On Jan. 29, 2025, a ban on turf in recreation areas was rejected by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in a 3-2 vote. For communities in Santa Clara County, the rejection opens the door for continued use and further implementation of the synthetic grass. Santa Clara County’s recent board decision followed Assembly Bill 727, which sought to limit the use of certain chemicals, but was vetoed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in 2023.
The bill was referenced in order to address concerns regarding exposure to potentially harmful polyfluorinated substances. Though Newsom supported the bill’s intent, he vetoed it, arguing that statewide management would not be viable. According to Newsom, the bill did not “identify or require any regulatory agency to determine compliance with, or enforce the proposed statute,” effectively leaving synthetic turf regulation to individual corporations.
Of the five supervisors on the Santa Clara County Board, three Santa Clara County supervisors who voted against it cited budget concerns. Given that the county already funds certain turf fields, such as the Reed & Grant Sports Park, county supervisors favor the flexibility to choose between natural and synthetic fields on a case-by-case basis. Contrastingly, supervisors who favored the ban referenced similar health concerns to what Newsom mentioned in AB 727.
Some Lynbrook students and nearby community members have also raised public health concerns over synthetic turf, advocating for alternatives. In response to widespread synthetic turf use at Lynbrook and other schools, county residents partnered with the Sierra Club — an environmental advocacy group — to petition for a ban. The Sierra Club has previously organized meetings at local hotspots such as the Cupertino Library, rallying together 90 named residents. As artificial turf is unrecyclable, advocates cite the environmental disparities that come with not just the disposal of the turf, but also human exposure to the grass substitute.
“We were disappointed that the board ended up choosing not to ban artificial turf,” said senior and Conservation Action Association co-president Daphne Zhu, who signed the turf petition proposed by the Sierra Club. “Although this doesn’t mean that replacing turf with natural grass is not possible in future projects, the ban on artificial turfs would’ve been an important step toward prioritizing environment and health.”
The FUHSD Board of Trustees has chosen to retain synthetic turf. In 2024, the board affirmed Santa Clara Board’s decision, unanimously voting to renovate turfs with the intention of improving shock-absorption capabilities and swapping the types of infills — grains mounted under the artificial grass fibers in turfs — in order to maintain safe temperatures and optimize chemical safety. During various district board meetings, updating synthetic turf proved to be advantageous for many decision-making criteria, including programmatic needs, safety, maintenance, water use, drainage, schedule, cost and population preference. By planning to replace rubber pellet infills with thermally treated olive pits, temperature readings can drop while alleviating possible health risks that come with polyfluorinated substances.
The district has allocated approximately $33.5 million for turf repairs, with $14 million already invested. The schools that will receive these changes first are Homestead High School and Fremont High School because of their need for shock absorption capabilities. By choosing to refurbish synthetic turf, the district can support around three times the on-turf activity that natural grass would otherwise support. This accommodates the typical daily use of the fields, along with the time necessary for standard maintenance.
Santa Clara County’s decision to overturn the synthetic turf ban proposal comes with many advantages and disadvantages. Public county spaces will retain the flexibility of being able to choose their desired type of turf, taking into consideration safety and budget. This decision preserves flexibility, and the narrow board decision against the ban serves as a valuable insight into both perspectives of the debate.
