General Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
1. Why did the City conduct this study?
In 2017, the City Council approved a Study Issue to evaluate whether Sunnyvale could eliminate the use of chemical pesticides on City-owned and leased property. The study examined current practices, available alternatives, costs, operational impacts, environmental benefits, and the experiences of other California cities.
2. Does the City use pesticides today?
Yes. The City uses pesticides only when necessary and follows its Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy. Chemical controls are the last step after prevention, monitoring, mechanical methods, and biological controls have been considered.
3. Where are pesticides used?
Pesticides are used in parks, landscaped areas, medians, golf courses, around City facilities, and for tree health when needed. Different products are used for different purposes, such as weed control, invasive insects, tree pests, and turf management.
4. Are pesticides applied near playgrounds?
No. City staff avoid applying pesticides around playgrounds, sandboxes, and similar high- use recreation areas. City staff follow the Department of Pesticide Regulation Healthy Schools Act. Additionally, applications are generally performed early in the morning when parks are lightly used, and treated areas remain off limits until all required re-entry times have passed.
5. Are the pesticides the City uses legal and regulated? Yes. Every pesticide used by the City is registered and regulated by federal and California agencies. City employees who apply pesticides are licensed, receive annual training, and follow all label requirements, safety regulations, and the City's Integrated Pest Management Policy.
6. Why not simply ban all synthetic pesticides?
The study found that eliminating all synthetic pesticides would significantly increase costs and staffing needs while reducing the effectiveness of weed and pest control. Many alternative products require more frequent applications, often do not kill weeds at the root, can be more expensive than conventional products, and may require additional protective equipment and training.
7. Are organic or natural pesticides always safer?
Not necessarily. "Organic" or "natural" does not automatically mean non-toxic. Some organic products carry the same or higher hazard ratings than conventional pesticides and can pose risks to workers if not handled properly. Like synthetic products, all pesticides must be used according to their labels.
8. What alternatives did the City evaluate?
The study evaluated manual weed removal, flame, steam, and hot-foam treatments, organic herbicides, increased mulching, improved irrigation and soil health practices, and turf management practices that reduce weed growth over time. Each alternative offers benefits but also has limitations related to cost, labor, effectiveness, or operational feasibility.
9. Would eliminating pesticides save money?
No. The study estimates that removing glyphosate alone could increase annual operating costs by approximately 60 percent. Eliminating all synthetic pesticides could increase annual costs by approximately 93 percent because of additional labor, equipment, materials, and more frequent maintenance.
10. Would parks and landscaped areas look different?
Possibly. Without conventional weed control, residents should expect more visible weeds, different turf appearance, changes in landscape maintenance practices, and potentially lower aesthetic standards unless additional funding is provided.
11. Have other cities successfully eliminated synthetic pesticides? Cities have had mixed experiences. Some cities have transitioned to reduced or pesticide- free programs, but generally with increased funding, additional staffing, contractor support, and changes in maintenance expectations. Other cities have reinstated certain pesticide uses after finding alternatives were significantly more expensive or less effective.
12. Does the City already try to reduce pesticide use?
Yes. Sunnyvale's Integrated Pest Management Policy requires staff to monitor pest problems before taking action, prevent pest establishment whenever possible, use mechanical or biological controls first, use the least-toxic effective product only when necessary, and track and report pesticide use.
13. What environmental benefits could come from reducing pesticide use? Potential benefits include reduced potential for pesticide runoff, additional protection for pollinators and beneficial insects, reduced exposure opportunities for employees and the public, and greater emphasis on healthy soils and sustainable landscaping practices.
14. Why is staff recommending a pilot project?
A pilot project would allow the City to test alternative approaches under real operating conditions before making citywide changes. The pilot would help determine actual costs, staffing requirements, effectiveness of alternative methods, impacts on park appearance, public acceptance, and long-term maintenance needs.
15. What actions is the City Council being asked to consider? Staff is presenting options for Council consideration, including continuing the City's Integrated Pest Management approach, further reducing, or eliminating certain pesticides in targeted locations, increasing transparency through expanded reporting, and conducting a pilot project to evaluate pesticide-free maintenance methods before considering broader changes. The purpose of the study is to provide Council with information on the benefits, costs, and operational impacts of each option so that policy decisions can be made with a clear understanding of the tradeoffs.