“Field of Dreams” Turf vs. Grass a Volatile Meeting

People spoke in favor of and against artificial turf at the PAB meeting.

By ALISON BURMEISTER

The Pacific Palisades Recreation and Park Board (PAB) monthly meeting was held on December 9 after the November session was pushed to December when some residents contacted the City Attorney, reporting inadequate public notice.

The small gym at the Palisades Recreation Center filled with neighbors, parents, coaches both in person and on Zoom, to discuss before the board, whether the 140,000-square-foot “Field of Dreams,” a heavily used athletic field near the entrance to Potrero Canyon, be resurfaced with natural grass or synthetic turf.

The proposal for synthetic grass indicated that there would no longer be a dirt infield. Synthetic grass would cover corner to corner, allowing for two full size fields for soccer and lacrosse.

The evening featured two presentations: Bryan Whalen, speaking on behalf of the Pali Community Center Committee and local youth sports organizations, and Dr. Mimi Nartey, whose resume spans environmental biology, climate and society, public health, and a career as a professional soccer player.

The two presentations, both in favor of artificial turf. Bryan Whalen described it as a modern, durable “next-generation” turf made by TenCate. This material is marketed as  PFAS-free, meaning it does not have “forever chemicals” which is a growing concern for those who oppose the synthetic turf.

Dr. Mimi Nartey, framed the issue not as an environmental risk but as a public-health intervention, emphasizing that more playable hours on a safer, predictable surface means more continuous physical activity for children and teens. She pointed to research linking inactivity with depression, obesity, and even suicide, arguing that an inaccessible field isitself a health hazard.

Those in attendance opposed to the artificial turf, including members of Resilient Palisades, were not given the same amount of time to state their case for natural grass. Members of PAB indicated they had heard their side in a Zoom presentation that was also available on Y-Tube. Dr. Alisa Bromberg, a Palisadian pediatrician, wrote a letter that was distributed amongst the crowd referencing the potential health risks for the kids playing on artificial turfincluding increased heat exposure from artificial turf, “turf burns” and abrasions and broken down microplastic particles that can become airborne and end up in mouths and children’s developing airways causing respiratory issues.

Supporters of turf emphasized the chronic shortage of playable field space. They argued that synthetic surfaces expand capacity, reduce closures, and allow year-round sports. Many parents pointed out when local families are driving hours away from Pacific Palisades to El Segundo or Westchester, they are often playing on turf fields. Coaches described seasons lost to mud and laying out large plastic tarps, and parents spoke to the emotional drain and environmental costs of gas commuting for sports opportunities the neighborhood should be able to provide.

Those in favor of natural grass, urged the board not to replace the field with “plastic,” citing concerns about nanoplastics, future remediation costs, heat absorption, and runoff into Potrero Canyon—a direct path to the ocean.

A nurse and medical school instructor warned of increasing cancer-risk data; another parent questioned why children should be used as “guinea pigs” for emerging turf technologies.

Others, including teachers and pediatricians, worried about the sensory and psychological consequences of replacing natural environments with synthetic ones. “Biofilia releases oxytocin,” one environmental science teacher said. “Lying on a plastic carpet does not.”

The list of speakers was long, emotional, and deeply invested: parents of young athletes, longtime residents, environmentalists, teenagers, and coaches. Board member Mariam Zar suggested extending the discussion into January. PAB member David Card requested that the vote be postponed to January to allow the pro-grass side a fair, formal presentation equal in length to the turf advocates. Community members in the audience echoed this request, arguing that the night’s imbalance was unfair.

The motion was denied stating it had already been postponed once before. When the board voted, all but one member supported moving forward with artificial turf.

In the end, everyone one agreed on one thing. It is important for the kids to have a place to play. With the installation of synthetic turf, many feel there will be the possibility for “More kids, more sports, more often.”

While the members did vote, they also agreed for those still in favor of grass to have an opportunity to share their solutions for installing and maintaining natural grass in person at January’s meeting.

The Recreation Center gym was packed as people waited to express opinions on the topic of redoing the grass ball fields with artificial turf.

(Editor’s note: Missing from both presentations is cost. The City has not paid to maintain the Field of Dreams, which has been left up to Palisades residents. This editor would like to see the projected cost of watering, fertilizing and maintaining the grass. This editor would like to know the cost of the turf. Since the cost will have to be borne by residents, it’s important to know who will pay for it. That is a necessary part of the discussion.)