Comments
SURF AND TURF - I am a mother, a wildfire survivor, a board member of Resilient Palisades, and a resident who lost my home and my parents’ home in January. My teenage son has played sports on the Palisades Recreation Center field his entire life. He has given that field sweat, tears, and yes, plenty of blood. My five-year-old daughter should be able to do the same. I could do with less blood. That field is woven into the childhoods of thousands of families here.
Which is why what is happening right now does not seem right, as many others who have been watching this process closely would agree.
Earlier this month, our Park Advisory Board voted to approve the installation of a brand-new artificial turf product on Pacific Palisades’ largest community field. This is happening in the middle of wildfire recovery, while we are still asking questions about safety, testing, and long-term costs. The public had little time or opportunity to understand what we would be playing on for the next decade. The public has spoken clearly and repeatedly. Our concerns were detailed, documented, and echoed by experts. There was nothing ambiguous about the community’s response.
The concerns themselves have been consistent. Extreme field temperatures. Microplastics. Injuries. Hard surface impacts. Environmental runoff. Disposal challenges. PFAS. Replacement costs that cities across California are already facing after less than a decade of use. This field sits directly at the edge of Potrero Canyon, an area with the potential to collect over a million gallons of stormwater annually. Whatever breaks down on that turf has only one direction to travel. Straight into the ocean.
Doctors, the California Medical Association, independent researchers, public health experts, and environmental organizations have all raised these issues. LAUSD paused further turf installations while it studies the health concerns. Other districts have done the same.
One thousand people signed the petition opposing artificial turf, including seven hundred and thirty-seven Pacific Palisades residents. Parents, athletes, firefighters, scientists, and neighbors showed up and spoke directly about the heat, health, and environmental risks. The community’s message was unmistakable.
And yet the Board approved a plan to cover our children’s field and our post fire landscape with plastic.
That’s when it hit me. If we don’t matter, what is in it for you?
Consider the timing. Installing a brand new, high profile artificial turf system in an affluent, fire impacted community would be a major public relations win for the turf industry. It would allow a manufacturer to showcase its next generation product on the most visible field in the Palisades, at a moment when our community is vulnerable, overwhelmed, and trying to rebuild. The claims being made about this next generation product, including that it is PFAS free, are not backed by independent studies. In fact, independent testing, including analyses cited by Zero Waste Ithaca, has found PFAS in turf products that were marketed as PFAS free, contradicting those safety claims.
To be clear, I am not alleging impropriety.
I am asking a reasonable question. Why the rush, and who benefits from this timing.
As a wildfire survivor, this moment feels especially painful. We have spent the year talking about toxic exposure and contamination. Resilient Palisades has been working to repair damaged soil through bioremediation, even as misinformation about fire recovery spreads online. We are told to protect our lungs, our soil, and our water.
And yet here we are, being asked to install artificial turf with known thermal and environmental concerns, year-round, on top of a canyon that funnels stormwater directly to the ocean. This is happening without the level of due diligence Los Angeles should expect.
Last week, I went to the park to look at the small patch of turf already installed next to the basketball courts. The blades were already shedding. Strands of plastic were blowing into the neighboring natural grass. It took five seconds to find loose fragments on the ground. If this is the durability we should expect, and if this is the material that will sit above our fire scarred canyon, then we deserve a much clearer explanation of how this is safe or sustainable.
Natural grass is not outlandish. High durability natural systems exist. They are used at parks, colleges, and even by professional sports teams. They are cooler, safer, playable year-round when soil and drainage are rebuilt correctly, and do not degrade into microplastics or require hazardous disposal.
If our Board believes artificial turf is still the right decision, they should be willing and able to explain why using evidence that does not come from the manufacturer. Not dismiss public sentiment as irrelevant. Not fast track a product that lacks transparent safety data.
Trust is already fragile after the fire. We need decisions rooted in science and the long term wellbeing of our kids. Not the appearance of momentum.
Before the City installs a massive plastic carpet above Potrero Canyon, in a fire burned community, during a time when PFAS regulation is tightening nationwide and globally, Los Angeles owes the public a clear answer to the simplest question.
Why now. Why this. And why move forward when so many communities and so many experts are actively working to ban artificial turf altogether.
Until those questions are addressed, this process does not inspire confidence, and our children deserve better than that.
(Sara G. Marti is a Los Angeles–based communications director and board member of Resilient Palisades, focused on climate resilience, wildfire recovery, and community advocacy. She leads communications strategy for the organization and collaborates with partners across the region.)
