BY STEPHANIE LAM
Daily Post Correspondent
El Camino Park will continue to house synthetic turf fields, the Palo Alto City Council decided tonight (Jan. 12), ending months of discussion and debate.
The council voted 6-1 to move forward with turf, with Councilman Greer Stone voting no. The council also unanimously approved launching a natural grass pilot program that will look into integrating grass fields at other popular sport spaces, such as Cubberley Park.
Stone said his vote is influenced by a letter the council received last month from the Santa Clara County Medical Association, which represents more than 4,000 doctors. The letter outlined doctors’ concerns about the health impacts of synthetic fields, and recommended the council vote against turf.
“When our county doctors are telling us that a proposed solution may do harm and offer an alternative, I believe we have the responsibility to choose that safer path even when it’s harder,” Stone said.
But other council members, such as Councilman Keith Reckdahl, said turf fields are the most time-friendly option. Figuring out how to make grass fields more playable will take the city time to figure out, Reckdahl said, and local athletes can’t wait that long.
“We don’t have time to go through that learning curve while the kids are sitting there waiting for the grass to grow,” Reckdahl said.
The El Camino fields are in need of replacement this year, sparking heated debates among council members and council over whether to keep the synthetic material or move to natural grass.
Supporters want turf because of its year-round accessibility, but others members 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.
Council’s decision to replace the aging turf mirrors previous recommendation from both the Parks and Recreation Commission and city-commissioned study from Lloyd Consulting Group in November 2025, which advocated for turf because of its easier maintenance and ability to be played year-round.
The council had the option to vote on the fields during their November meeting, but deferred it after council members raised concerns about the study’s accuracy. They instead voted to make an ad hoc committee to explore the pros and cons, which consists of then-Vice Mayor Vicki Veenker, then-Mayor Ed Lauing and Councilman Pat Burt.
The back-and-forth resurfaced at yesterday’s meeting, where more than 40 locals lined up to speak for and against the turf decision.
A speaker named James S., said he is a college soccer player who has played in Palo Alto for 15 years. He urged the council to choose turf, and consider how much playing time would be cut if grass fields had to be closed during the winter months.
“I think what every small environmental changes might come from the grass fields do not justify taking the opportunity to play away from 500 to 1,000 kids who really enjoy that time playing soccer,” James said.
But Linda Hutchins-Knowles said Palo Alto should consider the health benefits of switching to grass, and be skeptical of information that claims synthetic materials are safe.
“I would expect more from the Palo Alto City Council than to be hoodwinked by the green washing of this industry,” she said.
I’m surprised Greer Stone blindly acceptedly the advice of the county American Medical Association (AMA) chapter. At one time, they represented 75% of all doctors, but today less than half pay membership dues. Doctors are disgusted that the AMA is always pushing for big hospital chains and political issues over individual providers in private practice. Shrinking reimbursement rates have ended many practices, especially those in rural areas. The medical association is the wrong place for Palo Alto to have obtained advice. Stone should have asked for a second opinion.
Why are you surprised Stone would follow the advice of the medical establishment? Isn’t that the same organization that recommended masking even when you’re not sick, masking indoors, and even outdoors unless you’re at least “six feet” away? Is that the same association that pressures doctors to pretend that masks work and to tell their patients to “mask up” or risk losing their license?
If the Medical Association is concerned about the health impacts of synthetic fields, what about the health impacts of wearing a synthetic mask all day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, re-using (as most do), touching/adjusting the mask constantly with unsterile hands, stuffing in pocket or on a dirty car seat? Seems hypocritical and nonsensical to me.
Who are these people commenting at our meetings? They’re not from Palo Alto. I guess they’re from Berkley and SF. Council needs to limit comments to LOCALS ONLY.
I’m not sure why you keep saying the commenters weren’t from Palo Alto, especially since about half of them identified themselves as Palo Alto residents and the other half didn’t know to or bother to specify their where they live.
Some speakers were young — between 12 and 20 years old — and it was their first time commenting to Council. They may not have thought about saying where they live but did describe why and WHERE they want to keep playing on their natural grass
PA itself only partially identifies speakers — first name and surname initial — due to personal privacy concerns.
Re organizations, we should know if they’re local, especially the big national consultancies with little local knowledge but big retainers telling PA how to transform itself who are so clueless they assume Stanford Shopping Center is downtown. Location matters. Knowing if they’ve ever visited Palo Alto’s also a plus.
Their location matters because regional differences influence their orientation and recommendations.
The video of the comments only identifies people by their first name and surname initial.
The ability of people to comment without giving their name or address allows special interest groups to bring people from other cities to our meetings in an attempt to influence council decisions. The bicyclist groups do this all the time. The Sierra Club compared notes with the bicyclists and attempted the same trick here. However, there’s nothing to stop a council member from saying, “I’d like to know your name and city, and if you refuse to offer that, I will refuse to consider your comments.”
Just for JAM’s edification, the court case allowing anonymous speech is Watchtower v. Village of Stratton, 2002, and it later became state law (Government Code section 54953.3). Sorry, though, the ruling didn’t hinge on the issue of privacy. You just made that up.
Alex, thanks for the clarification. Please explain more about that ruling. You’re right that I assumed it hinged on privacy not a religious group’s desire for anonymous speech.
I’m aware suits against religious groups for falsely claiming their pregnancy centers are clinics offering birth control and abortion and would like to learn more about where else anonymous speech is allowed
Note that the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter speaker identified herself and stated that she was speaking as the Chair of the Plastic Pollution Prevention Committee. This is the opposite of speaking without identifying oneself.
Guess the rest of the people reading from the Sierra Club’s script forgot to identify themselves or say where they lived.