Laserfiche WebLink
alternatives to artificial turf. Internationally, natural grass fields continue to serve community sports <br />organizations including the Mossman Football Club in Australia. <br />In 2023, the City of Millbrae adopted a municipal code amendment (Chapter 8.65) prohibiting the <br />installation and use of artificial turf citywide. The ordinance cites environmental concerns including <br />stormwater pollution and landfill impacts. It requires the replacement of degraded artificial turf with <br />natural landscaping and establishes clear regulatory expectations. The City paired the ban with defined <br />environmental rationale and enforcement provisions which have contributed to its effectiveness. As with <br />other regulatory approaches sustained public education and dedicated enforcement resources are <br />necessary to ensure compliance. <br />Dog parks and community gathering areas. Park systems across California incorporate natural <br />grass, crushed granite engineered wood fiber and shaded seating areas as alternatives to synthetic turf. <br />Incorporating trees and shrubs provides cooling benefits and creates social gathering spaces while <br />supporting biodiversity. <br />Key Drivers <br />Growing scientific understanding of microplastic pollution is a primary driver behind efforts to <br />reduce plastic use in outdoor public spaces. Research increasingly shows that once plastic materials <br />fragment into microplastics, they cannot be effectively removed from the environment. Wastewater <br />treatment processes can transfer microplastics into biosolids that are later applied to farmland, <br />continuing the cycle of contamination across soil water and ecosystems. <br />Climate and sustainability commitments adopted by cities and public agencies also play a role. <br />Artificial turf and other synthetic surfaces are being examined in light of broader municipal climate goals. <br />Academic research has raised concerns about the lifecycle impacts and cost efficiency of artificial turf <br />compared to well managed natural systems. <br />Water conservation policy in California further supports reconsideration of landscaping choices. <br />Functional drought-tolerant plantings are aligned with state water efficiency goals and regional guidance <br />encourages alternatives to non-functional turf. As the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency <br />(BAWSCA) recognizes, keeping plastic out of each yard and landscaped project reduces cumulative <br />environmental impact. <br />Key Factors for Success <br />Prioritizing biodiverse climate-appropriate and non-plastic materials in procurement standards <br />prevents synthetic surfaces from becoming the default choice. <br />Natural grass fields and organic landscapes require soil-focused management, irrigation planning <br />and trained staff. With appropriate maintenance, natural systems can perform reliably. <br />Lifecycle cost analysis strengthens decision making. By evaluating replacement cycles, disposal <br />costs, heat impacts and climate resilience, those making these decisions can obtain a more complete <br />financial picture than by making upfront cost comparisons alone. <br />Key Obstacles <br />Artificial turf is often assumed to support more play hours and require less oversight than natural <br />grass. In high-demand communities this perception can shape policy decisions. <br />Upfront cost comparisons can also favor synthetic materials when long-term replacement and <br />disposal costs are not included. Limited staff capacity for organic or soil-based management may <br />discourage transition. <br /> <br />Alternatives to Plastic in Spaces Page 3 of 5 <br />