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
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
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Executive Summary 3
TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND CONCERNS FOR HOME/PROPERTY OWNERS
Sustainable Landscape Conventional Turf Artificial Turf
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
Sustainable Landscape Conventional Turf Artificial Turf
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
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Executive Summary 5
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.
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Executive Summary 7
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.
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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.
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
14 2. Summary of Research & Findings REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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.
16 2. Summary of Research & Findings REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF 2. Summary of Research & Findings 17
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.
18 2. Summary of Research & Findings REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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.
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF 2. Summary of Research & Findings 19
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.
20 2. Summary of Research & Findings REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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.
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF 2. Summary of Research & Findings 21
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
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF 2. Summary of Research & Findings 23
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.
24 2. Summary of Research & Findings REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
This page intentionally blank
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.
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
This page intentionally blank
R
AFA
A
REVIEW OF LANDSCAP
APPENDIX BFINDINGS SARTIFICIAL T
August 14, 2015
PING STANDARDS & U
B SUMMARY O
TURF FOR T
5
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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
6 Appendix B REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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;
SE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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‐
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Appendix B 9
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/.
10 Appendix B REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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.
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Appendix B 11
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
12 Appendix B REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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.
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Appendix B 13
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.
Artificial lawn does not support this strategy.
Strategy WT4‐B: Utilize low‐water use landscaping in
public works projects and on public rights‐of‐way.
Artificial lawn does not support this strategy.
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
14 Appendix B REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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.
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Appendix B 15
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
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Appendix B 17
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.
18 Appendix B REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
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.
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF Appendix B 19
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.
20 Appendix B REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING STANDARDS & USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF