Iraheta, Alba
<:rom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Gao, Beilei
Tuesday, June 23, 2026 3:53 PM
Iraheta, Alba
Fw: MSC meeting June 23, 2026
Dod.docx
From: Suzanne York
Sent: Tuesday, 23 June 2026 15:44:47
To: Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
Subject: MSC meeting June 23, 2026
[ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button (PAB). For more information about the PAB view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
1 nTo: Councilmembers Rick Cole, Justin Jones, Tyron Hampton, and Jason Lyon Pasadena Municipal Services Committee
Subject: Please Reject Any Further Investment in Artificial Turf Fields in Pasadena Dear Councilmembers Cole, Jones, Hampton, and Lyon,
I am writing to urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to vote against any expenditure of public funds for artificial turf fields in Pasadena- whether described as a "new" installation or a "replacement" project. A replacement artificial turf field is, in reality, a new artificial turf field, and Pasadena should not be investing another dollar in a product that poses growing risks to public health, the environment, and taxpayers.
This decision should not be difficult.
The evidence against artificial turf continues to mount. Across the country, communities, school districts, environmental organizations, physicians, and public health advocates are raising serious concerns about the safety of synthetic fields. Emerging research suggests potential links between artificial turf materials and a variety of cancers, particularly endocrine-related cancers. While scientists continue to study the long-term impacts, the unanswered questions alone should give us pause. When the health of children is at stake, uncertainty should lead us toward caution-not toward further investment.
At the same time, the evidence regarding injuries is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
Professional athletes have spoken out repeatedly about the dangers of artificial surfaces. Even the NFL Players Association has acknowledged significantly higher injury rates on synthetic turf compared with natural grass. Studies have found injury rates ranging from 54% to nearly 70% higher on artificial surfaces for certain types of injuries. If the most highly conditioned athletes in the world are being injured at greater rates on artificial turf, why would we knowingly place Pasadena's children on the same type of surface?
But the health concerns extend far beyond athletic injuries.
Artificial turf is fundamentally incompatible with Pasadena's environmental goals.
Our city has spent years developing climate action strategies, reducing urban heat, protecting public health, and building resilience. Yet artificial turf works directly against those objectives.
Synthetic fields can reach temperatures far exceeding natural grass, often becoming dangerously hot during Southern California summers. They contribute significantly to the urban heat island effect by replacing living, cooling landscapes with petroleum-based plastic surfaces.
This concern is even more urgent today.
Our community is still recovering from the devastating impacts of the Baton Fire. Residents are already experiencing increased heat vulnerability due to the loss of thousands of mature trees and vegetation. We should be restoring natural cooling systems wherever possible- not installing large expanses ofheat-absorbing plastic that make our neighborhoods hotter.
Artificial turf also sheds microplastics into our environment. Those particles do not disappear.
They enter our soil, our waterways, our wildlife habitats, and ultimately our bodies. Every synthetic field becomes a long-term source of plastic pollution.
And when these fields reach the end of their useful life- typically within eight to ten years—they create another problem.
They cannot truly be recycled in any meaningful or large-scale way.
The vast majority of artificial turf fields end up in landfills. Thousands of pounds of plastic carpet, rubber infill, backing materials, and adhesives become waste that future generations must manage. We would be creating an environmental liability while claiming to pursue sustainability.
Even the financial argument for artificial turf fails under scmtiny.
Proponents often focus on reduced watering costs while ignoring the full lifecycle expenses.
When replacement costs, disposal costs, maintenance costs, sanitation costs, repairs, grooming, cooling treatments, and eventual field replacement are included, synthetic turf frequently costs substantially more than natural grass over a ten-year period.
Taxpayers deserve an honest accounting.
And even if artificial turf and natural grass cost the same- which they do not- how could we possibly assign a dollar value to children's health, increased injury risks, hotter neighborhoods, plastic pollution, and environmental degradation?
Some have argued that natural grass fields are impractical because of lighting limitations or other site constraints. Mr. Panossian has cited lighting challenges as one reason synthetic surfaces are being considered.
Respectfully, inadequate lighting should not become an excuse for adopting a harmful solution.
If lighting is the issue, then let us address the lighting issue.
If drainage is the issue, let us improve drainage.
If field durability is the issue, let us explore modern turf-management practices, drought-tolerant grass species, regenerative soil practices, improved irrigation technologies, rotational field use, field-restoration programs, and natural surface innovations that communities across the country are already using successfully.
These are solvable challenges.
F)Pasadena has some of the brightest engineers, landscape architects, environmental professionals, parks experts, and community advocates in California. Surely we can design playing fields that are safe, sustainable, and fiscally responsible without covering our parks and schools in plastic.
The question before you is not whether we can afford natural solutions.
The question is whether we can afford the consequences of artificial ones.
Years from now, Pasadena residents may ask whether we knew the risks. Whether we understood the health concerns. Whether we were aware of the enviroiimental costs. Whether we knew these products would become landfill waste. Whether we understood their contribution to heat and pollution.
Today, the answer is yes.
We do know.
And because we know, we have a responsibility to act accordingly.
Please reject any funding for artificial turf installations or replacements. Instead, direct staff to pursue natural grass fields and nature-based solutions that protect public health, support climate resilience, preserve environumental quality, and reflect Pasadena's values.
Our children deserve fields that nurture their health.
Our residents deserve neighborhoods that stay cooler.
Our taxpayers deserve investments that last.
And our environment deserves better than plastic.
I respectfully urge you to vote no.
Sincerely,
Suzanne York
Pasadena Resident
Environmental Advocate