Review of Landscaping Standards & Use of Artificial Turf · PDF fileReview of Landscaping...

Review of Landscaping Standards & Use of Artificial Turf

City of Glendale

September 18, 2015

Review of Landscaping Standards & Use of Artificial Turf

City of Glendale

September 18, 2015

Prepared By:

Rescape111 Park Place #208

Point Richmond, CA 94801

PlaceWorks1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300

Berkeley, California 94709

TA

EX

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

AP

Ap

Ap

ABLE O

XECUTIVE SUMTable 1 Co

OwTable 2 CoConclusionReport Org

INTRODUCT

SUMMARY OPlanning CComparisoTable 3 EsTable 4 Es

ENVIRONME

PRELIMINARRecommeRecomme

NEXT STEPS .RecommeAdoption aPublic Outr

PPENDIX

ppendix A: Turf

ppendix B: Find

F CONT

MMARY ........omparative Swners .............omparative Sn .....................ganization .....

ION ..............

OF RESEARCHContext ..........on of Turf, Drotimated Rangtimated Cost

ENTAL CONS

RY DESIGN Gndations for Nndations for A

......................nded Changand Implemereach and Ed

f Alternatives

ings Summary

TENTS

.....................ummary of Be.......................ummary of En............................................

.....................

H AND FIND......................

ought Tolerange of Costs for for Contracto

SIDERATIONS

UIDELINES ...Natural LandArtificial Turf

.....................ges to City Orentation ........ducation ......

on the Use, Se

.....................enefits and Co.......................nvironmental ............................................

.....................

DINGS .................................

nt Landscaper Homeowneror Installed Ar

S ....................

.....................dscapes ........Use ................

.....................rdinances .................................................

election, and Im

.....................oncerns for Ho.......................Benefits and C............................................

.....................

.....................

......................es, and Artificr Installed Artirtificial Turf ......

.....................

.....................

......................

......................

.....................

......................

......................

......................

mplementation

TABLE

......................ome/Property.......................Concerns ..................................................

......................

......................

......................cial Turf .........ficial Turf ..............................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

n of Artificial Tu

OF CONTENTS

.......... 1 y ........... 2 ........... 4 ........... 6 ........... 7

.......... 9

........ 11

......... 11

......... 21 ......... 23 ......... 23

........ 25

........ 29

......... 29

......... 33

........ 35

......... 35

......... 36

......... 36

urf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Executive Summary 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Artificial turf is often seen as a viable long‐term alternative to turf, or other landscape

options. It is commonly viewed as a green product that saves water, reduces

maintenance, and eliminates chemical inputs. After review of current literature and

research data, however, it was found that artificial turf may not save water, reduce

maintenance, nor eliminate chemical inputs more than well‐planned turf. In addition,

artificial turf does not provide a similar level of environmental benefit, and the

environmental cost may be significant, both to the immediate property, and on a larger

temporal scale. There are however, appropriate locations for artificial turf, and there are

property owners who prefer the aesthetic.

The installation and use of artificial turf has drawn mixed and at times polarized opinions

from the public. While there are potential benefits to property owners installing artificial

turf, many of the environmental and public health concerns are not sufficiently

addressed in current literature to ensure that the positives outweigh the negative

impacts.

To research and address the issues of installation of drought tolerant landscapes and the

use of artificial turf in publicly visible landscapes, the City of Glendale engaged ReScape

California to prepare a comprehensive report. The consultant team reviewed current

literature, the City’s existing codes, ordinances and guidelines, and prepared the

following document.

The following tables provide a summary of findings. Table 1 compares the potential

benefits and concerns for home/property owners when considering natural turf, artificial

turf or a drought tolerant landscape. Table 2 summarizes potential environmental

benefits and concerns with the natural turf, artificial turf, or drought tolerant landscapes.

A detailed discussion of the information listed on these tables can be found in

Appendix B: Findings Summary on the Use, Selection, and Implementation of Artificial

Turf.

2 Executive Summary REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND CONCERNS FOR HOME/PROPERTY OWNERS

Sustainable Landscape Conventional Turf Artificial Turf

Aesthetics/ Design

HIGH VALUE PRO Curb appeal - natural, engaging, looks like it belongs there Integrated with ecosystem functions Promotes sense of place - ‘fit’ within the landscape Showcases color, textures, seasonality, diversity Native turf and groundcovers can be used Evolves over time Xeriscape compatible Opportunity to create multiple outdoor ‘living’ spaces CON Requires proper design Can be difficult to ‘visualize’ by clients

LOW VALUE PRO Curb appeal - clean, tidy, manicured look Conforms with current landscape paradigm Evokes pastoral, park-like feeling and affluence Remains fairly uniform over time CON Monoculture Monochromatic Minimal ecosystem integration Not xeriscape compatible

LOW VALUE PRO Consistent manicured appearance Remains uniform over product useful life CON Varies from short, unnatural - fake appearance to more realistic color and texture Can appear cheap True “Zero-Scape”, or a non-living landscape No ecosystem integration

Installation

COMPLEX PRO Installation can be phased “Right Plant, Right Place” improves success of plant materials Disturbance by wildlife causes less noticeable disruption in appearance and function as compared to turf CON Installation costs vary considerably depending upon complexity of design. Requires more preparation and education than a simple turf and foundation shrub landscape

MODERATE PRO Installs quickly -- seed, plugs, sod Establishes fairly quickly Sod looks ‘finished’ CON Sensitive to intensity of sunlight - different blends needed for shade vs. full sun Requires a period of time to become established Subject to highly visible damage from wildlife disturbance (birds, feral pigs, gophers, pets) Requires separate irrigation system installation

EASY PRO Product installs quickly No ‘establishment’ period No irrigation required Not sensitive to variable sunlight intensity CON Site preparation negatively impacts soil quality - compaction, infiltration, soil biology Backing material often not permeable (urine & feces not washed out) Prone to ruts and wrinkles if not compacted properly Can be disturbed by wildlife (gophers) Risk of meltinga


TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND CONCERNS FOR HOME/PROPERTY OWNERS


Cost

AFFORDABLE $8 ‐ $10 per sqft

(irrigation included)

CHEAP $0.50-$1.50 per sqft (irrigation separate)

EXPENSIVE $10-$25 per sqft1,2 (for at least a medium quality product ( irrigation for cleaning, cooling separate)

Irrigation Savings

SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS Requires minimal or no irrigation needed when established Efficient drip irrigation recommended

NO SAVINGS High water-use (Consider alternative turf or groundcover for water-savings)

MODERATE SAVINGS Lower water use for product cleaning and surface cooling

Maintenance

ANNUAL Little to no maintenance after establishment

WEEKLY Regular maintenance required

MONTHLY No need to mow Regular cleaning (especially if used by pets/children or surrounded with trees)c Additional granular infill (Crumb rubber or sand) needed periodically to keep “grass” standing up and attractive Chemical disinfectants Drainage repair and maintenance Organic material needs to be removed manually Chemical damaged/melted blades may require replacementd

a. http://www.globalsynturf.com/installation/

b. http://www.installitdirect.com/synthetic‐turf/how‐much‐does‐artificial‐grass‐cost‐to‐install/

c. www.installitdirect.com/synthetic‐tuf/the‐ultimate‐guide‐how‐to‐properly‐clean‐maintain‐my‐artificial‐grass/

d. http://www.simpleturf.com/artificial‐lawn‐turf‐maintenance‐warranty/

e. http://infoservices.blogs.realtor.org/2013/04/12/do‐artificial‐lawns‐impact‐home‐values/

f. http://www.simpleturf.com/turf‐and‐gophers/

1 http://www.homedepot.com/b/Playsets‐Recreation‐Parks‐Playsets‐Playhouses‐Park‐Furnishings‐Artificial‐Grass/N‐5yc1vZc5pq. 2 http://www.costco.com/artificial‐grass.html.

4 Executive Summary REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

TABLE 2 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS AND CONCERNS


Chemical Exposure

NO RISK No chemical inputs needed Contributes to natural biogeochemical cycling - eliminating the need for synthetic inputs

POTENTIAL RISK Pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, and fertilizer inputs contribute to: •loss of beneficial organisms •GHG emissions •well documented health effects on children and pets •imbalance/loss of soil microorganisms Turf managed organically can be sustainable

POTENTIAL RISK Off-gassing of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and related health and air quality concerns Chemicals required for sanitation Chemical leaching into watershed Insufficient research requires application of the “Precautionary Principle”

Thermal Effects

NONE No documented adverse thermal effects

NONE No documented adverse thermal effects

HIGH Significant surface and ambient temperature increases - recorded surface temperatures up to 200˙F Heat stress is well documented No scientifically proven prolonged method to mitigate thermal effects (lowering temps by 20-30˙F)

Microbial Exposure LOW RISK No documented adverse microbial effects

LOW RISK No documented adverse microbial effects

POTENTIAL RISK Increased risk of injury leading to risk of infection3

Climate Change/ Heat Island Effect

POSITIVE EFFECT Diverse planting including shrubs and trees can contribute to beneficial microclimate creation

CONTRIBUTOR Production of turf chemicals contribute to GHG emissions Maintenance equipment can contribute to GHG emissions

CONTRIBUTOR Significantly increases surface and ambient temperatures Increases CO2 emissions and heat absorption Production and installation contribute to GHG emissions Product use should be minimized and confined to site where benefits are maximizes

Water Quality

IMPROVES Contributes to nutrient attenuation Reduces/eliminates erosion when planted to slow and filter over-land flows, and for root mass to keep soils connected Traps and hold sediments Sequesters and degrades pollutants

DEGRADES Contributes to eutrophication when high N and P fertilizer is used Contributes to pollutant load of watershed when chemical inputs are used Leachate may be hazardous to aquatic organisms Performs some filtering and sediment trapping

DEGRADES Zinc entering stormwater exceeds toxicity limits for aquatic organisms Sanitation agents may be harmful/toxic to aquatic organisms May produce a harmful/toxic chemical cocktail leachate

3 http://blogs.webmd.com/health‐ehome/2011/09/artificial‐turf‐what‐are‐the‐risks.html


TABLE 2 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS AND CONCERNS

Sustainable Landscape Conventional Turf Artificial Turf Wildlife Habitat Potential

HIGH LOW NONE

Waste Potential

VERY LOW Green waste can be recycled on-site

LOW If turf clippings are left onsite (grasscycling) or taken to a greenwaste facility

HIGH No potential for reuse/recycle

Other Issues

Contributes to ecosystem functions including air, water, and soil quality Contributes to biodiversity - ecosystem resilience to climate change Contributes to carbon sequestration

Contributes to soil compaction under heavy use/traffic

Compaction of soil prevents infiltration of water for groundwater recharge Compaction of soil eliminates carbon sequestration capacity Gopher holes cannot be patched, and may require entire lawn replacement

6 Executive Summary REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

CONCLUSION

When comparing artificial turf to natural turf, the economic and environmental benefits

of a living lawn appear to outweigh the advantages of installing artificial turf. A living lawn

is not inherently water wasting and is still a possible landscape solution within the latest

State regulations. Per the July 2015 State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance

(MWELO), residential landscapes can have 25 percent to 49 percent of the landscape in

turf when the remaining plants have low or very low water use requirements.

Nonresidential landscapes can have 10 percent to 37 percent of the landscape in turf

with low or very low water use for the remaining. Unlimited amount of recreational

lawns are also allowed in non‐residential landscapes.4 Lawns have traditionally wasted

water due to overspray, runoff and poor spray head distribution that requires

overwatering to cover the entire area.

Water savings can significantly increase when switching to a climate appropriate

landscape. A drought tolerant landscape irrigated with a drip system operating at 0.81

irrigation efficiency, which is the measurement of the amount of water beneficially used

divided by the amount of water applied,5 can use less than one‐third the amount of

water needed for an efficiently irrigated lawn. In addition, there are many green

groundcovers and turf alternatives that require less water than a standard lawn.

The multiple benefits of a living landscape include cooler temperatures, potential urban

wildlife habitat, healthy soils that can sequester carbon, stormwater infiltration, and

much lower installation costs. Maintaining a lawn or drought tolerant landscapes

organically will also eliminate concerns for contaminated runoff from pesticides and

fertilizers.

THE CONSULTANT TEAM

This report was prepared by ReScape California, with assistance from PlaceWorks.

ReScape California is an advocate and resource in the creation of sustainable landscapes

for commercial, multi‐family, and public spaces as well as single‐family residences. It

promotes a new, holistic, resource‐efficient landscape aesthetic for California through its

Bay‐Friendly Rating System. ReScape is a non‐profit organization governed by the Bay‐

Friendly Coalition Board, comprised of landscape professionals, industry experts and

public agency representatives.

PlaceWorks serves both public‐ and private‐sector clients throughout the state in the

fields of landscape architecture, community outreach, comprehensive planning,

environmental review, urban design, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

PlaceWorks’ talented, multidisciplinary team thrives on working with communities to

tackle complex problems and develop workable solutions.

4 http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/docs/E.OB_29_15

_MWELO_Update_07‐09‐%2015_Draft_Final.pdf. 5 http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/docs/E.OB_29_15

_MWELO_Update_07‐09‐%2015_Draft_Final.pdf.


REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter1: Introduction: This chapter describes the purpose of this document and outlines

the previous review and actions concerning the use of artificial turf in City landscapes.

Chapter 2: Summary of Research and Findings. The existing State and local ordinances,

and guidelines that will influence the design, installation and maintenance of drought

tolerant landscapes and artificial turf are summarized in this chapter. A comparison of

other city ordinances and restrictions concerning the use of artificial turf, and a general

comparison of the benefits and costs of landscapes using natural turf, drought tolerant

plantings and artificial turf conclude this chapter.

Chapter 3: Environmental Considerations. This chapter provides a summary of the many

environmental considerations, positive and negative, to take into account when

evaluating the use of natural turf, drought tolerant plantings and artificial turf in the

landscape.

Chapter 4: Preliminary Design Guidelines. This chapter discusses design considerations

when considering the use of natural turf, drought tolerant landscapes and artificial turf.

Chapter 5: Next Steps. Chapter 5 outlines recommended changes to City ordinances,

steps towards adoption and implementation of revised ordinances, and opportunities for

public outreach and education to guide successful implementation of water conserving

landscapes throughout the City.

Appendix: The appendix includes two documents. Appendix A: Turf Alternatives provides

a description and photos of many turf alternatives suitable for use in Glendale that could

replace a traditional turf lawn and provide a consistent, water conserving green carpet.

Appendix B: Findings Summary on the Use, Selection and Implementation of Artificial

Turf, provides more detailed research and discussion of the benefits and concerns of

artificial turf use in residential and commercial landscapes.

8 Executive Summary REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

This page intentionally blank

R

1

T

V

a

R

G

a

In

o

g

is

a

T

v

m

s

r

c

d

m

O

In

p

w

t

In

la

c

e

f

O

e

t

e

t

C

T

o

c

w

o

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

INTR1.

The City of Gle

Valleys, and is t

and boasts a ric

Residents withi

Glendale enjoy

and a city‐wide

n response to o

of Glendale is in

guidance on the

s considering e

and non‐residen

The City’s lands

visible from pu

mandates, and

substitute for ex

requests, recog

costs and bene

dwellings, mult

mixed use zones

Over the past se

n 2009, the Gle

permitting it in v

where not visibl

he rear yard).

n 2011, City sta

ater, with a ci

change to the e

existing restrict

amily or non‐re

On April 28, 20

emergency (GM

hreaten the v

emergency pro

hrough normal

Code).

The purpose of

objectives for la

codes and ordin

when amending

on natural turf a

PING STANDARDS & US

RODUC

endale is locate

he third largest

h cultural histo

n the 34 dist

a high quality o

landscaping ord

ongoing drough

terested in ame

e design, installa

xpanding oppo

ntial properties.

caping ordinan

blic streets. W

with no relief

xisting turf and

nized the need

fits of using ar

i‐family buildin

s.

everal years, the

ndale City Coun

very limited situ

le from the pub

aff revisited the

itizens’ advisor

existing regulati

ions in single‐fa

esidential zones

015, the City C

MC 13.36 Water

viability of ma

ohibits enforcem

Code Complia

f this report is

andscaping with

nances, and eva

g these existing

and artificial tur

SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

CTION

ed at the junct

t city in Los Ang

ry with many b

inct neighborh

of life that is re

dinance enforce

t conditions an

ending existing

ation, and main

rtunities to use

ce currently re

With the curren

f in sight, artif

landscaping in

d for a well‐res

rtificial turf in t

ngs, and typica

e City has revie

ncil adopted rul

uations: only in

blic street imme

e issue with a w

ry group. The

ons, while the

amily zones, bu

. In the end, the

Council adopted

Conservation).

any traditional

ment of the l

nce procedures

to provide gu

hin the City as

aluate the opp

documents to

rf installation.

F

ure of the San

geles County. T

uildings of histo

hoods that ulti

einforced by a

ed as part of the

d increasing wa

ordinances and

tenance of drou

e of artificial tu

stricts the use

t drought cond

ficial turf is be

front yards. Th

searched techn

the public realm

l land uses in

wed and addre

es relating to a

the R1 single‐fa

ediately in front

working group

landscape arch

citizens’ group

ut was split on

e City Council d

d a resolution

The watering r

lawns, althou

andscape prov

s (Chapter 30.3

idance, based

documented in

ortunities and

address drough

n Fernando and

he City incorpo

oric interest and

mately formed

number of des

e City’s Municip

ater use restrict

d regulations to

ught tolerant la

rf in residentia

of artificial turf

ditions and wa

eing proposed

he City, in resp

nical report tha

m, focusing on

commercial, i

essed artificial tu

rtificial turf or a

amily zoning dis

t of the propert

of landscape a

hitects group a

advocated no c

allowing more

id not adopt an

declaring a Ph

restrictions the

ugh the decla

visions of the

31 of the Glend

upon establish

n adopted desig

challenges to b

ht tolerant land

d San Gabriel

orated in 1906

d significance.

d the City of

ign guidelines

pal Code.

tions, the City

o include more

andscapes and

l, multi‐family

f to areas not

ater reduction

as a suitable

onse to these

at explores all

n single‐family

ndustrial and

urf in the city.

artificial grass,

strict and only

ty (essentially,

rchitects and,

advocated no

change to the

use in multi‐

ny changes.

hase III water

ereby imposed

ration of an

Zoning Code

dale Municipal

hed goals and

gn guidelines,

be considered

dscapes, limits

1. Introduction 9

10 1. Introduction REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

R

2A

P

A

d

la

S

G

D

L

C

a

c

r

T

in

c

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

SUM2. AND FI

PLANNI

A number of S

design guideline

andscapes with

State Wate

Governor Brow

Department of

Landscape Ord

Commission ap

agencies to ado

conserving wat

regional ordinan

The 2015 MWE

n the landsca

commercial land

Purpose: B

landscapes

oxygen pro

Broadens

comprehen

Applicability

Landscapes

MWELO do

smaller land

Water Bud

landscape

landscapes

percentage

depending

plants in th

Recreationa

area and is

water budg

PING STANDARDS & U

MMARYNDING

NG CO

tate and local

es that are co

in the City of G

er Efficient

n’s Drought Ex

Water Resour

inance (MWEL

proved the rev

opt the MWELO

er, is Decemb

nce is February

LO includes a n

pes that direc

dscapes in the C

Broadened foc

that create co

oduction, conse

intent of the

nsive approach t

y: Lowered th

s between 500 t

ocument for the

dscapes (see Ap

dget Reduction

water budgets

and .45 for no

e of the landsca

upon other fa

e landscape.

al Turf: Residen

s limited to 25

get.


Y OF REGS

ONTEXT

planning docu

nsidered pertin

lendale. These

Landscape

ecutive Order

ces (DWR) to

O) through ex

vised MWELO

O or adopt thei

er 1, 2015. Th

1, 2016.

number of revis

ctly impact th

City. Key revisio

us to include

onditions to en

rve energy, and

MWELO from

to sustainable l

hreshold to 50

to 2,500 square

e prescriptive c

ppendix).

ns: The evapo

s has been lo

on‐residential l

ape to be high

ctors, such as

ntial lawn can n

percent of the

F

ESEARC

uments include

nent to the de

documents are

e Ordinance

of April 1, 201

update the Sta

xpedited regula

on July 15, 20

r own, that mu

he deadline fo

ions to further

e design and

ns to the MWE

a watershed

nhance soil life,

d protect air an

m just water u

andscaping.

00 square feet

e feet can utilize

ompliance opti

otranspiration

wered from 0

andscapes. This

h water use pla

the irrigation

o longer be co

landscape, or a

CH

standards, po

esign of new a

summarized be

e

5 (EO B‐29‐15)

ate’s Model W

ation. The Cali

015. The dead

ust be at least a

or local agencie

increase water

review of re

LO include:

based appro

, increase carb

nd water quality

use efficiency

t from 2,500

e Appendix D c

on, which is m

factor (ET) fo

0.70 to 0.55 fo

s reduction stil

ant material, in

system efficien

nsidered a spec

as permitted by

olicies, and/or

nd renovated

elow.

) directed the

Water Efficient

ifornia Water

dline for local

as effective in

es creating a

r conservation

esidential and

ach to build

bon storage &

y and habitat.

to include a

square feet.

hecklist in the

uch easier for

or calculating

or residential

ll allows for a

ncluding lawn,

ncy and other

cial landscape

y a complaint

2. Summmary of Research & Findings 11

12 2. Summary of Research & Findings REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

Median Landscapes: No turf or other high water use plants, as defined by WUCOLS,6

or other state recognized reference, in medians.

Compost and Mulch: Requires incorporation of 4 cubic yards compost per 1,000

square feet (1.3 inches) and maintaining a layer of 3 inches local recycled organic

mulch to improve soil health and reduce evaporation.

Automatic Irrigation Controllers: Utilizing either evapotranspiration or soil moisture

sensor data utilizing non‐volatile memory shall be required for irrigation scheduling

in all irrigation systems.

Pressure Regulation: If the water pressure is below or exceeds the recommended

pressure of the specified irrigation devices, the installation of a pressure regulating

device is required.

Recycled Water and Gray Water: Using greywater or recycled irrigation water to

satisfy all irrigation needs allows for unlimited lawn and high water use plants.

In addition, requirements from the 2009 MWELO that remain in the 2015 ordinance that

will influence new and renovated landscapes include:

A Soil Management Report: To reduce runoff and encourage healthy plant growth.

Turf on Slopes: Turf is not allowed on slopes greater than 25 percent where the toe

of the slope is adjacent to an impermeable hardscape.

Spray Irrigation Near Paving: Overhead irrigation shall not be permitted within

24 inches of any non‐permeable surface, unless the paving is permeable or drains

back into the landscape area.

City of Glendale Ordinances and Guidelines

Glendale’s plans, ordinances, and guidelines define the multiple goals and objectives for

City growth and change, while also listing specific requirements for new construction and

renovations. Documents that provide guidance and define requirements for single‐ and

multi‐family residential, commercial, and industrial landscapes include:

City of Glendale Comprehensive Design Guidelines These guidelines were prepared to provide a consistent vision and framework for the

design and review of projects applying for permits form the City of Glendale. The

following summarizes the issues and recommendations pertinent to the design of public

and private landscapes.

Chapter 1: Vision, Purpose, Process and Principles

This chapter discusses the City’s design guidelines and the design process. The guidelines

provide predictability for residents, property owners, land developers and other

interested parties and are the minimum standard for good design; exceeding these

standards is encouraged. Innovative designs consistent with the intent of the guidelines

will be considered. Criteria for evaluating a site design and context include:

6 http://ucanr.edu/sites/WUCOLS/Plant_Search/

R

C

In

is

G

C

T

S

r

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

The age of t

The current

The street f

Special ch

characteris

Does the la

Design s(1.6.13).

Low Impa

Design sh

The types o

The level

Location

Chapter 2: Si

n this chapter,

s broken into t

Guiding principl

Complemen

Use native

Maintain ex

Minimize u

Minimize st

Use landsca

Use landsca

Chapter 3: H

The chapter foc

Site Planning, M

recommendatio

Flat yards m

Open space

Use landsca

Minimize s

driveways (

Landscape

Use native

Provide a n

Incorporate

Maintain ex

PING STANDARDS & U

the site (i.e., is

t development

frontage (i.e., d

haracteristics

tics).

ndscape design

hould employ

act Developmen

hould enhance

of landscaping in

of maintenanc

and configurat

ingle-Family

the design guid

three sections:

es for landscap

nt the building

and or drought

xisting trees.

se of turf areas

tormwater runo

aping instead of

aping to soften

Hillside Design

cuses on the hil

Mass and Scale

ons include:

may not be poss

e should include

aping to soften

tormwater run

(tracks for cars s

design should c

and or drought

atural look to s

e landscape tha

xisting trees.


the site in a hist

pattern on the

oes the site app

of the neig

n complement t

drought tolera

nt (LID) standar

the site and com

n the neighborh

ce?

ion of open spa

Design Guid

delines are appl

Site Planning,

e design include

design.

tolerant plant

.

off.

f a wall or fence

the visual impa

n Guidelines

lside regions of

e, Design and

sible or appropr

e drought‐tolera

the visual impa

off including p

separated by st

complement the

tolerant plant

often structure

t complements

F

torical district?

surrounding blo

pear inviting fro

ghborhood (e

he building des

ant plants and

rds should be in

mplement the b

hood?

ace.

delines

ied to single‐fa

Mass and Scale

e:

material.

e.

act of retaining w

s

f Glendale and

Detailing, and

riate in hillside p

ant landscaping

act of retaining w

ermeable pavin

trips of green la

e building desig

material that ar

s built into the

s the site design

)

ocks

om the street?)

e.g., significan

sign and conserv

water conserv

ncorporated (1.6

building (1.8.4).

mily residences

e, and Design a

walls.

is broken into

Grading Aesth

properties.

g.

walls.

ng and or “Hol

wn).

gn

re fire‐resistant

natural hill.

n.

nt landscape

ve water?

ving irrigation

6.14).

.

s. The chapter

and Detailing.

four sections:

hetics. Design

lywood” style

t

2. Summmary of Research & Findings 13


Minimize use of turf areas.

Chapter 4: Commercial Design Guidelines

In this chapter, the priority for the landscape design of commercial properties is to

improve the pedestrian experience. The chapter is broken into two groups, Main Street

Corridor and Suburban Corridor.

Main Street Corridor

If feasible, provide landscape adjacent to alley garage entries.

Landscape area with 3’ tall planting is required in parking is located near a street.

Use landscape or open space between street and parking structures when

commercial uses are not feasible.

Landscape design should complement the building design.

Use native and or drought tolerant plant material.

If possible, use planting instead of site walls.

Incorporate landscaping to soften retaining walls.

Suburban Corridor

Project design depends on open space with well‐designed landscaping.

Provide landscape adjacent to sidewalk to improve pedestrian experience.

Provide landscape buffer between sidewalk and parking.

Provide landscape buffer between commercial and residential developments.

Chapter 5: Implementing the Vision: Multi-family Residential and Mixed-Use Design Guidelines

This chapter addresses multi‐family and mixed‐use properties.

Common open space landscape should complement the building design.

Landscape hillsides to soften new construction and grading.

Use native and or drought tolerant plant material.

Minimize use of turf areas.

Reduce paving to maximize permeability of the site.

Permeable paving and or “Hollywood” style driveways (tracks for cars separated by

strips of green lawn) should be used to reduce stormwater.

North Glendale Community Plan The North Glendale Community Plan is a manual for residents, property and business

owners, developers and government agencies to guide the development of the North

Glendale area. The plan ensures development follows sustainable land use patterns, and

maintains the unique character of the community. In addition, the plan represents the

city’s goals for stewardship of the people and area, enhancing the economic, social, and

physical health, safety, welfare, and convenience of the people in North Glendale.

REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF 2. Summary of Research & Findings 15

Landscape development within North Glendale must be consistent with the community

vision that defines the community as having a “rural, suburban lifestyle”, living close to

nature, recognizing the connections and views to the San Gabriel Mountains, and

acknowledging the history of the area. The plan’s vision also seeks to protect open space,

advocate sustainable and responsible development, and enhance neighborhood

character to preserve the stability and charm of the community.

Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 12.40 City Street Trees

This chapter establishes regulations and standards to promote the benefits of a healthy

urban forest. Section 12.40.030 Duties and Prohibitions states that it is unlawful for any

person to cause or allow damage or interference with the root systems of any city street

tree with the application of any paving materials.

According to the recommendations of this report, installation of artificial turf requires

removal of the top four inches of soil and compaction of base materials to 90 percent,

which is equivalent to pavement installation. In addition, this compacted base layer

prohibits percolation of surface water down to the established root system.

Chapter 13.36 Water Conservation

This chapter is a city‐wide mandatory water conservation plan to conserve water use and

share the impacts of water shortage. The no water waste policy (Section 13.36.060) bans

overspray and runoff from all landscapes and irrigation during or within 48 hours of a

rainfall event. The ordinance encourages the use of California‐friendly plants in

landscapes, as described on the Metropolitan Water District's Garden Guide Catalogue7

and defines five phases of water use restrictions (Section 13.36.070) that further restrict

water use as drought conditions and water shortages increase. The Glendale City Council

approved Phase III on April 28, 2015, allowing customers to only water their landscapes

on Tuesdays and Saturdays for 10 minutes at each watering station.

Chapter 13.42 Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control

The City of Glendale added this chapter to the municipal code, to address stormwater

pollution issues in development and construction projects, and adopted County of Los

Angeles Department of Public Works Low Impact Development Standards Manual as the

City of Glendale Low Impact Development Standards Manual. The document outlines

prohibitions on discharges and spills from construction and industrial activities, and

defines illicit discharges and connections. Prior to obtaining a building or grading permit,

the director of public works shall review and approve a plan, submitted by the applicant,

outlining the best management practices to be followed during construction.

Chapter 13.43 Low Impact Development (LID) Standards

The purpose of this document is to guide development to lessen the adverse impacts of

stormwater runoff, minimize pollutants and erosion. Thresholds for percent of new or

modified pervious surfaces vary with Designated Projects, from 10,000 square feet with

new industrial parks and commercial malls, to 5000 square feet for redevelopment

projects. These projects are required to retain 100 percent of the stormwater volume

7 http://www.bewaterwise.com.


through infiltration, evapotranspiration and/or rainwater harvest and reuse. Single‐family

homes are required to conserve natural areas, divert roof and surface runoff into

vegetated areas before discharge unless this diversion would result in slope instability. A

development project consisting of four or fewer residential units shall implement at least

two of the following: disconnect impervious surfaces, use porous pavement, capture

runoff in landscaped areas, and install a green roof.

Chapter 16.08 Subdivision Design Standards

This chapter focuses on the preservation of primary and secondary undeveloped

ridgeline areas within the City as a “precious scenic resource”. Slope revegetation must

use a “naturalizing plant palette,” as defined in the hillside development landscape

guidelines. Section 16.08.270 Passive Heating or Cooling states that the subdivision shall

provide to the extent feasible for future passive or natural heating or cooling

opportunities. As described elsewhere in this document, artificial turf has been

documented to increase ambient temperatures significantly.

Chapter 30.31 Landscaping

The Landscaping chapter of the Municipal Code defines the minimum requirements for

landscaping residential, multi‐family, commercial, industrial and mixed use zones within

the City of Glendale.

Single-Family Residential Zones Landscaping requirements for the ROS, R1 and R1R zones include the following:

The total lot areas shall be a minimum of 40 percent permanently landscaped open

space that is more than 50 percent live plant material.

All street setback areas shall be landscaped with plant materials or a combination of

plant materials and permeable surfaces.

Plant materials shall compose a majority (more than 50 percent) of the street

setback areas, exclusive of permitted driveways.

Nonliving materials, permeable materials may be used as ground cover including,

but not limited to: wood chips, bark, decorative rock, and stone.

Neither the interior nor the street setback areas shall be completely paved or

covered with gravel.

Topdressing, as approved by the Community Development Director,

Other than permitted hardscape, all areas not planted shall be covered (top dressed)

with materials such as wood chips or approved alternative.

Permeable surfaces are encouraged throughout.

Multi-Family, Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed-Use Zones The total lot areas shall be permanently landscaped open space that is more than 50

percent live plant material. Minimum percentage of total lot area to be permanently

landscaped open space:

R‐3050: 30 percent


R‐2250, R‐1650, R‐1250: 25 percent

IMU‐R, SFMU, CPD: 10 percent

C1, C2, C3, CR, CH, CA, CE, CEM, IND, IMU, MS, PS Overlay: Not Applicable

P Overlay: The front and street side setback and landscaping requirements for

parking areas in the P overlay zone shall be subject to the provisions of the

residential zone in which the property is located and/or Chapter 30.32 of this title,

whichever is the most restrictive.

Artificial Turf Artificial turf is specifically prohibited in this chapter in ROS and R1R zones and may not

be installed in R1 zones where it would be visible from the public street immediately

adjacent to the property. Artificial turf is also not allowed under tree canopies and is not

considered as a live plant material. The code requires that 40 percent of the total lot

areas be permanently landscaped open space and more than 50 percent of that areas

must be live plant material. In all multi‐family, commercial, industrial, mixed use, CE and

MS zones, artificial turf may not be installed where it would be visible from the public

street immediately adjacent to the property.

Chapter 30.32.160 Landscaping of Parking and Loading Areas

This chapter describes the landscape requirements for landscaping adjoining street right

of way and interior parking lot landscaping. A brief summary of the planting requirements

are as follows:

Buffer along Street Planting strips, generally 5‐foot minimum width, shall be

landscaped.

Any planting within the required planting strip that is within 10 feet of an entry or

exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than 30 inches.

Interior Parking Lot Not less than 5 percent of the interior parking lot area shall be landscaped, except

for parking areas located in enclosed structures.

Planting along the exterior perimeter of a parking lot shall not be considered as part

of the required interior landscaping.

If approved by the City, two‐fifths (2/5) of the required interior landscaping may be

decorative walkways, constructed of permeable materials, which provide pedestrian

paths through the parking lot. Such paths shall be lined with trees as required by the

City.

Artificial turf is not permitted in any landscaped areas adjoining the street right‐of‐way

nor within the interior parking lot landscaping.

Greener Glendale Plan: The City of Glendale’s Sustainability Plan The Greener Glendale Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2012, outlines a

comprehensive framework for a more sustainable City and adapting to climate change

while also addressing State legal requirements, per Assembly Bill (AB) 32, to reduce

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.


The report includes two volumes: Municipal Operations and Community Activities. The

latter volume acknowledges that the community’s actions will play a much larger role in

achieving the City’s sustainability and GHG reduction goals and defines a comprehensive

set of goals and objectives organized within the seven key topic areas described in the

United Nations Urban Environmental Accords: Urban Design, Waste, Energy, Urban

Nature, Water, Transportation, and Environmental Health.8 Glendale added two

additional topics to their framework: Cross‐Cutting Approaches and Economic

Development.

Within each of these topic areas, numerous objectives were defined, with several

strategies for implementation that relate to landscape design, installation and/or

maintenance, which are summarized below. For a more detailed description, refer to

Appendix B: Findings Summary on the Use, Selection and Implementation of Artificial Turf.

Objectives and Strategies that Relate to Landscape Development

Economic Development Objective ED 4 discusses promoting Glendale’s profile as a forward thinking, “green” city.

Many of the City’s existing policies, guidelines and ordinances support this intent,

including many goals and objectives listed in Greener Glendale.

Urban Design Objective UD3 refers to expansion of the City’s Green Building Standards to increase

requirements for utilizing cool paving, cool roofing and permeable and natural

landscaping. Objective UD5 recommends incorporating Greener Glendale sustainability

concepts into Community Plans and other General Plan documents, including:

Encourage the retrofit and new development to increase energy and water

efficiency, reduce waste, reduce use of toxics, and increase the use of natural

landscaping including native trees and plants.

Work toward achieving Zero Waste in the community.

Waste Objective WS1 encourages promotion of Zero Waste through community education and

outreach addressing “deconstruction”/salvaging of materials in all remodeling projects,

working with developers and builders to incorporate materials and furnishings made

from recycled content, reducing use of disposable, non‐renewable products.

Urban Nature Objective UN2 addresses increasing Glendale’s tree canopy coverage by 20,000 trees by

2035 through the following strategies:

Explore ways to encourage residents to preserve existing trees.

Ensure trees are planted in at least 50 percent of all sidewalk planting sites.

Planting of 7,150 trees by 2020, and an additional 13,375 trees by 2035, by the

Public Works Department.

8 http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2656&ArticleID=8900.


Objective UN3 discusses implementation of programs to increase biodiversity in Glendale

by promoting diverse landscaping palettes instead of monocultures and encouraging

citizens to provide habitat for wildlife in their yards and gardens.

Water Objective WT1 outlines strategies to reduce community water consumption through

promotion, education, and outreach campaigns, including:

Launch award program to recognize Glendale’s most water efficient buildings and

landscapes.

Encourage natural, low‐water use landscaping in yards and parkways – natural

landscape supports urban nature, reduces urban heat island effect, helps clean

water runoff, and has a cleaner life‐cycle (e.g. reduced or no fossil fuel based energy

or materials to produce, does not emit artificial toxins, creates a biodegradable

waste product, etc.) than artificial landscaping.

Objective WT2 promotes reduction of community water consumption through incentive

and rebate programs for replacement of turf with native/drought tolerant plants.

Objective WT4 identifies several strategies to facilitate and coordinate community water

conservation projects by replacing lawns in any public parkways (parkways adjacent to

private property are the responsibility of the property owner) with native and low‐water

use plants and utilizing low‐water use landscaping in public works projects and on public

rights‐of‐way.

Objective WT5 promotes implementation of stormwater runoff management practices to

protect water quality and replenish local groundwater supplies. It also notes that

promoting the use of permeable paving and incorporate rain gardens, rain water

capture/ biofiltration applications, and bioswales into Public Works projects will also have

the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the energy required to

import water and by increasing urban nature (which absorbs GHGs and reduces heat.

Environmental Health Objective EH1 promotes reduction of the use of toxics city‐wide by implementing an

education and outreach program to curb the use of toxic products in gardening and

landscaping. Synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides used in landscape care have

been linked to many environmental and public health concerns; the toxicity of some of

the artificial turf materials requires more research.

Collectively, these objectives and strategies promote a holistic approach to landscape

design, installation and maintenance that uses live plant material, nurtures soil health

and prevent compaction, protects air and water quality, conserves water, promotes

habitat and respects the community and historic character.

Comparison with Other City Ordinances

A review of ordinances and regulations of various Southern California cities reveals that

although some cities allow artificial turf in public locations, the majority of those allowing

it put limitations on the application.


City of Bellflower requires residents to present their landscape design to the

Planning Department in City Hall. Please note that pavers, rocks, stone, brick or

other decorative hardscape may be used in the landscape design as an accent and a

permanent irrigation system is required. The City Council has recently approved an

artificial turf pilot program, which allows for artificial turf to be installed in front

yards.9

Simi Valley allows no more than half of the front yard to be artificial turf. It does not

regulate side and back yard.10

Elk Grove allows replacing grass or natural turf with artificial turf, provided it is

pervious and allows for water to drain through it into the ground...11

The City of Los Angeles allows artificial turf in parkways.12

The City of Cerritos has determined that using artificial turf in residential applications

is not an adequate substitute for organic plant material and that it does not meet

the City's development standards as established within the Cerritos Municipal Code

for residential applications.13

The City of Cypress surveyed 29 Orange County cities to determine their

requirement for synthetic turf. Twelve of the 29 cities surveyed do not address

artificial turf in their City Codes. The remaining 17 cities allow artificial turf subject to

various criteria or standards. Most of the cities surveyed require that property

owners submit samples of the proposed turf to City staff for approval prior to

installation.14

In Southern California, some of the larger water suppliers are allowing rebates for

artificial turf. Municipal Water District allows some rebates for replacing turf with

artificial, but the guidelines are vague.15 LADWP allows rebates for artificial turf in

parkways.16

In summary, regulation of artificial turf in public areas varies widely from city to city.

Many locations have yet to address the topic. With the drought it is expected that this

will continue to be a topic of consideration, and a well‐developed plan will help to keep

standards and aesthetics consistent.

9 http://www.bellflower.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=195&TargetID=1. 10 Semi Valley Ordinance 1241. 11 http://www.elkgrovecity.org/city_hall/departments_divisions/public_works/

drainage/drought_response_and_water_conservation. 12 http://bss.lacity.org/Engineering/pdfs/Residential_Parkway_Landscaping_Guidelines

_2015.pdf. 13 http://www.cerritos.us/NEWS_INFO/news_press_releases/2014/june/artificial_turf.

php. 14 http://www.ci.cypress.ca.us/administration/2014_agd_mins/2014_staff_reports/03

2414%20Staff%20Reports/2_Zoning_Amend_RE_Artificial_Turf_032414.pdf. 15 http://socalwatersmart.com/?page_id=2967. 16 https://ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/wcnav_externalId/a‐w‐c‐parkway?_adf.ctrl‐

state=12qu0lr089_17&_afrLoop=139175502119548&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=12qu0lr089_14#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3D12qu0lr089_14%26_afrLoop%3D139175502119548%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl‐state%3Dx7277w6sf_4.


COMPARISON OF TURF, DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPES, AND ARTIFICIAL TURF

When comparing the various landscape options a property owner can consider, there are

multiple variables, benefits and challenges with the installation, maintenance and costs

associated with natural turf, drought tolerant landscapes, and artificial turf. These

benefits and challenges are summarized in Table 1 in the Executive Summary.

Turf

Natural turf lawns have been the mainstay of residential and commercial landscapes for

decades in Glendale and many communities throughout Southern California. The

increasing water restrictions have left many homeowners with no apparent option other

than to let their lawns die. There are many options available that can help property

owners keep all or a part of their lawn while meeting water conservation mandates.

Irrigation Savings Most irrigated turf is overwatered, based on comparison of applied water and actual

need. As stated earlier, many homeowners have realized up to 30 percent or more water

savings simply by replacing their controller with a self‐adjusting model as required by the

MWELO and repairing leaks. Using the formulas provided in the new Model Water

Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), it is possible to have some irrigated lawn and

still meet the new requirements.

Installation and Maintenance Costs Natural turf is the least costly alternative, compared to a drought tolerant landscape or

artificial turf, at $.50 to $1.50 per square foot (not including irrigation) and maintenance

costs for a small yard can run $100 to $300 per month17 for a detached single‐family

residence with a gardening service.

Sustainable Maintenance Traditional turf maintenance relies heavily on gas‐powered mowers, blowers and edger

and regular applications of synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. A more

sustainable approach, using Integrated Pest Management and grasscycling can limit

chemical inputs and reduce potential toxic exposure to waterways, children, and pets.

Turf Alternatives Newer turf blends have been developed that require much less water than traditional

blends and there are a number of traffic tolerant turf alternatives and low growing green

groundcovers that tolerate much lower water applications. . Refer to Appendix A: Turf

Alternatives.

17 http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Categories/Landscape/gar

den‐garden‐2013.pdf.

22

Ranch Style h

in their front

2. Summary of Re

home creates a me

t yard with color, te

esearch & Finding

eandering strolling

exture, and fragra

gs

Dr

Wit

bus

DeShif

can

plea

plan

inte

IrriThe

effi

con

app

and

nat

InsA la

law

plan

atte

mai

and

land

167

Art

Ma

the

mow

land

the

MaA v

aes

spe

App

den

den

g garden

nce.

ought Tole

th decreasing

sinesses are con

esign Challefting from a tur

be challenging

asing composit

nts, a focal el

eresting and bal

gation Savie reduction in w

ciency drip irr

nsiderable. A 10

proaches determ

d exotic plants

ives using drip i

stallation anandscape prope

n. Plants adap

nted in healthy

ention at mos

intaining a laye

d maintenance c

dscape and cite

7 hours respecti

tificial Turf

ny homeowner

ir existing law

wing. It is oft

dscape and ma

green lawn the

aterial Quavariety of artifi

thetics and du

cific criteria to

pendix B for a m

18 http://ww

n‐garden‐2013.p19 http://ww

n‐garden‐2013.p

erant Lands

water supplies

nsidering replac

enges rf dominant lan

g to the average

ion requires a

ement and ac

lanced design.

ings water demand b

igation and pla

0‐year study con

mined that over

used over 700

irrigation only c

nd Maintenerly designed an

pted to the su

y soils and with

t. Weeds can

r of organic mu

costs between

ed the total mai

ively.19

f

rs and business

ns with a simi

ten challenging

intain the curb

ey are replacing

lity and Proicial turf produ

rability. When

o be as natural

more detailed de

ww.smgov.net/up

df.

ww.smgov.net/up

df.

REVIEW

scapes

s and ongoing

cing their lawns

ndscape to one

e do‐it‐yourself

different appro

cessories, such

between an irri

ants adapted t

nducted by the

r a nine year pe

0,000 gallons o

consumed 130,0

nance Costsnd installed will

ummer‐dry clim

h the proper su

be substantia

ulch. The Santa

a drought tole

ntenance hours

s have turned

ilar green surf

g for many pr

appeal they ar

g.

oper Installaucts have flood

visible to the

appearing as f

escription of ac

ploadedFiles/De

ploadedFiles/De

W OF LANDSCAPING S

drought cond

with water‐con

e emphasizing d

homeowner. C

oach that inclu

h as boulder o

gated turf land

to Glendale’s

City of Santa M

eriod, that the t

of water while

000 gallons.18

s l require far les

mate, irrigated

un or shade ex

ally controlled

Monica study

rant landscape

s required over

to artificial tur

face that does

roperty owners

e accustomed t

ation ded the marke

public, the art

feasible. Refer

ceptable mater

epartments/OSE/

epartments/OSE/

STANDARDS & USE OF

ditions, homeo

nserving plants.

drought toleran

Creating an inte

udes base plant

or planters, to

scape and one

Mediterranean

Monica compar

raditional garde

the garden pl

ss maintenance

only when ne

xposure will nee

using sheet

also compared

and traditiona

r the years at 52

f as a means o

not require ir

s to redesign

to; artificial turf

et, with varyin

tificial turf need

to Chapters 4

rials.

/Categories/Land

/Categories/Land

ARTIFICIAL TURF

owners and

nt plantings

eresting and

ting, accent

create an

using high‐

climate is

ing the two

en with turf

lanted with

than a turf

eeded, and

ed monthly

mulch and

installation

l turf based

28 hours vs.

of replacing

rrigation or

a turf‐less

f resembles

ng levels of

ds to meet

and 5 and

dscape/gar

dscape/gar


Irrigation Savings Artificial turf does not require irrigation, but does need regular applications of water to

wash off dirt, pet feces, and food. If the turf is to be used as a play or walking surface,

hosing will be required on an as‐needed basis to lower the surface temperatures to a

tolerable level when used during warm weather.

Installation and Maintenance Costs The cost of installation varies considerably, but is much more per square foot than

natural turf or drought tolerant landscapes. The following table summarizes a range of

costs for homeowner installed artificial turf.

TABLE 3 ESTIMATED RANGE OF COSTS FOR HOMEOWNER INSTALLED ARTIFICIAL TURF

Supplier/Retailer Materials Additional

Installation Costs* Total Per Sq. Ft.

Home Depot $4,596.00 $1,751.00 $6,347.00 $6.35

HouseLogic $10,749.00 $1,751.00 $12,500.00 $12.50

Bay Area Turf $9,000.00 $1,751.00 $10,751.00 $10.75

Table 3 assumes a 1000‐square‐foot relatively flat lawn with no irregularities and does

not include the cost of any equipment rental. Additional costs include an estimate for the

base layer materials, weed barrier, and disposal of removed lawn.

TABLE 4 ESTIMATED COST FOR CONTRACTOR INSTALLED ARTIFICIAL TURF

Supplier/Retailer Per Sq. Ft.

Grass-Tex $10 to $15

Easy Turf $14

Heavenly Greens $15 to $17

Table 4 provides estimates for artificial turf installed by a qualified contractor.

R

3C

W

a

p

la

a

f

c

m

P

B

A

r

w

a

m

T

a

p

W

T

w

c

t

a

c

C

d

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

ENV3. CONSI

When evaluatin

artificial turf, it

previously, the

andscape, whe

accrue, howeve

ollowing eco‐fr

complete descr

maintenance ca

Practices for th

Backyard to the

Artificial turf do

runoff of pestic

with several env

and Use of Artif

more detailed d

The following su

and maintenanc

pros and cons a

Water Cons

The current dro

water consum

conservation. T

urf and other

and eliminating

concerns includ

Water Use

the transpo

savings.21

Reduced W

using clima

as over 50

landscape.2

20 http://w21 Naviga

California, CEC‐522 http://w

den‐garden‐2013

PING STANDARDS & U

VIRONMDERAT

ng the differen

is important t

re are multipl

ether natural tu

er, only when

riendly practice

ription of a h

an be found i

e Landscape Pr

Bay.20

es reduce wate

ides and herbic

vironmental co

ficial Turf for th

escription of ar

ummarizes the

ce of natural tu

re summarized

servation:

ught conditions

ption by 20

his can be acco

water thirsty la

g wasteful runo

e:

and Energy Sav

ort and delivery

Water Demand

te adapted nat

0 percent of t22

www.bayfriendlynt Consulting, In

00‐2006‐118, Sa

www.smgov.net

3.pdf.


MENTAIONS

nces between

o consider the

e and interre

urf or primaril

the landscape

es. Many of th

holistic approac

in the Bay‐Frie

rofessional and

er use over con

cides commonly

ncerns. Refer t

e City of Glenda

rtificial turf conc

environmental

urf, artificial tu

on Table 2 in th

s and the State

percent city‐

omplished by r

andscapes, imp

off when irriga

vings: Over 19 p

y of water, thu

for Drought T

tive plants and

the water typ

ycoalition.org/punc., 2006, Refini

acramento: Calif

t/uploadedFiles/

F

L

natural turf, d

broader envir

lated environm

y drought tole

es are planned

ese practices a

ch to landsca

endly Landscap

d Bay‐Friendly G

ventional turf a

y used in turf m

o the Findings

ale, August 14,

cerns.

benefits and c

rf and drought

he Executive Su

’s mandates req

‐wide. Landsca

reducing the ci

proving the effi

ating. Related

percent of the S

us reducing wa

Tolerant Lands

a high‐efficienc

ically used on

ublications.shtming Estimates Of

ornia Energy Co

Departments/OS

drought toleran

onmental cont

mental benefits

erant plants. Th

d, installed and

are described

pe design, ins

ping Guidelines

Gardening Guid

and can reduce

maintenance, bu

Summary on th

2015, in the Ap

oncerns with th

t tolerant lands

mmary.

quiring that Gle

apes must ad

ty‐wide acreag

ciency of irriga

environmental

State’s energy d

ter use will res

capes: Landsca

cy irrigation sys

a convention

ml. f Water‐related

mmission, page

SE/Categories/La

nt plants and

ext. As noted

s to a living

hese benefits

d maintained

below, and a

stallation and

s: Sustainable

de: From Your

e the potential

ut also comes

he Installation

ppendix, for a

he installation

scapes. These

endale reduce

ddress water

ge of irrigated

ation systems,

benefits and

demand is for

sult in energy

apes installed

stem can save

nal turf‐based

Energy Use in

16.

andscape/gar

3. EEnvironmental Coonsiderations 25

26 3. Environmental Considerations REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

Reduced Water Demand for Irrigated Turf: Turf is often over‐watered, resulting in

wasteful runoff. High‐efficiency irrigation systems including a self‐adjusting irrigation

controller that increases or decreases watering times in response to real‐time

climate data combined with spray nozzles with matched precipitation rates that

cover the area evenly can significantly reduce water use. Many homeowners

experience a 30 percent or greater water savings after installing a new controller

without removing any existing lawn or landscaping.

Water Use with Artificial Turf: While artificial turf does not require regular irrigation,

frequent water applications are required to wash off dirt and pet waste, and to cool

down the surface temperatures.

Soil Health and Carbon Sequestration: The ability of healthy living soils to store

carbon has been recognized as a key approach to addressing increased CO2 levels in

the atmosphere.

Climate Change

Landscapes have a tremendous potential to mitigate the impacts of climate change as

well as reduce and/or sequester carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Depending upon

the choice of materials, construction, and maintenance methods, a landscape can also

contribute more CO2 emissions. Key issues include:

Soil Health and Carbon Sequestration: The ability of healthy living soils to store

carbon has been recognized by as a key approach to addressing increased CO2 levels

in the atmosphere. According to Rattan Lal, director of Ohio State University’s

Carbon Management and Sequestration Center,” Soils of the world must be part of

any agenda to address climate change, as well as food and water security. I think

there is now a general awareness of soil carbon, an awareness that soil isn’t just a

medium for plant growth.”23

Trees and Carbon Sequestration: Plants sequester (remove) carbon from the

atmosphere through growth. Carbon dioxide is converted into plant tissue through

photosynthesis.24 In order to realize this benefit, trees must be planted to optimize

growth and survival, with sufficient room for root growth in healthy uncompacted

soils.

Natural Turf and Increased Carbon Emissions: In 2009, the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality found that an hour of gas‐powered lawn mowing produces as

much pollution as four hours of driving a car.25

Waste and increased carbon emissions: landscapes designed to minimize green

waste through sheet mulching and avoiding overplanting reduces landfill and

resulting methane emissions from decomposing vegetation.

Transportation and carbon emissions: choosing locally sourced materials reduces

shipping distances.

23 http://e360.yale.edu/feature/soil_as_carbon_storehouse_new_weapon_in_climate

_fight/2744/. 24 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US‐GHG‐Inventory‐

2015‐Chapter‐2‐Trends.pdf. 25 http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green‐guide/buying‐

guides/lawnmower/environmental‐impact/.

REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF 3. Environmental Considerations 27

Urban Heat Island

Many of the materials and surfaces installed in urbanized areas can increase the ambient

temperatures by several degrees, resulting in what has been dubbed the urban heat

island effect. Darker colored surfaces, such as asphalt paving and some roofing materials,

absorb heat during the day and re‐radiate back at night. Natural turf, artificial turf, and

drought tolerant landscapes can contribute to, or mitigate this effect as noted below.

Natural Turf: Can provide a cooling effect, especially when irrigated with overhead

spray.

Artificial Turf: heats up quickly in full sun to temperatures often exceeding 150

degrees or more. This heating effect is similar to surrounding a home or building

with a parking lot.26

Drought Tolerant Landscapes: Shading from tree canopies provides a cooling effect.

Large stature trees provide the most benefit.

Public Health

The ability of landscapes to impact public health has been well researched and

documented, from exposure to chemicals and airborne pollutants to the intrinsic healing

benefits of spending time in a natural landscape setting. Public Health benefits and

concerns with living landscapes and artificial turf focus on the following four areas:

Air Quality: Pollutants from gas‐powered equipment, as noted previously, adds to air

pollution.

Chemical Exposure: From artificial turf infill and from synthetic herbicides,

pesticides, and fertilizers when utilized in the landscape.

Thermal Exposure: Temperatures of artificial turf on bare skin can cause injuries and

raise ambient temperature.

Microbial Exposure: Potential injuries on artificial turf can put open wound in

contact with pathogens. While the research focuses on sports fields, there is a

potential for exposure to pathogens on private artificial turf play surfaces as well.27

Stormwater, Site Drainage, and Water Quality

Landscapes play a major role in protecting our watersheds by slowing and filtering runoff

before it reaches our streams and water bodies. Water quality and runoff can be

impacted positively or negatively from:

Water Retention On‐Site: Natural landscapes with rain gardens and permeable

surfaces will slow runoff from rain and encourage absorption into the soil, which can

minimize downstream flooding and water‐borne pollutants.

26 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion‐la/la‐ol‐california‐drought‐lawn‐fake‐

grass‐20141111‐story.html#page=1. 27 http://blogs.webmd.com/health‐ehome/2011/09/artificial‐turf‐what‐are‐the‐

risks.html

28 3. Environmental Considerations REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

Artificial Turf and Runoff: While some artificial turf systems are designed with a

permeable base layer, the 90 percent required compaction does not permit water

absorption into the subgrade.

Wildlife Habitat

The decline in urban habitat for birds, bees, and other beneficial wildlife is resulting in

significant impacts to eco‐systems locally and globally. At a residential scale, an

abundance of native and insectary (attract beneficial insects) plants along with other

habitat‐friendly practices can benefit fruit trees and vegetable garden productivity.

Factors that impact habitat value include:

Diversity of Plants: A diverse palette of native and insectary plants will provide a

variety of year‐round beneficial insects, butterflies and birds.

Eliminate Chemicals in the Landscape: Chemical use can be directly harmful to

beneficial insects and disrupt the soil food web.

Provide Shelter and Water: Bird baths, small fountains, boulders, large native shrubs

or trees provide the additional habitat needs.

Waste

The urban waste stream is an ongoing challenge and Glendale’s policies and ordinances,

including the Construction & Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance, support State goals

for waste reduction.28 Landscape installation and maintenance practices can decrease or

increase contributions to the landfill:

Turf Conversions with Sheet Mulching: Sheet mulching natural lawn in place

eliminates the green waste and resulting GHG emissions when placed in landfill.29

Artificial Turf Disposal: Artificial turf has a limited lifespan and will ultimately end up

in the landfill. In addition, preparing the base for artificial turf requires removal of

the existing turf and plantings to a depth of four inches. These materials will end up

in the landfill as well if the associated soil and rocks cannot be greencycled. .

28 http://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/public‐works/integrated‐

waste‐management/refuse‐trash‐recycling/construction‐demolition‐debris‐recycling‐

ordinance. 29 http://www.bayfriendlycoalition.org/LYL.shtml.

R

4

T

la

r

N

c

t

d

u

c

RL

G

A

e

M

r

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

PRE4.

This chapter o

andscapes in t

requirements pr

Promote W

Increase Pe

Protect Wa

Reduce Exp

Eliminate W

Promote Ha

Create Hea

Preserve Co

Natural landsca

can address all o

o property own

drought toleran

use zones are d

city‐wide goals a

RECOMLANDSC

General Re

A holistically de

environmental b

Model Water E

robust landscap

Restore Soi

sheet mulc

incorporati

12 inches o

Design to t

to a water

landscapes

Mulch: Ma

evaporation

Controller:

soil moistur

PING STANDARDS & U

LIMINA

outlines prelim

the City of Gl

resented in man

Water Conservat

ermeability

ter Quality

posure to Pollut

Waste

abitat

lthy Soils

ommunity Char

pes, whether th

of these goals a

ners, and broad

t plants in resid

escribed below

and is addresse

MMENDACAPES

quirement

esigned, water

benefits. Key b

Efficient Landsc

e include:

l Health: relieve

h existing turf i

ng 4 cubic yard

of soil.

he Water Budge

r budget with

and 0.45 for no

aintain a 3‐in

n.

Install a self‐adj

re sensor data u


ARY DE

minary guidelin

endale. These

ny of the City’s

ion

ants

acter and Histo

hey include irrig

and provide mu

der community

dential, multi‐fa

w. The use of ar

d separately in

ATIONS

ts

conserving lan

est manageme

cape Ordinance

e compaction an

n place, which

ds per 10 squar

et: The planting

an evapotrans

on‐residential la

ch layer of l

justing irrigatio

utilizing non‐vo

F

SIGN G

es for the de

recommendat

existing and de

oric Districts

gated turf or so

ultiple environm

y. Recommenda

amily and comm

rtificial turf doe

this chapter, pe

FOR N

dscape will pro

nt practices th

e (MWELO) an

nd reintroduce

also reduces w

re feet of high q

g design and irr

spiration facto

andscapes.

ocal recycled

n controller tha

latile memory.

GUIDEL

esign of wate

tions reflect th

sign guidelines

olely drought to

mental and aest

ations to the us

mercial, industr

es not support m

er each use zon

ATURAL

ovide multiple

at comply with

d encourage a

vital soil organi

waste, or if no tu

quality compos

rigation system

r (ET) of 55 fo

organic mulc

at uses evapotra

LINES

er conserving

he goals and

including:

olerant plants,

thetic benefits

se of turf and

rial and mixed

most of these

ne.

L

aesthetic and

h the updated

a healthy and

isms either by

urf is present,

st into the top

are designed

or residential

h to reduce

anspiration or

55. Next Steps 29

30 5. Next Steps

Re

Res

enc

neig

ren

Slopes: Turf is

slope is adjace

Spray Irrigatio

narrower, nor

permeable or

Avoid Invasive

Choose Native

garden.

Provide Room

systems. Avoid

esidential

sidential landsca

closed rear ya

ghborhood ch

ovated landsca

Residential la

combined).

Design shall p

textures.

Parking strips

s not allowed o

ent to an imper

on: Overhead

r within 24 inch

drains back int

e Plants: Check w

e Plants: Encou

m for Trees: Prov

d compacting th

apes typically i

ard. Given the

aracter; consi

pes:

awn is limited

provide a unifie

shall include a

REVIEW

on slopes greate

rmeable hardsca

irrigation shall

hes of any non

o the landscape

with CAL‐IPC’s “

rage habitat by

vide ample room

he soil under th

nclude a front

e front yard

der the follow

to 25 percen

ed composition

combination of

W OF LANDSCAPING S

er than 25 perc

ape.

not be permi

‐permeable su

e area.

“Don’t Plant a P

y using at least

m for trees to g

he driplines.

yard visible to

landscape co

wing recomm

nt of landscap

with a pleasin

f permeable pav

STANDARDS & USE OF

cent where the

itted in areas

rface, unless th

Pest” brochure.

50 percent na

grow and sprea

o the public and

ntributes to t

endations for

pe (front and

g repetition of

ving and plantin

ARTIFICIAL TURF

e toe of the

10 feet or

he paving is

tives in the

d their root

d a private,

the overall

new and

back yard

f colors and

ng.

R

M

T

s

b

a

T

c

m

t

in

w

c

g

R

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

Multi‐Fami

The landscape a

subdivided into

buffer planting

and recreations

The use of turf

conserving land

maintenance co

hirsty common

nto a colorful w

with umbrellas.

costs the first

gardens from th

Recommendatio

Lawn is lim

Replace un

plants (see

Replace an

before nee

Keep planti

distance.

Protect the

compaction

Adopt an I

that utilizes

PING STANDARDS & U

ly Resident

areas surround

o entry/streetsc

along adjacent

s areas, includin

f as a universa

scape that ulti

osts. One case s

n area lawn and

water‐conservin

The owner rea

year, and the

he new outdoor

ons for the use

ited only to rec

used turf arou

photo above).

nual beds with

ding replaceme

ings within 25 f

e investments in

n. Enlist a qualif

ntegrated Pest

s chemicals as a


tial

ing apartment

cape landscape

properties and

ng play areas,

l, low cost gro

mately saves th

study in San Ra

d a large water

ng landscape w

alized a $45,00

occupants lov

seating area.

of natural turf a

reational use ar

nd project peri

perennial, drou

ent.

feet of drivewa

n mature, healt

fied arborist, if n

Management

a last resort.

F

and condomin

es; perimeter c

d between buil

swimming poo

undcover can

he property ow

mon, California

feature that w

with a dry strea

0 reduction in

e watching bir

and drought tol

reas.

imeters with lo

ught tolerant pla

ys below 30 inc

hy trees by pro

needed, to asse

(IPM) approach

nium complexes

common areas

dings; and the

ls and outdoor

shift to an attr

wner considerab

a converted mu

was leaking subs

am bed, and o

the maintenan

rds and butter

erant landscapi

ow groundcove

ants that will las

ches to allow s

tecting the roo

ess specific need

h to landscape

s are typically

that provide

common use

r picnic areas.

ractive, water

ble water and

ltiple acres of

stantial water

utdoor patios

nce and water

rflies visit the

ing includes:

rs and accent

st 3 to 5 years

ufficient sight

ots zones from

ds.

maintenance

Sketch showin

lower water‐u

Multi‐family r

& Dorward, L

5

ng an alternative l

use plants instead

residential renova

Landscape Contrac

5. Next Steps

landscape design u

of lawn.

tion. Courtesy of C

ctors.

31

using

Cagwin

32

Street fronta

parking entr

5. Next Steps

age with groundco

ry/exit and grasses

overs and paving a

s, colorful perennia

Co

Lan

per

per

Are

Gui

incl

at

als.

ommercial,

dscaped areas

imeter buffer p

the City’s Mu

as; and interior

delines for the

ude:

Turf is limited

Replace turf

plantings and

Replace annua

before needin

Keep planting

distance.

Protect the in

compaction. E

Adopt an Inte

that utilizes ch

Industrial,

within these zo

planting; interio

unicipal Code, C

r courtyards and

e use of natura

to recreationa

in parking stri

drip irrigation.

al beds with pe

ng replacement

gs within 25 fee

vestments in m

Enlist a qualified

egrated Pest M

hemicals as a la

REVIEW

and Mixed

ones are genera

or parking lot la

Chapter 30.32.

d/or rooftop are

al turf and dro

l areas only.

ips and narrow

rennial, drough

.

et of driveways

mature, healthy

d arborist, if nee

Management (IP

st resort.

W OF LANDSCAPING S

d‐Use Zone

ally limited to t

andscaping wit

.160, Landscap

eas.

ught tolerant l

w planting strip

ht tolerant plant

below 30 inche

trees by protec

eded, to assess

PM) approach t

STANDARDS & USE OF

es

the property en

h a requiremen

ing of Parks a

andscapes in t

ps with water

ts that will last 3

es to allow suff

cting the roots

specific needs.

to landscape m

ARTIFICIAL TURF

ntrance and

nt for trees

nd Loading

hese zones

conserving

3 to 5 years

ficient sight

zones from

maintenance

R

RT

G

o

c

G

T

f

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

RECOMTURF US

Given the multip

of installation, m

choosing to inst

General Re

The following cr

or a more deta

The materia

The artificia

Artificial tu

expected m

Artificial tu

Artificial tu

grading pla

Areas cove

biotreatme

directly ent

Artificial tu

where visib

yards.

Artificial turf inst

PING STANDARDS & U

MMENDASE

ple concerns of

many property

all artificial turf

quirement

riteria shall be

iled description

al must meet th

al turf must be p

rf cannot be in

mature dripline o

rf must be calcu

urf cannot be i

n stamped and

ered in artificia

nt area. No run

ter the storm dr

urf shall not be

ble from the pu

tallations should in


ATIONS

the use of artif

owners will cho

f, the following

ts

required for al

.

he minimum vis

properly installe

nstalled under t

of newly plante

ulated as a non‐

nstalled on slo

signed by the c

l turf shall dra

noff from hosing

rains.

e installed in an

ublic right of w

ntegrate natural la

F

FOR A

ficial turf in the

oose a natural

requirements s

l artificial turf i

sual criteria.

ed by a licensed

the dripline of e

d trees.

‐living material.

opes exceeding

civil and/or geot

ain to a landsc

g down the arti

ny of Glendale’

way, including a

ndscaping to prov

RTIFICI

landscape, and

landscape alter

hall be met:

nstallations. Se

d professional.

existing trees a

25 percent (4

technical engin

caped based ra

ificial turf shall

’s Adopted His

all residential f

vide a more natura

AL

d the high cost

rnative. When

ee Appendix B

nd within the

4:1) without a

eer.

ain garden or

be allowed to

storic Districts

ront and side

al garden aesthetic

Poor quality m

seems out of

c.

5

material with strea

f place.

5. Next Steps

aks and stains. Bou

33

ulder

34

Provide a la

Artificial turf

visible from

Applications

front of busi

5. Next Steps

ndscaped buffer n

f is adjacent to priv

the public right of

that are not allow

nesses.

ext to building.

vate parking lot an

way

wed: in parking lots

Re

Plac

pro

Plac

sha

Mu

Plac

incl

inst

Plac

sha

Co

The

land

lots

are

Req

from

Mix

stre

pro

plan

Req

nd not

s and in

esidential

cement of artif

viding the locat

cement of artifi

ll comply with t

Artificial turf

side yard.

Live plant ma

areas, exclusiv

A minimum 3

edge.

ulti‐Family

cement of artif

uding roof ga

tallation compli

Artificial turf d

area.

When on roof

engineered to

the slab.

When used f

pathogens wit

cement of artifi

ll not be allowe

ommercial,

e landscaped ar

dscape setback

s, planting areas

as for emplo

quirements, abo

m the public rig

xed use zones g

eet tree plantin

vide additional

ntings and is

quirements.

icial turf in area

tion complies w

cial turf in front

the following:

does not excee

terial shall com

ve of permitted

36 inches natur

ficial turf in co

rdens, is perm

es with the gen

does not excee

f garden/podiu

o provide prope

for pet runs, a

thout causing ru

cial turf in front

ed.

Industrial,

reas surroundin

k along street f

s at the buildin

yees. Artificial

ove, and is limi

ght of way.

generally have

ngs to enhance

canopy for the

limited to res

REVIEW

as not visible fr

with the general

t or side yards w

ed 40 percent o

mpose a majorit

d driveways.

ral landscaped

ommon areas n

mitted, providin

neral criteria, ab

ed 25 percent o

m landscapes, t

er drainage an

a means of da

unoff directly in

t or side yards w

and Mixed

ng commercial

rontages, plant

g entry and pe

l turf installa

ited to the inte

limited street

the pedestrian

e urban forest.

idential roofto

W OF LANDSCAPING S

rom the public

criteria, above

where visible fr

of the total squ

ty (more than 5

buffer is main

not visible from

ng the materia

bove, and the fo

of the total squa

the subsurface

d eliminate any

aily rinsing and

nto the storm d

where visible fr

d‐Use Zone

and industrial g

ting islands wit

rimeter, and of

tion must co

erior landscape

frontage to pla

n environment,

Artificial turf is

op gardens, an

STANDARDS & USE OF

right of way is

.

rom the public r

uare feet of the

50%) of the stre

ntained along t

m the public rig

al selection, lo

ollowing:

are feet of the

drainage syste

y risk of leakag

d elimination o

rain must be pr

rom the public r

es

generally includ

h trees in inter

ften, an interio

omply with th

ed areas where

ant and need to

shade the roa

s not compatibl

nd as defined

ARTIFICIAL TURF

permitted,

right of way

e front and

eet setback

he building

ght of way,

ocation and

landscaped

ms shall be

ges through

of potential

rovided.

right of way

de a limited

rior parking

r landscape

he General

not visible

o maximize

dways, and

le with tree

in General

R

5

RO

C

T

1

w

A

O

c

a

m

S

C

T

la

R

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

NEX5.

RECOMORDINA

Chapter 13

The City will nee

1, 2015 stating

which must be

Amending Chap

Ordinance (MW

can be immedia

and attach a co

much easier me

State ordinance

Chapter 30

This chapter wi

andscapes, the

Recommended

Expand des

of natural a

Clarify acce

the public.

Expand acc

Preliminary

List require

Quality o“thatch”

Grading receive a

When gr

geotechn

slope cap

Submit p

PING STANDARDS & U

XT STEPS

MMENDEANCES

.36 Water

ed to respond t

that the City h

e at least as e

pter 13.36 to

WELO) by refere

ately accessed

py of the MWE

ethod for smal

.

0.31 Landsc

ll need substan

new MWELO r

additions/revisi

scriptions of pla

and artificial tur

eptable criteria

ceptable locatio

y Design Guideli

ments for artifi

of materials: Sh

blade, must als

plan to confirm

artificial turf is s

rades exceed 4

nical engineer, c

pable of receivin

proof of contrac


S

ED CHA

Conservat

to the State Dep

has adopted the

effective in co

adopt the up

ence would be t

on from the Ci

LO Appendix D

ler projects (50

caping

ntial revisions t

requirements, a

ions include:

anting requirem

rf.

for installation

ons for artificial

nes.

cial turf installa

all include thre

so have a durab

m slopes do not

ufficient when

4:1 submit a re

clearly stating t

ng the artificial

t and valid cont

F

ANGES T

ion

partment of Wa

e Ordinance or

nserving water

pdated Model

the simplest ap

ty’s website. T

: Prescriptive C

00 ‐2,500 squa

to reflect a shi

and increased a

ments to limit t

n of drought to

turf installatio

ation, including:

e separate blad

ble backing that

exceed 4:1. A

grades are visib

eport, stamped

he measures to

turf and subba

tractor’s license

TO CITY

ater Resources

adopt their ow

r as the State

Water Efficien

pproach, with a

he City can als

Compliance Opt

re feet) to com

ft to more dro

applications for

he allowable sq

olerant landsca

n as described

de types: green

is permeable.

photo of the ex

bly flat.

d by a licensed

o be taken to pr

ase installation.

e.

Y

by December

wn ordinance,

’s Ordinance.

nt Landscape

a hot link that

o incorporate

tion which is a

mply with the

ought tolerant

r artificial turf.

quare footage

pes visible to

in Chapter 4:

ns and a straw

xisting area to

d civil and/or

rovide a stable

Poor quality a

a slope.

5

artificial turf mate

5. Next Steps

rial installed on to

35

o steep

36 5. Next Steps

CitAd

Upd

yard

Ad

Give

city

resi

A

Foll

Fina

dire

Plan

PU

The

use

and

tole

mu

abo

and

Ex

Gle

neig

and

If installatiohazards and

When inst

installation

measures,

from pet fe

ty of Glenddopted Hist

date the guidel

ds with drought

dditional Re

en the challeng

y‐wide design m

idents.

DOPTIO

owing staff rev

al Report to be

ection, draft or

nning Commissi

UBLIC O

e City of Glenda

of artificial tu

d recommendat

erant approach

ltitude of sourc

out artificial turf

d use of artificia

isting City

ndale current

ghborhoods be

d water usage.

on is not compl

d/or eroding ed

alling artificial

details with a

and maintena

ces.

ale Guidelitoric Distric

ines to address

t tolerant lands

ecommend

ges of designing

manual would

ON AND

iew of this draf

presented to th

rdinances will b

ion, then to the

OUTREA

le has prepared

rf in residentia

tions on the c

h. The informa

ces and stands a

f. Property own

l turf or other n

Programs a

ly offers pro

autiful and attr

REVIEW

letely properly,

dges, contractor

turf on roo

anchoring and

ance requireme

ines for Rects

s appropriate a

capes and/or a

dations

g more comple

be useful, in

D IMPLE

ft report, edits w

he Glendale Cit

be prepared a

e City Council fo

ACH AN

d this report to

l and commerc

conversation of

ation provided

as an overview

ners can use this

natural alternat

and Resour

ograms to he

ractive while at

W OF LANDSCAPING S

, resulting in dr

r to remove and

ftop gardens,

edge treatmen

ents, including

esidential B

approaches to l

rtificial turf.

x front yards w

conjunction w

EMENTA

will be incorpor

ty Council in Oc

nd presented

or final adoption

ND EDUC

determine whe

cial landscapes,

f existing lands

d in this repor

of the most rec

s report to help

ives.

rces

elp residents’

t the same tim

STANDARDS & USE OF

rainage problem

d reinstall at ow

submit plans

nts, grading an

sanitation re

Buildings in

andscaping fro

with reduced or

ith design wor

ATION

rated and subm

tober. Based up

at public heari

n. .

CATION

ether or not to

, and to provid

scape to a mo

rt was compil

cent research a

p assess their ow

landscapes k

e reducing was

ARTIFICIAL TURF

ms, tripping

wn expense.

indicating

nd drainage

quirements

nt and side

r no lawn, a

rkshops for

itted as the

pon Council

ings before

N

expand the

de guidance

ore drought

ed from a

and findings

wn need for

keep their

ste, energy,

R

K

A

s

r

a

T

a

t

A

e

im

t

w

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

The City o

residents t

operations.

converting

suppresses

alternative

The City als

free shade

the installa

Residents s

The City o

residents cr

designs, pla

The City of

and how‐to

throughout

new valuab

Keeping the

As the City look

should be info

recommendatio

appropriate for

The City should

about any chang

hey could find m

Create and

and newsle

door or at o

or public lib

Develop a

information

landscaping

Make acces

Artificial Tu

Along with the

educational pro

mplementation

30 htt

ree‐program/an31 http://w32 http://g33 http://w

waste‐managem

PING STANDARDS & U

of Glendale’s P

to pick up loa

. Utilizing the m

unusable green

weeds and im

to artificial turf

so runs the Tree

trees to plant

ation of artificia

hould take this

of Glendale W

reate low‐wate

ant lists, and oth

Glendale’s Inte

o’s about backy

t the year so he

ble resource.33

e Public Inf

ks to make chan

ormed of these

ons surrounding

their yard.

d develop and

ges to City Ordi

more informatio

d design inform

etters to be di

other commun

braries.

page on the

n for homeown

g ordinances.

ssible to residen

rf Report.

educational m

ograms, talks, c

n.

tp://www.glendanouncements. www.glendalecaglendalewaterwwww.glendalecaent/refuse‐trash


Public Works D

ads of mulch

mulch allows re

n material into

mproves the o

f.

e Power Program

on their prope

al turf can imp

into considerat

Water & Power

r use landscape

her landscaping

egrated Waste

yard compostin

elp residents red

formed

nges to their la

e changes as

g artificial turf

disseminate ed

inances and als

on. To provide

mational publica

stributed to ho

ity events, such

e City’s websit

ers and proper

nts copies, both

materials the C

classes and sem

aleca.gov/govern

a.gov/tree‐poweisegardening.coa.gov/governmeh‐recycling/backy

F

Department’s F

left over from

sidents to give

a valuable reso

verall health o

m, helping resid

erty.31 The findi

act the growth

tion when insta

’s Water Wise

es by providing

g resources.32

Management D

g. They also ho

duce their food

andscape policie

well as the m

so they may

ducational mat

o direct residen

information to

ations such as

omeowners an

h as Glendale’s

te that provid

rty owners seek

h in print and di

ity could deve

minars that foc

nment/departm

r‐free‐shade‐trem/. nt/departments/yard‐composting

Free Mulch Pro

m the City’s t

back to the en

urce.30 A mulch

of the soil and

dents save ener

ngs in this repo

h of trees on th

lling artificial tu

e Gardening W

many examples

Division provide

ost free Compo

waste at home

es and ordinan

most current

make landscap

terials that info

nts to other res

residents, the C

flyers, brochur

d property ow

Downtown Far

des resources

king to comply

gital, of the Lan

lop, the city co

us on landscap

ents/public‐wor

ees.

/public‐works/ing.

ogram allows

ree trimming

nvironment by

hed landscape

d is a natural

rgy by offering

ort show that

he landscape.

urf.

Website helps

s of landscape

es information

st Workshops

e and create a

ces, residents

research and

ping decisions

orm residents

sources where

City could:

res pamphlets

wners door‐to‐

mers Markets

and links to

with new city

ndscaping and

ould also run

pe design and

ks/indigenous‐

ntegrated‐

55. Next Steps 37

38

5. Next Steps

Cla

The

look

dro

offe

neig

asses, Sem

e City should c

king to take an

ught resistant

er that are inspi

Trainings for L

offers landsca

Qualified Pro

professionals

practices and

maintenance

The Santa Cl

public agenci

Gardener Tra

contractors a

Professionals

promotional m

The City of G

landscape pr

Professional

information

www.mywate

Rated Landsc

Landscapes, a

This voluntar

landscape pro

environmenta

Guidelines cre

design, const

with ReScape

for landscape

and ordinance

Landscaping P

Community Tr

landscaping p

Program allow

landscape wh

sustainable la

The City of G

Services office

to neighborh

receive trainin

34 http://ww35 http://ww

ghborhood‐servi

inars, and T

continue to pr

active role in t

landscape. The

ired by other pu

Landscape Desig

ape professiona

ofessional. Thr

learn about n

d how they ca

of their clients’

ara Valley Urb

es, cities and

aining Program

and profession

who complete

materials.

Glendale could

rofessionals in

Training Prog

about San

ershedwatch.org

ape Program.

a rating system

y, third‐party v

ofessionals with

ally sound land

eated by ReSca

ruction and ma

to license this

s and incorpor

e into the ratin

Program, visit w

raining Events.

programs aimed

ws a homeowne

hile also teac

ndscaping prac

Glendale could

e which is resp

oods througho

ng about new

ww.stopwaste.orww.glendaleca.goices.

REVIEW

Trainings

ovide worksho

the design and

e following are

ublic agencies d

gners and Main

als the opportun

rough a mult

native, drough

an incorporate

landscapes.

ban Runoff Pol

water districts

m designed to

al gardeners

e the course ap

offer a simila

the area. Fo

gram, visit w

nta Clara

g.

Rescape Califo

m for new lands

verified rating

h a flexible, sys

dscapes. Lands

ape and are re

aintenance pra

program for Gle

rate all of the a

g system. For m

www.bayfriendly

StopWaste, a

d to reduce was

er to transform

ching other m

tices.34

create a simi

onsible for pro

out Glendale.35

landscape poli

rg/preventing‐waov/government/

W OF LANDSCAPING S

ops and semina

maintenance o

suggestions of

doing similar wo

tenance Profes

nity to become

tiple day tra

t tolerant and

e these practic

lution Prevent

of Santa Clar

train landscap

about sustaina

ppear on the p

ar program and

or more infor

www.bayfriendly

Valley’s Tra

ornia has deve

scape projects

system provid

stematic framew

scapes are rat

ecognized by th

actices. The Cit

endale, or crea

aspects of the

more informati

ycoaltion.org.

public agency i

ste. StopWaste

their lawn into

members from

lar program th

oviding commun5 A leader fro

cies and practi

aste/residents/la/departments/co

STANDARDS & USE OF

ars to resident

of a healthy, be

f programs the

ork.

sionals. ReScap

certified as a B

ining course,

d sustainable l

ces into the d

ion Program, i

a County, offe

pe maintenanc

able gardening

program’s webs

d certification

rmation about

ycoalition.org.

aining Progra

eloped Bay‐Frie

throughout the

des property o

work for creati

ted based on

heir sustainable

y of Glendale

te their own ra

City’s landscap

on about ReSca

in Alameda Cou

e’s Lawn to Gar

a drought tole

their commu

hrough the Nei

nity improveme

om the commu

ices and then g

awn‐to‐garden‐pommunity‐devel

ARTIFICIAL TURF

ts who are

eautiful and

e City could

e California

Bay‐Friendly

landscape

landscaping

design and

nitiated by

ers a Green

ce workers,

g practices.

site and on

system for

ReScape’s

For more

am, visit

endly Rated

e Bay Area.

owners and

ng healthy,

Landscape

e landscape

could work

ting system

ing policies

ape’s Rated

unty, offers

rden Parties

rant, native

nity about

ighborhood

ent services

unity could

go out into

parties. opment/

R

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

their neigh

Lawn to Ga

Partnership

located in o

with a mult

to provide c

Building on

could furth

City’s lands

PING STANDARDS & U

hborhood and

rden Parties Pr

ps with Other P

one of the natio

titude of other

comprehensive

n the success o

er develop talk

caping policies


teach others.

ogram, visit ww

Public Agencies

on’s largest cou

public agencies

information, tr

of the Glendale

ks, lectures and

and ordinances

F

For more info

ww.stopwaste.o

and Water Dis

unties, has a un

s, water districts

raining, and res

e Water‐Wise G

seminars that

s.

rmation about

rg.

stricts. The City

nique opportun

s and cities to d

ources to their

Gardening prog

address new ch

t StopWaste’s

y of Glendale,

nity to partner

develop a plan

residents.

gram, the City

hanges to the

55. Next Steps 39

40 5. Next Steps REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

APPENDICES

REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

R

AT

N

N

D

(

M

M

o

N

D

(A

D

D

(J

H

M

B

D

(

M

B

b

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

APPENDIX ATURFGRASS

Name

Native Mow Fre

Delta Bluegrass

Idaho fescue/Fe

Molate fescue/F

Mokelumne fesc

occidentalis)

Native Bentgras

Delta Bluegrass

Agrostis pallens

Delta Grassland

Delta Bluegrass

Junegrass/Koele

Hairgrass/Desch

Molate Fescue/F

Biofiltration Sod

Delta Bluegrass

Purple needleg

Molate fescue/F

Barley/Hordeum

barley/Hordeum

PING STANDARDS & U

A S ALTERNAT

e

Company

estuca idahoens

Festuca rubra, W

cue/Festuca

s

Company

s)

Mix

Company

eria macrantha

hampsia elongat

Festuca rubra)

d

Company

rass/Stipa pulch

Festuca rubra, C

m californicum, M

m brachyantheru


TIVES

Dro

Exa

sis,

Western

a, Slender

ta,

hra,

California

Meadow

um)

F

ought Tolera

ample Photo

ant Turfgrasss

Det

4”‐6

50%

Low

Pro

slop

1 ½

Full

Low

Goo

rep

4”‐6

Par

Low

mo

4”‐6

Full

Low

Red

pro

For

oth

are

tails

6” tall

% shade

w water

ovides soil stabil

ped areas

½ “‐2” tall

l sun/Part shade

w water

od wear recove

pairing rhizomes

6” tall

rt shade

w water

derate wear re

6” tall

l sun

w water

duces soil erosio

ovides weed bar

r roadsides, bio‐

her environmen

as

lization for

e

ery due to self‐

s

sistance

on and

rrier

‐swales and

tal mitigation

Appendix A 1

2 AAppendix A

N

N

D

(J

ne

ne

fe

N

Dy

Th

ame

ative Preservat

elta Bluegrass C

unegrass/Koleri

eedlegrass/Stip

eedlegrass, Nes

escue/Festuca ru

ame

ymondia/Dymo

hyme/Thymus s

ion Mix

Company

ia macrantha, P

a pulchra, Nodd

ssella cernua, M

ubra)

ondia margareta

sp.

Dro

Exam

Purple

ding

Molate

T

Exam

ae

ought Tolera

mple Photo

Turfgrass Alt

mple Photo

REVIEW

ant Turfgras

ternatives

W OF LANDSCAPING S

s

Deta

4”‐6

Part

Low

Goo

med

appl

De

1”‐

Fu

Mo

2”‐

Fu

Mo

Pre

STANDARDS & USE OF

ails

6” tall

t shade

w water

od for sloped hil

dian and roadsid

lications

etails

‐3” tall

ll/Part shade

oderate to occa

‐3” tall

ll/Part shade

oderate to occa

efers good drain

ARTIFICIAL TURF

lsides,

de

asional water

asional water

nage

R

N

B

D

ja

B

‘U

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

Name

Blue Star Creepe

Dwarf Mond

aponicas, ‘Kyoto

Buffalo Grass/

UC Verde’

PING STANDARDS & U

er/ Pratia pedun

o Grass/Oph

o Dwarf’

Bouteloua dac


T

Exa

nculata

hiopogon

ctyloides,

F

Turfgrass Al

mple Photo

lternatives

De

2”

Fu

M

Pr

Ti

la

4”

Sl

Su

M

Ea

4”

irr

Na

to

M

gr

U

To

Pl

or

etails

”‐3” tall

ull/Part shade

Moderate water

refers rich soil, g

ny blue star‐sha

te spring/summ

” tall

ow grower

un/part shade

Moderate to reg

asy to divide for

” tall (higher w/

rigation

ative from cent

o Arizona

Many cultivars: y

reen

p to 75% less w

olerates mowin

ant from seed,

r sod

good drainage

aped flowers

mer

ular water

r more plants

/ regular

tral Montana

year‐round

water

g

plugs (shown)

Appendix A 3

4 AAppendix A

N

Bl

M

N

Ku

ame

lue Grama Gras

Meadow Sedge/

o‐Mow Turf

urapia/Lippia no

ss/Bouteloua gra

Carex pansa

odiflora L.

T

Exam

acilis

Turfgrass Alt

mple Photo

REVIEW

ternatives

W OF LANDSCAPING S

De

8”‐

w/

Wa

Fu

No

est

Gr

Sow

To

Na

Litt

on

To

Pla

Ap

Fin

ble

Re

ble

To

See

1”‐

Na

Fu

Low

To

STANDARDS & USE OF

etails

‐12” tall (can be

/ mowing)

arm‐season bun

ll sun, good dra

o summer water

tablished

ow from seed (

w in fall

8”‐12” tall

ative to Californ

tle to no summ

ce established

lerates mowing

ant from plugs

pprox. 8” tall

ne leaf fescue an

ends

gular summer w

end varies)

lerates mowing

ed or Sod

‐3” tall

ative to Japan

ll Sun/Part Shad

w water

lerates high‐sal

ARTIFICIAL TURF

e kept to 3”

nchgrass

ainage

r once

1#/1000SF)

ia

er water

g

nd native

water (native

g

de

t soils

R

N

E

O

c

C

P

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

Name

Emerald Carpet/

Ornamental Stra

chiloensis

Creeping Raspbe

Putah Creek/My

36 http://w37 http://u38 http://w39 http://w

PING STANDARDS & U

/Arctostaphylos

awberry/Fragra

erry/Rubus pen

yoporum parvifo

www.smgrowersucanr.edu/sites/www.finegardenwww.smgrowers


G

Exa

s

aria

talobus

olium

s.com/products//MarinMG/Plantning.com/creepins.com/products/

F

Green Groun

mple Photo

/plants/plantdispt_Guide/Plants_bng‐raspberry‐rub/plants/plantdisp

ndcovers

play.asp?plant_iby_Type/?uid=1bus‐pentalobus.play.asp?plant_i

Det

<1 f

Full

Wh

win

Low

6”‐1

Cali

Full

Low

Goo

<6”

Full

Low

Wh

sum

<1 f

Full

Wh

sum

Nat

Low

d=164. 38&ds=451. d=1751.

tails

ft. tall

l sun

hite flower bloo

nter/spring

w water36

12” tall

ifornia Native

l sun/Part shade

w to moderate w

od drainage37

” tall

l sun/Part shade

w to moderate w

hite flower bloo

mmer38

ft. tall

l sun

hite flower bloo

mmer

tive to Australia

w water39

m in

e

water

e

water

m in

m in

a

Appendix A 5

6 Appendix A REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF


R

AFA

A

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

APPENDIX BFINDINGS SARTIFICIAL T

August 14, 2015

PING STANDARDS & U

B SUMMARY O

TURF FOR T

5


ON THE INSTTHE CITY OF

F

TALLATION

F GLENDAL

AND USE OE

OF

Appendix B 1

2 Appendix B REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Appendix B 3

Background Located at the juncture of the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, the City of Glendale is the third largest city in Los

Angeles County. The City incorporated in 1906 and boasts a rich cultural history with many buildings of historic

interest and significance. Residents within the 34 distinct neighborhoods that ultimately formed the City of Glendale

enjoy a high quality of life that is reinforced by a city‐wide landscaping ordinance enforced as part of the City’s

Municipal Code.

The landscaping ordinance currently restricts the use of artificial turf to areas not visible from public streets. With the

current drought conditions and water reduction mandates, and with no relief in sight, artificial turf is being proposed

as a suitable substitute for existing turf and landscaping in front yards. The City, in response to these requests,

recognizes the need for a well‐researched technical report that explores all costs and benefits of using artificial turf in

the public realm, focusing on single‐family dwellings, multi‐family buildings and typical land uses in commercial,

industrial and mixed use zones. The report will also address how to update the municipal code to guide the design of

landscapes with drought tolerant plantings and, if approved by the City Council, artificial turf, while preserving the

attractive neighborhood character residents enjoy.

Prior to preparing the Draft Report, the consultant team has prepared the following Findings Summary Report that

compiles the current data and literature on artificial turf and summarizes key issues to be considered when evaluating

the appropriateness of using artificial turf in various landscape applications. Key issues that are addressed in this

report include: aesthetics; proper installation, cost, and maintenance; legislation and city ordinances; and health,

safety and environmental concerns.

Aesthetics

The quality and appearance of artificial turf products on the market vary widely, from short‐cropped “Astro‐turf” or

slick, flat blades with shiny surfaces to materials with a more realistic turf color and texture. When artificial turf is

placed within view of the public realm, the most desirable aesthetic is the latter.

Key specifications for a more natural appearing turf include:

Color: Blades shall be a minimum of three colors: two green (field green/olive green) blades and a straw colored

“thatch” blade, to match the natural variation in living turf. Single colored, monochromatic blade materials are not

acceptable.

Texture: Blades shall be designed to mimic a natural blade appearance with a three‐dimensional ridge or spine cross‐

section and uneven tips on each individual blade, which also increases resiliency and durability. Flat, 2‐dimensional

blades with squared off tops, as shown on the examples above, are not acceptable.

Blade Length: Blade length shall be shall be a minimum of 1¾ inches in height, held vertical with granulated sand (or

other non‐rubber materials as recommended by the manufacturer) infill material graded specifically for “thatch” style

artificial turf. Note that there are ongoing environmental and public health concerns with the use of crumb rubber.

4 AAppendix B

Th

Th

na

Ex

na

here are a wide

he following ph

atural‐appearin

xample of sho

atural lawn, bu

variety of artifi

hotos illustrate

g.

rt, flat bladed

ut a miniature g

icial turf materi

e some of the

d artificial turf.

golf course/put

als and fabricat

characteristics

f. From a dista

tting green on

REVIEW

tion.

found in vario

ance, the shor

a slope.

W OF LANDSCAPING S

ous artificial tu

rter turf mater

STANDARDS & USE OF

urf materials th

rial does not r

ARTIFICIAL TURF

hat are not

resemble a

R

A

s

A

C

IIn

T

t

jo

o

in

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

Another examp

sidewalk from f

Artificial turf w

Close‐up of turf

nstallationstallation

The installation

he California C

oining and anch

of work. Most, if

nsurance agains

PING STANDARDS & U

ple of a short,

foot traffic.

with monochro

f shows fading/

on, Cost a

of artificial turf

Contractors Sta

horing. The Plan

f not all, manuf

st defective inst


flat‐bladed ar

ome blades. Bl

/discoloration.

and Main

f by qualified in

te License Boa

nning Departme

facturers will pr

tallation.

F

rtificial turf. No

lue‐green colo

Material has b

ntenance

nstallers with a

ard is highly re

ent may choose

ovide a guarant

ote flattening

r appears unn

been in place a

valid D‐12 ‐ Syn

commended to

e to require pro

tee on installati

of blades alon

natural. Note

bout a year.

nthetic Product

o ensure prope

oof of this licen

ion as well as m

ng corners and

the light color

ts Contractor’s

er base prepar

nse as verificatio

materials, which

d parallel to

red streaks.

license with

ration, seam

on of quality

can provide

Appendix B 5


Key steps to proper installation include:40

1. Site clearing: Remove 3 ‐ 4 inches of existing sod, plants and/or dirt. Cap and/or remove any sprinklers.

2. Site gradients: Establish a smooth, even finished grade with a minimum of 2 percent slope for surface

drainage, compacted to 90 percent. Gradients steeper than 4:1 shall be engineered to be stable prior to

application of artificial turf. Consultation with a geotechnical engineer is highly recommended. Install gopher

barriers, if required, on top of prepared subgrade.

3. Base material: Proper base preparation is critical for a successful artificial turf installation. Lay 2 ‐ 2 1/2 inches

of drain rock, hose down, then using a vibrating plate compactor, compact to 90 percent. Place a 1 ‐ 1 1/2 inch

layer of Class II road base or 3/8 inches minus with fines (which is utilized by professional fields for a more

stable base) over the drain rock. Install a weed barrier fabric, if used, on top of the base. Hose down and then

use a vibrating plate compactor to compact to 90 percent.

4. Compaction: When compacting the base with the plate compactor, constantly water the area with a hose.

Repeat the compaction procedure up to ten to twelve times before introducing the sub‐base material.

5. Turf installation: Prior to installation, lay turf out under the sun for at least 1‐2 hours to allow turf to acclimate.

This will make the backing less stiff and the turf easier to be sweep. Always stretch and install turf taut. Lay turf

onto base and position where needed. Always run grain of turf in the same direction. Using a carpet

knife/razor knife, cut off excess turf on the backside (3 stitches in from sides). Cut turf (on backside) to fit area.

Fasten one end with 40D or 60D Bright Common nails of 5‐6 inches in length, spaced 3‐4 inches apart along

the edges. Stretch turf using a carpet stretcher and fasten with nails as you move across to the opposite end.

Use of a carpet stretcher will keep the material from buckling. Place a nail every 12‐24 inches throughout

center and every 3‐4 inches along the perimeter. Do not overlap seams. Never drive nails too far into the base

because this will create a noticeable dip.

6. Headerboards: Use a 2x4 (straight line installation) or 1x2 (curve line installation) wood or recycled metal or

plastic bender board around the perimeter of turf area to frame and protect the turf from soil and debris.

Note that some plastic benderboards will melt and warp when exposed to the sun for long periods of the day.

7. Seaming: Apply seam tape lengthwise to the bottom side of turf, lining up the turf edges with the guidelines

on the seaming tape. Apply hot glue, per manufacturer’s instructions to the seaming tape. Fasten together

seams by using 11 gauge 6 inches x 1 inch x 6 inches staples spaced 4 inches apart along the seam. Do not

counter sink staples. Be sure the seams are taut and precise, the grain of the turf is facing in the same

direction, and the space at the seam is the same as the stitching gauge. Match the blades per blades along the

seam to ensure invisible seaming.

8. Finishing and Infill: After turf is installed, power broom before applying infill. Apply infill onto turf using a drop

spreader. Spread infill as evenly as possible with a grading rake or broom until infill settles into the base of the

turf. Hand or power broom again so that the blades are standing straight up. Use carpet scissors to trim off the

excessive turf blades. Clean the surrounding area with a blower or a broom. Use only manufacturer

recommended infill materials.

40 Posted instructions and discussions with staff at http://www.globalsynturf.com/installation/ and

http://www.heavenlygreens.com/.

R

P

A

B

p

t

C

s

c

s

M

t

t

S

t

c

P

r

a

REVIEW OF LANDSCAP

Plastic headerb

Additional Consi

Backing Materia

punched backin

hrough the mat

Compaction: A p

stable base for t

causing ruts in t

surface.

Melting: Sunligh

urf. This conce

he outside of th

Surface Temper

emperatures th

can be somewh

Pet Smell: Odor

rinsing. Backing

are not recomm

41 http://w42 Per con43 Univers

PING STANDARDS & U

board pulling a

derations with

al: Permeable b

g materials hav

terial when rins

plate compacto

the artificial tur

the turf and de

ht reflecting off

ntrated, reflect

he adjacent win

rature: Artificial

hat are too hot

at reduced by h

rs from pet uri

material should

mended.43

www.globalsyntnversation with ssity of Arkansas;


away from artif

Location and Ins

backing shall al

ve openings sp

sing off pet urin

or is essential to

rf. If not proper

eveloping highe

west or south

ted sunlight can

ndows can preve

l grass can get

to walk on with

hosing off the ar

ne will build u

d provide maxim

urf.com/installatstaff at HeavenlyTurfgrass Scienc

F

ficial turf.

stallation of Art

low for infiltra

aced 12 inches

e.

o obtaining the

ly compacted, t

er or lower area

facing window

n act very much

ent this effect.4

t hot to the to

h bare feet and

rtificial turf surf

p if the backin

mum drainage w

tion/. y Greens on 8/8/ce. Synthetic (Ar

ificial Turf

tion of surface

on center, wh

e proper 90 per

the materials w

as that eventua

ws can create a

h like a laser an41

ouch during the

increasing the

face in the morn

g material is n

with perforation

/15. No specific drtificial) Turf vs. N

e water into th

hich will not allo

rcent compacti

will continue to

ally will cause b

“magnifying gla

nd can melt the

e midday direc

ambient tempe

ning.42

ot sufficiently

ns throughout.

data provided. Natural Grass At

e base below.

ow sufficient flo

on and establis

shift and comp

buckles and wr

ass effect” on t

artificial turf. A

ct sun, resultin

erature. This he

permeable allo

Hole‐punched

thletic Fields.

Many hole‐

ow of water

shing a firm,

ress in time,

inkles in the

the adjacent

A coating on

g in surface

eating effect

ow thorough

perforations

Appendix B 7

8 AAppendix B

Ar

ho

Co

Ar

be

$.

Lo

w

m

in

W

W

ba

w

htht5y

tu

rtificial turf sa

ours. Surround

ost

rtificial lawns av

etween $7,000

50 and $1.50 p

ong term pote

eather, or to r

maintenance. De

stallation and m

Warranties

Warranties vary

acking and tufte

arranties, in the

44 http://w

ttp://www.fieldtttp://www.homeyc1vZc5pq and c

45 http://wurf‐field/. http://

ample measurin

ding air tempera

verage between

and $17,000 fo

er square foot.

ntial maintena

rinse off pet w

epending on the

maintenance on

with manufact

ed yarn integrit

e carpet industr

www.installitdireturf.com/en/fieldedepot.com/b/Oconversation witwww.forbes.comturf.uark.edu/tu

ng a surface t

ature was note

n $7 and $17 p

or the initial ins

nce costs of a

aste or food s

e usage and ma

n natural turf.45

urers and insta

ty are generally

ry and specific t

ct.com/artificial‐dturf‐difference/Outdoors‐Outdooh staff at Heaven/sites/mikeozanurfhelp/archives/

temperature of

ed at 85 degree

er square foot

stallation. Instal

rtificial turf inc

pills, additional

aintenance sche

allers but usual

y covered by th

to artificial turf,

‐turf/how‐much/cost‐analysis. or‐Recreation‐Panly Greens, Grasian/2014/09/28/021109.html.

REVIEW

f 125 degrees

es with a slight

installed.44 For

llation of natura

clude irrigation

l infill, chemica

edule, these co

ly cover UV de

e yarn and com

do not cover "

h‐does‐artificial‐g

arks‐Playsets‐Plass‐Tex and Easy‐T8/how‐taxpayers

W OF LANDSCAPING S

after sitting i

t breeze.

a 1,000‐square

al turf, by comp

n for spraying

al disinfectants,

osts may be clo

egradation, fibe

mponent manuf

wear and tear."

grass‐cost‐to‐ins

ayhouses‐Park‐FTurf on Septembs‐get‐fooled‐on‐t

STANDARDS & USE OF

in the direct s

e‐foot lawn this

parison, can ve

down weekly,

, and drainage

se to or above

r strength, stab

facturers warra

"

stall/.

urnishing‐Artificber 15, 2015. the‐cost‐of‐an‐a

ARTIFICIAL TURF

un for two

equates to

ry between

during hot

repair and

the cost of

bility of the

nties. Most

cial‐Grass/N‐

rtificial‐


Because the fiber and backing, manufacturer's components make up the vast majority of materials used to create the

finished product, if something, other than workmanship fails, the manufacturer has to rely upon their warranties, in

getting relief for any claims. The component manufacturer's maximum warranty coverage period for lawn and

landscape artificial grass yarn fibers and backings is up to eight years.46

Maintenance

Most homeowners will need to lightly rinse down their artificial lawns once per week to clean off accumulating dust

and dirt. Turf used by outdoor pets or children, or surrounded with ample trees and shrubs, will require more

frequent cleaning. Several manufacturers recommend a more thorough artificial grass cleaning, performed by

professionals on a monthly basis, to help keep the artificial lawn green, clean and inviting. Large turf areas should be

broomed with a power broom 2‐3 times a year.

With pets, once any solid waste has been removed, it is then necessary to spray down the area in which any pet

waste was located.47 The area may then need to be sanitized and deodorized. Some dog owners with artificial turf

have found this to be a concern.48

Gophers

One consideration for the City of Glendale residents may be the presence of gophers. According to manufacturers of

artificial turf, “Gophers CAN and WILL bore through the base and the turf itself. In order to prevent this, several

options are available. A chicken wire or gopher wire must be used, and installed in the proper place. In order to be

most effective, the gopher wire must be inserted below the compacted base.”49 A gopher hole effectively destroys

the artificial turf lawn, creating a damaged section that cannot be patched, but requires the whole lawn to be

replaced. Gopher holes are usually not covered under warranties.

Additional maintenance concerns include:

Weeds Growing Through or Underneath Turf. Using a weed barrier will block most of the weeds from growing

through, but wind and birds can drop seeds in the area which may sprout if they are not cleaned up periodically.

Rotting Organic Material and Debris. Leaves, dead flowers, and dead weeds will decompose on top of the turf if

not removed periodically, providing a perfect medium for weed seeds to sprout.

Food, Beverages, and Pet or Bird Waste. Any time a beverage spills on the turf, or dogs or birds leave feces, it will

stick to the turf surface until washed off. A specially treated infill material is often recommended for owners with

pets that regularly go on the turf, with frequent reapplication. The composition of this material and potential

toxicity is unknown.

Weather (Rain, Wind). The rain and the wind will move the infill or blow some of it away. A shag carpet rake or

stiff broom can be used to move the infill back into place; however, infill will need to be added annually.

Heavy Use. The artificial turf is attached to the ground with glue and nails. It may be necessary over time to push

the nails back down or to re‐glue some of the corners to prevent further damage to the turf. It is also important

to use a push broom and sweep the turf in the opposite direction it is laying to restore the upright blade

alignment; doing this monthly will greatly improve the turf's appearance as well as the life expectancy.

46 http://www.asgi.us/58.htm. 47 http://www.installitdirect.com/synthetic‐turf/the‐ultimate‐guide‐how‐to‐properly‐clean‐maintain‐my‐artificial‐

grass/. 48 http://marthabeth.com/fake_grass.html. 49 http://www.simpleturf.com/turf‐and‐gophers/.

http://www.globalsynturf.com/installation/.


Chemical Damage or Burned/Melted Blades. May require replacement.50

Trees Around or Near the Turf. Tree and shrub roots will grow under the turf and may need to be trimmed to

avoid penetrating the surface of the turf. Artificial turf should not be installed under the canopy of existing trees

to protect their root zones from compaction.

Property Value Impacts

Opinions vary regarding the effect of artificial lawn installation and property values. The National Association of

Realtors does not see a definitive trend on artificial turf impacting home values, but lists the following considerations:

Pros:

The perceived “green” or “eco” perspective of artificial lawns

Eliminates need for lawn chemicals and pesticides

Low maintenance

Color stays green year‐round

Major improvements in artificial turf look over the last several years

Cons:

Heat ‐ surface and ambient

Lead or other harmful chemicals in blades and infill material

Stigma that artificial lawns are “tacky”

Increased risk of injury51

Legislative Overview

A number of State Assembly and Senate bills that could influence and increase the installation of artificial turf are

under consideration:

AB349: (amended in the Senate) would prohibit HOA fines for replacing lawns with artificial turf.

AB1164: (amended and referred to committee52) would prohibit a city from enacting or enforcing any ordinance or

regulation that prohibits the installation of artificial grass or artificial turf on residential property.

SB759: (amended in Senate 2011) provides that a provision of any of the governing documents of a common interest

development shall be void and unenforceable if it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting,

the use of artificial turf or any other artificial surface that resembles grass. This prohibition would not prohibit an

association from applying landscape rules and regulations established in governing documents that establish design

standards and quality standards for the installation of artificial turf, or any other artificial surface that resembles

grass, to the extent the rules and regulations do not prohibit the use of artificial turf or any other artificial surface that

resembles grass.

SB47: (currently held in committee) would require the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, by July 1,

2017, in consultation with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, the State Department of Public

Health, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control, to prepare and provide to the Legislature and post on the

office's Internet Web site a study analyzing artificial turf, as defined, for potential adverse health impacts.

50 http://www.simpleturf.com/artificial‐lawn‐turf‐maintenance‐warranty/. 51 http://infocentral.blogs.realtor.org/2013/04/12/do‐artificial‐lawns‐impact‐home‐values/. 52 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1164/id/1250798.


City of Glendale Ordinances and Plans

Glendale’s plans, ordinances and guidelines define the multiple goals and objectives for City growth and change,

while also listing specific requirements for new construction and renovations. Documents that provide guidance and

perspective on the use of artificial turf in the landscape include:

Glendale Municipal Code

Chapter 12.40 City Street Trees

This chapter establishes regulations and standards to promote the benefits of a healthy urban forest. Section

12.40.030 Duties and Prohibitions states that it is unlawful for any person to cause or allow damage or interference

with the roots systems of any city street tree with the application of any paving materials. Installation of artificial turf

requires removal of the top four inches of soil and compaction of base materials to 90 percent, which is equivalent to

pavement installation. In addition, this compacted base layer prohibits percolation of surface water down to the

established root system.

Chapter 16.08 Subdivision Design Standards

This chapter focuses on the preservation of primary and secondary undeveloped ridgeline areas within the City as a

“precious scenic resource.” Slope revegetation must use a “naturalizing plant palette,” as defined in the hillside

development landscape guidelines. Section 16.08.270 Passive Heating or Cooling states that the subdivision shall

provide to the extent feasible for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. As described elsewhere in

this document, artificial turf has been documented to increase ambient temperatures significantly.

Chapter 30.31 Landscaping

Artificial turf is specifically prohibited in this chapter in ROS and R1R zones and may not be installed in R1 zones

where it would be visible from the public street immediately adjacent to the property. Artificial turf is also not

allowed under tree canopies and is not considered as a live plant material. The code requires that 40 percent of the

total lot areas be permanently landscaped open space and more than 50 percent of that areas must be live plant

material. In all multi‐family, commercial, industrial, mixed use, CE and MS zones, artificial turf may not be installed

where it would be visible from the public street immediately adjacent to the property.

Chapter 30.32.160 Landscaping of Parking and Loading Areas

Artificial turf is not permitted in any landscaped areas adjoining the street right‐of‐way nor within the interior parking

lot landscaping.

Greener Glendale Plan: The City of Glendale’s Sustainability Plan

The Greener Glendale Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2012, outlines a comprehensive framework for a more

sustainable City and adapting to climate change while also addressing State legal requirements, per AB 32, to reduce

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

The report includes two volumes: Municipal Operations and Community Activities. The latter volume acknowledges

that the community’s actions will play a much larger role in achieving the City’s sustainability and GHG reduction

goals and defines a comprehensive set of goals and objectives organized within the seven key topic areas described in

the United Nations Urban


Environmental Accords: Urban Design, Waste, Energy, Urban Nature, Water, Transportation, and Environmental

Health.53 Glendale added two additional topics to their framework: Cross‐Cutting Approaches and Economic

Development.

Within each of these topic areas, numerous objectives were defined, with several strategies for implementation. As

shown on Table B‐1, objectives and strategies described in the Greener Glendale Plan (GGP) that are not supported

by the installation of artificial turf include:

Table B‐1 Summary of Greener Glendale Plan Goals and Strategies Related to Artificial Turf

Goal/Strategy Comments

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Objective ED 4 – Raise Glendale’s profile as a forward thinking, “green” city.

Strategy ED 4 – A: Expand promotion of Glendale’s

sustainability initiative brand, “Greener Glendale.”

Per environmental data and other "Greener Glendale"

goals, artificial turf does not promote this Objective.

URBAN DESIGN

Objective UD3 – Consider expansion of the City’s Green Building Standards.

Strategy UD3‐C: Increase requirements for utilization

of cool paving and cool roofing.

Artificial turf is not a cool surfacing and can reach

temperatures in excess of asphalt.

Strategy UD3‐D: Increase requirements for utilization

of permeable and natural landscaping.

Artificial turf compacts soil, preventing or highly

limiting infiltration.

Objective UD5 – Incorporate Greener Glendale sustainability concepts into Community Plans and other General

Plan documents.

Two items that relate to landscaping:

4. Encourage the retrofit of existing development to

increase energy and water efficiency, reduce waste,

reduce use of toxics, and increase the use of natural

landscaping including native trees and plants.

Encourage new development to build to these

standards.

Artificial turf does not support these goals.

6. Work toward achieving Zero Waste in the

community.

Artificial turf is not a zero‐waste product.

WASTE

Objective WS1 – Promote Zero Waste through community education and outreach.

Strategy WS1‐B: Promote “deconstruction”/salvaging

of materials in all remodeling projects.

Limited ability to reuse artificial turf once installed in

place.

Strategy WS1‐C: Work with developers and builders to

incorporate materials and furnishings made from

recycled content.

Limited availability of artificial turf with recycled

content.

Artificial turf is not renewable.

Objective WS2 – Reduce use of disposable, non‐renewable product

URBAN NATURE

Objective UN2 – Increase Glendale’s tree canopy coverage by 20,000 trees by 2035.

Strategy UN2 ‐ B: Ensure trees are planted in at least

50 percent of all sidewalk planting sites. Artificial turf is not recommended under trees.

Objective UN3– Implement programs to increase biodiversity in Glendale.

53 http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2656&ArticleID=8900.


Goal/Strategy Comments

Strategy UN3 ‐ B: Encourage and promote diverse

landscaping palettes instead of monoculture. Artificial turf does not enhance biodiversity.

Strategy UN3 ‐ D: Encourage citizens to provide habitat

for wildlife in their yards and gardens. Artificial turf does not provide habitat.

WATER

Objective WT1‐ Reduce community water consumption through promotion, education, and outreach campaigns.

Strategy WT1‐B: Encourage natural, low‐water use

landscaping in yards and parkways – natural landscape

supports urban nature, reduces urban heat island

effect, helps clean water runoff, and has a cleaner life‐

cycle (e.g. reduced or no fossil fuel based energy or

materials to produce, does not emit artificial toxins,

creates a biodegradable waste product, etc.) than

artificial landscaping.

Artificial lawn does not support this strategy.

Objective WT4‐ Facilitate and coordinate community water conservation projects.

Strategy WT4‐A: Replace lawns in any public parkways

(parkways adjacent to private property are the

responsibility of the property owner) with native and

low‐water use plants.


Strategy WT4‐B: Utilize low‐water use landscaping in

public works projects and on public rights‐of‐way.


Objective WT5‐ Implement stormwater runoff management practices to protect water quality and replenish local

groundwater supplies.

The following measures also have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the energy

required to import water and by increasing urban nature (which absorbs GHGs and reduces heat):

Strategy WT5‐B: Promote and encourage the use of

permeable paving.

Artificial turf compacts soil, preventing infiltration.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

Objective EH1 – Reduce use of toxics city‐wide

Strategy EH1 ‐ B: Implement an education and

outreach program to curb the use of toxic products in

gardening and landscaping.

Toxicity of some artificial turf requires more research.

Health, Safety, and Environmental Findings

Environmental and public health concerns over the installation of artificial or synthetic turf (ST) continue to be

discussed and reviewed. Meanwhile, there is a need for further data and research to verify and validate claims that

artificial turf is not hazardous. Issues of concern are discussed below and include chemical exposure, thermal effects,

microbial exposure, climate change, urban heat island effect, and water quality. A summary of these concerns are

listed on Table B‐2.

Chemical Exposure

Although numerous studies concerning the health and safety of artificial turf use have been conducted, most

represent only partial assessments of the environmental and human health risk potential.16 Review of the literature

found no long‐term health or environmental risk studies of chemical exposure levels associated with artificial turf.

The lack of long‐term exposure information in the available literature leaves significant gaps in knowledge of the true


and full effects of artificial turf use.54 Adding to the confusion over the safety of artificial turf products are

manufacturers who use coconut fiber and cork claimed to be environmental friendly and without health risks but lack

the rigorous scientific studies to support these claims.

To illustrate the need for caution, results from an investigation conducted by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment

Station reported by Environment & Human Health, Inc. (EHHI)54 – the most complete report on the topic identified in

the preparation of this report found that in‐fill recycled rubber tire crumb used in the manufacture of artificial turf

resulted in repeat confirmatory exposure to benzothiazole, butylated hydroxyanisole, n‐hexasecane, and 4‐(t‐octyl)

phenol. All four of the chemicals have recorded health effects including acute and chronic irritation of the lungs, skin,

and eyes. The same study reported the presence of measurable levels of metals including selenium, lead, cadmium,

and most notably high concentrations of zinc in artificial turf.54

Investigation of reported allergic reactions, thyroid, liver, kidney, respiratory, endocrine, neurologic and

developmental disorders as well as cancer associated with artificial turf exposure need to be researched

comprehensively to determine whether a causal relationship exists. Health assessments that indicate de minimis risk

should not be applied to artificial turf. 54

In short, as noted by EHHI, none of the available artificial turf studies are sufficiently robust to be used in a public

health safety evaluation. 54

In addition, lead exposure from contact with artificial turf has been an ongoing concern. Manufacturers agreed to

reduce the amount of lead in artificial turf after the California Attorney General's office filed a suit alleging that the

companies failed to provide adequate warning about potentially harmful substances. Attorneys are continuing to

investigate possible suits for people who have been regularly exposed to artificial turf (such as on a soccer field or

playground) and were diagnosed with cancer.55,56

Given the limited state of our artificial turf environmental and health risk knowledge, particularly related to long‐term

exposure effects, application of the “Precautionary Principle”57 should be given utmost consideration in policy‐making

decisions about its widespread use in the landscape.

54 Brown, D. et al., 2007. Artificial Turf: Exposure to ground‐up rubber tires. Environment & Human Health, Inc., New

Haven, CT. (www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/turf_report07.pdf). 55 http://www.classaction.org/artificial‐turf‐lawsuit. 56 http://www.artificialturflawsuit.com/. 57 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle.


Table B‐2 Summary of Health & Safety and Environment Concerns and Findings RelatedtoIn‐fillArtificialTurf

Concern Summary Finding

Health & Safety

Thermal

Effects

Increased surface temperature associated with artificial turf is an ongoing concern. 25,58,59

Methods to mitigate high temperatures, including irrigation, are temporary.28,25

No prolonged temperature mitigation (sustained lower temperatures of 20‐30ºF) has been

substantiated by scientific investigation.12,13,14

Health & Safety

Chemical, Particulate

Exposure & Flammability

Acute and chronic irritation of lungs, skin, and eyes from Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

off‐gassing has been documented by confirmatory studies.28

Measurement of PM10, PM2.5, and ultra‐fine particles are needed to determine inhalation and

ingestion risk.25

A complete review of flammability is needed including an analysis of smoke produced from

burning. Artificial turf should be considered potentially flammable.25

Zinc has been documented as a metal concern.28,25,60

Health & Safety

Exposure to

Infectious

Agents

Increased skin cuts and abrasions resulting from artificial turf pose an opportunity for

infection.28,29

The presence of feces, blood, and other bodily fluids represent a health risk that needs

additional investigation.

Increased exposure to S. aureus and other infectious bacterial agents has not been

conclusively linked to artificial turf.29,25

Environment

Climate Change/Heat

Island Effect

The Athena Institute CO2 impact model suggests that use of artificial turf should be minimized

and confined, and that artificial turf be recycled when replacement is needed.25

Extended periods of intense sunlight could raise artificial turf temperatures to urban heat

island levels.25

Artificial turf increases CO2 emissions and heat absorption.25

Environment

Water Quality &

Ecosystem

Health

Zinc in artificial turf leachate entering stormwater repeatedly violated the CT acute aquatic

toxicity concentration of 65ug/l.25,61

No relevant studies of ecosystem effects related to artificial turf were identified, except for

recognition of ecosystem factors to consider when evaluating artificial turf including soil

carbon sequestration, soil health, stormwater infiltration, partitioning and solute flow in soil,

biodiversity, and habitat fragmentation.25

58 Center for Sports Surface Research. 2012. Synthetic turf heat evaluation‐progress report. Department of Crop and

Soil Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University. 59 Serensits, T., McNitt, A. and D. Petrunak. 2011. Human health issues on synthetic turf is the USA. Proceedings of

the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Jrnl of Sports Engineering and Technology. 60 Brown, D. et al., 2007. Artificial Turf: Exposure to ground‐up rubber tires. Environment & Human Health, Inc., New

Haven, CT. (www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/turf_report07.pdf). 61 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Final Report: Artificial Turf Study – Leachate and

Stormwater Characteristics.

16 Appendix B

Th

Su

w

st

Th

in

ar

te

ar

En

su

W

at

su

pe

fie

Ex

So

hermal Effects

urface tempera

atered to reduc

tandard crumb

he thermal effe

the scientific

rtificial turf ind

emperatures re

rtificial turf in t

nvironmental H

urface temperat

While mitigation

ttention given t

uch claims.66 Un

eriod of time,

elds.67

xamples of Temp

62 Williams63 McNitt e64 Pen Stat65 http://w66 Center f

oil Sciences, The 67 http://e

atures can reac

ce the surface t

rubber can miti

cts associated w

literature. Alth

dustry that use

ported in exce

the landscape

Health Specialty

tures above 122

of surface tem

to product des

ntil temperatur

surface temper

perature Variatio

s and Pulley, 200et al., 2008. te’s Center for Swww.ncbi.nlm.nifor Sports SurfacPennsylvania Stcologyartisans.c

h up to 200°F6

temperatures, t

gate this to som

with artificial tu

hough debate e

e of the produ

ss of 150°F (an

is a major con

y Unit at Moun

2°F can cause s

mperature incre

ign features aim

res can be redu

rature will rem

on by Surface Typ

02.

ports Surface Syh.gov/pmc/articce Research. 201tate University. com/artificial‐gra

62 on most artif

they quickly reb

me extent, but t

urf artificial turf

exists over the

uct does result

nd up to as hig

ncern.2 Accord

nt Sinai School

kin injuries, so t

eases has been

med at reducin

uced by at leas

main a major he

pe

ynthetic Turf Heales/PMC22650612. Synthetic tur

ass/. Photo L.B. M

REVIEW

ficial turf durin

bound to near

temperatures c

f are arguably th

extent of ther

t in an increas

gh as 200°F), th

ding to Joel Fo

of Medicine,

this is a real con

a focus of man

ng this effect, n

st twenty or th

ealth, safety, a

at Evaluation –Pr67/. rf heat evaluatio

McCarty, Clemso

W OF LANDSCAPING S

g peak heating

pre‐irrigation le

an still reach 16

he most signific

rmal effects, th

se in surface t

he safety of pe

orman, medical

“Exposures of

ncern.”65

nufacturers, wit

no scientific rep

irty degrees Fa

nd environmen

rogress Report.

on‐progress repo

on University.

STANDARDS & USE OF

g hours. While

evels.63 Alterna

67.3.64

cant and best d

here is recognit

temperature. W

ople and pets

l director of th

ten minutes o

th considerable

ports exist to s

ahrenheit for a

ntal issue on a

ort. Department

ARTIFICIAL TURF

turf can be

tives to the

ocumented

tion by the

With tested

exposed to

he Pediatric

r longer to

e marketing

ubstantiate

n extended

rtificial turf

of Crop and


Microbial Exposure

The presence of microbes is ubiquitous both in individuals and the environment. While it has been suggested that

artificial turf increases exposure to bacterial/staph infection, a well‐researched Study Group report prepared for the

San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission on artificial turf playfields found no evidence to support the greater

staph infection risk claim.25 Not discussed however, and open to debate given the limited literature available, is

whether feces, blood and other bodily fluids (human and animal) may persist in artificial turf and pose a potential

public health hazard. Investigations of human pathogens other than staph bacteria, particularly molds and fungi, need

to be conducted to determine if artificial turf is a vector for disease transmission of this type.

Climate Change

As stated earlier, the Greener Glendale Plan outlines an aggressive strategy for achieving the required GHG

reductions by 2020 and other adaptations to climate change. The debate over the use of natural versus artificial turf

can be evaluated by the accumulative contributions to GHG emissions. The Study Group report prepared for the San

Francisco Recreation and Park Commission concluded that if the Athena Institute model68 is correct and broadly

applicable to artificial turf, it strongly suggests that the use of artificial turf should be minimized and confined to the

sites where its other benefits are maximized. It also highlights the need to recycle artificial turf when it needs to be

replaced.69

Other factors to consider in looking at climate impacts of artificial turf versus irrigated lawn scenario when applied to

residential, commercial or industrial uses include:

Emissions associated with fuel used in mowing/maintenance equipment.

1. Water usage and associated energy used for pumping.

2. Loss of the soil carbon sequestration benefit in the artificial turf scenario.

3. Emissions associated with pesticides and fertilizers in the grass scenario.

4. Any emissions associated with disposal of waste in either scenario (presumably the grass clippings are being

composted which would address this in that scenario).

5. On the adaptation to climate change impacts side ‐ ability to absorb stormwater.

Urban Heat Island Effect

Urban heat islands are created, in part, when natural areas are replaced by impervious surfaces such as rooftops and

asphalt, which absorb heat during the day, and then re‐release this stored heat at night, contributing to warmer

urban temperatures.70 Artificial turf materials are also impervious, and surface temperatures are higher than natural

grass. These increased temperatures from artificial turf can significantly raise the ambient temperature around the

home or building. According to Stuart Gaffin, Research Scientist at the Center for Climate Systems Research at

Columbia University, the effect is the equivalent of “putting a parking lot around your house.”71

Urban heat islands are identified as a concern because they can lead to an increase in the demand for energy for air

conditioning, intensify air pollution due to increased heat, and increase heat‐related health problems. In recent years

68 http://www.athenasmi.org/. 69 San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. 2008. Artificial Playfields Task Force Findings and Department

Recommendations Report to San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission. 70 http://www.epa.gov/hiri/resources/pdf/CoolPavesCompendium.pdf. 71 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion‐la/la‐ol‐california‐drought‐lawn‐fake‐grass‐20141111‐

story.html#page=1.


there has been a popular movement to create “living roofs” such as the one on the California Academy of Sciences

museum in Golden Gate Park, to lessen the heat island effect caused by standard roofing material.25

Due to increased carbon dioxide emissions and heat absorption of artificial turf when compared to natural grass, the

use of artificial turf should be balanced against the benefits, criteria should be developed for selecting suitable

installation sites, impacts can be reduced through offsets, site selection should maximize its benefits, and, if possible,

artificial turf made with recycled materials should be used to reduce overall emissions compared to virgin material.25

WaterQuality

Studies reviewed show that concentrations of heavy metals in leachate from artificial turf and/or materials used in

artificial turf (i.e. crumb rubber from recycled tires, tire shreds, etc.) can exceed national and state water quality

standards 25 (zinc up to 14x the national standard in one test), however the concentrations decreased to safe

standards after a few months.25

Additional studies found that toxic substances that leached were very localized and did not affect a large area.25 It

was emphasized that, while there may be some water quality impairment from metals, PAHs, and toxics, these

impacts pale in comparison to the leaching of tire scrap storage in landfills.25

The Study Group found that more evidence is needed about the resultant environmental effects of artificial turf

leachate. Because of this unknown, the Study Group found that turf leachate risks could be lessened by locating

artificial fields in locations that do not flood and by lining the fields so that leachate could be collected and diverted

into the wastewater system, allowing it to be processed by the City’s wastewater treatment facilities. The Study

Group also discussed the possibility of installing turf only after leachate concentrations have declined to lower

levels.25

The only potential risk to surface waters identified in the stormwater collected from the artificial turf fields is zinc,

since it was the only chemical parameter that was detected above the acute aquatic life criteria of 65 ug/l. Acute

toxicity is assumed to occur when the zinc concentration in‐stream exceeds 65ug/l for one hour in any three year

period. In three of the eight stormwater samples analyzed, zinc concentrations were detected at 130, 150 and 260

ug/l, well above the acute aquatic life criteria. It is important to note, that the three stormwater samples with acutely

toxic levels of zinc were also determined to exhibit aquatic toxicity (<90 percent survivorship) for both species

PimeTabphalespromelas and Daphnia pulex in the whole effluent toxicity testing.72 This would be of concern for any

nearby by waters covered under the Clean Water Act.

Conclusion

The installation and use of artificial turf has drawn mixed and at times polarized opinions from the public. While there

are potential benefits to property owners installing artificial turf, many of the environmental and public health

concerns are not sufficiently addressed in current literature to ensure the positives outweigh the negative impacts.

Both are summarized below.

Potential Benefits to Property Owners

No need to mow.

Consistent manicured appearance.

Reduced water use – water is required to wash off regularly for cleaning and cooling.

Reduced chemical use – chemicals may be required to eliminate biohazards from pet feces.

72 FINAL REPORT Artificial Turf Study Leachate and Stormwater Characteristics; Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection.


Environmental and Public Health Concerns

Heat gain contributes to the urban heat island effect; potential injury from skin exposure.

Off‐gassing of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and related health and air quality concerns.

Sanitation.

Disposal of excavated turf at landfills and artificial turf at the end of its useful life.

Compaction of soil eliminates the carbon sequestration capacity of living soils and prevents.

Living Lawns, Drought Tolerant Landscapes, and Artificial Turf Comparison

When comparing artificial turf to natural turf, the economic and environmental benefits of a living lawn appear to

outweigh the advantages of installing artificial turf. A living lawn is not inherently water wasting and is still a possible

landscape solution within the latest State regulations. Per the July 2015 State Model Water Efficient Ordinance

(MWELO), residential landscapes can have 25 percent to 49 percent of the landscape in turf with low or very low

water use for the remaining plantings. Nonresidential landscapes can have 10 percent to 37 percent of the landscape

in turf with low or very low water use for the remaining. Unlimited amount of recreational lawns are also allowed.34

Lawns have traditionally wasted water due to overspray, runoff and poor spray head distribution that requires

overwatering to cover the entire area.

Water savings can significantly increase when switching to a climate appropriate landscape. A drought tolerant

landscape irrigated with a drip system operating at .81 irrigation efficiency, which is the measurement of the amount

of water beneficially used divided by the amount of water applied,73 can use less than one‐third the amount of water

needed for an efficiently irrigated lawn. In addition, there are many green groundcovers and turf alternatives that

require less water than a standard lawn.

The multiple benefits of a living landscape include cooler temperatures, potential urban wildlife habitat, healthy soils

that can sequester carbon, stormwater infiltration, and much lower installation costs. Maintaining a lawn organically

will also eliminate concerns for contaminated runoff from pesticides and fertilizers.

73 http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/docs/E.OB_29_15_MWELO_Update_07‐09‐

%2015_Draft_Final.pdf.

Review of Landscaping Standards & Use of Artificial Turf · PDF fileReview of Landscaping...

Documents

Transcript of Review of Landscaping Standards & Use of Artificial Turf · PDF fileReview of Landscaping...