Turf study finds trade‑offs; staff recommends synthetic turf at very high‑use fields with measures to limit microplastics and PFAS

City staff and consultants presented a draft turf study to the Parks and Recreation Commission on Sept. 23 that compares natural grass, synthetic turf and hybrid field systems and recommends using synthetic turf at very high‑use athletic fields while adopting measures to reduce microplastic migration and PFAS exposure.

The study, prepared by Lloyd Consulting Group and other subject‑matter experts, examined field playability and carrying capacity, life‑cycle costs, environmental and health impacts, maintenance requirements, and local user needs. The study was prepared after the City Council paused a previously budgeted replacement of El Camino Park’s synthetic field and asked staff to analyze environmental health, safety, cost, and playability before proceeding.

Consultants told commissioners that synthetic turf typically supports many more hours of use per year than natural grass. The report used a typical carrying‑capacity comparison (synthetic turf field: roughly 2,000 hours per year versus typical cool‑season natural grass: 400–600 hours per year), which yields a synthetic‑to‑grass equivalency in the range of roughly 3:1 to 4:1 depending on field construction and management. That ratio varies with turf type, soil profile and maintenance intensity.

The study also examined environmental concerns. It concluded the most prominent environmental issues from synthetic fields come from microplastics (crumb rubber or loose infill and fiber fragments) and the potential for PFAS in some turf components. Consultants recommended city policy and procurement language to prioritize reduced‑PFAS products, consider natural (non‑plastic) infills such as cork or walnut, require g‑max testing and establish maintenance best practices (regular grooming and collection of loose material) to limit off‑site migration.

On costs, the study included a 20‑year life‑cycle model. Synthetic turf was shown to have a lower per‑hour cost when fields reach high levels of use, given reduced downtime and greater carrying capacity; natural grass fields show lower capital cost but higher per‑hour cost if heavy use requires repeated renovation, resodding or restricted access. Consultants noted warranties and the practical service life of many synthetic systems are typically 8–12 years; the 20‑year model therefore counts multiple replacement cycles.

Public comment at the meeting reflected a range of views. Youth soccer organizations told commissioners synthetic turf at heavily used fields is essential to meet demand and provide consistent practice and game hours. Environmental advocates and community members urged the city to consider organically managed natural turf fields, to test for PFAS and microplastics, and to seek objective third‑party verification of claims about health impacts.

Commissioner questions focused on: how many hours El Camino’s field actually receives (consultants corrected an overstatement in the draft and told the commission the correct figure is closer to 2,700 annual hours when half‑field bookings are counted as full‑field hours in staff data; recalculating by half‑field reduces that to under 2,000 annual hours), the lifespan and warranty durations of modern turf systems, and whether local recycling options exist for end‑of‑life turf products.

Staff and consultants said the final report will: (1) revise the El Camino use figures, (2) incorporate more case studies and public comments — particularly on organically managed grass fields cited by commenters — (3) recommend procurement specifications to minimize PFAS and microplastic migration, and (4) propose monitoring (annual g‑max testing and maintenance logs) and disposal/recycling language to include in contract documents. The consultants also noted novel “no‑infill” and low‑infill turf products are emerging but are relatively new to North American municipal use and require more field evidence before the city could rely on them.

Next steps

Staff will incorporate public feedback and return the turf study to the commission for action. The report will be sent to city council with staff recommendations after the commission’s vote. If the city proceeds with resurfacing projects, staff said it will propose contract language, maintenance schedules, and procurement standards that prioritize reduced‑PFAS manufacturing and, where feasible, natural infill alternatives.

Community organizations that use fields — including Palo Alto Soccer Club and AYSO — said they will remain engaged as staff prepare final policy and procurement language. The commission requested that the final study include clearer documentation on: (a) the methodology for hours/carrying‑capacity comparisons, (b) the health‑risk testing protocols the city will use, and (c) realistic recycling/disposal pathways for removed turf.