from 7% under light rainfall to 12% during moderate rainfall.”42 PFAS and other toxic chemicals will migrate with these microplastics and contaminate nearby soil and waters. New research found, “Laboratory studies demonstrate that artificial turf-derived nano- and microplastics can adversely affect soil microbial communities, aquatic organisms, and potentially human health, through various exposure pathways.”43 These scientists concluded, “Artificial turf systems have been identified as significant sources of [nano and microplastics], and their environmental impacts are extensive, while current investigation as well as mitigation methodology remain limited.” We are not aware of any methods of mitigating the release of these nano and microplastics to the environment.

Artificial turf does not appear to be traditionally recycled. There are currently no artificial turf recycling facilities44 in the United States, and old fields are being unceremoniously dumped all over the country.45 Recently, landscape architects/consultants are claiming there are artificial turf recycling facilities in Pennsylvania and Texas. The facility in Pennsylvania is not operating, and in fact has been cited for environmental violations.46 The facility in Texas is an “advanced recycling” facility run by Exxon; turf will be “recycled” via pyrolysis, which means it will be burned.47 This pyrolysis results in intensive energy and water use, and spews toxic chemicals into the air. It should not be called “recycling.” Artificial turf providers should be required to specifically disclose what will happen to the tons of PFAS-laden plastic at the end of the field’s life.

Artificial turf is more expensive than natural grass. When full lifecycle costs (i.e., installation, maintenance, and disposal/replacement) are considered, artificial turf is more expensive than natural grass. In 2016, the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) did a comparison of costs of artificial turf versus natural grass, based on real world examples, and concluded that, “In nearly all scenarios, the full life-cycle cost of natural turf is lower than the life-cycle cost of a synthetic turf field for an equivalent area.”48

Athletes experience more non-contact injuries on artificial turf. Contrary to industry-funded studies, independent research finds that children and athletes have higher injury rates on artificial turf. For example, a 2024 study examining the risk of concussions found “significantly greater

41 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749123010965 42 https://www.preprints.org/frontend/manuscript/ca46e83151c4edefa27979d272ea4561/download_pub 43 Harusato, A., & Kato, M. (2025). Mechanisms of Generation and Ecological Impacts of Nano- and Microplastics from Artificial Turf Systems in Sports Facilities. Environments, 12(4), 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12040109
44 Recycling in this context means converting turf that has reached end of life into new materials and objects, thus preventing them from being landfilled or incinerated.
45 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/artificial-turf-fields-are-piling-no-recycling-fix/603874/ 46 https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/news/environment/2023/03/20/pa-officials-say-turf-recycler-is-violating- environmental-laws/69995371007/
47 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/10/exxon-advanced-recycling-plastic-environment 48 https://www.turi.org/content/download/10395/173557/file/Cost%20Artificial%20Turf.%20September%202016.pdf 8 impact deceleration on synthetic turf compared to the natural grass surfaces.”49 Scientists concluded that, “natural grass fields are a softer playing surface compared to synthetic turf fields”50 which correlates with a higher rate of lower extremity injuries and concussions. It is important to note that these scientists also concluded that:

There is a misconception that one of the benefits of synthetic turf over natural grass is that synthetic turf is maintenance free. Routine maintenance practices such as raising matted-down fibers, infill restoration, and paint and debris removal, may be required even weekly depending on field usage51 (emphasis added).

Conclusion. Given the PFAS that leaches off artificial turf, the backing, and the infill, together with the migration of microplastics, the inability to recycle the fields at end of life, the contribution to climate change, and the intense water use, cities and towns should seriously consider the installation of grass fields.

It appears that all artificial turf contains PFAS, including one of the most toxic (PFOA). Because we only discovered PFAS in artificial turf three years ago, there have been no studies investigating health impacts to athletes using the fields from these PFAS. This absence of evidence does not mean that it is safe for people to use the fields; it merely means it has not yet been studied. However, we do know that even minute quantities of PFAS are dangerous to human health; and we do know that the PFAS in the fields leaches off into groundwater, soils, and drinking water.

Kyla Bennett, PhD, JD
Director, Science Policy

49 Villanueva NC, Chun IKH, Fujiwara AS, Leibovitch ER, Yamamoto BE, Yamamoto LG. Impact Deceleration Differences on Natural Grass Versus Synthetic Turf High School Football Fields. Hawaii J Health Soc Welf. 2024 Jan;83(1):4-9. PMID: 38223462; PMCID: PMC10782390.
50 Id.
51 Id.

Palo Alto City CouncilJanuary 12, 2026

Palo Alto City Council
January 12, 2026