Glendale City Council
June 28, 2022

 Implementing fast-acting, automatic protection schemes to detect broken conductors and de-energize before the conductor touches the ground.  Replacing distribution fuses with non-expulsive fuses to prevent inadvertent sparking as fuses blow.
 Conducting engineering studies to identify ideal locations for lightning arresters, devices designed to protect equipment from the damaging effects of lightning.

GWP has already installed throughout GWP’s electric system, but these locations will be reevaluated for effectiveness.
 Installing weather station data equipment and HD camera footage to be monitored 24/7.
 Investigate other potential areas of risk; for example, when a fuse blows, there is the potential to create sparks that can cause a wildfire.

Based upon these, and similar, criteria, each project will be evaluated for the best-fit solution, funded through the annual budgeting process, and implemented based upon priority. These efforts are intended to reduce the likelihood of GWP equipment igniting a wildfire. GWP intends to also ensure rapid and safe restoration by improving the resiliency of its infrastructure against wildfire damage. For example, in those areas especially prone to wildfires, GWP will identify wood poles that could be replaced with non-flammable (e.g., steel or concrete) and/or taller poles. This type of action would not necessarily prevent wildfires, but it would speed restoration after a wildfire.

These activities will be on-going and are subject to adjustment, depending upon the results of GWP’s investigations and studies.

Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Efforts
Prioritization of wildfire mitigation efforts includes tailoring GWP’s O&M resources to meet or exceed state utility standards to minimize the risks posed by vegetation and equipment failure.

Funding shall be allocated through the annual budgeting process and is subject to management and City Council approval.
 Vegetation Management – Reduction of Ignition. GWP’s existing vegetation management program is on a two-year cycle, ensuring that all trees under power lines have been trimmed and/or assessed at least bi-annually. This program has historically focused on maximizing safety and reliability for its customers and employees, and will be enhanced to include intended mitigation of wildfire risk; vegetation management practices will be expanded to exceed minimum clearance requirements (as described in GO 95) by trimming trees down to the telecommunications layer and to clear hazardous vegetation in both Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones. GWP’s more aggressive tree-trimming policy may also include trimming or removing trees that could fall onto overhead power lines from above.
 Vegetation Management – Limiting the Spread of Wildfires. Reducing the risk of spreading wildfires posed by hazardous vegetation near structures is achieved, in large measure, by leveraging the City of Glendale Fire Department’s Hazardous Vegetation 148 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Program (VMP); the VMP reduces the risk of a home igniting from a nearby wildfire by ensuring that hazardous vegetation within 100 feet of the home is maintained.  Inspections. Expanding asset inspections and refining its master plan to address end-oflife infrastructure management. GWP is planning to issue a Request For Proposals (RFP) in early-2020 to solicit bids from qualified engineering firms to conduct a complete assessment of all overhead and underground assets, beginning in 2020; this assessment will include pole inspections, vault inspections, and inspections of all assets connected to (or within) these assets, including (but not limited to) transformers, crossarms, insulators, conductors, cables, landings, capacitor banks, voltage regulators, and all other attachments. This program, consistent with GO 165, shall assess the condition of GWP assets and provide a mechanism to prioritize repair and replacement. Maintaining robust infrastructure will minimize the likelihood of downed power lines or failed equipment that can spark and ignite wildfires.
 Reclosers. Modifying recloser settings during high-risk periods to minimize the likelihood of inadvertently reclosing in a high-wildfire risk area.  Equipment Failure. According to information collected by GWP staff, over 40% of equipment failures in recent GWP history were transformer failures and overhead conductor failures. GWP has instituted an on-going process to replace aged transformers, which are more likely to fail by tracking characteristics like age, installation date, manufacturer, loading factor, and size for each transformer. Currently, transformers with more than 40 service years are prioritized for replacement; this process includes an analysis to ensure new, replacement transformers maintain the proper size and loading factors. The failure of overhead conductors can ignite a fire if the line is still energized when it touches the ground; GWP is investigating technological solutions to de-energize a falling conductor before it touches the ground.
149 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

D. Metrics
To evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigation measures, GWP intends to:
 Evaluate and measure the effectiveness of this Plan by monitoring and tracking verifiable metrics.
 Establish a baseline by inspecting the condition of its transmission and distribution assets, including poles, switches, reclosers, vaults, and transformers. Based upon these inspection results, submit annual budget requests to repair or replace equipment in a subpar condition. Continue periodic inspections consistent with GO 165.  Incorporate lessons learned and institutional intelligence specific to GWP to revise this Plan.

Tracking of the initial set of metrics shall commence on January 1, 2020, or the earliest that the metrics can be tracked. New metrics shall be added, and existing metrics shall be modified or removed, as determined by GWP, to provide actionable data and feedback. These metrics are intended to provide a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the Plan over time. The metrics themselves are not as important as the trends that are quantified in the metrics; accordingly, GWP intends to prioritize its limited resources by minimizing the time spent on gathering metrics in favor of implementing mitigating measures.

As the Plan matures and its effectiveness is measured over time, the metrics will be modified and adjusted, just as the Plan itself will be modified and adjusted based upon performance, successes, and failures.

The formal list of metrics shall demonstrate results and measure the effectiveness of GWP’s wildfire mitigation and will include the following:
 After any relay event, where GWP’s protective relays automatically de-energize a feeder or transmission line, the following information will be collected during the post-mortem:

1. Did the outage ignite a fire? (yes/no)

2. If the outage ignited a fire, were first responders notified? (yes/no)

3. If the outage ignited a fire, how large was the fire? < 1 acre, 1-50 acres, 50-300 acres, or > 300 acres

4. If the outage ignited a fire, how many structures were impacted? 1, 2-10, 10-50, or > 50
 Number of trees trimmed by GWP.
 Number of poles replaced in Tier 2/3.
 Number of transformers replaced in Tier 2/3.
 Feet/miles of transmission/distribution lines moved underground in Tier 2/3.  Feet/miles of tree wire installed in Tier 2/3.
 Number of standard (expulsive) fuses replaced by non-expulsive fuses.  Glendale Fire Department average time to respond to fire incidents. 150 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

E. Metrics Feedback
As GWP monitors and evaluates the metrics described in the previous section, it should also adjust this Plan to ensure these goals are achieved. During the annual review of this Plan, the following general questions should be reviewed with respect to the existing metrics:
 Metric Not Met. If a metric was not met, determine the cause. Review the metric for appropriateness – is the metric too strict, given GWP’s resources? Are additional resources required to improve the metric performance? Will additional resources have an impact on performance, or is the return on investment minimal?  Metric Significantly Exceeded. If a metric was significantly exceeded, review the metric for appropriateness. It is possible that the metric is too easily achieved, making the metric meaningless.
 New or Obsolete Metrics. Review any proposed new metrics and determine whether existing metrics are obsolete. Experience, legislative drivers, and management priorities can trigger the development of new metrics and the retirement of obsolete metrics.  Adjustments Based Upon Metrics. Based upon performance against these metrics, this Plan should be updated to adjust priorities and goals. For example, once a known issue has been mitigated, it should transition from “active construction” to “active monitoring.” 151 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

F. Operational Practices
The City of Glendale’s operational practices are coordinated across Departments and implemented independently by each Department.

Citywide
The City of Glendale’s Emergency Response Plan8addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The Plan does not address normal, day-to-day emergencies or the well-established and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Instead, the operational concepts reflected in the Plan focus on potential large-scale disasters which can generate unique situations requiring unusual emergency responses.

The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan9provides a set of action items that, if implemented, can help reduce the risk from hazards through education and outreach programs, the development of partnerships, and the implementation of preventive activities (such as land use programs) that restrict and control development in areas subject to damage from natural hazards.

City of Glendale personnel involved in emergency response and emergency management functions are provided ongoing training, including local workshops, SEMS10 training, NIMS11 training, and other special programs throughout the year. Key management and emergency personnel also attend the California Specialized Training Institute to receive in-depth training in related emergency management topics.

GWP
Engineering and field personnel will periodically review operational practices to identify preventative strategies and enhanced operational procedures to minimize and mitigate the risk of causing and/or spreading catastrophic wildfires, both during periods of high danger as well as during normal operating conditions.

The Principal Power System Operator oversees the real-time System Dispatch function and provides on-going, topical training to all Power System Operators (PSO’s). At least two PSO’s staff a Dispatch desk 24/7 to monitor and control GWP’s electric grid while dispatching field crews to investigate and resolve problems, or to schedule work, on GWP electrical infrastructure.

8 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/other/emergency-preparednessresponse/city-emergency-plans 9 https://www.glendaleca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=48978 10 Standardized Emergency Management System, which unifies all elements of California’s emergency management community into a single, integrated system with standardized key elements. See https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oesdivisions/planning-preparedness/standardized-emergency-management-system for more information. 11 The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) National Incident Management System, which guides all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and the private sector to work together to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from incidents. See https://www.fema.gov/national-incidentmanagement-system for more information. 152 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

The Substation Operations Training Program includes training on system protection and trouble response; topics include discussions on preemptive de-energization, rolling blackouts, and automatic system protection schemes. This training is provided to all new PSO’s, as well as to seasoned PSO’s on an annual basis.

Operationally, the PSO retains the authority and obligation to de-energize electrical equipment, subtransmission lines, and/or distribution feeders in the event of a high wildfire danger. The decision to preemptively de-energize GWP equipment is described further in GWP Standard Operating Procedure SOP-021 and is based upon multiple factors, including Red Flag Warnings, system conditions, and other operational considerations. The PSO considers several factors before de-energizing overhead lines during periods of extreme wildfire danger:
 Hospitals
 Elder care facilities
 Communications equipment (e.g., cell phone towers, pole-mounted cell sites)  City of Glendale Public Works facilities (e.g., sewer)  First responder facilities, including police, fire, and local government facilities  Community information facilities (e.g., radio equipment).  GWP Water Division and Crescenta Valley Water District systems, which maintain water quality, water supply, and water pressure to residents and to the Glendale Fire Department for fighting fires.

De-energization is always the PSO’s option of last resort, given the potential impacts of deenergization as described below (e.g., traffic signals, air conditioning during high temperatures, lack of electricity to water facilities to fight fires, etc.). In the event preemptive de-energization is initiated, every attempt to minimize the number of affected customers is made by sectionalizing only the effected feeders or transmission lines.

Per SOP-021, it is GWP’s policy to preemptively de-energize overhead transmission and distribution lines and to disable automatic reclosers in the Tier 2 or Tier 3 zones during periods of extreme wildfire danger, or at other times as deemed necessary by GWP, with the intent of reducing the risk of igniting a wildfire from energized equipment.

During these periods of extreme wildfire danger, if a protective scheme (e.g., relay or recloser) automatically de-energizes a feeder, GWP crews will physically patrol a feeder to identify and clear the cause of the protective action before any attempts to re-energize the circuit are attempted.

The benefits of preemptive de-energization are offset by the challenges and potential dangers of widespread and extended power outages during periods of high temperatures. As discussed in L.

Enterprise-Wide Risks, the supply of safe drinking water, water for firefighting, infrastructure used for public safety, and the overall impacts of power outages could all potentially be 153 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

compromised. Therefore, the decision to de-energize customers must be the solution of last resort after all wildfire mitigation efforts have been exhausted.

The PSOs conduct and complete annual and periodic training on their job responsibilities, processes, procedures, and practices. This training includes their authority to de-energize customers as needed to prevent potential ignitions during extreme fire conditions, as well as during periods where there is insufficient energy supply to meet load requirements. SOP-021 is also covered in this training, including notification requirements before initiating planned deenergization of customers. System conditions can change rapidly, so in an emergency, the PSO may opt to de-energize first, then conduct the required notifications.

While the PSOs determine whether and when de-energization is necessary, the field crews work in tandem with the PSOs to conduct field switching (as necessary, and as directed by the PSOs), patrol de-energized lines prior to re-energization, and repair damage to equipment and lines discovered during patrols. This is consistent with their usual duties and is folded into their standard job responsibilities and practices.

Energy Supply and Procurement Contingencies
Should the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP), Southern California Edison (SCE), or other utilities elect to de-energize major transmission corridors during periods of extreme fire danger (which usually correlate with periods of high electrical loads), the City will be forced to procure replacement energy from alternate energy sources to meet load.

Given GWP’s load and contingency obligations during periods of peak load, the loss of a major transmission line could result in the loss of 100 MW or more of imported energy. Options to replace this energy are limited to local generation capability (e.g., Grayson) or purchases of energy that rely upon LADWP transmission. Most GWP transmission is closely tied to LADWP transmission, meaning the loss of GWP transmission likely includes the loss of LADWP transmission, further straining the local transmission grid. When GWP’s transmission capacity is curtailed during periods of high load, LADWP is unlikely to have excess transmission capacity to sell to GWP, at any price; even if GWP could find an energy provider, it would be unlikely to be delivered to the Glendale (69 kV) side of the Air Way receiving station.

The next option would be to generate the energy locally (e.g., Grayson). The proposed repowered Grayson power plant must be sufficient to accommodate the loss of 100 MW of transmission import capability, which reflects the amount of transmission capacity that would be lost if the Pacific Direct Current Intertie (PDCI) transmission line were to be de-energized.

However, should this local generation not be available when needed (for example, if the repower were to not occur), GWP would have insufficient capability to meet its load and contingency obligations while the PDCI were de-energized.
154 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

In the event GWP is unable to procure energy delivered to the Air Way receiving station or to generate the replacement energy locally, it would be forced to initiate rolling blackouts to balance its load with delivered energy. These rollouts would continue until the lost transmission capability is restored. In other words, preemptive de-energization of transmission lines, initiated by a party other than GWP, could result in rolling blackouts within the City of Glendale. In the scenario where an outside agency’s actions caused a lack of energy supply to the City of Glendale, advanced notification to customers would likely not be possible given that the energy shortage would occur with no more than a few hours’ notice, though “best efforts” would be initiated to provide notice when possible.

GWP Dispatch maintains a rolling blackout schedule that is initiated at the direction of the Integrated Resource Planning Administrator or delegate. 155 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

G. Customer Outreach
Prevention and Strategy
GWP will maintain a multi-level outreach and education strategy to create public awareness of fire threats, fire prevention, and support during a wildfire or a de-energizing event. GWP will work with the public, community leaders, and other agencies to collaboratively discuss firesafety processes regarding public safety. These collaborations will provide forums for public education and opportunities to exchange improvement ideas and practices.

GWP partners with first responders, health care facilities, and operators of telecommunications infrastructures. GWP, in coordination with the Glendale Fire Department, proactively alerts customers on the Life Support list it maintains. GWP will create and maintain a Public Safety Power Shutoff webpage for its website at https://www.glendaleca.gov/wildfiremitigation to provide information on power shut offs and fire mitigation plans, and a link to this page from the main GWP website will also be added. This webpage will be used to ask customers to update their GWP account information and emergency contact preferences, and to provide a link to both the login page to GWP account information and to the Everbridge Emergency Contact Information webpage. GWP will develop informational brochures on wildfire mitigation safety and what to do when a de-energizing event is called, referencing the website in all collateral items produced and distributed. On the dedicated Public Safety Wildfire Mitigation webpage, customers will be able to find the following information:
 GWP’s adopted Wildfire Mitigation Plan;
 Information on how GWP mitigates wildfire risk;
 Emergency preparedness tips and guide;
 Information on what not to do during Red Flag Warnings (e.g., BBQs, smoking outdoors, throwing ashes out, etc.);
 Links to any additional resources;
 Links to GWP Account Information & Everbridge Emergency Notification sign-ups;  Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQs) on the power shut-off process.

De-Energization (Public Safety Shutoff Event)
During an extreme weather event, GWP will actively provide customer outreach and support through a targeted communications strategy, with the goal of providing as much advance notice as possible. GWP will inform its customers of expected severe weather conditions and directly notify affected customers through established points of contacts such as email, phone, text, and/or push notifications. GWP will also alert customers through its social media platforms, alert the media, work with the City’s Fire and Police PIO offices and websites, and post rolling messages on local television (GTV6) and on the City’s and GWP’s websites. GWP can initiate automated pre-recorded phone calls to customers in the impacted areas, advising when the outages are called and directing customers to the dedicated GWP website for up-to-date information. Pre-recorded IVR (Interactive Voice Response) messages will have real-time recorded information informing customers that may be impacted. GWP will also post messages on its website and through its Mobile App and In-Home Digital Display program for targeted 156 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

push messaging. Messaging will increase in urgency as the certainty of a Public Safety Power Shutoff approaches. Finally, in addition to alerting its customers, GWP will also notify, as a priority, first responders’ PIO offices, health care facilities’ communication offices, and the offices of the building engineers, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and operators of telecommunications infrastructure.

For customers on Life Support, GWP, if notified, will contact these customers through phone calls. Two phone attempts will be made, and an email will be sent if there is an email address on file. If no response is received, GWP will dispatch a field crew to contact the Life Support customer. GWP will also keep local news and radio outlets informed.

Timing of notifications
When GWP determines a preemptive de-energization is required, either because another entity’s actions suddenly limits GWP’s energy supply (e.g., Southern California Edison initiates a Public Safety Power Shutoff – PSPS – on a transmission line that impacts GWP’s incoming transmission capacity) or due to the PSO’s system assessment, GWP will provide advance notifications in three phases:

1. Advance notification (when possible)
 48 hours before electricity is turned off
 24 hours before electricity is turned off

2. Shutoff notification just before electricity is turned off

3. Notifications during the event
Post event notifications will be provided to notify customers that power has been restored. 157 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

H. Vegetation Management
As described in this Plan, the majority of acreage burned by wildfires triggered by electric utilities was determined to be due to vegetation contacts and equipment failure. GWP oversees a contracted arborist that implements GWP’s vegetation management program intended to mitigate the risk posed by vegetation contacts. This program is consistent with General Order (GO) 95 – Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction, including the clearance requirements described in Section III – Requirements for All Lines, Rule 35 Vegetation Management.

GWP staffs Line Clearance Forestry Supervisors who spend the majority of their time in the field, overseeing the contractor and monitoring vegetation under GWP transmission and distribution lines. These Supervisors are typically certified arborists who identify all trees that need trimming, direct the contractor to specific trees and/or areas that require trimming, and then confirm afterward that the identified trees have been trimmed to GWP standards.

Although the highest wildfire risk is presented in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones of the City, the Supervisors monitor the entire City for dangers posed by vegetation under GWP lines.

In fiscal year 2018-2019, GWP budgeted approximately $800,000 to fund a contractor to conduct tree-trimming activities as directed by GWP staff. For the fiscal year 2019-2020, GWP has increased its tree-trimming budget by approximately $200,000 for enhanced tree-trimming activities; these enhancements may include larger clearances, expansion of tree-trimming to nearby trees not directly under power lines, and other clearing of hazardous vegetation near power lines.

As part of its risk assessment to prioritize mitigation efforts, GWP has engaged the City of Glendale’s Fire Department to leverage its Vegetation Management Program (VMP). The VMP was developed to ensure there is adequate defensible space around buildings in the wildlandurban interface. Activities include annual inspections and review/permitting of landscape and fuel modification plans for properties in the high wildfire hazard area. Property owners are required to maintain a 100-foot radius of defensible space (i.e., remove hazardous vegetation) around all property structures, including homes, backhouses, sheds, etc. The majority of GWP’s electrical assets also reside within this 100-foot radius, so even if a localized fire were ignited by failed GWP equipment, the likelihood of this fire igniting nearby buildings would be reduced.

Therefore, GWP can focus its resources on mitigating electrical assets that are outside of the zones covered by the VMP. The VMP facilitates GWP’s ability to focus on mitigation of electrical assets on a subset of its assets, potentially improving the success and rate of its mitigation efforts.
158 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

I. System Inspections
As described in this Plan, the majority of acreage burned by wildfires triggered by electric utilities was determined to be due to vegetation contacts and equipment failure. GWP leverages GO 165 requirements as a “best practice” to provide guidance on system inspections that are intended to identify failing equipment that may ignite a fire.

As part of its Master Plan, still in development as of this writing, GWP intends to conduct a system inventory that includes a system-wide inspection of its poles, streetlights, vaults, and all equipment and assets connected to, or contained within, these assets. GWP funding and capital improvement priorities will be adjusted, based upon the results of these inspections, to replace and harden equipment and assets that are flagged as requiring replacement. This system-wide assessment will commence in 2020, as conducted by a qualified, contracted engineering firm that will formally inspect and assess of all overhead and underground assets. As assets are inspected, GWP will remediate based upon these inspection results and will issue work orders to address any problems that were observed: replace poles, repair equipment, etc. The completed inspection report will establish a baseline condition assessment of system assets; this program will establish the new inspection program going forward, and GWP staff will conduct all subsequent assessments as part of an on-going inspection program, consistent with the requirements of GO 95 and GO 165.

GWP has dedicated staff who are responsible for the preventative and routine inspections, construction, installation, maintenance, and repair of all transmission and distribution assets.

Beginning with the 2019-2020 fiscal year, GWP has budgeted capital and O&M funds related to wildfire mitigation, including system hardening, substation and distribution automation, and vegetation management.

The City of Glendale’s VMP, managed by the Glendale Fire Department, includes annual inspections of properties in the high fire hazard areas of the City to ensure compliance with its defensible space standards (see Exhibit B).
159 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

J. Wildfire Risks and Drivers
The City of Glendale’s wildfire risk is driven by controllable and uncontrollable factors. The City’s topography consists of both a highly-developed urban center and mountainous open spaces with frequently dry vegetation; this diversity adds complexity to GWP’s wildfire mitigation efforts and requires a surgical approach to tailored mitigation efforts in each area of the City. Climate change exacerbates the already hot, dry weather common to Glendale, as well as the seasonal winds, as discussed in Section C. Preventative Strategies and Programs, and is assumed to only exacerbate GWP’s wildfire risk going forward, namely with respect to making dry fuel available for ignition and for spread. This Plan focuses on preventing wildfires from being caused by inadvertent vegetation contacts with, or failures of, GWP electric utility equipment. Prevention of wildfires ignited by other causes (e.g., intentionally-set fires, accidental human-caused fires, etc.) are not considered.

GWP aims to reduce the risk of starting and spreading wildfires, acknowledging that it is not feasible to achieve zero risk. To that end, GWP has adopted a risk-based approach to prioritize capital improvements, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) work, and changes to operating procedures to achieve the objective stated in Section B of this Plan.

This prioritization leverages historical data that measures the relative size (in this case, measured in acreage of burned land) of California wildfires and that describes the causes of the wildfires.

Historical data confirms that the majority of acreage burned was due to vegetation contacts and equipment failure.

To quantify the size (in acreage) of historical fires, 2012-2016 wildfire statistics from Cal Fire12 indicate:
 74% of the acres burned were due to fires initiated by vegetation contacts – i.e., trees touching power lines, causing sparks and starting fires. Plentiful brush and undergrowth can also facilitate rapid expansion of wildfires once the initial spark is provided.  The majority of the acreage burned due to vegetation contacts occurred in 2015, which skews the acreage burned due to vegetation contacts. Ignoring the vegetation contact fires in 2015, 67% of the total acres burned were caused by equipment failure – i.e., failed hardware that possibly sparked or exploded and started fires.  The majority of the acreage burned due to equipment failure occurred in 2013, which skews the acreage burned due to equipment failure. Ignoring the vegetation contact fires in 2015 and the equipment failure fires in 2013, 46% of the total acres burned were caused by lines down – i.e., energized power lines that touched the ground and started fires. Equipment and hardware failures are discussed in more detail below.

12 “2012 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2013 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2014 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2015 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2016 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” Historical Wildfire Activity Statistics (Redbooks), http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_fire_info_redbooks. (Accessed September 21, 2018) 160 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

 The acreage burned due to animals (e.g., squirrels shorting lines and starting a fire) and line slap (transmission lines touching during high winds) was negligible.

The chart below summarizes this data.

Figure 1. California Wildfires Attributed to Electric Utilities (2012-2016) GWP concurs that its own risks stem largely from vegetation contacts and equipment failure.

Equipment failures from 2009 – 2018, based upon historical GWP data, show that the largest number of equipment failures came from transformers, overhead conductors, insulators, and switches and disconnects. The chart below summarizes this data. 161 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Figure 2. GWP Equipment Failure (2009 – 2018)
GWP’s transformer-replacement program prioritizes life-cycle replacement of transformers that are over 40 years old to minimize the likelihood of transformer failures igniting wildfires.

As part of its review of assets in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones, GWP Electric Engineering has identified overhead feeder and transmission line sections at highest risk of igniting and spreading wildfires. These sections will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis for the most appropriate mitigation approach, as discussed in Section C.
162 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

K. Wildfire Zones
GWP has leveraged the tiered zones developed and mapped by Cal Fire; the Glendale Fire Department’s independent wildfire zone assessment13 correlates strongly with Cal Fire’s maps and assigns similar levels of risk to these areas. GWP does not anticipate making any changes to these maps and accepts them as provided. In addition, Section 7 of the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan contains the City’s independent assessment of wildfire risk within the City of Glendale.

CalFire’s methodology reflects the risk of a wildfire igniting and spreading by classifying each area within the City of Glendale as Tier 1 (low risk), Tier 2 (elevated risk), or Tier 3 (extreme risk).

The Fire Area Map in Exhibit A shows that, as of 2018, approximately 48% of the City of Glendale falls within Tier 2 and 14% falls within Tier 3. GWP intends to prioritize its efforts to mitigate wildfire hazards within these areas, which cover nearly 62% of the City’s area.

GWP and the Glendale Fire Department, working in concert, significantly reduce the wildfire risk imposed by hazardous vegetation:
 GWP’s aggressive, City-wide tree-trimming program, consistent with GO 95, reduces the likelihood of trees coming in contact with live transmission and distribution wires.  The City of Glendale’s Vegetation Management Program (VMP) reduces the intensity and rate of spread of a wildfire near buildings, reducing the risk that nearby buildings will be ignited. The majority of GWP’s electrical assets reside within 100 feet of structures on private property (where property owners are required to manage vegetation), so only

0.47% of the City’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 land area contains GWP electrical assets that require additional mitigation to reduce the risk of igniting a spreading wildfire; this is compared to the nearly 62% of the City’s area that is within the Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones.

By applying this risk-based approach of focusing wildfire mitigation resources on GWP’s overhead resources in
unmitigated areas, only 0.47% of the City of Glendale contains GWP assets that require additional mitigation.

By applying prudent vegetation management programs, GWP has decreased the City of Glendale’s wildfire exposure from 62% of its land area to 0.47%, a 99.5% decrease; this reduction in scope provides clear guidance on the remaining areas requiring additional wildfire mitigation. Figure 3 summarizes the impact of the existing mitigating measures, and Figure 4 graphically illustrates the level of mitigation currently in place. GWP intends to focus its added wildfire mitigation efforts and resources on mitigating the remaining electrical assets in these Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones.

13 City of Glendale’s High Fire Hazard Area map, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=50019 163 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Figure 3. GWP Assets Currently Mitigated vs. Requiring Additional Mitigation Total Assets
Liable Assets Requiring
Additional Mitigation
Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3CitywideTier 1Tier 2Tier 3CitywideReductionRequires Additional Mitigation Overhead T+D Lines
(miles) 206.2 60.6 15.6 282.4 - 9.6 3.4 13.0 95.4% 4.6% Poles / Towers 11,303 2,899 703 14,905 - 185 60 245 98.4% 1.6% Transformers 3,528 673 165 4,366 - 23 3 26 99.4% 0.6%
Pole Switches 523 108 16 647 - 10 1 11 98.3% 1.7%
Pole Disconnects / Fuses 1,098 232 49 1379 - 7 5 12 99.1% 0.9% Reclosers 28 12 3 43.0 - 1 0 1 97.7% 2.3%
Area Coverage 38% 48% 14% 100% - 0.29% 0.18% 0.47% 99.5% 0.5% Electric Meters 77,524 10,889 1,945 90,358 - 5 1 6 100.0% 0% Structures / Buildings 44,469 11,622 2,248 58,339 - 0 0 0 100.0% 0% Note: Some values are rounded to conserve space on the page 164 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Figure 4. GWP Assets Currently Mitigated vs. Requiring Additional Mitigation 165 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

L. Enterprise-Wide Risks
This Plan discusses mitigating steps and measured intended to “protect City customers, employees, and assets against the potential dangers and costs of damage incurred as a result of wildfires inadvertently initiated by GWP electrical assets and equipment.”14 These dangers and

14 See
Definitions
Catastrophic Fire See also Wildfire. A wildland or wildland urban interface fire with a fast moving front, extending over a large area (300+ acres) and/or highly destructive to lives, property or natural resources.

Hazardous Vegetation Refuse, grass, weeds, shrubs, trees, or other vegetation which are in such condition and location, or by the unique characteristics of a species, as to provide a ready fuel supply to augment the spread or intensity of a fire.

POU Publicly-Owned Utilities are subject to local public control and regulation. POUs are organized in various forms including municipal districts, city departments, irrigation districts, or rural cooperatives.

Municipal districts may include territories outside city limits or may not even serve the entire city. Cooperatives are owned by the customers they serve usually in rural areas. There are more than 40 POUs in the state that account for approximately a quarter of electricity supply in California. Most POUs are smaller than IOUs in the electricity sales and the number of customer accounts.

Red Flag Warning The National Weather Service issues Red Flag Warnings to alert fire departments of the onset, or possible onset, of critical weather and dry conditions that could lead to rapid or dramatic increases in wildfire activity.

Wildfire See also Catastrophic Fire. Any free-burning vegetative fire that initiates from an unplanned ignition, whether natural or humancaused, where the management objective is full suppression. GWP considers both ignition and spread as required elements of a Wildfire.

VMP The City of Glendale’s Vegetation Management Program was developed to ensure there is adequate defensible space in the wildlandurban interface areas between the open space and homes in its hillside and canyon communities. Activities include annual inspections and review/permitting of landscape and fuel modification plans for properties in the High Fire Hazard Area.

Overview, page 1.
166 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

costs also apply to functions and departments other than the GWP electrical division, including the GWP Water Division, Glendale Information Services, Glendale Police, and Glendale Fire.

The primary impacts of a wildfire are the potential for preemptive de-energization of one or more feeders and evacuation of high-danger areas during an active wildfire.

GWP – Water Division
GWP’s Water Division serves over 200,000 residents through 34,000 service connections to residential units and businesses and is an essential partner in public safety by ensuring sufficient water supply to the City of Glendale’s over 3,000 fire hydrants. In order to provide this service, water needs to be pumped from the various points of delivery to the end users.

Due to the topography of the City of Glendale, water is delivered by gravity to the “downtown” area of the City and pumped from this elevation up to the canyons and hills and to the northern elevations of the City. Specifically, the hydraulic elevation, or grade, of the City’s downtown is 724 feet and the highest water service elevation is at 2,483 feet, with several elevations in between. These areas primarily rely upon water storage tanks, which can supply a few hours of water for firefighting purposes to extinguish single structure fires as originally planned and designed when these neighborhoods were developed.

Many of these areas are in what could be called “native brush/urban” interfaces; reliable power to the water facilities can be restricted by wildfires or by proactive de-energization. Since the City has historically had a reliable, local source of generation at the Grayson Power Plant, the water system has not been required to install permanent back-up generation at its facilities. If electrical service to GWP’s pump stations were unavailable for more than a few hours, GWP would be unable to provide additional water to an area where a large brush fire could be occurring. It is estimated that the planning, design, and installation of permanent on-site generation to power critical water facilities would cost around $10 million; on-going maintenance and operations would be an added annual budgeted expense.

Glendale Information Services
Among its myriad functions, the Information Services Department (ISD) maintains the Citywide radio communications system. Each radio site has unique characteristics and a different degree of resiliency against wildfires and loss of GWP power, depending upon the location and the degree of load on the radio system (more transmitters or more microwave radio links mean a greater power requirement). Each site has a backup battery plant capable of running the entire radio site and, with one exception, has an on-site generator with automatic start and an automatic transfer switch. An additional generator has been budgeted for fiscal year 2019-2020, and there are plans to increase some battery capacity in fiscal year 2019-2020.

The radio system can run for several days without recharging the batteries (i.e., no generator).

ISD has telemetry to report the loss of primary (GWP) power and the status of the generator 167 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

(running or not), and they are aware of the GWP circuits that feed each site. For those sites not supplied by GWP, they have relationships for information sharing with the site owner and/or other tenants to make each other aware of planned and unplanned outages, as well as site access issues. Therefore, loss of GWP power would not have a significant impact unless the outage were to last for several days; resiliency against wildfires would be dependent upon the intensity and proximity of the wildfire, as physical access would nominally not be required to ensure uninterrupted operation.

The radio system “Master Site” is located near downtown Glendale and ISD also maintains a large battery plant, a fixed generator, and a manual transfer switch with terminals appropriate to connect to any suitable generator there.

During past power outages impacting these radio sites, ISD has recommended that GWP prioritize power restoration to GWP customers since ISD can ensure continued operation for several days without GWP power.

Glendale Police Department
Wildfires and power outages, planned and unplanned, impact the Glendale Police Department (GPD) directly (“First-Order Impacts”), other City services with Police effects (“Second-Order Impacts”), and the community in general (“Third-Order Impacts”).

First Order Impacts:

1. Diesel Backup. GPD has a 13,500 gallon diesel fuel tank, which provides no more than 95 hours of run time if the tank is full when an extended power outage begins. Typically, these tanks are not kept full and the tank volume fluctuates.

2. Loss of Data Center. GPD’s data center is not backed up outside of the City. As a result, evacuation due to wildfires or a long-term power loss that extends beyond the diesel backup means an inability to access local criminal justice records until the evacuation is lifted or power is restored. These records can include information supporting arrest warrants, involving active investigations, or related to critical missing persons – this accounts for all records-related functions.

3. Access to Fuel for Vehicles. GPD’s automotive fuel supplies require power to pump.

Thus a loss of power beyond their diesel support means the fleet is drastically limited.

They do not have a tanking capacity so would need to execute an emergency contract for fuel services in an area unaffected by power outages, or secure an emergency tanker from another source. The Los Angeles (LA) County Sheriff does not have an emergency tanker, so they would be forced to wait for a tanker from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), or they would drive somewhere to purchase fuel commercially.

Second Order Impacts:

1. Citywide Fuel for Vehicles. The City as a whole has access to 115,000 gallons of tanked diesel fuels and a limited capacity to support moving fuel supplies from site to 168 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

site. This tanked fuel would have to support all City operations. In all likelihood, mission-critical activities like Fire, Police, GWP, and Public Works would be given nearly equal priority in these supplies in the event of evacuation or loss of GWP power.

If the fuel is unreachable due to evacuations or wildfire, the capacity of this fuel is further restricted.

2. Police Radio Towers. Police radio towers use an uninterruptable power supply (UPS) consisting of batteries and generator backup.

3. Emergency 911 Calls. If the 911 system fails at the Glendale Police building or the building is evacuated due to wildfires, calls roll over to Verdugo Fire. Depending on the location, extent, and duration of a power outage or wildfire, both centers could go down or become unreachable. Neighboring agency facilities have insufficient desk space to accommodate rolling calls to them, even if GPD sent personnel.

4. Internet. Citywide data connectivity to the Internet, including GPD access, requires GWP power. If the City’s primary data center goes down, GPD loses its Internet connectivity to the outside world.

5. Prisoner Impacts. With an extended loss of GWP power, GPD would experience hindered water deliveries to the police building. They have limited supplies of drinking water, and dealing with wastewater / sewage would become an issue. With a loss of power to the police building or an evacuation, the prisoner population would need to be transported offsite and GPD could no longer hold or book arrestees locally.

Third Order Impacts:

1. Streetlights. Extended loss of power to the streetlights would increase traffic collisions and dramatically snarl traffic, especially if coupled with a localized evacuation. GPD does not have sufficient staff to manually run traffic control, even at the City’s major intersections.

2. Gas Stations. Extended loss of power to area gas stations would limit local fuel supplies, even to the extent that some residents would enter emergency situations because they are stranded. For example, kids at school may need to be picked up, or people requiring medical care may need transportation.

3. Hospitals. Evacuation or extended loss of power to area hospitals, if closure was forced, would result in patients being sent to distant facilities. Currently the limited ambulance capacity would be strained by long-range transports, impacting both GPD and GFD.

4. Grocery Stores. Extended loss of power or a mass evacuation would impact grocery stores. Reductions in food supply would impact the most vulnerable. Many of the City’s residents have limited transport ability (primarily, the elderly) who are unable to walk to the corner store for food and supplies.

5. Uninhabitable Areas. Extended loss of power could create whole neighborhoods that are not serviced by GWP – first power, then water. Eventually, these neighborhoods become uninhabitable. Based upon observations after wildfires, situations like this require increased services on the order of 300% to 500%. 169 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

6. Cellular Services. The area cellular telephone systems rely upon GWP power and have a limited battery backup. Once the battery backup fails, the cellular network breaks down and citizens will be limited in their ability to care for themselves or request aid.

Glendale Fire Department
Wildfires and power outages, planned and unplanned, directly impact the Glendale Fire Department (GFD). However, the GFD has mitigating measures in place to ensure continued operations.

1. Backup Generators: GFD has diesel backup power generators at all GFD fire stations.

There is sufficient fuel, when full, for 90 to 560 hours of emergency power generation at each station, depending on the size of the generator at the station.

2. Verdugo Dispatch: Dispatch has a UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) with a manual transfer switch to accommodate multiple electric feeds. On a full charge, the backup batteries can run dispatch operations for 10 hours. After 10 hours, dispatch will rely on diesel backup generators at Fire Station 21.
170 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

M. Restoration
GWP restores power after a wildfire or preemptive de-energization in a similar manner, ensuring the assets are in a safe condition prior to re-energization.

GWP maintains a list of reclosers that are disabled in the event of a Red Flag Warning or as determined necessary by the Power System Operators based upon system conditions. These devices are disabled during periods of extreme wildfire danger to minimize the likelihood of inadvertently sparking a fire upon automatic re-energization. Upon restoration, the reclosers will be re-enabled to perform normally.

GWP maintains a list of transmission and distribution lines that must be manually patrolled prior to re-energization, in the event the lines were automatically (e.g., via relay action) or manually (through Power System Operator action) de-energized. System Dispatch notifies GWP staff that the lines are being patrolled in anticipation of re-energization. During these patrols, GWP personnel ensure that structures and equipment are not damaged – e.g., poles are upright, conductors are attached, transformers are in place, there are no trees or other vegetation in contact with overhead conductors, etc.

During these patrols, if equipment or assets are found in a suboptimal condition, GWP personnel will coordinate to repair the equipment and restore service. To facilitate repairs, GWP maintains a minimum level of spare distribution transformers, conduit, cables and conductors, other equipment, and associated parts in its warehouse. When minimum thresholds are reached, the warehouse automatically orders a pre-determined number of units to restore warehouse stock in anticipation of the next emergency.

In the event GWP lacks the personnel, equipment, or parts to rapidly restore service, it can leverage mutual assistance and mutual aid programs with neighboring utilities. In these cases, neighboring utilities can quickly offer personnel, equipment, and parts to safely and quickly restore service to customers.
171 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

N. Plan Maintenance and Inspection Effectiveness
This Plan is intended to be a “living document,” providing guidance to GWP on funding and operational priorities, yet with sufficient flexibility to be updated based upon new data and feedback from those responsible for its implementation.

As described in D. Metrics and E. Metrics Feedback, GWP’s metrics are intended to measure the effectiveness of this Plan. As the metrics are collected and analyzed, the Plan’s effectiveness will be evaluated and, as necessary, the Plan will be modified in response to that feedback. The Wildfire Mitigation Plan Committee will meet quarterly, or as needed, to review the Plan metrics and compare against operational performance – specifically, the Committee will assess each metric and, with the benefit of hindsight and added experience, determine the metric’s effectiveness. The Plan will be reviewed annually and circulated through GWP management, City of Glendale management, and the City of Glendale’s City Council for review and approval.

This review process will include making updates to the Plan to correct any Plan deficiencies.

As discussed in C. Preventative Strategies and Programs, Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Efforts, GWP will contract with an engineering firm to conduct a complete system inspection of all poles, vaults, and associated/attached equipment. GWP staff will oversee these inspections and will assign qualified personnel to monitor and audit the inspections to ensure that they are conducted in a consistent and thorough manner. As changes to the process are required, GWP staff will be empowered to initiate those changes with the contracted inspectors. Once completed, this set of system inspections will establish a condition baseline. GWP will then use internal staff to launch an on-going inspection program, using the contractor inspection plan as a basis, to ensure system assets continue to be monitored and inspected on a regular basis. 172 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Exhibit A. City of Glendale Fire Threat Map
173 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Exhibit B. Vegetation Management Program (VMP)
The two-page VMP brochure below was up-to-date as of the date of this Plan. For the latest version, please see https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/fireprevention-environmental-management/vegetation-management-and-bush-abatement. 174 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Exhibit B. Vegetation Management Program (VMP), continued 175 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Exhibit C. Third-Party Independent Assessment
Attached is Navigant’s final Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation assessing GWP’s Wildfire Mitigation Plan, dated November 27, 2019.
176 of 1332
©2019 Guidehouse Inc.

Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent
Evaluation
Prepared for:

Glendale Water and Power
Submitted by:

Navigant, A Guidehouse Company
35 Iron Point Circle
Suite #225
Folsom, CA 95630
guidehouse.com
November 27, 2019
177 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
Page i
©2019 Guidehouse Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... iii

1. Background ............................................................................................................... 4

1.1 SB 901 – Wildfire Mitigation Plans................................................................................................4

1.1.1 AB 1054 Statutory Modifications ...................................................................................... 5

1.1 Glendale Water and Power Plan Preparation ...............................................................................5

1.1.1 Independent Evaluation Services..................................................................................... 5

2. Evaluation Scope and Approach ............................................................................. 7

2.1 Evaluation Parameters..................................................................................................................7

2.1.1 Provisional Requirements ................................................................................................ 7

2.1.2 Industry Knowledge and Regulatory Proceedings ........................................................... 9

2.2 Evaluation Approach .....................................................................................................................9

2.2.1 Statutory Compliance ....................................................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Industry Wildfire Mitigation Practices Comparison........................................................... 9

2.2.3 Value Determination of Plan Metrics .............................................................................. 11

3. GWP WMP Plan Elements ...................................................................................... 12

3.1 Objectives and Overview of Preventative Strategies and Programs ..........................................12

3.1.1 Risk Assessment & Drivers ............................................................................................ 13

3.1.2 Asset Overview & Service Territory................................................................................ 13

3.1.3 Wildfire Prevention Strategies ........................................................................................ 14

3.1.4 Response & Restoration................................................................................................. 15

3.1.5 Metrics & Plan Monitoring............................................................................................... 16

4. Industry Practices Comparison ............................................................................. 18

4.1 Mitigation Strategies Assessment...............................................................................................18

5. Results & Discussion.............................................................................................. 14 Appendix A. Statutory Compliance Matrix................................................................ 15 178 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
Page ii
©2019 Guidehouse Inc.

DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc., n/k/a Guidehouse Inc. (“Navigant”),1 for Glendale Water and Power. The work presented in this report represents Navigant’s professional judgment based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Navigant is not responsible for the reader’s use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report. NAVIGANT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. Readers of the report are advised that they assume all liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, or the data, information, findings and opinions contained in the report. 1 On October 11, 2019, Guidehouse LLP completed its previously announced acquisition of Navigant Consulting Inc. In the months ahead, we will be working to integrate the Guidehouse and Navigant businesses. In furtherance of that effort, we recently renamed Navigant Consulting Inc. as Guidehouse Inc.
179 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
Page iii
©2019 Guidehouse Inc.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Glendale Water and Power (GWP) contracted with Navigant Consulting, Inc. n/k/a Guidehouse Inc. (Navigant) to engage in an independent evaluation of its Wildfire Mitigation Plan (Plan or WMP). This independent evaluation report (Report) describes the technical review and evaluation provided by Navigant. Navigant performed this evaluation in October and November 2019 and completed the Report on November 27, 2019. Navigant’s project team reviewed detailed information related to the Plan and assessed GWP’s procedures related to the Plan.

The Plan was prepared as a response to Senate Bill (SB) 901, which was signed into law on September 21, 2018. SB 901 resulted in a number of provisions and directives, among which includes the requirement for electric utilities to prepare and adopt Plans within 2019 and revise and update the Plan annually thereafter. These requirements are codified in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 8387 for publicly-owned utilities (POUs).

Navigant evaluated the Plan based on the statutory requirements of PUC Section 8387 as it relates to POUs. This PUC Section was amended on July 12, 2019 as a result of the signing of California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 1054 into law. The POUs are now subject to the guidance provided by the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board2 and mandatory cyclical reviews. The required elements for a WMP have not been modified by this new legislation. This Report meets GWP’s requirements under PUC Section 8387(c), which mandate an independent evaluation of GWP’s Plan. The Report was developed to satisfy the statutory requirement for public review. This Report underlies the required evaluation by the Board of Directors at a public meeting, scheduled for December 17, 2019. The Report includes the following:
• Background of the legislative history requiring WMPs and their independent evaluations • Approach and methodology evaluating the Plan’s comprehensiveness • GWP’s Plan elements and their compliance with SB 901 and PUC Section 8387 WMP elements and directives
• An evaluation of the Plan’s presented metrics to assess the effectiveness of the overall Plan • Determinations and results
Based on relevant experience in grid hardening and resiliency, natural disaster response, prior experience in WMP development, and active tracking of wildfire legislative and regulatory proceedings Navigant has concluded that GWP’s WMP is comprehensive in accordance with PUC section 8387. 2 Due for implementation in 2020.
180 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

1. BACKGROUND
In recent years, California has seen an increase in utility equipment-involved, catastrophic wildfires. The unique geographic profile of California and the impacts of climate change, including continued dry conditions, high winds, and elevated heat index risk from global rising temperatures, have led to elongated fire seasons. The state is also experiencing increased levels of vegetation fuel due to the wet winters, hotter summers following a seven-year drought, and past fire suppression efforts. This increasingly abundant dry vegetation is the leading driver of wildfires. The levels of dry vegetation fuel have been aggravated by a destructive bark beetle infestation that continues to impact the health of the state’s forested areas, further increasing fire risk. These fuel-rich environments, coupled with intensified climatological conditions with high wind gusts and natural electrical infrastructure risks, produce the conditions conducive to potential wildfire ignition. The three attributes that provide optimal conditions for a fire ignition are illustrated through the graphic in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Fire Triangle
Disastrous wildfire threat is a well-known and shared priority among electric utilities in California. The recent spike in utility-involved wildfire incidents since the 2015 wildfire season and the significant financial and livelihood impacts associated with them have led to more formalized efforts to ensure safe operations of electric utility equipment and greater investment in wildfire mitigation efforts.3 Specifically, the state has approved legislation that strengthens governmental and regulatory oversight of wildfire prevention implementation activities, utility Wildfire Mitigation Plans (WMPs or Plans), and proper dispersal of state funds to wildfire victims. In an effort to minimize future devastating occurrences through risk-driven wildfire prevention, electric utilities, including cooperatives, were mandated, by Senate Bill (SB) 901 (Senator Bill Dodd, 2018), to prepare and annually adopt a WMP before January 1, 2020. This effort is foundational to the state’s prioritized goal of minimizing the potential of devastating fires in future years.

1.1 SB 901 – Wildfire Mitigation Plans
On September 21, 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 901 into law. The bill directs electrical utilities to annually prepare WMPs that include several mitigation and response elements in each utility’s strategies, protocols, and programs. Each electric utility is to prepare and adopt a comprehensive WMP 3 California Public Utilities Commission, 2019. “Fire Incident Data Reports for Investor-Owned Utilities,” https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/fireincidentsdata/.
181 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

before January 1, 2020. The requirements for publicly-owned utilities (POUs) are presented in Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 8387. Details relating to POU requirements are discussed in Section 2 of this WMP evaluation report (Report).

1.1.1 AB 1054 Statutory Modifications
On July 12, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1054 into law. This bill was developed with the consideration of the Governor’s Strike Force effort to develop prioritized strategies to help the state achieve its decarbonization goals. AB 1054 aims to mitigate the intensity of wildfire impacts through several initiatives separate from those actions required of electric utilities. SB 901 directed the Office of Planning and Research to establish a Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost Recovery (SB 901 Commission) with the goal of addressing utility wildfire liability, cost responsibility and victim support, and issues with insurance availability and affordability. On June 18, 2019, the SB 901 Commission presented to the state Legislature, findings and recommendations on the issues discussed at public workshops over the course of several months. This, in part with Governor Newsom’s Wildfire Reform Package, resulted in legislation that culminated in the provisions listed in AB 1054.

AB 1054 includes directives to establish the Wildfire Safety Division at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the state’s Wildfire Safety Advisory Board. POUs will their WMPs by July 1 of each year starting in 2020 for review by and recommendations from the Wildfire Safety Advisory Board.

No less than every three years, POUs are required to comprehensively update their WMPs. This change is included in this evaluation as a reference for future requirements.

1.2 Glendale Water and Power Plan Preparation
Glendale Water and Power (GWP) is a department within the City of Glendale. Its service territory is approximately 31 square miles. GWP’s primary goal is to provide reliable and sustainable water and electricity services to its local community. As a POU, GWP has no fiduciary obligations to shareholders and its actions and decisions are governed by the City Council and ultimately to the citizens of Glendale.

GWP prepared its first WMP pursuant to SB 901 directives. The Plan aims to address each of the required elements presented by PUC Section 8387 and ultimately reduce the risk of contributing to utilityinvolved wildfire events through Plan execution and metric tracking. GWP will post its plan to its website for public review following its anticipated approval by City Council on December 17, 2019.

1.2.1 Independent Evaluation Services
PUC Section 8387(c) directs POUs to procure services for an independent evaluation (IE) of the comprehensiveness of the WMP. In January 2020, upon commencement of the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board, guidelines and further details related to the scope and timelines of future IEs will be discussed and reviewed. In its present4 form, the provisions of PUC Section 8387 state that the independent evaluator shall be experienced in “assessing the safe operation of electrical infrastructure” and will perform an assessment to determine the comprehensiveness of the Plan.5 GWP sought out IE services to assess the comprehensiveness of its WMP pursuant to PUC Section 8387(c) prior to presenting the final WMP to City Council and contracted Navigant Consulting, Inc., n/k/a Guidehouse Inc. (Navigant) in October of 2019 to undertake an assessment of its Plan based on 4 The CPUC has just begun its investigation to develop a list of recognized independent evaluators by March of 2021. 5 It is recognized that this requirement does not yet include a clear definition of comprehensiveness. 182 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Navigant’s prior experience with assessing the safe operation of electrical infrastructure, including gridhardening and WMPs, with an emphasis on electrical equipment, public, and personnel safety.

Emergent practices will materialize as evolving legislative action and technology advances continue to shape wildfire mitigation and safety efforts. Understanding this, Navigant performed a comparison of the wildfire mitigation investments undertaken by other utilities throughout California as well as relied on the team’s experience in working directly with utilities to develop their WMPs and data collection practices along with prior experience related to gird hardening and electric safety assessments. This Report presents the results of Navigant’s WMP IE. The following section describes the methodology in executing this evaluation.

Navigant Identification of Qualifications
Navigant provides IE services throughout the United States. Navigant’s grid-related IE projects include storm hardening, wildfire mitigation, resiliency assessments, advanced technology suitability, among others. Our approach includes an evaluation of data considered, suitability of tracking metrics – both frequency and trends analysis - and an evaluation of key performance indicators. Navigant assesses the efficacy of tools for creating sufficient awareness and for effectiveness of understanding overall WMP’s intended and actual impacts. Navigant also leverages experience developing “Metrics and Benefits Reporting Plans” to gauge cost-effectiveness of activities and alignment of plans to intentions. Navigant understands GWP’s publicly-owned business practices relative to IOUs, through our experience developing WMPs for two IOUs and our continued tracking of related CPUC dockets intended to refine strategies that carry an effective Plan.6
Navigant continues to track proceedings, pending legislation, and other developments surrounding utility wildfire risk. Our team remains active with WMP engagements across jurisdictions and risk profiles. As part of maintaining high acumen of prudent mitigation strategies, Navigant participates in forums focused on innovative wildfire mitigation strategies—further expanding our industry knowledge. Navigant provides thought leadership and advisory services related to WMP and other resiliency innovative technologies to the California Energy Commission and has supported their system hardening and fire prevention efforts since 2008. Additionally, Navigant’s reach into grid resiliency and disaster-related hardening extends across the United States including island grids, such as Puerto Rico, recovering from recent, weatherrelated catastrophes. 6 Navigant provided technical services to Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) and Bear Valley Electric Service (BVES) immediately prior to and within the 2019 calendar year. The services resulted in support of the development and filing of their respective WMPs to the CPUC on February 6, 2019. Navigant continued to support BVES in development of their Data Collection for WMP report, filed on July 30, 2019.
183 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

2. EVALUATION SCOPE AND APPROACH
At the time of this IE, the guidelines and requirements were not available to POUs regarding the structure or determination of comprehensiveness pursuant to PUC Section 8387(c). In lieu of this formalized directive, Navigant completed this evaluation based on industry standard practices, our experience developing and reviewing WMPs and other grid hardening activities, our active tracking of wildfire legislative and regulatory proceedings and, most importantly, a comparison of the specific criteria in PUC Section 8387(b)(2) to the specific wildfire-related plans outlined in GWP’s WMP.

2.1 Evaluation Parameters
Figure 2 represents the attributes comprising the methodology and approach of the evaluation.

Figure 2: Contributing Factors to Evaluate the Plan

2.1.1 Provisional Requirements
As mentioned above, the requirement for electric utilities and corporations to develop WMPs emerged from the directives of SB 901 and associated statutory modifications. With respect to POUs, the nested subsections under PUC Section 8387(b)(2) outline the required elements to be included in the Plan. See Table 1 for the complete statutory compliance list.

Wildfire
Mitigation
Plan
Evaluation
Statutory
Compliance
State Wildfire
Mitigation
Practices
IOU Plan
Reference
WMP
Strategies
and
Metrics
184 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Table 1: POU Requirements for the WMP
PUC Section 8387
(as amended on July 12, 2019)
(a) Each local publicly owned electric utility and electrical cooperative shall construct, maintain, and operate its electrical lines and equipment in a manner that will minimize the risk of wildfire posed by those electrical lines and equipment.
(b) (1) The local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative shall, before January 1, 2020, prepare a wildfire mitigation plan. After January 1, 2020, a local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative shall prepare a wildfire mitigation plan annually and shall submit the plan to the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board on or before July 1 of that calendar year. Each local publicly owned electric utility and electrical cooperative shall update its plan annually and submit the update to the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board by July 1 of each year. At least once every three years, the submission shall be a comprehensive revision of the plan.
(2) The wildfire mitigation plan shall consider as necessary, at minimum, all of the following:
(A) An accounting of the responsibilities of persons responsible for executing the plan. (B) The objectives of the wildfire mitigation plan.
(C) A description of the preventive strategies and programs to be adopted by the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative to minimize the risk of its electrical lines and equipment causing catastrophic wildfires, including consideration of dynamic climate change risks. (D) A description of the metrics the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative plans to use to evaluate the wildfire mitigation plan’s performance and the assumptions that underlie the use of those metrics. (E) A discussion of how the application of previously identified metrics to previous wildfire mitigation plan performances has informed the wildfire mitigation plan. (F) Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electrical distribution system that consider the associated impacts on public safety, as well as protocols related to mitigating the public safety impacts of those protocols, including impacts on critical first responders and on health and communication infrastructure. (G) Appropriate and feasible procedures for notifying a customer who may be impacted by the deenergizing of electrical lines. The procedures shall consider the need to notify, as a priority, critical first responders, health care facilities, and operators of telecommunications infrastructure. (H) Plans for vegetation management.
(I) Plans for inspections of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s electrical infrastructure.
(J) A list that identifies, describes, and prioritizes all wildfire risks, and drivers for those risks, throughout the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s service territory. The list shall include, but not be limited to, both of the following:
(i) Risks and risk drivers associated with design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s equipment and facilities. (ii) Particular risks and risk drivers associated with topographic and climatological risk factors throughout the different parts of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s service territory. (K) Identification of any geographic area in the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s service territory that is a higher wildfire threat than is identified in a commission fire threat map, and identification of where the commission should expand a high fire-threat district based on new information or changes to the environment.
185 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

(L) A methodology for identifying and presenting enterprise wide safety risk and wildfire-related risk. (M) A statement of how the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative will restore service after a wildfire.
(N) A description of the processes and procedures the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative shall use to do all of the following:
(i) Monitor and audit the implementation of the wildfire mitigation plan. (ii) Identify any deficiencies in the wildfire mitigation plan or its implementation, and correct those deficiencies. (iii) Monitor and audit the effectiveness of electrical line and equipment inspections, including inspections performed by contractors, that are carried out under the plan, other applicable statutes, or commission rules. (3) The local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative shall, on or before January 1, 2020, and not less than annually thereafter, present its wildfire mitigation plan in an appropriately noticed public meeting. The local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative shall accept comments on its wildfire mitigation plan from the public, other local and state agencies, and interested parties, and shall verify that the wildfire mitigation plan complies with all applicable rules, regulations, and standards, as appropriate. (c) The local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative shall contract with a qualified independent evaluator with experience in assessing the safe operation of electrical infrastructure to review and assess the comprehensiveness of its wildfire mitigation plan. The independent evaluator shall issue a report that shall be made available on the internet website of the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative, and shall present the report at a public meeting of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s governing board.

2.1.2 Industry Knowledge and Regulatory Proceedings
The state’s priority towards abating future catastrophic wildfire events is demonstrated through aggressive measures, directing utilities to enhance their protocols for fire prevention, public communications, and response. That collection of information is presented in a comprehensive WMP.

While POUs are directed to develop this Plan prior to January 1, 2020, Navigant recognizes that California utilities subject to CPUC jurisdiction have filed their respective Plans on February 6, 2019.

Navigant has tracked docketed proceedings and maintains a presence in state activities and workshops surrounding wildfire prevention. Understanding that GWP is not subject to CPUC regulations, the insight gained from this related experience is leveraged in assessing GWP’s Plan relative to its risk profile and industry position.

2.2 Evaluation Approach
To perform an assessment of the comprehensiveness of the Plan, Navigant used the following described approach.

2.2.1 Statutory Compliance
Navigant sought to determine compliance with the provisional requirements laid out in SB901 as codified in PUC Section 8387. The Plan’s alignment with the statutory requirement is presented in Appendix A.

GWP’s mitigation measures are not required to exceed the statutory requirements.

2.2.2 Industry Wildfire Mitigation Practices Comparison Accepted practices for wildfire mitigation have been discussed and presented at numerous events, such as the Wildfire Technology Innovation Summit, held on March 20-21, 2019. Additionally, Plans approved 186 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

by the CPUC have garnered significant insight from the industry at large. Navigant’s understanding of an effective Plan draws on comparisons from existing WMPs and industry practices and is summarized according to business practice categories described in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Mitigation Strategy Overview
Expertise in these critical elements facilitated Navigant’s review of the comprehensiveness of GWP’s WMP. While not all of these strategies are present in or applicable to GWP’s Plan, due to GWP’s size, location, and operational characteristics, Navigant’s understanding of collected utility strategies demonstrated throughout the state are summarized below:
• Inspection and maintenance of distribution transmission and substation assets including conducting system patrols and ground inspections, using technological inspection tools, managing predictive and electrical preventative maintenance, and conducting vegetation inspections and management, vulnerability detection such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) inspection; and geospatial and topography identification, geographic information system (GIS) mapping data. A key component is identifying collected data elements through each program and understand how that data is used and shared to improve utility practices. • Vegetation management that includes routine preventative vegetation maintenance; corrective vegetation management and off-cycle tree work; emergency vegetation clearance, prioritized for portions of the service territory the lie in high hazard zones, quality control processes; and resource protection plan, including animal and avian mitigation programs. • System hardening that includes pole replacement, non-expulsion equipment, advanced fuses, tree attachment removal, less flammable transformer oil, covered wire and wire wrap, and undergrounding where cost beneficial.
• Operational practices including communications and mustering plans under varying degrees of wildfire risk. Plans to deactivate automatic reclosers, de-energization of “at risk” area powerlines based on type of facility (overhead bare conductions, high voltage, etc.), tree and vegetation density, available dry fuel, and other factors that make certain locations vulnerable to wildfire risk. • Situational awareness including obtaining information from devices and sensors on actual system, weather and other wildfire conductivity conditions, two-way communication with agencies and key personnel. Programs such as online feeds and websites such as the National Fire Danger Rating System. Situational awareness should help achieve a shared understanding of actual conditions and serve to improve collaborative planning and decision making. 187 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

• De-Energization actions triggered and prioritized by forecasted extreme fire weather conditions; imminent extreme fire weather conditions; validated extreme fire weather conditions; and plans for re-energization when weather subsides to safe levels. Manual or automatic capabilities exist for implementation.
• Advanced Technologies including Distribution Fault Anticipation technology, tree growth regulators, pulse control fault interrupters, oblique and hyper-spectral imagery; advanced transformer fluids; advanced LiDAR, and advanced SCADA, to reduce electrical ignition while also helping to mitigate power outages and equipment damage. • Emergency Preparedness, Outreach and Response communications before, during, and after emergencies including but not limited to engaging with key stakeholders that include critical facilities and served customers; local governments, critical agencies such as California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), local law enforcement agencies and other first responders, hospitals, local emergency planning committees, other utility providers, California Independent System Operator, and the utility’s respective Board. Coordination agreements such as Mutual Assistance should be leveraged. Community outreach plan should inform and engage first responders, local leaders, land managers, business owners and others. • Customer support programs including financial assistance and support for low-income customers; billing adjustments; deposit waivers; extended payment plans; suspension of disconnection and non-payment fees; repair processing and timing; access to utility representatives; and access to outage reporting and emergency communications. Consideration of languages in addition to English. Identification of priority customers, such as first responders and local agencies, health care providers, water and telecommunication facilities, groups that assist children, elderly, mobility impaired, and other vulnerable populations.

2.2.3 Value Determination of Plan Metrics
Metrics for tracking the Plan’s progress intend to allow the utility to refresh information as trends become clearer. Based upon the discussion included in the CPUC’s Phase 2 of the SB 901 proceeding docket, interests in metric development and underlying data collection are beginning to take shape. While these determinations do not directly influence the public power sector, insight has been leveraged to employ effective metrics.7
7 CPUC Order Instituting Rulemaking to Implement Electric Utility Wildfire Mitigation Plans Pursuant to SB 901 (2018) (Rulemaking 18-10-007) https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:56:0::NO:RP,57,RIR:P5_PROCEEDING_SELECT:R1810007. 188 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

3. GWP WMP PLAN ELEMENTS
Navigant reviewed the Plan elements and determined whether the activities supported the intention to deploy an effective WMP. This determination incorporated individual elements as well as underlying data sources that further described data collection methodologies and implementation procedures to ensure measures are carried out and also tracked. This understanding also informs internal reviews and subsequent updates for future Plan iterations.

Navigant found that GWP’s WMP meets the statutory requirements of comprehensiveness PUC Section 8387. In this section, we review the WMP’s elements and their purpose relative to the development and successful execution of the WMP. A table comparing each subsection of PUC Section 8387 to the significant sections of the WMP can be found in Appendix A.

3.1 Objectives and Overview of Preventative Strategies and Programs PUC Section 8387
(B) The objectives of the wildfire mitigation plan.
(C) A description of the preventive strategies and programs to be adopted by the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative to minimize the risk of its electrical lines and equipment causing catastrophic wildfires, including consideration of dynamic climate change risks.

GWP has clearly stated objectives in Section B of the WMP. GWP’s primary objective refers to minimizing the probability that GWP’s transmission and distribution system may be the origin or contributing source for the ignition of a wildfire. The secondary objective is to improve the resiliency of GWP’s electric system by assessing new industry practices and technologies to reduce the likelihood of a disruption in service or improve the restoration of service. The third and fourth objectives relate to measuring the effectiveness of the mitigating measures in the WMP and to complying with all regulations related to wildfire mitigation.

Section C of the Plan identifies and categorizes GWP’s preventative strategies and programs for wildfire mitigation into three areas:
• Capital Investments: This program of work is primarily based on system hardening strategies to upgrade, enhance, and reinforce GWP electrical infrastructure. For example, GWP is currently evaluating strategies such as insulated overhead conductors, increased conductor spacing, undergrounding, pole replacement, crossarm upgrades, insulator replacement, and transformer replacement.
• Operations & Maintenance (O&M): This program of work includes mitigation strategies related to vegetation management, system inspections, and equipment maintenance. • Operational Practices: These practices include disabling reclosers, proactive de-energization, public outreach, and other City programs that support wildfire mitigation.

These programs and strategies are discussed in more detail in the sections below. 189 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

3.1.1 Risk Assessment & Drivers
PUC Section 8387
(J) A list that identifies, describes, and prioritizes all wildfire risks, and drivers for those risks, throughout the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s service territory. The list shall include, but not be limited to, both of the following:
(i) Risks and risk drivers associated with design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s equipment and facilities. (ii) Particular risks and risk drivers associated with topographic and climatological risk factors throughout the different parts of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s service territory. (L) A methodology for identifying and presenting enterprise-wide safety risk and wildfire-related risk.

GWP evaluates its wildfire risk based on historical data related to wildfires in California from 2012-2016.

The utility found that the primary risks identified for fire initiation were vegetation contacts, electrical equipment failures and downed power lines. GWP broke down its equipment failure risk into the specific types of equipment failure to further prioritize its system hardening efforts. The risks associated with design, construction, operation and maintenance are driven primarily by equipment failure.

Section J of the Plan also discusses the topographic and climatological risk drivers in its service territory.

Specifically, GWP has both urban areas and mountainous areas with frequent dry vegetation. According to the CPUC’s Fire Area Map, approximately 48% of the City of Glendale falls within Tier 2 and 14% falls within Tier 3 or High Fire Threat Areas. GWP expects climate change to continue to exacerbate its wildfire risk and it intends to prioritize its efforts to mitigate wildfire hazards within these high-threat areas.

3.1.2 Asset Overview & Service Territory
PUC Section 8387
(K) Identification of any geographic area in the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s service territory that is a higher wildfire threat than is identified in a commission fire threat map, and identification of where the commission should expand a high fire-threat district based on new information or changes to the environment.

As described in Section K of the WMP, 62% of GWP’s service territory falls into CPUC Tier 2 and Tier 3 high fire threat areas. Exhibit A of GWP’s WFMP provides a map with GWP’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 portions of its service territory. The Glendale Fire Department also conducted an independent wildfire zone assessment and its findings align with the CPUC map designations.

The GWP plan has not identified any portion of its system which should be included in a higher risk zone than is currently established and is not making any recommendations to the expand the area of a high fire threat district.
190 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

3.1.3 Wildfire Prevention Strategies
PUC Section 8387
(F) Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electrical distribution system that consider the associated impacts on public safety, as well as protocols related to mitigating the public safety impacts of those protocols, including impacts on critical first responders and on health and communication infrastructure. (H) Plans for vegetation management.
(I) Plans for inspections of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s electrical infrastructure.

3.1.3.1 Disabling Reclosers and De-Energization Protocols Section F of the Plan describes GWP’s operational practices to preemptively deenergize overhead transmission and distribution lines and to disable automatic reclosers in its Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones during periods of extreme wildfire danger. The plan references a dispatch center that is operated 24 hours per day and staffed with dispatchers that are trained in pre-emptive de-energization and rolling blackouts.

The details of this policy are in GWP Standard Operating Procedure SOP-021: Public Safety Power Shut Off Policy. The Plan describes the general weather and fire conditions when de-energization will be considered and the consideration of impacts of loss of power to various priority loads. The SOP itself is specific to requiring the GWP dispatcher to make appropriate notifications and implement power shutoffs and disabling automatic reclosers and on its system in areas affected by Red Flag Warnings issued by the National Weather Service.

3.1.3.2 Vegetation Management
Section H of the Plan states that GWP’s vegetation management program is consistent with GO 95. GWP contracts out most of its vegetation management work; however, it does have Line Clearance Forestry Supervisors who identify the areas that need trimming, oversee the contractors, and confirm the vegetation is trimmed according to GWP standards. GWP states that the annual budget for vegetation management work was increased by 25% to incorporate enhanced vegetation management practices supporting wildfire mitigation efforts.

GWP included a description of the Glendale Fire Department’s Vegetation Management Program, which is designed to maximize clearance and minimize fuels on private and commercial property within 100 feet of structures. This reduces the likelihood of fires as well as the rate and intensity of fire spread on private land and allows GWP efforts to be focused on the higher Tier 2 and Tier 3 risk areas.

3.1.3.3 Infrastructure Inspections
In Section I, GWP references GO 165 as its guidance for system inspections. GWP’s master plan is still in development but will include a baseline inspection and inventory of all electric system equipment. This baseline inspection will be conducted beginning in 2020. In addition to using this baseline inspection to prioritize implementation of mitigation strategies, it will also be used to establish and initiate an ongoing periodic inspection program.
191 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

3.1.4 Response & Restoration
PUC Section 8387
(G) Appropriate and feasible procedures for notifying a customer who may be impacted by the deenergizing of electrical lines. The procedures shall consider the need to notify, as a priority, critical first responders, health care facilities, and operators of telecommunications infrastructure. (M) A statement of how the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative will restore service after a wildfire.

3.1.4.1 Event Communication
In Section G of its WMP, GWP describes the tools and procedures it will use to notify customers impacted by de-energization, including:
• Customer notification through email, phone, text, push notifications, social media platforms, media alerts, work with the City’s Fire and Police PIO offices and websites, and rolling messages on local television (GTV6) and on the City’s and GWP’s websites. • Pre-recorded IVR (Interactive Voice Response) messages with real-time recorded information informing customers that may be impacted.
• Post messages on its website and through its Mobile App and In-Home Digital Display program for targeted push messaging.
• Notifications to first responders’ PIO offices, health care facilities’ communication offices, and the offices of the building engineers, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and operators of telecommunications infrastructure.
• Contact Life Support customers through two phone attempts and an email. If no response is received, GWP will dispatch a field crew to contact the Life Support customer.

If GWP determines a preemptive de-energization is required, the utility plans to send advance notifications to customers 48-hours before, 24 hours before, just before, during the event and once power has been restored.

3.1.4.2 Restoration
Section M describes how GWP plans to restore power after a wildfire or preemptive de-energization. This follows GWP’s typical restoration process. Specifically, GWP maintains a list of reclosers that are disabled in the event of a Red Flag Warning or as determined necessary by the Power System Operators based upon system conditions. Upon restoration, these reclosers will be re-enabled to perform normally.

Several steps occur prior to re-energization, including:
• GWP manually patrols specific transmission and distribution lines in the event the lines were automatically or manually de-energized
• System Dispatch notifies GWP staff that the lines are being patrolled in anticipation of reenergization. 192 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

• During these patrols, if equipment or assets are found in a suboptimal condition, GWP personnel will coordinate to repair the equipment and restore service • In the event GWP lacks the personnel, equipment, or parts to rapidly restore service, it can leverage mutual assistance and mutual aid programs with neighboring utilities.

3.1.5 Metrics & Plan Monitoring
PUC Section 8387
(A) An accounting of the responsibilities of persons responsible for executing the plan. (D) A description of the metrics the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative plans to use to evaluate the wildfire mitigation plan’s performance and the assumptions that underlie the use of those metrics. (E) A discussion of how the application of previously identified metrics to previous wildfire mitigation plan performances has informed the wildfire mitigation plan. (N) A description of the processes and procedures the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative shall use to do all of the following:
(i) Monitor and audit the implementation of the wildfire mitigation plan. (ii) Identify any deficiencies in the wildfire mitigation plan or its implementation, and correct those deficiencies. (iii) Monitor and audit the effectiveness of electrical line and equipment inspections, including inspections performed by contractors, that are carried out under the plan, other applicable statutes, or commission rules.

3.1.5.1 Responsibilities of Persons Responsible for Executing the Plan Section A describes roles and responsibilities of individuals responsible for administration and implementation of GWP’s WMP. The responsibilities related to plan administration include roles for oversight, coordination between City departments, resources and funding, and review and updates to the Plan. Roles and responsibilities for implementation are specified for operations, maintenance & inspections, infrastructure enhancement and communications. In addition to individual roles and responsibilities, the Plan also establishes a wildfire mitigation committee with a role to monitor effectiveness and recommend updates based on performance and changes to regulation.

3.1.5.2 Metrics
Section D of GWP’s WMP provides GWP’s proposed metrics to monitor the performance of its Plan. The metrics are intended to result in measurable, tracked results illustrating the efficacy of the Plan through to successful implementation. Tracking these metrics will also inform appropriate revisions and updates to the Plan in future years. There are no set standards for metric development as they remain unique to a utility’s approach in fire prevention and Plan execution.

The statutory requirements for the inclusion of metrics are found in PUC Section 8387(b)(2)(D) and (E) where utilities are directed to present these metrics and address how prior metrics impact the proposed metrics for the next version of the Plan. The eight proposed metrics in GWP’s 2019 WMP (shown in Table 5 below) serve as GWP’s first version, providing no previous metrics with which to compare. These 193 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

proposed metrics meet the statutory requirements and will assist in providing insight on the effectiveness of the Plan in future years.

Table 2: GWP Proposed Metrics
Specific metric Indicator Criteria
Relay event where GWP’s protective
relays automatically de-energize a feeder
or transmission line
Count of events
For each outage meeting this
criteria, GWP will track
(1) If the outage ignited a fire?
(2) If yes, were first responders
notified?
(3) If yes, how large was the
fire?
(4) If yes, how many structures
were impacted?
Trees trimmed Count of trees
Poles replaced Count of poles
Transformers replaced Count of
transformers
Feet/miles of T&D lines moved
underground in Tier 2/3
Count of miles
undergrounded
Feet/miles of tree wire installed in Tier 2/3 Count of tree wire installed
Non-expulsive fuse replacements Count of fuses
GFD average time to respond to fire
incidents Minutes

3.1.5.3 Monitoring and Auditing the Plan
GWP plans to present its WMP to the Glendale City Council on an annual basis and have an independent evaluator review the Plan. The WMP specifies that the General Manager has authority to delegate monitoring and audit of the implementation of the Plan.

GWP will be conducting a comprehensive system inspection for baseline conditions beginning in 2020.

The results of this baseline inspection will be used to identity and prioritize deficiencies and establish implementation of corrective actions. The Plan also assigns the Wildfire Mitigation Committee responsibility to meet on a periodic basis and review performance of the plan.

The Plan’s section on metrics identifies additional measures that may be used to monitor the effectiveness of plan implementation and to make adjustments and modifications as needed.

3.1.5.4 Annual Review
In accordance with PUC Section 8387(b)(3), the WMP will be reviewed at least annually. The review will include assessments of the WMP’s programs and performance. As part of this process, GWP will monitor and audit the implementation of the WMP, identify and correct deficiencies, and monitor and audit the effectiveness of electrical line and equipment inspections, including inspections carried out by contractors. The Plan and the Independent Evaluator report will be presented annually at a public meeting of the Glendale City Council.
194 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

4. INDUSTRY PRACTICES COMPARISON
In consideration of industry-accepted and demonstrated mitigation measures, Navigant provided a comparison against approved California utility Plans where comparable to GWP’s service territory, risk profile, and equipment within the HFTD Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas. Highlighted strategies for effective wildfire mitigation are represented in Table 2.

Covered Conductors
Covered conductors are any conductors (wires) protected by layers of insulation, making the conductors protected against inadvertent contacts. These wires are designed to withstand inadvertent contact with vegetation or other debris without starting a fire.

Throughout California, and in many areas of the country, the use of bare overhead wire has been the standard. Bare wire has demonstrated a high-level of reliability in adverse weather conditions such as lightening.

GWP is evaluating current construction practices for overhead distribution lines in HFTD and will identify and implement new practices as part of their capital program. It has already purchased insulated overhead conductors for a small stretch of its line and is considering the applicability of this mitigation in other areas.

Disabling Reclosing Operations
Disabling reclosing refers to the ability to turn off the functionality of substation breakers and reclosers to attempt to isolate fault conditions and re-energize (turn back on) areas of the electric grid. Traditionally, electrical circuits were designed to automatically open and close to detect and isolate faults. In many cases, the relays would make two or three attempts to isolate a fault condition. Each reclosing attempt could cause an electrical spark, which could be a source of ignition. Disabling reclosing significantly reduces the number of potential ignition sources.

GWP maintains SOP-21 which is a protocol for operations during high fire threat conditions. In the event of a PSPS, this procedure includes disabling reclosers. Automatic reclosers are then re-enabled following the termination or cancellation of a Red Flag Warning issuance after patrolling the lines.

GWP’s approach to disabling reclosing is appropriate and consistent with the practices of other utilities.

Non-Expulsive Fuse Devices
Fuses (Fusing) refer to protective devices that defend the distribution system from faulted or damaged lines and equipment. GWP is considering using non-expulsive fuses in its HFTDs. This is consistent with the practices being performed by the other utilities in the state.

4.1 Mitigation Strategies Assessment
The following describes the scoring determinations of the benchmarking practice. Navigant weighed strategies that have been demonstrated globally, as well as from those proposed by state utilities. As expressed in Figure 4, this benchmarking practice supports efforts to determine the Plan’s comprehensiveness when investigating the mitigation measures proposed in GWP’s WMP. This assessment is designed to confirm prudent measures as proposed by GWP and did not result in any material findings that would result in non-compliance or lack of comprehensive Plan elements. 195 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Figure 4: Determinations for Benchmarking
The selected strategies represented in Table 2 include both statutory requirements that exist as industry standards for POUs as well as accepted industry practices within the state. 196 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 1
Table 2 Industry Practice Strategy Comparison Matrix
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Situational Awareness / Weather Conditions
Investing or investigating in
opportunities to procure
weather stations for
instantaneous weather
condition reporting
Having access to internal
mechanisms to track fire
conditions (high wind, dry
conditions, high heat), will
aid in responding to and
preventing potential fires by
enacting related protocols
during fire watch conditions
Especially in HFTD, weather
stations would allow GWP
personnel to have access to
real-time monitoring of these
areas
GWP is working with SCE to
determine if weather stations
could be installed in its service
territory.

GWP is investigating
opportunities to procure
weather stations.

Instantaneous weather
conditions web-based portal
and GIS data sharing
capabilities; weather
monitoring
Real-time, weather update
tracking allows deepened
awareness of the conditions
that may lead to a spark or
ignition. The weather station
servers are able to capture
and record several weather
and meteorological
attributes, allowing
forecasting scenarios and
learning experiences from
high-risk events. The
presentation and
visualization of this data
through GIS monitoring
applications will assist future
risk models and fire
prevention planning
Weather stations should
have the ability to capture
and interpret the information
sent in real-time for
operations that warrant
mitigation measures.

The Dispatch Center closely
monitors NOAA weather
reporting for Red Flag Warnings
and notifies a GWP staff via
email re: 7-day, 3-day, and 24-
hour notices for turn-off of
power.

GWP relies on the
Dispatch Center for
daily weather
notifications.
197 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 2
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Cameras with night vision
mode capability atop of
electrical structures
Visual inspections can be
enhanced through the use
of cameras with high
definition and night vision
capabilities. This measure
improves response times in
addressing risk incidents
and de-energization
GWP has facilities within
HFTD that would benefit
from additional visibility into
the regions with greatest
threat of ignition or fire
spread.

As part of its capital program,
GWP is looking into HD
cameras that can be monitored
24/7.

GWP is considering
camera installation for
additional visibility.

System Hardening / Design & Construction
Replacing bare wires with
covered conductors
Covered wire is a welldemonstrated prevention
method to sparks / ignitions
during severe weather
conditions. Several utilities
are employing pilot
programs of covered wire
replacement of distribution
lines, prioritizing HFTD for
implementation.

GWP has an applicable
overhead distribution line
within the HFTD that would
benefit from additional
hardening such as covered
wire replacement for
existing, legacy bare wire.

GWP has ordered insulated
overhead conductors for a small
stretch of overhead conductors
in high fire threat areas.

GWP is replacing bare
wires with covered
conductors in a small
area of its service
territory.
198 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 3
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
New or planned electrical
lines (distribution and
transmission) that are
designed to withstand
working loads under the
stress above design
standards to address high
wind speeds
As new capital infrastructure
plans are developed, it
would be prudent to
consider resilient design
standards that can
withstand sustained winds
and gusts that occur during
Red Flag Warning periods.

New line construction
standards are taken into
consideration in accordance
with GO95.

GWP is considering changes to
its design requirements for
electrical lines to further
mitigate wildfires.

GWP is considering this
as part of its capital
program.

Steel or composite poles
swapped out for wood poles,
at minimum, within the HFTD
or fireproofing wooden poles
(fire resistant material
coating)
When considering pole
replacement strategies,
when applicable, composite
or steel poles can reduce
the risk that wood poles
present. At minimum, fire
retardant material can be
coated to temporarily
enhance the ability to
prevent fire spread or
impact the stability of the
structure under fire threat.

While pole remediation
activities exist, such as
additional clearing, coring to
test structural integrity, and
coating mechanisms, when
new poles are considered
for high fire severity zones,
more resilient designs
should be a consideration.

As part of its capital program,
GWP is considering replacing
wood poles with sturdier poles
to reduce the likelihood of
downed poles igniting wildfires.

This may include the use of
steel poles, where applicable.

GWP is considering this
as part of its capital
program.
199 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 4
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Pole loading assessment
and remediation
Carry out programs that
address pole loading issues
and inspections that would
result in remediation to
infrastructure.

GWP must comply with PRC
4292 for pole clearing
activities for vegetation risk
and should also maintain
awareness of the decay and
structural integrity of aged or
impacted poles within the
service territory.

General Order 165 is
considered a “best practice
by many public owned
utilities. GO 165 Section III A
(5) defines "Intrusive"
inspection as one involving
movement of soil, taking
samples for analysis, and/or
using more sophisticated
diagnostic tools beyond
visual inspections or
instrument reading.

GWP has instituted an on-going
process to replace aged
transformers, which are more
likely to fail by tracking
characteristics like age,
installation date, manufacturer,
loading factor, and size for each
transformer. Currently,
transformers with more than 40
service years are prioritized for
replacement; this process
includes an analysis to ensure
new, replacement transformers
maintain the proper size and
loading factors.

GWP is consistent with
GO 165.
200 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 5
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Expulsion fuse device
change out to current-limiting
(non-expulsive) fuses
Traditional fuses pose a fire
risk due to the ignited
material that can be
expelled. Best practices for
mitigating this risk is to
change out these fuses with
non-expulsive fuses
A protective device
coordination study achieves
an optimum balance
between equipment
protection and selective
isolation that is consistent
with the operating
requirements of power
systems.

High fire threat areas would
benefit from the replacement
of traditional fuses with ones
that minimize sparks and
arcs
Electrical systems use fuses
and circuit breakers to
protect electrical equipment.

Equipment failures and other
anomalies may cause a
short circuit. Risks are
reduced within High Fire
Threat Areas when a short
circuit impacts only that
portion of the system where
the failure occurs.

GWP is considering replacing
distribution fuses with nonexpulsive fuses to prevent
inadvertent sparking as fuses
blow.

The use of nonexpulsive fuses is under
consideration but there
are currently no plans
for installation.

Tree attachment removals
This practice involves the
removal of electrical
infrastructure fastened to
trees for infrastructural
support but can be a source
of ignition. The removal of
these legacy devices may
reduce electrical spark risk.

Tree attachments in HFTD
present a risk of fire ignition.

N/A GWP does not have any
tree attachments. N/A
201 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 6
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Vegetation Management
Routine vegetation
inspections in accordance
with: Public Resources Code
(PRC) 4292 & 4393, FAC
003-4, General Order (GO)
95 Rule 35 and Appendix E,
and ANSI A300
State and federal
compliance for vegetation
management and
inspection, as well as
California Public Utilities
Commission GO 95, which
is accepted as industry
standard amongst all
utilities. (Community and
investor owned).

PRC sections 4293 and
4293; and GO 95 is required
by the CPUC for investor
owned utilities.

GWP meets the standards of
PRC sections 4292, 4293 and
the GO 95 Appendix E
guidelines.

GWP vegetation
management program
is consistent with GO

95. LiDAR Technology for
vegetation management
inspections
Where foot patrols or normal
helicopter patrols are
insufficient to evaluate the
right-of-way (ROW)
clearance, utilities use
LiDAR technology to identify
trees along the ROW border
that can potentially contact
with lines during high wind
events.

LiDAR is demonstrated as
an effective tool for
transmission level inspection
of dense vegetation within
the corridor and adjacent to
the easement area.

GWP does not have vegetation
types that justify the use of
LiDAR technology.

N/A
202 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 7
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Hazardous tree/vegetation
identification and removal
protocols and programs
Recording and tagging trees
that pose risks to adjacent
electrical equipment or are
dead/dying are considered
prudent efforts for
vegetation management
practices
Within the high fire risk area,
danger trees could pose a
greater potential to catch on
fire or contribute to fire
spread. Addressing, through
identification and surveying,
as well as implementing
remediation activities will
result in further wildfire risk
reduction
GWP does remove trees that
could fall into overhead power
lines.

GWP identifies trees
and removes them if
they have potential of
falling into lines.

Off-Cycle / Call-in vegetation
removal or corrective work,
especially during the fire
season
Off-cycle practices of
vegetation inspection and
management
Within GWP's service
territory and particularly
within the high fire risk area,
impact trees could pose a
greater potential to catch on
fire or contribute to fire
spread. Addressing, through
identification and surveying,
as well as implementing
remediation activities will
result in further wildfire risk
reduction
GWP is working closely with the
GFD to enhance vegetation
management and corrective
work during fire season.

GWP works with GFD
to perform increased
evaluation of and
management of
vegetation within the
HFTD. This is in line
with industry practices.
203 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 8
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Emergency Response & Recovery
Notify critical facilities and
public safety partners, which
may include first responders,
incident origin law
enforcement, acute health
care facilities, essential
service providers, related
governing local and state
agencies, adjacent
jurisdictions, vulnerable
populations, and the
Independent System
Operator (ISO) (for
transmission level deenergization).

Following a sequence of
events in contacting public
safety partners and
impacted community
facilities will enable quicker
response in reacting to an
emergency event (such as a
wildfire or de-energization).

Utilities should describe
their processes to notify
critical facilities as it applies
to their service territory and
impacted communities as
well as grid operators.

Notification practices
targeting key stakeholders
are crucial during
emergency events such as
storms and wildfires.

The GWP WFMP states that it
will proactively notify customers
on a “Life Support” via direct
telephone contact. GWP has
created a Wildfire Mitigation
and Power Shutoff web page
with a link to this page provided
within the report.

GWP states that public
communications will also be
made via email, phone, text,
social media and through local
television. Protocols contained
in the plan indicate that when
time allows notifications will be
made in advance three stages
prior to de-energization. Status
updates will be provided during
de-energization and notification
following restoration.

The notification process
to critical facilities and
public safety partners is
articulated in the WMP.
204 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 9
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Incident Command Team /
Emergency Operations
frameworks in the event a
de-energization event or
wildfire incident occurs
Using the State Emergency
Management System
(SEMS) framework, which is
determined on the Federal
Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) structure for
incident command protocols
will ensure prepared and
adequately trained staff to
respond in effective
communication manners as
well as respond to risk
events in a sequence of
effective procedures
GWP leverages the SEMS
framework in designing
emergency response
protocols. A designated
team or group of individuals
should have the ability to
relay information and make
informed decisions during
emergency response
events.

Glendale will work with other
City Departments including Fire
and Police to respond to an
emergency incident and
establish an incident command
in accordance with the SEMS
and NIMS frameworks.

This is not specifically
addressed in the WMP
but as a City
Department GWP can
call upon Fire and
Police.
205 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 10
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Coordination with
stakeholder agencies/entities
with routine meetings to
discuss emergency
preparedness needs and
areas of improvement, etc.

Communicating with vested
stakeholders during wildfire
mitigation activities, PSPS
events, and general strategy
development will help drive
efforts to better align with
the risk profile of the utility's
service and asset territory.

These efforts should occur
throughout the year and
wildfire mitigation plan
planning process
The City of Glendale has
planning, communication,
and coordination obligations
pursuant to SEMS.

GWP works closely with
other City departments to
assure effective
communications and
coordination.

City of Glendale personnel
involved in emergency
response and emergency
management functions are
provided ongoing training,
including local workshops,
SEMS training, NIMS training,
and other special programs
throughout the year. Key
management and emergency
personnel also attend the
California Specialized Training
Institute to receive in-depth
training in related emergency
management topics.

GWP coordinates with
other agencies on
emergency
preparedness.
206 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 11
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
De-Energization & Recloser Operations
Disabling reclosers through
blocking reclosing operations
(distribution level) in the
HFTD during the fire season
and/or during Red Flag
Warnings issued by the
National Weather Service (or
as fire risk potential
designates)
Disabling reclosing reduces
the number of potential
ignition events during a fault
condition
Reclosing operations should
be defined within the Plan as
per statute. Operational best
practices align with having
settings that align with fire
potential weather conditions
to prevent potential ignition
GWP developed and maintains
SOP-21 which is a protocol for
operations during high fire
threat conditions. In the event of
a Red Flag Warning, this
procedure includes disabling
reclosers for the circuits
designated on Tier 2 and Tier 3
affected circuits.

GWP provides a
protocol for recloser
operations during Red
Flag Warnings.
207 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 12
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Internal Operations and Inspection Practices
Ground patrol as well as
aerial inspection practices
Routine ground patrols are
implicit practices in
equipment and vegetation
inspection protocols.

Increasing the frequency,
especially in the HFTD,
presents as effective
preventative measures and
ensures the integrity of
electrical equipment. Aerial
inspections, by way of
helicopters, will lead to
greater coverage of the
service territory and areas
adjacent to required
clearances
Ground patrols are a
required strategy in ensuring
safe and reliable delivery of
electricity. When access
concerns arise, aerial
inspections provide better
coverage in surveying and
inspecting electrical
equipment throughout the
utility service territory
GWP intends to conduct a
system inventory that includes a
system-wide inspection of its
poles, streetlights, vaults, and
all equipment and assets
connected to, or contained
within, these assets.

The City of Glendale’s
vegetation management
program, managed by the
Glendale Fire Department,
includes annual inspections of
properties in the high fire
hazard areas of the City to
ensure compliance with its
defensible space standards.

GWP plans to conduct a
baseline inspection
followed by more
regular inspections.

Wildfire Infrastructure
Protection Teams
An internal team to help
coordinate efforts to ensure
the Plan is being followed as
well as coordinating efforts
to enhance the Plan's
strategies and quality check
that activities are being
performed and tracked
aligning with the Plan
An internal team to prepare
and protect physical aspects
of the electric system as well
as ensure effective
mitigation measures are
carried out would be a
prudent activity to pursue
GWP works with other
departments of the City to
mitigate the threat of wildfires,
including fire, CalFire, police,
public works, and more.

As GWP further
develops its Wildfire
Mitigation Plan,
development of Wildfire
Infrastructure Protection
Teams should be
considered.
208 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 13
Identified
Practice Strategy
Mitigation
Rationale
Glendale
Applicability Plan Elements Determination
Infrared corona scanning
and high definition imagery
technology for inspection
practices along with visual
inspections
Infrared and ultraviolet
(Corona) light cameras are
typically mounted to
helicopters with special
attention to splices,
conductor
connection/attachment
points, and insulators for a
detailed visual of electrical
equipment
Infrared is an accepted
practice that enables better
awareness of the utility's
equipment
GWP does not currently use
this assessment technology to
supplement its inspection
program.

As GWP bolsters its
inspection program it
should consider adding
these inspection
technologies.
209 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 14

5. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Navigant concluded this assessment on November 267, 2019. Over the course of reviewing GWP’s WMP and supporting documentation, Navigant captured takeaways and findings that align the Plan with state laws and effective wildfire measure demonstration. GWP’s Plan appropriately responds to each of the required elements of PUC Section 8387, which is detailed in Appendix A. The following describes the assessment and resulting findings of the Plan’s proposed and established mitigation measures as it applies to safe, reliable operation of all electric infrastructure and wildfire prevention and response.

Report Conclusions
After internal review of the latest version of the WMP and associated data collection products, Navigant concludes this Report with the following:

1. GWP’s WMP aligns appropriately with PUC Section 8387 and includes all required elements.8

2. GWP’s Plan is determined to be comprehensive as described throughout this Report.

3. The implementation and completion of GWP’s plan to perform a comprehensive baseline inspection of its electrical system in 2020, and accelerate and improve its inspection program more generally, is a key element to establishing a robust inspection program and ensure the Plan as published is effective.
8 Following acceptance of this Report, GWP will post the Report and results online for public view. The Report is scheduled for presentation to the City Council at a public meeting in December 2019. Accomplishing these follow-up tasks will meet all required statutory provisions up until presenting the final WMP to the City Council. 210 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 15
APPENDIX A. STATUTORY COMPLIANCE MATRIX
Required Statutory Element Plan
Section Reference(s)
GWP Plan Elements
(Summarized)
Meets Section
Elements
(Determination)
(a) Each local publicly owned electric utility and
electrical cooperative shall construct, maintain,
and operate its electrical lines and equipment in
a manner that will minimize the risk of wildfire
posed by those electrical lines and equipment.
(b) (1) The local publicly owned electric utility or
electrical cooperative shall, before January 1,
2020, prepare a wildfire mitigation plan. After
January 1, 2020, a local publicly owned electric
utility or electrical cooperative shall prepare a
wildfire mitigation plan annually and shall
submit the plan to the California Wildfire Safety
Advisory Board on or before July 1 of that
calendar year. Each local publicly owned
electric utility and electrical cooperative shall
update its plan annually and submit the update
to the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board
by July 1 of each year. At least once every
three years, the submission shall be a
comprehensive revision of the plan.
(2) The wildfire mitigation plan shall consider as
necessary, at minimum, all of the following:
(A) An accounting of the responsibilities of
persons responsible for executing the plan. Section A
Section A describes roles and responsibilities of
individuals responsible for administration and
implementation of the WFMP.

The responsibilities related to plan administration
include roles for oversight, coordination between city
departments, resources and funding, and review and
update to the plan. Roles and responsibilities for
implementation are specified for Operations,
Maintenance & Inspections, Infrastructure
Yes
211 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 16
Enhancement and Communications. In addition to
individual roles and responsibilities, the plan also
establishes a wildfire mitigation committee with a role to monitor effectiveness and recommend updates
based on performance and changes to regulation.
(B) The objectives of the wildfire mitigation plan. Section B GWP clearly identifies four specific objectives of the
WFMP. The objectives specifically identify minimizing
risk of catastrophic wildfire caused by electrical
equipment, maintaining electric service, improving
system resilience, monitoring effectiveness of the
plan and revising mitigation methods as needed.

Plan also identifies an objective to comply with all
regulations related to wildfire mitigation.

Yes
(C) A description of the preventive strategies
and programs to be adopted by the local
publicly owned electric utility or electrical
cooperative to minimize the risk of its electrical
lines and equipment causing catastrophic
wildfires, including consideration of dynamic
climate change risks.

Section C
GWP plan acknowledges and discusses the risk and
impact on its wildfire plan due to the dynamic climate
change in California.The WFMP addresses its
strategies in three categories. Capital Projects,
Maintenance and Operational Practices.

The capital projects section generally describes
Asset changes and upgrades which would harden
Glendale’s system and reduce the probability of a fire
being started by GWP equipment. The section
contains a robust list of strategies and projects to be evaluated for mitigation. Actual implementation will
be prioritized based on considerations stated in the
plan and on a baseline inspection assessment to be
initiated in 2020.

The Maintenance section addresses programs and
efforts to reduce risk of ignition and to reduce risk of spread of wildfire. It includes the existing Vegetation Management program which is also required under
Section H of PUC 8387.

GWP states this program is being enhanced to
mitigate wildfire risk by increasing clearance
requirements in all zones and clear vegetation in tier
2 and 3 zones. Reducing risk of fire spread is
addressed by reference to the City’s Hazardous
Yes
212 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 17
Vegetation Program administered by the Fire
Department
The City’s Hazardous Vegetation Program was
included as an attachment to the draft plan.

GWP also references equipment inspection
programs and states these will be enhanced to
address end of life component failure. This will be
part of the baseline inspections to be conducted
beginning in 2020.

While disabling reclosers is listed in this section. The strategies related to Operational Practices is
discussed in more detail in Section F of the WFMP.
(D) A description of the metrics the local
publicly owned electric utility or electrical
cooperative plans to use to evaluate the wildfire
mitigation plan’s performance and the
assumptions that underlie the use of those
metrics.

Section D
GWP’s use of metrics are described including the
generic statement for the basis of the metrics to
provide a quantitative assessment of effectiveness of
the plan. Eight metrics are identified which include to metrics related to fire initiation from the electric
system and fire department response time to metrics
monitoring the implementation of GWP’s mitigating
strategies for system hardening (pole and
transformer upgrades and conductor replacement)
and metrics related to vegetation management.

Yes
(E) A discussion of how the application of
previously identified metrics to previous wildfire
mitigation plan performances has informed the
wildfire mitigation plan.

Section E
GWP was not previously required to have a Wildfire
Mitigation plan. Therefore, specific information
related to previous metrics may not be available.

GWP has explained in this section how it will review
and revise its plan in the future based on as
assessment of metric performance.

Yes
(F) Protocols for disabling reclosers and
deenergizing portions of the electrical
distribution system that consider the associated
impacts on public safety, as well as protocols
related to mitigating the public safety impacts of
those protocols, including impacts on critical
first responders and on health and
communication infrastructure.

Section F
This section contains the protocols for disabling
reclosers, including a general discussion of
conditions required and the responsibilities for
decisions on modifying recloser operation. GWP
references and existing procedure “SOP-021” for use
by dispatch personnel which addresses pre-emptive
de-energization of overhead transmission lines and
disabling reclosers in Tier 2 and 3 wildfire hazard
zones.

Yes
213 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 18
9 Link to the Power Shutoff web page or status or planned implementation date for the Power Shutoff web page should be included in the WFMP GWP also states that annual training related to preemptive de-energization is provided to its dispatch personnel. The GWP Plan also addresses rolling
load shed protocols based on the potential impact of
loss of external resources due to pre-emptive deenergization by utilities which supply GWP (SCE and LADWP) during high wildfire risk conditions in the
Southern California area.

The section includes narrative on consideration of
power loss impacts on public safety and first
responders as well as mitigating activities
(sectionalizing when possible and minimizing
duration of de-energization when possible).
(G) Appropriate and feasible procedures for
notifying a customer who may be impacted by
the deenergizing of electrical lines. The
procedures shall consider the need to notify, as
a priority, critical first responders, health care
facilities, and operators of telecommunications
infrastructure.

Section G
The GWP WFMP includes language on customer
notification including using multiple communication
methods and public outreach programs. In addition,
the GWP WFMP states that it will proactively notify
customers on a “Life Support” via direct telephone
contact.

GWP plans to create a Power Shutoff web page and
communicate the link to this resource.9
GWP states that public communications will also be
made via email, phone, text, social media and
through local television. Protocols contained in the
plan indicate that when time allows notifications will
be made in advance three stages prior to deenergization. Status updates will be provided during de-energization and notification following restoration.

Details of supporting procedures and documents not
available.

Yes
214 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 19
(H) Plans for vegetation management. Section H
Plan contains a summary description of vegetation
management practices and states consistency with
California General Order 95.

GWP uses contractors to perform VM work, overseen
by supervisors who are described as “typically”
certified arborists. Description of VM program
includes inspection/identification, and post work
completion inspections. GWP states that the annual
budget for Vegetation Management work was
increased by 25% to incorporate enhanced
vegetation management practices supporting wildfire
mitigation efforts.

GWP included a description of the Glendale Fire
Departments Vegetation Management Program
which is designed to maximize clearance and
minimize fuels on private and commercial property
within 100 ft of structures. This reduces the risk of
propagating fires in occupied areas and allows GWP
efforts to be focused on the higher Tier 2 and Tier 3
risk areas.

Yes
(I) Plans for inspections of the local publicly
owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s
electrical infrastructure.

Section I
GWP references GO 165 as guidance for system
inspections.

The City’s master plan is still in development but will include a baseline inspection and inventory of all
electric system equipment. This baseline inspection
will be conducted beginning in 2020. In addition to
using this baseline inspection to prioritize
implementation of mitigation strategies, it will also be used to establish and initiate an ongoing periodic
inspection program.

Yes
(J) A list that identifies, describes, and
prioritizes all wildfire risks, and drivers for those
risks, throughout the local publicly owned
electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s
service territory. The list shall include, but not
be limited to, both of the following:

Section J & K
Section I
GWP identifies risks of wildfires based on historical
data related to wildfires in California from 2012-2016.

Primary risks identified for fire initiation were
vegetation contacts and electrical equipment failures
and downed power lines.

Yes
215 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 20
(i) Risks and risk drivers associated with
design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of the local publicly owned electric
utility’s or electrical cooperative’s equipment
and facilities.

Section J & K
Section I
GWP broke down equipment failure risk into the
specific types of equipment failure which indicated
higher probabilities of failure which can be used to
prioritize efforts at system hardening. The risks
associated with design, construction, operation and
maintenance are driven primarily by equipment
failure.

Yes
(ii) Particular risks and risk drivers associated
with topographic and climatological risk factors
throughout the different parts of the local
publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical
cooperative’s service territory.

Section J & K
Section I
Topographic and climatological risk drivers are
referenced in the plan.

GWP accepts and recognizes the fire zones
established by Cal Fire which are based on
considerations of topographic and climatological risks
such as climate change, drought, population
encroachment on forest lands, tree mortality and the
associated hazardous distribution of fuels in
California’s forest.

The GWP system includes areas in all three fire
zones with approximately 62% of its service territory
in Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones.

GWP discusses its risk-based focus on wildfire
mitigation that has been successful so far to reduce
the area needing additional mitigation in the high-risk areas to 0.47% of its service territory.

Yes
(K) Identification of any geographic area in the
local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical
cooperative’s service territory that is a higher
wildfire threat than is identified in a commission
fire threat map, and identification of where the
commission should expand a high fire-threat
district based on new information or changes to
the environment.

Section K
Exhibit B
Language addresses percentages of GWP in each
Tier with the density of infrastructure in each.

Additionally, the Plan has an Exhibit B with a map of
High Fire Hazard Area. The GWP wildfire mitigation
plan explains that its Fire Department has performed
an independent wildfire zone assessment to validate
the Cal Fire maps and has assigned similar level of
risk to the wildfire hazard zones identified in the Cal Fire maps. 14% of the service territory falls into Tier 3, 48% into tier 2 and the remaining 38% are in Tier 1
risk zones.

The GWP plan has not identified any portion of its
system which should be included in a higher risk
zone than is currently established and is not making
Yes
216 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 21
any recommendations to the expand the area of a
high fire threat district.
(L) A methodology for identifying and
presenting enterprise wide safety risk and
wildfire-related risk.

Section F, H, J, K, L
Section F has language included for city wide training
which looks to cover the presenting portion. Section
H includes GWP’s risk assessment approach.

Sections J and K have multiple methods of risks and
risk drivers. Page 32 has a graphical representation
of zones around a home that could be held
responsible for presenting wildfire-related risk.

As a city, the scope of Glendale’s enterprise and the
associated risks are discussed in Section L. In
addition to the Electric Department, the City includes
GWP Water Division, Glendale Information Services,
Glendale Police, and Glendale Fire. The GWP plan
describes and presents the risks and potential
impacts on the various city services and ultimately
the impact on the residents and businesses in the
City based on wildfire considerations.

Yes
(M) A statement of how the local publicly owned
electric utility or electrical cooperative will
restore service after a wildfire.

Section M
Section M discusses GWP’s strategy and plans with
respect to restoration power following a public safety
power shutoff. The section includes required
inspections prior to energy restoration and a spare
equipment strategy. This section also briefly
describes the restoration of reclosers to normal
operation when conditions permit.

Yes
(N) A description of the processes and
procedures the local publicly owned electric
utility or electrical cooperative shall use to do all
of the following:
(i) Monitor and audit the implementation of the
wildfire mitigation plan. Section N
Section N summarizes the processes for monitoring
effectiveness of the plan which are discussed in
greater detail in Section D and E related to metrics.

Plan (Section A) addresses the intended use of a
third-party evaluator for assessment of the
comprehensiveness and ongoing compliance with
the plan.

Yes
217 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 22
Plan assigns the Wildfire Mitigation Committee
responsibility to meet on a periodic basis and review
performance of the plan.
(ii) Identify any deficiencies in the wildfire
mitigation plan or its implementation, and
correct those deficiencies.

Section N
Plan specifies General Manager authority to delegate
monitoring and audit of the implementation of the
plan.

The sections on Metrics and Metrics feedback
identify specific measures that may be used to
monitor the effectiveness of plan implementation the
list of possible metrics includes equipment
inspections and discuss adjustments and
modifications based on a review of the metrics.

Yes
(iii) Monitor and audit the effectiveness of
electrical line and equipment inspections,
including inspections performed by contractors,
that are carried out under the plan, other
applicable statutes, or commission rules.

Section N
GWP will be conducting a comprehensive system
inspection for baseline conditions beginning in 2020.

The results of this baseline inspection will be used to identity and prioritize deficiencies and establish
implementation of corrective actions.

Section H, which addresses the Vegetation
Management program explicitly identifies
confirmation inspections following vegetation work.

Processes for monitoring the effectiveness of the
vegetation inspections are not explicitly identified but are included as a proposed metric to be monitored
and reviewed for effectiveness.

Yes
218 of 1332
Wildfire Mitigation Plan Independent Evaluation
©2019 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Page 23
(3) The local publicly owned electric utility or
electrical cooperative shall, on or before
January 1, 2020, and not less than annually
thereafter, present its wildfire mitigation plan in
an appropriately noticed public meeting. The
local publicly owned electric utility or electrical
cooperative shall accept comments on its
wildfire mitigation plan from the public, other
local and state agencies, and interested parties,
and shall verify that the wildfire mitigation plan
complies with all applicable rules, regulations,
and standards, as appropriate.

GWP will present its WMP to the City Council at a
public meeting in December 2019. Yes
(c) The local publicly owned electric utility or
electrical cooperative shall contract with a
qualified independent evaluator with experience
in assessing the safe operation of electrical
infrastructure to review and assess the
comprehensiveness of its wildfire mitigation
plan. The independent evaluator shall issue a
report that shall be made available on the
internet website of the local publicly owned
electric utility or electrical cooperative, and shall
present the report at a public meeting of the
local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical
cooperative’s governing board.

GWP contracted with Navigant Consulting, Inc. to
perform an independent evaluation of its WMP.

Qualifications are described in Section 1.

Yes
219 of 1332
1 RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA UPDATING GLENDALE WATER & POWER DEPARTMENT’S

WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN AND ADOPTING THE GLENDALE WATER & POWER DEPARTMENT’S WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN - UPDATED 2022 WHEREAS, California Senate Bill 1028, Senate Bill 901 and Assembly Bill 111, require electric utilities to maintain a formal Wildfire Mitigation Plan which plan shall include and set forth the utility’s strategies and plans to mitigate against catastrophic wildfires; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 901, also requires publicly owned utilities to: 1) prepare a Wildfire Mitigation Plan; 2) have the Wildfire Mitigation Plan reviewed by a qualified independent evaluator to assess comprehensiveness; 3) present the Wildfire Mitigation Plan to the public in a noticed public hearing; 4) have the initial Wildfire Mitigation Plan adopted no later than January 1, 2020; and 5) update the Wildfire Mitigation Plan annually thereafter; and WHEREAS, in 2019, the City of Glendale’s Water & Power Department (GWP), a publically owned utility, in accordance with the mandates of Senate Bill 1028, Senate Bill 901 and Assembly Bill 111, prepared its Wildfire Mitigation Plan and had it undergo the required independent third party review to confirm that it meets all regulatory requirements; and
WHEREAS, GWP’s Wildfire Mitigation Plan was presented to the public and subsequently adopted in December 2019; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2021, the City Council, by Resolution No. 21-66, adopted GWP’s Wildfire Mitigation Plan – Updated 2021; and WHEREAS, GWP staff over the past year has reviewed the Wildfire Mitigation Plan to ensure its adequacy, has made updates as necessary, and has prepared a further updated Wildfire Mitigation Plan; and WHEREAS, GWP’s 2022 updated Wildfire Management Plan, as described in the Report dated June 28, 2022 by the General Manager for GWP and which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, includes, addresses, and implements, among other things, the following: California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) wildfire threat maps developed to assess wildfire threat areas; Glendale Fire Department’s Vegetation management Program (VMP) developed to ensure an adequate defensible space between structures and plants, brush or trees; and the application of the most appropriate engineering and operational solutions, depending upon the specific risks in each area.
/ / /
/ / / 220 of 1332
2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA THAT:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Glendale, in accordance with California Senate Bill 901, hereby adopts Glendale Water & Power Department’s updated Wildfire Mitigation Plan, hereafter referred to and known as the Glendale Water & Power Department’s Wildfire Mitigation Plan - Updated 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Glendale further directs the Glendale Water & Power Department to implement the Glendale Water & Power Department’s Wildfire Mitigation Plan - Updated 2022.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this ___ day of _________, 2022.
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Aram Adjemian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. __________________was adopted by a majority vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of ______________________, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
221 of 1332
222 of 1332
223 of 1332
224 of 1332
225 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Change Management
Version Description of Change Change Initiator Date
0 Initial version Darrell Hahn 01/15/2019

0.1 Includes Dan Scorza comments;
language from Water, GPD, ISD;
addition of Committee; add Draft
watermark; add Executive
Summary
Darrell Hahn 02/20/2019

0.2 Incorporate feedback from March
27, 2019 review meeting, April 25,
2019 meeting with Jeremy Cawn,
emailed feedback from
Committee, Gordon Arnold
updates for ISD
Darrell Hahn 05/30/2019
07/03/2019
10/02/2019
10/18/2019

0.3 Incorporate feedback from
Navigant, Atineh (public outreach)
Darrell Hahn 11/05/2019

0.4 Updates for VMP, incorporate
feedback from Navigant
Darrell Hahn 11/20/2019

1.0 Updates to add Navigant report
and minor changes per Navigant;
accept all changes and finalize
report
Darrell Hahn 11/27/2019
Updated
2021
Updates to pages 4,16,17, 20,26,
30, 31and 40
Catherine Babakhanlou 02/17/2021
Updated
2022
Added new sections with general
information about GWP and basic
statistics on pgs. 3 through 7.

Updated pgs. 9, 17, 20, 28
Catherine Babakhanlou 06/09/2022
226 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Glendale Informational Response to California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board (WSAB)
 The approved budget by City Council for Wildfire Mitigation for the fiscal year 2022 -23 is $200,000.
 The most recent WMP is posted at
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=54585  GWP staff patrols encompass vegetation intrusion and the condition of the overhead equipment such as the insulators, poles, cross-arms, guy wires, lines, etc. to mitigate the risk of fire due to any equipment failure.
 Glendale reacts proactively whenever there is a Red Flag warning issued for the area by the National Weather Service, and de-energizes the Glendale’s 34.5 kV “Bel AireMontrose transmission line. Also, before the line is re-energized, a lineman patrols to confirm that the line is intact and that there is no debris lodged across the insulators or the lines. Overwhelming majority of the area serviced by GWP is classified as ‘Urban’, with clear access by the city Fire Department, therefore the possibility of wildfire is very low, but there is a single sub-transmission line mentioned in the above paragraph “Bel AireMontrose line” that runs across an uninhabited hilly terrain covered with brush; it has limited vehicular access. This is an area of elevated fire risk. For that reason, GWP deenergizes this transmission line (without loss of customer load) each time the National Weather Service issues a Red Flag Alert.
 To reduce the risk of spread of wildfire, the Glendale Fire Department uses multiple cameras and weather stations at strategic locations to monitor conditions and take immediate action. Cameras are found at:
https://www.alertwildfire.org/region/orangecoca/?camera=Axis-Lukens1 https://www.alertwildfire.org/region/orangecoca/?camera=Axis-VerdugoPeak2 https://www.alertwildfire.org/region/orangecoca/?camera=Axis-VerdugoPeak1 Weather Stations area located at:
https://www.weather.gov/lox/fwmV3
 Vegetation management in GWP service area is performed by the same Electrical Line Mechanics that are involved in the installation and maintenance of power lines and all other overhead equipment; it usually takes place under the watchful eye of GWP’s Electrical Line Mechanic Supervisor II. Vegetation management has been expanded to exceed minimum clearance requirements as described in GO 95, by trimming trees down to the telecommunications level. Fiscal year 2021-22, we spent $1.64 million on vegetation management.
227 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

 Glendale fire department has nine fire stations within the City. Two of them are inside Tiers 2 and 3, and four of them are near Tiers 2 and 3.  Glendale recognizes that wildfire possibility is not seasonal any more, and it is a yearround phenomenon. Hence, mitigation efforts have been incorporated year-round.  City of Glendale is bordering the city of Los Angeles on the south, the city of Burbank on the west and the city of Pasadena on the east. On the north are Verdugo Mountains. The wilderness areas in Glendale have very sparse vegetation comprising mostly desert brushes. Glendale Water and Power’s (GWP) Distribution and Transmission system is mainly situated in an urban area, with an easy access by the Glendale Fire Department (GFD). GWP has only one power line running through the wilderness area, namely a 34.5 kV Bel Aire – Montrose overhead line. This line can be de-energized at any time, for example during Red Flag Warnings, without any loss of customer load.

Map of the City of Glendale Showing High Density Vegetation Areas 228 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

 During calendar year 2021, GWP proactively took measures and completed the following projects to mitigate the risk of wildfire.
 Replaced 8 power poles in Tier 2 and Tier 3.
 Replaced 8 transformers in Tier 2 and Tier 3.
 Trimmed 6787 trees within Tier 2 and Tier 3.
 Installed 8,306 feet of underground high voltage circuits within Tier 2 and Tier 3.

Most new installations are underground, unless doing so would be costprohibitive or is otherwise unfeasible.  Procured 15 fire resistant wrap/coating poles to install in the high risk.  GWP’s linemen replaced two power poles with fire resistant wrap/coated poles and also installed 250 feet of covered conductors in Tier 2. Project as the first was completed successfully.
 Field supervisors continually assess and inspect the electrical facilities when they are in the field for any project construction.
 We rebuilt three power poles/300 feet of overhead circuit per project #652AA-13, and 16 power poles/1568 feet under project #30076-20 for 12kV operation to increase the conductor-spacing. This will minimize the likelihood of fire due wire slapping.
 We purchased and installed the first batch of composite crossarms to improve the system reliability.
 Replacement of insulators to reduce the likelihood of overhead conductors becoming detached and contacting vegetation or other flammable materials.  Identification, and replacement, of splices, clamps, and connectors on overhead conductors, where stress from heat or general use can cause downed conductors to come in contact with vegetation or other flammable materials.  Installed Fusesaver device to minimize the risk of fire in brush area from ejecting a blown fuse.
 Vegetation management has been expanded to exceed minimum clearance requirements (as described in GO 95) by trimming trees down to the telecommunications level. In calendar year 2021, 6787 trees were trimmed within Tier 2 & Tier 3.
 To evaluate the effectiveness of the wildfire plan, GWP came up with metrics posted on an internal website to track the number of electrical assets replaced in Tier 2 and Tier 3. These numbers were directly extracted from Electrical GIS map.
 GWP has acquired a new Outage Management System (OMS) by DataVoice International Inc., which allows efficient and quick notification to our customers of impending power outage, whether than outage is due to generation shortage or due to PSPS.
229 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

General Statistics
Glendale Water &
Power [POU]
GWP Service Territory Size   [30.58] square miles
Owned Assets ☑Transmission ☑Distribution ☑Generation
Number of Customers
Served
[89712] customer accounts
Population Within Service
Territory
[199357] people
Customer Class Makeup
Number of Accounts Share of Total Load (MWh)
[85.19] % Residential;
[0.02] % Government;
[0] %  Agricultural;
[14.57] %  Small/Medium Business;
[0.22] %  Commercial/Industrial
[37.95] % Residential;
[0.93] % Government;
[0] %  Agricultural;
[31.30] %  Small/Medium Business;
[29.82]%  Commercial/Industrial
GWP Service Territory
Location/Topography1
[0] % Agriculture
[1.49] % Barren/Other
[0] % Conifer Forest
[0] % Conifer Woodland
[0.03] % Desert
[0.14] % Hardwood Forest
[2.98] % Hardwood Woodland
[0.86] % Herbaceous
[35.95] % Shrub
[58.29] % Urban
[0.26]% Water
GWP Service Territory
Wildland Urban Interface
[40.81] % Wildland Urban Interface;2
[7.76] % Wildland Urban Intermix;
Percent of Service
Territory in CPUC High Fire
Tier 2: [48.09] %
Tier 3: [13.60 ]%

1 This data is based on the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Multi‐Source Vegetation Layer Map, depicting WHR13 Types (Wildlife Habitat Relationship classes grouped into 13 major land cover types) available at: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=b7ec5d68d8114b1fb2bfbf4665989eb3. 2 This data is based on the definitions and maps maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture, https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_053107.pdf and https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/rmap/rmap_nrs8.pdf

230 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Threat Districts (based on
total area)
Prevailing Wind Directions
& Speeds by Season
Please refer the link below to California, Burbank Airport https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/comp_table_show.php?stype=wind_dir_avg Wind is Southerly, except in January, when fire danger is low, it is ESE Miles of
Owned/Controlled Lines*
Underground and/or
Overhead
In Service Territory Outside Service Territory
Overhead Dist.: [247.31] miles
Overhead Trans. [28.13] miles
Underground : [283.8] miles
Overhead Dist.: [0] miles
Overhead Trans.: [0] miles
Underground: [0] miles
Percent of
Owned/Controlled Lines*
in CPUC High Fire Threat
Districts
Overhead Distribution Lines as % of Total Distribution System (Inside and Outside Service Territory)
Tier 2: [21.73] %, 53.75 miles
Tier 3: [5.54]%, 13.71 miles
Overhead Transmission Lines as % of Total Transmission System (Inside and Outside Service Territory)
Tier 2: [19.54] %,   5.57 miles
Tier 3: [5.72] %,     1.63 miles
Number of Owned Poles**
In Service Territory Outside Service Territory
Wooden: [14,620]
Steel: [131]
Composite: [0]     Total 14,751
Wooden: [0]
Steel: [0]
Composite: [0]
Have GWP customers ever
lost service due to an IOU
PSPS event?
☐ Yes ☑ No
Have GWP Customers ever
been notified of a
potential loss of service to
due to a forecasted IOU
PSPS event?
☐ Yes ☑ No
Has GWP developed
protocols to pre‐emptively
shut off electricity in
response to elevated
wildfire risks?
☑ Yes ☐ No
There is a protocol to pre‐emptively shut off the power to Bel Aire – Montrose Transmission line during elevated fire danger weather, but it does not result in loss of power of any customers. The elevated fire danger is based on the Red Flag Warning by the National Weather Service (NWS).

Below is the data related to pre‐emptive shut‐offs for calendar year 2021:

Number of shut‐off events: [7] on 1/14, 1/21, 10/13, 10/14, 11/22, 11/24 Customer Accounts that lost service for >10 minutes: [0] Zero For prior response, average duration before service restored: [0] Zero Note: No customers lost power during pre‐emptive shutoffs, the transmission line that was shut off does not have any direct customer feed, it provided system redundancy and rigidity.
231 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Executive Summary
The City of Glendale and the Glendale Water and Power (GWP) Department recognize that the potential loss of property and human life posed by wildfires is a growing concern. On September 21, 2018, the state of California passed Senate Bill 901 (SB 901) to provide guidance to electrical utilities in mitigating the risk of wildfires ignited by the utilities’ electrical assets, and to mandate electric utilities develop a plan to mitigate against wildfires.

GWP’s Wildfire Mitigation Plan (Plan) details its two-pronged approach to mitigate wildfires, in which a “wildfire” requires two elements: ignition and spread.

WILDFIRE = IGNITION x SPREAD
If only one of these two elements is present, a wildfire does not result. Both ignition (a spark or other source of the initial fire) and spread (the fire is free-burning) must be present in order for a wildfire to occur.

GWP’s wildfire mitigation efforts focus on 1) limiting the likelihood of ignition of localized fires from its assets and equipment, and 2) limiting the spread of localized fires into a wildfire. It is impossible to eliminate wildfires, but by reducing the likelihood of igniting fires and by containing any fires that do start, GWP’s approach can significantly mitigate the risk of igniting and spreading wildfires while complying with SB 901 and other, related mandates.

To minimize the likelihood of ignition, GWP has adopted a risk-based methodology to prioritize mitigation of electrical assets that could ignite a wildfire in high-wildfire danger service areas of the City of Glendale.

Methodology for calculating high-wildfire danger areas in the City of Glendale

1. Identify the areas of the City of Glendale that are at highest risk of igniting and spreading wildfires.
a. GWP has elected to use Cal Fire’s Fire Threat maps, which show that approximately 62% of the City’s total area is at an elevated risk of wildfires. The Glendale Fire Department has conducted its own wildfire risk assessment that validates the Cal Fire Threat maps.
b. Of the areas identified on these Fire Threat maps that are at an elevated risk of wildfires (namely, Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones), eliminate all areas where GWP has no electrical assets that could potentially ignite a wildfire. Where there are no GWP electrical assets, no GWP-initiated ignition is possible and no further wildfire mitigation is prioritized at this time.
c. Of the areas that remain, eliminate the areas where electrical assets reside within 100 feet of a private structure. The City of Glendale’s Fire Department’s robust 232 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Vegetation Management Program (VMP) requires homeowners to clear or manage hazardous vegetation within 100 feet of structures, reducing the intensity and rate of spread of wildfires. Where the VMP limits the rate and intensity of spread, no further wildfire mitigation is currently proposed. d. By applying this methodology, GWP has developed a distilled map of the locations of GWP electrical assets requiring further mitigation. The land area under these electrical assets comprises approximately 0.47% of the City’s total area. In terms of circuit miles, there are 9.55 miles of high voltage overhead conductors in Tier 2 area and 3.37 miles of conductors in Tier 3 area. The total liable overhead circuit length is 12.92 miles. Compared to the total GWP high voltage circuit miles, the liable miles comprise 2.31 %.

2. Determine the appropriate mitigating effort(s) at each of these remaining assets to reduce the risk of igniting or spreading wildfires, which may include one or more of the following potential solutions:
a. Enhanced vegetation management;
b. Expanded asset inspections;
c. Fast-acting automatic protection schemes;
d. Use of non-wood poles;
e. Wider spacing on cross-arms;
f. Stronger, composite material cross arms. Cross-arms made of stronger, composite material;
g. Conductor-spacing devices to minimize the likelihood of wire slapping; h. Insulated “tree wire”;
i. 24/7 monitoring of weather station data and HD cameras; j. Move overhead conductors and assets underground;
k. Modify recloser settings during high-risk periods to minimize the likelihood of inadvertently reclosing in a high-wildfire risk area;
l. Proactive de-energization during high-wildfire risk periods. m. Animal intrusion covers
n. Replacing expulsion fuses with Fuse Saver
The specific mitigating measure will depend upon the specific situation. GWP staff will evaluate each GWP asset (or logical group of assets) requiring further mitigation and evaluate all solutions based upon criteria like up-front and life-cycle costs, effectiveness in reducing risk, longevity, impact to reliability and serviceability, and alignment with long-term utility and City goals and priorities.

GWP metrics will evaluate the effectiveness of this Plan and of its wildfire mitigation, making adjustments to priorities and funding as appropriate to ensure continued successful mitigation. 233 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Definitions
Catastrophic Fire See also Wildfire. A wildland or wildland urban interface fire with a fast moving front, extending over a large area (300+ acres) and/or highly destructive to lives, property or natural resources.3 Hazardous Vegetation Refuse, grass, weeds, shrubs, trees, or other vegetation which are in such condition and location, or by the unique characteristics of a species, as to provide a ready fuel supply to augment the spread or intensity of a fire.4
POU Publicly-Owned Utilities are subject to local public control and regulation. POUs are organized in various forms including municipal districts, city departments, irrigation districts, or rural cooperatives. Municipal districts may include territories outside city limits or may not even serve the entire city. Cooperatives are owned by the customers they serve usually in rural areas. There are more than 40 POUs in the state that account for approximately a quarter of electricity supply in California. Most POUs are smaller than IOUs in the electricity sales and the number of customer accounts.5 Red Flag Warning The National Weather Service issues Red Flag Warnings to alert fire departments of the onset, or possible onset, of critical weather and dry conditions that could lead to rapid or dramatic increases in wildfire activity.6
Wildfire See also Catastrophic Fire. Any free-burning vegetative fire that initiates from an unplanned ignition, whether natural or humancaused, where the management objective is full suppression.7 GWP
considers both ignition and spread as required elements of a Wildfire.

VMP The City of Glendale’s Vegetation Management Program was developed to ensure there is adequate defensible space in the wildland-urban interface areas between the open space and homes in its hillside and canyon communities. Activities include annual inspections and review/permitting of landscape and fuel modification plans for properties in the High Fire Hazard Area.8

3 California Office of Emergency Services. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/FireRescueSite/Documents/20040405-BRCFinal%20Report%20-%20Part%205%20of%205.pdf 4 Glendale Building and Safety Code (Sec. 4906.1.2). https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=35639 5 California Energy Commission. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/pou_reporting/background/difference_pou_iou.html 6 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/communications/redflag-warnings-fire-weather-watches/ 7 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardMitigationSite/Documents/011- 2018%20SHMP_FINAL_Ch%208.pdf
8 City of Glendale Fire Department. https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/fireprevention-environmental-management/vegetation-management-and-weed-abatement 234 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Overview
The City of Glendale’s Water & Power department (GWP) has developed this wildfire mitigation plan (Plan) to protect City customers, employees, wildlife and assets against the potential dangers and costs of damage incurred as a result of wildfires inadvertently ignited by GWP electrical assets or equipment. Also, to protect the above mentioned entities form a wildfire started by a source other than GWP electrical equipment, for example, a campfire. As requirements change and condition reassessments are performed, this Plan will be updated to fully comply with updated needs.

Legislative and Regulatory Context
Senate Bill (SB) 1028, which passed into law in 2016, SB 901, which passed into law in 2018, and Assembly Bill (AB) 1054, which passed into law in 2019, intend to strengthen wildfire mitigation through oversight of public utilities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Although the City of Glendale does not fall under the authority of the CPUC, it is likely that the requirements proposed by these Senate bills will eventually apply to the City.
 Per SB 901, all Publicly-Owned Utilities (POUs) are required to adopt a Wildfire Mitigation Plan (WMP), which shall be reviewed by an independent third-party evaluator.
 Per Assembly Bill (AB) 2911, GWP may access property as necessary, regardless of land ownership or express permission, to prune trees to maintain clearances pursuant to Section 4293 of CA Public Resources Code.
 Per AB 1054, POUs must annually submit a WMP to the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board, which will review the Plan and provide recommendations on mitigating wildfire risk.

This document outlines the City’s approach to comply with state law, as well as Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 8387 for POUs to prepare a wildfire mitigation plan by January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter.

In addition, the CPUC has published several General Orders (GOs) for overhead line design, construction, maintenance, and inspections, the application of which is intended to ensure adequate electrical service and to secure safety to persons engaged in the construction, maintenance, operation, or use of overhead lines and to the public in general. GWP shall meet or exceed the recommendations and requirements within these GOs, including GO 95 and GO 165.

Compliance
The GWP General Manager or his delegate shall support and administer this Plan to include monitoring and auditing the implementation of the Plan. The Plan shall be updated, reviewed, and approved by the General Manager of GWP on an annual basis, or as required by law. This periodic review shall ensure that the Plan is updated to comply with all state regulations and City regulations and requirements. The General Manager may elect to summarize and review the 235 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Plan with the City Manager and/or present updates to the GWP Commission and/or City Council to obtain required approvals.

Plan Structure
As prescribed by the Plan, GWP staff shall construct, maintain, and operate its electrical system assets to minimize the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires posed by the electrical system and equipment. The Plan is comprised of the following elements:

A. Stakeholders. City personnel and contractors who are responsible for maintaining, updating, approving, and executing this Plan.

B. Objectives. Frame the Plan’s objectives and the risk-based approach. See Section J for additional details on the approach.

C. Preventative Strategies and Programs. To accomplish these Objectives, GWP shall pursue the following preventative strategies and programs.  Capital Projects. GWP staff shall tailor its resource plans to upgrade, enhance, and reinforce its electrical infrastructure.
 Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Efforts. Staff shall also initiate contracts to address on-going, non-capital priorities, including vegetation management, system inspections, and maintenance and support of this Plan.  Operational Practices. GWP shall continue to de-energize transmission lines and distribution feeders, disable reclosers, and take any other operational steps necessary to ensure public safety during high-risk scenarios.

D. Metrics. To ensure the protocols and steps taken in this Plan are effective, GWP shall establish metrics that measure and quantify the elements of this Plan.

E. Metrics Feedback. GWP shall evaluate the Plan’s performance and adjust this Plan to ensure these goals are achieved.

F. Operational Practices. Operational practices shall aim to mitigate the risk of causing catastrophic wildfires.

G. Customer Outreach. GWP shall develop a process that ensures customers are informed and aware of the potential for emergency power cutoffs.

H. Vegetation Management. Tree trimming and related mitigating actions are intended to prevent inadvertent vegetation contacts to conductors or other equipment and to minimize the spread of localized fires.

I. System Inspections. Periodic and on-going inspections of GWP equipment and infrastructure helps identify failing equipment that can lead to fire ignition.

J. Wildfire Risks and Drivers. Describe wildfire risks to the electric utility and drivers of those risks.

K. Wildfire Zones. GWP has leveraged the tiered zones developed and mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) to identify electric utility dangers that have historically caused the most wildfire damage, as measured in acres.

L. Enterprise-Wide Risks. Wildfires pose a risk not only to the energy delivery function of the electric utility, but also to the energy supply function, the water utility, and to various City functions, including Police, Fire, and Public Works. 236 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

M. Restoration. Continuing its current practice, in the event of customer outages, GWP shall restore customers as safely and as quickly as possible.

A. Stakeholders
This Plan is subject to direct oversight by the City of Glendale City Council, it is prioritized at the direction of the General Manager, and it is maintained, updated, and implemented by GWP personnel.

City Council
As the governing board overseeing GWP’s operation, Glendale’s elected, 5-member City Council approves funding and directs the City Manager, or her designee, to implement the key elements of this Plan. SB 901 requires the governing board (i.e., the Glendale City Council) to determine whether any portion of the geographical area where the utility’s overhead electrical lines and equipment are located has a significant risk of catastrophic wildfire resulting from those electrical lines and equipment. If so, GWP must, at an interval determined by City Council, present to City Council for approval those wildfire mitigation measures the utility intends to undertake to minimize the risk of its overhead electrical lines and equipment causing a catastrophic wildfire.

City Manager
The City Manager serves as the chief executive overseeing City-wide operations, including GWP, Fire, Police, Public Works, Parks, Libraries, and other departments. The City Manager delegates oversight and tactical implementation of this Plan to the General Manager of GWP, and maintains responsibility for promoting City-wide resources to implement and support this Plan as approved by City Council.

General Manager
The GWP General Manager maintains responsibility for, and provides management commitment to, the execution of this Plan, including coordination with other department heads, with tactical and day-to-day implementation responsibilities delegated to the roles below. The General Manager shall support the Plan’s implementation as developed by GWP management and staff.

Chief Assistant General Manager/Assistant General Manager The GWP Electric division shall:
 Facilitate coordination between the General Manager and other GWP Electric functions.  Coordinate activities between Electric Engineering and Electric Construction and Operations sections.
 Coordinate directly with the Glendale Fire Department and other City Departments, as necessary, during emergency situations, including during activation of the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and in implementation of the Citywide Emergency Response Plans.
 Justify and request sufficient funding to support this Plan.  Commit management support for the Plan.
237 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Electrical Services Administrator
The GWP Electric Engineering section shall:
 Hold primary responsibility for maintenance of this Plan, which includes the periodic review and substantive updates. Make appropriate updates to this Plan as Cal Fire modifies the zone boundaries or makes other fundamental changes that impact this Plan.  Coordinate with Electric Construction and Operations to provide input to the capital and O&M budgeting process in support of this Plan, including capital funds to fortify infrastructure and O&M funds for inspections and vegetation management.  Track GWP assets within the physical boundaries of the Cal Fire zones and their respective mitigation solution(s), as applicable.
 Design and engineer enhancements to GWP equipment and infrastructure with the intent of preventing and mitigating the start and spread of wildfires by GWP assets.  Coordinate with Dispatch to develop and document specific operational practices to be implemented during pre-determined “high wildfire danger” periods.  Develop switching procedures and other mitigating steps on an operational basis with the aim of keeping customers energized.
 Delegate implementation of these responsibilities as appropriate.

Electrical Superintendent
The GWP Electric Construction and Operations section shall:
 Coordinate vegetation management activities in accordance with this Plan and California regulatory requirements, including oversight of contractors and the vegetation management budget.
 Coordinate with Electric Engineering to provide input to the capital and O&M budgeting process in support of this Plan, including capital funds to fortify infrastructure and O&M funds for inspections and vegetation management.
 Implement the infrastructure upgrades and enhancements as engineered by Electric Engineering in support of this Plan.
 Delegate implementation of these responsibilities as appropriate.

Assistant General Manager – Power Management
The GWP Power Marketing and Dispatch sections shall:
 Coordinate and procure replacement energy in response to planned and unplanned outages of the critical transmission corridors that provide up to approximately 200 MW of incoming energy to the City of Glendale to meet load.  Declare and initiate rolling blackouts to customers as a preemptive action to minimize the likelihood of sparking wildfires, or as a response to the loss of energy supply that results in an imbalance between energy supply and load.
 Coordinate with Electric Engineering to develop and document specific operational practices to be implemented during pre-determined “high wildfire danger” periods.  Delegate implementation of these responsibilities as appropriate. 238 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

GWP Legislative Analyst
The function of the GWP Legislative Analyst can be filled at any level and shall:
 Monitor legislative developments and requirements at the local, state, and federal level.  Communicate these requirements to GWP Stakeholders and the Wildfire Mitigation Committee.
 Facilitate coordination among City department representatives in the support and implementation of this Plan.

Public Benefits Charge Marketing Manager
The Marketing, Communications, and Outreach office of GWP shall:
 Execute education and outreach on wildfire prevention and strategy.  Execute communication and collaboration with customers.  Coordinate all outgoing alerts and messages to residential and business customers.  Develop and broadcast messages as necessary via social media, the City’s website, and the Reverse 911 calling system.
 Conduct media outreach.
 Coordinate messaging with GWP employees.
 Coordinate with GWP’s Customer Service Call Center.
 Coordinate with the City’s Public Information Office (PIO), Glendale Police Department PIO, and Glendale Fire Department PIO.
 Maintain a website devoted to wildfire and tree safety and public safety shut offs.  Develop, distribute, and maintain all collateral items related to wildfire and tree safety and public safety shut offs.

Independent Third‐Party Evaluator
As mandated by SB 901, this Plan shall be reviewed by an approved, independent, third-party evaluator to review and assess the comprehensiveness of, and GWP’s compliance with, this Plan.

The evaluator will also conduct a safety culture assessment of GWP. GWP shall engage the independent contractor annually, or as required by law, once the list of approved, qualified evaluators is released by the Office of Planning and Research’s Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery.

The specific requirements for the independent third-party evaluator are mandated by SB-901 and are not repeated here.

Until this official list of evaluators is provided, GWP shall contract with industry experts to serve this function to comply with the spirit of this requirement.

Wildfire Mitigation Committee
To maximize the effectiveness of this Plan, representatives from multiple, key City departments meet quarterly, or as deemed necessary by the Committee, to review the performance of this Plan, discuss new and existing legislative requirements related to wildfire mitigation, validate the 239 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

risk-based approach, and review and update this Plan in response to the Plan’s performance and regulatory updates.

Attendees at these meetings may vary; representatives, or their delegates, from the following areas comprise the core of the cross-functional Committee:
 GWP Electric Engineering
 GWP Legislative Analyst
 GWP Electric Operations & Construction
 GWP System Dispatch
 GWP Mapping & Records
 GWP Marketing & Communications
 GWP Water
 City of Glendale Fire Department
 City of Glendale Legal Department
 City of Glendale Public Works Maintenance Services (Forestry) Other Staffing Impacts
GWP staff acknowledge staffing deficiencies where additional, permanent (or long-term contracted9) staff is necessary to implement and maintain the elements of this Plan.

The staffing deficiencies reflect permanent increases in workload, including:
 Increased oversight of crews responsible for clearing trees and hazardous vegetation.

There are currently two FTEs allocated to monitoring, overseeing, and directing contracted tree-trimming crews. Additional staff time is required to accommodate the increased level of tree-trimming activities and the added responsibility of clearing hazardous vegetation throughout Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones.  Additional engineering resources to investigate, detail, engineer, and design the replacement of equipment consistent with this Plan. Replacement of overhead conductors, splices, transformers, capacitor banks, and other equipment will require engineering expertise above and beyond the current workload, as the existing assets would remain in use until replaced during life-cycle replacement.  Additional field and real-time personnel will be needed to implement, maintain, and use the new equipment, products, and solutions that are implemented as mitigating measures.

These crews are already fully subscribed and lack the capacity for permanent increases in work throughput.
 Maintaining, troubleshooting, and monitoring real-time weather or fire-detection equipment and data and systems.

9 Contracted resources may be utilized to supplement GWP efforts – for example, to identify hazardous vegetation clearing needs.
240 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

B. Objectives
The primary goal of this Plan is to establish a framework to:

Engineer, construct, maintain, and operate
the GWP electric transmission and distribution system
in a manner intended to
minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfire
caused by electrical lines and equipment.

Secondary objectives include:
 Improving the resiliency of GWP’s energy delivery infrastructure. GWP aims to continually assess new industry practices and technologies designed to reduce the likelihood of a disruption in service and improve the restoration of service. Due to global warming and gradual climate change, there is a prognostication of an increase in wind speeds. High wind and gust speeds can inflict significant damage to GWP’s overhead power infrastructure. To mitigate this rise in wind speed, GWP is conducting more stringent pole inspections, including invasive testing. Also, GWP is looking into a contract with a company that utilizes drones for the inspection of power facilities and vegetation management, using infrared and LIDAR imaging. Higher winds imply that a wider zone of vegetation clearing is required to diminish the possibility of trees, tree limbs and other vegetation debris contacting overhead equipment. GWP is taking extra measures and trims the vegetation from the communication level to the top of the pole.  Climate related increase in temperature results in higher peak power consumption. This elevated peak loading of infrastructure can lead to overloaded lines and transformers, which in turn may become a source of fire. GWP is employing Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR) technology to keep the peak power consumption under control.  Improving the resiliency of GWP’s energy generation and delivery infrastructure in case of a wildfire that has not been ignited by GWP assets. Wildfires can be started by various sources, not just electrical equipment. For example, improperly controlled camp fires, lightning, overheated construction machinery coming into contact with dry brush, etc. To assess the treat of wildfire to GWP Transmission and Distribution network, various scenarios are reviewed by GWP Wildfire Mitigation Committee considering different geographic points of origin of ignition and the direction of the prevailing winds. 241 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

 Measuring the effectiveness of the mitigating measures described in the Plan. Where a particular action, program, or protocol is determined to be unnecessary or ineffective, GWP will aim to assess whether a modification or replacement is merited. This Plan will also help determine whether more cost-effective measures could produce the same, or better, results.
 Complying with all local, state, and federal regulations related to wildfire mitigation. 242 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

C. Preventative Strategies and Programs
GWP recognizes and acknowledges the impact of dynamic climate change in California. Direct impacts include altered weather patterns, extended summers, and dryer seasons that increase the risk of uncontrolled wildfires, especially during windy periods (e.g., Santa Ana winds).

California wildfires have been getting more intense, more destructive, and more deadly in recent years, where 2018 was the deadliest and most destructive wildfire season in California on record. 14 of the 20 largest wildfires since 1932 have occurred in the last 20 years: the size, number, and devastating impacts of wildfires are expected to continue to increase. In developing and implementing this Plan in light of these facts, GWP intends to use proven technology, work practices, and programs to enhance the performance and safety of its equipment and infrastructure to minimize the risk of causing or spreading wildfires. To accomplish this, GWP shall prioritize its:
 Capital investments in system hardening;
 Operations and maintenance (O&M) expenditures on vegetation management, system inspections, and equipment maintenance; and
 Operational practices on disabling reclosers, proactive de-energization, and public outreach, as well as leveraging City programs that are consistent with this Plan (e.g., VMP).

Capital Projects
GWP’s capital funding includes plans to upgrade, enhance, and reinforce its electrical infrastructure to minimize the risk of its electrical system causing or spreading catastrophic wildfires. Mitigation efforts will be grouped into manageable, logical, geographically co-located collections of assets to be mitigated as a project for ease of management. Specific mitigating activities associated with wildfire mitigation will be evaluated based upon the following criteria (additional criteria may be added, as appropriate):

1. Existing Mitigation. The City of Glendale, including GWP and the Glendale Fire Department, has already implemented wildfire mitigation steps throughout many parts of the City. For a given set of assets, if existing mitigation measures already provide a sufficient level of protection against ignition or spread, then other assets without existing mitigation would be addressed first.

2. Time Commitment. Some mitigation projects can be completed quickly, while other projects require a significant investment of time, perhaps due to licensing or permitting issues.

3. Cost. Total investment (and on-going operating and maintenance costs) to mitigate each project will be considered, as different solutions can have different costs for a relatively equivalent outcome. For example, moving assets underground often has the highest cost, so if a lower-cost alternative can provide an equivalent level of mitigation, then selecting a higher-cost solution must provide significant advantages in some other criterion.

4. Engineering Studies. The most appropriate engineering solution will be determined by conducting studies that incorporate all of the above elements (existing mitigation, timeframe, and cost to implement and maintain), in addition to the specific engineering 243 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

challenges and issues that must be overcome. For example, undergrounding a project may not be feasible given existing (conflicting) underground assets, or significant impediments to burial (e.g., rocky ground). Depending upon the outcome of these detailed engineering studies to determine corrective actions, mitigating activities may include:
 Installation of insulated overhead conductors (i.e., “tree wire”) in those areas where conductor contacts are likely to initiate a wildfire; as of November 2019, tree wire has been ordered and plans are being developed to convert a small stretch of overhead conductors that have been identified as requiring this mitigation. Increasing the spacing between conductors, as clearance requirements and easements allow, can also reduce the likelihood of palm fronds creating shorts across conductors, which could spark a wildfire.  Leveraging conductor-spacing devices to minimize the likelihood of “wire slapping.”
 Where appropriate, converting existing overhead transmission and distribution assets to underground assets (e.g., conductors and transformers). Most new installations are underground, unless doing so would be cost-prohibitive or is otherwise infeasible.
 Replacing wood poles, which can topple and ignite new fires in high-wind conditions, with sturdier poles, reducing the likelihood of downed poles igniting wildfires and speeding customer restoration. This may include the use of steel poles, where applicable.
 Using stronger, composite materials for crossarms, e.g., fiberglass.  Replacement of insulators to reduce the likelihood of overhead conductors becoming detached and contacting vegetation or other flammable materials.  Identification, and replacement, of splices, clamps, and connectors on overhead conductors, where stress from heat or general use can cause downed conductors to come in contact with vegetation or other flammable materials.  Continue current practice of replacing overhead distribution transformers that are over 40 years old. Studies have confirmed that transformers over 40 years old have a higher likelihood of failure, which could result in sparking or explosions that could initiate a wildfire.
 Improving transformer resiliency to reduce the likelihood of transformer failures (which can trigger transformer fires) and to protect transformers against the heat of a wildfire (which can also trigger transformer fires). This may include investigating more robust materials and supplies (e.g., FR3 transformer oil).  GWP’s engineering redesigned the capacitor bank installation standards.

Capacitor bank neutral that is grounded at the base of the pole can facilitate high fault currents (and the potential for fire). According to the new standard capacitor bank neutral is no longer grounded.
 Implementing fast-acting, automatic protection schemes to detect broken conductors and de-energize before the conductor touches the ground. 244 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

 Replacing distribution fuses with non-expulsive fuses to prevent inadvertent sparking as fuses blow.
 Conducting engineering studies to identify ideal locations for lightning arresters, devices designed to protect equipment from the damaging effects of lightning.

GWP has already installed throughout GWP’s electric system, but these locations will be reevaluated for effectiveness.
 Installing weather station data equipment and HD camera footage to be monitored 24/7.

Based upon these, and similar, criteria, each project will be evaluated for the best-fit solution, funded through the annual budgeting process, and implemented based upon priority. These efforts are intended to reduce the likelihood of GWP equipment igniting a wildfire. GWP intends to also ensure rapid and safe restoration by improving the resiliency of its infrastructure against wildfire damage. For example, in those areas especially prone to wildfires, GWP will identify wood poles that could be replaced with non-flammable (e.g., steel or concrete) and/or taller poles. This type of action would not necessarily prevent wildfires, but it would speed restoration after a wildfire.

These activities will be on-going and are subject to adjustment, depending upon the results of GWP’s investigations and studies.

Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Efforts
Prioritization of wildfire mitigation efforts includes tailoring GWP’s O&M resources to meet or exceed state utility standards to minimize the risks posed by vegetation and equipment failure.

Funding shall be allocated through the annual budgeting process and is subject to management and City Council approval.
 Vegetation Management – Reduction of Ignition. GWP’s existing vegetation management program is on a two-year cycle, ensuring that all trees under power lines have been trimmed and/or assessed at least bi-annually. This program has historically focused on maximizing safety and reliability for its customers and employees, and will be enhanced to include intended mitigation of wildfire risk; vegetation management practices will be expanded to exceed minimum clearance requirements (as described in GO 95) by trimming trees down to the telecommunications layer and to clear hazardous vegetation in both Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones. GWP’s more aggressive tree-trimming policy may also include trimming or removing trees that could fall onto overhead power lines from above.
 Vegetation Management – Limiting the Spread of Wildfires. Reducing the risk of spreading wildfires posed by hazardous vegetation near structures is achieved, in large measure, by leveraging the City of Glendale Fire Department’s Hazardous Vegetation Management Program (VMP); the VMP reduces the risk of a home igniting from a nearby wildfire by controlling hazardous vegetation within 100 feet of the home.  Inspections. Expanding asset inspections and refining its master plan to address end-oflife infrastructure management. GWP is planning to issue a Request For Proposals (RFP) 245 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

in early-2020 to solicit bids from qualified engineering firms to conduct a complete assessment of all overhead and underground assets, beginning in 2020; this assessment will include pole inspections, vault inspections, and inspections of all assets connected to (or within) these assets, including (but not limited to) transformers, crossarms, insulators, conductors, cables, landings, capacitor banks, voltage regulators, and all other attachments. This program, consistent with GO 165, shall assess the condition of GWP assets and provide a mechanism to prioritize repair and replacement. Maintaining robust infrastructure will minimize the likelihood of downed power lines or failed equipment that can spark and ignite wildfires.
 Reclosers. Modifying recloser settings during high-risk periods to minimize the likelihood of inadvertently reclosing in a high-wildfire risk area.  Equipment Failure. According to information collected by GWP staff, over 40% of equipment failures in recent GWP history were transformer failures and overhead conductor failures. GWP has instituted an on-going process to replace aged transformers, which are more likely to fail by tracking characteristics like age, installation date, manufacturer, loading factor, and size for each transformer. Currently, transformers with more than 40 service years are prioritized for replacement; this process includes an analysis to ensure new, replacement transformers maintain the proper size and loading factors. The failure of overhead conductors can ignite a fire if the line is still energized when it touches the ground; GWP is investigating technological solutions to de-energize a falling conductor before it touches the ground. The probability of overhead conductor failure has been reduced. Thanks to Glendale City Council for adopting a new Mylar Balloon Ordinance on October 13,2020, which prohibits the sale of electrically conductive Mylar Balloons filled with helium or gas lighter than air within city limits. 246 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

D. Metrics
To evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigation measures, GWP intends to:
 Evaluate and measure the effectiveness of this Plan by monitoring and tracking verifiable metrics.
 Establish a baseline by inspecting the condition of its transmission and distribution assets, including poles, switches, reclosers, vaults, and transformers. Based upon these inspection results, submit annual budget requests to repair or replace equipment in a subpar condition. Continue periodic inspections consistent with GO 165.  Incorporate lessons learned and institutional intelligence specific to GWP to revise this Plan.

Tracking of the initial set of metrics shall commence on January 1, 2020, or the earliest that the metrics can be tracked. New metrics shall be added, and existing metrics shall be modified or removed, as determined by GWP, to provide actionable data and feedback. These metrics are intended to provide a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the Plan over time. The metrics themselves are not as important as the trends that are quantified in the metrics; accordingly, GWP intends to prioritize its limited resources by minimizing the time spent on gathering metrics in favor of implementing mitigating measures.

As the Plan matures and its effectiveness is measured over time, the metrics will be modified and adjusted, just as the Plan itself will be modified and adjusted based upon performance, successes, and failures.

The formal list of metrics shall demonstrate results and measure the effectiveness of GWP’s wildfire mitigation and will include the following:
 After any relay event, where GWP’s protective relays automatically de-energize a feeder or transmission line, the following information will be collected during the post-mortem:

1. Did the outage ignite a fire? (yes/no)

2. If the outage ignited a fire, were first responders notified? (yes/no)

3. If the outage ignited a fire, how large was the fire? < 1 acre, 1-50 acres, 50-300 acres, or > 300 acres

4. If the outage ignited a fire, how many structures were impacted? 1, 2-10, 10-50, or > 50
 Number of trees trimmed by GWP.
 Number of poles replaced in Tier 2/3.
 Number of transformers replaced in Tier 2/3.
 Feet/miles of transmission/distribution lines moved underground in Tier 2/3.  Feet/miles of tree wire installed in Tier 2/3.
 Number of standard (expulsive) fuses replaced by non-expulsive fuses.  Glendale Fire Department average time to respond to fire incidents. 247 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

E. Metrics Feedback
As GWP monitors and evaluates the metrics described in the previous section, it should also adjust this Plan to ensure these goals are achieved. During the annual review of this Plan, the following general questions should be reviewed with respect to the existing metrics:
 Metric Not Met. If a metric was not met, determine the cause. Review the metric for appropriateness – is the metric too strict, given GWP’s resources? Are additional resources required to improve the metric performance? Will additional resources have an impact on performance, or is the return on investment minimal?  Metric Significantly Exceeded. If a metric was significantly exceeded, review the metric for appropriateness. It is possible that the metric is too easily achieved, making the metric meaningless.
 New or Obsolete Metrics. Review any proposed new metrics and determine whether existing metrics are obsolete. Experience, legislative drivers, and management priorities can trigger the development of new metrics and the retirement of obsolete metrics.  Adjustments Based Upon Metrics. Based upon performance against these metrics, this Plan should be updated to adjust priorities and goals. For example, once a known issue has been mitigated, it should transition from “active construction” to “active monitoring.” 248 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

F. Operational Practices
The City of Glendale’s operational practices are coordinated across Departments and implemented independently by each Department.

Citywide
The City of Glendale’s Emergency Response Plan10 addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The Plan does not address normal, day-to-day emergencies or the well-established and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Instead, the operational concepts reflected in the Plan focus on potential large-scale disasters which can generate unique situations requiring unusual emergency responses.

The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan11 provides a set of action items that, if implemented, can help reduce the risk from hazards through education and outreach programs, the development of partnerships, and the implementation of preventive activities (such as land use programs) that restrict and control development in areas subject to damage from natural hazards.

City of Glendale personnel involved in emergency response and emergency management functions are provided ongoing training, including local workshops, SEMS12 training, NIMS13 training, and other special programs throughout the year. Key management and emergency personnel also attend the California Specialized Training Institute to receive in-depth training in related emergency management topics.

GWP
Engineering and field personnel will periodically review operational practices to identify preventative strategies and enhanced operational procedures to minimize and mitigate the risk of causing and/or spreading catastrophic wildfires, both during periods of high danger as well as during normal operating conditions.

The Principal Power System Operator oversees the real-time System Dispatch function and provides on-going, topical training to all Power System Operators (PSO’s). At least two PSO’s staff a Dispatch desk 24/7 to monitor and control GWP’s electric grid while dispatching field crews to investigate and resolve problems, or to schedule work, on GWP electrical infrastructure.

10 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/other/emergency-preparednessresponse/city-emergency-plans 11 https://www.glendaleca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=48978 12 Standardized Emergency Management System, which unifies all elements of California’s emergency management community into a single, integrated system with standardized key elements. See https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oesdivisions/planning-preparedness/standardized-emergency-management-system for more information. 13 The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) National Incident Management System, which guides all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and the private sector to work together to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from incidents. See https://www.fema.gov/national-incidentmanagement-system for more information. 249 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

The Substation Operations Training Program includes training on system protection and trouble response; topics include discussions on preemptive de-energization, rolling blackouts, and automatic system protection schemes. This training is provided to all new PSO’s, as well as to seasoned PSO’s on an annual basis.

Operationally, the PSO retains the authority and obligation to de-energize electrical equipment, sub-transmission lines, and/or distribution feeders in the event of a high wildfire danger. The decision to preemptively de-energize GWP equipment is described further in GWP Standard Operating Procedure SOP-021 and is based upon multiple factors, including Red Flag Warnings, system conditions, and other operational considerations. The PSO considers several factors before de-energizing overhead lines during periods of extreme wildfire danger:
 Hospitals
 Elder care facilities
 Communications equipment (e.g., cell phone towers, pole-mounted cell sites)  City of Glendale Public Works facilities (e.g., sewer)  First responder facilities, including police, fire, and local government facilities  Community information facilities (e.g., radio equipment).  GWP Water Division and Crescenta Valley Water District systems, which maintain water quality, water supply, and water pressure to residents and to the Glendale Fire Department for fighting fires.

De-energization is always the PSO’s option of last resort, given the potential impacts of deenergization as described below (e.g., traffic signals, air conditioning during high temperatures, lack of electricity to water facilities to fight fires, etc.). In the event preemptive de-energization is initiated, every attempt to minimize the number of affected customers is made by sectionalizing only the effected feeders or transmission lines.

Per SOP-021, it is GWP’s policy to preemptively de-energize overhead transmission and distribution lines and to disable automatic reclosers in the Tier 2 or Tier 3 zones during periods of extreme wildfire danger, or at other times as deemed necessary by GWP, with the intent of reducing the risk of igniting a wildfire from energized equipment.

During these periods of extreme wildfire danger, if a protective scheme (e.g., relay or recloser) automatically de-energizes a feeder, GWP crews will physically patrol a feeder to identify and clear the cause of the protective action before any attempts are made to re-energize the circuit.

The benefits of preemptive de-energization are offset by the challenges and potential dangers of widespread and extended power outages during periods of high temperatures. As discussed in L.

Enterprise-Wide Risks, the supply of safe drinking water, water for firefighting, infrastructure used for public safety, and the overall impacts of power outages could all potentially be compromised. Therefore, the decision to de-energize customers must be the solution of last resort after all wildfire mitigation efforts have been exhausted. 250 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

The PSOs conduct and complete annual and periodic training on their job responsibilities, processes, procedures, and practices. This training includes their authority to de-energize customers as needed to prevent potential ignitions during extreme fire conditions, as well as during periods where there is insufficient energy supply to meet load requirements. SOP-021 is also covered in this training, including notification requirements before initiating planned deenergization of customers. System conditions can change rapidly, so in an emergency, the PSO may opt to de-energize first, then conduct the required notifications.

While the PSOs determine whether and when de-energization is necessary, the field crews work in tandem with the PSOs to conduct field switching (as necessary, and as directed by the PSOs), patrol de-energized lines prior to re-energization, and repair damage to equipment and lines discovered during patrols. This is consistent with their usual duties and is folded into their standard job responsibilities and practices.

Energy Supply and Procurement Contingencies
Should the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP), Southern California Edison (SCE), or other utilities elect to de-energize major transmission corridors during periods of extreme fire danger (which usually correlate with periods of high electrical loads), the City will be forced to procure replacement energy from alternate energy sources to meet load.

Given GWP’s load and contingency obligations during periods of peak load, the loss of a major transmission line could result in the loss of 100 MW or more of imported energy. Options to replace this energy are limited to local generation capability (e.g., Grayson) or purchases of energy that rely upon LADWP transmission. Most GWP transmission is closely tied to LADWP transmission, meaning the loss of GWP transmission likely includes the loss of LADWP transmission, further straining the local transmission grid. When GWP’s transmission capacity is curtailed during periods of high load, LADWP is unlikely to have excess transmission capacity to sell to GWP, at any price; even if GWP could find an energy provider, it would be unlikely to be delivered to the Glendale (69 kV) side of the Air Way receiving station.

The next option would be to generate the energy locally (e.g., Grayson). The proposed repowered Grayson power plant must be sufficient to accommodate the loss of 100 MW of transmission import capability, which reflects the amount of transmission capacity that would be lost if the Pacific Direct Current Intertie (PDCI) transmission line were to be de-energized.

However, should this local generation not be available when needed (for example, if the repower were to not occur), GWP would have insufficient capability to meet its load and contingency obligations while the PDCI were de-energized.

In the event GWP is unable to procure energy delivered to the Air Way receiving station or to generate the replacement energy locally, it would be forced to initiate rolling blackouts to balance its load with delivered energy. These rollouts would continue until the lost transmission 251 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

capability is restored. In other words, preemptive de-energization of transmission lines, initiated by a party other than GWP, could result in rolling blackouts within the City of Glendale. In the scenario where an outside agency’s actions caused a lack of energy supply to the City of Glendale, advanced notification to customers would likely not be possible given that the energy shortage would occur with no more than a few hours’ notice, though “best efforts” would be initiated to provide notice when possible.

GWP has acquired a new Outage Management System (OMS) by DataVoice International Inc., which allows efficient and quick notification to our customers of impending power outage, whether than outage is due to generation shortage or due to PSPS.

GWP Dispatch maintains a rolling blackout schedule that is initiated at the direction of the Integrated Resource Planning Administrator or delegate.

To increase our generation reliability, GWP is planning more distributed generation in the city, namely by installing photovoltaic panels and battery storage. One of the projects involves placement of solar panels on city-owned properties, such as roof-tops and parking structures that are owned by the city of Glendale. Another project is considering the placement of 25 MW of battery storage at possibility Montrose Substation. In the future, GWP plans to install 50 MW of battery storage at the Utility Operations Center yard (UOC), close to GWP’s power generation. 252 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

G. Customer Outreach
Prevention and Strategy
GWP will maintain a multi-level outreach and education strategy to create public awareness of fire threats, fire prevention, and support during a wildfire or a de-energizing event. GWP will work with the public, community leaders, and other agencies to collaboratively discuss firesafety processes regarding public safety. These collaborations will provide forums for public education and opportunities to exchange improvement ideas and practices.

GWP partners with first responders, health care facilities, and operators of telecommunications infrastructures. GWP, in coordination with the Glendale Fire Department, proactively alerts customers on the Life Support list it maintains. GWP will create and maintain a Public Safety Power Shutoff webpage for its website at https://www.glendaleca.gov/wildfiremitigation to provide information on power shut offs and fire mitigation plans, and a link to this page from the main GWP website will also be added. This webpage will be used to ask customers to update their GWP account information and emergency contact preferences, and to provide a link to both the login page to GWP account information and to the Everbridge Emergency Contact Information webpage. GWP will develop informational brochures on wildfire mitigation safety and what to do when a de-energizing event is called, referencing the website in all collateral items produced and distributed. On the dedicated Public Safety Wildfire Mitigation webpage, customers will be able to find the following information:
 GWP’s adopted Wildfire Mitigation Plan;
 Information on how GWP mitigates wildfire risk;
 Emergency preparedness tips and guide;
 Information on what not to do during Red Flag Warnings (e.g., BBQs, smoking outdoors, throwing ashes out, etc.);
 Links to any additional resources;
 Links to GWP Account Information & Everbridge Emergency Notification sign-ups;  Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQs) on the power shut-off process.

De‐Energization (Public Safety Shutoff Event)
During an extreme weather event, GWP will actively provide customer outreach and support through a targeted communications strategy, with the goal of providing as much advance notice as possible. GWP will inform its customers of expected severe weather conditions and directly notify affected customers through established points of contacts such as email, phone, text, and/or push notifications. GWP will also alert customers through its social media platforms, alert the media, work with the City’s Fire and Police PIO offices and websites, and post rolling messages on local television (GTV6) and on the City’s and GWP’s websites. GWP can initiate automated pre-recorded phone calls to customers in the impacted areas, advising when the outages are called and directing customers to the dedicated GWP website for up-to-date information. Pre-recorded IVR (Interactive Voice Response) messages will have real-time recorded information informing customers that may be impacted. GWP will also post messages on its website and through its Mobile App and In-Home Digital Display program for targeted 253 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

push messaging. Messaging will increase in urgency as the certainty of a Public Safety Power Shutoff approaches. Finally, in addition to alerting its customers, GWP will also notify, as a priority, first responders’ PIO offices, health care facilities’ communication offices, and the offices of the building engineers, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and operators of telecommunications infrastructure.

For customers on Life Support, GWP, if notified, will contact these customers through phone calls. Two phone attempts will be made, and an email will be sent if there is an email address on file. If no response is received, GWP will dispatch a field crew to contact the Life Support customer. GWP will also keep local news and radio outlets informed.

Timing of notifications
When GWP determines a preemptive de-energization is required, either because another entity’s actions suddenly limits GWP’s energy supply (e.g., Southern California Edison initiates a Public Safety Power Shutoff – PSPS – on a transmission line that impacts GWP’s incoming transmission capacity) or due to the PSO’s system assessment, GWP will provide advance notifications in three phases:

1. Advanced notification (when possible)
 48 hours before electricity is turned off
 24 hours before electricity is turned off

2. Shutoff notification just before electricity is turned off

3. Notifications during the event
Post event notifications will be provided to notify customers that power has been restored. 254 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

H. Vegetation Management
As described in this Plan, the majority of acreage burned by wildfires triggered by electric utilities was determined to be due to vegetation contacts and equipment failure. GWP oversees a contracted arborist that implements GWP’s vegetation management program intended to mitigate the risk posed by vegetation contacts. This program is consistent with General Order (GO) 95 – Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction, including the clearance requirements described in Section III – Requirements for All Lines, Rule 35 Vegetation Management.

GWP staffs Line Clearance Forestry Supervisors who spend the majority of their time in the field, overseeing the contractor and monitoring vegetation under GWP transmission and distribution lines. These Supervisors are typically certified arborists who identify all trees that need trimming, direct the contractor to specific trees and/or areas that require trimming, and then confirm afterward that the identified trees have been trimmed to GWP standards.

Although the highest wildfire risk is presented in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones of the City, the Supervisors monitor the entire City for dangers posed by vegetation under GWP lines.

In fiscal year 2021-2022, GWP budgeted approximately $2,500,000 to fund a contractor to conduct tree-trimming activities as directed by GWP staff. For the fiscal year 2022-2023, GWP has increased its tree-trimming budget by approximately $300,000 for enhanced tree-trimming activities; these enhancements may include larger clearances, expansion of tree-trimming to nearby trees not directly under power lines, and other clearing of hazardous vegetation near power lines.

As part of its risk assessment to prioritize mitigation efforts, GWP has engaged the City of Glendale’s Fire Department to leverage its Vegetation Management Program (VMP). The VMP was developed to ensure there is adequate defensible space around buildings in the wildlandurban interface. Activities include annual inspections and review/permitting of landscape and fuel modification plans for properties in the high wildfire hazard area. Property owners are required to maintain a 100-foot radius of defensible space (i.e., remove hazardous vegetation) around all property structures, including homes, backhouses, sheds, etc. The majority of GWP’s electrical assets also reside within this 100-foot radius, so even if a localized fire were ignited by failed GWP equipment, the likelihood of this fire igniting nearby buildings would be reduced.

Therefore, GWP can focus its resources on mitigating electrical assets that are outside of the zones covered by the VMP. The VMP facilitates GWP’s ability to focus on mitigation of electrical assets on a subset of its assets, potentially improving the success and rate of its mitigation efforts.
255 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

I. System Inspections
As described in this Plan, the majority of acreage burned by wildfires triggered by electric utilities was determined to be due to vegetation contacts and equipment failure. GWP leverages GO 165 requirements as a “best practice” to provide guidance on system inspections that are intended to identify failing equipment that may ignite a fire.

As part of its Master Plan, still in development as of this writing, GWP intends to conduct a system inventory that includes a system-wide inspection of its poles, streetlights, vaults, and all equipment and assets connected to, or contained within, these assets. GWP funding and capital improvement priorities will be adjusted, based upon the results of these inspections, to replace and harden equipment and assets that are flagged as requiring replacement. This system-wide assessment will commence in 2020, as conducted by a qualified, contracted engineering firm that will formally inspect and assess of all overhead and underground assets. As assets are inspected, GWP will remediate based upon these inspection results and will issue work orders to address any problems that were observed: replace poles, repair equipment, etc. The completed inspection report will establish a baseline condition assessment of system assets; this program will establish the new inspection program going forward, and GWP staff will conduct all subsequent assessments as part of an on-going inspection program, consistent with the requirements of GO 95 and GO 165.

GWP has dedicated staff who are responsible for the preventative and routine inspections, construction, installation, maintenance, and repair of all transmission and distribution assets.

Beginning with the 2019-2020 fiscal year, GWP has budgeted capital and O&M funds related to wildfire mitigation, including system hardening, substation and distribution automation, and vegetation management.

The City of Glendale’s VMP, managed by the Glendale Fire Department, includes annual inspections of properties in the high fire hazard areas of the City to ensure compliance with its defensible space standards (see Exhibit B).
256 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

J. Wildfire Risks and Drivers
The City of Glendale’s wildfire risk is driven by controllable and uncontrollable factors. The City’s topography consists of both a highly-developed urban center and mountainous open spaces with frequently dry vegetation; this diversity adds complexity to GWP’s wildfire mitigation efforts and requires a surgical approach to tailored mitigation efforts in each area of the City. Climate change exacerbates the already hot, dry weather common to Glendale, as well as the seasonal winds, as discussed in Section C. Preventative Strategies and Programs, and is assumed to only exacerbate GWP’s wildfire risk going forward, namely with respect to making dry fuel available for ignition and for spread. This Plan focuses on preventing wildfires from being caused by inadvertent vegetation contacts with, or failures of, GWP electric utility equipment. Prevention of wildfires ignited by other causes (e.g., intentionally-set fires, accidental human-caused fires, etc.) are not considered.

GWP aims to reduce the risk of starting and spreading wildfires, acknowledging that it is not feasible to achieve zero risk. To that end, GWP has adopted a risk-based approach to prioritize capital improvements, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) work, and changes to operating procedures to achieve the objective stated in Section B of this Plan.

This prioritization leverages historical data that measures the relative size (in this case, measured in acreage of burned land) of California wildfires and that describes the causes of the wildfires.

Historical data confirms that the majority of acreage burned was due to vegetation contacts and equipment failure.

To quantify the size (in acreage) of historical fires, 2012-2016 wildfire statistics from Cal Fire14 indicate:
 74% of the acres burned were due to fires initiated by vegetation contacts – i.e., trees touching power lines, causing sparks and starting fires. Plentiful brush and undergrowth can also facilitate rapid expansion of wildfires once the initial spark is provided.  The majority of the acreage burned due to vegetation contacts occurred in 2015, which skews the acreage burned due to vegetation contacts. Ignoring the vegetation contact fires in 2015, 67% of the total acres burned were caused by equipment failure – i.e., failed hardware that possibly sparked or exploded and started fires.  The majority of the acreage burned due to equipment failure occurred in 2013, which skews the acreage burned due to equipment failure. Ignoring the vegetation contact fires in 2015 and the equipment failure fires in 2013, 46% of the total acres burned were caused by lines down – i.e., energized power lines that touched the ground and started fires. Equipment and hardware failures are discussed in more detail below.

14 “2012 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2013 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2014 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2015 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2016 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” Historical Wildfire Activity Statistics (Redbooks), http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_fire_info_redbooks. (Accessed September 21, 2018) 257 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

 The acreage burned due to animals (e.g., squirrels shorting lines and starting a fire) and line slap (transmission lines touching during high winds) was negligible.

The chart below summarizes this data.

Figure 1. California Wildfires Attributed to Electric Utilities (2012‐2016) GWP concurs that its own risks stem largely from vegetation contacts and equipment failure.

Equipment failures from 2009 – 2018, based upon historical GWP data, show that the largest number of equipment failures came from transformers, overhead conductors, insulators, and switches and disconnects. The chart below summarizes this data. 258 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Figure 2. GWP Equipment Failure (2009 – 2018)
GWP’s transformer-replacement program prioritizes life-cycle replacement of transformers that are over 40 years old to minimize the likelihood of transformer failures igniting wildfires.

As part of its review of assets in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones, GWP Electric Engineering has identified overhead feeder and transmission line sections at highest risk of igniting and spreading wildfires. These sections will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis for the most appropriate mitigation approach, as discussed in Section C.
259 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

K. Wildfire Zones
GWP has leveraged the tiered zones developed and mapped by Cal Fire; the Glendale Fire Department’s independent wildfire zone assessment15 correlates strongly with Cal Fire’s maps and assigns similar levels of risk to these areas. GWP does not anticipate making any changes to these maps and accepts them as provided. In addition, Section 7 of the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan contains the City’s independent assessment of wildfire risk within the City of Glendale.

CalFire’s methodology reflects the risk of a wildfire igniting and spreading by classifying each area within the City of Glendale as Tier 1 (low risk), Tier 2 (elevated risk), or Tier 3 (extreme risk).

The Fire Area Map in Exhibit A shows that, as of 2018, approximately 48% of the City of Glendale falls within Tier 2 and 14% falls within Tier 3. GWP intends to prioritize its efforts to mitigate wildfire hazards within these areas, which cover nearly 62% of the City’s area.

GWP and the Glendale Fire Department, working in concert, significantly reduce the wildfire risk imposed by hazardous vegetation:
 GWP’s aggressive, City-wide tree-trimming program, consistent with GO 95, reduces the likelihood of trees coming in contact with live transmission and distribution wires.  The City of Glendale’s Vegetation Management Program (VMP) reduces the intensity and rate of spread of a wildfire near buildings, reducing the risk that nearby buildings will be ignited. The majority of GWP’s electrical assets reside within 100 feet of structures on private property (where property owners are required to manage vegetation), so only

0.47% of the City’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 land area contains GWP electrical assets that require additional mitigation to reduce the risk of igniting a spreading wildfire; this is compared to the nearly 62% of the City’s area that is within the Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones.

By applying this risk-based approach of focusing wildfire mitigation resources on GWP’s overhead resources in
unmitigated areas, only 0.47% of the City of Glendale contains GWP assets that require additional mitigation.

By applying prudent vegetation management programs, GWP has decreased the City of Glendale’s wildfire exposure from 62% of its land area to 0.47%, a 99.5% decrease; this reduction in scope provides clear guidance on the remaining areas requiring additional wildfire mitigation. Figure 3 summarizes the impact of the existing mitigating measures, and Figure 4 graphically illustrates the level of mitigation currently in place. GWP intends to focus its added wildfire mitigation efforts and resources on mitigating the remaining electrical assets in these Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones.

15 City of Glendale’s High Fire Hazard Area map, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=50019 260 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Figure 3. GWP Assets Currently Mitigated vs. Requiring Additional Mitigation Total Assets
Liable Assets Requiring
Additional Mitigation
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Citywide Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Citywide Reduction Requires Additional Mitigation Overhead T+D Lines
(miles) 206.2 60.6 15.6 282.4 - 9.6 3.4 13.0 95.4% 4.6% Poles / Towers 11,303 2,899 703 14,905 - 185 60 245 98.4% 1.6% Transformers 3,528 673 165 4,366 - 23 3 26 99.4% 0.6%
Pole Switches 523 108 16 647 - 10 1 11 98.3% 1.7%
Pole Disconnects / Fuses 1,098 232 49 1379 - 7 5 12 99.1% 0.9% Reclosers 28 12 3 43.0 - 1 0 1 97.7% 2.3%
Area Coverage 38% 48% 14% 100% - 0.29% 0.18% 0.47%* 99.5% 0.5% Electric Meters 77,524 10,889 1,945 90,358 - 5 1 6 100.0% 0% Structures / Buildings 44,469 11,622 2,248 58,339 - 0 0 0 100.0% 0% Note: Some values are rounded to conserve space on the page * Refer to page 8 of report, Methodology for calculating high-wildfire danger areas in the City of Glendale 261 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Figure 4. GWP Assets Currently Mitigated vs. Requiring Additional Mitigation 262 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

L. Enterprise‐Wide Risks
This Plan discusses mitigating steps and measured intended to “protect City customers, employees, and assets against the potential dangers and costs of damage incurred as a result of wildfires inadvertently initiated by GWP electrical assets and equipment.”16 These dangers and

16 See
Definitions
Catastrophic Fire See also Wildfire. A wildland or wildland urban interface fire with a fast moving front, extending over a large area (300+ acres) and/or highly destructive to lives, property or natural resources.

Hazardous Vegetation Refuse, grass, weeds, shrubs, trees, or other vegetation which are in such condition and location, or by the unique characteristics of a species, as to provide a ready fuel supply to augment the spread or intensity of a fire.

POU Publicly-Owned Utilities are subject to local public control and regulation. POUs are organized in various forms including municipal districts, city departments, irrigation districts, or rural cooperatives. Municipal districts may include territories outside city limits or may not even serve the entire city. Cooperatives are owned by the customers they serve usually in rural areas. There are more than 40 POUs in the state that account for approximately a quarter of electricity supply in California. Most POUs are smaller than IOUs in the electricity sales and the number of customer accounts.

Red Flag Warning The National Weather Service issues Red Flag Warnings to alert fire departments of the onset, or possible onset, of critical weather and dry conditions that could lead to rapid or dramatic increases in wildfire activity.

Wildfire See also Catastrophic Fire. Any free-burning vegetative fire that initiates from an unplanned ignition, whether natural or humancaused, where the management objective is full suppression. GWP considers both ignition and spread as required elements of a Wildfire.

VMP The City of Glendale’s Vegetation Management Program was developed to ensure there is adequate defensible space in the wildland-urban interface areas between the open space and homes in its hillside and canyon communities. Activities include annual inspections and review/permitting of landscape and fuel modification plans for properties in the High Fire Hazard Area. 263 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

costs also apply to functions and departments other than the GWP electrical division, including the GWP Water Division, Glendale Information Services, Glendale Police, and Glendale Fire.

The primary impacts of a wildfire are the potential for preemptive de-energization of one or more feeders and evacuation of high-danger areas during an active wildfire.

GWP – Water Division
GWP’s Water Division serves over 200,000 residents through 34,000 service connections to residential units and businesses and is an essential partner in public safety by ensuring sufficient water supply to the City of Glendale’s over 3,000 fire hydrants. In order to provide this service, water needs to be pumped from the various points of delivery to the end users.

Due to the topography of the City of Glendale, water is delivered by gravity to the “downtown” area of the City and pumped from this elevation up to the canyons and hills and to the northern elevations of the City. Specifically, the hydraulic elevation, or grade, of the City’s downtown is 724 feet and the highest water service elevation is at 2,483 feet, with several elevations in between. These areas primarily rely upon water storage tanks, which can supply a few hours of water for firefighting purposes to extinguish single structure fires as originally planned and designed when these neighborhoods were developed.

Many of these areas are in what could be called “native brush/urban” interfaces; reliable power to the water facilities can be restricted by wildfires or by proactive de-energization. Since the City has historically had a reliable, local source of generation at the Grayson Power Plant, the water system has not been required to install permanent back-up generation at its facilities. If electrical service to GWP’s pump stations were unavailable for more than a few hours, GWP would be unable to provide additional water to an area where a large brush fire could be occurring. It is estimated that the planning, design, and installation of permanent on-site generation to power critical water facilities would cost around $10 million; on-going maintenance and operations would be an added annual budgeted expense.

Glendale Information Services
Among its myriad functions, the Information Services Department (ISD) maintains the Citywide radio communications system. Each radio site has unique characteristics and a different degree of resiliency against wildfires and loss of GWP power, depending upon the location and the degree of load on the radio system (more transmitters or more microwave radio links mean a greater power requirement). Each site has a backup battery plant capable of running the entire radio site and, with one exception, has an on-site generator with automatic start and an automatic transfer switch. An additional generator has been budgeted for fiscal year 2019-2020, and there are plans to increase some battery capacity in fiscal year 2019-2020.

Overview, page 1.
264 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

The radio system can run for several days without recharging the batteries (i.e., no generator).

ISD has telemetry to report the loss of primary (GWP) power and the status of the generator (running or not), and they are aware of the GWP circuits that feed each site. For those sites not supplied by GWP, they have relationships for information sharing with the site owner and/or other tenants to make each other aware of planned and unplanned outages, as well as site access issues. Therefore, loss of GWP power would not have a significant impact unless the outage were to last for several days; resiliency against wildfires would be dependent upon the intensity and proximity of the wildfire, as physical access would nominally not be required to ensure uninterrupted operation.

The radio system “Master Site” is located near downtown Glendale and ISD also maintains a large battery plant, a fixed generator, and a manual transfer switch with terminals appropriate to connect to any suitable generator there.

During past power outages impacting these radio sites, ISD has recommended that GWP prioritize power restoration to GWP customers since ISD can ensure continued operation for several days without GWP power.

Glendale Police Department
Wildfires and power outages, planned and unplanned, impact the Glendale Police Department (GPD) directly (“First-Order Impacts”), other City services with Police effects (“Second-Order Impacts”), and the community in general (“Third-Order Impacts”).

First Order Impacts:

1. Diesel Backup. GPD has a 13,500-gallon diesel fuel tank, which provides no more than 95 hours of run time if the tank is full when an extended power outage begins. Typically, these tanks are not kept full and the tank volume fluctuates.

2. Loss of Data Center. GPD’s data center is not backed up outside of the City. As a result, evacuation due to wildfires or a long-term power loss that extends beyond the diesel backup means an inability to access local criminal justice records until the evacuation is lifted or power is restored. These records can include information supporting arrest warrants, involving active investigations, or related to critical missing persons – this accounts for all records-related functions.

3. Access to Fuel for Vehicles. GPD’s automotive fuel supplies require power to pump.

Thus a loss of power beyond their diesel support means the fleet is drastically limited.

They do not have a tanking capacity so would need to execute an emergency contract for fuel services in an area unaffected by power outages, or secure an emergency tanker from another source. The Los Angeles (LA) County Sheriff does not have an emergency tanker, so they would be forced to wait for a tanker from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), or they would drive somewhere to purchase fuel commercially.

Second Order Impacts:
265 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

1. Citywide Fuel for Vehicles. The City as a whole has access to 115,000 gallons of tanked diesel fuels and a limited capacity to support moving fuel supplies from site to site. This tanked fuel would have to support all City operations. In all likelihood, mission-critical activities like Fire, Police, GWP, and Public Works would be given nearly equal priority in these supplies in the event of evacuation or loss of GWP power.

If the fuel is unreachable due to evacuations or wildfire, the capacity of this fuel is further restricted.

2. Police Radio Towers. Police radio towers use an uninterruptable power supply (UPS) consisting of batteries and generator backup.

3. Emergency 911 Calls. If the 911 system fails at the Glendale Police building or the building is evacuated due to wildfires, calls roll over to Verdugo Fire. Depending on the location, extent, and duration of a power outage or wildfire, both centers could go down or become unreachable. Neighboring agency facilities have insufficient desk space to accommodate rolling calls to them, even if GPD sent personnel.

4. Internet. Citywide data connectivity to the Internet, including GPD access, requires GWP power. If the City’s primary data center goes down, GPD loses its Internet connectivity to the outside world.

5. Prisoner Impacts. With an extended loss of GWP power, GPD would experience hindered water deliveries to the police building. They have limited supplies of drinking water, and dealing with wastewater / sewage would become an issue. With a loss of power to the police building or an evacuation, the prisoner population would need to be transported offsite and GPD could no longer hold or book arrestees locally.

Third Order Impacts:

1. Streetlights. Extended loss of power to the streetlights would increase traffic collisions and dramatically snarl traffic, especially if coupled with a localized evacuation. GPD does not have sufficient staff to manually run traffic control, even at the City’s major intersections.

2. Gas Stations. Extended loss of power to area gas stations would limit local fuel supplies, even to the extent that some residents would enter emergency situations because they are stranded. For example, kids at school may need to be picked up, or people requiring medical care may need transportation.

3. Hospitals. Evacuation or extended loss of power to area hospitals, if closure was forced, would result in patients being sent to distant facilities. Currently the limited ambulance capacity would be strained by long-range transports, impacting both GPD and GFD.

4. Grocery Stores. Extended loss of power or a mass evacuation would impact grocery stores. Reductions in food supply would impact the most vulnerable. Many of the City’s residents have limited transport ability (primarily, the elderly) who are unable to walk to the corner store for food and supplies.

5. Uninhabitable Areas. Extended loss of power could create whole neighborhoods that are not serviced by GWP – first power, then water. Eventually, these neighborhoods become uninhabitable. Based upon observations after wildfires, situations like this require increased services on the order of 300% to 500%. 266 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

6. Cellular Services. The area cellular telephone systems rely upon GWP power and have a limited battery backup. Once the battery backup fails, the cellular network breaks down and citizens will be limited in their ability to care for themselves or request aid.

Glendale Fire Department
Wildfires and power outages, planned and unplanned, directly impact the Glendale Fire Department (GFD). However, the GFD has mitigating measures in place to ensure continued operations.

1. Backup Generators: GFD has diesel backup power generators at all GFD fire stations.

There is sufficient fuel, when full, for 90 to 560 hours of emergency power generation at each station, depending on the size of the generator at the station.

2. Verdugo Dispatch: Dispatch has a UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) with a manual transfer switch to accommodate multiple electric feeds. On a full charge, the backup batteries can run dispatch operations for 10 hours. After 10 hours, dispatch will rely on diesel backup generators at Fire Station 21.
267 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

M. Restoration
GWP restores power after a wildfire or preemptive de-energization in a similar manner, ensuring the assets are in a safe condition prior to re-energization.

GWP maintains a list of reclosers that are disabled in the event of a Red Flag Warning or as determined necessary by the Power System Operators based upon system conditions. These devices are disabled during periods of extreme wildfire danger to minimize the likelihood of inadvertently sparking a fire upon automatic re-energization. Upon restoration, the reclosers will be re-enabled to perform normally.

GWP maintains a list of transmission and distribution lines that must be manually patrolled prior to re-energization, in the event the lines were automatically (e.g., via relay action) or manually (through Power System Operator action) de-energized. System Dispatch notifies GWP staff that the lines are being patrolled in anticipation of re-energization. During these patrols, GWP personnel ensure that structures and equipment are not damaged – e.g., poles are upright, conductors are attached, transformers are in place, there are no trees or other vegetation in contact with overhead conductors, etc.

During these patrols, if equipment or assets are found in a suboptimal condition, GWP personnel will coordinate to repair the equipment and restore service. To facilitate repairs, GWP maintains a minimum level of spare distribution transformers, conduit, cables and conductors, other equipment, and associated parts in its warehouse. When minimum thresholds are reached, the warehouse automatically orders a pre-determined number of units to restore warehouse stock in anticipation of the next emergency.

In the event GWP lacks the personnel, equipment, or parts to rapidly restore service, it can leverage mutual assistance and mutual aid programs with neighboring utilities. In these cases, neighboring utilities can quickly offer personnel, equipment, and parts to safely and quickly restore service to customers.

268 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

N. Plan Maintenance and Inspection Effectiveness
This Plan is intended to be a “living document,” providing guidance to GWP on funding and operational priorities, yet with sufficient flexibility to be updated based upon new data and feedback from those responsible for its implementation.

As described in D. Metrics and E. Metrics Feedback, GWP’s metrics are intended to measure the effectiveness of this Plan. As the metrics are collected and analyzed, the Plan’s effectiveness will be evaluated and, as necessary, the Plan will be modified in response to that feedback. The Wildfire Mitigation Plan Committee will meet quarterly, or as needed, to review the Plan metrics and compare against operational performance – specifically, the Committee will assess each metric and, with the benefit of hindsight and added experience, determine the metric’s effectiveness. The Plan will be reviewed annually and circulated through GWP management, City of Glendale management, and the City of Glendale’s City Council for review and approval.

This review process will include making updates to the Plan to correct any Plan deficiencies.

As discussed in C. Preventative Strategies and Programs, Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Efforts, GWP will contract with an engineering firm to conduct a complete system inspection of all poles, vaults, and associated/attached equipment. GWP staff will oversee these inspections and will assign qualified personnel to monitor and audit the inspections to ensure that they are conducted in a consistent and thorough manner. As changes to the process are required, GWP staff will be empowered to initiate those changes with the contracted inspectors. Once completed, this set of system inspections will establish a condition baseline. GWP will then use internal staff to launch an on-going inspection program, using the contractor inspection plan as a basis, to ensure system assets continue to be monitored and inspected on a regular basis.

269 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Exhibit A. City of Glendale Fire Threat Map
270 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Exhibit B. Vegetation Management Program (VMP)
The two-page VMP brochure below was up-to-date as of the date of this Plan. For the latest version, please see https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/fireprevention-environmental-management/vegetation-management-and-weed-abatement. (Link does not work, need to repair this)

271 of 1332
Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

Exhibit B. Vegetation Management Program (VMP), continued 272 of 1332
8c

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Triple Bottom Line (3BL) Assessment of Natural Turf vs. Artificial Turf

1. Motion providing direction to staff on the use of artificial turf as the preferred surface type for multipurpose fields based on the findings of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Triple Bottom Line (3BL) Assessment.

2. Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 19-135, adopting revised Public Works Specification No. 3624R for construction of the Fremont Park Renovation Project, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 28, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 21, 2021, City Council directed staff to hire Citadel EHS to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment and Triple Bottom Line Analysis of artificial turf and natural turf to determine the choice of surfacing for multi-purpose fields at Freemont Park, Pacific Park, Sports Complex # 3, Cerritos Elementary and Wilson Middle School. Citadel held a key stakeholders meeting on February 16, 2022, to identify / prioritize the criteria in evaluating the surface types, resulting in 14 topic areas within three impact categories: Environment, Human Health, and Community. Citadel’s findings concluded that artificial turf with the natural Geofill offers the highest potential to balance the diverse priorities based on the categories identified. A joint meeting of the Sustainability and Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commissions was held on June 2, 2022 to present the findings. The Sustainability Commission voted 3-2 in favor of artificial turf at Sports Complex #3 only, and recommended City Council proceed with natural turf at the remaining four sites.

Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission voted 3-2 in favor of artificial turf at Fremont Park, Pacific Park, and Sports Complex Field #3, and deferred to City Council for the two school sites. Public comments received to date are fairly divided in their request, with 30 supporting artificial turf and 34 preferring natural turf. 273 of 1332
2 8c

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Fiscal Responsibility: artificial turf generates the most revenue of the surface types and costs less to maintain – Funds for four of these projects (Pacific, Fremont, Cerritos and Wilson) have been allocated through the budget process in previous years.

Exceptional Customer Service: artificial turf provides a high quality playing surface and increased play time for youth and adult sports, addressing the high demand for field use by the Glendale community.

Sustainability: determining all factors involved within the study, artificial turf coincides with Council’s efforts of enhancing sustainability via efficient use of resource and enhancing equal access to amenities and services

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Motion providing direction to staff on the use of artificial turf as the preferred surface type for multipurpose fields based on the findings of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Triple Bottom Line (3BL) Assessment, and approve a Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 19-135, adopting revised Public Works Specification No. 3624R for construction of the Fremont Park Renovation Project, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

BACKGROUND
In October of 2020, the Parks, Recreation and Community Services (PR&CS) Commission requested that staff prepare a report comparing surface types for five soccer / multi-purpose field projects previously approved by City Council: Fremont Park, Pacific Park, Sports Complex, Cerritos Elementary, and Wilson Middle School. On April 19, 2021, Community Services & Parks (CSP) staff presented a report analyzing the use of natural grass, the use of EPIC system, and artificial turf. The report, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, (the “Report”), provided background and history of the high demand for soccer fields in Glendale, the City’s responses to meet said demand, as well as a cost benefit analysis of the three aforementioned surface types.

As part of its in-depth analysis, staff identified the challenges of using natural turf for soccer fields, and compared accessibility / availability for use, the maintenance requirements, environmental impacts, benefits of each surface type, as well as costs and the potential revenue generation for each surface type.

The Report found that artificial turf provided the most available playing time for youth and adult soccer, was the most durable, had better ball action, was most appealing aesthetically, and was the most fiscally responsible surface type, generating revenues in excess of $450,000 dollars over a 20-year period including installation, maintenance, and replacement after 10 years (anticipated lifespan), while the other two surface types would cost $2.6 million and $4.3 million dollars over the same timeframe. The Report found no significant difference in safety between the surface types, yet highlighted that temperatures on the artificial turf fields would be 40-60 degrees higher than natural grass. The Report further found that while artificial turf uses virgin plastic to be 274 of 1332
3 8c
manufactured and that artificial turf contributes to the urban heat island effect, it was still the ideal option from an environmental impact perspective when used over 1600 hours per year due to the reduction in water use, elimination of chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticide use.

Upon conclusion of the presentation and comments from residents, the PR&CS Commission voted 3-2 to recommend not pursuing artificial turf for the five projects and preferred the use of natural turf until further analysis of surface types was conducted.

Rational for commissioning a Life Cycle Assessment and Triple Bottom Line analysis
On September 21, 2021, staff recommended that the City Council commission a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis of natural turf and artificial turf utilizing International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recognized principals and framework for conducting the LCA. The objective of commissioning the LCA analysis is to provide the PR&CS and Sustainability Commissions and the City Council with a data driven report defining the environmental, social and economic benefits and costs of employing natural or artificial turf at certain City of Glendale multipurpose fields.

In addition to the traditional LCA, staff recognized the importance of including societal and equity considerations into the analysis. To provide this comprehensive analysis, the Consultants recommended that the study take an LCA and a TBL combination approach. Thus, the goal of the analysis is to provide a means of evaluating options thoroughly over an appropriate life cycle (20 years in this case) and across three distinct categories of impact areas defined and provided by previous public comments from community groups and key stakeholders (community, health, and environment).

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an independent, nongovernmental organization, whose membership consists of different national standards bodies. The organization develops and publishes international standards in all technical and nontechnical fields other than electrical and electronic engineering, which are the responsibility of the International Electrotechnical Commission. As of April 2022, the ISO has developed over 24,261 standards, covering everything from manufactured products and technology to food safety, agriculture, and healthcare.

Of the 24,261 standards developed by ISO, the 14000 series of standards specify requirements for establishing an environmental management policy, determining environmental impacts of products or services, planning environmental objectives, implementing programs to meet objectives, and conducting corrective action and management review. The ISO 14000 family was developed in response to a recognized industry need for standardization.
275 of 1332
4 8c
ISO 14040 is one of the 14000 series of standards. 14040 describes the principles and framework for life cycle assessment (LCA) including: definition of the goal and scope of the LCA, the life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) phase, the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase, the life cycle interpretation phase, reporting and critical review of the LCA, limitations of the LCA, the relationship between the LCA phases, and conditions for use of value choices and optional elements. An LCA is defined as:
“LCA studies the environmental aspects and potential impacts throughout a product's life cycle (i.e. cradle-to-grave) from raw materials acquisition through production, use and disposal. The general categories of environmental impacts needing consideration include resource use, human health, and ecological consequences.” On September 21, 2021, City Council adopted a motion directing staff to hire Citadel EHS (Citadel) to conduct the LCA and TBL analysis of natural turf and artificial turf.

Citadel is supported by STOK Consulting and ARUP Consulting in this effort. Founded in 2008, STOK provide sustainability consulting, energy and performance engineering, and real estate and workplace solutions. In their Energy Performance Engineering Carbon Services STOK provides Life Cycle Assessments & Embodied Carbon Analysis.

Arup (officially Arup Group Limited) is a British multinational professional services firm headquartered in London which provides design, engineering, architecture, planning, and advisory services across every aspect of the built environment. STOK and ARUP bring technical expertise in the LCA and 3BL analysis to this effort.

ANALYSIS
The LCA/TBL Report is intended as an independent third-party review of available information and literature pertaining to the use of artificial or natural turf for three of the City’s public athletic fields that are managed and operated by PR&CS. The LCA / TBL Report’s goal is to make recommendations for the three athletic fields based on a LCA and 3BL approach while balancing the interests of park user groups, the Glendale community and CSP Department priorities, within the constraints of today's environment in Southern California.

A stakeholder meeting was held on February 16, 2022 whereas the attendees identified impact criteria priorities that included, but not limited to, availability of field time, environmental issues and the provision of first class facilities. The analysis includes evaluation of impacts under three distinct categories (Environment, Human Health, and Community), and the recommendations are based on the overall impact balanced across all three areas. The chosen impact areas represent a list of items raised by public comments, user groups, and City staff prior to the commissioning of this study, and refined after direct outreach to key stakeholder groups that included five members from the Glendale Environmental Coalition, and various Glendale sports groups / leagues.
276 of 1332
5 8c
Overall, 15 topics are covered in the LCA / TBL Report, organized within three impact categories - Environment (7), Human Health (4), and Community (4), and include:

ENVIRONMENT HUMAN HEALTH COMMUNITY
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Water Use
Waste
Stormwater Management
Urban Heat Island Effect
Ecosystem Services
Chemical Use and Runoff
Heat Exposure
Injuries on Turf
Off-gassing and Dust
Experience with Nature
Life Cycle Costs
Field Days of Use
Alignment with the City of
Glendale Environmental
Plan (Greener Glendale)
Playing Surface
Performance
Analysis Criteria
Each impact area or topic was characterized by either “quantitative” scoring (where a direct calculation determines the 1-5 score), or “qualitative” scoring (where a score is designated based on comparable metrics that cannot be arithmetically calculated). In each section, a reference had to be defined as a best or worst case, in order to compare the natural grass with artificial turf/GeoFill.

Certain common assumptions were used in the study; the analysis are based on a 20 year period, assuming that after 10 years the artificial turf would be replaced, while the substructure beneath would remain. After 20 years both the artificial turf and substructure for artificial or natural turf are assumed to be landfilled. The anticipated annual number of hours the fields are reserved for use is based on 2021 data. Further, it is expected that hours a field is reserved for use would increase for fields that transition from natural to artificial turf.

Study Recommendations
The LCA / TBL Report considered the option of using either Natural turf (with significant deterioration and bald spots) or Artificial Turf (Shaw NXTPlay with GeoFill coconut husk infill). Overall, the LCA / TBL Report found that artificial turf with GeoFill infill scored higher than natural turf with regard to the environmental, human health and community impacts studied for the three public athletic fields under review, and also found that artificial turf with the GeoFill provides the highest potential to balance the diverse priorities of park users, public groups, and city operations.

The spider diagram below showcases the scoring for our two options for field surface at the three parks under consideration. A third scoring item has been included for artificial turf with crumb rubber (SBR rubber) for illustrative purposes and the fact that most public comments received in previous discussions were focused on rubber infills, as well as available research / data, while understanding this is not an option considered by the city for the athletic fields.
277 of 1332
6 8c
This graphic clearly shows the complex nature of the priorities. While the natural grass field option scores better within many (though not all) of the human health and environmental criteria, the artificial turf with Geofill performs better in most of the community benefit measures.

The primary benefits of artificial turf with GeoFill include:
 The ability to achieve an increase in annual field days of use and expand reservation capacity for local youth and adult athletic groups  The installation of artificial turf with GeoFill and stormwater catch basins will provide longer term storm event water management benefits in relation to the fields
 Reduced need for watering; and
 The use of the artificial turf with GeoFill will provide an opportunity for reduced lifecycle net costs due to increased reservation ability and reduced maintenance costs.

While the artificial turf with GeoFill solution is recommended based on the assumptions in the analysis, the LCA / TBL Report also describes a few trade-offs that warrant mitigation strategies and future considerations which include; urban forest growth, heat exposure management policy, injury surveillance and occasional watering. 278 of 1332
7 8c
If the City were to continue with natural grass fields for the same areas in this study, a combination of the following activities would be necessary to provide an equivalent amenity as would be provided by artificial turf fields:
 An addition of at least 40% more field area (essentially 2 more fields) plus staff and resources needed for maintenance and operations, in order to provide an equivalent number of hours of play that would be provided by three artificial turf fields
 Switch from diesel to electric mowing equipment
 Installation of drainage for the natural grass fields  Development of infrastructure, programs and policies to provide non-potable water to irrigate the fields in a manner that protects public health  Secure substantial funding, maintenance personnel, and equipment to support the cost differential compared to the proposed artificial turf system Each impact area or topic was characterized by either “quantitative” scoring (where a direct calculation determines the 1-5 score), or “qualitative” scoring (where a score is designated based on comparable metrics that cannot be arithmetically calculated). In each section a reference had to be defined as a best or worst case, in order to compare the natural grass with artificial turf/geofill. Upon application of weightings from polling of key stakeholders, (Appendix A of the Consultant LCA/TBL Report) on each of the key metrics, the total average scores are as shown below:

Natural
Turfgrass
Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Total Weighted
Score

3.406 3.797 3.071
Factoring in the weightings from polling for prioritization of the three categories (environment, health, and community), the final weighted scores are:

Natural
Turfgrass
Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Total Weighted
Score

3.391 3.795 3.112
The scoring reflects the stakeholders’ higher prioritization of environmental and community metrics. Subsequent sections of the LCA / TBL Report provide background details behind the scoring given to each option for each metric.

It is imperative to note that the plans for Fremont Park, Pacific Park, and Sports Complex Field #3 are 100% permit ready. Upon direction from City Council on the surface type preferred, staff will proceed with the bidding process at Fremont Park and Pacific Park as both projects are funded through construction, and return to Council at a later date to request funding for the construction of the Sports Complex Field #3. 279 of 1332
8 8c
If Council elects to proceed with artificial turf at the three city facilities identified herein, it would create seven artificial turf fields within Community Services and Parks managed facilities. This would result in 33% of Glendale Sports fields being artificial turf, while the remaining 66% (14 fields) would be natural grass. Artificial turf will further enhance equity challenges by making fields available for longer periods of time and providing equal access to amenities to Glendale residents, as well as increase field availability by 25-30% as compared to natural turf fields.

On October 8, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No 19-135 approving Public Works Specification No. 3624 for the construction of the Fremont Park Renovation Project, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. The Specification called out Sprinturf’s artificial turf system for the Project. In its evaluation process for an artificial turf system that is more environmentally sustainable, the City, along with GUSD staff, visited fields in Orange County and the City of Downey to evaluate Shaw Turf’s products. Based on these site visits, the condition of the turf after years of use (Orange County), the natural organic infill of the field at the City of Downey, the overall look and quality of the field, as well as the analysis / findings conducted by Citadel, CSP wishes to specify Shaw Turf’s NXT Play with Geofill infill artificial turf system for the Project.

Therefore, the Council is asked to adopt a new Resolution, repealing Resolution No. 19- 135, adopting revised Public Works Specification No. 3624R for the construction of the Fremont Park Project, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Citadel EHS held a key stakeholders meeting on February 16, 2022, to identify and prioritize the impact criteria for evaluation within the study. Six members of the Glendale Environmental Coalition (GEC) and five members from local sports leagues participated in this meeting.

On June 2, 2022, staff presented the findings of the LCA / TBL Report at a joint meeting of the Sustainability and Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commissions. Citadel highlighted the details of the study along with their findings and recommendation that artificial turf with Geofill offers the highest potential to balance the diverse priorities of park users, public groups, and city operations. After a 6 hour healthy and passionate discussion on the material presented, including public comments – in person and via phone calls, the Commissions adopted motions to recommend their positions to Council as highlighted below.

The Sustainability Commission, with a 3-2 vote, moved to recommend artificial turf for the Sports Complex Field #3 only, and natural turf for the remaining four facilities given their proximity to populated areas. Commissioners Bartrosouf, Pinkerton, and Werner voted in favor of the motion citing environmental and health concerns, the use of virgin plastic, and urban heat island effect created by artificial turf as reasons for recommending natural turf for Fremont Park, Pacific Park, Cerritos Elementary, and Wilson Middle Schools.

Commissioners Khanjian and Kartounian voted against the motion arguing in support of 280 of 1332
9 8c
artificial turf at all facilities, because if provides the best option to meet the demand, is determined to be the better alternative. They further argued that if artificial turf is a good option to be installed at one facility, it would be a good option at all five facilities.

The Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission, with a 3-2 vote, moved to recommend artificial turf be considered for Fremont Park, Pacific Park, and Sports Complex #3, and deferred to Council on Cerritos Elementary and Wilson Middle School fields. Commissioners Meek, Kalfayan, and Sardarbegian voted in favor of this motion.

Public comments received via email, phone calls, or in person attendance, were fairly split on their position of artificial or natural turf. To date, 64 comments were received of which 30 were in support of artificial turf and 34 argued for natural turf as the ideal choice.

A summary of public comments (emails received) is attached to this report as Exhibit 3.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301, the proposed replacements and installations of artificial and/or natural turf at Freemont Park, Pacific Park, Sports Complex # 3, Cerritos Elementary and Wilson Middle School (collectively, “multi-purpose fields”) are categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 1 Existing Facilities project (Minor Alternations to Structures or Facilities) that consists of the operation or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Removing and installing the turf would not involve anything other than minor alterations to existing landscapes on existing public property.

Under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15302, the proposed replacements and installations of artificial and/or natural turf at multi-purpose fields are categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 2 Existing Facilities project (Replacement or Reconstruction) that entails replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. Removing and installing the turf would occur on existing public property, and would have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the turf being replaced.

Under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15304, the proposed replacements and installations of artificial and/or natural turf at multi-purpose fields are categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 4 Existing Facilities project (Minor Alternations to Land) that entails minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve the removal of healthy, mature, or scenic trees. Removing and installing the turf would not involve the removal of any trees, and would not involve anything other than minor alterations to existing landscapes on existing public property. 281 of 1332
10 8c

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are provided in Exhibit 4, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternate 1: Direct staff to proceed with the use of artificial turf for the multi-purpose fields at Fremont Park, Pacific Park, Sports Complex # 3, Cerritos Elementary, and Wilson Middle School, and approve a Resolution repealing Resolution No. 19-135, adopting revised Public Works Specification No. 3624R for construction of the Fremont Park Renovation Project, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Alternate 2: Direct staff to proceed with the use of artificial turf for the multi-purpose fields at Fremont Park, Pacific Park, Sports Complex # 3 only and defer discussion of Glendale Unified School District fields at Cerritos Elementary and Wilson Middle School to the City Council, and approve a Resolution repealing Resolution No. 19-135, adopting revised Public Works Specification No. 3624R for construction of the Fremont Park Renovation Project, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Alternate 3: Direct staff to proceed with the use of artificial turf for the multi-purpose field at Sports Complex #3 only, and use natural turf at Fremont Park, Pacific Park, Cerritos Elementary, and Wilson Middle School.

Alternative 4: Consider any other alternative not presented by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Koko Panossian, Deputy Director of Community Services & Parks Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Life Cycle Assessment and Triple Bottom Line Report

2. April 19, 2021 Staff Report: A comparative analysis on surface types for soccer and multi-purpose fields

3. Summary of Written Public Comments Received

4. Campaign Finance Disclosure
282 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 1
CITY OF GLENDALE: TURF LIFECYCLE

ANALYSIS (LCA) & TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE
ASSESSMENT (3BL)
Prepared for:

The City of Glendale Community Services and Parks Department (CSP) Prepared by:

Citadel EHS, Stok, and ARUP
Primary Authors include Paula Przybylski, Frances Yang, Katrina Von Burg, and Ravi Bajaj Contact:

Ravi Bajaj (Citadel EHS)
[email protected]
Exhibit 1
283 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
RECOMMENDATIONS 4
GENERAL METHODOLOGY 6
SCORING RESULTS SUMMARY 15
ENVIRONMENT 18
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 19
Water Use 28
Waste 33
Stormwater Management 36
Urban Heat Island Effect 39
Water Pollution 41
Ecosystem Services 45
HUMAN HEALTH 52
Injuries on Turf 55
Off-Gassing & Dust 58
Chemical Hazards 60
Experience with nature 64
COMMUNITY 65
Life Cycle Costs 66
Field Days of Use 71
Alignment with the City of Glendale Environmental Plan 73 Playing Surface Performance 75
APPENDICES 76
Appendix A - Survey Results from February 2022 User’s Group meeting 76 Appendix B - Park Reservations and Revenue Data 79
Appendix C - Safety Data Sheets and Material Composition Reference Documents 81 284 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is intended as a third-party review of available information and literature pertaining to the use of artificial or natural turf for three (3) public athletic fields in the City of Glendale, managed and operated by the City's Community Services & Parks Department (CSP). Our goal is to make recommendations in this report for the three athletic fields based on a lifecycle and triple bottom line approach - balancing the interests of park users groups, the Glendale community, and the city's department, within the constraints of today's environment in Southern California. Our analysis includes evaluation of impacts under three distinct categories (Environment, Human Health, and Community), and our recommendations are based on the overall impact balanced across all three areas. The chosen impacts represent a list of items raised by public comments, users groups, and City staff prior to the commissioning of this study, and refined after direct outreach to key stakeholder groups. Overall, 14 topics are covered in this report, organized within three impact categories: Environment (6), Human Health (4), and Community (4).

In credit to the City's CSP Staff and the Parks and Rec and Sustainability Commissions - this report was prompted by the desire to make a well-informed decision that balances the needs of the larger community.

Throughout this report we'll evaluate several issues that tend to be considered in isolation when planning for athletic fields. However, these issues are interconnected, sometimes synergistic, and sometimes present trade-offs that need to be considered.

The decision to address park spaces within the City of Glendale for users of all types and ages through the renovation and master plan strategies at Sports Complex Field #3, Pacific Park, and Fremont Park directly aligns with the mission of the City of Glendale Community Services & Parks Department: “to enhance the Glendale community's quality of life by providing safe, well-maintained parks and public spaces; preserving open space and historic resources; caring for people; strengthening the bonds of community; and creating opportunities for renewal, growth, and enrichment.” However, when athletic fields are being discussed, factors such as usage frequency and diversity, sustainability, playing field performance, or characteristics of Southern California's climate add complexity to a seemingly simple solution of adding more turf fields across the City. Alternative options such as novel irrigation and maintenance techniques, artificial turf, and the intersection with the City of Glendale’s Sustainability goals have been carefully considered by the City’s Community Services & Parks Department team as part of the decision-making process.

There are two key contexts that guided the scoring methodology and impact categories that were critical in defining the scope of this study:

1. Three athletic fields designed for heavy, multi-sport reservations were the fields in consideration:

Fremont Park, Pacific Park, and Sports Complex Field #3. No other park areas or field uses were analyzed for natural grass vs artificial turf within this study.

2. The lens of field scale was prioritized. Some topics that have arisen over the discussion of these three fields are best addressed at the city or community scale, and supersede the decisions made for turf type at these parks, while others are directly impacted by the options considered. Those items that fall outside of this scope are important topics worthy of discussion and further investigation, however they have been reflected upon as not directly connected to the turf decision for the three parks in consideration.
285 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 4

RECOMMENDATIONS
This study found that, overall, artificial turf with GeoFill infill scored higher than natural turf with regards to the environmental, human health and community impacts studied for the three public athletic fields under review. It is our finding that artificial turf with the geofill offers the highest potential to balance the diverse priorities of park users, public groups, and city operations. ● The primary benefits of this field type include:
○ The ability to achieve an increase in annual field days of use and expand reservation capacity for local youth and adult athletic groups,
○ The installation of artificial turf with geofill and stormwater catch basins will provide longer term storm event water management benefits in relation to the fields, and ○ The use of the artificial turf with geofill will provide an opportunity for reduced life cycle net costs for the City of Glendale due to increased reservation ability and reduced maintenance costs
While this solution is recommended based on the boundaries of this analysis, there are a few trade-offs that warrant mitigation strategies and future considerations:
● Urban Forest growth- the artificial turf, even when considering the potential recyclability of the materials, does come with an increased life cycle carbon impact. It is recommended that this can be mitigated through planting trees and native/adaptive landscaping throughout the city and in the perimeters of the fields and parks in question. This could sequester atmospheric carbon, improve local air quality, enhance habitat, and provide a localized cooling effect through shade and evapotranspiration if planted near the fields. ● Heat Exposure management policy - while only two days over 100-degrees impacted field use last year in Glendale, a recommendation is to update field use guidelines for both ambient temperature and surface temperature. Reserving for field use outside of times with increased surface temperature would still result in a net gain of field use hours annually, while maintaining the health and safety of all users. Furthermore, a collaborative approach to heat exposure mitigation between field managers would facilitate knowledge sharing opportunities and enhance outcomes for field managers and users in Southern California. ● Injury surveillance - additional monitoring can inform future projects through investing in an injury tracking and reporting program to establish trends specific to youth and adult sports groups using natural and artificial turf in the City of Glendale. In line with the recommendation above for heat exposure, a collaborative approach with surrounding municipalities can enhance planning for public fields in our region. ● Occasional watering - while one of the many great benefits of the artificial turf is a reduced need for watering, occasional watering can help with managing any potential dust from the fill material and preventing bacteria or mold growth if animals are allowed on the fields. The average humidity in the City of Glendale seldom gets below 30% RH, however a consideration would be to update operations strategies to include occasional watering at the fields after heavy use, upon prohibited pet traffic1, and during low humidity periods. 1 Animals on athletic fields or Sports/Recreational Courts is considered a Level 1 offense per the current CSP Rules and Regulations (service animals exempt):
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/29175/637117523298500000 286 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 5
If the City were to continue with natural grass fields for the same areas in this study, a combination of the following activities would be necessary to provide an equivalent amenity as the proposed artificial turf fields:
● An addition of at least 40% more field area (essentially 2 more fields) in addition to the staff and resources needed for maintenance and operations, to provide an equivalent number of hours of play that would be provided by the 3 fields studied
● Switch from diesel to electric mowing equipment
● Installation of drainage for the natural grass fields ● Development of infrastructure, programs, and policies to provide non-potable water to irrigate the fields in a manner that protects public health
● Secure substantial funding, maintenance personnel, and equipment to support the cost differential compared to the proposed artificial turf system
Below, our report expands on the above recommendation, providing context and background, sharing details of our methodology and approach to the complex Lifecycle and Triple Bottom Line analysis, results, and comments for each defined issue of concern, and finally a series of diagrams evaluating the pros and cons of each proposed scenario for the three fields considered in this study. 287 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 6

GENERAL METHODOLOGY
This section of the report will outline our analysis boundaries, considerations, and our methodology for evaluating the varied and interconnected issues associated with a decision of turf type.

Conflict of Interest
The project team, consisting of Citadel EHS, ARUP and Stok - have no conflicts of interest to disclose in this 3rd party assessment. Project team members do not represent any manufacturers under consideration, nor do we have representation on a city commission or city council.

Our team
The assessment team consists of three independent consultants specializing in Environmental Health and Safety, Material sustainability, Life cycle analysis, and Triple bottom line assessment.

Figure 1: third-party team
Background
This report's impetus comes from a timeline of discussion around providing athletic fields for City of Glendale users groups, to meet the increased demand for youth and adult sports groups. In the past few years, funds for artificial turf field renovations were approved for these three fields via various means of funding.

However, in April 2021, after a staff presentation to the Parks Commission and public comments received, a decision was made to halt construction on the artificial turf fields pending further investigation. In October of 2021 City Council voted to appropriate funds to commission a further life cycle analysis, which led to this report.

This report builds upon a comprehensive piece of work completed by Koko Panossian and team that was presented to the Parks, Recreation, & Community Services Commission in April of 2021. Efforts have been 288 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 7
made to reference the staff report, and supplement it with other technical resources used in our analysis; in addition to incorporating comments and feedback recorded by the City over the past year.

Parks under consideration
The graphic below is a snapshot of the City of Glendale Parks Map, highlighting the three parks included in this report and recommendation. These represent three multi-use athletic fields under consideration for a field renovation with artificial or natural turf in order to supplement the available fields and field hours for youth and adult sports groups. The numbers on the graphic below correspond with the park information and aerial photos that follow.

Figure 2: Map of Glendale Parks

1. Pacific Community Center Multi use field: The project will replace the natural turf ballfield at Pacific Park with a multipurpose artificial turf field through a combination of CDBG, and DIF Funds.

This project is currently in plan check, prior to the commissioning of this study and pending turf decision.
a. Size: 54,600 sf
289 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 8

Figure 4: aerial photo of Pacific Community Center

2. Sports Complex field #3: A reconstruction of the existing natural grass softball field into a multipurpose artificial turf softball, baseball, and soccer field. a. Size: 95,730 sf

Figure 6: aerial photo of Glendale Sports Complex
F
290 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 9

3. Fremont Park: Artificial turf soccer field to be constructed in the open natural grass turf area currently used by patrons for unauthorized soccer play. The turf decision would be part of a major renovation, for which the Fremont Park Master Plan was approved by the City Council on December 8, 2015. Plans and specifications were approved by City Council on October 8, 2019. a. Field Size: 29,376 sf

F
291 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 10
Options under consideration

1. Natural turf (with significant deterioration and bald spots)

2. Artificial Turf (Shaw NXTPlay with Geofill coconut husk infill) Figure 9: Geofill system section graphic
Common Assumptions
● Period of Analysis: The results of this analysis are based on a 20-year period. ○ It is assumed that after 10 years the artificial turf would be replaced, while the substructure beneath would remain. After 20 years both the artificial turf and substructure for artificial or natural turf are removed and replaced. It is common practice that most of this can be directly reused elsewhere in the City for alternative purposes, thus this study estimated a 90% reuse of the substructure for this analysis.
○ Based on feedback from the City of Glendale, all natural turf fields are resodded at least every five years. Natural soccer fields, specifically, are anticipated to require some resodding annually. The impacts of annual resodding of natural turf soccer fields have not been considered in this report and instead a five-year resodding cycle has been used to be consistent with the resodding requirements of multi-purpose fields. If a natural turf field is resodded annually, the life cycle carbon, waste, water, and cost impacts will increase. ● Lifespan of artificial turf: 10 years
○ This is based on an assumed life span of the artificial turf, in alignment with the staff report from April 20212.
2 “While the manufacturer warranty is only 8 years, the turf will last at minimum 10 years, possibly 12 with the proper maintenance. The soccer fields at the Sports Complex were first installed in 2005 and replaced 10 years later in 2015.

Replacing the surface does require the manufacturing of new products with virgin plastic, however that old surface is recycled into the shock pad, which in turn is recyclable itself. “ - Quote from Staff Commission Report 292 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 11
○ The assumption of 10 years is based on evidence from local fields and usage history. While the warranty covers 8 years of heavy usage, through proper maintenance the expected lifespan of the turf material is 10 years. At the end of 10 years, the infill, shock pad, turf, and infill system would be replaced over the existing substructure. While the manufacturer has documented full recyclability of the turf and shock pad product, also evident in the 50% and 90% recycled content, respectively – due to the strict requirements for collecting turf for recycling this study took a conservative approach of assuming this would be landfilled.

Furthermore, the City may have the potential to coordinate a contract with the turf manufacturer that incorporates collection at the end of useful life for recycling, and it is recommended that this is part of the contracting process should artificial turf with geofill be the decided route for the fields in this study.
● Lifespan of artificial or natural turf base and installation: 20 years. ● Anticipated annual hours reserved: Estimated based on 2021 annual hours reserved for a sample of representative fields, rounded to 2 significant digits. ○ The hours reserved in 2021 are comparable to annual hours reserved pre-COVID and are considered a representative example of typical field use. ○ As Fremont Park is not currently a reservable ballfield, the forecasted usage for a natural turf field was assumed to be the average of 2021 hours across all reserved Glendale natural turf multi-use fields.
○ Due to the increased hours of field availability on artificial turf fields versus natural turf fields and the current demand for field time, it is expected that hours reserved would increase for fields that transition from natural to artificial turf. The hours reserved, if converted to artificial turf, was estimated based on feedback from the City of Glendale and by taking the average of 2021 hours reserved on the three existing artificial fields at Sports Complex (#1, #4 and #5).
○ The numbers reflected below for artificial turf are based on actual played hours at a comparable field in 2021. More discussion on impact from heat exposure is included in the relevant section, however this assumption best represents a baseline for direct comparison of options.

Pacific Community
Center
Sports Complex
Field #3
Fremont Park
Natural Turf 1,500 1,700 2,200
Artificial Turf 2,900 2,900 2,900
293 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 12
Analysis Organization and Methodology
A traditional life cycle analysis (LCA) can follow a few pathways for evaluating a product’s impacts from ‘cradle to grave’ - essentially a net impact assessment from the material’s extraction (cradle), manufacturing, transportation, installation, expected lifespan, and disposal (grave). A common use for this type of analysis could focus on cost, as a means of comparing a total cost of two or more options when there is a difference in first costs and operations costs. Typically, a life cycle approach works best for programs that are owneroperated, so that the true cost of a chosen option is borne by the same entity and easier to quantify.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)3
From an environmental standpoint, lifecycle impact has become a key consideration for decision-making in order to choose an option with a lower overall lifecycle impact. This has been defined in a number of ways, notably by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14000 family of standards - which includes standards across many applications, including the 14044 standard for life cycle assessments. This approach defines the specific
environmental criteria that can be analyzed to be able to compare 2 product options in an ‘apples to apples’
approach. However, when the City of Glendale was initially looking into further analysis to support any decision for field renovations, other factors came into play, typical
environmental criteria as well as cost, community, and
health impacts.

Triple Bottom Line (3BL)4
Another often quoted approach to responsible decision-making utilizes the triple bottom line. A more comprehensive quantification of the costs and benefits of various options - not only against a cost bottom line, but across three lenses of people, planet, and profit. Coined by Jim Elkington in 1994, the triple bottom 3 Graphic attributed to Upcycling ideas for Sustainable Construction and Demolition Waste Management: Challenges, Opportunities, and Boundaries - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Life-Cycle-Assessment-LCA_fig2_315762443 [accessed 29 Apr, 2022] 4 3BL graphic attributed to Youth entrepreneurial projects for the sustainable development of global community: evidence from Enactus program - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Theinterconnection-of-the-elements-of-the-Triple-Bottom-Line-concept_fig1_329185478 [accessed 29 Apr, 2022] 294 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 13
line approach adds a layer of responsibility for environmental stewardship and human impact on top of traditional financial analyses.

While this field is growing and does not yet have an
analytical standard such as the ISO family of standards, there is a strong precedent for using a triple bottom line framework for an integrated analysis that evaluates
competing options across a broad spectrum of issues. There are some notable examples of a triple bottom line used in a public setting. Many have been completed in the private and public sphere, but to share two key examples: there is a study evaluating green roofs completed by the GSA5, and another evaluating stormwater conveyance options
completed for EPA specific to the city of Philadelphia6.

In order to provide the most accurate data driven impact assessment for the Glendale Community, the City of Glendale Commissions, and Community Services and Parks Department - a combination of Life Cycle Assessment and Triple Bottom Line Analyses was proposed. This provides a means of evaluating options thoroughly over an appropriate life cycle (20 years in this case) and across three distinct categories of impact areas defined and provided by previous public comments from community groups and key stakeholders (community, health, and environment).
5 The Benefits and Challenges of Green Roofs on Public and Commercial Buildings https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/The_Benefits_and_Challenges_of_Green_Roofs_on_Public_and_Commercial_Buildings.pdf 6 A Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Traditional and Green Infrastructure Options for Controlling CSO Events in Philadelphia's Watersheds https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/gi_philadelphia_bottomline.pdf F
295 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 14
Analysis Criteria
Based on the triple bottom line (3BL) and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) mindsets, our team set off to collect a list of priorities from City staff, previously collected public comments about these projects, and direct feedback from users groups and public community groups involved in discussions around the field decisions. Most topics or impact areas were previously documented through public comments and captured prior to stakeholder meetings conducted for this study.

Our organization of topics fit under three distinct “Impact Categories”: Environment, Human Health, and Community. Typical cost and revenue impacts were included under the community section since the owner and manager of these fields is a public institution, with a direct tie between expenditure and public good, as defined in the mission statement for the Community Services & Parks Department.

Each impact area or topic was characterized by either “quantitative” scoring (where a direct calculation determines the 1-5 score), or “qualitative” scoring (where a score is designated based on comparable metrics that cannot be arithmetically calculated). In each section a reference had to be defined as a best or worst case, to compare the natural grass with artificial turf/geofill.

There are a number of areas where scoring differs between artificial turf with Geofill and with crumb rubber.

While crumb rubber is not included in the options for the parks at hand, it is an important distinction for two reasons. First, the baseline for comparison used in the context of the City of Glendale (evidenced data on field use and maintenance) is based on crumb rubber fields. Thus it was imperative to compare this option and any impacts negative or positive of choosing the Geofill by comparison. Secondly, previous comments on this topic were focused on the impacts of crumb rubber, and necessitated clarification for the purpose of this study. After careful consideration, the overall impact of including the crumb rubber option does not skew results in favor of Geofill, however represents a comparison in the two options when measured against a reference point. Furthermore, it is important to note the dynamic nature of the decision to use either artificial turf or natural grass. The data available and impacts of infill material has changed even since the initial planning of these parks began. These sections where the scoring for both infill materials differed are as follows:
o GHG emissions
o Water
o Water pollution
o Ecosystem services
o Heat Exposure
o Chemical Hazards
o Field days of use
o Alignment with Enviro Plan
296 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 15

SCORING RESULTS SUMMARY
The spider diagram below showcases the scoring for our two options for field surface at the three parks under consideration. A third scoring item has been included for artificial turf with crumb rubber (SBR rubber) for illustrative purposes, understanding this is not an option considered by the city for the athletic fields.

This graphic clearly shows the complex nature of the priorities. While the natural grass field option scores better within many (though not all) of the human health and environmental criteria, the artificial turf with Geofill performs better in most of the community benefit measures.

Figure 12: Spider Chart showcasing scoring across turf options Each criterion including life cycle impact could be used in isolation to decide, however making a recommendation across all areas under consideration required setting priorities and creating a scoring 297 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 16
methodology that allowed for comparison and aggregation. This was done in two key ways, both yielding the same recommendation for artificial turf with geofill for athletic fields7.

Weighting each impact area with equal value to all three categories (community, health, and environment)
Upon application of weightings from the polling of key stakeholders on each of the key metrics, the total average scores are as shown below:

Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Total Weighted Score 3.251 3.577 2.801
Weighting each impact area with a weighted value for the three categories (community, health, and environment)
Factoring in the weightings from polling for prioritization across the three categories (environment, health, and community), the final weighted scores are:

Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Total Weighted Score 3.208 3.531 2.818
This reflects the higher prioritization of environmental and community metrics among the stakeholders polled.

7 Results quantified here represent only survey responses from key stakeholders and community groups, while results also incorporating responses from the City Community Services and Parks department and Sustainability department are reflected in Appendix A.
298 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 17
One additional lens is to look at a simplified performance for all analyzed turf types based on impact category performance:

Figure 13: Impact category radar chart
Subsequent sections of this report provide background details behind the scoring given to each option for each metric. To reiterate, in order to come to a recommendation that balances the stated impact areas and priorities of the community, a scoring system and methodology was developed for each impact area, with a score of 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest (or best choice). Additionally, survey responses related to what represents a high-medium-low priority for each impact area, and for each category, were used to weight the scoring to aggregate our results into a recommendation reflective of the stated issues and priorities of the City of Glendale community as it relates to public-use athletic fields. 299 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 18

ENVIRONMENT
This section includes discussion of the following impact areas under the Community category:
● Greenhouse Gas Emissions
● Water Use
● Waste
● Stormwater Management
● Urban Heat Island Effect
● Ecosystem Services
● Chemical Use and Runoff
300 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 19
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) trap air in the atmosphere and are a key driver of global warming.

There are many different GHGs, each with their own capacity to trap different amounts of heat for different periods of time. Carbon dioxide is one of the most common greenhouse gasses, but is also one of the least potent. For the purpose of comparison, different GHGs are defined by the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that would need to be emitted to trap the same amount of heat over a 100- year period, also known as CO2e. For example, one kilogram of Methane can trap as much heat as 25 kilograms of carbon dioxide, meaning it has a CO2e of 25. In this way, different greenhouse gasses can be normalized and represented by unit.

The results of this analysis will be expressed in CO2e per field as well as CO2e per square foot of field per hour of play. The latter is used for scoring the greenhouse gas emissions impact of natural versus artificial turf.

Scope
This section was analyzed through quantitative measures, as greenhouse gas emissions across the life cycle of both field options can be calculated and compared directly and normalized for our impact area scoring. The following life cycle stages were considered in this analysis:
● Extraction and manufacture (life cycle stages A1 - A3) ● Transport to site and installation (life cycle stages A4 and A5) ● Maintenance, use and replacement (life cycle stage B) ● End-of-life (life cycle stage C)
301 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 20
Figure 14: Embodied Carbon life cycle (Image source: https://www.zebx.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/Embodied-Carbon-Playbook-June-21.pdf) The following options were assessed:

1. Natural turf field

2. Artificial turf field with Geofill infill

3. Artificial turf with crumb rubber infill - this option is not being considered by the City of Glendale but was included in the analysis to create a baseline from which to measure the performance of the other options.

Primary Data Sources
Because the manufacturer of the artificial turf with Geofill product has not conducted a life-cycle assessment of their system, this study required the comparison of the raw materials in the system under study to publicly available LCA studies of similar systems. From a wider literature review, only three studies were identified as appropriate to use for this study. Thus, the results of the following turf life cycle assessments were considered as a part of the analysis for the GHG emissions related to the manufacturing, replacements, and end of life activities over the life of the product. 302 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 21
● Shaw Product Data8
● Life Cycle Assessment of Artificial and Natural Turf Sports Fields by ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften (2021) (executive summary and full report referenced)9
● FIFA Environmental Impact Study on Artificial Turf (2017)10 ● BASF Synthetic Turf, Eco-Efficiency Analysis (2010)11 The ZHAW LCA was the primary reference for this study as it was the only one to include substructure impacts, impacts across the entire turf life cycle (A-C) and natural turf impacts. However, to make the data in this report applicable to the City of Glendale, modifications were required for the following parameters:

1. Size of field

2. Hours of play

3. Type of infill

4. Inclusion of shock pad

5. Study period

6. Transportation GHG emissions

7. End of life

8. Embodied carbon of water

9. Carbon sequestered by plants
The FIFA and BASF LCAs were referenced for comparison and to fill any data gaps that existed in the ZHAW LCA.

Methodology and Assumptions
With regards to artificial turf, the ZHAW LCA only assessed artificial turf without any infill and artificial turf with crumb rubber infill. The FIFA LCA analyzed both crumb rubber and coconut husk 8 Shaw Sports Turf, https://www.shawsportsturf.com/.
9 Itten, René, et al. “Life Cycle Assessment of Artificial and Natural Turf Sports Fields : Executive Summary.” Home, ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule Für Angewandte Wissenschaften, 28 Jan. 2021, https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/21510.
10 Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd. “Environmental Impact Study on Artificial Football Turf.”, FIFA, 4 Oct. 2017, https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/environmental-impact-study-on-artificial-football-turf/. 11 Uhlman, Bruce, et al. Synthetic Turf Eco-Efficiency Analysis (August 2010). BASF Corporation, Aug. 2010, https://d2evkimvhatqav.cloudfront.net/documents/Synthetic_Turf_EEA_Study_Verification_Final.pdf. 303 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 22
infill options and found that using coconut infill reduced the overall impact of the artificial turf installation by about half. To be conservative, this study assumes that only the impact of the infill and not the entire system is reduced by half when switching from crumb rubber to coconut husk.

The ZHAW LCA results are for a 7,420 m2 (79,868 sf) field and are normalized per hour of play. To calculate the total carbon impact of the City of Glendale fields studied, the ZHAW LCA results were:
● Normalized per unit area and then multiplied by the size of the field under study to achieve the total field impact per hour of play.
● Multiplied by the ZHAW LCA assumed hours of play to achieve the total life cycle carbon footprint.

The ZHAW LCA considers a 30-year timeline which does not align with the 20-year timeline considered by this report. While the initial stage and end-of-life impacts do not change based on the period assessed, the total impacts of the usage and maintenance stage would be reduced over a shorter time. To account for this, the usage and maintenance stage impacts of the ZHAW LCA were scaled down to one year, and then multiplied by 20 to estimate the impact over 20 years.

Based on feedback from the City of Glendale and the artificial turf manufacturer, it was assumed that after 10 years the artificial turf would be replaced but not the underlying substructure. The ZHAW LCA separates the A1-A3 impacts of artificial turf from substructure but does not separate the A4-A5 impacts of these components. It was assumed that the transport and construction impacts would be reduced by half if the substructure is not replaced. The end-of-life impacts of the replaced turf were calculated based on turf weight multiplied by the EPA12 landfilled MSW (mixture of inert and organic) emissions factor.

The ZHAW LCA studied professional fields with sufficiently low usage such that natural turf would not need to be replaced over the course of 20 years. Due to the high demand and usage at the City of Glendale, natural turf fields are regularly resodded to maintain a playable surface. The City of Glendale typically fully resods fields at least every five years. As the ZHAW LCA did not include the impacts of resodding, the impact of sod replacement was estimated to be equal to the A1-A3 impact of installing the natural turf. Replacement transport and construction impacts were assumed to be reduced by half as resodding is expected to be less intensive from a construction standpoint than the initial sod installation. The end-of-life impacts of the replaced natural turf were calculated based on turf weight multiplied by the EPA13 landfilled grass emissions factor. While this study incorporates a once every 5 years resodding for our analysis, it is understood that budgets for heavy use soccer fields include annual resodding, and as needed (typically every 3-5 years) for baseball multi-use fields.
12 Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories - Epa.gov. EPA, 1 Apr. 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/ghg_emission_factors_hub.pdf. 13 Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories - Epa.gov. EPA, 1 Apr. 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/ghg_emission_factors_hub.pdf. 304 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 23
The ZHAW LCA does not appear to include the impacts of a shock pad but does include the impacts of a 12 mm EPDM (synthetic rubber) layer. Given that the shock pad under consideration is NXTPlay which is largely composed of recycled materials, this is not expected to significantly affect the results.

The ZHAW LCA end-of-life impacts assume incineration of turf and landfilling of all other materials.

While incineration is not anticipated as an end-of-life strategy at the City of Glendale, this is not expected to significantly impact the results.

Where numerical results were not listed in the studies and were not received from the study authors upon request, values were approximated from study charts and graphics.

Results
Greenhouse gas impacts were calculated per field and per hour played on one square foot of field.

The impact of artificial turf is reduced when normalized per hour played, as artificial turf fields can accommodate increased usage. The anticipated hours that a natural or artificial turf field would be reserved at each of the sites studied is described in the “General methodology” section.

Figure 15: 20-year gross carbon impact
The average increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with using GeoFill artificial turf over a 20 year time period on one field is equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions of operating 3 homes14 during that same time period.

When normalized by hour played, the carbon impact of natural turf and GeoFill artificial turf are similar.
14 “Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, Mar. 2022, https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator#results. 305 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 24

Figure 16: 20-year net carbon impact (per sf-per hour)
The artificial and natural turf options were assigned greenhouse gas emissions scores as follows:
● The highest score (5) is equal to the lowest carbon impact per unit area per hour of play analyzed as a part of this study (Fremont Park natural turf). ● The lowest score (1) is equal to the highest carbon impact per unit area per hour of play analyzed as a part of this study (Pacific Community Center crumb rubber).

Field Studied Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Pacific Community
Center

1.10 2.34 1.00
Sports Complex #3 2.54 2.34 1.00
Fremont Park 5.00 2.34 1.00
Overall Average 2.82 2.34 1.00
In general, natural turf fields have a lower carbon footprint than equivalent artificial turf fields. When the data is normalized the impact of GeoFill artificial turf is similar to that of natural turf as artificial turf can be played on for more hours.

Additional Considerations
Due to limited availability and reliability of data, the carbon impact of water use and the potential carbon sequestered by the fields was not included in the scoring of this analysis. A preliminary analysis of these factors was conducted to assess their relative impacts. 306 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 25
While the City of Glendale intends to recycle the turf product at end of life, there is limited data available regarding the carbon impacts of recycling such a product. For this reason, this assessment includes the carbon impacts of landfilling the product at end-of-life instead of recycling it. If the turf were to be recycled, this would affect the carbon footprint of the product. This is discussed in further detail below and in the Waste section of this report.

Carbon Emissions of Water Use
Extracting and supplying water uses energy, the generation of which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon footprint of water can vary greatly based on location, water system and energy source. This information is not yet readily available at a local scale, so industry standard15 carbon impacts of supplying water were used to conduct a preliminary analysis based on anticipated water needs (described in the Water section of this report) of the artificial and natural turf fields under study. Both water used during the production of the turf as well as the ongoing maintenance of the turf was considered.

Including the carbon impact of water increased the carbon footprint of natural turf by 3.91% and the carbon footprint of artificial turf by 0.92%. Including these impacts would not significantly change the GHG score of the natural and artificial turf options assessed.

Figure 17: 20 year natural grass carbon footprint incorporating water Sequestration
Carbon sequestration is the process of capturing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Plants can sequester carbon through photosynthesis. While grass is able to sequester carbon, grass for athletic fields has not been found to have significant carbon sequestration benefits after 15 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. “Greenhouse Gas Reporting: Conversion Factors 2021.” GOV.UK, GOV.UK, 24 Jan. 2022, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reportingconversion-factors-2021. 307 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 26
installation16. This may be due to its standard method of production (sod) and the extensive maintenance and renovations required to maintain athletic fields which can disrupt the ability for carbon to be sequestered in soil. Using only the carbon sequestration benefits associated with sod production, an 17.45% decrease in carbon emissions was calculated for natural turf. Including this impact would result in the natural and artificial turf having similar carbon impacts when normalized per hour of play.

The impacts of sequestration were excluded from the final scoring of this analysis due to the unreliability of data available on this topic and the fact that sequestration is only the temporary storage of carbon and does not reduce the amount of carbon emitted in the long term.

Figure 18: 20 year natural grass carbon footprint incorporating sequestration Recycling
Opportunities for diverting turf from landfill are summarized in the waste section of this report. If the turf were to be recycled, as per the City of Glendale’s plan, the carbon savings associated with material reuse would be included in the carbon footprint of the product made from the recycled turf, not in the carbon footprint of the turf itself. For this reason, the carbon footprint of the turf option would cycle between each 10-year span. There is an expected increase in the energy (and associated emissions) required to recycle a product when compared with the emissions associated with landfilling that same product. However, the recycled source product would result in a reduced carbon impact due to a reduced need for virgin product. At this time, it is inconclusive what direct carbon impact recycling of the turf product would have, however benefits in other impact areas would be realized.

While it is difficult to calculate the net carbon impact of recycling the turf product into future shockpad, recycling is still recommended over landfilling due to the multitude of other sustainability 16 Townsend-Small, Amy & Czimczik, Claudia. (2010). “Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in urban turf”. Geophysical Research Letters - GEOPHYS RES LETT. 37. 10.1029/2009GL041675. 308 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 27
benefits. The carbon cost of recycling is also expected to be more than offset by the fact that the City of Glendale intends to purchase shock pads made of recycled turf, the carbon benefits of which are not included in the calculations above due to a lack of available data.

Overall, recycling the artificial turf at end of life provides a net neutral carbon impact from a circularity perspective, and provides a benefit in other areas. While this study assumes a worst-case impact where the turf cannot be recycled for some odd reason, the takeback process for spent turf is clearly outlined by Shaw, recycled content in both turf fibers and shockpad is clearly evidenced for the selected products, and consideration for this life cycle phase can and should be included in the City’s contracting process as early as possible to ensure successful recycling of any spent product.

Equipment Electrification
The City of Glendale plans to purchase electric lawn maintenance equipment for all major applications excluding lawn mowing. The LCAs references as a part of this study do not indicate whether diesel-powered or electric maintenance equipment was considered, but it is likely that diesel equipment was used for these calculations.

To approximate the savings associated with electrification, the make and model of all existing pieces of equipment as well as their electric replacement and anticipated run time would be required. As this was not available at the time of this study, the potential impact was illustrated using the example of an electric lawn mower. Although electric lawn mowers are not planned to be used by the City of Glendale, sufficient information was available on this piece of equipment to estimate the impacts of electrification. Lawn mowers are expected to be one of the largest end-users of diesel used for lawn maintenance, meaning that the reductions shown are likely higher than that which would be realized by electrifying other equipment types.

The following graphics show that switching from diesel to electric lawn mowers results in approximately a 9.5% decrease in natural turf carbon emissions over 20 years. 309 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 28
Water Use
Water shortages in California and around have brought water consumption to the forefront of public awareness. In recent years, increasing management planning has been required at the local level impacting both private and public operations, as can be seen in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Glendale Water Shortage Contingency Plan17. As of January 2022, City Council has also implemented Phase III of the Water Conservation Ordinance18. From a regional context, the Metropolitan Water District has enacted water use restrictions prohibiting watering of landscaping more than once per week, effective as of June 1st. While this does not directly impact public athletic fields in the City of Glendale during this phase, municipal ballfields may be impacted should drought conditions worsen in the region or state.

The life cycle water consumption of both natural and artificial turf was assessed in this analysis.

Scope
This section was analyzed through quantitative measures, as water consumption across the life cycle of both field options could be calculated and compared directly and normalized for our impact area scoring. The following life cycle stages were considered:
● Extraction and manufacture (life cycle stages A1 - A3) ● Transport to site and installation (life cycle stages A4 and A5) ● Maintenance, use and replacement (life cycle stage B) ● End-of-life (life cycle stage C)
○ Water use during this life cycle stage was found to be negligible and was not included in the results.

The following options were assessed:
● Natural turf watered per City of Glendale watering schedule ● Artificial turf watered per turf maintenance manual recommendations ● Artificial turf that is not regularly watered
○ Based on existing artificial turf fields in the City of Glendale and similar installations, regular watering is not anticipated to be required and the installation of irrigation systems on artificial turf fields is not planned. Shaw confirmed that not watering the field will not impact the performance or warranty of the product. 17 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan and Urban Water Management Plan can be found under Water Reports:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-water-and-power/reports-plans 18 https://www.glendaleca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/8280/16?backlist=%2fgovernment%2fdepartme nts%2fglendale-water-and-power
310 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 29
○ Shaw turf has confirmed that the primary purpose of field watering is to optimize playing surface performance and is not required in recreational scenarios. ○ Some resources recommend watering artificial fields to reduce surface temperature, but this has not been found to be effective at existing artificial turf installations at the City of Glendale.

Total water use was assessed, with the understanding that Pacific Community Center and Park and Sports Complex fields can be watered using reclaimed water. Fremont Park does not have access to reclaimed water currently.

Primary Data Sources
● Comparison of the Lifetime Costs and Water Footprint of Sod and Artificial Turf: A Life Cycle Analysis - UCLA Thesis19
● City of Glendale:
○ Installation and ongoing watering schedule for natural turf:
ሁ Installation and replacement: Water three times daily for the first two weeks, and then once daily for the next two weeks.
ሁ Ongoing: Watered 3 times weekly.
○ Annual water consumption for 90,000 sf natural turf field ○ Current and anticipated water consumption for artificial turf fields: No regular watering.
● Shaw maintenance manual20
Methodology and Assumptions
To be conservative regarding water savings associated with artificial turf, it was assumed that sod would be used for natural turf installations, which typically uses less water than seeds.

The water use per square foot per watering was estimated to be 7.8 gallons. This is based on the annual water consumption for a 90,000 square foot field (2,500,000 gallons) and the standard watering schedule (3 times per week) provided by the City of Glendale.

The calculated water use per square foot was used to estimate the water associated with natural sod installation and resodding based on the installation watering schedule provided by the City of Glendale. Based on feedback from the City of Glendale, natural fields are assumed to be resodded once every five years.
19 Adachi, Jennifer, and Austin Park. SOD vs. Artificial Turf - Institute of the Environment and ... UCLA Thesis, 2 June 2016, https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sod-vs-artificial-turf.pdf. 20 “Maintenance Manual - Shaw Sports Turf.” Shaw Sports Turf, Shaw, https://www.shawsportsturf.com/resources/downloads/maintenance-and-care/maintenance-manual/. 311 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 30
The Shaw maintenance manual did not include a recommended watering schedule for GeoFill, the infill product under consideration. To calculate the annual water consumption associated with watering artificial turf, the recommended watering schedule for Hydrochill infill was used.

No data was found indicating that Geofill infill would result in significantly different water usage than crumb rubber infill. For this reason, results for Geofill and crumb rubber were combined in the results.

Results
Water impacts were calculated per field and per hour played on one square foot of field. The impact of artificial turf is reduced when normalized per hour played, as artificial turf fields can accommodate increased usage. The anticipated hours that a natural or artificial turf field would be reserved at each of the sites studied is described in the “General methodology” section.

Figure 19: 20-year gross water consumption
312 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 31
Figure 20: 20-year net water consumption (per sf per hour) On average, un-watered artificial turf saves 1.8 Olympic sized swimming pools21 of water per year.

The artificial and natural turf options were assigned water scores as follows:
● The highest score (5) is equal to the lowest water impact per unit area per hour of play analyzed as a part of this study (Fremont Park unwatered artificial turf). ● The lowest score (1) is equal to the highest water impact per unit area per hour of play analyzed as a part of this study (Pacific Park natural turf).

The artificial turf scores reference the unwatered artificial turf results as this is the option anticipated to be used by the City of Glendale if artificial turf is pursued. Due to the ability of Pacific Center and Sports Complex #3 to use reclaimed water for field watering, the score of natural turf at these two sites was increased by one point.

Field Studied Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Pacific Community
Center

1.00 4.02 5.00
Sports Complex #3 1.60 4.02 5.00
Fremont Park 2.61 4.02 5.00
Overall Average 1.74 4.02 5.00
21 Posted on August 16, 2016 by Camilla Sherman - Research Blog. “Olympic Swimming Pools.” Phinizy Center for Water Sciences, 16 Aug. 2016, https://phinizycenter.org/olympic-swimmingpools/#:~:text=They%20are%2050%20meters%20long,water%20or%20about%20660%2C000%20gallon s.
313 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 32
In general, artificial turf has a lower water footprint than natural turf throughout its lifecycle, with unwatered artificial turf having the best results. Where possible, it is recommended that reclaimed water be used for watering of natural fields.

Additional Considerations
Energy water Nexus
The energy water nexus describes the relationship between water production and energy generation.

This could refer to the energy used during the production and distribution of water, or the water used during the generation of energy. Due to limited availability of data the water used during energy generation was not considered as a part of this study. The energy used to supply water is described under “Additional Considerations” in the “Greenhouse Gas Emissions” section. 314 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 33
Waste
Scope
This section was analyzed through quantitative measures, as waste creation potential across the life cycle of both field options could be calculated and compared directly and normalized for our impact area scoring. The following life cycle stages were included as a part of this analysis:
● Maintenance, use and replacement (life cycle stage B) ● End-of-life (life cycle stage C)
The following life cycle stages were excluded due to insufficient data. Waste generated during these life cycle stages is not expected to significantly alter the results of this analysis. ● Extraction and manufacture (life cycle stages A1 - A3) ○ Waste generated by discards and scraps in factory
● Product transport and installation (life cycle stages A4 and A5) ○ Waste generated through product packaging
Primary Data Sources
Pending artificial turf component weights from Shaw, waste quantities for natural and artificial turf from the following study were used:
● Life Cycle Assessment of Artificial and Natural Turf Sports Fields by ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften (2021) (executive summary and full report referenced)22
Methodology and Assumptions
It was assumed that after 10 years the artificial turf would be replaced but not the underlying substructure. It was assumed that both the turf and the underlying substructure would be disposed of after 20 years, apart from the gravel components which can be largely reused.

Based on feedback from the City of Glendale, it was assumed that natural fields are resodded every five years. The replaced turf is planned to be landfilled to avoid spreading weeds through composting or reuse.

Shaw offers a “re[Turn]” reclamation program which is primarily used for their carpet products but can also apply to turf. Reclaimed turf is recycled into NXTPlay shock pads, the same product that the City of Glendale is considering using on their artificial fields, creating a truly circular solution. To be 22 Itten, René, et al. “Life Cycle Assessment of Artificial and Natural Turf Sports Fields : Executive Summary.” Home, ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule Für Angewandte Wissenschaften, 28 Jan. 2021, https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/21510.
315 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 34
approved for the reclamation product, the turf in question must have all infill removed and be free of dirt and debris.

Shaw also offers a turf reuse program23 through a National turf collection network in which old athletic turf (that has gone through Shaw’s approval process) is repurposed for use in less demanding projects.

While the City of Glendale plans to take advantage of the recycling opportunities for artificial turf, this cannot be fully guaranteed. For this reason this analysis considers the “worst case scenario” and calculates the impact of landfilling the turf at end-of-life. It was assumed that all other types of waste would be landfilled at end-of-life, except for natural lawn trimmings which are distributed and reincorporated into the turf and gravel which is assumed to be 90% reused.

Results
Waste impacts were calculated per field and per hour played on one square foot of field. The impact of artificial turf is reduced when normalized per hour played, as artificial turf fields can accommodate increased usage. The anticipated hours that a natural or artificial turf field would be reserved at each of the sites studied is described in the “General methodology” section.

Figure 21: 20-year gross waste impact
23 “Reclamation.” Shaw Sports Turf, https://www.shawsportsturf.com/reclamation/. 316 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 35

Figure 22: 20-year net waste impact (per sf per hour)
The artificial and natural turf options were assigned waste scores as follows:
● The highest score (5) is equal to the lowest waste impact per unit area per hour of play analyzed as a part of this study (Fremont Park natural turf). ● The lowest score (1) is equal to the highest waste impact per unit area per hour of play analyzed as a part of this study (artificial turf).

Field Studied Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Pacific Community
Center

2.95 1.00 1.00
Sports Complex #3 3.71 1.00 1.00
Fremont Park 5.00 1.00 1.00
Overall Average 3.88 1.00 1.00
In general, natural turf fields produce less waste than their artificial counterparts. The ability to recycle parts of the natural turf installation is not considered in the scoring and may support in mitigating these impacts. Please note that if resodding the natural fields once annually is required for any field, this will contribute to the waste generated by natural turf.

Additional Considerations
Carbon Impact of Waste
Most forms of waste disposal contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, whether it be through landfilling, recycling, composting, or other forms of diversion. In the case of landfilling, which is the assumption in this analysis, the transportation of waste to the landfill as well as the gasses released 317 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 36
by the product as it decays in the landfill all contribute to climate change. This impact is calculated and considered in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis section of this report.

Stormwater Management
Stormwater runoff is an issue of environmental and human health concern. Runoff may capture and carry numerous pollutants into our waterways and can cause harm with small quantities of concentration. If not properly managed, the volume of stormwater may flood and damage playing fields and surrounding environments. Additionally, stormwater runoff can erode stream channels, damage habitat, and present concern for human health if it is not mitigated. In the context of playing fields, stormwater may pool up and degrade playing surfaces if drainage is lacking or mismanaged.

Synthetic turf eliminates the need for inorganic material to sustain its integrity, however, mobility of infill material may cause functionality issues with the storm drain system if not managed in the appropriate manner. While the City of Glendale only experiences 16 inches of rain24 annually, it is still important that stormwater be considered and managed effectively.

Scope
This section was analyzed through qualitative measures for scoring purposes, as there are many variables between current renovated natural grass drainage systems and planned drainage systems for artificial turf replacements. This analysis took into consideration the existing conditions of the sport fields, water use needs for both natural and synthetic turf, and infill mobility.

The following options were assessed:
● Natural turf without drainage systems
● Artificial turf without drainage systems
● Artificial turf with drainage systems
Primary Data Sources
● GeoFill Brochure25
● Shaw Website Resources26
● City of Glendale Commission Staff Report - Natural vs Artificial Turf ○ Exhibit F - GeoFill Infill
○ Exhibit C - EPIC Turf Management
○ Exhibit H - LCA
24 “Glendale Climate (USA).” Climate, https://en.climate-data.org/north-america/united-states-ofamerica/california/glendale-714884/. 25 “Geofill Brochure - Shaw Sports Turf.” Shaw Sports Turf, Shaw, https://www.shawsportsturf.com/resources/downloads/product-brochures/geofill-brochure/. 26 Shaw Sports Turf, https://www.shawsportsturf.com/.
318 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 37
● Alternative Infill Resources27
● DEP Artificial Turf Stormwater Study28
● Gale Associates Report Natural v. Synthetic turf29
● Gale Associates Alternative Infills30
● Connecticut DEP Study31
● Sage Artificial Turf Comparison32
Analysis
The GeoFill material by Shaw is designed to be as close to natural as possible, while maintaining the durability and play experience of synthetic turf. GeoFill replaces recycled rubber with coconut husk and other organic material as infill. GeoFill material reduces chemical pollutants that have been found in infill products, thus reducing possible pollution to storm drains and groundwater resources when compared to other synthetic turf lawns or natural turf with high fertilizer, pesticide, or herbicide use.

Natural turf requires fertilization and the use of inorganic compounds, such as Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Manganese, Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphorous, and Sulfur. Additionally, natural turf may require the use of fungicides or herbicides to maintain its integrity. Leaching of these materials into groundwater resources presents environmental concern and buildup may degrade the quality of the natural turf in the long run. These pollutants are considered in the Water Pollution section while this one is focused on drainage efficacy.

Depending on the existing soil quality, synthetic turf is expected to have a drainage quality like natural grass lawns. Shaw claims that the NXTPlay turf drains at a rate of 178 in/hr. If the existing soil condition of the playing field is of high quality, the application of synthetic turf is unlikely to decrease the stormwater infiltration of the athletic field. However, if the soil condition is poor, the 27 Alternative Infills - Gale Associates. https://www.galeassociates.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/Alternative-Infills-for-Synthetic-Turf-Fields-JMP.pdf. 28 Dep Artificial Turf Stormwater Study July 2010. https://portal.ct.gov/- /media/DEEP/artificialturf/DEPSummarypdf.pdf.
29 Natural v. Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields - Gale Associates. https://www.galeassociates.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/12/Natural-v.-Synthetic-Turf-Athletic-Fields.pdf. 30 Alternative Infills - Gale Associates. https://www.galeassociates.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/Alternative-Infills-for-Synthetic-Turf-Fields-JMP.pdf. 31 DEP Artificial Turf Study - CT.GOV-Connecticut's Official ... https://portal.ct.gov/- /media/DEEP/artificialturf/DEPArtificialTurfReportpdf.pdf. 32 Artificial Turf Infill: A Comparative ... - Sage Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1048291120906206. 319 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 38
application of synthetic turf may potentially improve the infiltration capabilities, particularly if the installation includes dry wells or other stormwater pollution prevention measures.

The backing and infill selected for the synthetic turf application is important as these elements will greatly influence the turf’s ability to infiltrate stormwater and prevent runoff. Of particular importance is the material type used for the synthetic turf infill. GeoFill has the capability to retain up to 8 times its weight in moisture, thus slowing down stormwater runoff. Once its water capacity is met, remaining water flows through the turf and drainage system, preventing the turf from getting over-hydrated. GeoFill has a natural resistance to mold and mildew, which may act as a filter for stormwater runoff rather than increasing chemical and bacterial exposure. Since it is a natural material, the coconut husk may act as a type of mulch, slowing down the rate of runoff compared to other synthetic turf materials.

Depending on how the athletic field will be used, light watering may be considered to decrease the likelihood of bacteria growth. Given that pets are not allowed on the athletic fields, animal feces are not expected to be a concern in these spaces. Animal feces present a human and environmental health concern, especially if stormwater will drain directly into a freshwater body. As the field is only going to be used for sports, little to no water would be necessary to maintain cleanliness or functionality.

Synthetic turf generally does not require mechanical equipment or chemical applications of pesticides or herbicides. Since these petroleum-derived materials present significant harms to humans and the environment, there are significant benefits to using a natural fill material for the synthetic turf surface while reducing the amount of time spent maintaining the athletic field.

However, the natural quality of the GeoFill infill may generate increased mobility during large rain events. Regular raking may be necessary to maintain the integrity of the infill material and facilitate an even distribution of infill across the athletic field.

Results
If stormwater runoff were the primary decision-making factor for this project, Geofill infill with dry well systems or other BMPs for capturing stormwater runoff would be recommended. The elimination of inorganic additives and herbicides presents a considerable stormwater improvement, even when taking into consideration the potential mobility of the GeoFill infill. The stormwater management effectiveness of each option has been scored as follows:
● Natural turf without drainage systems: 2
● Artificial turf without drainage systems: 3
● Artificial turf with drainage systems: 5
Because there is no drainage system currently in the natural turf fields, which are heavily compacted, the natural grass option receives a score of 2. The scoring of the artificial turf fields is based on the information if there is drainage for the current athletic fields in the City of Glendale with artificial 320 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 39
turf. The turf with Geofill was assigned a score of 5 as well based on the drainage system that would be incorporated in the proposed artificial turf option.

Impact Natural Turfgrass
without drainage
systems
Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Stormwater
Management
2 5 5
Urban Heat Island Effect
Scope
This section was originally considered for qualitative evaluation in this life cycle analysis due to the consideration of heat island effect in the Staff Commission report from April 2021 and public comments referencing heat island. However, upon further investigation (as referenced in the executive summary), heat island effect looks at the field options for the three parks in consideration from a city or community lens, rather than at the field scale. At this scale, the overall impact of a decision in either direction results in a negligible effect on urban heat island effect. However, an analysis of heat exposure at the field level remains as a scored section under the Human Health impact category. The discussion below elaborates on the topic of urban heat island; however, this section is not included in overall scoring for this report.

Primary Data Sources
● The urban heat island effect, its causes, and mitigation, with reference to the thermal properties of asphalt concrete
● Artificial Turf Field FAQs | Chicago Park District
● Modeling the Thermal Effects of Artificial Turf on the Urban Environment ● Understanding how the Components of a Synthetic Turf System Contribute to Increased Surface Temperature - ScienceDirect
Analysis
The Urban Heat Island Effect is a phenomenon by which an urban environment reaches a higher average temperature than an adjacent rural area. The Urban Heat Island Effect occurs when a city’s overall temperature is increased by infrastructure heating up during the day and radiating out the stored heat after the ambient air temperature declines. There are many factors that exacerbate or mitigate urban heating like land conversion, surface temperatures, thermal capacity, and albedo (the amount of light an object absorbs rather than reflects into the atmosphere).

For example, asphalt is known to exacerbate urban heat because it is a material that has a low albedo (absorbs a lot of light, or energy in the visible wave spectrum), it can reach extreme surface temperatures, and it has a high thermal capacity, meaning it retains and radiates heat back out.

Further, asphalt converts large amounts of surface area in a city from natural landscapes to asphalt landscapes thus decreasing cooling effects provided by natural areas and increasing heating effects from the material.
321 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 40
Synthetic turf fields are often small surface areas that do convert natural turfgrass to a synthetic alternative but do not share the same thermal capacity and albedo as asphalt. While synthetic turf fields are shown to rapidly reach extreme surface temperatures, they quickly cool down (Figure 1); one study notes synthetic turf cooled down ‘almost instantaneously during periods of cloud cover’.

Since synthetic turf fields do not retain heat in the same way that asphalt or concrete does and they convert little landscape, they do not contribute significantly to the Urban Heat Island effect. The Chicago Parks District also made the distinction that synthetic turf does not contribute to the Urban Heat Island Effect when evaluating the development of artificial turf fields for Chicago parks.

To reiterate the impact of heat island effect, this is a metric that is based on two primary criteria:
emissivity and reflectivity. The reflectivity of a surface measures how much solar heat energy is absorbed by a surface vs reflected. This measures the heat gain of a surface material. However, this is not the sole metric when measuring the impact of the heat island effect – alternatively this is exactly what is referenced in the heat exposure section and a topic of great importance. The second criteria that impacts heat island effect is emissivity – which is a measure of how heat is then released from a surface. This phenomenon of a slow release is what contributes to higher overall urban temperatures and changing environmental patterns. For the case of artificial turf, not only is this a minimal percentage of surfaces within the overall City of Glendale, the surface releases heat immediately, thereby only contributing to short-term heat exposure, and not having a significant impact on the urban heat island – therefore not a scored section within the confines of this report and analysis.

Conclusion
The extreme temperatures reached by artificial turf under certain conditions and the potential impacts on people nearby are discussed in the Human Health section. While synthetic fields may not contribute significantly to the Urban Heat Island Effect, natural turfgrass fields mitigate the Urban Heat Island Effect by evaporative cooling through transpiration. This process is discussed further in the Ecosystem Services section below. Subsequently, there is no scoring for this topic. 322 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 41
Water Pollution
Scope
This section was analyzed through qualitative measures for scoring purposes, as there are a variety of potential concerns associated with chemical use and run-off as described below.

Water pollution from chemical use and runoff and microplastics is a compounding issue facing California. On natural grass, usage and over-application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides on decorative and recreational lawns can cause harmful chemicals to flow into waterways polluting freshwater sources. Chemical run-off from natural turfgrass systems is largely dependent on management and there are various management strategies that reduce environmental pollutants but may be more challenging for field managers or affect field availability. For these reasons, this report evaluates the chemical makeup and potential for environmental harm given the products most used on natural turfgrass recreational fields.

Synthetic turf fields contribute to chemical runoff and waterway pollution due to the chemical compositions of its component parts. Chemicals found in the turf blade, infill, and shockpad can leach toxins into the environment that then get washed into waterways or absorbed into groundwater.

Further, the physical degradation of plastic turf blades and loss of rubber infill increases environmental microplastics.

To evaluate the chemical risks associated with natural and artificial turfgrass fields we identified under the categories of environmental risks from chemical use and run off: nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides & herbicides, hazardous additives to installed products, and environmental microplastics.

We then evaluated the turfgrass options based on whether each option would contribute significantly to each chemical hazard.

Nitrogen Fertilizer
Analysis
The broad use of fertilizers like nitrogen and phosphorus is damaging to urban and rural ecosystems by a process known as eutrophication. Eutrophication occurs when excess fertilizer makes its way into waterways producing algae blooms which in turn cause oxygen dead zones where aquatic life cannot survive. Application of fertilizers cause eutrophication when the plants do not absorb all the nitrogen applied. The leftover nitrogen then gets washed away by rain or irrigation, often into storm drains, and then deposited in watersheds, rivers, and the ocean.

Natural turfgrass fields are a known source of nitrogen pollution in the environment and while a single field and single application of fertilizer may not contribute significantly to eutrophication, or nitrates in drinking water, the compounding effects of recreational fields in urban areas could contribute to significant levels of pollution.

Because the city staff confirmed fertilizers are necessary in the maintenance of the natural grass fields, the score assigned to this option is a 2. This is better than a score of 1 because it is not applied as heavily as is the basis of some of the studies on fertilizer runoff. Both Geofill and SBR artificial turfgrass do not require fertilizer application and thus do not contribute to nitrogen pollution in the environment, which results in a score of 5 for both systems. 323 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 42
Pesticide & Herbicide
Primary Data Sources
● Potential Health Effects Related to Pesticide Use on Athletic Fields - Gilden - 2012 - Public Health Nursing - Wiley Online Library
Analysis
From the data provided by Glendale city staff, pesticides and herbicides are not commonly or regularly used on the natural turf fields. However, because of the potential that they may be used in the future to improve the playing surface conditions, the natural grass field was given a score of 4 instead of a 5. A score of 1 would have equated to heavy use of pesticides and herbicides. Artificial turfgrass does not require application of pesticides or herbicides and thus does not introduce these types of pollutants to the environment and is therefore given a score of 5.

Hazardous additives (PFAS and heavy metals)
Primary Data Sources
● Toxic Forever Chemicals Infest Artificial Turf - PEER.org ● New Studies Show PFAS in Artificial Grass Blades and Backing | Environmental Working Group
● Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS | US EPA Analysis
Per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals that have been found in both the rubber crumb type infill and turf blades. One study tested 8 different synthetic turf fibers, including Shaw and Turf Factory Direct Brands, and found all tested for fluorine (44-255 ppm)33
PFAS is a popular coating on plastic to provide stain resistance and water repellency. However, over time and wear, PFAS “flakes off” and migrates throughout the environment, accumulating in the fatty tissue of animals that reside at the top of food chains. The EPA acknowledges that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to adverse reproductive and developmental health effects, weakened immune system, hormonal interference, and increased risk of some cancers and obesity, in many animal species, not just humans.

Concerns over crumb rubber also include degradation of rubber infill, leaching of chemicals from the infill, a concern for environmentally persistent chemicals like zinc and lead, and disposal and recycling of artificial turf components. Heavy metals at high enough concentrations are particularly damaging to aquatic life when they pollute waterways. Lead exposure can have detrimental effects 33 Toxic Forever Chemicals Infest Artificial Turf - PEER.org 324 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 43
on the nervous system even in very small amounts. Degradation and disposal are addressed in the microplastics subcategory below, and the Waste section of this report, respectively.

For the product within this study, Shaw provided detailed materials inventory data, as well as a specific statement that “Shaw Sports Turf does not use PFAS chemicals currently listed on California's Proposition 65 regulations or identified as target analytes in USEPA Methods for analysis of PFAS (specifically Methods 533, 537, 3827 and Draft Method 1633) to manufacture the components of its Legion sports turf field products.” The Chemical Hazards section of this report under Human Health provides further detail on chemicals and substances of concern detected in different components of the artificial turf system. Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for the Geofill infill and the turf blades do not list any PFAS chemicals.

Among the information provided was also testing for heavy metals including chromium, lead, and zinc. These were conducted on the Geofill and shockpad. The tests found the Geofill contained very low levels of chromium and zinc (8.92ppm and 146ppm, respectively), less than detectable levels of lead (<0.25ppm), and less than detectable levels of all seven heavy metals tested for in the shockpad (<0.05ppm). For reference, the industry standard for disclosure of hazardous substances on SDS documents is 1000ppm; 100ppm for extremely hazardous substances. The SDS for the turf notes there are no hazardous substances found in the composition of the synthetic grass blades.

Based on the above manufacturer information showing no PFAS and a few heavy metals in the products, the score assigned to the artificial turf with Geofill was set at 3 in comparison to crumb rubber which was set at 1, due to finding both PFAS and heavy metals in much higher concentrations from a large body of literature that is based on crumb rubber. Natural grass fields would not introduce these chemical hazards to the environment and were therefore set at a 5. However, it should be noted that with the current pervasiveness of these chemicals in the environment, it is very likely the turf and soils of natural grass fields also contain these substances, particularly the heavy metals in fields in close proximity to parking lots.

Environmental Microplastics
Primary Data Sources
● Microplastic Pollution from Artificial Grass - A Field Guide – KIMO ● News: Could this be the end of microplastics in artificial turf pitches? - Plastic Change ● FIFA_artificial_turf LCA.pdf
Analysis
Microplastics are small plastic particles <5 mm found in the environment. The presence of microplastics is often from the improper disposal of plastic waste which breaks down in the environment into smaller and smaller pieces, however these plastics never decompose. Recently, researchers have found that microplastics can cause significant harm in aquatic ecosystems. 325 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 44
However, microplastics are now being found in food sources. These particles can cause chemical and physical effects through ingestion in animals and humans.

Natural turfgrass lawns do not contribute to environmental microplastics. Thus the natural turf option was assigned a score of 5.

Synthetic turfgrass fields are known to contribute significantly to microplastics found in the environment. The dominant source of microplastics from artificial turfgrass is from the SBR rubber crumb infill which are then transported outside the boundaries of the field by shoes and clothes. It is estimated that 1-4% of plastic infill is lost each year and requires replacing. These crumbs are then deposited in the environment or washed down drains ending up in watersheds or the ocean. The European Chemicals Agency is considering limiting the use of crumb rubber infill and other ‘unnecessary plastics’ in artificial turf products due to the considerable amount of environmental microplastics lost every year. Similarly, 5-10% of the synthetic blades, or plastic grass fibers, are degraded annually contributing significantly to environmental microplastics.

While crumb rubber microplastics are eliminated by using products such as Geofill, a natural fiber, there is no way to mitigate the mechanical shedding and subsequent plastic pollution from the turf blades. Thus, while the crumb rubber option is assigned a score of 1, the Geofill has been given an improved score of 3.

Results
Impact Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Fertilizers 2 5 5
Pesticides & Herbicides 4 5 5
PFAS and other
environmental CoCs
5 3 1
Microplastics 5 3 1
Water Pollution 4 4 3
Both natural turf and artificial turf present a variety of concerns associated with chemical used on natural grass, and chemicals that may shed off artificial turf and microplastics that may transfer to the environment. Thus sub-scores were created to produce a cumulative average score. 326 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 45
Ecosystem Services
Scope
Ecosystem Services encompass an array of benefits that natural landscapes provide to humans. These can take on direct benefits like erosion control, flood prevention, and cooling properties, and they can also have indirect benefits such as supporting pollinators critical to agriculture, providing habitat for wildlife, and increasing water percolation and aquifer recharge. The conversion of natural turfgrass to artificial turfgrass eliminates most of the ecosystem services that a natural turfgrass field provides.

We qualitatively evaluated five priority ecosystem services important to the Glendale community based on public comments and the survey. We then ranked natural turfgrass and artificial turf fields by their capacity to provide these services to the local community on a scale of one to five seen in the table below. The ecosystem services researched include:
● Cooling Effects
● Habitat and Biodiversity
● Water Percolation, Filtration and Retention
● Connection to Nature
● Carbon Sequestration
The primary reason for grouping these criteria is because many are highly related to other categories while others were found to be less substantial to the scope of the study. All were kept in order to provide a holistic evaluation, but they are grouped so as to not skew the results by double-counting or equally weighing them with other criteria. In particular, Water Percolation, Filtration and Retention is related to Stormwater Management, but not the same since it is focused on ground water recharge, not just drainage; and Carbon Sequestration is focused on soils while sequestration through photosynthesis is included in the Carbon Emissions calculations already. Cooling Effects was similar to Heat Island which, upon further study, was deemed less relevant at the park-scale. Similarly, Connection to Nature is evaluated at a field level here but would be better addressed at the city scale.

Cooling Effects
Primary Data Sources
● Measuring the Ecological Benefit of Turf Lawns
● Understanding how the Components of a Synthetic Turf System Contribute to Increased Surface Temperature - ScienceDirect
Analysis
To score the cooling effects of natural turfgrass, SBR turfgrass, and Geofill turf grass fields, we evaluated the existing literature on the cooling effects of natural turfgrass and relative cooling incurred by the organic geofill infill when compared to SBR rubber infill. This allows us to determine a cooling score given the field options available to the Glendale Community Services & Parks Department.
327 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 46
Natural turfgrass is known to cool down and mitigate urban heating through evapotranspiration.

Evapotranspiration is a process where water is transferred from soil and plants to the atmosphere cooling the area through evaporation. Heavily planted areas, such as natural turfgrass can contribute significantly to localized cooling through this process and studies have shown that the surface area of natural turfgrass fields remain significantly cooler, up to 20 C, then synthetic fields experiencing the same environmental conditions.

Shaw marketing materials claim that Geofill infill reaches extreme temperatures more slowly than traditional rubber infill products, however empirical or third-party evidence of this difference is limited.

The figure below illustrates the temperature intervals reached by Geofill and SBR infill systems over a three-day time horizon. An important note is that this graph illustrates maximum temperatures reached by properly hydrated Geofill infill, not the complete synthetic system which includes a shock pad and turf blades. Similarly, the second figure shows a bar chart of maximum temperatures reached by different infill materials. Geofill shows a substantially lower maximum temperature compared to other infill materials when properly hydrated.

Figure 23: surface temperature over 3 days
geofill vs. standard rubber
Figure 24: surface temperature comparisons based on infill type
In a 2014 study, researchers found that organic infill remained cooler than SBR infill under the same environmental conditions, however both organic and SBR infill reached higher temperatures when compared to TPE synthetic infill. Further, the same study also noted that the presence of a shock pad contributed significantly to an increase in surface temperature of the synthetic turf system.

At present, the Community Services & Parks Department does not plan on irrigating artificial turf fields and as such temperatures of artificial turf with either Geofill or SBR crumb rubber are subject to direct solar radiation without the benefit of ecosystem cooling that would be experienced on a healthy natural grass field. However, the heat retention and moisture retention properties of SBR crumb rubber for an infill product would render even higher surface temperatures than Geofill. It is important to note that surface temperatures are impacted by both solar radiation (heat absorption in direct sunlight) and cooling effects based on heat released. In this sense a heavily used and 328 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 47
compacted natural field and artificial turf field with Geofill are expected to perform similarly with respect to heat dissipation or release.

For these reasons, natural turfgrass scores a 5 and artificial turf with crumb rubber scores a 1.

Artificial turf with geofill scores a 2 based on better performance and a lower overall surface temperature than the crumb rubber. Scoring in this section is directly attributed to ecosystem services and soil ecosystem health. The section on heat exposure more deeply evaluates the relationship of surface temperature with human health and field days of use.

Ecosystem Services Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Cooling Effects 5 2 1
Habitat & Biodiversity
Primary Data Sources
● Ecosystem services from turfgrass landscapes
● Ecosystem services for compensation of artificial turf systems* ● California Department of Fish and Game: California Interagency Wildlife Task Group, “California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System”
Analysis
We prescribed a Habitat & Biodiversity score based on the three field options available to the Community Services & Parks Department. The criteria used to score the field types was whether the field type supports native plants and animals by providing habitat, food, and water.

Natural turfgrass fields are one of the most prevalent natural urban landscapes that still exist in our cities. Despite being monoculture, athletic fields can act as critical habitat for life below ground like gophers, beneficial arthropods, worms, and microbes. These communities in turn support other local wildlife like birds, owls, and other wildlife. Further, living root systems support diverse microbial populations that can help break down environmental toxins and decompose waste. While some of these may negatively impact playing performance or may create playing surface safety hazards, in this section we are focused on the larger context of ecosystem services.

Natural turfgrass fields are the best type of field to support habitat and biodiversity when compared to Geofill and SBR synthetic turfgrass. This is because they allow water and air to penetrate the ground which supports the underground ecosystem and provides surface area on the topsoil for foraging and predation of small organisms. Although different management practices, such as herbicide and pesticide application, negatively impact soil microbial communities and fauna, natural turfgrass is given a score of 5, as it is the only option that supports some habitat and biodiversity.

Synthetic turfgrass, whether the infill is Geofill or SBR crumb rubber, eliminates habitat and foraging areas for local wildlife. Further, the shock pad that caps the soil prevents aeration and water penetration, suppressing underground biodiversity. This can be especially environmentally costly in high density urban areas where local athletic fields provide a significant amount of natural habitat for urban wildlife. For these reasons, both Geofill and SBR synthetic turf systems are given a score of 1 because they do not provide habitat and the required shock pads likely suppress underground biodiversity.
329 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 48
Ecosystem Services Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Habitat & Biodiversity 5 1 1
Water Percolation, Filtration, & Retention
This metric is focused on ground water recharge as opposed to stormwater management which has its own section above.

Primary Data Sources
● Ecosystem services: Urban parks under a magnifying glass34 ● Artificial lawns exhibit increased runoff and decreased water retention compared to living lawns following controlled rainfall experiments - ScienceDirect ● Basic drainage principles applied to sports field design ● Penn State University - Athletic Fields - Specification outline, construction, and maintenance Water percolation and retention are prominent issues in many Southern Californian communities due to prolonged droughts affecting the region. We scored water percolation and retention by comparing the capacity for the different field types to recharge groundwater sources. There are two limitations of scoring criteria. Firstly, this does not account for water conserved by eliminating irrigation required for natural turfgrass fields. Secondly, this evaluation criteria does not account for the installation of additional drainage systems which is planned by the City of Glendale Community Services & Parks Department if artificial turf fields were installed.

Under the right conditions and management, natural turfgrass systems facilitate water percolation and infiltration into the soil. Robust root systems can help improve aquifer recharge and retain water by improving percolation and acting as a sponge and keeping moisture in. Further, the process of water passing through sediments mechanically filters out contaminants and soil microbial communities also remove environmental toxins, purifying water as it passes through. Natural fields also capture and drain some rainwater into the soil that would otherwise be diverted into storm drains on synthetic fields.

However, the above describes natural turf fields that have healthy soils and robust root systems. This is challenging to replicate in California where the natural soil is often high in clay and the fields experience heavy use and dirt compaction limiting water percolation. The Glendale Community Services & Parks Department has noted that to maintain natural turfgrass fields, the fields must be closed following rain events because of mud and drainage issues. This reduces overall field time and indicates that the natural turfgrass fields in Glendale would not provide the same water percolation and retention as a natural turfgrass lawn that experiences less recreational activity. Further, if 34 https://ia800905.us.archive.org/4/items/PaperMp3EcosystemServicesUrbanParksUnderAMagnifyingGlass MexiaEtAl2018/paper%20mexia%20et%20al%202018-
Ecosystem_services_Urban_parks_under_a_magnifying_glass.pdf?msclkid=117a0279c1c911ec91b7ab4cea8f6 2e0
330 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 49
natural turfgrass is chosen to be installed, the Glendale Community Services & Parks Department does not plan to include a drainage system.

This section is unique in that none of the three options received an absolute score as a reference point. Natural grass fields that are available to Glendale score a 3 for water percolation, filtration, and retention. This is in contrast to a reference score of 5 which would represent the percolation and groundwater recharge that can happen in more ideal natural grass fields with a healthy soil system.

Synthetic turfgrass systems can reduce water percolation as well, depending on the type of shock pad installed and the compacted substructure. The Shaw NXT Play Pad drains at 178 inches per hour, and the park design specifications calls for a 90% compacted subgrade. One possible mitigation for synthetic fields could be the use of groundwater recharge systems such as dry wells for any stormwater diverted and collected, however this is not ubiquitous. The Glendale City Community Services & Parks Department plans to install drainage basins that divert water away from the fields and into landscaped drainage basins, and stormwater catch basins. Only one of the three fields (Fremont Park) is designed with a dry well to allow for groundwater recharge, while the other two parks (Pacific Community Center and Park and Glendale Sports Complex Field #3) are designed with a concrete catch basin connected to storm sewer systems.

Ecosystem Services Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Water Percolation,
Filtration, & Retention
3 2.16 2.16
Both artificial turf systems earn a score of 2 because water can be drained off the fields quickly but the ecosystem services of soil percolation, filtration, and retention are largely limited. A score of 1 would be for a hardtop system that offers no drainage as a reference point. The score for the synthetic fields was only increased by a partial point, weighted by area of the fields, to accurately represent the fact that only one of the three fields will facilitate groundwater recharge similar to the percolation benefits of a natural grass field’s soil structure.

Connection to Nature
This section was originally considered for its own section under either Human Health or Community, due to public comments and direct comments during our community meeting for connection to nature. However, upon further investigation the connection to nature best fit within the umbrella category of ecosystem services because of the scale of the fields compared to the scale at which individuals experience nature within the community. The discussion below elaborates on the topic of connection to nature and our qualitative analysis for scoring under ecosystem services.

Urban environments are experiencing rapid infill and development to accommodate growing urban populations. Due to this, natural spaces are getting encroached upon and can be extremely limited in some areas. Connecting to nature is an increasingly important ecosystem service provided by public parks and natural spaces in these urban environments.

Natural turfgrass fields are often the only accessible option for children and adults to connect with nature in dense urban areas. This is because natural turfgrass fields are easier to access generally than natural landscapes in rural areas like state or national parks simply because natural turfgrass fields.
331 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 50
As referenced in the executive summary, proximity and access to nature can and should be assessed from a city or community lens, rather than at the field scale. This is further expanded upon under the section Experience with Nature further below. Because there is no score associated with the Experience with Nature section, one is included here, where natural grass is assigned a 5. The artificial turf fields have been assigned a score of 2 instead of a 1 because although the turf itself is not natural, the purpose of the fields is to provide an outdoor amenity. Many field users have expressed that if they were not playing on the fields, spending time outside in an environment that offers more opportunities to connect with nature, they would most likely be inside with fewer opportunities for that connection.

Ecosystem Services Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Connection to Nature 5 2 2
Soil Carbon Sequestration
Primary Data Sources
● Effects of climate and soil properties on US home lawn soil organic carbon concentration and pool
● Ecosystem services for compensation of artificial turf systems* ● Net carbon sequestration potential and emissions in home lawn turfgrasses of the United States
● Will Carbon Sequestration Redeem the Lawn?
● Biodiverse green infrastructure for the 21st century: From "green desert" of lawns to biophilic cities
● Effects of climate and soil properties on US home lawn soil organic carbon concentration and pool
Analysis
To rate carbon sequestration of natural turfgrass fields, we evaluated a natural turfgrass field’s potential to sequester carbon in the soils given the current usage and management practices by the City of Glendale Community Services & Parks Department management team. This section does not consider the emissions associated with the management of the field in this evaluation because that is best captured in the Life Cycle Carbon Analysis section.

Soil carbon sequestration has been highlighted in recent years as a potential climate mitigation strategy. Soil carbon sequestration occurs when dead plant matter, made up of carbon plants taken in when alive, is broken down in soil where it can be stored. This process builds soil organic matter (SOM) and can store, or ‘sequester’ carbon for long periods of time. The capacity for soil to store carbon is highly dependent on the management practices, climate, and soil type. Management practices that increase soil sequestration range from fertilization, irrigation, reincorporating cuttings, and not disturbing the soils or root systems. These practices increase plant growth rates, allow high-carbon plant material to decompose, and leave root systems and microbial communities, where much of the carbon gets stored, intact.
332 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 51
The linear relationship between management and carbon sequestration capacity creates a dichotomy for athletic fields, particularly in arid regions. For example, one study shows that sequestration is highest when soils receive 60-70 cm (23.5-27.5 inches) of annual precipitation. Whereas Glendale receives approximately 48 cm precipitation annually (approximately 19 inches).

For a field in Glendale to optimize sequestration, it would require regular irrigation and conservation management practices that allow the grass to grow and root systems to develop. A natural turfgrass field that experiences heavy use, such as those managed by Glendale may see limited carbon sequestration opportunities simply because the heavy use and dirt compaction would impede robust plant growth and healthy soils. For these reasons, natural turfgrass fields are rated a 4, instead of 5 for a healthy natural field, and synthetic turfgrass fields are rated a 1, as they do not sequester carbon.

Ecosystem Services Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Soil Carbon
Sequestration
4 1 1
Results
The average score across all five areas was included as our score for the ecosystem services line item in our final scoring summary and evaluation of the turf options for the three fields in consideration.

The table below reflects all five sections, showing individual scores for each Ecosystem Services Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Cooling Effects 5 2 1
Habitat & Biodiversity 5 1 1
Water Percolation,
Filtration, & Retention
3 2 2
Connection to Nature 5 2 2
Soil Carbon
Sequestration
4 1 1
Average Score 4.4 1.63 1.43
333 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 52

HUMAN HEALTH
This section includes discussion of the following impact areas under the Human Health category:
● Heat Exposure
● Injuries on Turf
● Off-gassing and Dust
● Experience with Nature
Heat exposure
Scope
Heat exposure is a big concern for communities considering replacing natural turfgrass fields with synthetic turfgrass. This section uses a qualitative analysis to compare the system options considered in this study.

Primary Data Sources
● Guidelines for Minimizing the Risk of Heat-Related Illness ● Heat risks associated with synthetic athletic fields
● Injuries Related to Artificial Turf | National Center for Health Research ● Synthetic Sports Fields and the Heat Island Effect
Analysis
On average, natural turfgrass stays 40-50 degrees cooler than synthetic alternatives and does not reach dangerous temperatures that would cause skin irritation or burns. This is because natural turfgrass releases water which cools the field through evaporation and limiting extreme temperatures. Synthetic turf is known to reach extreme temperatures on hot days ranging from 140- 160 degrees F. Although the surface area reaches extreme heats, it can dissipate quickly and has been shown to match the ambient air temperature at approximately two feet above the surface. Similarly, solar radiation (direct sunlight) causes the turf to heat up rather than ambient air temperature, thus as a cloud passes over the turf does tend to cool down quickly in response.

Organic materials, such as GeoFill are shown to slow down the rate at which an artificial turf field reaches extreme temperatures. Figure 1 shows that hydrated GeoFill synthetic turf systems do lower the maximum temperature reached compared to SBR turf systems. The difference can amount to 40 degrees between turf with geofill versus turf with crumb rubber. This drops to a 35-degree differential on the 3rd day after initial watering.
334 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 53
Figure 25: surface temperature over 3 days geofill vs. standard rubber Similarly, other GeoFill marketing material claim that GeoFill products slow climbing temperatures and reduce overall maximum temperature due to the water retention properties of the coconut husk infill. While the Glendale Community Services & Parks Department is not planning to include an irrigation system for any artificial turf field, a slight benefit in scoring was given to the artificial turf with geofill as evidenced in day 3 results in the graphic above.

In conversation with the management team for Apollo Field in the City of Downey, which uses the exact same proposed turf and infill products, no additional days of closure have been reported due to surface temperature. Demand has been so high for the field that an average of 62 reservable hours per week have been provided for field use, with very little maintenance needs. While there is an irrigation system present at Apollo Field, this is used for management of the infill and not for shortterm surface cooling, as that has not been necessary or effective. This information has been relayed directly by the management team, however empirical evidence is not yet available, and in line with recommendations from the Executive Summary a collaboration on surface temperature monitoring in Southern California would greatly benefit the local knowledge base as demand for field time continues to rise in metropolitan areas. This evidence from a neighboring public athletic field using the exact same turf product further validates the qualitative scoring methodology used in this section.

Extreme surface temperatures of synthetic turf fields have been noted by field users and researchers alike and bring up health concerns particularly skin irritation and burns, as well as heat related illnesses. Some studies report that players complain about the heat felt through their shoes and spectators may even see the heat rising off the field. These narratives are backed by research that shows that surface temperatures of synthetic turf can be 37 degrees higher than asphalt and 86.5 degrees hotter than natural turfgrass. For reference, a surface temperature above 120 degrees F can cause skin burns in seconds. Moreover, such extreme surface temperatures increase the risk of heat exposure for players and spectators that could lead to heat-related illnesses like heat stroke and dehydration. This is particularly true for vulnerable populations such as children who are less able to tolerate high heat and less likely to take preventative measures such as hydrating and recognizing early symptoms of heat related illness.

For more information on how to mitigate impacts of heat on field users and spectators please see the Synthetic Turf Council’s “Guidelines for Minimizing the Risk of Heat-Related Illness”. 335 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 54
Results
The current heat mitigation strategy of the Community Services & Parks Department is to cancel any game, on natural or synthetic turf, when the ambient air temperature reaches 100 degrees F. While this is currently an effective strategy, it is recommended that should artificial turf be selected for the proposed athletic fields, an additional policy of measuring surface temperature or for seasonally appropriate scheduling should be adopted because the temperature of artificial turf increases over time under direct sunlight regardless of ambient temperature. For example, on a day that maintains 80 degrees F from 12-4, the synthetic turf surface temperature without irrigation will be much hotter at 3 pm than at 12 pm even though the ambient temperature remains the same; this is simply due to the amount of time the synthetic turf is exposed to the sun. Glendale, CA already experiences significant periods of high heat averaging nearly 40 days per year that reach over 90 degrees F.

Climate change is expected to increase that number further necessitating surface temperature management policies for public surfaces of all types.

Aside from this, the information provided by Shaw did not contain data to invalidate findings from the literature review. Therefore, the scores assigned to the systems are set at opposite ends, where natural grass is given a 5, the crumb rubber a score of 1, and the synthetic system with geofill is set at 2 because of the potential for significantly lower temperatures (approx. 30-degrees less in worst case) than crumb rubber infill.

Impact Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Heat Exposure 5 2 1
336 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 55
Injuries on Turf
Scope
Due to the nature of this topic, and the lack of data specific to youth and adult soccer and baseball activity on municipal fields, third party research has been evaluated qualitatively for scoring purposes. Comparisons of potential injury rates referenced below were evaluated as a whole to determine an overall impact to air quality during use for this section.

Analysis
Injuries sustained on artificial turf are an area of concern when compared to athletic activity on natural grass. If the primary purpose of the fields in question is heavy usage of a diverse array of youth and athletic sports groups, it is a priority of all users and park management to ensure no additional risk of injury is created. However, despite the importance of this issue, the data available for injury rates particularly in comparison of artificial turf and natural turf is varied. As with many other issues discussed in this report, there is a difference between observed data on one field vs. metadata that captures an overall difference in injury rate. Access to a major review of published academic research was utilized as a primary source for the purpose of this study.

This discussion of perspective and number of injury incidences creates the need for a solid metric to be used in comparison. However, since this analysis references a plethora of studies (some previously referenced and some additional), the ability to create a singular metric for this area is markedly difficult. For our scoring in the radial diagram in our integrative analysis, we have settled on using a reference score of 5 (best) for natural grass maintained at peak performance. Due to the impacts of heavy usage and our regional climate we have given an equal score across the board for natural turf fields and artificial turf based. The list of studies below shows a minimal difference in injury rates across the two playing surfaces when aggregated across playing ages, performance levels, and matches vs training. Our rationale for a slightly reduced score for artificial turf that is equal to compacted natural turf is due to 2 factors - the need to monitor artificial turf particular to nonprofessional youth and adult sports played in Glendale, and the perceived risk of abrasion from artificial turf that may impact playing performance.

For the purpose of this scoring, the studies below have been referenced and included:
● 2011 Williams study35injury rates comparing artificial and natural turf (using natural turf as the reference), ranged from 0.82 to 1.42, however 16 of 20 cohorts were evaluated as resulting in a 'trivial effect of the injury rates between surfaces'. ● 2020 Gould36 study performed another injury research review to determine overall injury rate potential in the use of artificial turf vs natural grass across a diversity of sports and age 35 The 2011 Williams study referenced was chosen as it includes an analysis of metadata from a combination of 49 other studies on the injury rates of artificial turf vs natural grass. Williams, S., Hume, P.A. & Kara, S. A Review of Football Injuries on Third and Fourth Generation Artificial Turfs Compared with Natural Turf. Sports Med 41, 903–923 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11593190-000000000-00000 36 Gould, Heath P., et al. “Lower Extremity Injury Rates on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass Playing Surfaces: A Systematic Review.” Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics, Jan. 2022, doi:10.1177/2473011421S00217. 337 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 56
groups, concluding that overall injury rates are similar between the two options, while some data suggests a potential higher rate of ankle and foot injuries on artificial turf. ● 2020 O’Leary37 meta-analysis focused on head injury and concussion concluded a reduced incidence when using artificial turf vs natural grass for various sports, not including rugby and American football, with no correlation specifically for soccer. ● Select References from the Commission staff report presented in April of 2020:
○ A 2004 NCAA study among schools nationwide comparing injury rates between natural grass and artificial turf found that the injury rate during practice was 4.4% on natural grass, and 3.5% on artificial turf.
○ An analysis was conducted by FIFA’s Medical Assessment and Research Centre of the incidence and severity of injuries sustained on grass and artificial turf during two FIFA U-17 World Championships. According to FIFA, “The research showed that there was very little difference in the incidence, nature and causes of injuries observed during games played on artificial turf compared with those played on grass. ○ Three 2010 long-term studies published by researchers from Norway and Sweden383940 comparing acute injuries on artificial turf and natural grass. These studies examined the type, location and severity of injuries sustained by hundreds of players during thousands of hours of matches and training over a four-to-five-year period. Many types of acute injuries to men and women soccer players, particularly knee injury, ankle sprain, muscle strains, concussions, MCL tears and fractures were evaluated. The researchers concluded that the injury risk of playing on artificial turf is no greater than playing on natural grass. All three of these are also included in the metadata analysis for the 2011 Williams paper quoted above. ● CSP conducted a survey of Glendale field users and inquired about injuries sustained while playing on natural grass and artificial turf. The survey results, highlighted later in this report, show no significant difference between the two surface types. 37 O' Leary, Frank et al. “Association of artificial turf and concussion in competitive contact sports: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” BMJ open sport & exercise medicine vol. 6,1 e000695. 26 May. 2020, doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000695
38 Bjørneboe J, Bahr R, Andersen TE (2010) Risk of injury on third generation artificial turf in Norwegian professional football. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44: 794-798. 39 Ekstrand J, Hägglund M, Fuler CW (2010) Comparison of injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass by male and female elite football players. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, DOI: 10.1111/j.1600- 0838.2010.01118.
40 Soligard T, Bahr R, Andersen TE (2010) Injury risk on artificial turf and grass in youth tournament football.

Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01174. 338 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 57
Results
Impact Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Injuries on Turf 4 4 4
In general, our team settled on a score of 5 (best) for natural grass in an ideal setting. From this reference point, we scored all three options with a score of 4 due to different and equal impacts to injury rates - grass fields cannot be maintained in ideal conditions due to volume of use. 339 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 58
Off-Gassing & Dust
Scope
Due to the nature of this topic, and the variety of impacts of off-gassing and dust from athletic activity on natural grass or artificial turf, off-gassing and dust have been evaluated qualitatively for scoring purposes. Comparisons of potential impact referenced below were evaluated as a whole in order to determine an overall impact to air quality during use for this section.

Primary Data Sources
● Artificial (Synthetic) Turf | NYC Health
● A REVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS FROM SYNTHETIC TURF

FIELDS CONTAINING CRUMB RUBBER INFILL
● Microplastic Pollution from Artificial Grass - A Field Guide – KIMO ● About Diesel Fuels | US EPA
Analysis
Off-gassing and dust particulates impact local air quality and can affect vulnerable populations like children and those with respiratory issues such as asthma. This section evaluates off-gassing and dust produced by traditional natural turfgrass maintenance practices and repetitive use of both GeoFill and SBR rubber crumb synthetic turf systems.

Natural turfgrass systems contribute to poor air quality through maintenance practices. In particular, diesel mowers are often used which emit particulate matter, nitrogen oxides contributing to smog pollution, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide, in addition to carbon dioxide and other hazardous air pollutants. It is unlikely that one field would have a significant impact on local air quality however, diesel mowing impacts to local air quality likely compound by field area. Since it is performed outside and when users are not using the field, the likelihood of diesel mowing affecting field users significantly is low.

Inhaling and ingesting dust generated from the usage and deterioration of turf is one mechanism for chemical exposure from an artificial turfgrass field. SBR crumb rubber has the most research performed on the extent of dust and air quality impact. The repetitive impact and grinding from typical recreational activities degrades SBR crumb rubber pellets. In 2006, the Norwegian Institute of Air Pollution analyzed airborne dust from an indoor sports hall that installed synthetic turf with SBR rubber infill. The evaluation showed the presence of PAHs, phthalates, other SVOCs, benzothiazoles, and aromatic amines, as well as other organic chemical compounds. The authors noted that this significantly contributes to indoor air quality concerns, but this study does not reflect outdoor air quality conditions.

In 2009, the New York City of Health and Mental Hygiene tested air quality within the breathing zone of young children (3 feet above the surface) during simulated play. The results from this study did not show a significant increase in contaminants of potential concern. 340 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 59
Milone & MacBroom, INC Engineering, Landscape Architecture, and Environmental Science firm published a series of athletic field experiments evaluating the premier concerns about synthetic turf athletic fields. Their study was conducted in Connecticut and evaluated the air quality of natural and SBR crumb rubber athletic fields. Specifically, the study design tested for the presence of benzothiazole, 4-(tert-octyl) phenol, and volatile nitrosamines in air above recently installed outdoor, crumb rubber in-filled synthetic turf on warm days. “This study determined that under favorable conditions for vapor generation, no detectable concentrations of volatile nitrosamines or 4-(tert-octyl) phenol existed in the air column at a height of four feet above the tested synthetic playing surfaces or in the air either upwind or downwind of the fields. The study did not evaluate if any of these two compounds were offgassed from the fields, but simply that if they did, sufficient dilution within the air column existed to render them undetectable using methods based upon accepted OSHA and NIOSH procedures. The study also determined that benzothiazole, a common compound used in the manufacturing of rubber and plastics, was present at a very low concentration directly above one of the two fields sampled. This compound was not detected at the second of the two fields sampled nor was it detected in any of the upwind or downwind locations at either field. The field where benzothiazole was detected had recently been groomed, thereby bringing significant DECEMBER 2008 PAGE 17 OF 17 quantities of crumb rubber nearer to the surface of the field resulting in greater exposure to both the sunlight and air.” (Milone & Macbroom 2008)
Results
An important note to consider is that the studies discussed above only tested SBR crumb rubber synthetic systems not the proposed Geofill, coconut fiber system. The Glendale Community Services & Parks Department is only considering Geofill synthetic turf systems thereby mitigating most known air quality concerns.

We did not find research that evaluated air quality or off-gassing produced by the other component parts of turf systems (blades and shockpad).

Impact Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Off-gassing & Dust 2 4 4
With the information available, the SBR crumb rubber was assigned a score of 4 because of the commonly detected off-gassing, but also accounting for installation of the system outdoors which research indicated substantially reduces VOC measurements, even to undetectable levels, The geofill field was assigned a score of 4 because although the product literature review found no detectable VOCs, the dust mitigation measures recommended in Geofill product brochures warranted scores that leave room for improvement. While scoring remains the same for both Geofill and SBR crumb 341 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 60
rubber associated with dust and off-gassing in an outdoor environment, the chemical makeup of SBR crumb rubber as documented in material documents reviewed showcases a much higher potential of chemical off-gassing in the nearby environment.

The natural grass fields were assigned a score of 2 due to both (a) the dust that comes from fields that have degraded and no longer have protective turf, and (b) the diesel-based mowing equipment still used to mow the grass portion of the fields.

Additional Considerations
Although the maintenance teams are making a transition to electric-powered equipment for natural grass field maintenance, which is in alignment with the Glendale Environmental Plan, there are no electric ride-on mowers in the pilot program. Ride-on mowers are the largest source of emissions out of all the maintenance equipment used to maintain the fields. If the City were to introduce electric ride-on mowers, the score above could increase for natural grass to a 4 (not a 5 because electrification would not resolve the dust issue).

Chemical Hazards
Scope
Because it is not possible to perform a toxicological analysis on the products in this study, information on material composition and chemical hazards received from the manufacturer have been evaluated qualitatively for the presence of potentially harmful substances for scoring purposes.

Primary Data Sources
● Product data from Shaw
● Turf Hazard Spectrum | HomeFree from HBN
● July 2019 Report: Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization | US EPA41 ● Cheng, Hefa, Yuanan Hu, and Martin Reinhard. “Environmental and Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Review.” Environmental Science & Technology 48, no. 4 (February 18, 2014):
2114–29. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4044193.
● Massey R, Pollard L, Jacobs M, Onasch J, Harari H. 2020. Artificial Turf Infill: A Comparative Assessment of Chemical Contents. New Solutions 30:1, 10-26. ● “Potential Health and Environmental Effects Linked to Artificial Turf Systems - Final Report.” Norwegian Building Research Institute, October 9, 2004. ● Cheng, Hefa, and Martin Reinhard. “Field, Pilot, and Laboratory Studies for the Assessment of Water Quality Impacts of Artificial Turf.” Santa Clara Valley Water District, June 2010. ● Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute. “Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Artificial Turf Carpet.” Accessed September 11, 2020. 41 U.S. EPA & CDC/ATSDR. (2019). Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan Final Report: Part 1 - Tire Crumb Characterization (Volumes 1 and 2). (EPA/600/R-19/051). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 342 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 61
● PFAS in Artificial Turf Carpet / TURI Chemical Fact Sheets / TURI Publications / TURI - TURI - Toxics Use Reduction Institute
Analysis
Artificial turf has the potential to introduce toxic chemicals, particularly when the Infill is made of small particles of rubber or other synthetic polymers. One of the cheapest rubbers/polymeric infill options is ground up recycled tire scrap, also known as “crumb rubber” or “tire crumb.” Because crumb rubber is known to pose many toxic chemicals, numerous risk assessments have attempted to estimate health risks of playing on fields with tire crumb infill. However the findings are mixed -- some studies identify notable risks, while others conclude the risks may be minimal.

Furthermore, a multi-agency study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 2016 tried to better characterize the composition of crumb rubber and human exposures to these chemicals. Their final report resulted in an extensive list of data gaps, such as a lack of epidemiological and biomonitoring studies, which still exist.

Other infills on the market such as “natural” infills made with mineral- or plant-based materials are not devoid of potentially problematic chemicals either. Of note is the potential that plant-based infills containing nut shells can present problems for those with nut allergies, and that dusting of lightweight fibers can induce adverse respiratory reactions. No infill option is entirely free of concern, but in general, most scientific sources state that the natural infills are safer than crumb rubber from recycled tires.

Although the bulk of research has been on the infill material, there are some studies on the plastic fibers and backing that make up the turf “carpet.” Within these studies, antimicrobials, lead, phthalates, and PFAS have been detected. These substances are often found in polymer waste streams, so a high recycled content in the shock pad warrants the need to investigate all layers in the artificial turf system.

The artificial turf system with Geofill infill consists of four primary layers: turf, infill, sand, and shockpad. The product name, components and materials that comprise these are listed in the table below.

Layer Product name Component Materials Reference
Turf “carpet” Legion NXT Turf Turf fibers
(blades)
Polyethylene LEGION NXT
Backing sheet
(holds blades
together)
Polyolefin or
Polypropylene
and
343 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 62
Polyurethane
Geofill NaturalPlay Infill Coconut husks
and other
naturally derived
plant-based
matter
https://www.shawsportsturf.com/resou
rces/downloads/productbrochures/geofill-brochure/
Spec sheet in appendix
Sand Not proprietary Drainage layer Natural sand --
Shockpad NXTPlay Pad Shock pad Recycled Turf,
Recycled PET,
PET Binder
NXTPlay - Shaw Sports Turf
Of the synthetic layers, the following chemicals of concern were detected in the following amounts based on the material data provided by the manufacturer:

Layer Product
component
Chemicals of Concern Related Hazards Reference
Turf Thiolon LSR PE
Fibers
No hazardous ingredients
listed
n/a MSDS (PE Yarn).pdf
Polyolefin backing
sheet:

Polypropylene
(92%), Minor
additives (<8%)
PEL: None established
Primary
Backing_Shaw
Polyolefin Fabrics
TLV: None established (2).pdf
Legion Sports
Turf Field
Products
Statement of no detected PFAS Legion PFAS
Statement

4.27.22.pdf
Geofill NaturalPlay:

Coconut
mesocarp fiber
and peat with
additives
Third party lab test report
lists:

Chromium (8.92 mg/Kg)
Lead (<0.25 mg/Kg)
Zinc (146 mg/Kg)
LCL and SDL of tests
= 0.25
Analytical method =
EPA 6010B
GeoFill 3050b Cr Pb
Zn.pdf
GeoFill is not a hazardous
substance pursuant to the
Guideline 67/548/EC
Possible dust may
cause temporary eye
irritation
Geofill_MSDS.pdf
Nut allergens Residual allergens
have been removed
from the walnut
shells to below the
16262_SST_Natural
Play_Allergen_1Shee
ter_042221.pdf
344 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 63

2.5ppm FDA limit
that requires
ingredient listing on
food labels
Shockpad NXTPlay Pad Third party tested for eight
heavy metals: Silver,
Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium,
Chromium, Lead, Selenium,
and Zinc
< 0.05 mg/L for all
LCL and SDL of tests
= 0.05
Analytical method =
EPA 6010B
NXTPlay_Final_Labo
ratory_Analysis_Rep
ort (1).pdf
Additionally, the Safety Data Sheet for the Geofill provided the following hazard information (complete SDS in appendix):

Toxicological Information:
● Inhalation: not a harmful product
● Ingestion: do not swallow; accidental swallowing of a few grams does not lead to any side effects
● Eyes: possible dust may cause irritation, no side effects are known ● Skin: harmful effects have not been noted
● LD 50: not registered
Identification of Hazards:

Not regulated by EC 67/548 Directive as a hazardous product The information provided raises no serious concerns of hazardous chemicals in the products.

However, hazardous ingredient reporting required by regulatory bodies does not always require an exhaustive listing of the chemical composition, particularly where there may be trace or residual substances from the use of recycled materials. Shaw did provide lab results from heavy metals testing of the shockpad which uses recycled materials. The presence of chromium and zinc at low levels is not alarming. While the presence of lead at the same concentrations would be more concerning, no lead was detected within the limit of measurement by the test instruments.

Results
Impact Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
345 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 64
Chemical Hazards 5 3 1
Scoring was set relative to natural grass, which receives a 5 because it contains no added hazardous chemicals, and crumb rubber, which receives a 1 because of many chemicals of concern associated with the infill. Geofill was assigned a 3 because while most of the chemicals of concern are eliminated by switching to the coconut-walnut infill, the absence of some less prevalent chemicals cited in literature review associated with the turf and shockpad was not entirely verifiable in the product data from Shaw.

Experience with nature
Scope
This section was originally considered material to this life cycle analysis as its own section in response to public comments and direct comments during our community meeting. However, upon further investigation there is a direct overlap in this section with connection to nature under ecosystem services, which ultimately made it a better fit for scoring purposes.

For two main reasons, this section was removed from an independently scored impact and assessed in tandem with other listed impacts:

1. The fields in consideration are specifically municipal athletic fields reserved for youth and adult sports groups. The discussion of access to nature as an isolated issue can get confusing - on one hand we are talking about direct access to natural ecosystems (covered under the section under ecosystem services as connection to nature), and on the other it could be argued that field use and sports activity encourages youth and adults participating to spend more time outdoors (covered under Field Days of Use). Quantitative or Qualitative analysis for this section would be duplicative and subjective, and therefore has been addressed elsewhere.

2. The lens for experience with nature as a holistic topic is better analyzed at a city or community scale. As discussed briefly in the executive summary, this report focuses on a field-specific lens as it relates to the decision to implement artificial or natural turf for the three public projects. While it is an important topic related to our experience as residents in an urban setting, the distribution of natural capital within the City of Glendale is an issue determined to be outside of the boundary of this analysis.

Related to field access encouraging outdoor activity, there is a larger discussion that could be had about equity in access to the outdoors. As visible in the city map, South Glendale is more densely occupied and relies on urban parks and athletic fields for outdoor activities in proximity. While important, and as mentioned in the second bullet point below, a larger context for equity in access to experience with nature is outside of the scope of this report. 346 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 65

COMMUNITY
This section includes discussion of the following impact areas under the Community category:
● Life Cycle Costs
● Field Days of Use
● Alignment with the City of Glendale Environmental Plan (Greener Glendale) ● Playing Surface Performance
347 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 66
Life Cycle Costs
Scope
The life cycle costs for maintaining natural grass or artificial turf have been evaluated quantitatively for scoring purposes. The following life cycle stages were considered in this analysis ● Initial product cost (life cycle stages A1 - A3)
● Transport to site and installation (life cycle stages A4 and A5) ● Maintenance, use and replacement (life cycle stage B) ● End-of-life (life cycle stage C)
Primary Data Sources
● 2021 annual fees for a sample of representative fields, as provided by Glendale Community Services & Parks Department (see Appendix B)
● City of Glendale Commission Staff Report - Natural vs Artificial Turf ○ Exhibit I - Costs
● City of Glendale landfilling quote per ton of waste
Methodology and Assumptions
Costs provided in the Glendale Commission Staff Report were for a soccer field size of 90,000 square feet. Costs provided were normalized per unit area and assumed to scale roughly by field size. Costs were assumed to increase by 2.3% per year42 to align with long term inflation forecasts.

The cost of resodding natural turf was applied once every five years for consistency, though it is anticipated that soccer fields, such as Fremont Park, may require annual resodding, resulting in increased costs.

Anticipated field revenue from fees was estimated based on 2021 annual revenues for a sample of representative fields, rounded to 2 significant digits. The field revenue in 2021 was comparable to annual revenue pre-COVID and is considered a representative example of typical field revenue.

As Fremont Park is not currently a reservable ballfield, the forecasted revenue was assumed to be the average of existing Glendale multi-use natural turf field revenue for 2021. 42 “US Inflation Forecast: 2022, 2023 and Long Term to 2030: Data and Charts.” Knoema, 21 Apr. 2022, https://knoema.com/kyaewad/us-inflation-forecast-2022-2023-and-long-term-to-2030-data-and-charts. 348 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 67
Due to the increased hours of field availability as well as the increased fees associated with artificial turf fields versus natural turf fields, it is expected that fee revenue would increase for fields that transition from natural to artificial turf.
● The Pacific Community Center field in question is used by youth and non-profit groups with decreased fees. Because of this it was assumed that if converted to artificial turf the field would generate 75% of the revenue of the existing artificial multi-use field at the same location.
● The revenue of Sports Complex Field #3, if converted to artificial turf, was estimated by taking the average of 2021 hours reserved on the three existing artificial fields at this location (Sports Complex #1, #4 and #5).
● The revenue of Fremont Park, if converted to artificial turf, was estimated by taking the average of all artificial turf fields currently installed (Pacific Community Center and Sports Complex).

Fees were not expected to vary significantly based on field size, and to be conservative fees were modeled to remain the same over the 20-year period analyzed. Feedback from the City of Glendale reflected that there is no set inflation or anticipated increases in reservation fees for public use - data is collected regularly and if fees are to be changed, they must go through a cycle of approvals for adoption43. In addition, fees vary by type of sports organization, seasons in play, and type and duration of use. The fees reflected in the table below are rounded for estimation purposes.

Pacific Community
Center
Sports Complex
Field #3
Fremont Park
Natural Turf $7,900 $41,000 $11,000
Artificial Turf $100,000 $160,000 $150,000
2021 fee revenue for a sample of representative fields, as provided by Glendale Community Services & Parks Department.

Field Name Current Field Type 2021 hours reserved
Sports Complex #1 Artificial $136,637
Sports Complex #4 Artificial $161,596
43On an as-needed basis, Community Services & Parks Department staff complete an analysis of a variety of factors including annual budgeting exercises, increases in the cost of doing business (such as minimum wage increases or supply cost increases), or results from countywide fee studies. Should this information warrant a change in reservation fees this would trigger a proposal from staff to the Parks Commission for approval and adoption. For reference, reservation fees for use of public parks in the City of Glendale have not changed since 2010, with the exception of Pacific Park which was updated in 2014. 349 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 68
Sports Complex #5 Artificial $183,358
Pacific Community Center
Multi-Use
Artificial $138,844
Pacific Community Center
Baseball Field
Natural $7,879
Sports Complex #3 Natural $40,661
Babe Herman Field Natural $5,048
Brand Ball Field Natural $4,614
Dunsmore Ball Field Natural $13,060
Glorietta Ball Field Natural $12,965
Scholl Ball Field #1 Natural $15,150
Scholl Ball Field #2 Natural $9,660
Scholl Ball Field #3 Natural $4,308
Verdugo Ball Field Natural $6,116
Results
Net 20-year costs were calculated per field and per hour played on one field. The anticipated hours that a natural or artificial turf field would be reserved at each of the sites studied is described in the “General methodology” section.
350 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 69
Figure 26: 20-year gross revenue
Figure 27: 20-year net revenue (per field per hour)
The artificial and natural turf options were assigned financial scores as follows:
● The highest score (5) is equal to the lowest net cost per field hour of play analyzed as a part of this study (Fremont artificial turf).
● The lowest score (1) is equal to the highest net cost per field per hour of play analyzed as a part of this study (Pacific Community Center Natural Turf). 351 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 70
Field Studied Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Pacific Community
Center

1.00 3.62 3.62
Sports Complex #3 1.10 4.17 4.17
Fremont Park 2.13 5.00 5.00
Overall Average 1.41 4.27 4.27
In general, artificial turf option is more costly than natural grass from a first cost perspective, however over the lifecycle of use maintenance costs are mitigated, reservable hours increased, and revenue potential increased resulting in a lower lifecycle cost.

Additional Considerations
The anticipated fees collected for both artificial and natural turf options are based on a rough estimate using historical data and may not accurately represent actual anticipated revenues for each field.

It is anticipated that fees for field use would increase for fields converted to artificial turf in alignment with the existing artificial turf fee structure. If this were not the case and hours reserved were the only factor affecting revenue, then the overall financial score of artificial turf would be reduced from

4.27 to 2.15 and the financial impact of the fields would be as follows.

Figure 28: Net income with no fee changes
352 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 71
Field Days of Use
Scope
Field days of use for athletic activity on natural grass or artificial turf has been evaluated quantitatively for scoring purposes, using the artificial turf with geofill as a reference point.

Primary Data Sources
A considerable amount of data provided by CSP staff was used to properly evaluate field days of use for this study. Appendix B lists figures provided by the City of Glendale’s team in further detail.

Additional information was gathered from various sources, but not used quantitatively for this analysis as our focus was on park reservations within the City.

Analysis
The following table provides the final estimated field use and revenue used in quantitative analysis referenced elsewhere in this report. This information was cross-referenced and supported by additional maintenance, closure, and field data for evaluating a score in this section.

Pacific Community
Center
Sports Complex
Field #3
Fremont Park
Natural Turf 1,500 annual hours
reserved in 2021
($5,200 in 2021
revenue)
1,700 annual hours
reserved in 2021
($41,000 in 2021
revenue)
2,200 annual hours
estimated ($11,000
in estimated annual
revenue)
Artificial Turf* 2,900 estimated
annual hours
reserved
($100,000 estimated
annual revenue)
2,900 estimated
annual hours
reserved
($160,000 estimated
annual revenue)
2,900 estimated
annual hours
reserved
($150,000 estimated
annual revenue)
* Estimated based on 2021 annual hours reserved for a sample of representative fields, rounded to 2 significant digits. The estimated annual hours reserved for all three artificial turf scenarios was estimated based on feedback from the City of Glendale and by taking the average of 2021 hours reserved on the three existing artificial fields at Sports Complex (#1, #4 and #5), as indicated in the Common Assumptions heading in the General Methodology section.

These estimates are supported by a wide variety of additional factors that can result in less playable hours on natural turf, including:
● Rain closures (and heat days of closure)
○ In 2021, due to 6 rain events, natural grass fields resulted in 16 days of closure, none of which impacted the artificial turf fields
353 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 72
○ For heat days, only two days were recorded in 2021 over 100 degrees (the current threshold for cancellation for City of Glendale fields), which equally impacts artificial turf and natural grass fields.
● Maintenance down-time
○ It has been recorded that natural grass fields used for soccer fields must rest and be resodded for 3 months annually. While this can be done to maintain peak playing performance - other than Pacific Park, this is only feasible on a longer duration within the City of Glendale. Ballfields (baseball fields) Parks are chosen on a rolling 3–4-year basis for renovation and maintenance, resulting in an average one month of downtime per field per year.
● Reservable hours as a reference point
○ While 2,900 hours per year seems like a significant amount of year-round play, this lines up with the current reservation schedules available for public and sports group use. The available hours are 7 hours daily during weekdays, and 15 hours weekends (7am to 10pm). If all hours were played and reserved, this would result in a total of 3,172 hours of annual play per field.

As has been evidenced at already converted Sports Complex fields, the artificial turf additional reservation potential is quickly reserved. Direct comments from youth soccer and baseball groups during our stakeholder meeting reported there are youth groups that have yet to reserve fields in the City of Glendale due to capacity. This reservation potential is the reason that this section uses artificial turf as a reference point with a score of 5.

Results
Impact Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Field Days of Use 2 5 4
In general, artificial turf significantly increases field days of use over natural grass due to reduced maintenance times and rain closures. The lower score for artificial turf with SBR crumb rubber is reflective of a reduction in halted play from heat exposure due to an increased surface temperature being sustained for longer periods of time in this context.

Additional Considerations
When considering artificial turf, while the estimated maximum of 2,900 field use hours is our reference point, there is a consideration of field use days mitigated due to high heat. It is recommended that should artificial turf be selected for these fields, data is collected over the use of the fields to update operational policies regarding cancellation to incorporate both ambient temperature above 100 degrees (as per the current policy), and surface temperatures based on observed data. Further discussion and analysis taking into account climate change is recommended for park expansion.
354 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 73
Alignment with the City of Glendale Environmental Plan
Scope
Due to the nature of this topic, and the variety of impacts of off-gassing and dust from athletic activity on natural grass or artificial turf, off-gassing and dust have been evaluated qualitatively for scoring purposes. Comparisons of potential impact referenced below were evaluated as a whole to determine an overall impact to air quality during use for this section.

Analysis
The Greener Glendale Plan, completed and adopted in 2012, outlines nine sustainability focus areas to achieve larger sustainability goals: Cross-cutting approaches, economic development, urban design, waste, energy, urban nature, water, transportation, and environmental health.

For the scoring reflected in the sections above in this report, we aligned metrics with these nine focus areas. Based on this analysis, the following areas of performance align synergistically when comparing artificial turf with geofill and natural grass:
● Artificial turf with geofill: Water (reduced water demand), Energy (City equipment/infrastructure and water transport facilities used less due to reduced water demand)
● Natural grass: Waste
There are many additional topics that can be loosely aligned with these performance areas, or items that may come up as a new version of an environmental plan is adopted. However, at this time the two options were evaluated against the environmental plan as it stands, and only those that directly impact metrics therein.

Results
Impact Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Greener Glendale
Alignment
3 4 1
In general, the natural grass option provides several benefits in alignment with the Greener Glendale plan, however artificial turf with geofill can provide greater benefits through a combination of intrinsic water savings and potential greater benefits through suggested mitigation strategies.

Additional Considerations
While the alignment in this section is straightforward, there are many opportunities for synergies between strategies included in the Greener Glendale plan and mitigation strategies listed throughout this analysis. Listed below are some of the mitigation strategies that go above and beyond the recommendations in this study, and provide co-benefits should they be adopted:

1. Tree planting and native/adaptive landscaping at or near fields, or dispersed across publicly 355 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 74
maintained property within the City (urban nature)

2. Electric and robotic lawn mowers for the remaining natural grass fields and natural grass fields used for unstructured public use (energy and greenhouse gas emissions)

3. Purchasing of Carbon Offsets as a last resort option (greenhouse gas emissions)

356 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 75
Playing Surface Performance
Scope
Due to the subjective nature of this topic, criteria for playing performance have been evaluated qualitatively for scoring purposes.

Analysis
During our community meeting, the topic of playing performance came up as another suggestion for the “Community” criteria for analysis. After initial consideration however, we felt this should not be included in our final scoring due to the subjective nature of playing performance. However, due to the high priority designation during our stakeholder surveys, we had to re-incorporate this section as a scored section of the report.

The opinions shared during the meeting were clear, that the aesthetic and tradition of playing on natural grass is always preferred for athletic activity - if the natural grass can be maintained in peak condition.

Our scoring resulted in a reference point of artificial turfgrass with geofill for two primary reasons - a demonstrated preference for artificial turf fields, and secondly for the more uniform nature of play for both baseball and soccer commonly referenced by sports groups.

Our evaluation of natural grass started with a weighting based on reduced reservation hours per sf of field, however due to the strong preference for an idealized natural grass playing field we qualitatively scored this section as only one point lower than artificial turf.

Results
Impact Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
Playing Performance 4 5 5
In general, a perfect natural grass option provides several subjective benefits as disclosed by user’s group representatives and a perceived lower injury risk, however artificial turf generally provides a more consistent playing field in application and can more regularly provide a uniform surface devoid of mud, compacted soils, and uneven surfaces from gophers and variation in grass density. 357 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 76

APPENDICES
Appendix A - Survey Results from February 2022 User’s Group meeting In February 2022, our group held a series of meetings with City personnel, parks user’s groups, and public stakeholders from the Glendale Environmental Coalition to solicit feedback on primary issues and priorities for the field use options between natural grass and artificial turf. Below represents a summary of responses across the 14 survey respondents regarding what issues were the highest priority. 11 respondents were community members, and three staff with the Community Services and Parks (CSP) and Sustainability Departments.

Survey responses from community members only on impacts Low (0) Medium
(1)
High (2) Weighted total
Total Carbon Emissions 2 3 6 15
Water Use 1 5 5 15
Landfill Waste 3 4 4 12
Natural Habitat 4 2 5 12
Stormwater Management 3 5 3 11
Chemical Use and Runoff 3 3 5 13
Heat Island 0 6 5 16
Injuries on Turf 4 4 3 10
Heat Exposure 2 4 5 14
Off-gassing and Dust 4 2 5 12
Chemical Exposure 3 2 6 14
Experience with Nature 4 3 4 11
Field days of use 1 4 6 16
Life Cycle cost 2 3 6 15
Alignment with Enviro
Plan
0 8 3 14
Playing surface
performance
2 4 5 14
358 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 77
Survey responses from community members only on impact categories Priority Ranking on
categories
Low (0) Medium
(1)
High (2)
Environmental 2 2 5
Health 2 6 1
Community 4 1 4
Incorporating City staff Responses on impacts
Low (0) Medium
(1)
High (2) Weighted total
Total Carbon Emissions 3 3 8 19
Water Use 1 6 7 20
Landfill Waste 4 6 4 14
Natural Habitat 4 5 5 15
Stormwater Management 5 6 3 12
Chemical Use and Runoff 4 4 6 16
Heat Island 2 7 5 17
Injuries on Turf 4 5 5 15
Heat Exposure 3 6 5 16
Off-gassing and Dust 5 4 5 14
Chemical Exposure 3 3 8 19
Experience with Nature 5 5 4 13
Field days of use 1 4 9 22
Life Cycle cost 2 3 9 21
359 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 78
Alignment with Enviro
Plan
0 11 3 17
Playing surface
performance
2 4 8 20
Incorporating City staff Responses on impact categories Priority Ranking on
categories
Low (0) Medium
(1)
High (2)
Environmental 2 2 5
Health 2 6 1
Community 4 1 4

360 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 79
Appendix B - Park Reservations and Revenue Data
Initially our study looked at comparable and existing reservation data as our baseline. Upon further consideration we felt that more data would reflect in better estimates for field use hours and the summary of data used for 2021 reservations is listed below. ● Hours reserved in 2021 (1/1/2021 through 12/31/2021)
● Pacific Multi Field – 2,305 hours / $139,888 total revenue ● Sports Complex #3 – 1,683 hours / $40,661 revenue
● Fremont – 0 (not reserved as a field, so there is no usage history or revenue associated with it)
● Sports Complex #1 (artificial turf baseball/soccer field) – 3,180 hours / $136,637 revenue ● Sports Complex #4 (artificial turf soccer field) – 2,553 hours / $161,596 revenue ● Sports Complex #5 (artificial turf soccer field) – 3,012 hours / $183,358 revenue ● Note: pre-pandemic, the average annual hours/revenue are similar.

Field Name Current Field Type 2021 hours reserved
Sports Complex #1 Artificial 3,180
Sports Complex #4 Artificial 2,553
Sports Complex #5 Artificial 3,012
Pacific Community Center
Multi-Use
Artificial 2,305
Pacific Community Center
Baseball
Natural 1,463
Sports Complex #3 Natural 1,683
Babe Herman Field Natural 3,022
Brand Ball Field Natural 2,238
Dunsmore Ball Field Natural 3,009
Glorietta Ball Field Natural 1,806
Scholl Ball Field #1 Natural 2,880
Scholl Ball Field #2 Natural 2,048
361 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 80
Scholl Ball Field #3 Natural 2,617
Verdugo Ball Field Natural 1,097
362 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 81
Appendix C - Safety Data Sheets and Material Composition Reference Documents
Legion NXT Turf
363 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 82 364 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 83 365 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 84 366 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 85 367 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 86
NaturalPlay
368 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 87 369 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 88 370 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 89 371 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 90 372 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 91 373 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 92 374 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 93 375 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 94
NXTPlay Pad
376 of 1332
June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 95 377 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 96 378 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 97 379 of 1332 June 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 98 380 of 1332 Added Exhibit M on 4/13/21
3b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

COMMISSION

AGENDA ITEM
Report: A comparative analysis on surface types for soccer and multi-purpose fields

1. Motion to provide feedback to staff and making a recommendation for City Council’s consideration on the preferred surface type for the soccer and multi-purpose field projects at Fremont Park, Pacific Park, Sports Complex, Cerritos Elementary, and Wilson Middle School.

COMMISSION/COMMITTEE ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for April 19, 2021 Calendar

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Prepared by:

Koko Panossian, Deputy Director of Community Services and Parks Reviewed by:

Teresa Aleksanian, Deputy Director of Community Services and Parks EXHIBIT 2
381 of 1332
2 3b

RECOMMENDATION
Staff is seeking direction from Commission to make a recommendation for City Council’s consideration on the preferred surface type for the soccer and multi-purpose field projects at Fremont Park, Pacific Park, Sports Complex, Cerritos Elementary, and Wilson Middle School.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
At the request of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission during the October 2020 meeting, as well as in response to a February 8, 2021 letter from the Glendale Environmental Coalition (GEC) submitted to City Council suggesting the use of Environmental Passive Integrated Chamber (EPIC) System with natural grass for the five soccer / multi-purpose field projects (Fremont Park, Pacific Park, Sports Complex, Cerritos Elementary, and Wilson Middle School), CSP has prepared this report to compare natural grass, the use of EPIC system, and artificial turf.

Demand for Soccer Fields
According to the National Park and Recreation Association (NRPA), a community should have one soccer field for each 10,000 occupants. With over 200,000 residents, Glendale should have a minimum of 20 soccer fields. The City’s Recreation Element of the General Plan, adopted by the City Council in April 1996, identified a standard of 1 field per 5,000 population. In addition, findings in the Recreation Element highlight “extreme shortage of athletic fields” in the City. Glendale currently has three official soccer fields in its inventory: two at the Sports Complex and one at Pacific Park – a joint use soccer field at Edison Elementary under a Joint Use Agreement with the Glendale Unified School District. A fourth soccer field has been created in the outfield of the newly installed multi-purpose artificial turf field at the Sports Complex Baseball Field #1.

The latter was a joint effort with St. Francis High School and has proven to be an innovative approach to addressing field demand, enhanced player safety, reduced maintenance cost, as well as eliminated water and fertilizer use for the field.

The demand for soccer field usage has significantly increased over the past three decades as the sport saw a popularity increase after the 1994 World Cup, which was held in the United States. Multiple soccer associations have reported an escalating need for soccer fields and continually compete for available field time. Due to this growing need, CSP staff reserves soccer practices and games on its sixteen baseball / softball fields, further complicating logistical and maintenance challenges while impacting baseball and softball leagues. The Department also experiences unauthorized soccer play at a number of non-dedicated open turf areas such as at Brand Park, Carr Park, Fremont Park, Glorietta Park, Maple Park, Pelanconi Park, and Verdugo Park, to name a few.

Below is a chart of youth soccer participants in the United States created by U.S.

Soccer. The chart indicates that from 1984 to 2014, the youth soccer participation almost quadrupled, from 800,000 participants to over 3 million. This data is 7 years old, yet the trend for increased participation continues to escalate. 382 of 1332
3 3b
This trend in demand is also evident in Glendale, both for soccer and baseball / softball fields. Annually, there are 156 groups / organizations that utilize Glendale’s fields including private and non-profit adult and youth groups and clubs, and schools (college and high schools). These groups serve an estimated 12,000 youth participants. There are 19 fields in Glendale, 4 of which are currently artificial turf, which are used by 104 of the groups. The artificial turf fields are reserved between 360-365 days per year and are closed on select holidays only when no one requests to rent the fields. This translates to 5,475 hours of available time per field for reservations. The grass fields are reserved between 275-325 days per year, depending on field maintenance and rain closures. This equates to approximately 4,100 hours of available field time, a reduction of 1,375 hours per field, and 20,625 hours annually across all 15 grass fields. Field demand continues to be a challenge as staff turns away approximately 50 groups per year; moreover, staff is unable to fill the requests of the existing groups thus reserving less time than requested or scheduling at other fields than those that are desired.

It is imperative to note that while a typical field can be available for 5,475 hours per year for an average of 15 hours per day (park hours 7am-10pm), most of the use on the field reservations are made during prime time hours: 4pm-10pm weekdays, and 7am-10pm weekends. As such, prime time available hours per lit field is 3,126 hours. As an example, Sports Complex soccer fields are reserved on average 2,500 hours per year.

Three (3) of the nineteen (19) fields (Brand Little League, Brand T-ball, and Verdugo softball) do not have lights; thus are available 1,850 hours during prime time use. During 383 of 1332
4 3b
the week while school is in session, the fields (if not reserved) are open to the general public to use from 7am-4pm (9 hours).

Generally speaking, baseball fields are reserved primarily for little league use during the months of January through July, including all-stars. These same fields are then booked from August through December primarily for soccer use. Hence, the department operates the fields between two seasons and prioritizes use of the field based on the season: baseball from January through July and soccer from August through December. The fields are further utilized for flag football, lacrosse, and CSP recreational programs such as One Glendale. As such, time allotted for maintenance of the fields is a challenge.

Natural grass baseball / softball fields are rotated every 4-5 years for overall maintenance, requiring a 3-month closure; while the former natural grass soccer fields were closed for 3-months annually for maintenance.

The requested use for soccer, baseball and softball fields has significantly increased over the past twenty years, showing tremendous growth in the popularity of recreational and club sports. As such, park management requires a balancing act that takes into account access to fields to meet the high demand, resource availability and management, cost of maintenance, environmental impacts, sustainability, and community / user input as elements of the equation to solve the demand / maintenance challenges presented by playing fields.

City’s Response to Meet the Demand
The Community Services & Parks Department’s (CSP) mission is to enhance the quality of life of residents by providing a safe, well maintained parks and public places; preserving open space and historic resources; providing services that address the physical, recreational, social and economic needs of the community; and creating opportunities for renewal, growth, and enrichment.

In its continued effort to achieve its mission and meet the demand highlighted above, CSP (under direction and approval of the City Council) is working on five artificial turf soccer / multi-purpose field projects at the following sites:

1. Fremont Park: an artificial turf soccer field to be constructed in the open turf area currently used by patrons for unauthorized soccer play

2. Pacific Park: a reconstruction of the existing natural grass ballfield into a multipurpose artificial turf baseball and soccer field

3. Sports Complex: a reconstruction of existing softball field into a multi-purpose artificial turf softball, baseball, and soccer field

4. Cerritos Elementary: a joint use multi-purpose artificial turf field project with the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) approved by City Council and the GUSD Board

5. Wilson Middle School: a joint use multi-purpose artificial turf game field and practice field project with GUSD approved by City Council and the GUSD Board 384 of 1332
5 3b
These projects were a result of community demand for more soccer fields as identified in the 1996 Recreation Element, attached hereto as Exhibit A, as well as during the development impact fee strategic planning and the County-wide Needs Assessment meetings in 2016 which resulted in the Measure A Funding. In addition, there has been a significant increase in ongoing requests for field time by local non-profit youth sport organizations, American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO), Homenetmen, Levon Ishtoyan Soccer Academy, Sporting So-Cal Soccer Academy, Farwest United FC, LA International FC, Little League, CV United Softball, Crescenta Sports Association, and Glendale/La Crescenta Babe Ruth, to name a few.

Impact of Soccer Play on Natural Grass Fields
Soccer is a sport that is played year round including during cool, wet weather when turf experiences stunted growth rates and is not as resilient as during the spring and summer months. In the fall and winter, turf does not recover from intense use nor respond to renovation treatment. Soccer is played at a consistently higher rate of speed and generally in a narrow band toward the middle of the pitch from goal to goal. The speed of play, frequent directional changes, and starts and stops create a mechanical action that is destructive to the turf blades and root structure and creates intense soil compaction. As a result, natural grass soccer fields are in constant need of major maintenance further restricting field availability by being closed three months during the summer for renovation, closed during rainy days, as well as several days after the rains secede to allow the field to dry for safe play. It further requires continued reseeding, fertilizing, and aerating as the turf is destroyed from soccer play.

Such was CSP’s experience with the soccer fields at the Glendale Sports Complex and at Pacific Park. The Sports Complex fields are reserved daily for an average of 8 hours per weekday and 15 hours per day on weekends (7am-10pm). This heavy demand for field time continually resulted in dirt soccer fields.

In a report prepared for Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission on December 28, 2001, CSP highlighted three options to resolve soccer field challenges at the Sports Complex. Those options were:

1. Create and maintain a dirt soccer field

2. Rebuild the fields and reduce play

3. Replace natural grass with artificial turf
The first two options would have resulted in significant drawbacks. Soccer players prefer playing on turf rather than dirt for safety and playability. Dirt fields result in unsafe and unhealthy conditions for the athletes, as well as have a negative aesthetic overall effect that does not produce the image the city desires.

The second option, rebuilding the fields, required installing a drainage system, upgrading the irrigation system, and replacing the top 6 to 8 inches of soil, laser 385 of 1332
6 3b
grading, and sod. The project at that time was estimated to cost in excess of $350,000.

In addition, the reduction of play on the fields would have further impacted the lack of adequate soccer fields. Even complete rebuild of the soccer fields would have only marginally improved the quality of the fields and would not have eliminated the need for major renovation on an annual basis.

It was determined by the Commission and City Council that the best option would be to replace the natural grass with artificial turf. This option increased the quality of the game for players, significantly reduced maintenance costs, significantly reduced water consumption, increased the number of events held on the field, eliminated field "down time" due to turf repair and replacement, and minimized injuries by providing a flat, even, consistent surface that is neither too hard nor too soft and had proper traction.

Conversion of Sports Complex and Pacific Park Soccer Fields to Artificial Turf With a limited budget, an increasingly diminished staff, along with a heavily used park system, Glendale faced a challenge in keeping up with the natural grass soccer field maintenance at the Sports Complex. Prior to converting the Sports Complex soccer fields to artificial turf, the fields were closed during the summer months (July through September) for renovation. Below are pictures from 2003-04 of the Sports Complex natural grass soccer fields 4 and 5. As evident, these fields were primarily dirt fields due to the heavy use.

Photo: 2003-04 Sports Complex Soccer Fields taken from Mt. Zebo 386 of 1332
7 3b
Photo: 2003-04 Sports Complex Soccer Fields taken from Mt. Zebo These fields were closed annually from July-September for annual turf renovation (seed/sod). At that time, turf restoration cost the City between $25-45 thousand a year to replant seed or sod the soccer fields. Generally, replanting grass seeds requires 3 months (slightly less time for sod, yet at higher costs) after installation to allow for full maturity of turf. However, the heavy demand on Sports Complex soccer fields limited turf maturity time to only one month. As a result, the turf failed to recover from intense use or respond to renovation treatment in winter. If these fields were natural grass today, the annual renovation costs per field (excluding general turf maintenance) is estimated at $36-80 thousand, for seed and sod respectively.

Prior to installing the artificial turf, Sports Complex was staffed by a Sr. Groundskeeper, 2 Groundskeeper IIs, a Groundskeeper I, and hourly staff support for during the week, as well as one hourly employee for weekend coverage. Between 2010 through 2014, the City reduced its full time work force from 1,904 employees to just under 1,520. This resulted in the loss of 25 full time personnel in the Park Services Section, a 35% reduction. As such, the Section adapted and found more efficient ways to manage park maintenance needs. One of those adjustments included assigning more facilities to all remaining staff. Currently, CSP has only 2 Groundskeeper IIs assigned to maintain the Sports Complex during the week (50% reduction in full time staffing), plus weekend 387 of 1332
8 3b
hourly staff. The same Groundskeeper IIs also maintain the Dunsmore Park and Glorietta Park Ballfields. If the two soccer fields and the baseball field #1 were natural grass today, we would need two additional full time staff at Sports Complex to manage the daily routine maintenance and provide safe playing fields at the Complex and the other sites the same staff maintain.

Similarly, when Pacific Park first opened in 2003, it had a Sr. Groundskeeper, a Groundskeeper II, and a Maintenance Worker assigned to its maintenance. Currently, we only have one Groundskeeper II with the occasional minimal hourly staff support (when available) to maintain the entire park as well as the perimeter of Edison elementary and some areas inside the school as per our Joint Use Agreement. From 2003 to November of 2013, Pacific Park’s multi-purpose field was natural grass. Every year the department would invest time and resources during the summer months between June and August to restore the dirt field into usable, playable grass. Once the school year started, the combined impact of the school using the field as its yard along with the fully booked field for rentals in the afternoon/evenings and weekends, within 2 months, the grass would die and the field would turn back into hard compacted dirt.

The department proceeded with converting the field into artificial turf and after a 2.5- month renovation, the field reopened. Almost immediately, the field was rented for use by youth and adults alike on weekdays and on Saturdays. One year after the field was renovated, the only available time the field was not reserved was on Sundays between noon and 5pm. During youth soccer season, the field was booked during this time frame as well. Currently, this field is reserved weekly 102 out of 105 hours available.

Availability of fields enhance CSP’s ability to run more efficient operations and programming as well. A great example of a CSP program that benefits from the fields at Pacific Park is the One Glendale program. It uses the fields during two seasons: flag football and soccer. Flag football is played September through October on both the natural grass ballfield and artificial turf field. Recreation staff spend approximately 4 hours to line and prep the field for play. During this time, no other private reservations are scheduled on the field until the program season is done.

During soccer season (March through May), the baseball field is used to hold practices for the Edison Elementary team as the artificial turf is being used (simultaneously) to hold games for the other schools. The ballfield is used for Edison’s practices even if there are no games scheduled on the artificial turf to curtail any issues associated with “home court/home field” advantage for Edison. The season is concurrent with the little league’s baseball season. As such, little league’s permit is granted after One Glendale program ends for the day at 5pm.
388 of 1332
9 3b
Pictures below show the destructive impact of these program on the natural grass ballfield.
389 of 1332
10 3b
Field Surface Alternatives
At the request of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission and in response to a February 8, 2021 letter from the Glendale Environmental Coalition (GEC), CSP has prepared this report to examine the use of natural grass, the use of EPIC system, and artificial turf.

I. Natural Grass
A well-maintained natural grass field is an ideal surface for soccer play. Grass benefits the environment by reducing the urban heat island effect, filtering rainwater and pollution, and providing habitats for birds and insects. Natural grass reduces temperatures even on hot days, with the temperature rarely rising above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, regardless of air temperature.

As mentioned previously, soccer play is destructive to turf blades and its root structure creating intense soil compaction. As such, park and turf managers agree that a natural grass field must be closed to the public at regular intervals in order to keep the grass healthy and allow for regular maintenance / renovations. Grass fields that are open to the public year-round for sports—particularly soccer—are virtually guaranteed to wear out. Thus, the debate of access to fields vs. safe / green fields presents a challenge for the City, as we are unable to close fields as necessary due to the extremely high demand for play time. Along with the growing popularity of soccer, a particularly punishing sport when it comes to grass, it has intensified the need for regular maintenance of natural grass fields.

Maintenance Requirements
All natural grass fields are living, breathing organisms that require regular maintenance including mowing, edging, lining, watering, fertilizing, time off from play, and the application of plant herbicides and pesticides to control weeds and pests. To help ease compaction from heavy play, fields require aerification multiple times a year. High sand content fields require more attention to watering, fertilization, seeding, and top dressing due to leeching, essentially requiring an increase of maintenance frequencies. These maintenance requirements do have an impact to the carbon footprint.

Generally, natural grass maintenance falls into the following categories and tasks:
• Daily Maintenance:
o Walk the field to look for and remove hazardous materials and conditions such as litter, broken glass, metals, any other objects that can be harmful to users, broken sprinklers, holes in the turf, and turf diseases o Repair broken sprinklers
390 of 1332
11 3b
o Fill-in the holes with top soil to avoid injuries (gopher, ground squirrel, or holes resulting from play)
o Check the turf conditions and to see if the turf is too dry / wet and adjust the irrigation accordingly
o On average, a field takes about 2-2.5 hours to complete the daily tasks above
o Baseball would have additional maintenance requirements such as dragging, lining the field, placing the bases, and walking the infield to ensure there are no lips that will cause a ball to “hop” into a player’s face while trying to catch the ball. In addition, there are approximately $20,000 in staff fees annually to prep the fields, 1 hour per field / per game for high school and adult leagues.
• Weekly Maintenance:
o Mowing, edging, and weeding once per week
 In the summer months, the mowing frequency for athletic fields may increase to twice per week or as requested for special events by the users. Mowing requires 2.5 hours per wk. in fall/winter, and approximately 5.5 hours during the summer when turf grows rapidly. Edging will require an additional 2.5 hours on soccer fields. o For baseball, if infield is wet, prep time can increase by 2-3 hours per week. As for edging and detailing, it requires stringing up base pads, the infield diamond, and the warning track before edging. Including the outfield arc, edging can take 4.5 hours.
• Other Maintenance:
o Conduct an irrigation test (monthly), spot seed (4 hours per occurrence), and verticut the turf (8 hours per occurrence). Spot seeding and verticutting is contingent upon available resources and are generally conducted twice per year or as needed.
o Turf repairs for vandalism: CSP has experienced numerous occasions where individuals drive on the grass fields and leave tire marks that require minimal to major repairs.
• Aerating and Fertilization: Natural grass fields require periodic aerification and fertilization, as well as skilled staff with the ability to operate heavy equipment.

Depending on the use of the field and conditions, the turf is aerated and fertilized at a minimum of 2 times a year. Core aerating includes coring, dragging, and sweeping. At each frequency, a Park Maintenance Supervisor, a Sr.

Groundskeeper, and a Groundskeeper II are assigned to complete this task for an average of 9 hours (about a full day). Fertilizing will require two staff at an average of 4 hours. In order to see positive results, the turf should be allowed to rest at least a day or two after the aeration and fertilization is completed. This is challenging with the city’s heavily used fields.
391 of 1332
12 3b
• Turf Renovations: Park Services Section conducts turf renovations as part of the overall field renovation projects. Given that the best growing season for grass is summer / fall, the Section conducts full renovation of pre-selected 3-4 fields annually, while other fields experience minor renovations. The scheduling of these renovations are closely coordinated with the Recreation Section to ensure field availability for leagues and avoid scheduling challenges. These tasks do not include unanticipated challenges such as soil profiles (small rocks that need to be removed) to continue with scope of work.
o Full renovations include stripping existing turf, addressing drainage issues, lasergrading, sod installation. For baseball, this would include infield and outfield sod installation, as well as infield base standard and pitching mound installation
o Minor renovations include aerating, overseeding, topdressing, and fertilizing the infield and outfield, as well as placing / adjusting bases and cutting down the lips.

Below are estimated annual maintenance and renovation costs (sod / seed) for natural grass soccer fields (90,000 sq. ft.). The details on these costs are attached as Exhibit B.

Annual Maintenance Costs
Materials $5,233
Labor $23,585
Fuel (mower use only) $585
Water $15,000
Total Cost $44,404
Annual Renovation Costs (Sod)
Materials $5,647
Equipment Rentals $4,600
Contract Work (grading / sod) $58,800
Labor $11,099
Total Cost $80,146
392 of 1332
13 3b
Annual Renovation Costs (Seed)
Materials $13,507
Equipment Rentals $4,600
Contract Work (grading) $6,000
Labor $8,801
Total Cost $32,909
An Example of a Field Renovation Cost
The recent Glorietta Park Baseball Field renovation (summer of 2020) project can be used as an example of current natural grass field renovation costs. The scope of work included stripping the existing turf, installation of drain pipes to assist with field drainage, laser grading the field, and installation of new sod. This project, as in most field renovation projects, was a combination of using in house staff for preparation, drainage installation, irrigation etc., and contract work for laser grading and sod installation. The total project cost, excluding overhead costs, was $107,432.15.

Category Cost
Materials (Sand, gravel, top soil, brick dust) $7,375.14 Equipment Rental $4,720.86
Drainage Materials $3,389.97
In House Staff Labor (excluding overhead) $38,546.18
Lasergrading (contractor) $14,900
Sod Purchase and Installation (contractor) $38,500
Total Cost $107,432.15
If a new natural grass soccer field is to be constructed, it would cost an estimated $175- $225 thousand (excluding soft costs). It may require the removal of the top 3-6 inches of soil, installation of drainage system, installation of new irrigation system, importing of new top soil, grading, and sod installation.
393 of 1332
14 3b
II. Natural Grass with EPIC System
The Environmental Passive Integrated Conveyance (EPIC) system is a subsurface nonpressurized irrigation system installed under natural grass. It is an environmentally safe system that combines irrigation and storm water capture / use on fields. Rainfall is collected from the field surface and is moved to storage. The captured stormwater is then used for irrigation of the field. According to the vendor, given that EPIC is a subsurface irrigation system, it has 100% capture and use capability and utilizes 50- 70% less water usage than conventional irrigation systems. It further has the capability of using greywater and condensation, with the ability to store more water in additional storage tanks. Being a subsurface system, it eliminates exposed sprinklers and valve boxes and has less moving parts with few simple control points.

Installation of EPIC system requires the removal of natural soil, installation of the EPIC chambers / tanks, importing 12” of proprietary sand, then the installation of sand based sod or seed. The cost of materials alone for a typical soccer field is estimated at $800- $850,000. With tax, at midpoint range of $825,000, the total cost of materials would be $910,000, excluding labor for demo and installation. Although the vendor did not have installation costs, they informed staff that the estimate for labor would mimic that of the material cost; thus a full conversion of a field to an EPIC system natural grass field would cost approximately $1.75-$1.85 million, excluding soft costs.

While the maintenance on the EPIC System is minimal, the sand and turf installed on it require rigid maintenance. The routine lawn care needs listed above under natural grass such as mowing and edging must be conducted at regular intervals. According to a document provided by the vendor “Fertilization and Management of EPIC Turf Areas and Athletic Fields” by Jonas Z. Sipaila, attached to this report as Exhibit C, the fields must undergo monthly fertilization and aeration. In addition, because sand cannot hold nutrients, it is recommended that the following eight inorganic elements be added to the field to see positive results: Calcium, Iron, Magnesium, Manganese, Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphorous, Sulfur.

The document states that if plants are to do their best, “they must be supplied with a proper balance of all the essential inorganic substances. If any one of the inorganic substances is deficient, its lack will soon be manifested in the growth of the plant regardless of how much of all the other substances may be available.” The document further highlights the maintenance needs on pages 3-5. It shows rigid maintenance from March through November, and field closure in the winter months December through February. Further, it highlights the need for increased aeration, fertilization, and mowing requirements as compared to natural grass fields without the EPIC system. Another document, attached as Exhibit D, is a chart prepared by EPIC on recommended management guidelines for fields.
394 of 1332
15 3b
Although in some scenarios the EPIC system may save on water usage, the amount of chemical leaching into storm drains and the groundwater supply from the required fertilization schedule does not outweigh the benefit of limited water savings. Even with a sub-irrigation system (where groundwater runoff is captured in tanks and recycled), the water being used to maintain the water table in the soil profile would become saturated with fertilizers and salts to the point where it could be toxic to the turf. Similar to natural grass, there are also impacts to the carbon footprint that come from the regular maintenance schedule of this turf as well. The amount of staff, equipment, and time necessary to follow the recommendations for mowing, monthly aerating, fertilizing, overseeding and top dressing would mean more equipment running for longer periods of time. Moreover, once aerated and fertilized, the fields should remain closed for a day or two further reducing field availability and impacting team practices and games.

Pest management is yet another consideration with this system. The level of recommended fertilizer application may result in turf diseases and possibly require fungicide application. Given CSP’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy manual, CSP is limited to non-pesticide solutions first (mechanical, biological) to control or possibly prevent diseases, and apply fungicides only if the cultural and mechanical techniques don’t provide a sufficient level of control. The IPM manual also requires staying away from any products which have a Warning or Danger Label. The only products allowed under the IPM are those which have a Caution signal on the label.

This will limit staffs’ ability to control and/prevent diseases from getting a foothold on the fields.

III. Artificial Turf
Artificial turf products were first introduced in the late 1970’s. The early systems were typically filled with sand only and had a tendency to compact over time resulting in very hard fields. There have been a number of refinements in the technology over the last 50 years designed to alleviate that problem, including the addition of rubber pellets to the infill mixture, natural infill products, and the addition of shock pads.

The artificial turf systems have vastly improved since their original inception. Traditional turf systems were “carpet-like” systems installed on an asphalt base. Their pile surfaces were tightly knitted or tufted nylon or polypropylene fibers, resulting in a tough, durable, yet highly abrasive playing surface. The new artificial turf systems consist of 2" to 2- 1/2" long synthetic fibers tufted to a polypropylene backing, with secondary coating of polyurethane. The fibers are filled to a depth of 1- 2” with sand, rubber pellets, a mixture of sand and rubber, or more environmentally friendly options such as cork, coconut husks, etc.
395 of 1332
16 3b
They are installed over a gravel base, with some designs incorporating a shock pad for added safety. They are vertically draining; water drains vertically through the artificial turf backing and the gravel base. The sub-base is sloped to direct the water to a perimeter drainpipe that leads into the storm drain system. Many new field constructions in California incorporate stormwater capture into their designs.

The durability of artificial turf is far superior to natural grass. These systems are constructed to withstand year-round daily activity – football, soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, etc. – in all types of weather. Free of puddles, muddy conditions, or worn areas, the field remains safe, usable and ready at all times. Because there is no winter dormancy, summer dry or brown patches, the synthetic surface provides a quality look and a consistent level of play.

There are thousands of artificial turf field installations nationwide. A heightened sense of environmental awareness prompts interest in its ability to conserve billions of gallons of water each year. Increased user requirements and intense competition have given rise to a new generation of artificial turf systems that replicate the look and playability of natural, lush grass. Athletes enjoy significantly more playing time without the need for resource-intensive maintenance.

Cost to install an artificial turf field ranges between $12-$15 per sq. ft. including demolition, earthwork & grading, drainage, shock pads, the turf and infill. For Pacific Park, the estimate for the field portion of the construction is $842,000 for a 54,500 sq. ft. field. A 90,000 sq. ft. soccer field would be estimated at $1.2-$1.3 million, excluding soft costs.

Maintenance Requirements
Artificial turf requires significantly less maintenance than natural grass. General safety walk-through and litter pickup is the same for both fields. Every other week, the turf would require grooming and brushing for optimum play and longevity. Annually, the field would need a de-compaction / rejuvenation treatment, and adding infill, which is currently contracted with a vendor for about $3,500 per field. Adding more infill material to the turf is done on an as needed basis; materials for this is provided by the vendor during construction. To date, the city has not purchased any additional fill material for the current artificial turf fields since 2005.

Benefits of Artificial Turf
Artificial turf offers many advantages for both the user and the City, particularly for such heavily used fields. These advantages are:

1. It looks, feels, and plays like natural grass

2. It can withstand significantly higher levels of use than natural grass, without the need for periodic closure for regeneration.
396 of 1332
17 3b

3. It eliminates field down time due to turf repair and renovation, thus increases field availability by 25% or approximately 1,375 hours annually.

4. It saves money because it requires minimal maintenance (labor and materials)

5. It increases revenue generated which in return pays for field replacement

6. It is made with resilient materials for safety and provides a uniform and consistent playing surface

7. It reduces carbon footprint and utility uses: no water, no fertilizer, no pesticides, no mowing or other landscaping

8. It eliminates contaminated storm water runoff from pesticide and fertilizer use

9. It provides a 'cushioned' stable surface for users that reduces the likelihood of head and lower extremity injuries

10.It has superior drainage capacity and can be used in wet weather; thus increasing field availability for AYSO and other soccer leagues
Despite the significant advantages, there are some disadvantages to installing artificial turf. They include:
• High initial cost of installation and replacement
• Higher temperatures on field: rubber fill fields are typically 30-40 degrees warmer than the air temperature off the field.
• Contributes to the heat island effect
• Requires virgin plastic to make the turf product
• Certain items such as seeds and gum on the field cause great difficulties for maintaining the aesthetics of the field.
• Fibers break down over time and create a mess
However, numerous studies and analysis indicate that artificial turf dominates in all areas of maintenance, long range cost, revenue generation, and general soccer related issues.

Environmental Impacts:

Artificial turf fields do not require pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers that natural grass needs to stay healthy; additional resources are conserved by the avoidance of mowing (use of fossil fuels) and watering. This elimination of heavy equipment use also reduces carbon emissions and benefits the environment. The attached Exhibit E “Synthetic Turf vs. Natural Grass” prepared by the Synthetic Turf Council highlights the environmental benefits of artificial turf.

Eliminating costly water and irrigation bills provides the opportunity to enjoy substantial savings and benefit the environment by reducing water consumption. For example, CSP compared water consumption at the Sports Complex and Pacific Park before and after artificial turf installation. The following tables (T1 and T2) provide the water usage for both facilities. It is imperative to note that both of these facilities use recycled / gray water for field and park irrigation.
397 of 1332
18 3b
T1: Sports Complex Water Usage
The Sports Complex soccer fields (Fields 4 and 5) were converted to artificial turf in 2005; followed by Field One (baseball field converted to multi-purpose baseball / soccer) in 2018. In 2003, the Sports Complex irrigation related water use was 14.8 million gallons. In 2015, the usage was reduced to 6.7 million gallons; and post field one’s conversion, the total usage was reduced to 5.2 million gallons of water. While there are numerous factors that led to over 9 million gallons of water savings annually, such as CSP’s policy on timely irrigation repairs, efficient systems and materials, centralized irrigation controllers, and an overall change in staff attitude to be water wise, staff believes the conversion to artificial turf is the largest proponent of water savings.

The 9.5 million gallons of water reduction at Sports Complex annually translates to tens of thousands of dollars in reduced utility consumption.

T2: Pacific Park Water Usage
14,802,920
6,761,030
5,245,642
0 2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
2003 2015 2020
Sports Complex Water Usage (gal)
1,058,809
952,481
617,885
0 200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2012 (6 months) 2013 2020
Pacfic Park Water Usage (gal)
398 of 1332
19 3b
Similarly, Pacific Park realized water use reduction as well. In 2012, before conversion to artificial turf, our available data for a 6-month period showed 1.05 million gallons used, doubled for an annual total at approximately 2 million gallons. Data from 2013 when the soccer field was being constructed shows usage at 952,000 gallons, and the most current year usage (2020) shows 617,000 gallons used. In all, the conversion to artificial turf resulted in approximately 1.2-1.4 million gallons of water reduction, translating to approximately $8-$9,000 savings.

Moreover, by reducing fertilizer, maintenance and renovation labor / supplies, and other pesticide / chemical bills from the operating budgets, CSP is able to shift those resources to other park maintenance improvements. The resultant elimination of chemical run-off assists with the City’s efforts to stay in compliance with the City’s sustainability efforts as well as environmental laws of local, state, and federal governments.

Removing natural grass, no matter how deteriorated, can have a negative impact to the environment. Though artificial fields have drainage systems, they do not contain microorganisms that can break down pollutants. Traditionally, rainwater is not absorbed - it simply drains through the field and runs into storm sewers. Artificial turf also contributes to the urban heat island effect by absorbing sunlight and emitting heat.

Additionally, removing grass takes away habitats that serve birds and plant life in the city.

However, there are mitigation measures that can be introduced to alleviate the impacts of natural grass removal. Planting trees, creating additional green space, and new vegetation will help filter air pollutants and contribute to the cooling of the city, decreasing the effects of the urban heat island. Using natural infill material, such as Geofill, will also assist in keeping the artificial turf cooler. New trees and landscapes will also mitigate the removal of wildlife habitats. In addition, creating bioswales and designing the field to allow for stormwater capture into their designs will further mitigate these issues. For example, a soils test conducted for the current Pacific Park multipurpose artificial turf project indicated that the soil was not expansive, thus the water will infiltrate the soil without the need for a dry well. As such, the design incorporates the installation of 6 concrete catch basins that will collect and further infiltrate water into the soil, allowing only excess water to make it to the storm drains.

If playing on an artificial turf field on a hot day, watering the turf before a game or practice can help reduce surface temperature. However, based on our experience and available data, this is only effective for a short period of time. Temperatures rebound after only about 20 minutes (less time than it takes to play a regulation half game of soccer). Adding irrigation to and watering this type of sports field could cost thousands of dollars and be ineffective as water could simply roll off the surface and not really soak in to provide that small window of temperature relief. As a result, this is not as cost effective or as safe as scheduling games around peak high-heat times. As such, at 399 of 1332
20 3b
extreme high temperatures, leagues and coaches cancel practices and games (regardless of artificial turf or natural grass), on average about five (5) times per year.

For City run leagues, when there is a high heat advisory for the county of 100 degrees or higher forecasted at the start of the game – the game is postponed/rescheduled (regardless of artificial or natural grass). Additionally, City staff monitor air quality reports and will postpone/reschedule games in the event the area is experiencing poor air quality.

G-Max Rating
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has established a testing protocol for determining the shock absorbency of artificial turf fields. G-Max is a measurement, in part, of both safety and performance. G-Max measures the shock attenuation (hardness) of a surface. The G-Max rating for artificial turf ranges between 105-165; whereas the G-Max of natural grass in pristine condition ranges between 100 and 125. Since field hardness is related to the frequency of injuries from deceleration impact, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued guidelines on the appropriate G-max ratings for artificial turf/infill systems. A G-max rating of 200 is considered the maximum safe rating for shock absorbency, with the optimum G-Max being 155-165. As a practical matter, most owners require that the artificial turf fields must not exceed a G-max of 165 at any location on the field for the life of the warranty (usually 8 years).

Player safety is of the utmost importance. After conducting site visits to see the quality of the product, CSP and GUSD staff proposed to use Shawgrass Legion Turf with GeoFill/Natural Play infill as the option for the aforementioned projects in this report.

The proposed product addresses safety in regards to G-Max and Head Impact Criteria (HIC) as well as a player's potential for lower extremity injuries (ankle and knee injuries). Shaw Sports Turf goes further with the development and use of GeoFill/NaturalPlay infill. These infills give the field a firmer, stable, cooler, and safer playing surface than that of a crumb rubber system. These natural infills allows for better footing and player performance since it best replicates a natural grass system. These are systems used by Major League Baseball and Major League Soccer teams: Arizona Diamondbacks, Florida Marlins, and Texas Rangers, and FC Dallas, to name a few. Exhibit F highlights the cooling effects of the GeoFill product.

Artificial Turf Related Studies
There are hundreds of articles and studies related to artificial turf installation and use worldwide. One such article by the Synthetic Turf Council titled “Synthetic Turf 360 – A Guide for Today’s Synthetic Turf 2011” highlights use, environmental, and safety issues related to artificial turf. It states that at the beginning of 2011, more than “6,000 artificial turf fields were being used in North America by a growing number of high school and 400 of 1332
21 3b
collegiate athletes playing and practicing football, soccer, hockey, baseball, rugby, lacrosse and many other sports”.

It further states that a full-size artificial turf sports field saves 500,000 to 1,000,000 gallons of water each year depending on location and estimated that in 2010, “between 3 billion and 6 billion gallons of water were conserved”. This article is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

As for the use of pesticides and fertilizers, a July 7, 2007, article entitled “Grass Warfare,” in the Wall Street Journal states: “The pesticides used in lawn-care products found on shelves nationwide are considered legal by government standards. But broader research on health risks from such chemicals has prompted general warnings.

The EPA, which regulates pesticide use, notes on its own website that kids are at greater peril from pesticides because their internal organs and immune systems are developing.”
• Gwendolyn Bounds, “Grass Warfare” (Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2007) According to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources polluted storm water run-off is the No. 1 cause of water pollution in their state, with common examples including over-fertilizing lawns and excessive pesticide use. • Stormwater FAQs, (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources website)
It is estimated that the amount of artificial turf currently installed across the nations has eliminated the need for nearly a billion pounds of harmful pesticides and fertilizers, which could have significant health and environmental implications.

A recent study titled “Life Cycle Assessment of Artificial and Natural Turf Sports Fields” prepared by the Institute of Natural Resource Sciences, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, conducted a Life Cycle Assessment of natural grass and artificial turf fields.

The study identifies annual usage hours as the most important factor for environmental impact. The study states that artificial turf can be played on for much longer per year than natural grass, and concludes that “at optimal capacity utilization, artificial turf sports fields have significantly lower environmental impacts per hour of use”. It further recommends that when an agency is planning a new sports turf, “the number of hours of use should be estimated as accurately as possible so that the optimum type of turf can be selected for the sports field”. It further concludes, that for “high intensity of use, artificial turf is more environmentally sustainable, and for less intensive use, a form of natural grass is”. The Executive Summary of this study is attached to this report as Exhibit H.
401 of 1332
22 3b
Glendale Environmental Coalition Letter
As previously stated, the Glendale Environmental Coalition sent a letter to the City Council and the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, dated February 8, 2021, recommending the use of Environmental Passive Integrated Conveyance (EPIC) System with natural grass in lieu of artificial turf for the five projects reflected in this report. The letter highlights the benefits of the EPIC system and lists concerns with the proposed artificial turf product. Below a brief summary of the points raised in the letter and staff analysis in response.

EPIC System:

The GEC letter takes the position that “an alternate natural grass system, such as the Environmental Passive Integrated [Conveyance] System (EPIC) could be a viable alternative.” The letter states that the EPIC system is efficient, economical and long lasting, combining subsurface irrigation with water storage and filtration. It further states that the system encourages long root systems, thus upgrading grass health to withstand heavier use. The letter also highlights the following as benefits of the EPIC system:
“excellent drainage, absorbs stormwater, allows for below-surface greywater usage, uses water economically, supports healthy soil, and demonstrates cooler surface temperatures and safer conditions for athletes than artificial turf”.

The GEC letter suggests that Franklin Elementary is considering this system for their multi-purpose field. Staff reached out to GUSD Facilities and Operations Management team to ask their opinion. Although the District has not taken an official position on the EPIC system at Franklin Elementary, the maintenance team’s initial investigation on the associated costs of installation and maintenance challenges has them leaning towards not recommending this alternative.

Fields with EPIC System
Staff connected with the EPIC System representative to inquire about system installations. There are only a handful of EPIC system athletic fields installed throughout the nation. The representative identified the following facilities as having installed the EPIC System: Paradise High School in Paradise, CA; Vista Del Lago High School in Folsom, CA; and on Westcott Field at Southern Methodist University (SMU), in Dallas, Texas. Staff reached out to the maintenance management teams at these three facilities to inquire about their experience with the system.

Paradise High School:

Staff spoke with the Director of Facilities, Maintenance, and Operations at the Paradise Unified School District (PUSD). The district installed the EPIC System at their Paradise 402 of 1332
23 3b
High School soccer field in 2013. This field is comparable to Glendale’s heavily used fields as it is used by the school for soccer, track / field, football, as well as it is open for public use on nights and weekends. The system drains well once the root system is established. The system only required one repair in 2020: a pump replacement that cost about $1,400 for parts, plus labor.

Given that it is a sand base system, PUSD experienced challenges with its maintenance. Growing the root system posed significant challenges for the initial 5 years after installation. The heavy use created low spots and tore the turf much easier because it is sand base. This required the use of the proprietary sand that must be used for an EPIC system. The district further experienced increases in their overall maintenance efforts: overseeding 3-5 times per year, aerating monthly January through June and bi-monthly from June to December. Overseeding the field required above ground sprinklers as seed must be maintained in moist condition. While the District did not have actual water use figures, it did not experience measurable water savings as trans-evaporation was still a challenge, the sand must be kept moist, and required topical watering while seeding. The District dedicated a full time groundskeeper for the field’s maintenance, and experienced $17-$18,000 increase in cost for seed and fertilizers, for an annual maintenance cost of approximately $120,000..

The Director of Operations did not recommend this system for heavily used municipal fields. Furthermore, PUSD’s Long Term Master Planning has approved replacing this field with an artificial turf field.

Vista Del Lago High School
Staff spoke with the Director of Operations at Folsom Unified School District (FUSD), which is responsible for the maintenance of Vista Del Lago High School. This field is also comparable to the heavily used soccer fields in Glendale as it is used by the school as well as is open to the public. The field drains well allowing for soccer play soon after rains. The EPIC system did not require major repairs, just minor maintenance costs.

FUSD experienced similar challenges to PUSD, resulting in poor field conditions in the summer months, thus requiring increased maintenance. One such challenge was the root system, which only grew down to 2 inches. Another challenge was the need to increase aerification, fertilization, overseeding, and topical watering to keep seeds moist.

Although the field is doing better now, the Director of Operation did not recommend this system, would not chose this option again, and prefers the installation of artificial turf for heavily used fields.

Westcott Field, Southern Methodist University, TX
403 of 1332
24 3b
Staff connected with the Athletic Department of Westcott Field, at SMU. This field’s use is not comparable to Glendale’s municipal field. It is primarily used by the college men’s and women’s soccer teams at an average of 25 hours per week. They have an alternate field on campus that is used for practice / games as well. Although the use is not comparable, it has similar challenges as it relates to field conditions and maintenance.

The field is shut down in the winter to allow the field to rest as there is not much activity during that time period. The field undergoes major maintenance in May to prepare for the heaviest use in June – summer camps when the field is scheduled 6 days per week, for an average of 6-8 hours per day. The field also had drainage problems due to the wrong sand / soil content effecting infiltration rates. SMU experienced challenges with root generation as well; finding it necessary to flood the field to soak it. The school had to install above ground irrigation to keep seeds moist, similar to the high schools. This level of watering did not corroborate the claims for water savings by the system.

The field uses fine sand that leeches out all the nutrients, thus requiring increased frequencies of fertilizer application. The school further replaces the turf in heavy wear areas regularly, such as the penalty box. It is estimated that the field increased general turf maintenance costs by 20%. Thus, he believed that the field would not be feasible for heavy use and that artificial turf would be more ideal for such use. “Netlon” Mesh Installation with EPIC
The GEC letter further suggests consideration of a synthetic product called “Netlon” to be integrated into the EPIC system natural grass to increase durability. Netlon is a plastic mesh material that is installed in the sand / soil to reinforce the top layer and resist compaction, increase load bearing capacity, and enhance infiltration properties of the soil. If installed, it would introduce synthetic plastic into the soil composition of the field. Netlon is a unique product which can be useful in many different applications, with best utilization in areas where surface support is necessary (i.e. for vehicles parking, construction) and/or for moisture control in the soil profile (as in clay soils or areas with poor drainage).

There is concern for player safety regarding impact attenuation on the surface of the Netlon product. Heavily used municipal fields experience the Netlon product surfacing to the top of the turf, requiring staff to pick it up prior to games and after aeration, thus increasing maintenance needs of the field.

Exhibit J is a study that highlights how Netlon increases the surface hardness and escalates the potential for athlete injury in the event of a fall. The safety of park patrons in a municipal setting is a top priority. Combined with the increased maintenance frequencies and costs for labor, materials, and equipment, the installation of Netlon as part of a heavily used municipal athletic field is not a sustainable solution. 404 of 1332
25 3b
Artificial Turf:

In relation to the artificial turf fields, the letter states the following:

1. GEC: It requires synthetic shock pads, which will eventually require landfilling.

Staff Response: The NXTPlay shock pad that is proposed for this field is recyclable. NXTPlay pad is certified Cradle to Cradle by the Products Innovation Institute. Turf repurposing and recycling plays a role in our sustainability efforts.

2. GEC: It requires virgin plastic to manufacture (top layer).

Staff Response: In an effort to have turf fields avoid ending up in landfills, Shaw Sports Turf has developed a process to reclaim turf to be recycled into a shock pad called NXTPlay. While new turf requires virgin plastic to manufacture, it is constructed with the intent it can be recycled or repurposed at the end of their lifecycle.

3. GEC: It does not promote effective stormwater capture.

Staff Response: Stormwater capture is a function of a turf field's base design and many new field constructions in California incorporate stormwater capture into their designs.

CSP will incorporate this design element in the current proposed fields, where feasible, similar to Pacific Park.

4. GEC: It does not promote effective greywater use.

Staff Response: Greywater/Reclaimed water usage is not needed nor recommended for artificial turf. As the GEC letter indicated, of the proposed projects, Pacific Park and Sports Complex currently utilize reclaimed water to irrigate the park, excluding the artificial turf fields. Fremont does not currently have reclaimed water source at the park, however it is possible to link to a source on Glenoaks Blvd. Regardless of the final decision to use natural grass or artificial turf for the projects, connecting a reclaimed water line to Fremont Park will be beneficial and promote greywater use. As such, CSP will work with Glendale Water and Power to look at the feasibility of this project in the coming years. Moreover, any opportunity to connect reclaimed water to parks for irrigation use will be analyzed and considered on future park projects.

5. GEC: It requires extra maintenance including watering.

Staff Response: Watering is not required or critical to an artificial turf field's maintenance, safety, or for its warranty. Although the presence of moisture in the infill is beneficial and enhances the field's performance and assists with playability, it is not required nor does it require the installation of sprinklers. The climate in Glendale 405 of 1332
26 3b
provides the presence of moisture passively from relative humidity, rainfall, and dew that often settles on surfaces in the mornings and evenings. The average relative humidity in Glendale is high enough, and the average temperatures are mild enough that heat will not be a concern for the majority of the year. Given the infill material is made up of natural products (sand and coconut husks), they maintain the field at much lower temperatures as compared to the rubberized pellets that absorb heat. As for maintenance, artificial turf significantly reduces maintenance requirements as compared with natural grass and the EPIC system as highlighted in their respective sections in this report.

6. GEC Claim: It sheds plastic fragments into storm drains.

Staff Response: Fiber shedding is mitigated with regular brushing and sweeping. The materials collected from this sweeping will be stored at the site and recycled. The natural Geofill infill that may come off the field due to foot traffic is plant-based and as such not harmful to the environment.

Program impacts:

As it relates to programmatic impacts, the letter states that artificial turf “may not increase days of use in Glendale as it produces its own heat island effect, becoming as hot as 160 °F on a 90 °F day. When that happens, it needs to be watered in order to cool, with temporary (and not always effective) impact”.

Staff Response: The current rubber fill fields do experience high temperatures in intense summer heat. At the Sports Complex, on approximately 10 days per year during summer camp rentals, the sprinklers are turned on to help cool the fields, albeit temporarily. Given its ineffectiveness, the City opted not to install these sprayers at the Pacific Park multi-purpose field. The City cancels its Adult League games approximately 3-5 days per year when temperatures exceed 100 degrees at 6pm. Coaches and private leagues choose to cancel their own games for the children’s safety and City refunds their rates given extreme temperatures.

Despite closures for excessive heat, the artificial turf fields by far provide more playing time as compared to natural grass. They are reserved 360-365 days out of the year as compared to 275-325 days for natural grass fields. The difference is due to having the natural grass soccer fields being closed 3 months out of the year for renovations. In addition, when it rains, the fields are closed for approximately 3 days per field, translating to over 6,300 children being impacted (3 days * 15 fields * 7 groups * 20 kids per group).

The GEC letter states that the EPIC installation would mitigate the soggy field issues and grass refurbishment/rest time. “The system is designed to drain rapidly through a 406 of 1332
27 3b
layer of sand while capturing that stormwater for later use and, thanks to this design, grows much healthier and stronger grass. Rain would pose no problem for this system.” The letter further claims that EPIC fields regenerate “significantly quicker” and only portions of damaged areas can be replaced and that overseeding can help with field maintenance allowing more play days.

Staff Response: While sand base fields have a tendency to drain faster, they do not alleviate the need to close the fields for maintenance. Our inquiries with existing users of the EPIC system found that the significant increase in routine maintenance of the fields impact operations (aeration and overseeding) and require significantly higher levels / frequencies of fertilizers and chemicals due to leeching (monthly applications).

As stated earlier, each time this practice is applied, the fields should remain closed for a day or two – further impacting field availability. Moreover, all three EPIC system users contacted experienced significant challenges in growing grass, especially root generation. As for overseeding, all EPIC fields experienced the need for topical watering due to overseeding, which in turn increased the field watering and maintenance needs.

The GEC letter states that “many studies on artificial turf have shown a greater number of player injuries than natural grass, including anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, concussions, and ankle sprains, and longer recovery times needed between games”.

Staff Response: Traction, rotation and slip resistance, surface abrasion and stability of artificial turf fields meet the rigorous requirements of the most respected sports leagues and federations. Some of the published studies of the comparative safety of artificial turf include:
• A 2004 NCAA study among schools nationwide comparing injury rates between natural grass and artificial turf found that the injury rate during practice was 4.4% on natural grass, and 3.5% on artificial turf.
• An analysis was conducted by FIFA’s Medical Assessment and Research Centre of the incidence and severity of injuries sustained on grass and artificial turf during two FIFA U-17 World Championships. According to FIFA, “The research showed that there was very little difference in the incidence, nature and causes of injuries observed during games played on artificial turf compared with those played on grass.”
o “Very Positive Medical Research on Artificial Turf” (Turf Roots Magazine 01, pp. 8-10, FIFA)
• Three 2010 long-term studies published by researchers from Norway and Sweden comparing acute injuries on artificial turf and natural grass. The studies examined the type, location and severity of injuries sustained by hundreds of 407 of 1332
28 3b
players during thousands of hours of matches and training over a four-to-fiveyear period. Many types of acute injuries to men and women soccer players, particularly knee injury, ankle sprain, muscle strains, concussions, MCL tears and fractures were evaluated. The researchers concluded that the injury risk of playing on artificial turf is no greater than playing on natural grass. o Bjørneboe J, Bahr R, Andersen TE (2010) Risk of injury on third generation artificial turf in Norwegian professional football. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44: 794-798.
o Ekstrand J, Hägglund M, Fuler CW (2010) Comparison of injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass by male and female elite football players. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, DOI:

10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01118.
o Soligard T, Bahr R, Andersen TE (2010) Injury risk on artificial turf and grass in youth tournament football. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01174.

CSP conducted a survey of Glendale field users and inquires about injuries sustained while playing on natural grass and artificial turf. The survey results, highlighted later in this report, show no significant difference between the two surface types.

Maintenance:

The GEC letter claims that the proposed Shawgrass Legion Turf with GeoFill/Natural Play “(1) … will only last 8 years, (2) replacing that surface requires the manufacturing of new product with virgin plastic, and (3) the shock pad will eventually need to be landfilled at the end of its life. We contend that there is ultimately no safe, environmentally sound manufacturing or disposal of artificial turf and shock pads.” While the manufacturer warranty is only 8 years, the turf will last at minimum 10 years, possibly 12 with the proper maintenance. The soccer fields at the Sports Complex were first installed in 2005 and replaced 10 years later in 2015. Replacing the surface does require the manufacturing of new product with virgin plastic, however that old surface is recycled into the shock pad, which in turn is recyclable itself.

The letter further claims that the “maintenance costs for EPIC fields are lower than for artificial fields” and that the system would require 60% less watering. The letter further highlights maintenance requirements for the artificial turf, identifying the need to sweep once per week, groomed every 4-5 days, patching damaged areas, and sanitizing after spills.

As highlighted in the cost comparison, maintenance of turf with EPIC system costs more than the other alternatives of natural grass and artificial turf. Moreover, the current users 408 of 1332
29 3b
of EPIC system have not experienced water savings as intended, and have resorted to above ground irrigation to continue growing seed.

The artificial turf system proposed for the aforementioned projects is Legion Turf with GeoFill/Natural Play infill by Shaw Sports Turf, including a NXTPlay shock pad. This system does not require any watering to perform its intended design purpose: to be a safe, durable, reliable sports field that is available year-round for field users. A field with no moisture does not create any adverse effect on its overall safety or performance.

Maintenance requirements for artificial turf fields are far less than that of a natural grass system or its variants. Turf with an EPIC system will still need periodic closure for aerating, fertilizing, reseeding, rain, or grass regrowth from heavy usage. The use of lawn care equipment also creates more air and noise pollution. Moreover, CSP continues to experience burrowing on fields by gophers and ground squirrels, requiring constant and immediate attention to hazardous situations. An artificial turf field is less likely to be damaged by wildlife that may root or burrow into the field which can cause hazards to the players. Natural grass fields, with or without EPIC system, also need consistent watering, with warmer and drier times of the year requiring more watering and maintenance.

Artificial turf fields require routine maintenance such as walking the field daily to look for unsafe conditions, tears, as well as conduct litter control. Grooming is necessary after every 80-100 hours of field use or once per month minimum to redistribute the infill levels. Weekly grooming is not required, yet given their heavy use, staff groom the current artificial turf fields once every two weeks. Brushing and sweeping is conducted to pick up small particles on the field. This task is done as needed, after every 80-100 hours of use, or at a minimum of once every month. An annual de-compaction / rejuvenation is needed for high-use fields using field grooming equipment. The City contracts with vendors to conduct this annual de-compaction and field rejuvenation service for approximately $3,500 per field.

As in natural grass, there are high wear areas on artificial turf that would require replacement or patching, if torn. We have experienced the need to conduct such a repair once at Pacific Park since 2014; and two times at the Sports Complex since 2005. Since 2014, Pacific Park has needed repair primarily in areas where the turf has seams due to line stitches. Those repairs have been conducted by facility staff as necessary or are conducted under warranty by the manufacturer. As stated previously, the areas on an artificial turf field that need additional attention and possible maintenance are the high use areas which include the corners, the goalie area, and the penalty kick area where the shooter plants his/her non-shooting foot. In relation to sanitizing, Sports Complex experiences one spill per year that requires sanitization, while Pacific Park has had two clean ups since 2014. Staff is also looking into a product 409 of 1332
30 3b
called PROKURE that is designed to disinfect and sanitize artificial turf fields which can be applied as part of the contract maintenance annually.

GeoFill infill also provides an additional passive cooling benefit by absorbing moisture present in the environment: rainfall, relative humidity, and dew points. The climate of Glendale is mild enough with relative humidity, allowing for moisture to be trapped in the infill early in the days and evenings and evaporates as the field warms up, thus keeping it cooler than compared to a crumb rubber system. Moisture in the infill provides an added benefit to the playability and cooling, but is not a requirement for its day-to-day usage even during the hotter times of the year.

A study conducted by Penn State University tested for specific types of bacteria in artificial and natural grass, including S. aureus. This study was captured in the Sports Turf Managers Association (STMA) paper titled: “A Guide to Synthetic and Natural Turfgrass for Sports Fields” 3rd Edition. The 20 fields studied included natural grass fields, artificial turf fields, both indoor and outdoor, and high and low use areas on fields.

The study found no S. aureus at any test location. Another test conducted to evaluate how long staph bacteria can survive on artificial turf. “Results found that levels of bacteria on outdoor fields quickly dropped to very low levels. The bacteria survival rate on natural turfgrass fields was comparable. Sunlight reduces bacterial survival rate. On indoor fields, bacteria survived on artificial turf and natural grass for multiple days. The population [of bacteria] decreased significantly with time.” Field User Survey
CSP staff conducted a brief survey of Glendale field users in February 2021. The survey ran from February 23 through March 1, 2021, and included questions such as: the type of organization and clients served (youth / adult), fields generally reserved, number of years they used City fields, the type of field reserved (artificial / natural), injuries, and type of field surfacing preferred. Given that CSP fields are generally used for baseball and soccer, as well as two of the current approved projects are multi-purpose fields (baseball and soccer), this survey was sent to all users including little leagues, adult leagues, baseball, softball, and soccer groups. CSP received a total of sixty (60) responses to the survey. Below is a summary of the survey results. The full survey results are attached as Exhibit K.

Field Users
Of the sixty (60) groups, eleven (11) reserve fields for high school, college or university athletics programs, fifteen (15) user groups are adults 18 to 59 years old, and thirty-four (34) groups serve the youth.

Purpose for Field Usage
410 of 1332
31 3b
All groups were asked what is the primary purpose for their reservations. Sixty (60) groups responded as follows:

To create a time and space for participants to socialize 7 To hold training and practices 35
To hold training and practices;
To hold tournaments (short time-span, 6 weeks or less) 2 To hold training and practices;
To run a league (longer-term time span, 7 to 12 weeks based on seasons) 3
To run a league (longer-term time span, 7 to 12 weeks based on seasons) 13
Grand Total 60
Reservation Frequency
When asked how frequently they reserve a field from the City in a week, the responses were as follows:
1 Day / Week 22
2 Days / Week 7
3 Days / Week 8
4 Days / Week 7
5 Days / Week 4
6 Days / Week 5
7 Days / Week 7
411 of 1332
32 3b
Type of Field Preferred by Respondent’s Participants
Users were asked what type of field surface do their users prefer to play on. Forty-four (44) or 73% chose Artificial Turf, and fifteen (15) or 25% chose natural grass; and one response was blank. All fifteen respondents that chose natural grass are baseball / softball groups.

Demand
The survey asked what are the reasons why the specific user doesn’t rent more field time.

Lack of field availability based on my schedule 30
I am satisfied with the amount of time I currently
have 25
It doesn't make financial sense 5
Finally, forty-one (41) respondents said the majority of the fields they reserve are for artificial turf while nineteen (19) respondents typically reserve natural grass.

Artificial Turf renters primarily rent the for the following sport:

Baseball 3
LaCrosse 2
Soccer 35
Natural Grass renters primarily rent the field for the following sport:

Baseball/Softball 16
Soccer 3
Injuries Experienced on Artificial Turf
CSP was also interested in the number of injuries recorded by the users that were a result of playing on the artificial turf playing surface. Over the past 16 years of artificial turf reservations in the City of Glendale, (16 years at Sports Complex Soccer Fields 4 and 5; approximately 7-8 years at the Pacific Park Multi-Purpose Field; and 2 years at Sports Complex Multi-Purpose Field #1), reported injuries were minimal in relation to the number of hours over the length of time the fields have been reserved. 412 of 1332
33 3b
Across 41 respondents and an average of 7.1 years of rental history per artificial turf user; twenty-nine (29) respondents (71%) reported no injuries in a calendar year; nine (9) respondents (22%) had 2 or fewer injuries in a calendar year; two (2) respondents (5%) had 3-4 injuries; and one (1) respondent (2.5%) had 5 or more injuries.

The most common injuries reported were ankle sprains (12) and slide burns (11); knee injuries (9) such as ACL, MCL, and PCL; and concussion from hitting the surface (3).

Injuries Experienced on Natural Grass
In comparison, across the nineteen (19) respondents who said they rent natural grass fields from the City, these users have rented fields from the City on an average of 14 years. Given that natural grass has been the primary playing surface for decades, eight (8) out of nineteen (19) respondents have experience renting fields dating back 15-45 years, while eleven (11) respondents have rented fields between a few months up to seven years.

One respondent has recorded 3 or 4 injuries per calendar year, eleven (11) respondents experienced 2 or fewer injuries, and seven (7) respondents did not experience any injuries.

The most common injuries include ankle sprains (11) and slide burns (6); while 6 respondents said the type of injuries they experience were not those listed.

Survey of CA Park Agencies
CSP staff conducted a survey of California Park and Recreation Society (CPRS) Park Agencies across California to see what type of fields they have in their parks. Founded in 1946, CPRS is a nonprofit, professional and public interest organization with over 4,000 park and recreation professional members; with 86 percent of park and recreation agencies in California having at least one CPRS member.

The questions for this survey focused on the number of baseball and soccer fields agencies have in their inventory, how many are natural grass or artificial turf, type of fill material, and if the agency has future plans for artificial turf fields. In addition, staff wanted to find out if any of these park agencies have any fields with the EPIC system.

Twenty-nine (29) Park and Recreation agencies across California responded to the survey. Below is a summary of the results. Full survey answers are attached to this report as Exhibit L.

Soccer Fields:

Of the twenty-nine (29) respondents, twenty-seven (27) agencies responded to having soccer fields in their parks ranging from one (1) field to fifty-seven (57) fields, for a total 413 of 1332
34 3b
of three hundred twenty-five (325) soccer fields. Two agencies listed having no soccer fields (Burbank and City of Lakewood). As Table 4 (T4) below illustrates, of the 325 soccer fields reported, two hundred seventy-nine (279) or eighty-six percent (86%) are natural grass fields and forty-six (46) or fourteen percent (14%) are artificial turf fields.

The infill used on the artificial soccer fields vary from crumb rubber, rubber / sand mix, cork, cork / sand mix, pumis, and ground olive pits.

T(4): Survey responses on the number of artificial / natural grass fields Ballfields:

Similarly, we inquired about the number of ballfields. The respondents reported having five hundred twenty four (524) ballfields, with only twelve fields (12) or 2% being artificial turf. The remaning five-hundred-twelve fields (512) or 98% are natural grass fields.

Fields with EPIC System:

None of the responding agencies have fields constructed with the EPIC System. This confirms the information received by the EPIC represnetative in that no municipal fields are constructed with this system.
279 fields
86%
46 fields
14%
Soccer Fields
Q3 - How many soccer fields use
NATURAL turf?
Q4 - How many soccer fields use
ARTIFICIAL turf?
414 of 1332
35 3b
Future Artificial Turf Fields:

The survey further inquired whether the agencies had future plans for artificial turf fields.

Twelve (12) responding agencies (41%) said yes, five (5) agencies (18%) said maybe, and the remaining twelve (12) agencies (41%) said they had no current plans for additional artificial turf fields.

CSP also received a response from the City of Los Angeles. Given that a lot of their fields are multipurpose fields and a lot of open space areas are used for soccer play, they could not provide an actual inventory of ballfield vs soccer field. Their response claimed to have 256 ballfields, 2 of which are artificial diamond fields designed as ADA accessible fields. The City has 62 artificial multipurpose fields of varying size and configuration, most of which are used for soccer, but not expressly for that purpose. The City confirmed they did not have any fields with the EPIC system.

Summary
After considering the three alternative turf options for the projects, here are some summary findings.

There are numerous studies and documentation that show active participation in sports are critical to youth development in fitness, mental health, self-esteem and leadership.

The true debate over natural grass (with or without EPIC system) or artificial turf lies with the issue of community access to fields, available resources, a sustainable maintenance approach, and fiscal responsibility. Glendale residents deserve athletic fields that are green, clean and safe, and available for optimum use to maximize utility. It is imperative to note that the purpose of the five soccer / multi-purpose field projects previously approved by City Council was to meet the increased public demand for soccer fields, alleviating field availability challenges and allowing over 12,000 youth to have uninterrupted recreational ability.

Under the right circumstances, natural grass fields would be an ideal option if the fields are allowed to rest and have the necessary resourced to maintain it at safe / playable levels. Glendale’s continually growing demand for athletic fields far exceeds availability, and closure of fields for 3 months for maintenance will impact play for thousands of users. Natural turf soccer fields are more difficult to maintain due to the nature of the sport; thus making it a more appropriate venue for artificial turf.

Epic system is a great concept in capturing and reusing stormwater. There may be some applicable uses for future green infrastructure projects. With the proper field down time and additional resources, it can play a role in stormwater capture and reuse. Of all three options considered, it has the highest initial cost for construction as well as annual maintenance. Yet it doesn’t seem to solve challenges of having natural grass soccer 415 of 1332
36 3b
fields. The three schools that have EPIC system installed on their fields experienced similar challenges in managing the turf: hard to grow the roots to the desired length, increased aeration and fertilization, as well as seeding.

Artificial turf offers significant advantages and provides some solutions to the challenges of grass fields: maintenance costs are lower and fields are available for play in all weather. While there is always room for improvement and manufacturers are making significant advances in environmentally friendly approaches, artificial turf is a creative solution to expand our options for meeting the recreation needs of Glendale. Artificial turf has come a long way since its inception. Given the high demand for artificial turf fields, manufacturers have continued to address the physical, fiscal, and environmental concerns. They are safer, more environmentally friendly, product is recyclable, the infill is natural and not harmful to the environment, shock pad is recycled and recyclable, and given the current market, are at competitive prices.

The following Table (T5) summarizes all three alternatives:
416 of 1332
37 3b
Evaluative Criteria Artificial Turf Natural Grass Natural Grass with EPIC System
Availability
Available for play 365 days
per year, even right after a
heavy rainstorm
Available 9 months; with 3-
month closure for
renovations. Further
closed 2-3 days after rains.

Available 9 months; with
3-month closure for
renovations. Further
closed 2-3 days after
rains.

Durability
Withstands heavy and
repetitive use, even during
the heavy rain. No recovery
time necessary between
events/uses.

Needs ongoing
maintenance and repairs;
especially after wet rainy
weather.

Needs ongoing
maintenance and repairs;
especially after wet rainy
weather.

Ball Action
Balls react, bounce and
play similar to wellmaintained natural grass.

Imperfections such as
weed patches, exposed
dirt, mud spots, and
sprinkler heads can cause
inconsistent ball action.

Imperfections such as
weed patches, exposed
dirt and mud spots can
cause inconsistent ball
action.

Safety
Studies show no significant
difference between surface
types
Studies show no significant
difference between surface
types
Studies show no
significant difference
between surface types
Environmental
Impacts
Eliminate chemical,
fertilizer, pesticide use;
Reduce water consumption

1.5-2 million gallons; LCA
shows least environmental
impact when used over
1,600 hours per year
Reduces urban heat island
effect, filters rainwater and
pollution, provides wildlife
habitat; maint. adds to
carbon footprint, use of
fertilizers and pesticides
Reduces urban heat
island effect, captures and
reuses rainwater and
pollution; maint. adds to
carbon footprint,
increased use of
fertilizers, chemicals and
pesticides
Appearance
Always maintains a look of
a freshly mowed lawn.

Won’t maintain that new
lawn look over time. Areas
of heavy use wear down
creating bare areas, and
weeds move in.

Won’t maintain that new
lawn look over time.

Areas of heavy use wear
down, creating bare
areas, and weeds move
in.
417 of 1332
38 3b
T5: A Summary Table of Natural Grass, EPIC System, and Artificial Turf Field

FISCAL IMPACT
One of the disadvantages of artificial turf is the initial cost associated with its installation along with the drainage system that helps keep the field free of puddles even during heavy rain season. Similarly, the EPIC System has a very high initial cost for materials and installation. However, as this section will illustrate, in the long run, natural grass maintenance costs (with or without EPIC system) will surpass the cost associated with the installation, maintenance, and replacement of artificial turf. The costs highlighted in this section reflect a typical size soccer field at 90,000 sq. ft.

Surface
Temperature
Geofill natural infill
temperature tends to be 40
degrees cooler than
traditional artificial turf
fields.

Temperature would be
equivalent or slightly cooler
than the air temperature off
the field.

Temperature would be
equivalent or slightly
cooler that the air
temperature off the field.

Replacement /
Rejuvenation
Lasts up to and possibly
beyond 10 years
Replacement of turf layer at
year 10
Annual reseeding / sod
required which leads to
downtime for re-growth.

Excessive compaction
typically requires complete
reconstruction.

Monthly overseeding,
aerating, fertilizing
required; leading to
downtime for re-growth.

Excessive compaction
typically requires
complete reconstruction.

Construction and
Maintenance
Costs, and
Revenue
Generated
(Over 20 Years)
Construction: $1.66 million
Maintenance: $2.74 million
Revenue: $3.2 million
Construction: $200,000
Maintenance: $3.2 million
Revenue: $600 thousand
Construction: $1.8 million
Maintenance: $4.97
million
Revenue: $600 thousand
Overall Cost /
(Revenue)
Over 20 Years
($456,351.55) $2,626,213.11 $4,375,763.42
418 of 1332
39 3b
Natural Grass Costs
Initial cost of constructing a natural grass soccer field is estimated at $175-$225 thousand. Revitalization and maintenance of a natural grass soccer field costs $44,404 for regular maintenance and $80,146 for sodded renovation, for a total cost of $124,550 per year. Fields renovated with seed would cost $77,312 for annual maintenance and renovation, yet require an additional month of closure (4 months instead of 3) to allow for seed germination and proper rooting. This increased rest time will negatively affect revenue generation for the field as well as impact field availability. As such, it is more feasible to use sod during renovations. See Exhibit B for details.

Natural Grass with EPIC System Costs
The initial cost of constructing a natural grass field with the EPIC System is estimated at $1.75-$1.85 million, plus project management and soft costs. This type of field has a higher annual maintenance cost due to the increased maintenance requirements for aerating and fertilizing. Regular maintenance of a natural grass soccer field with EPIC system is estimated at $49,153 and $81,551 for sodded renovation, for a total annual cost of $130,704. The same field, if renovated with seed, would cost $83,467, yet require an additional month of closure (4 months instead of 3) to allow for seed germination and proper rooting. See Exhibit B for Details.

Artificial Turf Costs
The initial cost of installing artificial turf field ranges from $10-$14 per sq. ft. for site preparation, drainage, aggregate replacement, shock pads, and the turf surface. For a typical 90,000 sq. ft. soccer field, the cost is estimated at $1.2-$1.3 million, plus project management and soft costs, totaling approximately $1.6 million.

Artificial turf has an anticipated lifespan of ten (10) years at which time the playing surface will need replacing while the drainage system will remain intact. The cost for the replacement is roughly 50% of the initial installation cost. For example, the replacement of the top layer turf at the two soccer fields at Sports Complex in 2015 cost $877,705, excluding project management.

The estimated cost for maintaining artificial turf is $10,285 per year. See Exhibit B for details.

Revenue Generated
Average annual revenue from rentals on multi-purpose artificial turf fields is $160,000, while average revenue on natural grass fields is $30,000, currently with the natural turf ball fields (at sports complex) and before the soccer fields were converted to artificial turf at the Sports Complex. CSP currently doesn’t have natural grass multipurpose/soccer fields, thus the revenue listed is from rental of natural grass ball fields, which are sometimes used as multi-purpose field to rent to soccer users when it is not used for baseball/softball and what the revenue used to be at the Sports Complex 419 of 1332
40 3b
before the soccer fields (2004) were converted to artificial turf. It is important to note that the rental fees vary depending on the size/type of field, thus the fee rate for rentals for artificial turf fields is not the same as natural grass fields. The fees charged for the use of the fields vary according to the time of day: there is an additional fee for the use of lights for games played at night. Moreover, non-profit and approved community youth groups pay a reduced fee for the use of the fields as compared to adult leagues.

Comparison
In comparison with natural grass, or natural grass with EPIC system, artificial turf costs significantly less to maintain. For this cost comparison, given our experience with seeded renovations on soccer fields, the renovation costs with sod are being utilized. In addition, initial construction cost estimates for all surface types is incorporated to show the costs over a 20-year period. The comparison further includes a 2% CPI applied to the maintenance costs, yet the revenue has been presented as a constant as increase to hourly reservation costs have not been approved. See Exhibit I for details.

Table 3 (T3) presents a 20-year cost / revenue comparison matrix of natural grass, EPIC System, and artificial turf. The artificial turf field material costs also include the replacement cost at year 10.

Category Natural Grass Natural Grass w/
EPIC System
Artificial Turf
Starting Cost $200,000 $1,800,000 $1,662,500
20 Year Cost $3,226,213.11 $4,975,763.42 $2,743,648.45
20 Year
Revenue
$600,000 $600,000 $3,200,000
Total Overall
Cost / Revenue
$2,626,213.11 $4,375,763.42 ($456,351.55)
T3: Cost/Revenue Comparison of Natural grass, Epic, and Artificial Turf Matrix As the comparison shows, after a twenty-year period the natural grass soccer fields are estimated to cost the City in excess of $2.6 million dollars; the natural grass field with 420 of 1332
41 3b
EPIC System is estimated at $4.37 million, while the artificial turf field would generate $456 thousand in revenue, including the turf replacement cost at 10 years.

ALTERNATIVES
N/A

EXHIBITS
Exhibit A – City of Glendale Recreation Element
Exhibit B – Turf Maintenance Cost Estimates
Exhibit C – EPIC Turf Management
Exhibit D – EPIC Turf Football Field Specifics
Exhibit E – Synthetic Turf vs. Natural Grass 2020
Exhibit F – Geofill Cooling
Exhibit G – Synthetic Turf 360
Exhibit H – Life Cycle Assessment Study – Executive Summary Exhibit I – Cost-Revenue Comparison of Natural Grass, EPIC System, and Artificial Turf Exhibit J – Effects of Soil Reinforcing Study
Exhibit K – Field Users’ Survey
Exhibit L – Fields Survey Results
Exhibit M – Letter from Glendale Environmental Coalition dated February 8, 2021 421 of 1332
422 of 1332
423 of 1332
424 of 1332
425 of 1332
426 of 1332
427 of 1332
428 of 1332
429 of 1332
430 of 1332
431 of 1332
432 of 1332
433 of 1332
434 of 1332
435 of 1332
436 of 1332
437 of 1332
438 of 1332
439 of 1332
440 of 1332
441 of 1332
442 of 1332
443 of 1332
444 of 1332
445 of 1332
446 of 1332
447 of 1332
448 of 1332
449 of 1332
450 of 1332
451 of 1332
452 of 1332
453 of 1332
454 of 1332
455 of 1332
456 of 1332
457 of 1332
458 of 1332
459 of 1332
460 of 1332
461 of 1332
462 of 1332
463 of 1332
464 of 1332
465 of 1332
466 of 1332
467 of 1332
468 of 1332
469 of 1332
470 of 1332
471 of 1332
472 of 1332
473 of 1332
474 of 1332
475 of 1332
476 of 1332
477 of 1332
478 of 1332
479 of 1332
480 of 1332
481 of 1332
482 of 1332
483 of 1332
484 of 1332
485 of 1332
486 of 1332
487 of 1332
488 of 1332
489 of 1332
490 of 1332
491 of 1332
492 of 1332
493 of 1332
Maintenance Costs for Natural Grass Soccer Field
Materials $5,233
Labor $23,585
Fuel $585
Water $15,000
Total Cost $44,404
Labor Staff Frequency Hours Per
Annual Labor
Hours
Hourly Rate w
Burden Cost
Mowing (Fall / Winter) Groundskeeper II Weekly 2.5 65 $ 49.37 $ 3,208.92 Mowing (Spring /Summer) Groundskeeper II 2x / Week 5.5 143 $ 49.37 $ 7,059.62 Edging Groundskeeper II Weekly 2.5 130 $ 49.37 $ 6,417.84 Aerating Park Maintenance Supervisor Twice / yr 3 6 $ 66.27 $ 397.60 Sr. Groundskeeper Twice / yr 3 6 $ 55.10 $ 330.58
Groundskeeper II Twice / yr 3 6 $ 49.37 $ 296.21
Fertilizing Sr. Groundskeeper Twice / yr 2 4 $ 49.37 $ 197.47 Groundskeeper II Twice / yr 2 4 $ 49.37 $ 197.47
Spot Seed Groundskeeper II Twice / yr 4 8 $ 49.37 $ 394.94 Verticut Turf Groundskeeper II Twice / yr 8 16 $ 49.37 $ 789.89 Irrigation Checks / Repairs Irrigation Technician
Daily Check,
Monthly Test,
and as needed
repairs 80 $ 53.69 $ 4,294.88
Total Labor $ 23,585.43
Category Material / Staff Unit Measure Quantity Cost Per Cost Total Costs Supplies / Materials Top Soil Tons 35 $ 19 $655.99
Perrenial Rye Seed 50lb bags 4 $ 116 $463.05
Bermuda Seed 50lb bags 1 $ 331 $330.75
Fertilizer 50lb bags 16 $ 21 $335.16
Sequoia Red Moss Topper cu yards 20 $ 47 $948.15
Irrigation Supplies As Needed $2,500.00
Total Materials $5,233.10
Utility Units Annual Use Cost Per Total
Fuel to Mow 2.5 Gallons/Mow 195 $3.00 $585.00
Water Gallons 2,500,000 $0.0060 $15,000.00
Annual Maintenance Costs
General Turf Maintenance - Soccer Field
494 of 1332
Materials $5,647
Equipment Rentals $4,600
Contract Work (grading / sod) $58,800
Labor $11,099
Total Cost $80,146
Category Material / Staff Unit Measure Quantity Cost Per Cost Total Costs Supplies / Materials Top Soil Tons 150 $ 19 $2,811.38
Fertilizer 50lb bags 16 $ 21 $335.16
Irrigation Supplies As Needed $2,500.00 $5,646.54
Equipment Rentals Stripping Day 1 $ 2,250 $2,250.00
Top Dresser Day 1 $ 1,200 $1,200.00
Heavy Roller Day 1 $ 1,150 $1,150.00 $4,600.00
In House Staff Labor Park Services Manager Hours 22 $ 83.27 $1,831.85 Park Maintenance Supervisor Hours 28 $ 66.27 $1,855.45
Sr. Groundskeeper Hours 34 $ 55.10 $1,873.30
Irrigation Technician Hours 27 $ 53.69 $1,449.63
Groundskeeper II Hours 51 $ 49.37 $2,517.87
Groundskeeper I Hours 43 $ 36.53 $1,570.92 $11,099.02
Lasergrading Contract Labor rip, till, grade 1 $ 12,000 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Sod Purchase and Installation Contract Labor Square Feet 90,000 $ 0.52 $46,800.00 $46,800.00 Total Cost $80,145.55 $ 80,145.55
Annual Renovation Costs (Sod)
Estimated Field Renovation Costs - Sod (90,000 sq. ft. Complex soccer field) 495 of 1332
Materials $13,507
Equipment Rentals $4,600
Contract Work (grading) $6,000
Labor $8,801
Total Cost $32,909
Category Material / Staff Unit Measure Quantity Cost Per Cost Total Costs Supplies / Materials Top Soil Tons 150 $ 19 $2,811.38
Perrenial Rye Seed 50lb bags 18 $ 116 $2,083.73
Bermuda Seed 50lb bags 6 $ 331 $1,984.50
Fertilizer 50lb bags 16 $ 21 $335.16
Sequoia Red Moss Topper cu yards 80 $ 47 $3,792.60
Irrigation Supplies As Needed $2,500.00 $13,507.36
Equipment Rentals Stripping Day 1 $ 2,250 $2,250.00
Top Dresser Day 1 $ 1,200 $1,200.00
Heavy Roller Day 1 $ 1,150 $1,150.00 $4,600.00
In House Staff Labor Park Services Manager Hours 16 $ 83.27 $1,332.26 Park Maintenance Supervisor Hours 22 $ 66.27 $1,457.85
Sr. Groundskeeper Hours 29 $ 55.10 $1,597.81
Irrigation Technician Hours 15 $ 53.69 $805.35
Groundskeeper II Hours 42 $ 49.37 $2,073.54
Groundskeeper I Hours 42 $ 36.53 $1,534.39 $8,801.20
Lasergrading Contract Labor no ripping, tilling 1 $ 6,000 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Total Cost $32,908.56 $ 32,908.56
Estimated Field Renovation Costs - Seed (90,000 sq. ft. Complex soccer field) Annual Renovation Costs (Seed)
496 of 1332
Maintenance Costs for Natural Grass Soccer Field with EPIC System Materials $11,206
Labor $28,362
Fuel $585
Water $9,000
Total Cost $49,153
Labor Staff Frequency Hours Per
Annual Labor
Hours
Hourly Rate w
Burden Cost
Mowing (Fall / Winter) Groundskeeper II Weekly 2.5 65 $ 49.37 $ 3,208.92 Mowing (Spring /Summer) Groundskeeper II 2x / Week 5.5 143 $ 49.37 $ 7,059.62 Edging Groundskeeper II Weekly 2.5 130 $ 49.37 $ 6,417.84 Aerating Park Maintenance Supervisor Monthly 3 36 $ 66.27 $ 2,385.58 Sr. Groundskeeper Monthly 3 36 $ 55.10 $ 1,983.49
Groundskeeper II Monthly 3 36 $ 49.37 $ 1,777.25
Fertilizing Sr. Groundskeeper Monthly 2 24 $ 49.37 $ 1,184.83 Groundskeeper II Monthly 2 24 $ 49.37 $ 1,184.83
Spot Seed Groundskeeper II Monthly 4 48 $ 49.37 $ 2,369.66 Verticut Turf Groundskeeper II Twice / yr 8 16 $ 49.37 $ 789.89 Irrigation Checks / Repairs Irrigation Technician
Daily Check,
Monthly Test,
and as needed
repairs 0 $ 53.69 $ -
Total Labor $ 28,361.92
Category Material / Staff Unit Measure Quantity Cost Per Cost Total Costs Supplies / Materials Proprietary Sand Tons 35 $ 28 $983.98 Perrenial Rye Seed 50lb bags 24 $ 116 $2,778.30
Bermuda Seed 50lb bags 6 $ 331 $1,984.50
Fertilizer 50lb bags 96 $ 21 $2,010.96
Sequoia Red Moss Topper cu yards 20 $ 47 $948.15
Irrigation Supplies As Needed $2,500.00
Total Materials* $11,205.89
*Matterials and Labor for aerating, seeding (6 times per year), and fertilization have been adjusted to reflect monthly application.

Proprietary Sand costs higher than the soil we purchase. Not having an actual cost per ton, it is estimated at 1.5 times soil.

Utility Units Annual Use Cost Per Total
Fuel to Mow 2.5 Gallons/Mow 195 $3.00 $585.00
Water** Gallons 1,500,000 $0.0060 $9,000.00
**Water use is being estimated at 60% to that of natural turf; although not substantiated that these would be actual use reductions.

General Turf Maintenance - Soccer Field
Annual Maintenance Costs
497 of 1332
Materials $7,052
Equipment Rentals $4,600
Contract Work (grading / sod) $58,800
Labor $11,099
Total Cost $81,551
Category Material / Staff Unit Measure Quantity Cost Per Cost Total Costs Supplies / Materials Top Soil Tons 150 $ 28 $4,217.06
Fertilizer 50lb bags 16 $ 21 $335.16
Irrigation Supplies As Needed $2,500.00 $7,052.22
Equipment Rentals Stripping Day 1 $ 2,250 $2,250.00
Top Dresser Day 1 $ 1,200 $1,200.00
Heavy Roller Day 1 $ 1,150 $1,150.00 $4,600.00
In House Staff Labor Park Services Manager Hours 22 $ 83.27 $1,831.85 Park Maintenance Supervisor Hours 28 $ 66.27 $1,855.45
Sr. Groundskeeper Hours 34 $ 55.10 $1,873.30
Irrigation Technician Hours 27 $ 53.69 $1,449.63
Groundskeeper II Hours 51 $ 49.37 $2,517.87
Groundskeeper I Hours 43 $ 36.53 $1,570.92 $11,099.02
Lasergrading Contract Labor rip, till, grade 1 $ 12,000 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Sod Purchase and Installation Contract Labor Square Feet 90,000 $ 0.52 $46,800.00 $46,800.00 Total Cost $81,551.24 $ 81,551.24
Estimated Field Renovation Costs - Sod (90,000 sq. ft. Complex soccer field) Annual Renovation Costs (Sod)
498 of 1332
Materials $14,913
Equipment Rentals $4,600
Contract Work (grading) $6,000
Labor $8,801
Total Cost $34,314
Category Material / Staff Unit Measure Quantity Cost Per Cost Total Costs Supplies / Materials Top Soil Tons 150 $ 28 $4,217.06
Perrenial Rye Seed 50lb bags 18 $ 116 $2,083.73
Bermuda Seed 50lb bags 6 $ 331 $1,984.50
Fertilizer 50lb bags 16 $ 21 $335.16
Sequoia Red Moss Topper cu yards 80 $ 47 $3,792.60
Irrigation Supplies As Needed $2,500.00 $14,913.05
Equipment Rentals Stripping Day 1 $ 2,250 $2,250.00
Top Dresser Day 1 $ 1,200 $1,200.00
Heavy Roller Day 1 $ 1,150 $1,150.00 $4,600.00
In House Staff Labor Park Services Manager Hours 16 $ 83.27 $1,332.26 Park Maintenance Supervisor Hours 22 $ 66.27 $1,457.85
Sr. Groundskeeper Hours 29 $ 55.10 $1,597.81
Irrigation Technician Hours 15 $ 53.69 $805.35
Groundskeeper II Hours 42 $ 49.37 $2,073.54
Groundskeeper I Hours 42 $ 36.53 $1,534.39 $8,801.20
Lasergrading Contract Labor no ripping, tilling 1 $ 6,000 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Total Cost $34,314.24 $ 34,314.24
Estimated Field Renovation Costs - Seed (90,000 sq. ft. Complex soccer field) Annual Renovation Costs (Seed)
499 of 1332
Renovation Cost (Glorietta Ballfield)
Category Cost
Materials Sand, gravel, top soil, brick dust $7,375.14
Equipment Rentals Stripping, Rolling $4,720.86
Drainage Materials Pipes $3,389.97
In House Staff Labor $38,546.18
Lasergrading Contract Labor $14,900
Sod Purchase and Installation Contract Labor $38,500
Total Cost $107,432.15
500 of 1332
Materials $2,134
Labor $3,851
Contract labor $4,300
Total Cost $10,285
Labor Staff Frequency
Hours
Per
Annual
Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate w
Burden Cost
Brushing Groundskeeper II Bi-Weekly 1.5 39 $ 49.37 $ 1,925.35 Grooming Groundskeeper II Bi-Weekly 1.5 39 $ 49.37 $ 1,925.35 Decompaction Contract Labor Annually $ 3,500.00
*Repairs Contract Labor As Needed, once every five years $ 800.00 Total Labor $ 8,150.70
Category Material / Staff Unit Measure Quantity Cost Per Cost Total Costs **Supplies/Materials Geofill infill lb 2200 $ 0.97 $2,134.00 $ 2,134.00 Total Materials $2,134.00
*Repairs: most seam tears are covered under warranty.

Wear and tear is estimated to need repairs every 5 years; at a cost of $4,000, on averages $800 per year. **Geofill material is provided during construction & included as part of the annual de-compaction of the fields.

Geofill ships in a 2,200 lb sack for $2,134; this amount is used to estimate cost for annual infill material Annual Maintenance Costs
Artificial Turf Maintenance - Soccer Field
Maintenance Costs for Artificial Turf
501 of 1332
1 FERTILIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF EPIC TURF

AREAS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS
Jonas Z. Sipaila, B.S. (Biology)
Among the many water management and water saving benefits found in EPIC installations, the primary reasons of using a washed sand profile in EPIC systems are a) its resistance to soil compaction, b) the ability to wick water upward, c) excellent drainage, and d) the ability to maintain an aerobic soil profile in the root zone. Most washed sands (or ordinary clay soils) however, are initially nutrient poor in some of the elements necessary for good plant growth and the nutrients have to be added to the sand profile. Water management alone is not a guarantee of successful plant growth.

Eight inorganic elements have been recognized as essential nutrients for plant growth, each with a specific function in plant physiology. The following table summarizes these eight and their function within plants.

Essential Element Symbol Plant usage
Calcium Ca++ Calcium plays a prominent role in the absorption of other minerals from the soil. It neutralizes acids and has an antitoxic effect on other poisonous substances in the soil.

Root hair cells contain calcium pectate, a colloid which enables it to imbibe water. This substance also forms the cementing material for holding all cells together, and is the first substance in the formation of new cell walls.

Iron Fe+++ Iron is essential as part of the cytochrome oxidation system in respiration function. It is also essential for chlorophyll formation even though it is not part of the chlorophyll molecule. Many brown and reddish sands and soils may have an abundance of Iron, but it is not always in a form usable by the plant.

Magnesium Mg++ Magnesium is a constituent of the chlorophyll molecule.

Without chlorophyll there is no interaction with sunlight to produce plant tissue. However very high concentrations of magnesium are toxic to plants.

Manganese Mn++ Manganese is thought to be necessary for the proper function of plant respiratory enzymes.

Nitrogen NO3 ¯ Nitrogen, only absorbed as a nitrate, is absolutely essential to growth, affecting particularly the growth of above ground parts. It is a constituent of chlorophyll, but is chiefly used for the production of proteins which are essential to every cell. A nitrogen deficiency quickly manifests itself as the yellowing of green foliage (chlorotic). Excess nitrogen may cause excessive vegetative growth which can result in weak and tender stems and foliage which are then susecptable to fungus and insect injury. Some nitrates are produced naturally through the interaction of lightning in thunderstorms; some is fixed by specialized soil bacteria living in nodules of 502 of 1332
2 specialized plants such as clover and alfalfa. Decomposition of dead organic material by soil organisms and their waste products (urea) may also provide nitrates through complex biological interactions. Urea → Ammonia→ Nitrites→
Nitrates. However, for lush thick turf, supplemental addition of nitrogen sources will almost always be necessary.

Potassium K+ Potassium is necessary for the proper carbohydrate metabolism of the plant. When potassium is deficient, storage organs such as roots, tubers, and seeds are small and
shriveled. Plants with ample supply of potassium have been reported to be more resistant to disease and insect injury.

Phosphorus PO4¯ ¯ ¯ Phosphorus in the soil is most likely absorbed as a phosphate ion. It is essential for the formation of many compounds such as phosphoproteins and phospholipids. Lack of this element interferes with normal cell division and checks growth. It is important for proper functioning of photosynthesis and
respiration. Phosphorus also increases root development and as such is important in the early stages of sod or seed growth.

Sulfur SO4¯ ¯ Sulfur, absorbed as a sulfate ion, is a constituent of at least three amino acids that occur in proteins. Glutathione is an essential component in the respiration role of plants and the take up of oxygen.

Whether the source of the element and compound is derived naturally or artificially, in conclusion it is emphasized that if plants are to do their best, they must be supplied with a proper balance of all the essential inorganic substances. If any one of the inorganic substances is deficient, its lack will soon be manifested in the growth of the plant regardless of how much of all the other substances may be available.

Kentucky Blue Grass 30 days after seeding in ordinary sand. (Left) No nutrients added (Right) Addition of balanced nutrients The aspects of fertilization and agronomy however are not just a simple operation of opening a bag of fertilizer and dumping it over the growing area. Research has alluded to importance of other factors as soil and water pH, Cation Exchange Capacity (CAC), Base saturation levels, Zinc and other trace elements etc. The latest trends are experimentation with microrhizomes, humic acid levels, and microbial density indexes (MDI). 503 of 1332
3 Good grass management has become, and is both an art and a science that not only involves nutrients but also mowing, aeration, thatching, awareness of disease, environmental factors, timing, and patience. As an illustration the following table depicts the successful management formulas of three award winning athletic fields in New York, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. The NY field was composed of a clay based sod, the PA field of loam, and the CO Field – sand based. While the formulas for the conventional fields is varied, some activities are also in common with EPIC field recommendations (green column), in many cases the program is simpler in EPIC.

Procedure NY field PA field CO field Minimum
EPIC guide
March
Field covers removed When 60 F Yes
Aeration Spike ¾” Core Core
Fertilizer
(with Gypsum)(*)
11-4-21*
@1lb K/1000
sq.ft
15-15-15(*)
@ l lb N
/1000 sq.ft.

Soluble Fertilizer 20-20-20
@1oz.N,P,K
/1000 sq.ft
Biostimulant (as
needed)
3 oz/1000 sf Test for
deficiencies
Overseed 50 lbs.blue 150 lbs.blue 3 lbs/1000sq.ft.

Top dress with sand 1/8 inch
Mow 3 times/week 1 5/8” 1 ¼” 1 ½” 2 x /wk
April
Aeration Shatter tines Spike ¾” Core
Fertilizer 18-24-12
@1lb
N/1000 sq.ft
11-4-21*
@1 lb
K/1000 sq.ft
11-4-21
@ 1lb
N/1000 sq.ft
15-15-15
@ 1 lb
N/1000 sq.ft.

Soluble Fertilizer 20-20-20
@1oz N,P,K
/1000 sq.ft
Biostimulant 1gal/acre 3 oz/1000 sf By Test results
Overseed Broadcast 150 lbs blue
Iron Chelated 4oz /1000 sf 4 oz/1000 sf
Mow 3 times/week 2” 1 5/8” 1 ¼” 1 ½” 2 x/wk
May
Aeration Core ¾”Core Slice or Core
Fertilizer 24-5-11
@1/2 lb
N/1000sq.ft.
10-2-5
@1lb
N/1000sq.ft.
10-2-5
@1 lb
N/1000sq.ft.

Soluble Fertilizer 20-20-20
@1ozN,P,K
/1000 sq.ft
504 of 1332
4 Biostimulant Need match
3 oz/1000 sf
Overseed Broadcast 150 lbs blue 150 lbs blue 3 lbs/1000sq.ft.

Amino Acid Package 2oz./1000 sf
Soluble PKpackage 3oz/1000 sf
Wetting agent 6oz./1000 sf
Mowing 3 times/week 2” 1 5/8” 1 ¼” 1 ½” 2 x/wk
June
Aeration Shatter Spike ¾”Core
Fertilization 18-24-12
@1/2 lb N
/1000 sq.ft.
20-20-20
@1ozN,P,K
/1000 sq.ft
11-20-4
@1lb K
/1000 sq.ft.
15-15-15
@1 lb N
/1000sq.ft
Biostimulant 1 gal/acre 3 oz/1000sf
Overseed 8lb/1000 sf 150 lbs blue
Compost 40 cu yds
Wetting agent 3oz./1000 sf
Weed control IPM proc. Pull as needed
Grub Control IPM proc. IMP proc.

Top dress 1/8” layer
Mowing 3 times/week 2”- 2 ½” 1 5/8” 1 ¼” 1 ½” 2x/wk
July
Aeration Spike ¾” Core
Fertilization 18-24-12
@1/2 lb N
/1000 sq.ft
20-20-20
@1ozN,P,K
/1000 sq.ft
15-15-15
@1lb N
/1000 sq.ft
Biostimulant 3oz./1000 sf
Overseed 150 lbs blue
Compost 10-5-8
@.75lbs N
/1000 sq.ft.

Wetting agent 3 oz./1000sf
Weed control IPM proc.

Mowing 3 times/week 2 ½” 1 5/8” 1 ¼” 1 ½” 2 x/wk
August
Aeration Shatter Core ¾” Core
Fertilization Soluble P,K
@3oz/1000sf
10-2-5
@ 1lb N
/1000 sq.ft.

Biostimulant 4oz/1000sf x 2
3% Silicon
@1.5oz/1000sf
Overseed 200 lbs blue 150 lbs blue
Compost 10-5-8
@.75lbs N
/1000 sq.ft.
505 of 1332
5 Amino Acid Package 2 oz./1000sf
Wetting agent 1.5oz/1000sf
Weed Control IPM proc. Pull as needed
Grub Control IPM proc. IMP proc.

Mowing 3 times/week 2 ½”-2 ¼” 1 5/8” 1 ¼” 1 ½” 2 x/wk
September
Aeration Shatter Solid tines
Fertilization 24-5-11
@ ½ lb N
/1000 sq. ft.

Iron Only
Overseed Field center 150 lbs blue
Biostimulant 1gal/acre
Mowing 3 times/week 2 ¼” 1 ¼” 1 ½” 2 x/wk
October
Aeration Solid tines
Fertilization 20-20-20
@1oz N,P,K,
/1000 sq.ft.

Biostimulant 4oz/1000sf x 2
3% Silicon
@1.5oz/1000sf
Overseed 50 lbs/week 150 lbs blue
Wetting agent 1.5oz./1000sf
Top dressing 1/32”
Mowing 3 times/week 2 ¼” 1 5/8” 1 ½” 2 x/wk
Field cover When not used
November
Aerification Core Core ¾” Core Core
Fertilization 18-24-12
@ ½ lb P
/1000 sq.ft.
4-0-10
with Iron
0-20-20
@ ½ lb P
/1000 sq. ft.

Overseeding 200 lbs. blue 150 lbs. blue 3 lbs/1000 sq.ft Biostimulant 1 gal/acre 50 lbs/1000 sf
Compost 20-25 cu yd Peat Optional
Topdressing Compost Sand 1/32”/game
Mowing 3 times/week 2 ¼” 1 5/8” 1 ¼” 2” 1 x/wk
Cover End of Nov. Before snow
As we can see from the table, there is not one successful formula for maintenance. Every turf manager has his/her own bag of tricks and experiences adjusted to climatic conditions and environments. Fertilizer manufacturers also provide their own special formulations and recommendations based on their research and experience. Input from regional agronomists and university research programs add more data and variations into the mix. The process of turf management quickly becomes an art form, and successful 506 of 1332
6 athletic field complexes have relied on full time agronomists and turf managers to be the conductors.

Whether one is operating a high end professional sports field, a small municipal soccer park, or just their own back yard, certain scientific basics have always surfaced in successful turf management practices. A general summary of those practices are as follows:

1. Some type of nutrient (fertilization) program will be necessary and it will have a routine element attached to it. Follow the routine even if the grass appears to be healthy. We are balancing out the soil and making nutrients available for future growth. If we wait for the grass to look stressed before we react, the formulas may be too little, too late, or even chemically overwhelming to already injured and stressed grass.

2. Rely on sound advice to establish the nutrient formula. Large athletic fields should as a matter of routine send in appropriate soil samples to agricultural labs at least once per year to determine on what is missing and what supplement levels are needed. Nutrient levels and types cannot be seen and there are no simple field tests to get the information. Cost of these lab analyses is reasonable and provides a scientific base line data as to nutrient levels. Four testing laboratories that provide national services have been listed at the end of this section; other laboratories are available on the internet.

Discuss the results and recommendations with an agronomist or turf expert to formulate a routine. If reclaimed water is used for irrigation, a nutrient analysis is also needed of the water as it will become a contributing factor in the mix. Homeowners that may not use lab services should as a matter of routine stick to formulas recommended by reputable product suppliers, professional services, cooperative extension services, or literature. Do not mix product lines or application formulas from different sources.

3. Mow frequently and keep mower blades sharp. Grass grows from the bottom up constantly pushing the upper part of the leaf blade upward. The cut ends of leaf blades are “open wounds” where plant diseases can take hold. Sharp mower blades make a clean “wound” while dull blades cause shredding and pulling of tissue thus increasing the damaged area. Sharp Reel mowers are best but may not be as readily available or preferred as rotary mowers. However a sharp rotary mower is still better than a dull reel mower. Frequent mowing has four advantages:
a) Cutting off a smaller portion of the upper grass blade means that the formerly damaged tissue from the last mowing is again removed before diseases had time to establish themselves in the “open wound”;
b) By removing a smaller portion of the leaf blade, most of the photosynthesis surface area remains in tact thus the grass blade is less stressed; 507 of 1332
7 c) Smaller cut portions fall down between the grass blades easier, decompose quicker and the field looks greener; and…
d) By not allowing the grass to stretch upward, grasses tend to respond by creating more shoots laterally providing denser, thicker turf.

4. Keep records and be observant of change. The keeping of dull data chronologically, on application events, formulas used, weather conditions, field usage, beginnings and progress of stress conditions, and recovery times provides invaluable assessment data to possibly reconstruct cause and effect relationships when problems do occur, and a success recipe when problems do not surface. For example certain diseases have a preference for specific nighttime temperatures and humidity levels. Start of a disease infestation a week after a visiting team’s appearance may be related to disease introduction by transfer of contamination from athletic cleats. Ready data availability and subsequent sharing makes investigation and reconstruction of a problem puzzle a lot easier.

Agricultural Laboratories
CLC Labs
325 Venture Drive
Westerville, Ohio 43081
614-888-1663
Soil & Plant Lab
352 Mathews
Santa Clara, California 95050
408-727-0330
Soil Horizons, Inc.
865 Catalpa Place
Marysville, Ohio 43040
888-933-5501
Wilber Turf and Soil Services
6419 Emerald drive
Rocklin, California 95677
916-630-7600

DISEASES
The first indication that something might be wrong with the grass is the appearance of a brown (dead) patch of grass blades, or a patch that is somewhat no longer green. A closer examination by the lay person may also show that the brown grass blades feel dry and brittle. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize the obvious symptoms that something is wrong, but to zero in on the definitive cause will take some detective work, closer observation, book references, expert consultations, and perhaps even laboratory microscopic examinations, and a systematic elimination of the unlikely to the narrowing of the likely.
508 of 1332
8 To illustrate the complexity - a “brown” patch may be caused by:

Lack of
moisture
Too much
moisture
Fertilizer spill Chemical spill Molds
Over 17
species
Deer urine
Rabbit activity
At night
Pet urine
Yours or
visitor
Rodent activity
Over 4 species
Insect activity
Over a 100
species
Missing or
Imbalance of
Nutrients
Mechanical
damage
Insufficient
sunlight
Heat stress Cold stress A combination
of more than
one factor
It is not within the scope of this paper neither to provide a definite identification guide nor to provide the solutions to all the problems. The subject is too complex with twist and variations that can even at times even confound the “best” experts.

Some general “words of wisdom” to the managers and owners are offered as follows:

1. Don’t take it as necessarily a failure of management practices. While no management or poor management programs can initiate stressed grass conditions, problems will occur at times even in the best managed programs. A 509 of 1332
9 lush, green vast area of sports turf maybe the human goal, but to nature it merely becomes an attractive smorgasbord of “food” for various opportunistic non human pests.

2. While we cannot control weather conditions, be aware of weather conditions.

Applying fertilizers just before a rain event may be beneficial; applying it when the grass is still wet may not be a good idea. Some Fungicides and Pesticides on the other hand may be washed away and be useless if applied just before a rain event.

3. Be flexible. A tight schedule of maintenance activities shows determination and order, but it should have the ability to be overridden by common sense. Do not mow the grass if the grass is still wet. Do not use or even walk on the field if the frost is still on the grass blades.

4. Don’t jump to conclusions. Be systematic and analytical in analyzing problems. Stressed grass conditions as mentioned can have many reasons. Some insects as fungi are invisible to the naked eye. A lot of damage may be occurring underground before it shows at the surface. No one person knows everything all of the time. Rely and obtain second and third opinions. Just when you know everything, Mother Nature can throw you a surprise.

5. Be patient. In a world of instant gratification grass response is a misfit. Even on the best of conditions it will still take 5 to 10 days for grass seed to germinate, several more weeks to “look” green and several months to be ready to stand up to abuse. It may take several days and up to a week for pesticides and herbicides to be effective, and then only if we have chosen the right formula.

WATER MANAGEMENT
Water needs for turf or any plant can be divided into two categories a) the water needed to provide the physical content of water in the roots, stems, leaf structure tissue itself; and b) the water that is lost by transpiration activities of the plant. A succulent plant like a cactus stores a lot of water in its structure, but transpires very little. Grass and most leafy plants on the other hand provide minimal storage in structure, but transpire a lot of water by transpiration. Transpiration is the invisible physical activity of growing plants where water absorbed at the root level is transferred through the supporting stems and out to the surrounding atmosphere from leaf openings called “stomata”.

Turf grasses may transpire as little as 0.10 gallons per square foot per day during cool night time periods, or over 0.40 gallons per square foot per day during hot, dry windy conditions. Water loss by transpiration is a variable rate that will be dependent on a combination of all of the following factors:
• Plant species
• Leaf area (of growing tissue)
510 of 1332
10 • Humidity
• Temperature
• Wind speed
• Sun exposure (cloudiness)
• Health of the plant
In conventional sprinkler irrigation an estimate of water need is distributed at the surface with the anticipation the water will find itself to the roots and satisfy the transpiration needs of the turf. A temporary reservoir is created in the root/soil structure such that enough water will be available until the next application. If we apply too much water and/or the soils are compacted, excess water is lost by runoff. If it is windy, water is lost from the target area, and there may also be insufficient water available until the next cycle. Inefficiency arises from:
• Difficulty of predicting the exact transpiration needs due to the just mentioned changing variables.
• Variability of distribution coverage due to the mechanical state and nature of the sprinkler head.
• Slope and compaction levels of soils that influence drainage and water loss.

Grass does not waste water – people do.

In EPIC, irrigation can be 100% efficient not that plants or grass themselves are forced to use less water, but because EPIC eliminates the above inherent problems of sprinkler irrigation. Properly constructed, EPIC systems will match the transpiration needs of the plant by simply providing a stable underground reservoir, and the plants themselves determine the water uptake they need. It is important to understand the function of an EPIC moisture profile to enable the operator to adjust moisture levels at any time to a desired level.

In a given volume of medium sized sand grains, about half of the space (47%) is occupied by the sand particles themselves, leaving the approximate other half (53%) as a void space. In pure dry sand the void space is occupied by air. In a growing environment of an EPIC profile this void space is available to be occupied by a combination of water, air or other gases, and growing plant tissue (roots). As capillary physics draws water upward from the saturated zone (area totally submerged with water) a graduated water concentration occurs in the profile. The closer we are to the water line the more saturated the sand, the further we are from the water line the drier the sand. The physical differences are shown in the following diagram:
511 of 1332
11 The normal water operating level (W) in a flat athletic field is the midpoint of the 6” distribution pipe on either end of the field. As such the surface of the field is 9 ½ “ above this water line as depicted in (A), where the water content in the sand is approximately 35% and the remaining void space is then 65%. The surface will feel damp and there is sufficient moisture to germinate seed.

The water level (W) can be easily raised or lowered from its normal operating level in flat EPIC fields. By extending the outlet overflow point and adding more water, the water level will rise uniformly in the field and the water content in the sand will increase proportionately to the distance from the water line as shown in the diagram. Raising the water 9” we can achieve a flooded condition (100% water content of void space) right below the surface. By shutting off the water supply, the water level will start to recede (drop) as transpiration and evaporation move the water from the sand into the atmosphere. If the water level is allowed to drop 3 ½” (the bottom of the liner) the moisture level at the surface will only be 5% water and 95% air as depicted in (B).

As previously mentioned, a given volume of sand has about 53% of its volume available as free space which can be occupied by water or gases (air). In a 15” deep EPIC profile at 512 of 1332
12 saturation (normal operating level) about 2 ½ gallons of water is stored underground for every square foot of surface area. See the following diagram.

If the water supply is shut off, the volume of water will still be held by capillary adhesion and will slowly start to dry out from the top down. A shut off of the water supply in EPIC systems does not mean a quick drying affect and water will continue to be available to turf that has a fully developed root structure. If the transpiration rate is 0.40 gallons per square foot per day (hot windy conditions) sufficient water is still available for approximately 6 days.

2.5gal. ÷ 0.40 gal/sq.ft./day = 6.25 days
If the installation is in a moist cool climate the transpiration rate will be lower and water shut off conditions can be maintained for a longer period of time.

2.5 gal. ÷ 0.10 gal./sq.ft./day = 25 days
In Climate areas that have frequent rain events, it is possible that supplementary water may never need to be turned on, as the rain water is harvested and stored, and only excess water is drained.

In summary by adjusting operating water levels and controlling the supply sources, water management can be achieved to any desirable level.

AEROBIC CONDITIONS
Oxygen (aerobic condition) must be available for respiration in roots, which in turn is necessary in order that growth may occur. Experiments on numerous plants have shown that growth ceases when oxygen is removed in the root zone by replacing it with another gas or water. The amount of oxygen necessary for growth varies with the species. Roots at great depths or in water logged soils or in very compact soils are likely to suffer from lack of oxygen.
513 of 1332
13 The washed sands used in EPIC profiles assure that pore space is always available for a certain amount of oxygen content. Air (21% Oxygen) is generally introduced into the profile from air pressure (14 p.s.i.) above the field, which then disperses in the upper layers of the sand profile, combining with moisture films around the sand grain, thus making it available to the root hairs.

On the other hand the respiration of roots in healthy growing plants, and the biological activity of soil organisms produce carbon dioxide gas which has to equalize itself with the carbon dioxide levels of air. While the carbon dioxide level in air is a mere 0.03 %, the soil content can be 5 % or more. Oxygen therefore is not only used up physically to form carbon dioxide, but is also displaced by the carbon dioxide concentrations. As such it is necessary to maintain an exchange pathway between the soil and the air above it so equalization can take place. This exchange pathway can be blocked or hindered by:
• Compacted clay soil
• Tight plant thatch
• Sod that has not been cored within a few months of being laid • Rapidly decomposing organic material or dead grass
• Lack of soil worm activity
• Infrequent or lack of core aeration
While the use of a sand growing media may in some applications reduce the aeration frequency as compared to clay soils, its importance as illustrated in the maintenance tables is not eliminated in successful maintenance programs.

AERATION OF TURF
One of the most important aspects of healthy athletic fields is aeration. Aeration is necessary not only to improve drainage characteristics of thatch buildup, but also for the importance of gas exchange where the accumulated carbon dioxide buildup in the root zone can equalize by the introduction of oxygen. The need for oxygen in the root zone is as important as balanced nutrient levels.

Most turf managers agree that aeration in the form of plug aeration followed by a systematic removal of the thatch plugs is the best accepted method in all sports fields and other turf areas.

Tine aeration makes holes, but in the process compresses adjoining soil and thatch without improving drainage characteristics
514 of 1332
14 Plug aerators physically remove a core of the thatch material and in the process allow air, water and nutrients to penetrate into the root zone more easily.

What does a good aeration look like? Typical plugs are ½” in diameter and physical holes 4”-6” apart.

515 of 1332
15 The field will look “battle born” with a high
density of holes and plugs which
unfortunately will have to be raked up and
taken off the field or the dead thatch will
again quickly fill the holes.

Fortunately in EPIC fields top-dressing is not
required as the sand falls off the thatch during
the raking process.

Did your aeration look like these pictures ?
516 of 1332
Specific recommended management guidelines for
__________________ _ Main Field (94,000 sq.ft.)
Month Material/Procedure Rationale Time
March Core Field Winter dormancy and dead thatch has
been accumulated at the surface layer.

Coring the surface allows oxygen
transfer to the root zone to initiate
decomposition and to stimulate
growth.
4 hours
Obtain Samples A composite sample of the sand
profile and reclaimed water source
should be taken and submitted to the
agricultural lab for nutrient analysis.

The analysis will provide data as to
nutrient shortages so additions or
deletions can be logically adjusted for
the rest of the year.
30 min.

Apply 626 pounds
of a granular
15-15-15 fertilizer
The general purpose fertilizer
provides N, P, and K nutrients at the
rate of 1 lb./1000 square feet. (15 is
the percentage of the nutrient of total
bag weight). Application should be
done right after core aeration, as some
of the granular material will then fall
into the holes and dissolve slowly in
the damp sand, with the balance of
nutrients gradually released when the
occasional rain event will occur
during the spring months.
4 hours
Apply 2000 pounds
of Gypsum
Calcium Sulfate (Gypsum) supplies
two other essential nutrients that will
be consumed during turf growth,
especially needed for new root
development.
4 hours
280 pounds of
Kentucky Blue grass
seed (or original
species seed from
sod source)
Applying new seed right after core
aeration provides potential new grass
growth as some seeds will fall into
openings and have the ability to
germinate, providing new growth
among old grass stands.
2 hours
April Apply 626 pounds
of granular
15-15-15 fertilizer
At this time modify the general
formulation of N,P,K based on the
recommended results obtained from
the lab analysis. For example if P, K
values are adequate, a 10-2-5 fertilizer
4 hours
517 of 1332
may be more appropriate.

Add missing
micronutrients
If the lab report shows deficiencies in
Mg, Mn, Zinc etc., these nutrients can
be added in proper amounts with the
base fertilizer or separately. The
fertilizer supply houses can
recommend formulations based on the
lab report.
2 hours
Apply 23 pounds of
Iron
Iron is an essential nutrient that is
often missing in sand profiles. The
application of granular Iron sulfate or
chelated liquid iron formulations can
correct this problem. Adjust levels
based on lab results.
2 hours
May Core field As growth starts to accelerate, coring
the field will provide additional
oxygen access to the root zone.
4 hours
280 pounds of
Kentucky blue grass
seed
Additional seeding provides an
overlap in growth stages and
supplements germination areas that
may not have rooted in March. Spot
seeding of problem areas can even out
growth.
2 hours
Apply 450 pounds
of ammonium
sulfate by dissolving
product and
recirculating
subsurface.

Ammonium sulfate is an inexpensive
nitrogen source that also has the
benefit of lowering the pH levels of
water. Reclaimed water has a
tendency to have pH levels around 7.8
or higher due to the alkaline soap
content from sewage water. By
lowering the pH the growing
environment for grass becomes more
optimum. Follow recommended subfertilization procedures. 4 man hours
set up
10 recirculating
hours for
pump
June 450 pounds of
ammonium sulfate
Reapply sub-fertilization procedure 4 + 10
Pull weeds Pull out unwanted weed growth early
as seen so they don’t proliferate, and
chemicals do not become necessary.
2 hours
July 450 pounds of
ammonium sulfate
Reapply sub-fertilization procedure,
or if growth is vigorous do 225
pounds every two weeks.
4 + 10
August 450 pounds of
ammonium sulfate
Reapply subfertilization procedure, or
if growth is vigorous do 225 pounds
every two weeks.
4 + 10
Insect control Start paying attention to unusual grub Passive 518 of 1332
or insect infestations that may need
treatment, as it is the primary month
for ideal insect proliferation
conditions.
visual
September Only routine mowing
October Only routine mowing
November Core aerate 4 hours
280 pounds
Kentucky Blue seed
Overseed for winter dormancy. Some
seeds will still germinate before
dormancy in winter and be viable for
early growth
2 hours
Apply 235 pounds
of granular
0-20-20 fertilizer
Applying P,K nutrients strengthens
root growth to survive the winter
months.
2 hours
All
months
Maintain grass
height to 1.5” height
Or as recommended
by agronomist)
Mow at least once per week in the
early and late months, and twice per
week during May, June, July, August
with a sharp mower. Mow in
alternating patterns.
2 hours per
event
All
months
Maintain adequate
and proper moisture
levels.

Normal operating level is about ¾”
above current overflow rim at outlet
vault. (Mid point of 6” Manifold
lateral SDR 35 Pipe)
For a wetter field place 6” extension
in outlet fitting and turn on
recirculating pump to add more water.

Field can be flooded, (ground squirrel
control) but do not maintain flooded
condition for more than one day. Shut
off water supply and let water recede
to normal operating levels. Do not
flood more than once per month.

For a drier surface shut off water
supply for two days and let water
recede to below normal operating
level. This may be preferred a day
before games for a drier surface. Do
not keep the water shut off for more
than seven days during the growing
season, as the sand will dry out too
much and it takes two days to attain
normal operating level. Areas that are
the last to receive the water may
become too stressed. (Too little water
too late)
30 minutes
519 of 1332
Sub fertilization procedure (Optional)

1. Do not proceed with subsurface fertilization until the field is at saturation at normal operational levels and return flow is established to recirculating reservoir.

2. Set timer to manual to activate recirculation pump.

3. Place extender in 6”overflow elbow at outlet vault.

4. Connect water hose from nearest supply near recirculation reservoir.

5. Using five gallon pails dissolve ammonium sulfate crystals in pail with water from hose and stirring with wooden stick. About a ¼ bag of ammonium sulfate should dissolve easily in one pail. (can be applied to other soluble fertilizers formulations)

6. Pour solution into sump pump vault and prepare more concentrate until the entire calculated amount has been added.

7. Continue recirculating operation for 24 hours.

8. Keep extender in outlet vault in place until water level recedes below normal overflow rim. (midpoint of 6” lateral). The evenly diluted solution is now available in each chamber and will slowly capillarize into the surrounding sand root zone.
520 of 1332
Synthetic Turf
vs.

Natural Grass
521 of 1332
522 of 1332
Synthetic
Turf
Benefits
523 of 1332
524 of 1332

SAVES OVER
17 MILLION

GALLONS OF

SPILLED

GAS AND OIL

PER YEAR
525 of 1332
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 526 of 1332

ALLERGIES

MINIMIZE
DUST

ELIMINATE
GRASS
POLLEN

TERMINATE

PESTICIDES
527 of 1332

RESOURCES
https://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/
https://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/page/Research
https://www.actglobal.com/research/STC-SyntheticTurf360.pdf 528 of 1332
Synthetic Turf 360°
A Guide for Today’s Synthetic Turf
SM
529 of 1332
©Synthetic Turf Council 2011. All rights reserved.

This pamphlet may be reproduced in its entirety and without modification. No further permission from the copyright owner is required.

SM
530 of 1332
Synthetic Turf 360°
A Guide for Today’s Synthetic Turf
2011
Table of Contents
Introduction — Why Synthetic Turf?.................................................................................................. 3 Athletic Fields
Popular, versatile solution .............................................................................................................. 4 Significant environmental benefits ................................................................................................ 5 Reduction of noxious emissions ................................................................................................... 6 Increased playing time and safety................................................................................................. 7 Cost-effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 8 Landscape and Recreation
Various applications ....................................................................................................................... 9 Eco-friendly solution .................................................................................................................... 10 Saves money................................................................................................................................ 11 Promotes accessibility................................................................................................................. 12 Promotes safety and security ...................................................................................................... 13 Community and lifestyle enhancement....................................................................................... 14 2 SM
531 of 1332
Why Synthetic Turf?
If you would like to learn more, we invite you to visit www.syntheticturfcouncil.org.

Thanks for your interest in synthetic turf!
There are many reasons why synthetic turf
has become so popular.

A heightened sense of environmental
awareness prompts interest in its ability to
conserve billions of gallons of water each
year. Increased user requirements and
intense competition have given rise to a new
generation of synthetic turf systems that
replicate the look and playability of natural,
lush grass.

Athletes enjoy significantly more playing
time without the need for resource-intensive
maintenance. Homeowners, businesses,
parks, municipalities and government entities
use synthetic grass as an attractive landscape
solution that saves time, money and water.

The Synthetic Turf Council (STC) created this guide
to showcase the numerous uses and benefits of
synthetic turf. It features information about athletic
fields and the growing landscape and recreation
category, which includes parks, playgrounds,
homes, businesses, golf courses and more.
3 SM
532 of 1332
Athletic Fields
Popular, versatile solution
At the beginning of 2011, more than 6,000
synthetic turf fields were being used in
North America by a growing number of high
school and collegiate athletes playing and
practicing football, soccer, hockey, baseball,
rugby, lacrosse and many other sports.

About half of all NFL teams currently play their
games on synthetic turf and, since 2003, over
70 FIFA U-17 and U-20 World Cup matches have
been played on synthetic turf soccer fields.
4 SM
533 of 1332
Significant environmental benefits
Depending on the region of the country, one
full-size synthetic turf sports field saves 500,000
to 1,000,000 gallons of water each year. During
2010, between 3 billion and 6 billion gallons of
water were conserved through its use. According
to the EPA, the average American family of four
uses 400 gallons of water a day.1 Therefore, a
savings of 3 billion to 6 billion gallons of water
equates to the annual water usage of over 20,000
to 40,000 average American families of four.

For a multi-use field in Texas, where there is little rain, the water savings is much greater. School officials
with the El Paso Independent School District stated
that their 10 new synthetic turf sports fields will save more than 80 million gallons of water every year, or 8
million gallons of water per field.

Example:

In a July 7, 2007, article entitled “Grass Warfare,”
the Wall Street Journal states, “The pesticides
used in lawn-care products found on shelves
nationwide are considered legal by government
standards. But broader research on health risks
from such chemicals has prompted general
warnings. The EPA, which regulates pesticide
use, notes on its own website that kids are
at greater peril from pesticides because their
internal organs and immune systems are
developing.” 2
According to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources polluted
storm water run-off is the No. 1 cause of water
pollution in their state, with common examples
including over-fertilizing lawns and excessive
pesticide use.3
The EPA has identified run-off of toxic pesticides
and fertilizers as a principal cause of water
pollution. According to that federal agency,
approximately 375,000 acres of lakes, 1,900
miles of rivers and streams and 550 square miles
of estuaries in Florida are known to be impaired
by nutrient pollution, a primary source of which is
excess fertilizer.4
1 WaterSense, an EPA publication, www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/indoor.html 2 Gwendolyn Bounds, “Grass Warfare” (Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2007) 3 Stormwater FAQs, (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources website) 4 Public Q&A Index – Florida (EPA website)
The estimated amount of synthetic turf currently installed has eliminated the need for nearly a billion pounds of harmful pesticides and fertilizers, which has significant health and environmental implications.
5 SM
534 of 1332
Synthetic turf helps reduce noxious emissions.