Sunnyvale planners review artificial turf study as residents urge ban and industry touts improvements

The Sunnyvale Planning Commission on June 22 reviewed a city-funded study (File 26‑0608, SU‑2) assessing artificial turf and natural grass for public and private use. Staff emphasized the study’s limits — it relied on peer‑reviewed literature, industry information and community input and did not include local surface sampling or new health‑impact testing — and presented research findings, community engagement results and draft recommendations. No formal actions or votes were taken at the study session.

Mansour Nasser, interim director of Environmental Services, introduced the report and said the study was funded in FY25–26 with $150,000. Environmental programs manager Mandaline K told commissioners the team collected community input via focus groups, a community workshop and an online survey, noting the survey of 850 responses was “not a statistically significant survey” but helpful for understanding community concerns. The survey found about 60% of respondents were very or moderately concerned about environmental and health impacts of artificial turf; opinions on regulation were split (40% generally restricted; 38% generally allowed; 20% allowed for specific uses).

Consultant Alex Juel (Kimley Horn) summarized the study’s technical findings: artificial turf poses issues including microplastic runoff, elevated surface heat and end‑of‑life disposal challenges, while natural grass requires more water and maintenance operations that carry greenhouse‑gas (GHG) impacts. Juel presented a 20‑year illustrative cost comparison showing roughly $130,000 for natural grass versus $185,000 for artificial turf; when cost was expressed per hour of play the report showed approximately $300 per use for grass versus about $100 per use for turf, reflecting turf’s much higher usable hours.

The presenters emphasized limits in the evidence linking surface type to long‑term human health outcomes at community levels. "We did not conduct any sampling or testing of surfaces in Sunnyvale," Mandaline said, noting the study did not model quantified health impacts and recommended any future turf project include a life‑cycle analysis and material specifications.

The report’s recommendations included prioritizing and conserving natural grass; piloting organic turf‑management techniques to improve grass playability without pesticides; allowing artificial turf only for fields the city determines are high‑use after testing alternatives; specifying material and infill standards (including consideration of PFAS/PAS testing); and exploring adaptive‑reuse locations (for example, underutilized parking areas or rooftops) where turf is more appropriate. Staff also proposed a decision tree that places environmental and public‑health considerations early in the review process.

Commissioners pressed for clarity on several points. Commissioner Davis asked about the field size used in several calculations (the consultants used a 148,500‑sq‑ft, two–soccer‑field benchmark) and about outreach to sports leagues; staff said league outreach was part of the engagement and that reservable‑field data exist, while informal park use is not systematically counted. Several commissioners questioned the study’s usable‑hours assumptions for grass and turf; consultant and recreation staff explained the literature uses average annual hours and industry guidance (for example, recommendations that certain grass fields be rested for weeks for rehabilitation), and staff said many of the city’s irrigation systems are older and not optimized for athletic playing‑field maintenance.

Commissioner Cerrone and others warned that converting fields to synthetic turf can change a park’s character by narrowing allowable uses (for example limiting picnics, dogs, and informal play on fenced turf fields). Deputy Director Jesus Shosa said reservation revenue goes to the city’s general fund and that the city can provide reservation counts and other metrics, but staff acknowledged gaps in data about informal park use.

Public comment reflected the divide in the community. Mary Brunost, speaking for the Sunnyvale Urban Forest Advocates, urged the city to ban artificial turf in parks and public spaces, saying turf “shrinks usable parkland” and undermines environmental goals. Manny Diaz, an industry consultant who said he represents turf manufacturers, responded that the industry has evolved — citing PFAS‑free product claims, lower‑heat infill options and growing recycling capacity — and urged the commission to recognize improved product options.

Staff said the next procedural step is to summarize the study and the input for City Council in a study session on July 28; the presentation to council will be informational and no policy decision will be made at that meeting unless council chooses otherwise. The commission did not take formal action at this study session.

What’s next: staff will provide the council packet for a July 28 study session, and the report recommends that any specific turf project include a site‑level life‑cycle analysis, material specifications, and consideration of mitigation options for either surface type.