Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Turf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors split on turf: proposed countywide ban fails after hours of public comment
Summary
After roughly 120 public speakers and extended debate, a proposal for a countywide prohibition on new artificial turf on county property (version A) failed; a narrower alternative (version B) that would have allowed regulated, PFAS‑free, no‑infill turf on playing fields also did not pass.
The Board of Supervisors held an extended public hearing on Jan. 28 and received more than 120 public comments both in chambers and via Zoom on a referral to prohibit new artificial turf installations on county property. Staff had prepared two draft ordinances: version A would ban new artificial turf on county property except for existing lease constraints and the county animal services park; version B would allow a narrower exception for "playing fields" only if manufacturers' products met specified limits (including PFAS‑free and no‑infill requirements).
Deputy County Executive Sylvia Gallegos and county staff presented a technical review of potential harms from artificial turf (PFAS and other contaminants), microplastic shedding and disposal challenges, and operational tradeoffs including the much higher usable hours typically delivered by synthetic fields versus natural grass. Staff said recycling options remain limited though one commercial chemical recycler in Louisiana and a specialist recycler were identified for some products.
Speakers on both sides addressed health, environmental and equity concerns or access to play: physicians, environmental advocates and residents urged a full ban (version A) citing microplastic, PFAS and heat‑island risks; youth coaches, sports clubs, union installers and professional teams urged preservation of turf as necessary to meet demand for playable hours and broaden access. After public comment, supervisors debated. President Otto Lee moved adoption of the full ban (version A) together with a pilot direction; that motion failed on a 2–3 vote. Vice President Arenas then sought a motion for version B (an ordinance that would permit regulated PFAS‑free and no‑infill turf on playing fields) and a parallel approach; that motion also failed 2–3.
Ending: With both the broad ban and the narrower regulated exception failing to get a majority, the board took no ordinance action on turf at this meeting. Staff said the vote leaves the county—s existing policy in place; supervisors and staff noted they could revisit the issue in future meetings and requested further information on specific technical questions (PFAS/lead testing, infill options, and collaborative pilots with municipalities).
