From: Andrea Wald
To: Council, City
Subject: Fwd: Agenda item #5 - April 6th City Council meeting Date: Thursday, April 2, 2026 8:42:08 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mistyped the general email first time around!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Andrea Wald <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Apr 2, 2026 at 8:35 PM
Subject: Agenda item #5 - April 6th City Council meeting To: <[email protected]
>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Veenkar, Vice Mayor Stone and Council members, I am writing regarding agenda item #5 on the consent calendar for the upcoming city council meeting on Mon. April 6th. I am concerned about the GMAX testing requirements that are spelled out in the Construction Contract C26196846 - Page 197: 3.05 Maintenance (see below).
Why is it that the contract is only calling for GMAX testing every 2 years when industry standard is every year?
Please see what my google search has come up with as well testing guidelines on Sports Field Management's web site:
https://www.sportsfieldmanagement.org/natural-grass-athletic-fields/ "Gmax should be tested at various locations across synthetic fields, with special attention being paid to inlays, painted areas, seams, and high-use areas. Testing should occur at least annually, with more frequent testing suggested on heavily-used fields." What is suggested time line for gmax testing on artificial turf fields:
AI Overview
Based on industry standards and safety guidelines, the suggested timeline for Gmax testing on artificial turf fields is at minimum once per year. Sportworks Design +1 However, the frequency depends largely on the age of the field and the level of usage. Below is the recommended schedule for Gmax testing:
Recommended Gmax Testing Schedule
Immediately After Installation: A baseline test is recommended upon completion of a new field to verify it meets safety standards before first use.
Annually (Minimum): The Synthetic Turf Council and other industry experts recommend annual testing to monitor compaction and ensure the field is safe to use.
Heavily Used Fields: Fields with high traffic should be tested more frequently, such as once before the fall season and again mid-year, or even 2–6 times during peak seasons to manage increased compaction.
Older Fields: As artificial turf ages, it often gets harder and requires more frequent monitoring. Sports Turf Care, LLC +4
I strongly urge that the contract not be accepted as is and that additional gmax testing be included. This is critical for the safety of the users - especially since everyone is claiming the fields are HEAVILY used!
Andrea Wald
Co-Founder, Community for Natural Play Surfaces
From: Cynthia Fan
To: Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Subject: 4/6/26 agenda item 5: Develop policies for preventing & responding to heat illness.
Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 12:01:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Council,
Since you’ve decided on another round of artificial turf for El Camino Park, I urge you to direct staff to develop policies for preventing and responding to heat illness. We all know the old artificial turf can get dangerously hot. What may surprise you is that data from the City’s new artificial turf shows it is not any cooler than the City’s old artificial turf.
During the January council meeting, Councilmember Pat Burt emphasized at timestamp 3:16:29, as part of reporting back about what he learned as a member of the turf Ad Hoc Committee, that the older artificial turf systems have a “VERY significant heat differential” compared to natural turf. He described the modern artificial turf system the City is proposing for El Camino Park as “a FAR better product,” in part because its temperatures are “MUCH closer to natural turf”. The modern turf system he’s referring to is FieldTurf with cork infill, the same system installed at the Mayfield Complex a few months ago.
Where did the City get the idea the new artificial turf would be cooler than the old artificial turf or anywhere close to the temps of natural turf? Let’s start making decisions based on real data, not based on claims from manufacturers.
Here’s some real data…
Yesterday (4/5/26), I went over to El Camino Park to see how hot the City’s old artificial turf was.
It was an 80F afternoon with a slight breeze: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a0Z- aJPeI6pqYK5RgVf7xU7ve_-yQzgs/view?usp=drivesdk
The artificial turf was in the 130’s: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lXeU- W61oPhuLZvp52gY8znF8VD3UDAi/view?usp=drivesdk
The natural turf adjacent to the field was in the
80’s: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZCRreHzxgHnGTcN6jZBDlpjsOw1ELMsH/view? usp=drivesdk
I also went to the Mayfield Complex to see for myself just how much cooler the new artificial turf systems really are. It turned out that the artificial turf there was also in the 130’s! : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eW6R1wv33dCaMmNmzn6YpH6AZITWmf0d/view? usp=drivesdk
In other words, the City’s new artificial turf system at Mayfield Complex was not any cooler than the City’s old artificial turf system at El Camino Park! I’m not sharing this heat information to change your mind about getting another round of artificial turf at El Camino Park. I’m not recommending another manufacturer because I suspect their products are also dramatically hotter than real grass; The mass of plastic carpet fibers remain and they make the surface hot. Attempting mitigation by swapping infill seems likely to offer a marginal improvement at best. My motive for sharing this heat data is simply to underscore that modern artificial turf doesn’t obviate the need for the City to develop policies for preventing & responding to heat illness.
I researched and recommended policy and procedure components on pages 11 and 12 of the feedback I submitted to the city back in September :
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wovnu7vznaqzmcwvlq9i6/2025-09-03-feedback-on-palo- alto-turf-study-draft-report.pdf?rlkey=0xwcwxro8y9emcaw5h52s97tk&st=rk9rkdp7&raw=1 By implementing these policies and procedures, the City can help protect the health and safety of all Palo Alto’s kids, kids traveling to Palo Alto for tournaments, adult volunteers like “Uncle Mitch,” and other community members using artificial turf Thanks,
Cynthia Fan
From: Leanne McAuliffe
To: Lu, George; Lauing, Ed; [email protected]; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 5, Council Meeting April 6 - Incorporate Heat Protocols Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 12:01:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
As you approve the contract to renew the El Camino field with artificial turf, please do not overlook the heat issues with this product. In January it was stated by a Council Member that the proposed replacement field with cork infill will be close to natural grass temperatures.
This is not true. It might be 20 degrees or so less than tire crumb infilled fields but it is still around 60 degrees hotter than natural grass. As such, I implore you to incorporate some kind of protocol for heat when these fields are in use. These protocols should require acknowledgement by users when they book the fields AND they should also be clearly displayed at all entry points of the fields.
Attached are 4 slides.
1 - Heat from artificial fields
2 - Heat injuries
3 - High temperatures of artificial turf fields compared to natural grass. The other demonstrates
4 - What heat protocols should look like.
Kind regards,
Leanne McAuliffe
From: Cynthia Fan
To: Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Subject: 4/6/26 agenda item 5: Contract needs amendments regarding turf removal Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:25:06 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Council,
The El Camino Park artificial turf renovation contract needs additions, corrections, and clarity regarding turf removal. Please direct staff to make the following amendments to the Turf Removal section of the contract
(section 3.04C.1 on pages 171-172 of the pdf).
Require that turf and infill be covered when it’s hauled off. This is important for reducing dispersal of loose microplastics during transport along the route to the waste’s next destination.
Section 3.04C.1.b. needs to specify the proper infill. It specifies rubber infill, but the system doesn’t have rubber infill.
Section 3.04C.1.b. says 90% of the infill must be reused. Is 90% reasonable? How can it be reused since so much of it was melted/gummy?
Section 3.04C.1.i. says the Chain of Custody Forms “are provided after this specification section,” but I don’t see them. If they are missing from the contract, they need to be added.
Section 3.04C.1.c. requires a “chain of custody for the material from the site to the end user.” To eliminate ambiguity and ensure accountability, the contract should explicitly define “end user” as the final recipient that takes ownership of and uses the material in its ultimate form. The term “end user” shall exclude any intermediary, including but not limited to resellers, brokers, storage facilities, recycling facilities, or manufacturing facilities.
The Contractor shall maintain and provide a complete, unbroken chain of custody documenting all transfers of the material from removal at the site through final delivery to the end user. At a minimum, this documentation shall include:
The identity, location, and contact information of each entity that takes possession of the material
Dates of transfer and quantities transferred at each step A description of the material at each stage (e.g., raw turf, processed material, finished product)
The identity and location of the final end user
A description of the ultimate use of the material by the end user The Contractor shall also provide written certification from the end user confirming receipt, intended use, and acknowledgment of the material’s origin and potential environmental characteristics.
For clarity:
If the material is transferred to a reseller or temporarily stored pending sale, the “end user” is the entity that ultimately purchases and takes possession of the material from that reseller.
If the material is recycled or incorporated into a new product, the “end user” is the entity that ultimately purchases and uses the finished product—not the recycler or manufacturer.
The Contractor’s chain-of-custody obligation shall not be deemed complete until the material has reached the defined end user and all required documentation and certifications have been provided to and accepted by the City.
This clarification is necessary to prevent the Contractor from transferring the material to a third-party intermediary and asserting that such intermediary constitutes the “end user,” thereby prematurely terminating its chain-of-custody obligations.
Thanks,
Cynthia Fan
From: Cynthia Fan
To: Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City
Subject: 4/6/26 agenda item 5: Ethical handling of El Camino’s turf waste Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:17:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Council,
Please pull Item 5 from the consent agenda and discuss how El Camino Park’s artificial turf waste will be handled.
The proposed contract (p. 104 of
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/community-services/staff-report- contracts/open-space-parks-and-golf/field-turf-usa/c26196846-fieldturf-usa-el-camino-park- turf-replacement-final.pdf)
states that the removed turf and infill will be “repurposed” by FieldTurf. There’s a ~$250,000 line item for a scope of work that includes, among other things, hauling away and repurposing this material.
Because this turf was manufactured before industry claims of reduced PFAS content, it is reasonable to assume it contains PFAS. This raises important ethical and policy questions:
1. Is repurposing PFAS-containing waste the most responsible course of action?
2. Will any recipient be fully informed of potential PFAS content and associated risks?
3. Will the City ensure that this material is not transferred to an environmental justice or disadvantaged community?
From an ethical standpoint, the City should consider whether disposing of this material in a permitted landfill is more appropriate than transferring potential environmental and public health risks to another community, particularly one that may have fewer resources or less access to information.
If Palo Alto is seeking to procure turf that avoids PFAS exposure for its own residents and watershed, it seems inconsistent to treat PFAS- containing turf as suitable for transfer to others without full disclosure and informed consent.
This concern is not hypothetical. The Mayfield Complex turf renovation was completed last year. According to the June 9, 2025 staff report (Item 9), staff “identified a feasible option to repurpose” the removed turf and planned to establish a chain of custody.
Where did that material ultimately go?
1. Was the recipient informed that it may contain PFAS?
2. Were potential health and environmental risks disclosed?
3. Was the receiving site located in an environmental justice or disadvantaged community? If repurposing PFAS-containing turf is not the most responsible option, please direct staff to revise the contract accordingly, including disposal costs. If repurposing is pursued, the contract should, at minimum, require documented proof that:
the recipient received full disclosure of potential PFAS content and risks, and the receiving site is not located in an environmental justice or disadvantaged community.
Thank you,
Cynthia Fan
From: Cynthia Fan
To: Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki; Council, City Subject: 4/6/26 agenda item 5: Unambiguously define PFAS expectations in turf contract Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 4:23:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Council,
I’m writing to flag what appears to be a serious oversight. I can find no mention of PFAS in the El Camino Park turf replacement contract included under Item 5 of the 4/6/26 consent agenda.
Please pull this item from consent for discussion.
To protect the City’s interests and ensure enforceability, staff should be directed to amend the contract to unambiguously define:
(a) the City’s PFAS requirements for the full turf system, and (b) the consequences if those requirements are not met.
At minimum, please clarify the following with staff:
1. PFAS standards must be clearly defined and expert-informed PFAS requirements should be developed with input from environmental and water quality experts.
2. “No intentionally added PFAS” is not sufficient
This phrase is increasingly used but is not protective. PFAS contamination—intentional or not—poses the same risk to our watershed. If tests of a quarantined sample of the product from the manufacturer demonstrate it can shed PFAS, the cause is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if the cause is supply chain contamination, processing agents, or some other source the manufacturer has failed to address. The manufacturer’s intent doesn’t matter. What matters is whether PFAS can shed from the product.
3. The entire turf system must be covered
Testing and compliance must apply to all components, including carpet fibers, carpet backing, shockpads (new and reused), infill, adhesives used in system construction, nailer boards (new and reused), and geotextiles. Other agencies have found PFAS in multiple components.
Examples:
Carpet fibers: The El Camino Park contract proposes Fieldturf’s Vertex product. This product has been shown to shed detectable levels of PFAS. Independent, unpaid, expert testimony has been provided regarding testing results and can be accessed via the citations on page 3 of this letter from the nonprofit Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc. : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cm52dn1g9ssgi7b9f10qc/2026-03- 11-SHPFI-to-Carlsbad-BOE.pdf?rlkey=hlpatoxc3bzrado0dco1czjb3&st=uh99evhn&raw=1 Nailer boards: FieldTurf advertises that it recycles used synthetic turf carpets into new nailer boards.
However, because PFAS are persistent, that means that if used carpets had PFAS in them, PFAS could also be present in the new nailer boards.
Shockpad: Test results show the Portsmouth, NH shockpad had 61 ppm:
https://nontoxicdovernh.wordpress.com/2021/09/15/tests-detect-dangerous-pfas-chemicals-in- portsmouths-new-synthetic-turf-field/ El Camino Park’s proposed system will retain the existing Brock shockpad. Brock says their products don’t contain PFAS :
https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/PFAS%2520Letter%2520Brock%2520USA.pdf
However, independent testing found 26 ppm in Brock’s shockpad, as reported on page 5 of this 2024 document published by University of Massachusetts:
https://www.uml.edu/docs/PFAS%20in%20Artificial%20Turf%20- %20Academic%20Municipal%20%26%20Other%20Tests%20Aug%202024_tcm18-386957.pdf Adhesives: That U. Mass document also states that PFAS were found in the adhesives used to construct the turf system.
At Council’s 1/12/26 meeting, the turf Ad Hoc committee members reassured the public that the artificial turf the city would be procuring for El Camino Park would be PFAS-free:
Mayor Veenker said (at timestamp 3:09:06) “We'll contract for turf that doesn't contain PFAS and can do the testing to confirm that.”
Councilmember Burt said (at timestamp 3:18:25) “We're going to have not only materials that the supplier is asserting will be PFAS-free but that we are going to do testing on.” However, recent experience suggests caution continues to be warranted. FieldTurf previously asserted, in a letter to the City (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RfesQmGBRyP8VaqnnRgHCLRowfcoXVn0/view?usp=drivesdk), that its product for the Mayfield Complex project was “PFAS-free”. Yet the City’s own consultant concluded that claim was unsubstantiated (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/at36n55s9udf67vbuzxzm/2025-05-02-Palo-Alto-has-Field- Turf-PFAS-test-data-evaluated-by-independent-expert.pdf? rlkey=400ui4l5pjrby365mi3klhruo&st=37xg154h&raw=1). Despite that the City had the consultant’s input a month prior to finalizing a FieldTurf contract for the Mayfield renovation, the version of the contract in the June 9, 2025 Council agenda Item 9 appears to include no clearly defined PFAS requirements: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/community-services/staff-report-contracts/open- space-parks-and-golf/field-turf-usa/field-turf-usa-inc-c25193640.pdf What lessons were learned from Mayfield? Have PFAS test results been received? If so, what do they show? If Mayfield testing shows PFAS can shed from the turf system, the City may find itself in a weak position. The City’s ability to enforce its expectations may be limited. Vendors may argue that “PFAS-free” was not contractually defined, no term was violated, and the City interpreted the phrase “PFAS-free” differently than the vendor intended. This is not hypothetical. A nearly identical situation occurred in Portsmouth, NH:
https://www.eenews.net/articles/our-community-has-been-deceived-turf-wars-mount-over-pfas/
I shared that cautionary tale with you before the Mayfield vote and asked that the contract be pulled from consent for discussion. You opted not to do so.
I urge you not to repeat that mistake. Please pull the El Camino contract from consent and address this now.
Please ensure the El Camino contract clearly defines PFAS requirements and establishes enforceable remedies if standards are not met.
If no vendor can meet these requirements, the City should evaluate alternatives or, at minimum, select the product with the lowest verified PFAS levels.
PFAS already contaminate our water, our environment, and our bodies. This is an opportunity to avoid adding to that burden.
Thank you,
Cynthia Fan
From: Claire E
To: Council, City; Robustelli, Sarah
Subject: Re: April 6th Consent calendar Item 5. Approval of Construction Contract No. C26196846 with FieldTurf USA, Inc.
Date: Sunday, April 5, 2026 9:49:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members and Ms. Robustelli,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed contract with FieldTurf USA. The document appears to contain significant omissions and conflicting information that require clarification:
- PFAS Content: There is no explicit requirement that the turf materials be PFAS-free. Council members have stated that the new installation would be tested to be PFAS free, so it would be a shame if the materials are found to contain PFAS after installation, similar to the situation at Mayfield. For reference, please see the turf study's Appendix E analysis here .
(https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/community-services/el-camino-park-turf- study/appendix-e-supplemental-articles-reports-and-resources.pdf.) - Recycling Protocols: The contract provides insufficient and conflicting information regarding the recycling of existing turf and infill. The bid specifies reuse of the infill from El Camino, but as it is mostly melted and malformed, it is unlikely there is a home for it as turf infill.
-The bid is very confusing as it references an earlier bid by another contractor (Verde Design) and says the pricing is based on the Verde Design plans. However, FieldTurf states their price does not include any drainage repairs though Verde Design's bid outlined multiple steps to ensure drainage was working properly. Is this no longer considered a priority? I urge you to address these points before finalizing the contract.
Best regards,
Claire Elliott
From: Andrea Wald
To: Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Veenker, Vicki
Subject: Agenda item #5 on consent calendar - request to pull from consent calendar (see details in my email) Date: Sunday, April 5, 2026 9:22:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Veenkar, Vice Mayor Stone and Council members, I'm writing as follow up to the email I sent on Thursday, 4/2. I just saw some additional material posted on the web site regarding Monday night's city council meeting and the vote council is supposed to make to approve Field Turf construction contract C2196846.
Material available regarding the contract, which I referenced, called out GMAX testing only at years 2, 4, 6, and 6 months prior to the completion of the 8 year warranty period. I had big concerns with this - as pointed out in my original email on the 2nd.
I now see a different version of the contract - same reference number - which does not show GMAX testing as part of the contract at all.
On page 4 - Analysis of " mini-packet_City Council Regular Meeting_20260406034603394" under the Staff report portion section it says ANNUAL GMAX testing. See clipped portion below:
Risk mitigation measures previously discussed with Council have been incorporated into this project. Stormwater inlet filtration has been installed onsite with 13 inlet hat filters and three (3) exterior sock filters, continued annual GMAX testing to monitor surface hardness, manufacturer material verification and documentation, and enhanced maintenance practices.
Why is there nothing about GMAX testing in the current contract you are supposed to approve?
This is something that needs to be clarified before the contract is approved. I am urging it be pulled from the consent calendar until this can be resolved. I am also requesting that the contract call for GMAX testing be at least once a year - if not more often since the field is expected to be used quite heavily.
Andrea Wald