Council shifts course on artificial turf: asks staff to pursue a discouraged policy and link to stormwater rules rather than immediate removals

The Sierra Madre City Council debated whether to ban or phase out artificial turf Sept. 9 and ultimately directed staff to change course: instead of imposing immediate removal requirements for existing turf on private and public property, the council asked staff to prepare a resolution discouraging petroleum-based turf moving forward and to evaluate treating turf as impervious cover for Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater calculations.

Why it matters: City staff and the Natural Resources Commission raised concerns about artificial turf's heat-island effect, micro-pollutant runoff (zinc, copper), bacterial accumulation in curb-adjacent parkway turf and potential PFAS/VOC exposures. Several council members and staff noted Sierra Madre had previously promoted low-water landscaping during recent droughts, which led some residents to install synthetic turf.

What the meeting covered: Management Analyst Carlson and Planning staff summarized environmental and public-health concerns documented in recent studies and noted the state only recently allowed local regulation of turf. Council members pushed back on provisions that would have required removal of turf already installed by residents or by organizations such as the local little-league; several said it would be inequitable to force removal of installations made in good faith under prior encouragement.

Council decision and next steps: Rather than adopt a strict removal ordinance, the council directed staff to (1) prepare a council resolution discouraging the installation of petroleum-based artificial turf on private property going forward (a prohibition on new turf was acceptable to many council members); (2) evaluate including turf as impervious surface in LID/stormwater calculations so that turf installation would trigger the same drainage and retention requirements that apply to concrete and other impervious surfaces; and (3) quantify the inventory of existing installed turf and identify city-owned installations (including recent pony-league field improvements) for further review.

Unresolved matters: Council debated whether to require removal of turf already on city property (pony-league infield was cited as an example). Staff and the Natural Resources Commission recommended including public property, but council members noted the Pony League had invested significant funds and that public-park turf use differs from water-conservation turf in private front yards. Council asked staff to return with options, definitions and an implementation timeline rather than ordering immediate removals.

Ending: The council's direction preserves the city's ability to limit future turf while giving staff time to inventory existing installations, propose LID adjustments and return with a resolution and implementation plan.