Questions From the Public and Commissions:
1. Are there any studies or stats on the use of pesticides or health statistics of pesticides and the impacts on health when reducing the use of pesticides? Health statistics and impacts on health correlated with the reduction of pesticides are outside of this Study Issue scope.
2. Climate change causes variable climate. How do you tackle climate changes that would affect the pesticide use.
Climate Change and the impacts to pesticide efficacy is beyond the scope of this study.
3. For City staff application, is there an evaluation on what has worked and what is not working?
The City works with a Pest Control Advisor (PCA) who recommends the most appropriate products and methods. A PCA is a licensed professional who helps the City choose the safest and most effective ways to manage weeds and other pests. The PCA evaluates site conditions and pest pressure, recommends an overall approach (such as Integrated Pest Management) that may include cultural and mechanical methods and, when needed, targeted herbicide use, and advises on proper timing and application to reduce risk and improve results. The PCA also helps ensure work follows all label requirements and applicable regulations, especially in sensitive areas such as parks, schools, and near waterways.
City staff have also actively tested a range of approaches, including different herbicides as well as alternatives such as mulch, flame/torch treatment, and other mechanical methods that are in line with an industry-wide effort to reduce reliance on pesticides.
A key challenge is that weeds return quickly under many non-chemical methods, and achieving the same level of control can require two to three times more labor. The City is already pursuing additional options; for example, Cheetah Pro (a Roundup alternative) is currently being used at Baylands. Staff continue to look for new and effective ideas for pest management throughout the City.
4. What is the total cost of pesticides that we purchase? The average annual cost of chemical pesticide purchases has been $47,000 over the last four years.
5. How much of the estimated increase in costs related to pesticide reduction/elimination would come from the Park’s budget vs other departments’ budget?
All additional costs related to changes in practices in the application of pesticides would come from the General Fund.
6. 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.
7. Should we look into eliminating only highest risk pesticides or Eliminate just the warning pesticides?
Yes, a targeted, risk-tiered approach to pesticide reduction is possible, and it is already underway. The City is actively working to phase out the few products that carry the EPA "Warning" signal word label, which indicates a moderate level of toxicity to humans and the environment.
8. Why is Roundup Pro Max is the most used pesticide?
Roundup is broad-spectrum chemical that kills most plants by blocking a specific enzyme pathway essential to plant growth. It is the most widely used pesticide in the City's park and landscape maintenance program for several practical reasons:
• It is highly effective against a broad range of weeds and other unwanted vegetation with a single application, making it efficient for maintaining large areas of turf, pathways, medians, and ornamental landscape areas. • It carries the "Caution" signal word on its EPA-registered label, which is the lowest of three signal word categories (Danger, Warning, Caution) used to indicate a pesticide's level of acute toxicity. Additionally, Glyphosate is not in restricted categories under the current policy, which means it has been available for routine use when other non-chemical controls have been considered and found insufficient.
• Compared to many alternative herbicides or mechanical weed removal methods, glyphosate-based products are relatively inexpensive and widely available through commercial suppliers
9. Is Roundup used on turf fields?
No, Roundup is a non-selective, systemic herbicide. Spraying Roundup on turf would kill the weed being targeted AND the turf grass.
10. Why do road medians have the highest pesticide use per acre among City- maintained sites, and why do utility sites rank second? Road medians rank first because they are narrow, linear landscape strips located between active travel lanes. Medians are generally long, thin, and bordered by pavement on both sides making mechanical weed removal impractical and potentially unsafe for maintenance crews working in or adjacent to traffic. Medians also tend to have a high proportion of hardscape edges, curbs, and ornamental plantings where weeds establish readily in cracks and borders. Because hand-weeding or mechanical cultivation is difficult to perform safely and efficiently in these conditions, herbicide application is the primary weed management tool available to maintenance staff.
Utility sites rank second because access to these areas can be physically constrained.
Utility infrastructure including pump stations, electrical vaults, pipeline corridors, and similar facilities is typically fenced, gated, or otherwise restricted to limit public access and protect critical infrastructure. Pesticide spraying is used to suppress weed growth between maintenance visits, keeping vegetation from encroaching on equipment or creating fire hazards.
It is important to note that high gallons-per-acre figures at these sites do not necessarily indicate excessive or inappropriate pesticide use, they reflect the operational constraints of the site type.
11. Are there other techniques in medians to remove weeds or manage medians? The City is always looking for better ways to manage its parks and landscape areas. However, many of the City's medians have not received capital investment in decades. Median crew staffing has declined since 2000 to just six staff members plus a supervisor. As a result, irrigation is inconsistent, some trees and plantings are in poor condition, and some areas have become barren. These conditions create openings for weeds and invasive plants (such as ivy that overruns curbs) to take hold, requiring more frequent treatment. When plant material grows outside the boundaries of the median, crews must return more frequently to trim and control it.
Additionally, expanding the use of pesticide alternatives in medians is feasible but would require additional labor, and any transition away from chemical weed control would need to account for the increased staffing costs that other cities have experienced when making similar changes.
12. What is the expected outcome of the pilot study? What are the guidelines of the pilot study?
The pilot study scope would define the specific guidelines and evaluation criteria before work begins. In general, the expected outcome is to manage a selected park area without pesticides for a two-year period, using agreed-upon organic/regenerative and mechanical practices. Throughout the pilot, the City (and/or its contractor) would track results and, at the end of the two years, evaluate what worked and what didn’t. The project would document outcomes, successes, challenges, potential additional costs and lessons learned to inform future decisions.
13. Does the Pilot Park Study cost estimate include staff hours or just pesticide management?
The pilot park study cost estimates include hiring a contractor or organization to develop and implement an organic transition or regenerative management plan, along with soil testing and ongoing monitoring. These costs are combined with an estimated fixed per–square-foot cost for a landscaping contractor to perform manual and/or mechanical weeding at the selected site(s). The pilot is intended to be managed by contractors rather than City staff so the results reflect the desired approach without relying on staff labor.
14. Why was Panama Park chosen?
Panama Park was originally selected as the pilot site for the City's pesticide re- management program based on several key factors. First, the park is of a manageable size and includes both turf grass and ornamental/landscaped areas, allowing the pilot to evaluate pesticide reduction strategies across both types of ground cover that require different management approaches. Second, the park's symmetrical layout supports reliable data collection and comparison of results across the site. Third, Panama Park includes a ball field, providing the athletic field component needed to assess pesticide management in a sports context. Finally, the park is not heavily programmed or reserved. Usage was considered because if a pilot program produces visible changes to a park's appearance during the transition period, a lower-use site is less likely to generate concern before the program has had time to demonstrate its effectiveness.
15. How much would it cost to do 2 parks?
The cost of a two-park pilot would be greater than a single-park pilot. The program's costs fall into two categories: (1) contractor guidance on organic transition strategy, which is a relatively fixed cost that may not scale proportionally with the number of parks; and (2) weeding contractor services, which are priced on a per-square-foot basis and would increase in direct proportion to the total area treated at the second park or additional sites. As a result, the total additional cost of adding a second park would depend primarily on the square footage of the treatable landscape area at that park.
Staff can provide a more specific cost estimate if a candidate second park or site is identified and its square footage is assessed.
If the City were to expand the pesticide re-management pilot to a second park, staff would recommend selecting a park or site with different characteristics from Panama Park for example, a different size, landscape type, or use pattern to generate more diverse and useful data from the pilot study.
16. When dealing with an increase in weeds and changing aesthetics, how much of that will impact park closures and field playing time?
The City does not yet know how increased weed pressure or changes in field appearance could affect park closures or scheduled playing time; those impacts would be evaluated through the pilot park study. Benchmarking did not identify a direct comparison city with identical conditions, so the pilot will help establish Sunnyvale- specific expectations and maintenance standards. Staff does anticipate that field restorations and temporary closures may increase during the pilot period as the City adjusts maintenance practices and field performance is evaluated. The City would also work with the public to set realistic expectations for field aesthetics and performance under pesticide-free management. Staff did find that that some communities (for example, Menlo Park) report more visible weeds and reduced field durability in certain weather conditions.
17. Does the pilot park include organic turf management? The study will implement organic soil management practices on turf areas within the selected park including soil testing, soil amendments, and other techniques that reduce weed pressure and improve soil health as a foundation for reducing or eliminating reliance on chemical pesticides.
Additionally, the pilot will use mechanical weed removal as the primary weed management method instead of chemical pesticides on landscaping and ornamental areas. Costs will be tracked on a per-square-foot basis to enable accurate cost modeling for potential future expansion to other parks.
18. Noise was mentioned as a concern for the use of line trimmers. What types of line trimmers are we using at the City? Electric, battery or gas? The City currently uses a mix of electric and gas-powered line trimmers. Approximately 40% of the City's trimmer fleet is electric; the remaining 60% are gas-powered. The electric trimmers have been in service for approximately 10 years and are used primarily in areas around City Hall and other locations where noise sensitivity is a higher concern. Gas-powered trimmers are used more broadly across park and landscape maintenance operations citywide.
From a noise standpoint, electric line trimmers operate significantly more quietly than gas-powered models, which produce both engine noise and higher vibration levels. The current fleet composition means that noise from trimmer operations remains a factor in park maintenance, particularly in residential-adjacent areas. As the City evaluates its pesticide-free pilot and broader sustainable maintenance practices, the transition toward a higher proportion of electric or battery-powered equipment is one avenue that could meaningfully reduce noise impacts on park neighbors and maintenance staff alike but also contributes to additional costs.
19. If recommendation is to stay on the course, why do the pilot study? Staff believes the current IPM Policy has been effective, and overall use of pesticides of concern remains minimal. However, recommending that the City maintain its current approach does not mean the question of further pesticide reduction is closed. The pilot study serves a distinct and important purpose: it will generate real-world data on the actual costs and operational impacts of transitioning away from chemical pesticides in a specific park or City property setting. Without that data, any future decision to expand pesticide reduction efforts or to conclude that full elimination is not cost-effective would be based on estimates and the experiences of other cities rather than Sunnyvale's own conditions and landscape types.
Specifically, the pilot study is designed to identify which alternative pest management approaches are operationally viable for the City, what they cost compared to current practices, and what additional resources would be needed to scale those alternatives citywide. The pilot study is a responsible next step that may provide Council and staff with the evidence needed to make well-informed decisions about the City's long-term pesticide management direction.
20. Can we redefine what a weed is?
Redefining what counts as a weed does not eliminate the underlying maintenance challenge. Unwanted vegetation in landscapes still competes with desired plantings, creates safety hazards by obstructing sight lines for drivers and pedestrians, and contributes to erosion. The more effective long-term solution is not a definitional change but a landscape renovation that replaces high-maintenance plantings with drought-tolerant, low-maintenance, or native species that require less intervention and therefore less pesticide use from the outset.
21. Pesticide use at heritage orchard is not shown, was this looked at? The Heritage Orchard was not analyzed as a separate site in the pesticide use data.
Pesticide applications by City staff at the orchard are included within the total volume reported for the Community Center site, as the orchard and the Community Center share the same parcel and are tracked together in the City's reporting system.
It is also important to note that the Heritage Orchard is a working apricot orchard operated under a conventional (non-organic) farming agreement with an independent orchardist. The orchardist is responsible for the care and maintenance of the fruit trees, including any pesticide applications necessary for orchard management, and operates as an independent contractor who controls the means of maintaining the orchard. As a result, some pesticide applications at the orchard may be made by the orchardist rather than directly by City staff, which may affect how those applications are captured in City pesticide use records.
22. What are the bigger systemic things to reduce pesticide use? Reducing pesticide use in a meaningful and lasting way requires changes at multiple levels not just adjustments to day-to-day application practices. • Renovate aging landscape infrastructure. Such as improving irrigation systems and adjusting plant palettes. This is one of the highest-impact changes available, but it requires upfront capital investment.
• Invest in labor capacity for non-chemical alternatives. Mechanical weed removal, hand-weeding, and mulching are effective alternatives to chemical herbicides, but they require significantly more staff time. Any serious pesticide reduction effort must be accompanied by a realistic assessment of staffing needs and a corresponding budget commitment.