Commissioners Hear Strong Public Push to Avoid Rubber Surfacing in Grant and Shoup Park Replacements

Commissioners on the Los Altos Parks and Arts Commission on Tuesday heard extensive public comment urging them to reconsider proposed playground surfacing and to seek alternatives to pour‑in‑place rubber for replacement projects at Grant and Shoup Parks.

Several residents and community advocates asked the commission to delay acceptance of the vendor’s proposed designs so staff could solicit additional proposals and surface samples. “Do not approve the design submitted to you,” Andrea Wal, co‑founder of Community for Natural Place Surfaces, told commissioners during public comment, urging instead that engineered wood fiber or reclaimed cork surfaces be considered.

The item before the commission was described by staff as an equipment‑for‑equipment replacement: the existing playground footprints would be refitted with modernized equipment. Staff identified GameTime (Playcore Wisconsin DBA GameTime) as the selected proposer and said a contract with that vendor had been approved by the city council; the commission’s role at this meeting was to provide design input before final construction documents are completed.

Public commenters raised three recurring concerns: the health and environmental effects of PIP and rubber infill; loss of shade and natural play elements; and a lack of transparent neighborhood outreach. Susan (first name only), citing a report from the Toxic Use Reduction Institute, said engineered wood fiber meets fall‑attenuation and chemical‑safety criteria and can be maintained with periodic replenishment. Barbara Loner, a former park commissioner, and other speakers urged more natural features—sand, water play, wood elements and shade trees—and asked commissioners to hold neighborhood meetings at Grant and Shoup to collect detailed input from adjacent residents.

Commissioner questions focused on accessibility, maintenance, and options available from the selected vendor. Staff said vendor experts provide technical specifications and that the proposed designs meet ADA standards for accessible pathways and some ground‑level elements, but staff also acknowledged the commission’s request for clearer documentation of standards, samples of surfacing materials, and shade‑coverage comparisons (percentage shaded before and after replacement).

Several commissioners expressed opposition to PIP in principle and asked staff to explore whether the contracted vendor could provide alternatives (engineered wood fiber or cork) within the approved contract or whether the city should seek a different installer willing to accommodate those materials. Commissioners also suggested targeted outreach—on‑site meetings at the parks and sample displays—so neighbors can evaluate tradeoffs among safety, durability, maintenance and environmental goals.

No formal motion or vote on the playground designs occurred at the meeting. Staff said the designs presented were not final and that commissioner input would be recorded for consideration as the final package is prepared; staff also said they would collect and circulate submitted technical materials (including PDFs) and samples to commissioners.

Next steps: commissioners requested that staff provide surfacing samples, documentation on ADA and fall‑attenuation standards cited by the vendor, a shade‑coverage comparison, and options or cost implications for alternative surfacing. The commission did not take a formal action to approve or reject the designs during this meeting.