This story has been updated to correct errors in a previously published version.
BY STEPHANIE LAM
Daily Post Correspondent
A highly anticipated decision on whether to continue installing artificial turf fields at El Camino Park will be addressed at the Palo Alto City Council’s Jan. 12 meeting.
The council is expected to green-light replacing the existing synthetic turf at El Camino Park. Council is also slated to approve a project that will look into improving the playability of natural grass fields and replacing the turf at Cubberley Community Center with real grass in 2028.
The vote comes as swarms of residents line up on either side of the turf debate. Many want to keep the turf fields at El Camino because of their year-round accessibility. But some locals, along with members of the local Sierra Club chapter, are pushing the city to remove the synthetics, citing environmental concerns with PFAS, or chemicals that can take centuries to break down and may be linked to cancer, reproductive issues and stunted development in children.
Resident Cristian Avalos, who supports the turf, said playing sports on poorly maintained and uneven natural grass can cause injuries.
“We should be prioritizing the safety of our athletes and the longevity of our community spaces,” he wrote in a Dec. 23 email to the council. “I fear that moving to grass will result in El Camino becoming another under-maintained facility that parents and players will eventually fear using.”
But Gita Dev from the Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club said in an email that she wants the council to “roll up the old plastic grass carpet” and keep the material away from children.
“We hope that you will do the right thing by our kids and not have them breathe plastics, be burned by plastic when they fall, and have a healthy childhood.”
An October study commissioned by Palo Alto recommends using synthetic turf at El Camino because the material can handle more hours of use than grass and would cost less to install. The study also recommended starting a pilot program that would look at installing grass fields in the future.
A turf field can yield more than 2,000 hours of use a year and would cost the city $1 million to $1.4 million to install. Meanwhile, grass could withstand 400 to 600 hours and cost between $1.5 million and $2 million, according to the study.
If El Camino converted to natural grass the city should consider adding two or three natural grass fields to accommodate displaced use, according to an updated version of the study, released in November.
The city has three parks with artificial turf fields, including El Camino, Cubberley and the Stanford-Palo Alto Playing Fields, also known as May-field. Mayfield’s turf is currently being replaced with a new synthetic surface.
The issue of turf safety came to light in 2024, when the city was hit with a lawsuit from the family of Diego Velasquez, a minor who fell and sustained injuries on the Mayfield turf in 2023 after a “sticky, gum-like substance” seeped out and got stuck to his shoes.
I appreciate the reporter covering this very important issue but am disappointed that references were mostly from a study issue that has not been accepted by city council and contains quite a bit of misinformation – especially regarding actual cost of natural grass vs artificial turf and play hours. There was never any comparison sited for organically managed natural grass fields using newer, drought tolerant and sturdy grasses even these studies are available to the general public and have shown proof of less water usage, more play time and less need to shut fields down. All the discrepancies have been brought to Staff and city council members attention but little has been done to address these.
As for Cristian Avalos’ comment about “prioritizing safety of our athletes” its a shame he has not considered health and environmental harms of toxic, plastic ground covering. I would think that these issues would be important from a safety standpoint. Plus, its not just those playing on these fields that are at risk for health harms, but its the community in general who are affected by the microplastics, toxins in those plastics and the quality of the water that drains off the fields. Wouldn’t it be great if those using these fields used their influence to get cities to do a better job of creating and managing these fields with natural grass?
What a shame that perceived advantages to artificial turf are outweighing actual facts and the safer, more environmentally friendly and healthy material – NATURAL GRASS – is being overlooked.
A couple of years ago I was taking a walk on the Stanford campus and as I passed by the field hockey arena about eight giant spigots the size of fire hoses erupted and began spraying the entire hockey field with water. I asked a groundskeeper why they were watering artificial turf? The groundskeeper said the artificial turf builds up so much heat from the environment that they have to cool it down first so the team can safely practice without without being overcome by the heat.