According to the EPA, “lawn mowers emit high
levels of carbon monoxide, a poisonous gas,
as well as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides
that contribute to the formation of ground level
ozone, a noxious pollutant that impairs lung
function, inhibits plant growth and is a key
ingredient of smog.”5
The EPA also reports that
a push mower emits as much pollution in one
hour as 11 cars and a riding mower emits as
much as 34 cars.6
In 2010, a BASF Corporation Eco-Efficiency
Analysis, which compared synthetic turf
athletic fields with professionally installed and
maintained grass alternatives, concluded that
synthetic turf can lower consumption of energy
and raw materials and generation of solid waste
depending on field usage. BASF also found that
the average life-cycle costs over 20 years of a
natural grass field are 15 percent higher than the
synthetic turf alternatives.
A synthetic turf company and STC member has
forged a recycling partnership with Yellowstone
National Park to divert nearly 300 million plastic
bottles from landfills each year. The plastic
bottles will be recycled into select synthetic turf
products and backing for carpet.
Using synthetic turf can help environmentally
conscious builders and specifiers with LEED®
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) project certification from the U.S. Green
Building Council in the areas of Water Efficient
Landscaping, Recycled Content, Rapidly
Renewable Material and Innovation in Design.
“With synthetic turf, we use a lot less water. It used
to be 3 million gallons of water each year with
regular grass and now we probably use a tenth of
that amount.”
— Bob Sube, Director of Facilities and Construction,
Fillmore Unified School District, California
5 Your Yard and Clean Air, EPA Office of Mobile Sources, (Fact Sheet OMS-19, May 1996) 6 Small Engine Rule to Bring Big Emissions Cuts, (EPA News Release, April 17, 2007) Most of the 6,000-plus synthetic turf sports fields in use today use crumb rubber infill recycled from used tires, keeping more than 105 million tires out of landfills.
6 SM
535 of 1332
Increased playing time and safety
Synthetic turf can be utilized around 3,000
hours per year with no “rest” required, more
than three times that of natural grass. This
creates increased practice and play time as
well as the valuable flexibility to use your
field for other events. The opportunity to be
active and participate in sports is critical for
the fitness, mental health, self-esteem and
leadership development of youth.
It is a smart solution for playing fields that
have become unsafe from overuse or severe
climatic conditions. A grass field simply
cannot remain lush and resilient if it is used
more than three to four days a week, in the
rain, or during months when grass doesn’t
grow. Rain-outs are eliminated since highly
permeable synthetic turf quickly drains
excess water off the field.
7 “Very Positive Medical Research on Artificial Turf” (Turf Roots Magazine 01, pp. 8-10, FIFA) 8 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.
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.x 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.x
Traction, rotation and slip resistance, surface
abrasion and stability meet the rigorous
requirements of the most respected sports
leagues and federations. Some of the
published studies of the comparative safety of
synthetic turf include:
• A 2004 NCAA study among schools
nationwide comparing injury rates between
natural and synthetic turf; the injury rate
during practice was 4.4% on natural turf,
and 3.5% on synthetic turf.
• An analysis by FIFA’s Medical Assessment
and Research Centre of the incidence and
severity of injuries sustained on grass and
synthetic 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.” 7
• Three 2010 long-term studies published
by researchers from Norway and Sweden
comparing acute injuries on synthetic turf
and grass. The 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.8
These studies and many more, including the FIFA
comparative results of its exhaustive research, are
posted on the Synthetic Turf Council’s website
under Research & Latest Thinking.
Made with resilient materials for safety,
synthetic turf sports fields provide a
uniform and consistent playing surface.
7 SM
536 of 1332
Cost-effectiveness
According to Cory Jenner, a landscape
architecture professional in Syracuse, N.Y., the
cost of installing and maintaining a synthetic
turf sports field over a 20-year period (including
one replacement field) is over three times less
expensive per event than the cost of a grass
field over the same period of time. This is
because many more events can be held on a
synthetic turf sports field. This cost-per-event
advantage is validated by other authorities and
field owners.
Because synthetic turf can withstand so much
wear and tear, many schools rent their fields
to local sports teams and organizations to
bring in extra funding. At Cincinnati’s Turpin
High School, the field is rented 80 percent of
the evenings between January and October —
raising $40,000/year for the last two years from
rental fees.
“The synthetic field completely revolutionized our
sports program. We now have a multi-dimensional
facility with activities scheduled year-round, nearly
around the clock. Along with football, Newman
Field now hosts an incredible range of activities
— intramural sports, lacrosse sports, lacrosse
playoffs, soccer leagues, local high school events,
such as sports camps, cheerleading competitions
and much more.”
— Rob Coleman, Athletic Director, Whittier College,
California
8 SM
537 of 1332
Landscape and Recreation
Various applications
Beautifully landscaped synthetic turf can
often be installed in places where grass
can’t grow or be effectively maintained.
Applications include:
• Airport grounds
• Businesses/commercial developments
• Golf courses
• Highway medians
• Homes/residential communities
• Municipalities
• Parklands
• Pet parks
• Playgrounds
• Rooftops
• Tennis courts
• Closed landfills
Closed Landfill
9 SM
538 of 1332
Eco-friendly solution
From Disneyland and the Wynn Hotel to the
Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base and
your neighbor’s yard, thousands of homes,
businesses, golf courses and public spaces
have turned to synthetic grass to provide a
lush, attractive landscape solution that requires
minimal resources and maintenance.
Water conservation is a necessity. In March
2011, Wharton published a report about
the growing scarcity of water. It references
a prediction by the 2030 Water Resources
Group that by 2030 global water requirements
will be “a full 40 percent above the current
accessible, reliable supply.” Further, less than
3 percent of all available water is fresh and
drinkable. Underground aquifers hold almost
all the potable water available in liquid form,
and their rate of depletion more than doubled
between 1960 and 2000.9
Yet, the EPA states
that nationwide landscape irrigation is estimated
to account for almost one-third of all residential
water use, totaling more than 7 billion gallons
per day.10
Synthetic turf promotes greater utilization of
land, as you can do more with the same space
surfaced with synthetic turf than with natural
grass. Rooftops once deemed unusable for
high-rises and residential buildings can now
feature inviting green areas. Hotels that had
to restrict the use of the lawns for parties and
events can now schedule as many functions as
they can book.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority estimates
that every square foot of natural grass replaced
saves 55 gallons of water per year.11 If an
average lawn is 1,800 square feet, then Las
Vegas homeowners with synthetic turf could
save 99,000 gallons of water each year or about
$400 annually. In Atlanta, homeowners could
save $715 a year, not including much higher
sewer charges.
In its report, “Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States, 2009 Facts and Figures,” the
EPA estimates that 33.2 million tons of yard
trimmings were generated in 2009, the third
largest component of Municipal Solid Waste in
landfills.12 As yard trimmings decompose, they
generate methane gas, an explosive greenhouse
gas and acidic leachate.13
A June 2008 National Public Radio report called
“Water-Thirsty Golf Courses Need to Go Green”
reported “Audubon International estimates
that the average American golf course uses
312,000 gallons of water per day. In a place like
Palm Springs, where 57 golf courses challenge
the desert, each course eats up a million
gallons a day. That is, each course each day in
Palm Springs consumes as much water as an
American family of four uses in four years.”14
Impermeable synthetic turf is being used as
an economical and environmentally effective
solution for the closure of landfills, mine spoils
and hazardous sites. Among the many reasons:
it provides a perennially green landscape cover;
dramatically reduces construction and long-term
maintenance costs; improves stability; prevents
erosion; controls gas and odor; and reduces
leachate.
“The inclusion of synthetic grass in our landscape
has proven to be a smart choice for the resort and
Mother Earth. Since the conversion, we are able
to accommodate increased capacity and utilize a
greater percentage of grassy areas, while providing
an enhanced event experience, without damaging
the grass. This year, there will be 8 million gallons
of water conserved and our new synthetic lawn
allows us to eliminate the use of fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides on ground in close
proximity to the beach.”
— Rodrigo A. Carrillo, Project Manager,
Fontainebleau Hotel, Miami Beach, Fla.
9 “Valuing Water: How Can Businesses Manage the Coming Scarcity?” (Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, March 2011) 10 Outdoor Water Use in the United States, (EPA-832-F-06-005, August 2008) 11 Water Smart Landscapes Rebate (Southern Nevada Water Authority website) 12 “Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 2009 Facts and Figures,” (EPA Office of Solid Waste, EPA530-R-10-012, December 2010) 13 Frequent Questions about Yard Trimmings, (EPA website, December 2010) 14 Frank Deford, “Water-Thirsty Golf Courses Need to Go Green,” (National Public Radio, June 11, 2008) 10 SM
539 of 1332
Saves money
A growing number of tax credits and rebates
are available since synthetic turf conserves
water. For example, the Central Basin Municipal
Water District in California reports that Golden
State Water Company customers replacing their
irrigated areas with synthetic turf can save $1
per square foot, up to a $1,000 rebate.
Many public spaces, from government grounds and
highway medians to airport entrances, are turning
to synthetic grass for appealing, water-saving
landscape solutions that reduce operating and
maintenance expenditures.
Rooftop Garden
11 SM
540 of 1332
Promotes accessibility
Play areas are among the public spaces covered
by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
2010 Standards for Accessible Design (Sections
240, 1008) addresses play areas designed,
constructed and altered for children ages 2
and over in a variety of settings, including
parks, schools, childcare facilities, shopping
centers and public gathering areas. According
to the standards, “the surfaces that are
universally accessible and go beyond ADA to
be actually usable for children with disabilities
include artificial grass with rubber underneath.
The benefit of these surfaces besides the
accessibility is the maintenance. You do not
need to do daily maintenance to ensure that
safety is maintained.”15
Making recreation for the disabled as inclusive
as possible is a growing priority. “Inclusive
recreation is one of the fastest growing needs
in more and more parks and recreation agencies
across the United States,” said Elizabeth
Kessler, 2009-2010 National Recreation and
Park Association president, during the 11th
annual National Institute on Recreation Inclusion
conference in November 2010.
Synthetic turf creates more recreation
opportunities for people with disabilities and
physical challenges. Wheelchairs roll easily and
crutches won’t sink into park and landscape
surfaces, like those used by the Miracle
League nationwide to help youth with physical
disabilities play baseball.
Many retirement communities use extensive
amounts of synthetic turf for landscaping to
assist residents with mobility challenges. People
using wheelchairs, canes or walkers can easily
move across the turf. Because they are easy
to maintain, synthetic turf surfaces also offer
seniors the beauty of a decorative lawn without
the expense, labor and time of weekly yard work
during much of the year.
“Our new artificial lawn helps keep the dogs and
the facility clean and the yard will be better for
people in wheelchairs to use when practicing with
their dogs. We are so thankful to have this big
improvement.”
— Mo Maurer, founder and owner of Hawaii
Canines for Independence
15 Fact Sheet, Adoption of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design (ADA website) 12 SM
541 of 1332
Promotes safety and security
Local communities need accessible, versatile
play surfaces for its youth and people of all
ages. Parks and playgrounds that use synthetic
turf allow kids to be active year-round on safe
and resilient sports surfaces.
With synthetic turf, kids and parents don’t have
to worry about mildew and bacteria from wet
mulch, allergies associated with natural grasses
or other potential health irritants.
Owners of second homes that landscape with
synthetic turf don’t need a lawn maintenance
crew that may be tempted by a vacant home.
“In 2009 the City of Lakeland opened Common
Ground, our first inclusive playground featuring
unique play experiences for children of varying
physical and cognitive abilities. We utilized synthetic turf to cover over 25,000 square feet of play zones to
connect our barrier free play elements. The surface
creates the natural looking green environment so
critical to our design, provides barrier free safety
fall zones that protect our children, drains almost
instantly even after a tropical torrential rain and it
remains cooler than other safety surface options.
Maximizing our children’s outdoor play time,
Common Ground is a community dream come true.”
— Pam Page, Assistant Director of Parks &
Recreation, City of Lakeland Parks & Recreation
Department, Lakeland, Fla.
Common Ground Park, Lakeland, Florida
13 SM
542 of 1332
Community and lifestyle enhancement
By making continuous and safe play possible,
synthetic turf promotes a healthy lifestyle,
which enhances community well-being. It also
helps increase childhood fitness, an important
objective of the “Let’s Move!” program
championed by First Lady Michelle Obama, and
the NFL’s “Play 60” campaign.
Synthetic grass creates low-maintenance, petfriendly lawns that keep man’s best friend safe and healthy while controlling odors.
Homeowners remove the headaches of
ongoing lawn care, adding more leisure time
back into their already busy lives.
Synthetic turf can come in many colors, like
the orange, blue and yellow grass at the
Sunflower Preschool Playground at Barnett
Family Park in Lakeland, Florida.
Ready to get started with synthetic turf?
Visit our Online Buyers Guide and Member Directory at www.syntheticturfcouncil.org.
Pixie Hollow Fairy Garden, 2011 Epcot International Flower and Garden Festival, Disney World, Orlando, Florida
14 SM
543 of 1332
www.syntheticturfcouncil.org
544 of 1332
WHAT IS GEOFILL?
Geofill is an organic material primarily composed of coconut husks and fibers. This completely natural material is the leading alternative infill in the synthetic turf market. Coconut fibers are 100% organic and are a rapidly renewable resource. They also have excellent water retention qualities, this helps keep surfaces cooler. The presence of water in Geofill has been shown to keep synthetic turf fields up to 40 degrees cooler.
HOW DOES GEOFILL KEEP YOUR SURFACE COOL?
Geofill uses a process known as evaporative cooling to keep surfaces cooler. Evaporative cooling is the process in which liquid evaporates, decreasing the temperature of the surface.
For example, when athletes sweat moisture evaporates from the surface of their skin causing a cooling effect, which regulates body temperature.
Heat and evaporation are key components to understanding the evaporative cooling process. Water can hold a lot of heat, the heat stored in water is known as latent heat. As water absorbs enough heat, it changes from liquid to gas, it evaporates. When it leaves the surface as gas it takes the heat with it, resulting in decreased surface temperature.
Geofill uses its water retention capabilities and the evaporative cooling process to create a cooler more comfortable playing surface for athletes. As the intensity of the sun increases, the amount of water evaporating in Geofill increases, this causes more of the cooling effect to take place.
• When compared to crumb rubber infilled fields, fields with Geofill have been seen to be 40° F cooler than
traditional synthetic turf fields.
• Geofill does not absorb energy like other synthetic
alternative fields, therefore it is naturally cooler. Other composite or synthetic alternatives cannot provide
the cooling effect that Geofill can.
STANDARD RUBBER &
HYDRATED ORGANIC INFILL OVER THREE DAYS
866-703-4004 // www.shawsportsturf.com
545 of 1332
866-703-4004 // www.shawsportsturf.com
OTHER BENEFITS TO GEOFILL
Geofill’s water retention and cooling capabilities also help to maximize your water resources. Geofill systems are the only infill systems that are capable of holding 6 to 8 times its weight in moisture. This means Geofill’s water retention and cooling capabilities help to maximize your water resources and reduce your heat footprint.
While fields containing Geofill have the same natural ability to absorb and release moisture like natural soils and grass, Geofill does not require watering every day. In fact, many fields with Geofill rely solely on natural hydration to keep the fields biomechanical performance metrics at peak levels. For those who demand the highest performing surfaces on gameday, irrigation systems can be added to the design of the field, providing unmatched performance and a natural feeling only found on professional grass fields. Water savings from using Geofill will also reduce the cost of maintenance. 546 of 1332
Net Cost - Revenue Comparison
Cost Factor Notes Natural Grass
Natural Grass
with EPIC Artifical Turf
Construction Initial cost $ 200,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,662,500 Replacement Cost (10th yr) 50% of orig. const. cost $ - $ - $ 831,250 Annual Maintenance Includes sodded renovation $ 124,549 $ 130,704 $ 10,285 Annual Revenue No CPI $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 160,000
Revenue 20 years No CPI $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 3,200,000 YEAR Natural Turf Natural Turf
with EPIC Artificial Turf
Starting Cost $200,000.00 $ 1,800,000 $1,662,500
1 $124,549.00 $130,704.00 $10,285.00
2 $127,039.98 $133,318.08 $10,490.70
3 $129,580.78 $135,984.44 $10,700.51
4 $132,172.40 $138,704.13 $10,914.52
5 $134,815.84 $141,478.21 $11,132.81
6 $137,512.16 $144,307.78 $11,355.47
7 $140,262.40 $147,193.93 $11,582.58
8 $143,067.65 $150,137.81 $11,814.23
9 $145,929.00 $153,140.57 $12,050.52
10 $148,847.58 $156,203.38 $12,291.53
Replacement Cost $ - $ - $831,250
11 $151,824.54 $159,327.45 $12,537.36
12 $154,861.03 $162,514.00 $12,788.10
13 $157,958.25 $165,764.28 $13,043.87
14 $161,117.41 $169,079.56 $13,304.74
15 $164,339.76 $172,461.15 $13,570.84
16 $167,626.56 $175,910.38 $13,842.26
17 $170,979.09 $179,428.58 $14,119.10
18 $174,398.67 $183,017.15 $14,401.48
19 $177,886.64 $186,677.50 $14,689.51
20 $181,444.37 $190,411.05 $14,983.30
Total Costs Over 20 years $3,226,213.11 $4,975,763.42 $2,743,648.45 Total Revenues Over 20 Years $600,000.00 $600,000.00 $3,200,000 Total Overall Cost / (Reven $2,626,213.11 $4,375,763.42 ($456,351.55) 547 of 1332
Construction Costs Artifical Turf
Construction $1,250,000
Contingency $187,500
Project Management $125,000
Design and Development $100,000
Total cost for artificial turf project $1,662,500
548 of 1332
549 of 1332
550 of 1332
551 of 1332
552 of 1332
553 of 1332
554 of 1332
555 of 1332
556 of 1332
557 of 1332
558 of 1332
City of Glendale, Community Services & Parks
Field User Survey
Survey ran from February 23, 2021 through March 1, 2021 Findings - 60 Groups Responded to the Survey
1) Type of Organizations who Responded
Adult (18-59) Organization 5
Adult Baseball/Softball Group 2
Adult Club Soccer Organization (Semi-Pro) 3
Adults Group of Friends - having fun - staying active - socializing 4 College or University 3
Father/daughter for 14U softball 2
High School Club 1
Private Jr. High School or High School 7
Professional Sports Team 1
Senior Organization (60 and older) - having fun - staying active - socializing 1 Youth Baseball/Softball League 6
Youth Lacrosse 2
Youth Soccer Organization (Club Soccer) 3
Youth Soccer Organization (Non-Profit) 14
Youth Travel Ball Team (Travel Baseball) 6
Grand Total 60
2) Youth/Adult/Combined
17 and Younger 41
18 and Older 13
Combined - Depending on the teams 6
Grand Total 60
559 of 1332
3) What is primary purpose of the reservation? (Not referring to the sport).
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
4) Which fields do you most frequently reserve?
(Answer will exceed the number of participants who responded to the survey as they could pick multiple answers.)
City Wide Fields (ie. Dunsmore, Montrose, Pelanconi, Glorietta, Upper Scholl, Verdugo, Brand, etc.) 22
Glendale Sports Complex Field #1 (Artificial Turf) 17
Glendale Sports Complex Field #2 9
Glendale Sports Complex Field #3 6
Glendale Sports Complex Field #4 (Artificial Turf) 26
Glendale Sports Complex Field #5 (Artificial Turf) 26
Pacific Park Multi-Use Field (Artificial Turf) 12
5) How many days a week do your reserve a field from the City of Glendale? 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
6) Which type of field do your users prefer to play on? Artificial Turf 44
Natural Grass 15
Did Not Answer 1
560 of 1332
7) What is the primary determining factor when choosing which field to rent? Field's dimensions are appropriate for the age range and sport 17 Softball (All dirt infield, no pitcher’s mound) or
Baseball Field (Grass/Turf infield, pitcher’s mound) 11 Location 11
Type of Surface 9
Field is considered league's home field. 8
Consistency of surface - Grass is fine if no mole hills and consistent grass, No holes or dips 2 Accessibility to transportation and the freeway 1
Availability 1
Demographics – Equity and Accessibility to Sport – 1
8) What are the reasons why you don’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
9) Please complete this sentence: Most of the field time I rent is on_____________ Artificial Turf Fields 41
Natural Grass Fields 19
10) How many years have you been renting artificial turf fields from the City of Glendale? Over 20 Years 4
15 years 3
13 Years 1
12 Years 2
Over 10 Years 1
10 Years 4
8 Years 1
7 Years 1
6 Years 1
Over 5 Years 1
5 Years 4
4 Years 5
3 years 3
2 Years 3
1 Year 7
N/A Natural Grass User 19
561 of 1332
11) What is the total number of hours a week that you reserve an artificial turf field, from the City of Glendale?
Over 100 Hours per Week 1
30 Hours per Week 1
28 Hours per Week 1
20 Hours per Week 2
15 to 20 Hours per Week 1
17 Hours per Week 1
8 to 16 Hours per Week 1
15 Hours per Week 2
12 to 20 Hours per Week 1
12 Hours per Week 1
10 Hours per Week 2
6 to 8 Hours per Week 1
7 Hours per Week 1
6 Hours per Week 1
4 to 6 Hours per Week 2
5.5 Hours per Week 1
5 Hours per Week 2
3 Hours per Week 1
2 to 4 Hours per Week 2
2 Hours per Week 9
1.5 Hours per Week 2
1 Hour per Week 2
Depends on Availability 1
Only rent 3 to 4 times a year 1
It varies based on enrollment 1
Natural Grass User Did Not Specify 19
12) How many injuries has your group recorded that were directly a result of the artificial turf playing surface?
Never 29
5 or more times per calendar year 1
3 or 4 times per calendar year 2
2 or fewer times calendar
year 9
562 of 1332
13) Please identify the most common type of injuries reported by your users while playing on an artificial turf field?
None of the Above 23
Ankle Sprain 12
Slide Burns 11
Knee Injury - ACL 5
Concussion from hitting the surface. 3
Knee Injury - MCL (Torn Miniscus) 3
Staph Infections 1
Knee Injury - PCL or Other 1
14) How many years have you been renting natural grass fields from the City of Glendale? 45 Years 1
40 Years 1
26 Years 1
25 Years 4
15 Years 1
7 Years 2
5 Years 3
4 Years 1
3 Years 1
1 Year 1
Less than 1 Year 3
15) How many injuries has your group recorded that were directly a result of the natural grass playing surface?
3 or 4 times per calendar year 1
2 or fewer times calendar year 11
Never 7
16) Please identify the injuries your participants have suffered, if any, playing on the natural grass surface.
Ankle Sprain 11
Slide burns 6
None of the Above 6
563 of 1332
Exhibit L
Agency Name
Question 1
How many soccer fields?
Question 2
How many ballfields?
Question 3
How many soccer fields
use NATURAL turf?
Question 4
How many soccer fields
use ARTIFICIAL turf?
Question 5
What type of infill is used for
the artificial fields (soccer)?
Town of Corte Madera 2 1 2 0 N/ASunnyvale 15 12 15 0
Cork and sand is what we will be
using when our fields go online
County of Los AngelesPlanning & Development Agency, Dept of Parks & Recreation, 27 100 24 3 One has BrockFILL
Two have crumb rubber
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency (Santa Ana) 27 30 23 4 rubber and sandNorth Tahoe PUD 1 3 0 1 crumb rubberKerman Parks & Rec Department 12 6 12 0 N/AGreater Vallejo Recreation District 4 10 3 1 Recycled rubber and sandCordova Recreation & Park District 18 13 16 2 rubberCity of South Gate 9 12 9 0 ‐City of Santee 4 8 2 2 ‐City of San Mateo 6 12 4 2 One has virgin rubber infill;
the other has ground olive pits
City of San Gabriel 1 4 1 0 ‐City of San Carlos 7 9 6 1 corkCity of Roseville 57 49 55 2 rubberCity of Orinda 6 8 3 3 crumb rubberCity of Ontario 13 14 11 2 rubberCIty of Oceanside 15 20 15 0 N/ACity of Lynwood ‐ Recreation & Community Services 4 5 4 0 N/ACity of Long Beach 9 8 1 8 Cork and sand mixCity of Lakewood 0 24 0 0 ‐City of La Mesa 4 5 1 3 rubberCity of Huntington Beach 14 14 10 4 Mix of rubber and sandCity of Folsom 29 25 25 4 Crumb rubberCity of Chino 10 12 9 1 cool playCity of Bakersfield 14 70 14 0 We do not use artificial turfBurlingame 6 10 5 1 Cork/sandBurbank PnR 0 25 0 0 pumis like rock is bestbelmont 7 6 5 2 corkAuburn AreaRecreation and Park District 4 9 4 0 N/A 325 524 279 46
564 of 1332
Exhibit L
2 15
2727
1 12
4 18
9 4
6 1
7 57
6 13
15 4
9 0
4 14
29 10
14 6
0 7
4 1
12 100
30 3
6 10
13 12
8 12
4 9
49 8
14 20
5 8
24 5
14 25
12 70
10 25
6 9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Town of Corte Madera
Sunnyvale
County of Los Angeles…
Parks, Recreation and…
North Tahoe PUD
Kerman Parks & Rec Department
Greater Vallejo Recreation District
Cordova Recreation & Park District
City of South Gate
City of Santee
City of San Mateo
City of San Gabriel
City of San Carlos
City of Roseville
City of Orinda
City of Ontario
CIty of Oceanside
City of Lynwood ‐…
City of Long Beach
City of Lakewood
City of La Mesa
City of Huntington Beach
City of Folsom
City of Chino
City of Bakersfield
Burlingame
Burbank PnR
belmont
Auburn Area…
Question 2How many ballfields?
Question 1How many soccer fields?
565 of 1332
Exhibit L
279 fields
86%
46 fields
14%
Soccer Fields
Question 3How many soccer fieldsuse NATURAL turf?
Question 4How many soccer fieldsuse ARTIFICIAL turf?
566 of 1332
Exhibit L
2 15
24 23
0 12
3 16
9 2
4 1
6 55
3 11
15 4
1 0
1 10
25 9
14 5
0 5
4 00
3 4
1 0
1 2
0 22
0 1
2 3
2 00
8 0
3 44
1 0
1 0
2 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Town of Corte Madera
Sunnyvale
County of Los Angeles…
Parks, Recreation and…
North Tahoe PUD
Kerman Parks & Rec Department
Greater Vallejo Recreation District
Cordova Recreation & Park District
City of South Gate
City of Santee
City of San Mateo
City of San Gabriel
City of San Carlos
City of Roseville
City of Orinda
City of Ontario
CIty of Oceanside
City of Lynwood ‐…
City of Long Beach
City of Lakewood
City of La Mesa
City of Huntington Beach
City of Folsom
City of Chino
City of Bakersfield
Burlingame
Burbank PnR
belmont
Auburn Area…
Soccer Fields
Question 4How many soccer fieldsuse ARTIFICIAL turf?
Question 3How many soccer fieldsuse NATURAL turf?
567 of 1332
Exhibit L
Agency NameTown of Corte MaderaSunnyvale County of Los AngelesPlanning & Development Agency, Dept of Parks & Recreation, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency (Santa Ana)North Tahoe PUDKerman Parks & Rec DepartmentGreater Vallejo Recreation DistrictCordova Recreation & Park DistrictCity of South GateCity of SanteeCity of San Mateo City of San GabrielCity of San CarlosCity of RosevilleCity of OrindaCity of OntarioCIty of OceansideCity of Lynwood ‐ Recreation & Community ServicesCity of Long BeachCity of Lakewood City of La MesaCity of Huntington BeachCity of FolsomCity of ChinoCity of BakersfieldBurlingameBurbank PnRbelmontAuburn AreaRecreation and Park District Question 6
How many ballfields use NATURAL turf?
Question 7
How many ballfields use ARTIFICIAL turf?
Question 8
What type of infill is used for the
artificial fields (baseball)?
1 0 N/A
12 0 ‐
100 0 ‐
30 0 none
3 0‐6 0 N/A9 1 Recycled rubber and sand
10 3 rubber/sand12 0 ‐
8 0‐
10 2 Same as for soccer fields
3 1 Crushed fiber7 2 cork
49 0 N/A
5 3 crumb rubber
14 0 DNA20 0 N/A
5 0 N/A8 0‐
24 0 ‐
5 0 N/A
14 0 N/A25 0 N/A12 0 N/A70 0 We do not use artificial turf10 0 NA25 0 pumis natural infill is best 6 0‐9 0 N/A
512 12
568 of 1332
Exhibit L
512 fields
98%
12 fields
2%
Ball Fields
Question 6How many ballfields use NATURAL turf?Question 7How many ballfields use ARTIFICIAL turf? 569 of 1332
Exhibit L
1 12
100
30 3
6 9
10 12
8 10
3 7
49 5
14 20
5 8
24 5
14 25
12 70
10 25
6 9
000000
1 3
00 2
1 2
0 3
00000000000000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Town of Corte Madera
Sunnyvale
County of Los Angeles…
Parks, Recreation and…
North Tahoe PUD
Kerman Parks & Rec Department
Greater Vallejo Recreation District
Cordova Recreation & Park District
City of South Gate
City of Santee
City of San Mateo
City of San Gabriel
City of San Carlos
City of Roseville
City of Orinda
City of Ontario
CIty of Oceanside
City of Lynwood ‐…
City of Long Beach
City of Lakewood
City of La Mesa
City of Huntington Beach
City of Folsom
City of Chino
City of Bakersfield
Burlingame
Burbank PnR
belmont
Auburn Area…
Ballfields
Question 7How many ballfields use ARTIFICIAL turf?
Question 6How many ballfields use NATURAL turf?
570 of 1332
Exhibit L
Agency NameTown of Corte MaderaSunnyvale County of Los AngelesPlanning & Development Agency, Dept of Parks & Recreation, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency (Santa Ana)North Tahoe PUDKerman Parks & Rec DepartmentGreater Vallejo Recreation DistrictCordova Recreation & Park DistrictCity of South GateCity of SanteeCity of San Mateo City of San GabrielCity of San CarlosCity of RosevilleCity of OrindaCity of OntarioCIty of OceansideCity of Lynwood ‐ Recreation & Community ServicesCity of Long BeachCity of Lakewood City of La MesaCity of Huntington BeachCity of FolsomCity of ChinoCity of BakersfieldBurlingameBurbank PnRbelmontAuburn AreaRecreation and Park District Question 9
Do any of your natural turf fields (either baseball or soccer) use Environmental Passive Integrated Chamber System (EPIC)? NoNoNoNoNoNo
‐
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo
‐
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo
571 of 1332
Exhibit L
572 of 1332
Exhibit L
Agency NameTown of Corte MaderaSunnyvale County of Los AngelesPlanning & Development Agency, Dept of Parks & Recreation, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency (Santa Ana)North Tahoe PUDKerman Parks & Rec DepartmentGreater Vallejo Recreation DistrictCordova Recreation & Park DistrictCity of South GateCity of SanteeCity of San Mateo City of San GabrielCity of San CarlosCity of RosevilleCity of OrindaCity of OntarioCIty of OceansideCity of Lynwood ‐ Recreation & Community ServicesCity of Long BeachCity of Lakewood City of La MesaCity of Huntington BeachCity of FolsomCity of ChinoCity of BakersfieldBurlingameBurbank PnRbelmontAuburn AreaRecreation and Park District Question 10
Why did you choose the infill material
for the artificial turf fields?
Question 11
Are you planning additional
artificial turf fields?
n/a Maybe
Safety Yes
Environmental concerns, durability, reduced heat gain, traction Yes Combination of elasticity and firmness. Yes
The field is 12 years old and that was the technology then. The replacement field will Yes N/A No
Manufacturer suggested Yes
That is what was recommended by the manufacturer Maybe
‐ No‐ No
Our first field we used virgin rubber as the organic infills were not well developed at that time. As a policy, we would only use organic infill on any subsequent fields Maybe Architect recommendation. No
organic Maybe
Cost and playability. Yes
lower cost, lower maintenance, effectiveness of shock absorption No recommended by installer Yes
N/A MaybeN/A Yes
After an exhaustive study, it was determined to be the best for our sports needs. Yes ‐ No
Replacement of what was there previously, cost No
This was the material supplied by the installer for the fields. It allows for a softer field No It was recommended Yes
Due to the high temperatures in our area. No
N/A No
Commission wanted to stay away from rubber. No
the black rubber pellets are gross, and messy. the natural pumis cocanut is best Yes organic product, low maintenance Yes
N/A No
573 of 1332
February 8, 2021
To: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Glendale City Council
Onnig Bulanikian, Director, Community Services and Parks Peter Vierheilig, Project Director, Community Services and Parks David Jones, Sustainability Officer
Roubik Golanian, Interim City Manager
From: Glendale Environmental Coalition
Re: Artificial Turf in Park Capital Improvements, Fremont Park Master Plan We are writing to urge the city to thoroughly investigate natural grass alternatives to artificial turf for its sports fields, or delay installations until suitable alternatives to artificial turf are found.
Artificial turf is proposed for a total of five sports fields in the Community Services & Parks Department October 19, 2020, Capital Improvement Program Update. They are:
1. Fremont Park soccer field
2. Cerritos Park multi-purpose field
3. Wilson Middle School multi-purpose field
4. Pacific Park multi-purpose baseball/soccer field
5. Sports Complex multi-purpose baseball/soccer field
The city is proposing a synthetic grass product called “Shawgrass,” with a geofill infill made of coconut hulls and sand and a synthetic shock pad beneath.
The Glendale Environmental Coalition (GEC) understands that one of the primary concerns for Parks staff is playability—that the surface be able to withstand the wear and tear of constant use, including for soccer. We understand that staff have reported that the natural grass fields currently in existence do not meet those needs and exhibit excessive wear and tear. And, we understand the city wishes to expand use of those fields beyond current use.
Our position is that natural grass alternatives should be proposed (we suggest a model for exploration below—others may be in development and should be researched).
Artificial turf systems have detrimental environmental, program, and health impacts and should not be installed on Glendale sports fields.
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO ARTIFICIAL TURF FOR SPORTS FIELDS It is our position that an alternate natural grass system, such as the Environmental Passive Integrated Chamber System (EPIC) could be a viable alternative. EPIC is an efficient,
EXHIBIT M
574 of 1332
economical, and long-lasting natural grass system that combines passive subsurface irrigation, water storage, and filtration. This system encourages long root systems into a substrate of sand and subterranean water, greatly upgrading the health of the grass to be able to better withstand heavy use. The system promotes 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.
With good care and maintenance, it can be used indefinitely. Franklin Elementary is considering this system for their multi-purpose field. We are glad that the City has been researching this option and understand that the City is seeking conversations with organizations that have installed it for similar, high-use, athletic field purposes.
A synthetic product called “Netlon” is also available to integrate into the system to increase durability and is in use at SMU Soccer Field, University Park in Texas. This is one of the contacts that was given to the city as a reference for a high-use field. In addition to EPIC, we are hoping the city can find additional natural grass systems that provide similar benefits.
Monica Campagna’s August 11, 2020, comment letter on the Wilson Middle School Athletic Field, which contains details about the EPIC system, is linked for reference.
NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF ARTIFICIAL TURF
Artificial turf is a fossil fuel product with several negative impacts, summarized here and expanded upon below.
575 of 1332
Environmental impacts:
● It requires synthetic shock pads, which will eventually require landfilling. ● It requires virgin plastic to manufacture (top layer). ● It does not promote effective stormwater capture.
● It does not promote effective greywater use.
● It requires extra maintenance including watering.
● It sheds plastic fragments into storm drains.
Program impacts:
● It 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. ● 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. The proposed Shawgrass product is yet to be proven. “Turf burns” (resulting from a heated surface) are a known factor.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Product End-Life Disposal/Virgin Plastics: The lifespan of Shaw’s “Shawgrass” artificial turf is short, approximately 8 years. The proposed product is unique, in that when the surface needs to be replaced, Shaw will take the old surface and recycle it in the SoCal region into shock pad material. The shock pad being proposed, called “Nxtplay,” has a possible lifespan of 24 years. Despite this company’s recent innovation in artificial turf recycling, we see three problems: (1) The turf surface 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.
Stormwater Capture: Real grass allows rainwater to seep down into the soil. An EPIC type system not only absorbs that water very quickly through the sand base, but is able to store it for future use. The built-in storage within the system can be augmented and increased with the addition of a low-profile surge tank within the same footprint to capture even more stormwater runoff. Depending on the location and application, this water management system uses 50-85% less water than conventional irrigation methods. Synthetic turf is typically designed to allow SOME water to soak through, but it may not allow all rainwater to seep down into the soil, especially if the soil underneath becomes compacted, which would result in excess water streaming straight into the sewer. Artificial turf would not be able to make use of ANY stormwater capture for future use.
Greywater Use Opportunity: As mentioned, because EPIC is a true subsurface system, it can also be augmented to collect and reuse water from AC condensation lines, water fountains, and even bathroom sinks. All the water within the system is well below ground and does not pose a health risk. On the other hand, greywater cannot be used for artificial turf, as the water application is entirely above ground.
Reclaimed Water Opportunity: For either system, there are unique opportunities to use existing reclaimed water pipe infrastructure at 4 out of the 5 proposed athletic field sites. We 576 of 1332
understand that it is not a challenge to add demand to the system and that the system has sufficient capacity.
There is direct access to reclaimed water at the following proposed artificial turf locations:
● Wilson Middle School
● Sports Complex
● Cerritos Park
● Pacific Park
These have no direct access:
● Fremont Park - 700 feet away from Glenoaks purple line Maintenance Requirements, Costs and Resources: A well-maintained field is essential for safety and longevity. Maintenance costs for EPIC fields are lower than for artificial fields. EPIC fields must be aerated (athletic fields constructed with sandy soils, such as EPIC, are normally aerated three or four times per year) and damaged grass areas repaired (replaced). They need to be watered (with much less water than any other natural field—about 60% less) and fertilized. This is done by simply replenishing the underground stored water and adding fertilizer to this subterranean system as needed. This system does not have the water loss that often occurs with above ground sprayers. With good care and maintenance, an EPIC field has an indefinite lifespan.
A well-maintained Shawgrass field requires the following. (1) The field must be swept with a machine, once per week. (2) The field must be groomed with a towed apparatus after each 48 hours of play (approximately every 4-5 days). If this grooming is not done, the condition of the infill and overall feel of the field will be affected, and it will shorten the lifespan of the installment. (3) Artificial turf fields may require patching of damaged areas and drainage repairs. (4) Sanitation of the artificial grass is a particular concern. While contaminants like blood and saliva rinse off real grass, synthetic grass doesn't share this trait. Messes that could potentially be a health hazard need to be cleaned and the surface sanitized. (5) Though not required, it is recommended that the field be watered regularly to maintain the safest level of play, as the field will hold more moisture. If the field is not watered regularly, the turf will harden. (6) In the warmer months, to mitigate surface temperatures, Shaw recommends watering the field for 5-10 minutes each morning when the dewpoint has not been reached to satisfactorily moisten the field. If the field is watered in this way, it can cool approximately 20-30°F, which may in fact not be enough to cool the field to below 120°F or the cooling may not last the entire day. (7) Lastly, artificial turf surfaces need to be replaced after 8 years, on average.
When replacement and ongoing maintenance costs and required resources are considered, a well-maintained artificial grass playing field may compare unfavorably to that of a well-maintained EPIC natural grass field.
Microplastics shedding: Microplastics are also a concern, as artificial turf surfaces slowly degrade and shed fragments. These fragments are meant to be swept up with regular maintenance.Despite regular brushing that is meant to mitigate this concern with regards to crumb rubber infill (which is not being proposed for these new installations), fragments are still shedding into gutters. The following photos were taken in 2021 and show the current artificial turf installation at the Sports Complex shedding rubber infill into the Verdugo Wash. 577 of 1332
PROGRAM IMPACTS
Days of Use for Program Needs: Currently, we understand that the grass fields at Pacific Park and the Sports Complex are available approximately 275–325 days per year. This means 40–90 days that the fields are not in use as a result of maintenance closures to rest or refurbish the grass (from November to January in preparation for baseball season), rainy days, and days required for the field to dry.
The soggy field issues and grass refurbishment/rest time currently necessitated with natural grass fields would be mitigated by an EPIC installation. The system is designed to drain rapidly through a 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 incredible drainage means the field is ready to play on the day after a rain event. In fact, the manufacturer claims that depending upon the severity of the rain event, the fields may even be usable DURING rain. Furthermore, the standard arguments for artificial turf on sports fields in general are not applicable in Glendale. Artificial turf is often touted as offering 90 more days per year of use because of better drainage after rain (the equation being 30 days of rain plus 2 days of dry time typically required by normal grass fields per rain event), but Glendale doesn’t typically receive 30 rain days annually. Instead, we are much more likely to get 30 days during the year of 90°F-plus weather, making the artificial turf surface too hot to play on! In 2020, our city had 77 days over 90°F (10 were over 100°F) and only 15 days of rain. Also, unlike some cities, our rainy season is not during the summer when most sports are played. It is in December, January, and February when sports leagues are indoors.
Regarding closure for yearly maintenance, EPIC field regeneration is significantly quicker than regular fields and allows for easy replacement of only the portions of the field that are most damaged, with new sand-based sod. Usually sod will “grab” into the sand profile within the first 3 days or so (depending on climate), and within 7 days it will be completely grown in. Extra sod could also be grown along the sidelines of the field and could be readily used to replace damaged areas of the play field. Overseeding throughout the year can also help with 578 of 1332
maintaining the field and having more play days. One of the most important maintenance items for EPIC is aeration, which should be done on a regular basis to keep the system in optimum condition.
Field temperatures over 120°F are a health hazard. In 2002, Brigham Young University initiated a study after one of the coaches received burns on the bottoms of his feet through his tennis shoes while holding a football camp on a newly installed synthetic turf practice field.
This study showed the surface temperature of artificial turf is significantly higher than air or soil temperature. The hottest surface temperature recorded during this study was 200°F on a 98°F day. It is worth noting that while watering the field did have a cooling effect, the temperature rebounded within 20 minutes.
Scientists at Columbia University who analyzed satellite thermal images of New York City over two summers concluded that synthetic turf fields were up to 60 degrees hotter than grass fields. These high surface temperatures, combined with friction, cause “turf burns,” which differ from the minor scraping or scratching one may experience from other injuries. Because friction causes these types of skin abrasions, and this friction removes a layer of skin, it can be intensely painful and last for one or two weeks until the abrasion heals. From the Brigham Young study [emphasis added]: “When temperature reaches 122°F it takes less than 10 minutes to cause injury to skin. At this temperature the surface had to be cooled before play was allowed to continue on the surface. The surface is monitored constantly and watered when temperatures reach the maximum. The heat control adds many maintenance dollars to the maintenance budget.”
The City is proposing a Shaw infill product called Geofill, which claims a 20–30°F cooling effect from evaporation of the water-infused coconut husk/sand mix. A Shaw sales representative states, “For fields that use GeoFill or NaturalPlay, watering is not a requirement, but is recommended when the weather conditions are hot and dry, the field’s infill is dry, and the field is planned to be used. Fields in drier climates will see more frequent watering while more temperate/wetter areas will use less.” According to the manufacturer, the fields need about 1/16” of water to moisten the fill. It is possible that some of this moisture may occur naturally, if dew settles onto the field in the evening and in the early morning; otherwise, the turf will need to be watered for approximately 5–10 minutes each day.
Consider this. In 2020, Glendale experienced 77 days over 90°F (and 10 over 100°F). On a sunny, 90°F day, artificial turf surfaces (with non-Geofill infill) have had recorded temperatures of 165°F. Even if the potential cooling proposed by Shaw occurs (30°F), temperatures will STILL be well above natural grass high temperatures and often above the 120°F threshold for safe play. Finally, this brings up the environmental concern raised previously:
the amount of water needed to keep large fields properly cooled for safe play and the question of how long the moistening would retain those lower temperatures.
In contrast, real grass has a cooling effect when the air temperature is high, which artificial grass lacks. In 2011, a Penn State University study comparing surface temperatures during hot days found that the surface temperature of synthetic fields reached anywhere from 140°F to 170°F on summer days. The study found that natural grass rarely reached above 85°F on the same type of day.
579 of 1332
NATURAL GRASS SOLUTIONS ARE THE FUTURE
With respect to the first project on the Capital Improvement schedule, Fremont Park, we urge Community Services and Parks and the Glendale City Council to eliminate installation of artificial turf for the Fremont Park Soccer Field and search for a better natural grass solution.
We further urge Community Services and Parks and the Glendale City Council to put aside plans for artificial turf installations in the other four projects. We understand that standard grass fields are worn down quickly. The EPIC design may offer a solution, or others might become available. In the meantime, Glendale residents are struggling because of the COVID-19 disaster, and most of these projects were approved well before the crisis. We see informal soccer matches and youth sports teams on the fields as they exist now. Let’s make do with partial grass fields, or simply hold off on this significant expense for the five proposed fields until there is a good, natural solution that involves planting and maintaining grass.
We need to do without the “convenience” of a product that is expensive, impermanent, time-consuming to properly maintain, bad for the environment, ineffective in using stormwater and greywater, and potentially injurious to players, that gets dangerously hot, and that will ultimately end up in a landfill!
Glendale Environmental Coalition members
Alek Bartrosouf
Monica Campagna
David Eisenberg
Marie Freeman
Jackie Gish
Elise Kalfayan
Jennifer Pinkerton
Paul Rabinov
Coalition for Scholl Landfill Alternatives members
Joan Morris
Jack Walworth
Audry Zarokian
580 of 1332
Artificial Turf Comment Letter to Parks, Recreation &
Community Services and Sustainability Commissions
Subject: Proposed Artificial Turf Installations in Glendale Date: May 26, 2022
From:
Sierra Club Verdugo Hills Group [email protected] Glendale Environmental Coalition [email protected]
To:
Sustainability Commission: [email protected] Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission: [email protected] 613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206-4391
CC:
City Council
Mayor Ardy Kassakhian: [email protected]
Member Ara Najarian: [email protected]
Member Dan Brotman: [email protected]
Member Paula Devine: [email protected]
Member Vrej Agajanian: [email protected]
City Clerk Aram Adjemian: [email protected]
City Manager Roubik Golanian: [email protected]
Parks Department Head Onnig Bulanikian: [email protected] Sustainability Officer David Jones: [email protected] Sustainability Associate Elizabeth Harris: [email protected] Dear Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission and Sustainability Commission, We are writing to respectfully request you to vote NO on artificial turf fields in Glendale. Glendale is striving to be more sustainable and climate resilient, including transitioning to non-fossil landscaping equipment, moving to power the city with 100% clean energy, transitioning to a 100% carbon-free fleet, banning single use plastics at city facilities, and studying ways to mitigate the urban heat island effect through nature based solutions. Installing plastic grass takes us backward, not forward.
Synthetic turf presents many substantial negative impacts. It is made from virgin plastic. Blades and infill have unknown additives. There is migration of PFAS-laden microplastics off the field and into players’ bodies and into the environment. Artificial turf fields contribute to the heat island effect and degradation of open space. At the end of their lifespans, these materials will be sent to landfills. Injuries are a major concern. Synthetic turf, when cared for properly, does not save water. Three of the proposed sites pose an environmental threat to the schools they are next to.
There are reasonable alternatives that use natural grass.
Please find the details of each of these concerns in the following pages. 581 of 1332
Hazardous Substances
● Synthetic turf is made from polyethylene, with additional toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Proposed infill may have unknown additives.
● The five proposed fields with 273,506 ft
2 will use 136,753 lbs of polyethylene for blades and
backing. Equivalent to 46,838 gallons of petroleum, 10,940,240 plastic bags, or 157,265,950 plastic straws. Plastic bags and drinking straws were banned in Glendale. ● Synthetic turf blades, backing, shock pads, and even wood infill have shown a 100% positive test rate for PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).
○ Each year, 551-661 pounds of PFAS-laden microplastics migrate off each field via dust and rain water.
○ PFAS can cause reproductive (including a 47% decrease in fertility), developmental, liver, kidney, and immunological effects and tumors in laboratory animals. ○ Human epidemiology studies show an increase in serum cholesterol levels, effects on infant birth weight and the immune system, cancer, and thyroid hormone disruption. ○ PFAS exposure is bioaccumulative. This impacts multiple generations. ● Plastics contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals which can cause neurological and behavioral disorders, obesity, metabolic dysfunction, reproductive disorders, and cancer. ● At the end of the 8-12 year lifespan of each proposed artificial turf field, the 40,000 pounds of polyethylene and 400,000 pounds of infill on each field will be sent to a landfill. Though the current proposal claims recycling of the turf, it will eventually end in the landfill. Only the blade part of the turf is included in the recycling proposal.
○ A 2016 report prepared for the state of California on recycling and reuse of synthetic turf fields stated that no examples of an actual recycling project for all the components of a removed field in California could be found.
● Toxins, plastic fragments, and infill are washed out into the environment. They are carried off into storm drains rather than soaking into the ground. Frequent brushing and disposal can help prevent some of the larger fragments from entering storm drains, but this requires much worker maintenance and might not be practical. Also, the smaller fragments cannot be collected.
Degradation of Open Space
● Synthetic turf can reach temperatures in excess of 160°F, baking and compacting the underlying soil, killing all living organisms below it, and negatively impacting natural filtration, cooling, and carbon sequestration.
● Chemicals in the plastic surface leachate out and allow runoff containing a toxic load of mixed proprietary chemicals, as well as PFAS and heavy metals. ● Synthetic turf and microplastics have caused a decrease in bird populations and accumulation of microplastics on bees, negatively impact ocean habitats, and kill soil biomes. Some PFAS have also been linked to phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. ● Artificial turf does not adequately handle stormwater. Studies show that artificial turf generates more runoff than grass.
Player Injuries
● Blood and other biologics absorb into the soil and degrade naturally and quickly on grass fields.
T582heyofdo1332 not degrade on artificial turf without cleaning. ● Exposure to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA ) and other bacteria is a potentially life threatening consequence of dermal abrasions, known at turf burns, due to friction on synthetic turf. Inhalation and ingestion are additional exposure pathways. Glendale reported one such injury at the previous Parks Commission hearing. In an EPA study, 70% of synthetic fields had MRSA, an antibiotic-resistant life threatening infection.
● Lower-body injuries are significantly higher on synthetic turf, as are concussions and heat stroke.
These lower-body injuries can be far more severe. Glendale reported several severe injuries at the previous Parks Commission hearing.
● The NFL reports 103% more injuries on synthetic turf.
High Temperatures on Turf
● Synthetic turf absorbs heat the way asphalt does. It reaches 150°F easily and has been measured as hot as 200°F. Fields over 120° present a safety issue. ○ They contribute to skin burns, dehydration, overheating, and heat stroke. ○ In 2020, Glendale experienced 77 days over 90°F (and 10 over 100°F). On a sunny, 90°F day, artificial turf surfaces (with non-Geofill infill) have had recorded temperatures of 165°F. ● Synthetic turf causes heat island effect. They absorb heat from the sun all day and stay hot at night for several hours after the sun sets. They radiate heat and increase the ambient temperature causing a giant heat island in the immediate area and the surrounding neighborhood. ● Scientists at Columbia University who analyzed satellite thermal images of New York City over two summers concluded that synthetic turf fields were up to 60° hotter than grass fields. ● The entire surface area of heated plastic constantly off-gasses the greenhouse gases methane and ethylene.
Problems with Plant-based Infills
1 (PBI)
● Choosing PBI (plant-based infills) means using an expensive and controversial product that requires the use of carcinogens and many chemicals, in addition to being a respiratory risk. ● PBI infill turns to dust, and it also blows away and floats readily during storm events, fouling waterways with suspended solids (TSS) and nutrients, plus any binders/adhesives and biocides/antifungals, etc., used on the field, and increasing maintenance costs. ● 7,000 lbs of infill migrate out of PBI artificial turf fields and into the environment every year. This also puts athletes at higher risk for concussions unless the field is groomed, and/or more infill is added. ● Unknowns
○ The source of the infill is undisclosed and its chemical treatment in prior use is undisclosed ○ Longevity & play-performance of the newer non-tire infills is untested. ○ Numerous unknown issues have not been reliably measured, pro or con, by reliable, third party researchers or analysts.
○ No long-term study on the effects of children inhaling chemical-laced PBI has ever been conducted.
○ Plant based turf infills can contain pesticides and or PFAS. They have been implicated in increased toxic algae blooms.
● Coconut husk infill issues (Proposed by Shawgrass)
1 Without infill, artificial turf would lie flat and would be unplayable. Players are in contact with both the blades and the infill.
583 of 1332
○ Coconut husk is sourced primarily from Indonesia and India, where there is exceptionally poor regulation or quality control over pesticides or chemicals added prior to harvesting, during processing, or post processing.
■ The largest producer of the world’s coconuts is Indonesia, where the process of retting coconut husk is hastened by adding bacteria to the water the husks are left to soak in for several months, making it easier to extract the “coir.” ○ The extracted coir may be chemically treated to reduce the risk of bacterial spore growth. ■ Copper sulfate fungicide (used in combination with petroleum oil in the US), malathion, and chlorpyrifos and many others are used on coconut plantations. ○ Coconut husk infill floats, leading to a possible problem in heavy rain. ● This raises this critical question: are we willing to take the risk posed to our children by this non-uniform, variable toxic mix, over time, in high heat? Specific Problems with Shawgrass
● The field must be swept with a machine, once per week. ● The field must be groomed with a towed apparatus after each 48 hours of play. ● Sanitation must be done promptly using chemicals provided by Shawgrass. ● It is recommended that the field be watered regularly to maintain the safest level of play. If the field is not watered regularly, the turf will harden.
○ Shaw recommends watering the field 5-10 minutes each morning. If the field is watered in this way, it can cool approximately 20-30°F, which may in fact not be enough to cool the field to below 120°F, or the cooling may not last the entire day. A starting temperature of 157° (typical high temperature on hot days) cools to 127°-137°. ○ This is more water than natural grass requires. Natural grass does not require daily watering.
Environmental Justice
● Three of these sites are in South Glendale, already burdened by lack of open space and high levels of heat. These three sites are already 5-6° F hotter than North Glendale. ● These sites in South Glendale are already hard hit with pollution in all categories. ● This is particularly true in Fremont Park, where the proposed field would remove one third of the open green space. And although Fremont Park is just north of the 134 Fwy, it is accessible to homes south of the FWY. Much of the community utilizes this open space, especially as there are so few parks in South Glendale, a densely populated area with a large population living in apartments and condos that do not have yard space. This makes available open green space all the more in demand.
● As natural fields, these spaces would be available for other use at times when games are not played.
● A Site-by-Site Analysis of Pollution and Heat Conditions is located here.
Benefits of Real Grass
● Real grass is a sustainable carbon sink, absorbs carbon in the atmosphere, and improves air quality.
● Grass is a natural coolant. It cools the air around it and doesn’t absorb solar heat. It counteracts the heat island effects of hot asphalt and buildings.
584 of 1332
● The soil in which grass grows contains bio-diverse communities of organisms that are essential for clean water and air. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria and other live micro-organisms help soil break down harmful contaminants such as body fluid spills—an essential ecosystem service for a healthy environment.
● Grass is an important component of the water cycle. Rain is infiltrated through grass from the surface into the soil and then replenishes groundwater supplies. ● The staff report also says that “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°F.” Possible Alternatives
● Modifications to natural turf to increase longevity include changing the seed mix, use schedules, and blade height. Native grasses can be used.
● Add additional fields in Glendale (for example at the Sports Complex) to reduce the amount of field play on individual fields. Find ways to prioritize Glendale residents and leagues. ● Use a hydroponics style system, which can be supplied sub-surface with greywater and above or below surface with stormwater, such as the EPIC system or Permavoid System. These systems do not require regular (wasteful) overhead watering and promote much deeper root growth to allow for more field play. They have an indefinite lifespan with only components needing replacement, versus entirely new installations of artificial turf fields every 8-12 years. Do a pilot of one field. ● Apply for Measure W stormwater capture funding for natural grass athletic field projects that utilize greywater or captured stormwater. These funds can include money for ongoing maintenance costs, addressing a concern of our Parks Department. The Safe, Clean Water Program (Measure W) provides local, dedicated funding to increase water supply, improve water quality, and provide community enhancements throughout LA County. A mixed-use, natural grass athletic field utilizing a system that captures stormwater from the surrounding neighborhood and/or onsite, connected to an intake for a hydroponics-style system or for use with a typical natural grass field installation, would make an attractive grant proposal. The Fremont site, for example, could be assessed for the feasibility of capturing and using water from the Verdugo Wash for year-round watering. ● Use reclaimed water at all sites. Reclaimed water is already there at 4 of the 5 sites. Reclaimed water could be brought into Fremont if stormwater capture is not possible.
For more information
All resources used for the above points are referenced at:
docs.google.com/document/d/1ABYr6x7cGlhywuPmTtECm65CayAI8N9fKK4k9vIxXLM/edit?usp=sharing 585 of 1332
Site-by-Site Analysis of Pollution and Heat Conditions
In this document, please find information about the current conditions at each proposed site and specific concerns at each site. Information comes from CalEnviroScreen and Redlining and Exposure to Urban Heat Islands. Three of the sites (Fremont Park, Pacific Park, and Cerritos Park) are located in heat islands and pollution hot spots. These three locations in South Glendale have high proportions of minorities, renters, and low income populations who have limited access to green space.
Of particular concern, two sites are located at Title I schools (Cerritos Elementary, and Woodrow Wilson Middle School) where the fields are the primary green space. Schools that have mainly impervious surfaces that feel like prison campuses contribute to: higher temperatures, worse air quality, more bullying, lower test scores, disconnect with nature, and higher stress. Campuses that envelope students and staff with green spaces do the opposite. They relieve stress and enhance mental health, they encourage play, they cool surroundings, they lower energy costs for cooling buildings, they reduce schoolyard and local area flooding, they enhance social-emotional functioning and pro-social and cooperative behavior, they lead to improved academic performance and they offer a chance for children to experience and connect with nature. 586 of 1332
Pacific Park:
4.5 °F higher than citywide average
77% impervious surface
4% tree covered
Minority: 56%
Households Below Poverty Level: 20%
Specific Concerns re installing Artificial
Turf at this location:
● Site is in South Glendale, already hit hard
with lack of open space and high levels of
heat. Site is already 6-9° F hotter than
North Glendale. Adding a synthetic turf
field will increase site temperatures
significantly.
● Site is already hard hit with pollution in all
categories.
● As natural grass fields, these spaces
would be available for other uses at times
when games are not played.
587 of 1332
Cerritos Park:
Data unavailable but similar to Pacific
Specific Concerns re installing Artificial
Turf at this location:
● Site is in South Glendale, already hit hard
with lack of open space and high levels of
heat. Site is already 6-9° F hotter than
North Glendale. Replacing the grass field
with a synthetic turf field will increase site
temperatures.
● Site is already hard hit with pollution in all
categories.
● Cerritos Elementary is a Title 1 School
with 486 K-6 students. 83% of students
are from low-income families.
● As a natural grass field, this space would
be available for other use at times when
games are not played.
588 of 1332
Sports Complex:
Data Unavailable.
Nearby areas show about 6 °F cooler than
city average.
Specific Concerns re installing Artificial
Turf at this location:
● There is an increased fire risk
● Plastics easily shed into the Verdugo
Wash
589 of 1332
Fremont Park:
3 °F higher than citywide average
72% impervious surface
5% tree covered
Minority: 42%
Households Below Poverty Level: 20%
Specific Concerns re installing
Artificial Turf at this location:
● The proposed field would remove one
third of the open green space.
● Site is in South Glendale, already hit hard
with lack of open space and high levels of
heat. Site is already 5-8° F hotter than
North Glendale. A massive synthetic turf
field will increase site temperatures.
● Site is already hard hit with pollution in all
categories.
● As a natural grass field, this space would
be available for other use at times when
games are not played.
590 of 1332
Wilson Middle School:
1 °F cooler than city average
49% impervious surfaces
9% tree covered
Minority: 44%
Households Below Poverty Level: 18%
Specific Concerns re installing Artificial Turf
at this location:
● The sports field is the green space at this
campus. There is hardly anything else
impervious at this site.
● This is a Title 1 School with 1039 students.
63% of students are from low-income families.
● GUSD limits outdoor play when temps exceed
92 °F. Replacing current grass with massive
artificial turf install will increase site temps.
● Synthetic turf fields will decrease the ability for
this site to capture stormwater.
● Campus is 300 ft from 134 Freeway.
● Please notice that the current grass field is
the largest greenspace in this area of the city:
591 of 1332
Artificial Turf Resources
● May 26, 2022 Letter to Parks and Sustainability Commissions:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DL3ZmRzXq6_FvGwJCqiDdn6uUDmuoOsd/view?usp=sharing ● Letter from the Glendale Environmental Coalition for previous Parks Commission meeting:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=2940&type=2 ● Compilation of Turf issues: https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/ ● New Jersey Work Environment Council Fact Sheet: Be Aware of Artificial Turf Hazards https://njwec.org/PDFs/fact-artificialterf.pdf
Injuries
● Synthetic Turf Injuries:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11B7TKTm4yfaRmOKIR-Z-zwH08GfrETa8URG7-b1yCrk/edit ● Documents with links to articles on Heat Injuries and Death on Turf https://docs.google.com/document/d/14TuEbMhFSfu9qfBb7X-IJOw3cj-YgTvC07z7lg40yQ4/edit ● Types of knee injuries:
https://ryortho.com/breaking/ncaa-artificial-turf-can-increase-knee-injury-risk/ ● Turf injuries: https://www.center4research.org/injuries-related-to-artificial-turf/ ● Turf injuries:
https://sportsfieldmanagementonline.com/2020/01/03/natural-grass-and-synthetic-turf-injury-re search/11008/
● Turf injuries: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0363546519833925 ● Why artificial turf may truly be bad for kids:
https://theconversation.com/why-artificial-turf-may-truly-be-bad-for-kids-72044 ● Injuries: https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2020/07/03/athletes-injuries-artificial-turf/ ● National Library Of Medicine on Turf injuries: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30452873/ ● Liver disease from PFAS:
https://www.consumerreports.org/liver-disease/report-links-pfas-exposure-to-liver-damage-a222 2667414/
● More Liver Damage:
https://keck.usc.edu/synthetic-forever-chemicals-known-as-pfas-linked-to-liver-damage/ ● Synthetic Turf Hazards: https://www.nontoxiccommunities.com/synthetic-turf.html Recycling
● Turf Recycling: https://peer.org/false-artificial-turf-recycling-claims-ripped/ ● The Daily Pile-up of Artificial Turf:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/artificial-turf-fields-are-piling-no-recycli ng-fix/603874/
Cooling & Maintenance
● Water Requirements for Cooling Artificial Turf:
592 of 1332
○ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_8-HwZjhrN78RelU9roKYArcN5ZsAcxP/view ○ https://www.parksandrecbusiness.com/articles/2016/10/part-2-watering-synthetic-turf ● Shawgrass Maintenance webpage:
https://www.shawgrass.com/resources/mantenance-guidelines/ ● Turf watering requirements:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10C27yIq3c3oywdSWtXzGn8rj_wXI3-fA3Wnut_1gpqA/edit ● Failing Turf Fields in S Cal:
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2018/06/19/artificial-turf-fields-are-failing-across-southern-calif ornia-costing-millions-heres-why/
Infill
● Article on Plant Based Infill:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1MScmC4TVuWXtGLnJvy1R_xBOV2SMT3ue/edit?filetype=msword PFAS and Other Contamenants.
● PFAS in building materials: https://greensciencepolicy.org/docs/pfas-building-materials-2021.pdf ● PFAS:
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/new-studies-show-pfas-artificial-grass-blades-and-bac king
● Airborne Particles:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345093395_A_pendulum_rig_study_on_airborne_trans mission_and_migration_of_particles_from_artificial_football_turf ● Lead in turf particles (an issue with older fields):
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources/soil.htm?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fw ww.cdc.gov%2Fnceh%2Flead%2Fprevention%2Fartificialturf.htm ● The Princeton Environmental Commission’s Artificial Turf - Not A Sound Financial, Environmental, or Just Investment:
https://www.princetonnj.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9205/Princeton-Environmental-Commission -Artificial-Turf-Report-Dec-2021-PDF-?fbclid=IwAR203Pxxn_Fr3HaQPHYXi12IjstvBlw2gfkIObDlvPBa WFkH-8N7Mq1bQvo
● Wave of Deceptive Marketing PFAS Claims Raises “Personal and Advertising Injury” Coverage Issues: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/wave-of-deceptive-marketing-pfas-claims-3397327/ ● EPA Roadmap to reduce PFAS:
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-roadmap_final-508.pdf ● Environment and Human Health, Inc. Summary and links to turf scientific articles https://njwec.org/PDFs/fact-artificialterf.pdf
● Calculations for the petroleum content of proposed and existing fields:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14xBYeh49znxRvPmQGXxgZ8wHOwUTmo3-L12RESJaeks/ed it?usp=sharing
593 of 1332
Heat Island Effects
● Heat island effects:
https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2019/may/synthetic-sports-fields-and-the-hea t-island-effect/
● Synthetic Turf Heat Studies:
https://aces.nmsu.edu/programs/turf/documents/brigham-young-study.pdf ● Redlining and Exposure to Urban Heat Islands interactive map:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/73e329457b6644e7aeff13ecce43c8d8 ● CalEnviroScreen 4.0 interactive map:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/11d2f52282a54ceebcac7428e6184203/ ● The degree of flammability for an artificial grass surface system:
https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2018/20/e3sconf_infraeko2018_00038.pdf Environmental Justice Issues at the Glendale Locations
● Site-by-site Analysis of Pollution and Heat Conditions:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ca3zJErlAwURQkOsA2V0GMZyDLfYfjKAOeB1FodWRhE/edi t?usp=sharing .
● Greening Schoolyards Advocacy Toolkit:
https://www.childrenandnature.org/resources/green-schoolyards-advocacy-toolkit/ ● Why Green Schoolyards: https://www.greenschoolyards.org/introarticles ● Why Green a Schoolyard: https://www.angelenosforgreenschools.com/why-a-green-schoolyard Sierra Club Positions
● San Diego Chapter of Sierra Club Position Statement:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ds0qZVk1oJ_twAePawsIpLFuB7uCau-b/view?usp=drivesdk ● Long Island Sierra Club Group Statement: https://www.lisierraclub.org/synthetic-turf ● Loma Prieta Sierra Club Statement:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bga-mqY8KScqHRFJodkJfvTt4DcEUaABEPBUFd_DLnE/edit ● Massachusetts Sierra Club Statement:
https://www.greensherborn.com/news/massachusetts-sierra-club-addresses-sherborns-artificial-t urf-proposal
● Maryland Sierra Club Statement:
https://www.greensherborn.com/news/massachusetts-sierra-club-addresses-sherborns-artificial-t urf-proposal
Alternatives to Artificial Turf
● Native sods https://www.deltabluegrass.com/sod-products/california-native-sod/ ● Sod Blends and Varieties: https://www.deltabluegrass.com/sports-turf/sod-blends-varieties/ ● EPIC System https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MYPL9SCBuGv58H7zoUUhU4xAaYtCBVpW/view ● Maximizing the Durability of Athletic Fields:
https://www.cityofportsmouth.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/AG-726_Maximizing_the_Durabili ty_of_Athletic_Fields.pdf
● Non-toxic Communities article on Organic Athletic Fields with links:
https://www.nontoxiccommunities.com/organic-athletic-fields.html 594 of 1332
● National Turfgrass Evaluation Program:
https://www.nontoxiccommunities.com/organic-athletic-fields.html ● Natural Grass Advisory Group: https://www.deltabluegrass.com/sports-turf/sod-blends-varieties/ ● For LA County, The Safe Clean Water Program can help with stormwater capture:
https://safecleanwaterla.org/about/vision-mission-goals/ ● Stormwater Comparisons:
http://www.pugetsoundstormwater.com/2021/04/new-study-shows-artifical-turf.html Comment Letters and News Articles
● Letter from Clean Water Action:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gbll0nekHKJqmHnUCpLWA6S2y3LT6o3j/view?usp=drivesdk ● Comments from a Soccer Player:
https://mastersoccermind.com/the-reason-why-all-soccer-players-prefer-grass-over-turf/ ● Vista Letter:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1uoXUrUxUorJywXORqsdAmIZighVZ6nJv/edit?filetype=msword ● GEC Rebuttal to Parks Department report:
https://gec.eco/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Athletic-Field-Surface-GEC-Followup-Input-RE-Sta ff-Report.pdf
● Debunking Myths Around Artificial Turf:
https://gvt.net/blog/debunking-myths-around-artificial-turf/ General Notes
Some of the following notes refer to rubber tire infill. While not in the current proposal, this infill exists at the sports complex in Glendale. There are abundant links for more information.
Climate/Pollution impacts
Polyethylene is the most highly produced plastic globally and the most frequently discarded material.
Methane and ethylene are emitted at 2x and 76x more readily from polyethylene, respectively, in air than when in water. Methane traps 90% more heat than carbon dioxide.
Synthetic turf is made from polyethylene, with additional toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Each regulation sized plastic soccer field (approximately 80k square feet), constitutes 500k pounds of plastic waste: 40k pounds of blades and backing, over 400k pounds of infill (2-9 pounds per square foot); A regulation sized field requires 40,000 crumbed used tires. Each year, 1.5 to 5 metric tons (pg 24) of microplastic infill migrate off field (requiring replacement to maintain safety), and 551-661 pounds of PFAS laden degrading microplastic blades, per field- lost to air, water and soil. Used tire crumb migration off of playing fields have been found in waterways around the world (Hong Kong, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Norway). The industry is installing 3-4 new plastic fields daily across the country.
Based on information from Waste Management, each 80,000 square foot plastic turf field (20 tons of plastic waste) represents 13,700 gallons of petroleum based oil, exclusive of any rubber infill. At 3 to 4 installations per day, that would be 41,100 to 54,800 gallons worth of petrochemical based synthetic turf rolled out daily in the US. Each synthetic regulation sized, field is the equivalent of 3.2 million plastic bags or 46 million straws: 9.6 to 12.8 million plastic bags or 138 to 184 million plastic straw equivalents 595 of 1332
every 3-4 days. Used tire crumb infill adds more petrochemical waste. Each car tire requires 7 gallons of oil to manufacture while truck tires require 22 gallons.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) study on synthetic turf is not complete. A 2019 draft report confirms 126 chemicals in used tire crumb infill; Yale researchers (2019) identified 306 chemicals in crumb: 52 known carcinogens; another 6 suspected or presumed carcinogenic by both the US EPA and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA); additional 197 considered carcinogenic a priori. Researchers in the Netherlands (2021) revealed they identified an additional 46 carcinogenic chemicals. The US EPA Federal Research Action Plan (FRAP) on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds (FRAP 1), found 355 chemicals. Korean researchers (2020) found children who play on crumb rubber are 10 times more likely to develop cancer than those who play on soil.
Tire crumb is estimated to be 28-30% of the microplastic pollution in our oceans and 50% of the microplastic pollution in urban areas. In December 2019, researchers discovered the antiozanant N-1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD) in tires converts to 6PPD-quinone which has resulted in a 40-90% decline in the coho salmon population. Tire crumb in playing fields and playgrounds are contributing factors.
Plant-based turf infills can contain pesticides. One has been found to contain per and polyfluoroakyl substances (PFAS). They have been implicated in increased toxic algae blooms.
At the end of their useful life (8 year average), 400,000 pounds of infill (used tire crumb in ~97% of existing fields) and 40,000 pounds of plastic carpet remain. For the current 30,000 playing fields in the US, that’s 12 trillion pounds of infill and 1.2 billion pounds of plastic carpet that continues to pollute for the approximately 450 years it takes to decompose.
Environmentally Hazardous Substances:
Synthetic turf blades, backing, shock pads and even wood infill have shown a 100% positive test rate for total fluorine, the gold standard for testing products for the presence of PFAS, a family of 12,039 “forever” chemicals (US EPA). These chemicals leachate into soil, waterways and oceans. They cross human placentas, enter human breast milk, bioaccumulate in humans, wild and aquatic life. PFAS in Synthetic Turf is in the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) current work plan (pg. 14).
Environmental Justice(EJ)/Social Justice (SJ)
Few communities can afford the average $1.2 million for a single synthetic turf field installation. They are often partially funded by State Parks and Recreation and Federal Grants, which are often awarded to EJ/SJ communities preferentially. EJ/SJ frequently lack cooling green space and are further subjected to heat islands created by impermeable, over heated surfaces such as synthetic turf. Exposure to the toxic chemicals in plastic play surfaces presents elevated health risks in communities where access to care is difficult. The added costs of maintenance, safety testing, annual replacement of lost infill and ultimately replacement and landfilling add to the burden. Illegal dumping and increased expense to the community can all have irreversible consequences.
At a cost of up to 4.3 times more than natural grass over the 8 years of a typical warranty, synthetic turf is a very poor financial investment.
596 of 1332
Harm to human health:
PFAS can cause reproductive (including a 47% decrease in fertility), developmental, liver, kidney, and immunological effects and tumors in laboratory animals. Human epidemiology studies show a increase in serum cholesterol levels, effects on infant birth weights, the immune system, cancer, and thyroid hormone disruption. Because they are bioaccumulative, PFAS exposure can impact multiple generations.
Plastics contain endocrine disrupting chemicals, such as PFAS, and chemicals used as plasticizers, flame retardants, colorants, UV stabilizers, biocides, heat stabilizers, antioxidants, lubricants, and foaming agents, catalysts, Phthalates and more. Such chemicals can cause neurological and behavioral disorders, obesity, metabolic dysfunction, reproductive disorders and cancer. Tire products (i.e. crumb, mulch) are plastics. Even at low doses, chemicals can act synergistically to cause disease and cancer.
Exposure to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA ) and other bacteria is a potentially life threatening consequence of dermal abrasions, known as turf burns, due to friction on synthetic turf.
Inhalation and ingestion are additional exposure pathyways. Lower body injuries are significantly higher on synthetic turf, as are concussions and heat stroke
Harm to wild and aquatic life; loss of biodiversity
Synthetic turf and microplastics have caused a decrease in bird populations, accumulation of microplastics on bees, negatively impacts ocean habitats, and kills soil biome. Some PFAS have also been linked to phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. 597 of 1332
May 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]
598 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 GENERAL METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................... 6 SCORING RESULTS SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 15 ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18 HUMAN HEALTH ................................................................................................................................................................... 52 COMMUNITY............................................................................................................................................................................ 65 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................................ 76 599 of 1332
May 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.
600 of 1332
May 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 601 of 1332
May 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.
602 of 1332
May 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 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. 603 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 7
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
604 of 1332
May 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
Figure 3: field location for Pacific Community Center
Figure 5: field location for Glendale Sports
Complex
605 of 1332
May 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
Figure 8: aerial view of Fremont Park
Figure 7: field location at Fremont
Park
606 of 1332
May 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 607 of 1332
May 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).
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
608 of 1332
May 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] Figure 10: Life Cycle Assessment
609 of 1332
May 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 Figure 11: Triple Bottom Line
610 of 1332
May 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.
611 of 1332
May 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 612 of 1332
May 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 3.579 2.882
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 3.533 2.886
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.
613 of 1332
May 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. 614 of 1332
May 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
615 of 1332
May 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)
616 of 1332
May 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. 617 of 1332
May 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. 618 of 1332
May 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. 619 of 1332
May 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. 620 of 1332
May 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.
621 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 25
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.
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 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. 622 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 26
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 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 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. 623 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 27
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 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.
624 of 1332
May 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 Ordinance 18 . 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.
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
625 of 1332
May 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/. 626 of 1332
May 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
627 of 1332
May 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.
628 of 1332
May 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.
629 of 1332
May 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.
630 of 1332
May 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/. 631 of 1332
May 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. 632 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 36
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 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
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/.
633 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 37
● City of Glendale Commission Staff Report - Natural vs Artificial Turf ○ Exhibit F - GeoFill Infill
○ Exhibit C - EPIC Turf Management
○ Exhibit H - LCA
● 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.
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. 634 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 38
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 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
635 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 39
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 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 636 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 40
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.
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.
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.
637 of 1332
May 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. 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.
638 of 1332
May 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. Artificial turfgrass does not require application of pesticides or herbicides and thus do 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 639 of 1332
May 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. 640 of 1332
May 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. 641 of 1332
May 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.
642 of 1332
May 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 Geofill fields would more likely match the maximum temperatures reached by SBR fields.
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 643 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 47
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 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.
644 of 1332
May 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
645 of 1332
May 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.
For these reasons, natural grass fields that are available to Glendale score a 3 for water percolation, filtration, and retention.
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. Thus, the score for the synthetic fields was only increased by a partial point, weight by area of the fields, to accurately represent the fact that only one of the three fields will facilitate groundwater recharge.
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: soil percolation, filtration, and retention are largely limited.
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.
646 of 1332
May 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.
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.
647 of 1332
May 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 and synthetic turfgrass fields are rated a 1, as they do not sequester carbon.
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 2.16 2.16
Connection to Nature 5 2 2
Soil Carbon
Sequestration
4 1 1
Average Score 4.4 1.63 1.43
648 of 1332
May 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.
649 of 1332
May 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”. 650 of 1332
May 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
651 of 1332
May 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. 652 of 1332
May 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. 653 of 1332
May 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. 654 of 1332
May 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. 655 of 1332
May 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
The natural grass fields were assigned a score of 2 due to associated mowing and its anticipated diesel fuels. If the maintenance teams were to make a transition to electric-powered equipment for natural grass field maintenance, the score reflected above would increase for natural grass to a 3 or 4, closer to the performance score for Geofill artificial turfgrass. The synthetic fields were both 656 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 60
assigned a score of 4. Although the literature review found no detectable levels of concern, the chemicals in crumb rubber and potential dust mitigation measures mentioned in Geofill product brochures warranted scores that leave room for improvement.
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. ● 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. 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. 657 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 61
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
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
658 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 62
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
(2).pdf
TLV: None established
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
2.5ppm FDA limit
16262_SST_Natural
Play_Allergen_1Shee
ter_042221.pdf
659 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 63
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. 660 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 64
Results
Impact Natural Turfgrass Geofill Artificial
Turfgrass
SBR ‘Crumb Rubber’
Turfgrass
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. 661 of 1332
May 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
662 of 1332
May 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. 663 of 1332
May 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
43 On 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. 664 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 68
Sports Complex #4 Artificial $161,596
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.
665 of 1332
May 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). 666 of 1332
May 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
667 of 1332
May 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
668 of 1332
May 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.
Additionally, 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 slight advantage in scoring for artificial turf with geofill is reflective of a potential reduction in halted play from heat exposure.
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.
669 of 1332
May 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:
670 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 74
1. Tree planting and native/adaptive landscaping at or near fields, or dispersed across publicly 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)
671 of 1332
May 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. 672 of 1332
May 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
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
673 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 77
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
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
674 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 78
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
675 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 79
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
Scholl Ball Field #3 Natural 2,617
Verdugo Ball Field Natural 1,097
676 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 80
Appendix C - Safety Data Sheets and Material Composition Reference Documents
Legion NXT Turf
677 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 81
678 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 82
679 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 83
680 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 84
681 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 85
NaturalPlay
682 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 86
683 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 87
684 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 88
685 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 89
686 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 90
687 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 91
688 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 92
689 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 93
NXTPlay Pad
690 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 94
691 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 95
692 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 96
693 of 1332
May 2022
City of Glendale - Turf LCA & 3BL Analysis 97
694 of 1332
Joint Special Meeting Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission
June 2, 2022
Public Comments Document 1
Public comments regarding the Thursday, June 2, 2022 Join Special Meeting Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation & Community Services.
Comments from the public regarding agenda item 3. a. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Triple Bottom Line (3BL) Assessment Natural Turf vs. Artificial Turf.
EXHIBIT 3
Summary of Written Public
Comments Received
695 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: D Woelke <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 2:16 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel; Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Adjemian, Aram; Golanian, Roubik; Bulanikian, Onnig; Jones, David; Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission
Subject: Proposed synthetic turf playing fields. For the public record CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Mayor Kassakhian, City Council Members, Commissioners and City Manager Golanian:
I am writing you today as a member of the Board of Directors of Safe Healthy Playing Field, Inc., a 501-c-3 with international membership. You may find our letter regarding synthetic turf playing fields HERE.
In addition, I would ask that you carefully weigh the following with a particular eye toward your fiduciary responsibilities to youth and the broader community of Glendale.
Sustainability:
Defined, sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The UCLA Sustainability Committee notes: “In simplest terms, sustainability is about our children and our grandchildren, and the world we will leave them”.
How, then, does one consider a single use consumer product (so designated by the CA Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Pickup) that:
Requires 685 gallons of petroleum based oil to manufacture 2k pounds of plastic
Is not recyclable
Produces 40k pounds of toxic and carcinogenic plastic waste per 80k square foot field (blades and backing alone)
Creates massive heat islands far greater than their actual footprint 696 of 1332 2
Releases ever increasing amounts of methane and ethylene for the 450+ years it takes to decompose
Contains chemicals that cause significant human and environmental health risks, that are bioaccumulative and create negative health and environmental impacts for generations
…a sustainable product?
Sustainability would be the creation of a natural turf management program where students can learn to sustainably grow and manage a truly sustainable product while also transitioning into a sustainable career (many in the field have PhDs). Natural grass is sustainable. Plastic turf is a linear product and does not fit the definition of sustainable.
Climate change is a game changer:
Synthetic turf is made from polyethylene or a polyethylene/polyurethane blend. Polyethylene is the most highly produced plastic globally and the most frequently discarded material. Methane and ethylene are emitted at 2x and 76x more readily from polyethylene, respectively, in air than when in water. Methane traps 90% more heat than carbon dioxide. There is no Planet B.
A major microplastic contributor:
Made from the same pellets as household and commercial carpets (by the same manufacturers) with additional toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, including flame retardants (CA Prop. 65). Each regulation sized plastic soccer field (approximately 80k square feet) = 40k pounds of blades and backing, and loses 551-661 pounds of carcinogenic chemical laden degrading microplastic blades, per year- lost to air, water and soil.
Microplastics have been found in human lung tissue, placentas, meconium in newborns, the heart, nervous system (including the brain), liver, kidney, spleen and blood.
A petrochemical product:
Using information from Waste Management, the proposed fields would require more than 81,864 gallons of petrochemically based oil to manufacture. Including existing synthetic turf fields, this would be the equivalent of ~181,000 gallons of petrochemically derived oil plastics covering school and parkland, 1,056,843 square feet of plastic grass carpet. It would be the equivalent of 42,273,720 plastic bags or 607,684,725 plastic straws. Glendale has had a plastic bag ordinance sineo 2013; a single use plastic ordinance since Sept. 2021.
Pre- and polyfluoroakyl substances (PFAS):
PFAS are a class of over 12,039 chemicals. These chemicals are intentionally added in the manufacturing of synthetic turf in order to prevent the plastic yarn from sticking to the machinery as it is extruded. They have been found in 100% of all synthetic turf materials tested. The most up to date testing methods are Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) and Total 697 of 1332 3 Organic Precursor Assay (TOPS) . While the synthetic turf industry uses an older method (US EPA 537M) that only tests for 29 or 30 PFAS, they have admitted to use of PFAS in manufacturing.
Many cities and Boards of Education have been duped by affidavits signed by manufacturers, or their suppliers, stating there is no PFAS in their products. Such greenwashing is no longer defensible, given the documented admissions of PFAS use. They are also reportable under greenwashing laws to both the State Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission.
The plastic grass carpet contains PFAS; the shock pad used with plant based infills has tested positive for PFAS. Pine based infill has tested positive for PFAS (BrockFill). Other plant based infills are generally sourced from other countries that have abysmal pesticide use and regulations. They have not been evaluated for chemicals or safety. They have also been implicated in the growing frequency of toxic algae blooms due to excess nutrient deposition.
Harm to human health:
PFAS are known as “forever” chemicals because they bioaccumulate in humans, domesticated animals, wild and aquatic life. They are endocrine disruptors and can cause reproductive, developmental, liver, kidney, thyroid and immunological effects. They can increase in serum cholesterol levels, increase obesity and diabetes and affect infant birth weights, breast tissue development and are highly implicated irritable bowel and Chron’s disease, breast, testicular, kidney, prostate and liver cancers, and a 47 percent rise in infertility over the last few decades. It can pass through breast milk, cross the placenta and the blood brain barrier. PFAS persists across generations.
Plastics contain endocrine disrupting chemicals, such as PFAS, and chemicals used as plasticizers, flame retardants, colorants, UV stabilizers, biocides, heat stabilizers, antioxidants, lubricants, and foaming agents, catalysts, Phthalates and more. Such chemicals can cause ADHD, neurological and behavioral disorders, obesity, metabolic dysfunction, reproductive disorders and cancer .
Babies are being born “pre-polluted“ with these chemicals. Over 90% of cancers are environmentally derived. Childhood cancers have increased by greater than 57% since 1975. Even at low doses, chemicals can act synergistically to cause disease and cancer.
Harm to wild and aquatic life; loss of biodiversity:
Synthetic turf and microplastics have caused a decrease in bird populations, accumulation of microplastics on bees, negatively impacts ocean habitats and kills soil biome.
Respectfully submitted,
Dianne Woelke MSN, Board Member
Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc.
https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org
SHPFI is an all-volunteer nonprofit 501-c-3
Consider supporting our work with a tax-deductible contribution! EIN: 83-424-3172
698 of 1332
4 Sent from my iPad
699 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Verdugo Hills <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 10:16 AM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel; Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Adjemian, Aram; Golanian, Roubik; Bulanikian, Onnig; Jones, David; Harris, Elizabeth; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Comment Documents re the Artificial Turf Proposal Attachments: Artificial Turf Comment Letter to Parks, Recreation & Community Services and Sustainability Commissions.pdf; Artificial Turf Resources.pdf; Site-by-Site analysis of Pollution and Heat Conditions.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission and Sustainability Commission:
The Sierra Club Verdugo Hills Group and the Glendale Environmental Coalition respectfully request you to vote NO on artificial turf fields in Glendale.
We have attached three documents. We request that they be included in agenda packets for both commissions for the June 2 joint meeting.
Artificial Turf Comment Letter to Parks, Recreation & Community Services and Sustainability Commissions
Site-by-Site analysis of Pollution and Heat Conditions Artificial Turf Resources
In addition, we are requesting 10-15 minutes to present a PowerPoint presentation. David Eisenberg will attend the commission meeting and requests to present live. The presentation will be sent to you when we receive confirmation. We request that this presentation also be included in the agenda packet.
Thank you,
David Eisenberg, Sierra Club Verdugo Hills Group
Monica Campagna, Glendale Environmental Coalition
700 of 1332
Artificial Turf Comment Letter to Parks, Recreation &
Community Services and Sustainability Commissions
Subject: Proposed Artificial Turf Installations in Glendale Date: May 26, 2022
From:
Sierra Club Verdugo Hills Group [email protected] Glendale Environmental Coalition [email protected]
To:
Sustainability Commission: [email protected] Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission: [email protected] 613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206-4391
CC:
City Council
Mayor Ardy Kassakhian: [email protected]
Member Ara Najarian: [email protected]
Member Dan Brotman: [email protected]
Member Paula Devine: [email protected]
Member Vrej Agajanian: [email protected]
City Clerk Aram Adjemian: [email protected]
City Manager Roubik Golanian: [email protected]
Parks Department Head Onnig Bulanikian: [email protected] Sustainability Officer David Jones: [email protected] Sustainability Associate Elizabeth Harris: [email protected] Dear Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission and Sustainability Commission, We are writing to respectfully request you to vote NO on artificial turf fields in Glendale. Glendale is striving to be more sustainable and climate resilient, including transitioning to non-fossil landscaping equipment, moving to power the city with 100% clean energy, transitioning to a 100% carbon-free fleet, banning single use plastics at city facilities, and studying ways to mitigate the urban heat island effect through nature based solutions. Installing plastic grass takes us backward, not forward.
Synthetic turf presents many substantial negative impacts. It is made from virgin plastic. Blades and infill have unknown additives. There is migration of PFAS-laden microplastics off the field and into players’ bodies and into the environment. Artificial turf fields contribute to the heat island effect and degradation of open space. At the end of their lifespans, these materials will be sent to landfills. Injuries are a major concern. Synthetic turf, when cared for properly, does not save water. Three of the proposed sites pose an environmental threat to the schools they are next to.
There are reasonable alternatives that use natural grass.
Please find the details of each of these concerns in the following pages. 701 of 1332
Hazardous Substances
● Synthetic turf is made from polyethylene, with additional toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Proposed infill may have unknown additives.
● The five proposed fields with 273,506 ft
2 will use 136,753 lbs of polyethylene for blades and
backing. Equivalent to 46,838 gallons of petroleum, 10,940,240 plastic bags, or 157,265,950 plastic straws. Plastic bags and drinking straws were banned in Glendale. ● Synthetic turf blades, backing, shock pads, and even wood infill have shown a 100% positive test rate for PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).
○ Each year, 551-661 pounds of PFAS-laden microplastics migrate off each field via dust and rain water.
○ PFAS can cause reproductive (including a 47% decrease in fertility), developmental, liver, kidney, and immunological effects and tumors in laboratory animals. ○ Human epidemiology studies show an increase in serum cholesterol levels, effects on infant birth weight and the immune system, cancer, and thyroid hormone disruption. ○ PFAS exposure is bioaccumulative. This impacts multiple generations. ● Plastics contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals which can cause neurological and behavioral disorders, obesity, metabolic dysfunction, reproductive disorders, and cancer. ● At the end of the 8-12 year lifespan of each proposed artificial turf field, the 40,000 pounds of polyethylene and 400,000 pounds of infill on each field will be sent to a landfill. Though the current proposal claims recycling of the turf, it will eventually end in the landfill. Only the blade part of the turf is included in the recycling proposal.
○ A 2016 report prepared for the state of California on recycling and reuse of synthetic turf fields stated that no examples of an actual recycling project for all the components of a removed field in California could be found.
● Toxins, plastic fragments, and infill are washed out into the environment. They are carried off into storm drains rather than soaking into the ground. Frequent brushing and disposal can help prevent some of the larger fragments from entering storm drains, but this requires much worker maintenance and might not be practical. Also, the smaller fragments cannot be collected.
Degradation of Open Space
● Synthetic turf can reach temperatures in excess of 160°F, baking and compacting the underlying soil, killing all living organisms below it, and negatively impacting natural filtration, cooling, and carbon sequestration.
● Chemicals in the plastic surface leachate out and allow runoff containing a toxic load of mixed proprietary chemicals, as well as PFAS and heavy metals. ● Synthetic turf and microplastics have caused a decrease in bird populations and accumulation of microplastics on bees, negatively impact ocean habitats, and kill soil biomes. Some PFAS have also been linked to phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. ● Artificial turf does not adequately handle stormwater. Studies show that artificial turf generates more runoff than grass.
Player Injuries
● Blood and other biologics absorb into the soil and degrade naturally and quickly on grass fields.
T702heyofdo1332 not degrade on artificial turf without cleaning. ● Exposure to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA ) and other bacteria is a potentially life threatening consequence of dermal abrasions, known at turf burns, due to friction on synthetic turf. Inhalation and ingestion are additional exposure pathways. Glendale reported one such injury at the previous Parks Commission hearing. In an EPA study, 70% of synthetic fields had MRSA, an antibiotic-resistant life threatening infection.
● Lower-body injuries are significantly higher on synthetic turf, as are concussions and heat stroke.
These lower-body injuries can be far more severe. Glendale reported several severe injuries at the previous Parks Commission hearing.
● The NFL reports 103% more injuries on synthetic turf.
High Temperatures on Turf
● Synthetic turf absorbs heat the way asphalt does. It reaches 150°F easily and has been measured as hot as 200°F. Fields over 120° present a safety issue. ○ They contribute to skin burns, dehydration, overheating, and heat stroke. ○ In 2020, Glendale experienced 77 days over 90°F (and 10 over 100°F). On a sunny, 90°F day, artificial turf surfaces (with non-Geofill infill) have had recorded temperatures of 165°F. ● Synthetic turf causes heat island effect. They absorb heat from the sun all day and stay hot at night for several hours after the sun sets. They radiate heat and increase the ambient temperature causing a giant heat island in the immediate area and the surrounding neighborhood. ● Scientists at Columbia University who analyzed satellite thermal images of New York City over two summers concluded that synthetic turf fields were up to 60° hotter than grass fields. ● The entire surface area of heated plastic constantly off-gasses the greenhouse gases methane and ethylene.
Problems with Plant-based Infills
1 (PBI)
● Choosing PBI (plant-based infills) means using an expensive and controversial product that requires the use of carcinogens and many chemicals, in addition to being a respiratory risk. ● PBI infill turns to dust, and it also blows away and floats readily during storm events, fouling waterways with suspended solids (TSS) and nutrients, plus any binders/adhesives and biocides/antifungals, etc., used on the field, and increasing maintenance costs. ● 7,000 lbs of infill migrate out of PBI artificial turf fields and into the environment every year. This also puts athletes at higher risk for concussions unless the field is groomed, and/or more infill is added. ● Unknowns
○ The source of the infill is undisclosed and its chemical treatment in prior use is undisclosed ○ Longevity & play-performance of the newer non-tire infills is untested. ○ Numerous unknown issues have not been reliably measured, pro or con, by reliable, third party researchers or analysts.
○ No long-term study on the effects of children inhaling chemical-laced PBI has ever been conducted.
○ Plant based turf infills can contain pesticides and or PFAS. They have been implicated in increased toxic algae blooms.
● Coconut husk infill issues (Proposed by Shawgrass)
1 Without infill, artificial turf would lie flat and would be unplayable. Players are in contact with both the blades and the infill.
703 of 1332
○ Coconut husk is sourced primarily from Indonesia and India, where there is exceptionally poor regulation or quality control over pesticides or chemicals added prior to harvesting, during processing, or post processing.
■ The largest producer of the world’s coconuts is Indonesia, where the process of retting coconut husk is hastened by adding bacteria to the water the husks are left to soak in for several months, making it easier to extract the “coir.” ○ The extracted coir may be chemically treated to reduce the risk of bacterial spore growth. ■ Copper sulfate fungicide (used in combination with petroleum oil in the US), malathion, and chlorpyrifos and many others are used on coconut plantations. ○ Coconut husk infill floats, leading to a possible problem in heavy rain. ● This raises this critical question: are we willing to take the risk posed to our children by this non-uniform, variable toxic mix, over time, in high heat? Specific Problems with Shawgrass
● The field must be swept with a machine, once per week. ● The field must be groomed with a towed apparatus after each 48 hours of play. ● Sanitation must be done promptly using chemicals provided by Shawgrass. ● It is recommended that the field be watered regularly to maintain the safest level of play. If the field is not watered regularly, the turf will harden.
○ Shaw recommends watering the field 5-10 minutes each morning. If the field is watered in this way, it can cool approximately 20-30°F, which may in fact not be enough to cool the field to below 120°F, or the cooling may not last the entire day. A starting temperature of 157° (typical high temperature on hot days) cools to 127°-137°. ○ This is more water than natural grass requires. Natural grass does not require daily watering.
Environmental Justice
● Three of these sites are in South Glendale, already burdened by lack of open space and high levels of heat. These three sites are already 5-6° F hotter than North Glendale. ● These sites in South Glendale are already hard hit with pollution in all categories. ● This is particularly true in Fremont Park, where the proposed field would remove one third of the open green space. And although Fremont Park is just north of the 134 Fwy, it is accessible to homes south of the FWY. Much of the community utilizes this open space, especially as there are so few parks in South Glendale, a densely populated area with a large population living in apartments and condos that do not have yard space. This makes available open green space all the more in demand.
● As natural fields, these spaces would be available for other use at times when games are not played.
● A Site-by-Site Analysis of Pollution and Heat Conditions is located here.
Benefits of Real Grass
● Real grass is a sustainable carbon sink, absorbs carbon in the atmosphere, and improves air quality.
● Grass is a natural coolant. It cools the air around it and doesn’t absorb solar heat. It counteracts the heat island effects of hot asphalt and buildings.
704 of 1332
● The soil in which grass grows contains bio-diverse communities of organisms that are essential for clean water and air. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria and other live micro-organisms help soil break down harmful contaminants such as body fluid spills—an essential ecosystem service for a healthy environment.
● Grass is an important component of the water cycle. Rain is infiltrated through grass from the surface into the soil and then replenishes groundwater supplies. ● The staff report also says that “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°F.” Possible Alternatives
● Modifications to natural turf to increase longevity include changing the seed mix, use schedules, and blade height. Native grasses can be used.
● Add additional fields in Glendale (for example at the Sports Complex) to reduce the amount of field play on individual fields. Find ways to prioritize Glendale residents and leagues. ● Use a hydroponics style system, which can be supplied sub-surface with greywater and above or below surface with stormwater, such as the EPIC system or Permavoid System. These systems do not require regular (wasteful) overhead watering and promote much deeper root growth to allow for more field play. They have an indefinite lifespan with only components needing replacement, versus entirely new installations of artificial turf fields every 8-12 years. Do a pilot of one field. ● Apply for Measure W stormwater capture funding for natural grass athletic field projects that utilize greywater or captured stormwater. These funds can include money for ongoing maintenance costs, addressing a concern of our Parks Department. The Safe, Clean Water Program (Measure W) provides local, dedicated funding to increase water supply, improve water quality, and provide community enhancements throughout LA County. A mixed-use, natural grass athletic field utilizing a system that captures stormwater from the surrounding neighborhood and/or onsite, connected to an intake for a hydroponics-style system or for use with a typical natural grass field installation, would make an attractive grant proposal. The Fremont site, for example, could be assessed for the feasibility of capturing and using water from the Verdugo Wash for year-round watering. ● Use reclaimed water at all sites. Reclaimed water is already there at 4 of the 5 sites. Reclaimed water could be brought into Fremont if stormwater capture is not possible.
For more information
All resources used for the above points are referenced at:
docs.google.com/document/d/1ABYr6x7cGlhywuPmTtECm65CayAI8N9fKK4k9vIxXLM/edit?usp=sharing 705 of 1332
Site-by-Site Analysis of Pollution and Heat Conditions
In this document, please find information about the current conditions at each proposed site and specific concerns at each site. Information comes from CalEnviroScreen and Redlining and Exposure to Urban Heat Islands. Three of the sites (Fremont Park, Pacific Park, and Cerritos Park) are located in heat islands and pollution hot spots. These three locations in South Glendale have high proportions of minorities, renters, and low income populations who have limited access to green space.
Of particular concern, two sites are located at Title I schools (Cerritos Elementary, and Woodrow Wilson Middle School) where the fields are the primary green space. Schools that have mainly impervious surfaces that feel like prison campuses contribute to: higher temperatures, worse air quality, more bullying, lower test scores, disconnect with nature, and higher stress. Campuses that envelope students and staff with green spaces do the opposite. They relieve stress and enhance mental health, they encourage play, they cool surroundings, they lower energy costs for cooling buildings, they reduce schoolyard and local area flooding, they enhance social-emotional functioning and pro-social and cooperative behavior, they lead to improved academic performance and they offer a chance for children to experience and connect with nature. 706 of 1332
Pacific Park:
4.5 °F higher than citywide average
77% impervious surface
4% tree covered
Minority: 56%
Households Below Poverty Level: 20%
Specific Concerns re installing Artificial
Turf at this location:
● Site is in South Glendale, already hit hard
with lack of open space and high levels of
heat. Site is already 6-9° F hotter than
North Glendale. Adding a synthetic turf
field will increase site temperatures
significantly.
● Site is already hard hit with pollution in all
categories.
● As natural grass fields, these spaces
would be available for other uses at times
when games are not played.
707 of 1332
Cerritos Park:
Data unavailable but similar to Pacific
Specific Concerns re installing Artificial
Turf at this location:
● Site is in South Glendale, already hit hard
with lack of open space and high levels of
heat. Site is already 6-9° F hotter than
North Glendale. Replacing the grass field
with a synthetic turf field will increase site
temperatures.
● Site is already hard hit with pollution in all
categories.
● Cerritos Elementary is a Title 1 School
with 486 K-6 students. 83% of students
are from low-income families.
● As a natural grass field, this space would
be available for other use at times when
games are not played.
708 of 1332
Sports Complex:
Data Unavailable.
Nearby areas show about 6 °F cooler than
city average.
Specific Concerns re installing Artificial
Turf at this location:
● There is an increased fire risk
● Plastics easily shed into the Verdugo
Wash
709 of 1332
Fremont Park:
3 °F higher than citywide average
72% impervious surface
5% tree covered
Minority: 42%
Households Below Poverty Level: 20%
Specific Concerns re installing
Artificial Turf at this location:
● The proposed field would remove one
third of the open green space.
● Site is in South Glendale, already hit hard
with lack of open space and high levels of
heat. Site is already 5-8° F hotter than
North Glendale. A massive synthetic turf
field will increase site temperatures.
● Site is already hard hit with pollution in all
categories.
● As a natural grass field, this space would
be available for other use at times when
games are not played.
710 of 1332
Wilson Middle School:
1 °F cooler than city average
49% impervious surfaces
9% tree covered
Minority: 44%
Households Below Poverty Level: 18%
Specific Concerns re installing Artificial Turf
at this location:
● The sports field is the green space at this
campus. There is hardly anything else
impervious at this site.
● This is a Title 1 School with 1039 students.
63% of students are from low-income families.
● GUSD limits outdoor play when temps exceed
92 °F. Replacing current grass with massive
artificial turf install will increase site temps.
● Synthetic turf fields will decrease the ability for
this site to capture stormwater.
● Campus is 300 ft from 134 Freeway.
● Please notice that the current grass field is
the largest greenspace in this area of the city:
711 of 1332
Artificial Turf Resources
● May 26, 2022 Letter to Parks and Sustainability Commissions:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DL3ZmRzXq6_FvGwJCqiDdn6uUDmuoOsd/view?usp=sharing ● Letter from the Glendale Environmental Coalition for previous Parks Commission meeting:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=2940&type=2 ● Compilation of Turf issues: https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/ ● New Jersey Work Environment Council Fact Sheet: Be Aware of Artificial Turf Hazards https://njwec.org/PDFs/fact-artificialterf.pdf
Injuries
● Synthetic Turf Injuries:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11B7TKTm4yfaRmOKIR-Z-zwH08GfrETa8URG7-b1yCrk/edit ● Documents with links to articles on Heat Injuries and Death on Turf https://docs.google.com/document/d/14TuEbMhFSfu9qfBb7X-IJOw3cj-YgTvC07z7lg40yQ4/edit ● Types of knee injuries:
https://ryortho.com/breaking/ncaa-artificial-turf-can-increase-knee-injury-risk/ ● Turf injuries: https://www.center4research.org/injuries-related-to-artificial-turf/ ● Turf injuries:
https://sportsfieldmanagementonline.com/2020/01/03/natural-grass-and-synthetic-turf-injury-re search/11008/
● Turf injuries: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0363546519833925 ● Why artificial turf may truly be bad for kids:
https://theconversation.com/why-artificial-turf-may-truly-be-bad-for-kids-72044 ● Injuries: https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2020/07/03/athletes-injuries-artificial-turf/ ● National Library Of Medicine on Turf injuries: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30452873/ ● Liver disease from PFAS:
https://www.consumerreports.org/liver-disease/report-links-pfas-exposure-to-liver-damage-a222 2667414/
● More Liver Damage:
https://keck.usc.edu/synthetic-forever-chemicals-known-as-pfas-linked-to-liver-damage/ ● Synthetic Turf Hazards: https://www.nontoxiccommunities.com/synthetic-turf.html Recycling
● Turf Recycling: https://peer.org/false-artificial-turf-recycling-claims-ripped/ ● The Daily Pile-up of Artificial Turf:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/artificial-turf-fields-are-piling-no-recycli ng-fix/603874/
Cooling & Maintenance
● Water Requirements for Cooling Artificial Turf:
712 of 1332
○ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_8-HwZjhrN78RelU9roKYArcN5ZsAcxP/view ○ https://www.parksandrecbusiness.com/articles/2016/10/part-2-watering-synthetic-turf ● Shawgrass Maintenance webpage:
https://www.shawgrass.com/resources/mantenance-guidelines/ ● Turf watering requirements:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10C27yIq3c3oywdSWtXzGn8rj_wXI3-fA3Wnut_1gpqA/edit ● Failing Turf Fields in S Cal:
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2018/06/19/artificial-turf-fields-are-failing-across-southern-calif ornia-costing-millions-heres-why/
Infill
● Article on Plant Based Infill:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1MScmC4TVuWXtGLnJvy1R_xBOV2SMT3ue/edit?filetype=msword PFAS and Other Contamenants.
● PFAS in building materials: https://greensciencepolicy.org/docs/pfas-building-materials-2021.pdf ● PFAS:
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/new-studies-show-pfas-artificial-grass-blades-and-bac king
● Airborne Particles:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345093395_A_pendulum_rig_study_on_airborne_trans mission_and_migration_of_particles_from_artificial_football_turf ● Lead in turf particles (an issue with older fields):
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources/soil.htm?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fw ww.cdc.gov%2Fnceh%2Flead%2Fprevention%2Fartificialturf.htm ● The Princeton Environmental Commission’s Artificial Turf - Not A Sound Financial, Environmental, or Just Investment:
https://www.princetonnj.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9205/Princeton-Environmental-Commission -Artificial-Turf-Report-Dec-2021-PDF-?fbclid=IwAR203Pxxn_Fr3HaQPHYXi12IjstvBlw2gfkIObDlvPBa WFkH-8N7Mq1bQvo
● Wave of Deceptive Marketing PFAS Claims Raises “Personal and Advertising Injury” Coverage Issues: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/wave-of-deceptive-marketing-pfas-claims-3397327/ ● EPA Roadmap to reduce PFAS:
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-roadmap_final-508.pdf ● Environment and Human Health, Inc. Summary and links to turf scientific articles https://njwec.org/PDFs/fact-artificialterf.pdf
● Calculations for the petroleum content of proposed and existing fields:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14xBYeh49znxRvPmQGXxgZ8wHOwUTmo3-L12RESJaeks/ed it?usp=sharing
713 of 1332
Heat Island Effects
● Heat island effects:
https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2019/may/synthetic-sports-fields-and-the-hea t-island-effect/
● Synthetic Turf Heat Studies:
https://aces.nmsu.edu/programs/turf/documents/brigham-young-study.pdf ● Redlining and Exposure to Urban Heat Islands interactive map:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/73e329457b6644e7aeff13ecce43c8d8 ● CalEnviroScreen 4.0 interactive map:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/11d2f52282a54ceebcac7428e6184203/ ● The degree of flammability for an artificial grass surface system:
https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2018/20/e3sconf_infraeko2018_00038.pdf Environmental Justice Issues at the Glendale Locations
● Site-by-site Analysis of Pollution and Heat Conditions:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ca3zJErlAwURQkOsA2V0GMZyDLfYfjKAOeB1FodWRhE/edi t?usp=sharing .
● Greening Schoolyards Advocacy Toolkit:
https://www.childrenandnature.org/resources/green-schoolyards-advocacy-toolkit/ ● Why Green Schoolyards: https://www.greenschoolyards.org/introarticles ● Why Green a Schoolyard: https://www.angelenosforgreenschools.com/why-a-green-schoolyard Sierra Club Positions
● San Diego Chapter of Sierra Club Position Statement:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ds0qZVk1oJ_twAePawsIpLFuB7uCau-b/view?usp=drivesdk ● Long Island Sierra Club Group Statement: https://www.lisierraclub.org/synthetic-turf ● Loma Prieta Sierra Club Statement:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bga-mqY8KScqHRFJodkJfvTt4DcEUaABEPBUFd_DLnE/edit ● Massachusetts Sierra Club Statement:
https://www.greensherborn.com/news/massachusetts-sierra-club-addresses-sherborns-artificial-t urf-proposal
● Maryland Sierra Club Statement:
https://www.greensherborn.com/news/massachusetts-sierra-club-addresses-sherborns-artificial-t urf-proposal
Alternatives to Artificial Turf
● Native sods https://www.deltabluegrass.com/sod-products/california-native-sod/ ● Sod Blends and Varieties: https://www.deltabluegrass.com/sports-turf/sod-blends-varieties/ ● EPIC System https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MYPL9SCBuGv58H7zoUUhU4xAaYtCBVpW/view ● Maximizing the Durability of Athletic Fields:
https://www.cityofportsmouth.com/sites/default/files/2020-03/AG-726_Maximizing_the_Durabili ty_of_Athletic_Fields.pdf
● Non-toxic Communities article on Organic Athletic Fields with links:
https://www.nontoxiccommunities.com/organic-athletic-fields.html 714 of 1332
● National Turfgrass Evaluation Program:
https://www.nontoxiccommunities.com/organic-athletic-fields.html ● Natural Grass Advisory Group: https://www.deltabluegrass.com/sports-turf/sod-blends-varieties/ ● For LA County, The Safe Clean Water Program can help with stormwater capture:
https://safecleanwaterla.org/about/vision-mission-goals/ ● Stormwater Comparisons:
http://www.pugetsoundstormwater.com/2021/04/new-study-shows-artifical-turf.html Comment Letters and News Articles
● Letter from Clean Water Action:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gbll0nekHKJqmHnUCpLWA6S2y3LT6o3j/view?usp=drivesdk ● Comments from a Soccer Player:
https://mastersoccermind.com/the-reason-why-all-soccer-players-prefer-grass-over-turf/ ● Vista Letter:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1uoXUrUxUorJywXORqsdAmIZighVZ6nJv/edit?filetype=msword ● GEC Rebuttal to Parks Department report:
https://gec.eco/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Athletic-Field-Surface-GEC-Followup-Input-RE-Sta ff-Report.pdf
● Debunking Myths Around Artificial Turf:
https://gvt.net/blog/debunking-myths-around-artificial-turf/ General Notes
Some of the following notes refer to rubber tire infill. While not in the current proposal, this infill exists at the sports complex in Glendale. There are abundant links for more information.
Climate/Pollution impacts
Polyethylene is the most highly produced plastic globally and the most frequently discarded material.
Methane and ethylene are emitted at 2x and 76x more readily from polyethylene, respectively, in air than when in water. Methane traps 90% more heat than carbon dioxide.
Synthetic turf is made from polyethylene, with additional toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Each regulation sized plastic soccer field (approximately 80k square feet), constitutes 500k pounds of plastic waste: 40k pounds of blades and backing, over 400k pounds of infill (2-9 pounds per square foot); A regulation sized field requires 40,000 crumbed used tires. Each year, 1.5 to 5 metric tons (pg 24) of microplastic infill migrate off field (requiring replacement to maintain safety), and 551-661 pounds of PFAS laden degrading microplastic blades, per field- lost to air, water and soil. Used tire crumb migration off of playing fields have been found in waterways around the world (Hong Kong, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Norway). The industry is installing 3-4 new plastic fields daily across the country.
Based on information from Waste Management, each 80,000 square foot plastic turf field (20 tons of plastic waste) represents 13,700 gallons of petroleum based oil, exclusive of any rubber infill. At 3 to 4 installations per day, that would be 41,100 to 54,800 gallons worth of petrochemical based synthetic turf rolled out daily in the US. Each synthetic regulation sized, field is the equivalent of 3.2 million plastic bags or 46 million straws: 9.6 to 12.8 million plastic bags or 138 to 184 million plastic straw equivalents 715 of 1332
every 3-4 days. Used tire crumb infill adds more petrochemical waste. Each car tire requires 7 gallons of oil to manufacture while truck tires require 22 gallons.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) study on synthetic turf is not complete. A 2019 draft report confirms 126 chemicals in used tire crumb infill; Yale researchers (2019) identified 306 chemicals in crumb: 52 known carcinogens; another 6 suspected or presumed carcinogenic by both the US EPA and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA); additional 197 considered carcinogenic a priori. Researchers in the Netherlands (2021) revealed they identified an additional 46 carcinogenic chemicals. The US EPA Federal Research Action Plan (FRAP) on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds (FRAP 1), found 355 chemicals. Korean researchers (2020) found children who play on crumb rubber are 10 times more likely to develop cancer than those who play on soil.
Tire crumb is estimated to be 28-30% of the microplastic pollution in our oceans and 50% of the microplastic pollution in urban areas. In December 2019, researchers discovered the antiozanant N-1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD) in tires converts to 6PPD-quinone which has resulted in a 40-90% decline in the coho salmon population. Tire crumb in playing fields and playgrounds are contributing factors.
Plant-based turf infills can contain pesticides. One has been found to contain per and polyfluoroakyl substances (PFAS). They have been implicated in increased toxic algae blooms.
At the end of their useful life (8 year average), 400,000 pounds of infill (used tire crumb in ~97% of existing fields) and 40,000 pounds of plastic carpet remain. For the current 30,000 playing fields in the US, that’s 12 trillion pounds of infill and 1.2 billion pounds of plastic carpet that continues to pollute for the approximately 450 years it takes to decompose.
Environmentally Hazardous Substances:
Synthetic turf blades, backing, shock pads and even wood infill have shown a 100% positive test rate for total fluorine, the gold standard for testing products for the presence of PFAS, a family of 12,039 “forever” chemicals (US EPA). These chemicals leachate into soil, waterways and oceans. They cross human placentas, enter human breast milk, bioaccumulate in humans, wild and aquatic life. PFAS in Synthetic Turf is in the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) current work plan (pg. 14).
Environmental Justice(EJ)/Social Justice (SJ)
Few communities can afford the average $1.2 million for a single synthetic turf field installation. They are often partially funded by State Parks and Recreation and Federal Grants, which are often awarded to EJ/SJ communities preferentially. EJ/SJ frequently lack cooling green space and are further subjected to heat islands created by impermeable, over heated surfaces such as synthetic turf. Exposure to the toxic chemicals in plastic play surfaces presents elevated health risks in communities where access to care is difficult. The added costs of maintenance, safety testing, annual replacement of lost infill and ultimately replacement and landfilling add to the burden. Illegal dumping and increased expense to the community can all have irreversible consequences.
At a cost of up to 4.3 times more than natural grass over the 8 years of a typical warranty, synthetic turf is a very poor financial investment.
716 of 1332
Harm to human health:
PFAS can cause reproductive (including a 47% decrease in fertility), developmental, liver, kidney, and immunological effects and tumors in laboratory animals. Human epidemiology studies show a increase in serum cholesterol levels, effects on infant birth weights, the immune system, cancer, and thyroid hormone disruption. Because they are bioaccumulative, PFAS exposure can impact multiple generations.
Plastics contain endocrine disrupting chemicals, such as PFAS, and chemicals used as plasticizers, flame retardants, colorants, UV stabilizers, biocides, heat stabilizers, antioxidants, lubricants, and foaming agents, catalysts, Phthalates and more. Such chemicals can cause neurological and behavioral disorders, obesity, metabolic dysfunction, reproductive disorders and cancer. Tire products (i.e. crumb, mulch) are plastics. Even at low doses, chemicals can act synergistically to cause disease and cancer.
Exposure to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA ) and other bacteria is a potentially life threatening consequence of dermal abrasions, known as turf burns, due to friction on synthetic turf.
Inhalation and ingestion are additional exposure pathyways. Lower body injuries are significantly higher on synthetic turf, as are concussions and heat stroke
Harm to wild and aquatic life; loss of biodiversity
Synthetic turf and microplastics have caused a decrease in bird populations, accumulation of microplastics on bees, negatively impacts ocean habitats, and kills soil biome. Some PFAS have also been linked to phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. 717 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: David Levine <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2022 9:16 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: [email protected]
Subject: No Artificial Turf for Glendale Sports Fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Climate change with increased heat, drought, wildfires, etc are everyone’s responsibility. Please focus on the climate in Glendale and choose Natural Turf not synthetic plastic - which are made with chemicals and plastics that leach into our environment. Causing adverse effects to the natural environment, humans and wildlife. It also is much hotter, we are in a draught and temperatures in Glendale are extreme in summer. Why add to the heat island effect? Thank you for your consideration. It is a such a privilege to live so close to nature and enjoy our wilderness. Let’s keep Glendale cool!
David Levine
Glendale Resident
718 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: violette SaSh <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2022 9:30 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission; Glendale Environmental Coalition
Subject: please avoid Synthetic Turf for Glendale
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear city representatives,
I am a resident of Glendale,and mother. It saddens me to see our city consider artificial turf as a way to save water. Not only is artificial grass made of plastics that will eventually have to be thrown in landfills at the end of their lifecycle, they are known to heat up to extreme temperature n the summer, which can be very dangerous. Not only can this cause burns to children who do sports on these surfaces, the warming of the plastic can release offgasing as well as degrade into microplastics that enter the body and environment.Considering our City's big initiatives for pursuing green goals and helping fight climate change, through so many great decisions these past few years, it would be sad to see us go backwards with this decision. Please consider natural alternatives instead. Thank you!
-Violette Sacre (Kenneth Village area)
719 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Vee K <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2022 10:35 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Installation of plastic turf on sports fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to oppose the installation of astroturf on my beloved Glendale's sports fields.
Common sense (and my background in public health) tells me that this cannot be the solution for so many reasons:
1- installation of a fossil fuel product (a wasteful/dying/polluting industry) over 2- living land that living beings rely on isn't the way to go. Life begets life, and astroturf attracts zero life. We need more biodiversity, not less! 3- Our planet, Glendale included, is heating up. What we need is to find ways to capture moisture in our soil, and bring back small water cycles (local rainfall) that account for 40% of rainfall and preventing drought. This comes by keeping soil covered with biological matter from plants (and when appropriate, even cow manure).
The additional benefit is that living plants like grass cool temperatures -- significantly. 4- Lastly, living plants give off oxygen -- a great thing for human lungs. Plastic grass emits fumes that at the very least cannot be helping our children grow into healthy adults.
Installing astroturf on Glendale's sports fields is a BAD IDEA. Please reconsider! Sincerely,
Vivian Kanchian, MPH, BS
720 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Joemy Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: Glendale Environmental Coalition
Subject: June 2 Item 3a
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to respectfully request that you vote against the installation of artificial turf on new sports fields in Glendale. Plastic grass is a disastrous choice for our environment. It creates massive heat islands and ends up in landfills. Please recommend natural grass.
Sincerely,
Joemy Wilson
721 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Beth Marlis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 9:32 AM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Please Vote No- OPPOSE the use of artificial turf! CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
As a concerned resident of Glendale,
I’m writing to urge you to OPPOSE the use of artificial plastic turf fields in Glendale due to its exponential increase in heat generation and possible toxicity as opposed to natural grass surfaces.
While it is clear that we are in a severe, ongoing drought situation, however - by using any combination of stormwater capture, greywater, and/or hydroponic methods to sustain a functional greenspace - Glendale residents, children, athletes, and visitors alike can benefit from the environmentally cooling properties of a natural grass surface.
Action taken and decisions made regarding these community spaces need to fully consider the long game, which undoubtably includes the growing impacts of climate change and the threat of ever-increasing urban heat.
Increasing the use of plastics and artificial turf is the clearly the wrong choice for Glendale.
NOTE: I have included the text of the Glendale Environmental Coalition’s letter below, as I am in agreement with its content.
Respectfully,
Beth Marlis
E. Mountain St. Glendale
722 of 1332
2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Artificial Turf Comment Letter to Parks, Recreation & Community Services and Sustainability Commissions
Subject: Proposed Artificial Turf Installations in Glendale Dear Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission and Sustainability Commission, We are writing to respectfully request you to vote NO on artificial turf fields in Glendale. Glendale is striving to be more sustainable and climate resilient, including transitioning to non-fossil landscaping equipment, moving to power the city with 100% clean energy, transitioning to a 100% carbon-free fleet, banning single use plastics at city facilities, and studying ways to mitigate the urban heat island effect through nature based solutions. Installing plastic grass takes us backward, not forward.
Synthetic turf presents many substantial negative impacts. It is made from virgin plastic. Blades and infill have unknown additives. There is migration of PFAS-laden microplastics off the field and into players’ bodies and into the environment.
Artificial turf fields contribute to the heat island effect and degradation of open space. At the end of their lifespans, these materials will be sent to landfills. Injuries are a major concern. Synthetic turf, when cared for properly, does not save water. Three of the proposed sites pose an environmental threat to the schools they are next to.
There are reasonable alternatives that use natural grass.
Please find the details of each of these concerns in the following pages.
Hazardous Substances
● Synthetic turf is made from polyethylene, with additional toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Proposed infill may have unknown additives.
● The five proposed fields with 273,506 ft2 will use 136,753 lbs of polyethylene for blades and backing.
Equivalent to 46,838 gallons of petroleum, 10,940,240 plastic bags, or 157,265,950 plastic straws. Plastic bags and drinking straws were banned in Glendale.
● Synthetic turf blades, backing, shock pads, and even wood infill have shown a 100% positive test rate for PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).
o ○ Each year, 551-661 pounds of PFAS-laden microplastics migrate off each field via dust and rain water. o ○ PFAS can cause reproductive (including a 47% decrease in fertility), developmental, liver, kidney, and immunological effects and tumors in laboratory animals. o ○ Human epidemiology studies show an increase in serum cholesterol levels, effects on infant birth weight and the immune system, cancer, and thyroid hormone disruption. o ○ PFAS exposure is bioaccumulative. This impacts multiple generations. ● Plastics contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals which can cause neurological and behavioral disorders, obesity, metabolic dysfunction, reproductive disorders, and cancer. ● At the end of the 8-12 year lifespan of each proposed artificial turf field, the 40,000 pounds of 723 of 1332 3 polyethylene and 400,000 pounds of infill on each field will be sent to a landfill. Though the current proposal claims recycling of the turf, it will eventually end in the landfill. Only the blade part of the turf is included in the recycling proposal.
○ A 2016 report prepared for the state of California on recycling and reuse of synthetic turf fields stated that no examples of an actual recycling project for all the components of a removed field in California could be found. ● Toxins, plastic fragments, and infill are washed out into the environment. They are carried off into storm drains rather than soaking into the ground. Frequent brushing and disposal can help prevent some of the larger fragments from entering storm drains, but this requires much worker maintenance and might not be practical. Also, the smaller fragments cannot be collected.
Degradation of Open Space
● Synthetic turf can reach temperatures in excess of 160°F, baking and compacting the underlying soil, killing all living organisms below it, and negatively impacting natural filtration, cooling, and carbon sequestration. ● Chemicals in the plastic surface leachate out and allow runoff containing a toxic load of mixed proprietary chemicals, as well as PFAS and heavy metals.
● Synthetic turf and microplastics have caused a decrease in bird populations and accumulation of microplastics on bees, negatively impact ocean habitats, and kill soil biomes. Some PFAS have also been linked to phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. ● Artificial turf does not adequately handle stormwater. Studies show that artificial turf generates more runoff than grass.
Player Injuries
● Blood and other biologics absorb into the soil and degrade naturally and quickly on grass fields. They do not degrade on artificial turf without cleaning.
● Exposure to Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA ) and other bacteria is a potentially life threatening consequence of dermal abrasions, known at turf burns, due to friction on synthetic turf. Inhalation and ingestion are additional exposure pathways. Glendale reported one such injury at the previous Parks Commission hearing. In an EPA study, 70% of synthetic fields had MRSA, an antibiotic-resistant life threatening infection. ● Lower-body injuries are significantly higher on synthetic turf, as are concussions and heat stroke. These lowerbody injuries can be far more severe. Glendale reported several severe injuries at the previous Parks Commission hearing.
● The NFL reports 103% more injuries on synthetic turf.
High Temperatures on Turf
● Synthetic turf absorbs heat the way asphalt does. It reaches 150°F easily and has been measured as hot as 200°F. Fields over 120° present a safety issue.
o ○ They contribute to skin burns, dehydration, overheating, and heat stroke. o ○ In 2020, Glendale experienced 77 days over 90°F (and 10 over 100°F). On a sunny, 90°F day, artificial turf surfaces (with non-Geofill infill) have had recorded temperatures of 165°F. ● Synthetic turf causes heat island effect. They absorb heat from the sun all day and stay hot at night for several hours after the sun sets. They radiate heat and increase the ambient temperature causing a giant heat island in the immediate area and the surrounding neighborhood. 724 of 1332
4 ● Scientists at Columbia University who analyzed satellite thermal images of New York City over two summers concluded that synthetic turf fields were up to 60° hotter than grass fields. ● The entire surface area of heated plastic constantly off-gasses the greenhouse gases methane and ethylene.
Problems with Plant-based Infills1 (PBI)
● Choosing PBI (plant-based infills) means using an expensive and controversial product that requires the use of carcinogens and many chemicals, in addition to being a respiratory risk. ● PBI infill turns to dust, and it also blows away and floats readily during storm events, fouling waterways with suspended solids (TSS) and nutrients, plus any binders/adhesives and biocides/antifungals, etc., used on the field, and increasing maintenance costs. ● 7,000 lbs of infill migrate out of PBI artificial turf fields and into the environment every year. This also puts athletes at higher risk for concussions unless the field is groomed, and/or more infill is added. ● Unknowns
o ○ The source of the infill is undisclosed and its chemical treatment in prior use is undisclosed o ○ Longevity & play-performance of the newer non-tire infills is untested. o ○ Numerous unknown issues have not been reliably measured, pro or con, by reliable, third party researchers or analysts.
o ○ No long-term study on the effects of children inhaling chemical-laced PBI has ever been conducted.
o ○ Plant based turf infills can contain pesticides and or PFAS. They have been implicated in increased toxic algae blooms.
● Coconut husk infill issues (Proposed by Shawgrass)
1 Without infill, artificial turf would lie flat and would be unplayable. Players are in contact with both the blades and the infill. ○ Coconut husk is sourced primarily from Indonesia and India, where there is exceptionally poor regulation or quality control over pesticides or chemicals added prior to harvesting, during processing, or post processing. ■ The largest producer of the world’s coconuts is Indonesia, where the process of retting coconut husk is hastened by adding bacteria to the water the husks are left to soak in for several months, making it easier to extract the “coir.” ○ The extracted coir may be chemically treated to reduce the risk of bacterial spore growth. ■ Copper sulfate fungicide (used in combination with petroleum oil in the US),
725 of 1332
5 malathion, and chlorpyrifos and many others are used on coconut plantations. ○ Coconut husk infill floats, leading to a possible problem in heavy rain.
● This raises this critical question: are we willing to take the risk posed to our children by this nonuniform, variable toxic mix, over time, in high heat? Specific Problems with Shawgrass
● The field must be swept with a machine, once per week. ● The field must be groomed with a towed apparatus after each 48 hours of play. ● Sanitation must be done promptly using chemicals provided by Shawgrass. ● It is recommended that the field be watered regularly to maintain the safest level of play. If the field is not watered regularly, the turf will harden.
o ○ Shaw recommends watering the field 5-10 minutes each morning. If the field is watered in this way, it can cool approximately 20-30°F, which may in fact not be enough to cool the field to below 120°F, or the cooling may not last the entire day. A starting temperature of 157° (typical high temperature on hot days) cools to 127°-137°.
o ○ This is more water than natural grass requires. Natural grass does not require daily watering.
Environmental Justice
● Three of these sites are in South Glendale, already burdened by lack of open space and high levels of heat.
These three sites are already 5-6° F hotter than North Glendale. ● These sites in South Glendale are already hard hit with pollution in all categories. ● This is particularly true in Fremont Park, where the proposed field would remove one third of the open green space. And although Fremont Park is just north of the 134 Fwy, it is accessible to homes south of the FWY. Much of the community utilizes this open space, especially as there are so few parks in South Glendale, a densely populated area with a large population living in apartments and condos that do not have yard space. This makes available open green space all the more in demand. ● As natural fields, these spaces would be available for other use at times when games are not played. ● A Site-by-Site Analysis of Pollution and Heat Conditions is located here. Benefits of Real Grass ● Real grass is a sustainable carbon sink, absorbs carbon in the atmosphere, and improves air quality. ● Grass is a natural coolant. It cools the air around it and doesn’t absorb solar heat. It counteracts the heat island effects of hot asphalt and buildings.
● The soil in which grass grows contains bio-diverse communities of organisms that are essential for clean water and air. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria and other live micro-organisms help soil break down harmful contaminants such as body fluid spills—an essential ecosystem service for a healthy environment. ● Grass is an important component of the water cycle. Rain is infiltrated through grass from the surface into the soil and then replenishes groundwater supplies.
● The staff report also says that “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°F.”
726 of 1332
6 Possible Alternatives
● Modifications to natural turf to increase longevity include changing the seed mix, use schedules, and blade height. Native grasses can be used.
● Add additional fields in Glendale (for example at the Sports Complex) to reduce the amount of field play on individual fields. Find ways to prioritize Glendale residents and leagues. ● Use a hydroponics style system, which can be supplied sub-surface with greywater and above or below surface with stormwater, such as the EPIC system or Permavoid System. These systems do not require regular (wasteful) overhead watering and promote much deeper root growth to allow for more field play. They have an indefinite lifespan with only components needing replacement, versus entirely new installations of artificial turf fields every 8-12 years. Do a pilot of one field.
● Apply for Measure W stormwater capture funding for natural grass athletic field projects that utilize greywater or captured stormwater. These funds can include money for ongoing maintenance costs, addressing a concern of our Parks Department. The Safe, Clean Water Program (Measure W) provides local, dedicated funding to increase water supply, improve water quality, and provide community enhancements throughout LA County. A mixed-use, natural grass athletic field utilizing a system that captures stormwater from the surrounding neighborhood and/or onsite, connected to an intake for a hydroponics-style system or for use with a typical natural grass field installation, would make an attractive grant proposal. The Fremont site, for example, could be assessed for the feasibility of capturing and using water from the Verdugo Wash for year-round watering. ● Use reclaimed water at all sites. Reclaimed water is already there at 4 of the 5 sites. Reclaimed water could be brought into Fremont if stormwater capture is not possible.
For more information
All resources used for the above points are referenced at:
docs.google.com/document/d/1ABYr6x7cGlhywuPmTtECm65CayAI8N9fKK4k9vIxXLM/edit?usp=sharing Beth Marlis
Vice President, MI | College of Contemporary Music
Executive Director, The Musicians Foundation
6752 Hollywood Blvd., LA, CA 90028
(323) 860-1161
[email protected]
www.mi.edu
www.themusiciansfoundation.org
727 of 1332
7 728 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Jessica Craven <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 11:39 AM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Subject: No plastic turf please!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
To the Glendale Parks Commission and the Sustainability Department, I’m writing as a mom and a resident of Northeast Los Angeles who spends lots of time in Glendale parks to ask you to please, please not use artificial turf in any of your forthcoming park projects.
As I’m sure you’re aware, plastic grass carpets generate massive heat islands larger than their actual size. A regulation sized field is about 80k square feet, or 2 acres, comprising approximately 800,000,000 plastic blades per field. Both the field surface and the surface of each blade reflect heat, triggering visible waves of heat rising and spilling into adjoining areas like schools or spectator stands. The entire surface area of heated plastic constantly off-gasses both methane and ethylene. These greenhouse-gases are highly toxic chemicals that everyone on and near the field-- children, athletes and bystanders--will constantly inhale. They are released in increasing volume as the blades break down from UV light, weather, age and grinding action during play. The off gassing continues even at night and will continue for the hundreds of years it takes for these materials to decompose.
Choosing to install plastic synthetic turf is choosing to promote climate change. It’s also choosing to harm our kids. I, for one, will not use any park with artificial turf and I know I’m not alone.
Please do the right thing.
Thanks.
Jess Craven
4673 Cleland Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90065
729 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Aimee Noel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 8:18 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Real grass, not plastic
To Whom It May Concern:
I have lived in the Adams Hill neighborhood of Glendale for 16 years. I am writing ahead of the June 2 meeting of the Parks Commission and Sustainability Commission to urge the commissioners to reject artificial turf and choose natural grass for our local parks and schools.
I am in favor of natural grass and strongly opposed to artificial grass. Artificial grass requires water for proper care just like natural grass, so it doesn’t conserve water. Even with good care, it will need to be replaced, which is costly.
However, the worst problems associated with artificial grass are: it is a single-use plastic product which contaminates people and the environment with toxins during its production, use, and eventual disposal; it makes the areas around it hotter; and it does not sustain the wildlife necessary to maintain the ecosystems in which it is installed.
Natural grass is the safest, healthiest, and most sustainable option to enhance our parks and playing fields. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Aimee Noel
730 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Elizabeth Vitanza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 8:00 AM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: [email protected]
Subject: NO artificial turf in Glendale sports fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to urge you to NOT approve artificial turf for the sports fields currently under consideration at your upcoming joint meeting.
It is not sustainable, it is not healthy, and it is unnecessary, for the following reasons. Additionally, when Marlborough School, my former employer, installed artificial turf on the sports field, we had all of the issues listed below. Most egregiously, to mitigate the heat island effect, the school would actually WATER THE FAKE TURF to cool it down.
To conclude, we should only be using natural materials in our green spaces and sports fields in Glendale. It is made from virgin plastic with blades and infill that have unknown additives. There is migration of PFAS-laden microplastics off the field and into players' bodies and into the environment.
Plastic grass is 40-70 degrees hotter than surrounding air temperatures on warm, sunny days. It can get superheated to temperatures from 120 to 180 degrees F.
Artificial turf greatly contributes to the heat island effect and degradation of open space, increasing temperatures for the immediate area and the surrounding neighborhood by several degrees. Injuries, including turf burns, are a major concern.
It limits access to nature for the community. as well as birds and other wildlife. At the end of their lifespans, these materials will be sent to landfills. Synthetic turf, when cared for properly, does not save water. When not cared for properly, it requires faster replacement, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Vitanza
Glendale small business owner
Glendale Unified School District Parent
Glendale homeowner
--
Elizabeth Vitanza
she|her (here's why)
731 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Melissa King <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 9:36 AM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Opposition to Artificial Turf Installation
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Hi,
I'm just writing to say that I oppose the installation of artificial turf in Glendale sports fields. Installing natural grass is much better for reducing Glendale's contributions to climate change. Things like lowering pollution (both in the air and ground), heat emissions, saving water, contributing even more to landfills, etc. Also, it would be very sad to lose even more natural green space being that we have so little already. Both for us humans and the local wildlife. I was just in the city of Toronto and you couldn't walk 5 blocks without running into another decent sized park. I know it's probably impossible for Glendale to do anything like that at this point, but let's keep what we have at least! And maybe even add a few more parks one day? Thanks for your time and I hope you will recommend to not install artificial turf and go with natural grass instead. Thanks!
-Melissa
732 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Richard Bennett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 2:14 PM
To: Sustainability
Subject: NO to artificial grass
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Artificial grass heats up significantly on its surface and also surrounding areas. This is what environmentally progressive cities are doing to limit the heat produced by the urban environment.
Faced with fiery summer forecasts, more cities are getting serious about heat mitigation, Jennifer A. Kingson writes for Axios What's Next.
Why it matters: Cities have been warming at twice the global average because of the "urban heat island" effect — buildings and pavement trap heat that might have been diffused by foliage.
What's happening: Some cities are trying to use cooling methods other than air conditioning, which is energy- and emissions-intensive.
Zoom in: Phoenix has a "Cool Pavement" program — painting a gray coat on streets, reducing road temperatures, Scientific American reports.
The city aims to build 100 "Cool Corridors" by 2030.
Chelsea, Massachusetts, a low-income neighbor of Boston, has a "Cool Block" project, per WBUR:
"There are 47 new elm, crabapple, cherry and hawthorn trees. Sidewalks are being ripped up to add planters, porous pavers or white concrete. Dark asphalt will be replaced with gray." 733 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Erin Dinan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 5:06 PM
To: Sustainability
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Please Recommend Real Grass - No new artificial turf CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Good Afternoon,
I have reviewed the letter and supporting evidence put together by the GEC and Sierra Club and am writing to ask you to please recommend real grass, NO new artificial turf fields for Glendale parks and schools.
I have two children who are incoming elementary school students at a Glendale public elementary school (John Muir) and who will likely play on or around these fields one day. Plastic solutions are not viable solutions. The monetary and health costs far outweigh the benefits of artificial turf. We need MORE real green spaces, not less, in our city for kids to play on. Personally, I played multiple sports on real grass and artificial turf as a child, high school and college student athlete, and can say firsthand that the artificial turf is a completely different game than real grass. It’s faster, you need another set of shoes/cleats (cost) and there were definitely more injuries. It is disappointing and highly concerning that 20 years after I played, with all the information around negative health and climate impacts of artificial turf that people are still proposing expanding artificial turf.
Please protect our children, our community and our planet - give children a chance to have more natural green spaces to play, as you undoubtedly had as children.
Please do NOT recommend artificial turf at Cerritos Elementary, Sports Complex, Wilson Middle School, Pacific Park and Fremont Park - or in any park or field - this Thursday.
Thank you,
Erin Dinan
Adam’s Hill Resident
734 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Diana Matsushima <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 7:12 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: Glendale Environmental Coalition
Subject: Vote No on Artificial Turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, I join with the Sierra Club and the Glendale Environmental Coalition in respectfully requesting that you vote No on artificial turf installations. I am persuaded by their comprehensive and detailed reasoning in the May 26, 2022 letter they sent. There are too many negative impacts if artificial turf is installed. We need to make every effort to be climate resilient.
Regards,
Diana S. Matsushima
91208
735 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Monica Ross <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 10:23 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Subject: Please Vote for real grass!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
Please recommend real grass and not plastic grass for the city of Glendale parks, recreation and sports fields. There is more than enough science to prove that putting in artificial grass does not move us forward towards creating a better environmental future for our children and community as it creates more heat, more waste, limits nature and many more reasons. Please make the better choice for our community and vote real grass.
Thank you,
Glendale resident- Monica Ross & Matt Hartz
736 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 8:04 AM
To: Sustainability; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David
Subject: FW: Please Vote NO on new artificial turf
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Erin Dinan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 5:03 PM
To: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Glendale Environmental Coalition <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Vote NO on new artificial turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Good Afternoon,
I have reviewed the letter and supporting evidence put together by the GEC and Sierra Club and am writing to ask you to please vote NO on new artificial turf fields up for consideration this week in Glendale parks and schools.
I have two children who are incoming elementary school students at a Glendale public elementary school (John Muir) and who will likely play on or around these fields one day. Plastic solutions are not viable solutions. The monetary and health costs far outweigh the benefits of artificial turf. We need MORE real green spaces, not less, in our city for kids to play on. Personally, I played multiple sports on real grass and artificial turf as a child, high school and college student athlete, and can say firsthand that the artificial turf is a completely different game than real grass. It’s faster, you need another set of shoes/cleats (cost) and there were definitely more injuries. It is disappointing and highly concerning that 20 years after I played, with all the information around negative health and climate impacts of artificial turf that people are still proposing expanding artificial turf.
Please protect our children, our community and our planet - give children a chance to have more natural green spaces to play, as you undoubtedly had as children.
Please vote NO this Thursday on artificial turf at Cerritos Elementary, Sports Complex, Wilson Middle School, Pacific Park and Fremont Park
Thank you,
Erin Dinan 737 of 1332
2 Adam’s Hill Resident
738 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 8:06 AM
To: Sustainability; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David
Subject: FW: No to artificial turf
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Kathleen Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 10:01 AM
To: [email protected]; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: No to artificial turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
As a concerned resident of Glendale, I encourage you to oppose the use of artificial plastic turf fields in Glendale. Artificial turf greatly increases heat generation and potential toxicity.
Ongoing drought makes natural grass problematic, though school playgrounds could be consolidated into smaller green turf areas fed by stormwater capture, greywater, and/or hydroponic methods to sustain them.
Parks can use more arid examples of landscaping, using regional drought tolerant plantings, focusing on our all-important tree canopy along with smaller areas of natural grass.
Increasing the use of plastics and artificial turf is the clearly the wrong choice for Glendale.
I agree with the Glendale Environmental Coalition’s letter and ask that you vote against use of artificial turf in Glendale.
Respectfully,
Kathleen Clark
915 E. Mountain St.
Glendale, CA 91207
739 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 8:25 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Aleksanian, Tereza; Panossian, Koko; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Glendale Sports Turf Fields
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Nareg Hannessian <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 7:48 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Glendale Sports Turf Fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
I’m in support of artificial turf at all the soccer fields because of the consistency of the field, due to rain games getting canceled, and water shortage.
- Nareg Hannessian
[email protected]
424 West Lomita Ave
740 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 8:27 AM
To: Community Services & Parks; Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Aleksanian, Tereza; Panossian, Koko; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David
Subject: FW: Sustainability & Parks Commission Meeting on Artificial Turf Fields The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 9:54 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Sustainability & Parks Commission Meeting on Artificial Turf Fields CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
To City of Glendale, and to the Joint Special Meeting of the Sustainability Commission and Parks Commission,
I am a resident of the City of Glendale, love nature and as a family we do go camping too. Due to the lack-of-abundant-water, plus the new State mandate to use less water… I support fully the artificial turf at all and future soccer and sports fields in the City of Glendale, CA.
Why I support,
1) Whenever it rains the fields are closed and games are cancelled, and if the city decides to allow games during or after a rain… the fields will probably be partially or fully damaged. 2) The fields need to be maintained and watered regularly to avoid grass damages (Spotting), and to keep the fields safe for the players from the gravel. 3) Fields will be avoided due to spotting, become safety will become a major concern, and it will be a big financial loss to the city, parks, and to the teams that rent the fields. 4) I am in favor of using natural fibers, cork, and coconut shavings or other materials that help reduce the temperature on the fields. This natural solution will also help solve the water drainage concerns too.
Thank you,
Hratch Harry Hannessian
424 West Lomita Ave. #B
741 of 1332
2 Glendale, CA 91204
(818) 470-2836
The information contained in this message may be confidential and/or subject to legal privilege and is for the use of the intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying of the information in this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. 742 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 8:29 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Aleksanian, Tereza; Panossian, Koko; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Artificial Turf
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Shant Hannessian <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2022 2:47 AM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Artificial Turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
I’m in support of artificial turf at all the soccer fields because of the consistency of the field, due to rain games getting canceled, and water shortage.
- Shant Hannessian
[email protected]
424 West Lomita Ave
743 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: David F Eisenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 12:35 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: Bulanikian, Onnig; Jones, David; Harris, Elizabeth; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Temperature and Conditions Clarification
Attachments: 20220601_115714.jpg; 20220601_120033.jpg; 20220601_120238.jpg; 20220601_ 115959.jpg; 20220601_115808_001.jpg
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I’ve had questions about the current conditions at our city facilities.
So today, I did a bit of citizen science. I took my IR thermometer up to the sports complex and measured various parts of the fields and pavement.
Ambient Temperature was 83° at 12 noon.
The 153.9° was taken on the 2 artificial turf soccer fields. Turf temperatures ranged from 150° to 155°. This is 70° above the air temperature! The 130.4° was taken on the rubber track surrounding the fields. Temperatures were similar.
The 102.2° temperature was taken on the very weedy field with lots of bare spots. Even with no vegetation, it was substantially cooler.
The 127° was taken on the hottest spot of the parking lot pavement I could find (a black section)
The final picture shows the crumb rubber coming up from the turf and migrating onto the track.
This is an easy experiment to replicate. Most of us have these devices. You can also feel the heat as you approach these fields.
Note that most literature shows that 120° is the hottest surface temperature that should be played on.
Thank you,
David Eisenberg
Glendale Environmental Coalition
Sierra Club Verdugo Hills Group
744 of 1332
2 745 of 1332
746 of 1332
747 of 1332
748 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Mary-Lynne Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:18 PM
To: Sustainability
Subject: Vote NO on artificial turf on new playing fields CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am a long time Glendale resident who urges you to vote NO on artificial turf on new playing fields. As California's misguided policy of building more and more housing when there is less and less water available pushes more and more families into condominiums and apartments without yards for children to play in, these fields become even more important for children to get the exercise they need and burn off the energy that can keep them from concentrating in class and sleeping well at night.
Furthermore, well maintained fields of natural grass play a crucial role in cleaning our air and lowering ambient air temperatures. If the right variety is chosen and the field is properly managed, natural grass fields can even be less expensive than artificial substitutes, which need to be replaced regularly.
Regards,
Mary-Lynne Fisher
749 of 1332
Joint Special Meeting Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission
June 2, 2022
Public Comments Document 2
Public comments regarding the Thursday, June 2, 2022 Join Special Meeting Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation & Community Services.
Comments from the public regarding agenda item 3. a. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Triple Bottom Line (3BL) Assessment Natural Turf vs. Artificial Turf. 750 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: sschus <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 9:05 PM
To: Sustainability
Subject: Artificial turf vs Natural Grass issue
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
I do hope your commission will vote for natural grass use in Glendale's sports fields and NOT for artificial turf.
Plastic turf is made fro virgin plastic and is known to have its microplastics, laden with PFAS migrate into players' bodies and into the environment.
Furthermore, plastic grass is hotter by up to 70 F. degrees than surrounding air temperatures on warm, sunny days. On warm, sunny days, it can get even hotter - possibly generating dehydration and heatstroke.
But of great concern is the injuries, including turf burns, that players can experience.
Bottom line, there is no need for artificial turf in Glendale's sports fields. Voting for this would be a vote backwards from the progress Glendale is making to be a sustainable, clean energy city.
I'm sure you have been told about reasonable alternatives that use natural grass. If you need to remind yourselves
what some of these are, here are some links:
https://gec.eco/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Artificial-Turf-Comment-Letter-to-Parks-Recreation-Community-Services-andSustainability-Commissions.pdf https://gec.eco/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Site-by-Site-analysis-of-Pollution-and-Heat-Conditions.pdf Please do the right thing and vote FOR Natural Grass, not artificial turf.
Stephanie Schus
ROyal Blvd.
Glendale
751 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Jonathan Rossetti <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 9:41 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: [email protected]
Subject: No on Artificial Turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Glendale Parks Department,
I strongly encourage you not to install Artificial Turf in Glendale spaces. When my daughter was two years old we moved into a house in the Pacific Edison area of Glendale and we would often walk to Pacific Park. The grass ball field is the only natural surface available in that entire neighborhood and it is always noticeably cooler than any other area of that park. Already that park lacks any meaningful shade and the playground is virtually unusable after 10am in the summer due to the lack of shade and reflected heat from the rubberized play surface. Adding an additional huge synthetic surface to the area will only increase the heat and again takes away the only green space available in the entire neighborhood.
Jonathan Rossetti
752 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Seline Guidotti <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 9:53 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Subject: Artificial Turf vote
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Parks Recreation and Community Service Commission a Sustainability Commission, I urge you to vote against the artificial turf installations on five (5) fields, including at Pacific Park/Edison Elementary.
That's 7 acres of plastic grass that would shed microfibers into our water, increase the heat island effect, and will one day end up in landfills.
Our son has always only known artificial turf at Edison Elementary and would come home with his shoes and socks full of plastic bits. As he grew older, he became more vocal about how the turf would be too hot on hot days, to the point that his feet would hurt (“melt” in his words) and would have to go cool off, and has learned to avoid it when it’s hot.
Thank you for your consideration,
Seline Guidotti
Glendale CA resident since 2000, concerned parent
753 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:21 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Subject: Artifical Turf v grass
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Thanks to the commissioners for allowing the public to weigh in on this important issue.
A friend has a daughter who is a high level soccer player. His experience is that artificial turf is not healthy for players, especially goalies. I don't have the statistics, but if players have to ice their shoes and sometimes are burned by playing on hot plastic with ground up tires to cushion their falls, it seems counter productive for providing a safe environment for anyone serious about the sport.
Please consider the testimony of parents and players who are directly impacted by a decision to remove natural grass. Please keep natural grass on Glendale's playing fields.
Sincerely,
Michael Sheehan
Adams Hill
754 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:18 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Turf Fields for Glendale City Fields (Sports Complex, Pacific Park) and School Fields The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Ross Paulson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2022 5:51 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Turf Fields for Glendale City Fields (Sports Complex, Pacific Park) and School Fields CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear City Council Members:
My name is Ross Paulson. I have been a resident of Glendale for 26 years. Myself, my wife and our two children have been lucky enough to have been involved in youth sports for many years.
I have volunteered to coach soccer teams, volunteered to referee soccer matches and have also been a Board Member of Region 88 AYSO. I first started volunteering in 1996, so I have seen the Sports Complex being born and undergo changes going from dirt/grass fields to artificial turf. I have also refereed High School matches for compensation at very many high schools throughout Los Angeles County. I have refereed over 3,000 matches in total, of which over 500 matches have been at all kinds of High Schools. I have seen and experienced grass fields and artificial turf fields under every type of condition imaginable, wet, raining, dry, burned out grass, day, night, hot, cold, windy, calm, good air quality and bad air quality.
My opinion is that turf is far and away superior to grass for athletic fields. They are much safer for the kids. You have much better foot traction, even when wet, on turf fields. When kids fall on turf fields, they don't break their bones as often and have other orthopedic injuries like they do on grass fields. On grass fields, the grass often wears out, leaving dirt patches which become dust bowls when dry and mud slicks when wet. Additionally, grass fields develop low spots, little holes if you will, which become tripping hazards and ankle sprain opportunities. Grass fields also have sprinklers which are tripping hazards, both for the players and the referees.
As to the Sports Complex, I am very knowledgeable as parent, coach, referee and administrator for AYSO Region 88. In the early days of the Sports Complex, there would be nice grass that took months to grow when 755 of 1332 2 the fields would not be available for use. When the grass fields would be opened for use, the fields would be nice for about a month and the grass would wear out and dirt spots would emerge. After about three months, the grass would be badly worn out, with huge spaces of hard dirt. When kids would trip on the hard, uneven dirt, they would fall, and be injured. There were so many bloody knees, hands and elbows suffered by the kids. We would literally have to carry special bandages, and other materials to get blood off of the jerseys of the kids, all caused by the rough dirt fields with little grass. The City would actually have to stop watering the fields, because they would become mud bowls, slippery and dangerous.
The turf fields were a Godsend. The turf was even and reliable. Kids could play safely even if the field was wet and even if it was raining lightly.
The current turf fields at the Sports Complex use ground up tires as fill to the best of my understanding. It can get hot on bright, hot days. As referee and administrator we moderate the kids time on the fields when it's hot, including taking extra water breaks and limiting playing time if necessary.
Some of the newer turf fields use a lighter colored fill. I remember that this type of fill was used at Carson High School and a few others where I refereed high school matches. I thought that the ligher colored fill was a bit cooler than the black ground up tire fill, so I would suggest that when the Sports Complex is refurbished or for other new turf fields that the City of Glendale use the lighter and cooler fill for the artificial turf fields.
Some of the so-called eco people want to replace artificial turf with grass. Perhaps they have not heard that there is a water crisis in California. Maybe they should use their excess energy to go out and pick up some trash or do some composting. I do this myself, and I don't have to go out and pretend that I care about the kids. I have done it with my deeds and my life.
I question whether all of the Eco people are residents of Glendale like me. I question whether they have kids playing on Glendale's turf fields. I question what kind of experience they have running on grass/dirt and artificial turf fields. If their speakers don't tell you where they live, how many kids they have, and their field experience, their opinions should carry zero weight with the Glendale City Council.
Those Council Members who don't care about the kids, should go ahead and vote to wreck our nice artificial turf fields and vote against the children of Glendale and La Crescenta. The Eco Woke people should be ashamed of themselves. If Dan Brotman is in favor of wrecking our kids fields, he should be voted out of office. Dan is apparently the leader of this Eco Woke Group, but if he comes to his senses, well then GREAT! These opinions and comments are my own, and not those of AYSO or Region 88. I am not writing on behalf of AYSO, but on behalf of my family and hopefully my future grandchildren.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide my views on this topic. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting on June 2 in person.
Ross Paulson
Glendale resident
756 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:19 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Turf Fields
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Jack Iskanian <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2022 9:02 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Turf Fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
The new projects eliminate one of California's most precious resources, water. We are seeing signs all over the city that says, Save Water, Save California. How contradictory would you be if you were to vote for natural grass that requires constant watering, grey or potable water, year-round? How contradictory would you be if during a drought, with watering restrictions, you implement the use of something that will hurt us more in the short term from a water perspective and the long term from a cost benefit analysis perspective.
If the argument is that fields in Glendale use reclaimed water, one of the identified sites requires over $500,000 in funds to connect to the nearest reclaimed water line. Additionally, what is reclaimed water, is it not fresh water that has been treated and safe enough for reuse but not safe enough to drink? Where is this supply of reclaimed water coming from if we are all reducing our fresh water supply consumption? Less rain, less reclaimed water supply, less fresh water use, less reclaimed water supply. Don't fall into this trap, potable water or reclaimed water is still the same water supply and in an area where droughts are prevalent, there is just less resources to go around.
Don't contradict the direction our city leadership is taking by eliminating waste by voting for a playing surface that requires more maintenance, more resources, more time, and more energy and claim its for the betterment of the environment, when all you are doing is shifting the impact from one aspect to another.
757 of 1332
2 Vote for what makes sense. More fields, and more access to fields year-round only makes sense with artificial turf in mind.
Don't pretend to want to build more amenities and outdoor spaces only to heavily limit their use because you didn't do it right and build it with the correct material in the first place.
Vote for artificial turf - it's the best material for the type of use and the frequency of use for these fields and projects.
Thank you
Jack Iskanian
Levon Ishtoyan Foundation
Ishtoyan Soccer Academy
Glendale FC
Tel: 818.388.0808
758 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:20 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: URGENT: Artificial grass use is best for sports and to preserve water resources The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Rosie Ian <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2022 9:21 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: URGENT: Artificial grass use is best for sports and to preserve water resources CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear commissioners:
I am writing to you as a Glendale resident and advocate of youth and adult sports in our community. You have a decision to make regarding the approval for the use of artificial turf for potentially five different projects and more OR use of natural grass.
As a long-time user of our city's fields for personal development, and as a parent of children who now use those same fields for their own development, I urge you to vote for the playing surface that provides numerous generations the ability and accessibility to recreation and sports facilities yearround.
Additionally, we urge you to vote for the surface type that doesn't deprive youth access to athletic facilities because of seasonal changes related to rest and maintenance.
Lastly, we urge you to vote for the surface type that balances the disparity of available fields. North Glendale has three artificial turf fields whose residents get to use it year-round. South Glendale only has one field. These projects bring four out of the five new fields to south Glendale, a more densely populated part of the City, bringing balance to access to athletic facilities to north and south Glendale residents, equally.
Thank you,
Glendale resident and parent 759 of 1332
2 Virus-free. www.avg.com
760 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:21 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Artificial Turf vs Natural Turf
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin Account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Lusine Ishtoyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2022 10:04 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Artificial Turf vs Natural Turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I’m writing to you as a Glendale resident and advocate of youth and adult sports in our community. You have a decision to make regarding the approval for the use of artificial turf for potentially five different projects and more or use of natural grass.
As a long time user of our city’s fields for personal development, and as a parent of children who now use those same fields for their own development, I urge you to vote for the playing surface that provides numerous generations the ability and accessibility to recreation and sports facilities year-round.
Additionally, we urge you to vote for the surface type that doesn’t deprive youth access to athletic facilities because of seasonal changes related to rest and maintenance.
Lastly, we urge you to vote for the surface type that balances the disparity of available fields. North Glendale has three artificial turf fields whose residents get to use it year-round. South Glendale only has one field. This projects bring four out of the five new fields to south Glendale, a more densely populated part of the City, bringing balance to access to athletic facilities to north and south Glendale residents, equally.
Thank you
Sincerely
Lusine Ishtoyan
Sent from my iPhone
761 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:23 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Vote Artificial turf fields
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Fred Isayan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2022 10:55 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote Artificial turf fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am a long-time resident of Glendale. I am writing to tell you that artificial turf is the only way to vote. This provides our kids a place to play close to our home year-round. Why should any Glendale resident have to drive our children anywhere out of the City to play sports? Glendale needs more fields. Artificial Turf gives us more fields. Vote for artificial turf, vote to keep Glendale residents who love sports, to stay in Glendale to play these sports.
The new projects eliminate one of California's most precious resources, water. We are seeing signs all over the city that says, Save Water, Save California. How contradictory would you be if you were to vote for natural grass that requires constant watering, grey or potable water, year-round? How contradictory would you be if during a drought, with watering restrictions, you implement the use of something that will hurt us more in the short term from a water perspective and the long term from a cost benefit analysis perspective.
If the argument is that fields in Glendale use reclaimed water, one of the identified sites requires over $500,000 in funds to connect to the nearest reclaimed water line. Additionally, what is reclaimed water, is it not fresh water that has been treated and safe enough for reuse but not safe enough to drink? Where is this supply of reclaimed water coming from if we are all reducing our fresh water supply consumption? Less rain, less reclaimed water supply, less fresh water use, less reclaimed water supply. Don't fall into this trap, potable water or reclaimed water is still the same water supply and in an area where droughts are prevalent, there is just less resources to go around. 762 of 1332
2 Don't contradict the direction our city leadership is taking by eliminating waste by voting for a playing surface that requires more maintenance, more resources, more time, and more energy and claim its for the betterment of the environment, when all you are doing is shifting the impact from one aspect to another.
Vote for what makes sense. More fields, and more access to fields year-round only makes sense with artificial turf in mind.
Don't pretend to want to build more amenities and outdoor spaces only to heavily limit their use because you didn't do it right and build it with the correct material in the first place.
Vote for artificial turf - it's the best material for the type of use and the frequency of use for these fields and projects.
Thank you,
Fred Isayan
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
763 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:56 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Artificial Turf Needed In Glendale
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Jacob K. Farsakh <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 8:30 AM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Artificial Turf Needed In Glendale
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to you as a Glendale resident and advocate of youth and adult sports in our community. You have a decision to make regarding the approval for the use of artificial turf for potentially five different projects and more OR use of natural grass.
As a long-time user of our city's fields for personal development, and as a parent of children who now use those same fields for their own development, I urge you to vote for the playing surface that provides numerous generations the ability and accessibility to recreation and sports facilities year-round.
Additionally, we urge you to vote for the surface type that doesn't deprive youth access to athletic facilities because of seasonal changes related to rest and maintenance.
Lastly, we urge you to vote for the surface type that balances the disparity of available fields. North Glendale has three artificial turf fields whose residents get to use it year-round. South Glendale only has one field. These projects bring four out of the five new fields to south Glendale, a more densely populated part of the City, bringing balance to access to athletic facilities to north and south Glendale residents, equally.
Thank you,
Jacob K. Farsakh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 764 of 1332
2 101 N. Verdugo Rd. #9231
Glendale, CA 91226
Tel: 1-323-510-5430
E-Mail Address: [email protected]
765 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:57 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Glendale Turf Fields
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Sporting So-Cal Soccer Club <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 8:35 AM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Glendale Turf Fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
The new projects eliminate one of California's most precious resources, water. We are seeing signs all over the city that says, Save Water, Save California. How contradictory would you be if you were to vote for natural grass that requires constant watering, grey or potable water, year-round? How contradictory would you be if during a drought, with watering restrictions, you implement the use of something that will hurt us more in the short term from a water perspective and the long term from a cost benefit analysis perspective.
If the argument is that fields in Glendale use reclaimed water, one of the identified sites requires over $500,000 in funds to connect to the nearest reclaimed water line. Additionally, what is reclaimed water, is it not fresh water that has been treated and safe enough for reuse but not safe enough to drink? Where is this supply of reclaimed water coming from if we are all reducing our fresh water supply consumption? Less rain, less reclaimed water supply, less fresh water use, less reclaimed water supply. Don't fall into this trap, potable water or reclaimed water is still the same water supply and in an area where droughts are prevalent, there is just less resources to go around.
Don't contradict the direction our city leadership is taking by eliminating waste by voting for a playing surface that requires more maintenance, more resources, more time, and more energy and claim its for the betterment of the environment, when all you are doing is shifting the impact from one aspect to another.
766 of 1332
2 Vote for what makes sense. More fields, and more access to fields year-round only makes sense with artificial turf in mind.
Don't pretend to want to build more amenities and outdoor spaces only to heavily limit their use because you didn't do it right and build it with the correct material in the first place.
Vote for artificial turf - it's the best material for the type of use and the frequency of use for these fields and projects.
Thank you
John Akopyan, MBA
Co-Founder
Sporting So-Cal Soccer Club
818-939-9078
767 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: turf fields
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: elizabeth kostrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 9:46 AM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: turf fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to you as an 18-year Glendale resident and advocate of youth sports in our community. I understand that you have a decision to make regarding approval for the use of artificial turf for five different projects. I also understand that there are groups that are opposed to artificial turf and are instead advocating for the use of natural grass. As a parent of children who use city fields for their development, I urge you to vote for artificial turf for the following reasons:
1. Artificial turf is the playing surface that provides accessibility to recreation and sports facilities year-round. Turf does not cause seasonal changes in use related to rest and maintenance that grass fields require.
2. Artificial turf is the playing surface type that would balance the disparity of available fields. North Glendale currently has three artificial turf fields that the residents get to use year-round. South Glendale only has one field. These proposed projects bring four out of the five new fields to south Glendale, a more densely populated part of the city, bringing balance in access to athletic facilities between north and south Glendale residents. 768 of 1332
2 3. Artificial turf is the playing surface that would be the most environmentally appropriate given the changing climate and the strain on the water supply in the state of California.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Hall
769 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 10:56 AM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Artificial Turf fields in Glendale
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Silviya Karapetian <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 10:50 AM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Artificial Turf fields in Glendale
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Glendale Leadership:
I am a long-time resident of Glendale. I am writing to tell you that artificial turf is the only way to vote. This provides our kids a place to play close to our home year-round.
Why should any Glendale resident have to drive our kids out of the City to play sports? Glendale needs more fields.
Artificial Turf gives us more fields without being wasteful in water usage.
Vote for artificial turf, vote to keep Glendale residents who love sports in Glendale to play these sports.
Our kids need your support.
Thank you,
Silviya Karapetian
770 of 1332
Joint Special Meeting Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission
June 2, 2022
Public Comments Document 3
Public comments regarding the Thursday, June 2, 2022 Join Special Meeting Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation & Community Services.
Comments from the public regarding agenda item 3. a. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Triple Bottom Line (3BL) Assessment Natural Turf vs. Artificial Turf. 771 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 12:59 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Glendale turf fields
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Ovsanna Akopyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 12:54 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Glendale turf fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
Much argument is being made about crumb rubber with the proposed artificial turf. I would like to rectify these false statements and point out that the new projects are using natural infills which are sustainable.
Those against artificial turf are claiming turf is 70 degrees hotter than natural grass. Anything baking under the sun all day would naturally be hotter. This argument does not make sense. Are we to assume that when the ambient temperature in Glendale is at 101 degrees - it is 170 degrees because we are on artificial turf? This comparison is inaccurate as it is comparing air temperature in relation to surface temperature.
I urge you to consider and analyze facts for what they truly are and not skewed data used to emphasize one perspective.
Denying the use of artificial turf fields in the middle of a stage 3 drought, is denying our kids the opportunity to be outdoors and recreate for sport or for pleasure year-round. Voting against a surface that is suitable for play 365 days a year, is denying our kids the opportunity to have a consistent regimen, a schedule to follow, and have something to accomplish through sports and recreation.
I urge you to think objectively, cut through the fictitious arguments that have a skewed perspective and vote for the surface that is tried, tested, and true, time and time again. Vote for artificial turf. 772 of 1332 2 Thank you
Sincerely,
Ovsanna Alebyan
773 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 12:38 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Artificial Turf Vote
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Shawna Rodgers <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 11:37 AM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Artificial Turf Vote
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am a resident of Glendale. My daughter has been playing with Glendale FC for the past 9 months and has loved every minute of it. The only issue we have is field space and not having a consistent time and place for practices. As many of you may be parents it is nice when there is consistency for our littles! I am writing to tell you that artificial turf is the only way to vote and it is my vote. This provides our kids a place to play close to our home year-round. Why should I a Glendale resident have to drive our children anywhere out of the City to play sports? Glendale needs more fields.
Artificial Turf gives us more fields. Vote for artificial turf, vote to keep Glendale residents who love sports, to stay in Glendale to play these sports.
Thank you,
Shawna Rodgers
Sent from my iPhone
774 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Karen H <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 12:48 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Subject: Please VOTE NO to Artificial Turf in our city
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Sustainability and Parks commissions for Glendale, Please VOTE AGAINST new Artificial turf in Glendale.
Plastic pollution is already a huge problem for our planet and community. Astroturf will shed microplastic fragments that will wash into storm drains or onto surrounding soil every time it rains or the wind blows. Fake grass and its fragments are not biodegradable. Microplastic pollutants are now found everywhere on the globe.
We should avoid purchasing any products that harm our environment.
Even if this is the cheapest alternative for you short term, you must consider the long term costs to our children, our community, city state and the globe. Plastic pollution knows NO boundaries.
As a 9 year Resident of Glendale with 2 children, I implore you to vote down this idea of adding to our plastic pollution.
Please VOTE NO to Artificial Turf in our city!
Sincerely,
Karen Hare NEILSSON
818 398 9269 MOBILE
Glendale, CA
775 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 1:38 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Adding turf fields in glendale
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Roland Nz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 1:06 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Adding turf fields in glendale
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
With regards to claims that artificial grass is 40 to 60 degrees hotter than natural grass, I would like to point out that these temperatures are not comparing surface temperature to surface temperature. It is comparing the artificial turf's surface temperature to ambient air temperature.
Additionally, while the darkest patches of grass, the most lush green parts, are the coolest to the touch and have the lowest temperatures, the fields that are scheduled for renovation have the least amount of lush green spots, they are mainly dried yellow patches of grass or are now dirt.
When comparing the surface temperature of the dried yellow grass, or the dirt, or the concrete, the existing artificial turf surface is about 20 degrees hotter. You should take into consideration however, that the existing artificial turf uses black rubber crumble. Dark objects absorb heat. The new projects call for the use of a natural infill. This natural infill will outperform the crumble technology developed 20 plus years ago.
The facts remain however, while artificial turf with a rubber infill is only about 20 degrees cooler when you study surface temperature to surface temperature, the playing surface temperature will only decrease with the use of a natural infill.
Lastly, because it is a natural infill, there will be less crumble to be concerned about off the turf as that natural material will dissolve back into the ground.
776 of 1332
2 Thank you,
777 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Say YES to Artificial Turf Fields
The message below was send to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Alexander Grigoryan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 1:35 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Say YES to Artificial Turf Fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to you as an advocate of youth and adult sports in our community. You have a decision to make regarding the approval for the use of artificial turf for potentially five different projects and more OR use of natural grass.
As a long-time user of our city's fields for personal development, and as a parent of children who now use those same fields for their own development, I urge you to vote for the playing surface that provides numerous generations the ability and accessibility to recreation and sports facilities year-round.
Additionally, we urge you to vote for the surface type that doesn't deprive youth access to athletic facilities because of seasonal changes related to rest and maintenance.
Lastly, we urge you to vote for the surface type that balances the disparity of available fields. North Glendale has three artificial turf fields whose residents get to use it year-round. South Glendale only has one field. These 778 of 1332 2 projects bring four out of the five new fields to south Glendale, a more densely populated part of the City, bringing balance to access to athletic facilities to north and south Glendale residents, equally.
Thank you,
Alex Grigoryan
779 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 3:06 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: soccer fields in Glendale
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Artsrun Badalyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 2:51 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: soccer fields in Glendale
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
Much argument is being made about crumb rubber with the proposed artificial turf. I would like to rectify these false statements and point out that the new projects are using natural infills which are sustainable.
Those against artificial turf are claiming turf is 70 degrees hotter than natural grass. Anything baking under the sun all day would naturally be hotter. This argument does not make sense. Are we to assume that when the ambient temperature in Glendale is 101 degrees - it is 170 degrees because we are on artificial turf? This comparison is inaccurate as it is comparing air temperature in relation to surface temperature.
I urge you to consider and analyze facts for what they truly are and not skewed data used to emphasize one perspective.
Denying the use of artificial turf fields in the middle of a stage 3 drought is denying our kids the opportunity to be outdoors and recreate for sport or for pleasure year-round. Voting against a surface that is suitable for play 365 days a year, is denying our kids the opportunity to have a consistent regimen, a schedule to follow, and have something to accomplish through sports and recreation.
I urge you to think objectively, cut through the fictitious arguments that have a skewed perspective, and vote for the surface that is tried, tested, and true, time and time again. Vote for artificial turf.
Thank you 780 of 1332
2 --
Best Regards,
ARTSRUN K. BADALYAN LL.M.
781 of 1332
Joint Special Meeting Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission
June 2, 2022
Public Comments Document 4
Public comments regarding the Thursday, June 2, 2022 Join Special Meeting Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation & Community Services.
Comments from the public regarding agenda item 3. a. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Triple Bottom Line (3BL) Assessment Natural Turf vs. Artificial Turf. 782 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 4:17 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Artificial Turf Feedback, June 2, 2022
Attachments: CSP_060222.pdf; Turf vs Real Grass_060222.pdf Importance: High
The message below with attached documents was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Ralph Tapia <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 3:35 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Artificial Turf Feedback, June 2, 2022
Importance: High
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Greetings.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the issue of artificial turf usage in the City of Glendale.
Regards,
Ralph Tapia,
Pres, Glendale Babe Ruth Baseball League
So CA Babe Ruth District 4 Commissioner
So CA State Babe Ruth Commissioner
783 of 1332
1 of 1
GLENDALE BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE
Established in 1963
PO Box 3571
Glendale, CA 91221-0373
[email protected]
FIN: 01-0849960
June 2, 2022
Sustainability Commission
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Glendale CA
To Whom It May Concern:
I’m the league president of Glendale Babe Ruth Baseball League, So Cal BR District 4 Commissioner, and So Cal BR State Commissioner. I have lived in the same Glendale neighborhood since September of 1963, and two of my brothers and two sons are Hoover HS alumni.
Athletic fields provide the local youth and adults with a very important outlet for physical and mental health. Anytime natural grass fields are down for maintenance or resting the impact to athletic programs is significant. There just aren’t enough fields to meet the demands of the local youth and adult programs. Artificial turf fields are available for usage significantly longer by nature when compared to natural grass fields. This translates to more usage for participants.
The local southern CA climate and urban growth in Glendale necessitates the use of artificial turf to provide year-round field accessibility and reduce water usage. Natural grass fields are not a viable option to provide athletic fields to the youth and adults in the City of Glendale. Too many personnel and maintenance resources are used to maintain natural grass fields. The costs are and will continue to be high.
The drought conditions require water reduction strategies. Watering athletic fields and lawns cannot continue at the current levels. Artificial fields reduce water usage significantly. Using natural grass fields in the City of Glendale can no longer be an option.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on this issue.
Regards,
/s/
Ralph Tapia,
President,
Commissioner
784 of 1332
1 of 4
Turf vs Real Grass
I am strongly in favor of converting City of Glendale baseball/softball fields to artificial turf.
My Personal Background
• Glendale resident since 1963, 58 yrs
• 40-yr US Postal Service employee; Mgr of Finance, Sierra Coastal District, 1992 – 2017 • Facilities manager, US Postal Service, 1994 – 2017
• Coached youth baseball teams for 27 yrs
• Played and managed adult softball teams for 10 yrs
• President of Glendale Babe Ruth Baseball League, 2003 - present • Personally played baseball, football or softball as a youth and adult at Brand Park, Glendale Sports Complex, and Stengel Field, as well as on various other southern California fields. • Was on HS varsity baseball team 4 yrs as center fielder • Played 1 year on HS football team as full back and outside linebacker • Have participated in various City of Glendale parks’ renovation projects • Have participated in a couple of GUSD field projects at Hoover HS Field Experience
In all my years of coaching baseball and softball teams, and managing baseball leagues, I have become extremely familiar with all issues related to baseball/softball fields including field maintenance. I have routinely collaborated with field maintenance personnel on issues related to field conditions.
It has been my personal experience that the #1 injury of outfielders in baseball is ankle sprains. This is closely followed by injuries caused by baseballs hitting players. The root cause of these types of injuries is the condition of the field as in an uneven field surface.
The infield injuries are varied but high on the list of common injuries is being hit by a baseball when it takes a “bad” hop off the infield grass. Again, the root cause of these is an uneven field surface.
It is also very common for players to sustain leg injuries from wet field conditions. Mushy grass is a danger zone for players even though it is believed that cleats minimize the risks. Cleats are only effective with dry field conditions. No approved athletic footwear can prevent injury with pools of water or mushy field.
The outfield condition of Dunsmore and Scholl Canyon Parks is negatively impacted by outfielders standing in central locations on the field, and soccer practices and games. Soccer use literally wears the grass down to dirt in the middle section of the painted soccer field and areas in front of goals. I have included field pictures to illustrate my points of how the fields are worn down and unsafe field conditions.
785 of 1332
Turf vs Grass Fields
2 of 4
I opted for many turf projects during my tenure as Manager of Finance for the Sierra Coastal District of the US Postal Service in Southern and Central California. The financial savings of turf versus natural grass routinely saved us 10s of thousands of dollars per year once the initial costs where recouped. The drawbacks of natural grass include large labor costs to maintain and dispose of clippings, the high cost of watering, and the use of pesticides that also contaminate water systems.
The salary including benefits and equipment savings alone are substantial. New turf options are not only very similar to the look and feel of natural grass but they also have life spans of at least 25 years.
No field surface prevents 100% of the injuries I have described but turf easily eliminates most foot and ankle injuries caused by uneven field surfaces and all wet and mushy field conditions not counting rain. It also prevents the bad hop injuries since the movement of a baseball or softball becomes more predictable. Running on turf is also more predictable with little to no worries associated with grass fields.
Pictures
The pictures I have included clearly show what a grass field looks like after soccer has used the field for a short while and when baseball and softball have used a field. I have also included a picture to illustrate my point about a wet or mushy field.
Summary & Recommendations
In short, all the City baseball and softball fields are multi-sport fields. There is no way to prevent field erosion caused by heavy use. There is no way to prevent uneven grass fields with the amount of usage the fields receive. The labor cost to maintain the grass fields is significant. Water usage and cost are high with grass fields. Injuries to players are higher with grass fields.
Convert all City baseball/softball grass fields to 100% turf including the infields. I have personal knowledge of baseball fields that left the plate, bases, and mound with brick dust while converting all the grass areas and most of the infield with turf. The amount of time and trouble to keep the brick dust off the turf minimizes the cost benefits of using turf. There is no simple inexpensive way to keep turf clean of brick dust.
I would be happy to participate in any discussion about the pros and cons of turf versus grass fields. I would offer my financial expertise in cost-benefit analysis and expense management but I figure that expertise already exists within the City.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this feedback related to our City fields. /s/
Ralph Tapia, Pres.
Glendale Babe Ruth Baseball League
[email protected]
786 of 1332
Turf vs Grass Fields
3 of 4
This is what a field looks like after soccer has been on it for a short while.
This is what a field looks like after several months of rest, seeding, and countless hours of watering.
Note that the grass is uneven with light and thick patches of grass. 787 of 1332
Turf vs Grass Fields
4 of 4
Note the unevenness of the field with patches and clumps of grass. This field condition is clearly the root cause for foot and ankle injuries as well as bad hope. There is no way anyone can predict what will happen to the trajectory of a baseball with this field condition. The infield is in the same condition as the outfield even though you cannot see the detail in this picture.
This condition is more common than we want to admit and has a very high degree of danger for any player that tries to run over or past this. Note the une 788 of 1332 venness of the grass in general. 1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 4:20 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: Glendale Soccer field
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Marica Charmahali <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 3:42 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Glendale Soccer field
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am a long-time resident of Glendale. I am writing to tell you that artificial turf is the only way to vote. My son has been a part of the Glendale FC soccer team for 5 years and every week he looks forward to each and every practice. This provides our kids a place to play close to our home year-round. Why should any Glendale resident have to drive our children anywhere out of the City to play sports? Glendale needs more fields. Artificial Turf gives us more fields. Vote for artificial turf, vote to keep Glendale residents who love sports, to stay in Glendale to play these sports. Our kids deserve the time and space provided for them to be a part of a team and to enjoy doing what they love.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
789 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 4:29 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Harris, Elizabeth; Jones, David Subject: FW: COUNCIL CHAMBER - voting for artificial turf The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Ff 8 <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 4:26 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: COUNCIL CHAMBER - voting for artificial turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to you as being a Glendale resident and an active participant (coach for 3 Glendale teams) of youth and adult sports in our Glendale community.
I understand you have a decision to make regarding the approval for the use of artificial turf for potentially five different projects and more OR use of natural grass.
As a long-time user of our city's fields for personal development, and as a parent of a child who now use those same fields for their own development, I urge you to vote for the playing surface that provides numerous generations the ability and accessibility to recreation and sports facilities year-round.
Additionally, we urge you to vote for the surface type that doesn't deprive youth access to athletic facilities because of seasonal changes related to rest and maintenance.
Let alone make it much safer to play on and away from injuries, etc.
Lastly, we urge you to vote for the surface type that balances the disparity of available fields. North Glendale has three artificial turf fields whose residents get to use it year-round. South Glendale only has one field. These projects bring four out of the five new fields to south Glendale, a more densely populated part of the City, bringing balance to access to athletic facilities to north and south Glendale residents, equally.
790 of 1332
2 Thank you,
Coquito
791 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Joanna Pringle <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 4:30 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Devine, Paula; Najarian, Ara Subject: ITEM 3a - Artificial Turf Report
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Sustainability and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commissioners, I am confused about many aspects of the cost analysis in the City reports.
It seems the reports are being weighted unfairly, favoring artificial turf while purposely weighting natural grass at an inaccurate disadvantage.
The 2021-2022 Citywide Fee Schedule
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65585/637777429589000000 reports on page 90 of 138:
The softball (baseball fields) are about $400 in service fees.
The soccer (multi purpose fields) are about $800 in service fees.
The average annual revenue from rentals on multi-purpose artificial turf fields is $160,000, while average revenue on natural grass fields is $30,000. But 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 fields to rent to soccer users when it is not used for baseball/softball (page 39 of staff report).
On page 68 of the LCA there's a chart showing different revenues. Are they assuming revenues for multipurpose fields off of baseball fields? The rates are different.
On page 70 of the LCA 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. There are no real grass multi use fields, so how is this comparison fair? Furthermore the following information is on page 39 of the Citypacket report:
>> 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 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. << 792 of 1332
2 It seems the City reports are comparing 2021 artificial grass rates to pre-2004 real grass rates? The fee structures have obviously gone up since 2004. For instance, in 2011 the city was charged $745 for soccer leagues per team. Now in 2021 soccer league fees are $845.
Also, there's something else to consider that’s not really explored in the reports. 4 of the 5 proposed locations for the artificial fields have reclaimed water piping going through them (Pacific Park, Cerritos Park, Wilson Middle, and Sports Complex — which, I believe, the Sports Complex already does use reclaimed water). So natural grass fields could utilize the reclaimed water without much extra expense for the City and with proper water capture methods, natural grass fields could be maintained. If the City used Measure W funds for water capture and utilized the reclaimed piped water that’s already there at 4 of the 5 locations, then watering natural grass fields won’t be the costly albatross that they claim.
The other proposed location of Fremont Park is about 700 feet away from a reclaimed water line and abuts the Verdugo Wash which could be used for storm capture with Measure W funds.
Thank you for taking the time to look into this. Occidental College recently did their own cost analysis of artificial fields vs natural grass fields https://www.watershedhealth.org/singlepost/2019/11/08/summersciencefriday-artificial-turf-vs-natural-turf:
>> Cost Comparison
It costs approximately $275,000 to install synthetic turf, whereas the cost for installing natural turf onto an athletic field is around $160,000. While it may seem like a lot less money, natural turf costs more in maintenance and additional labor. Synthetic turf is more expensive to lay down and install, but it requires less intensive maintenance, reducing labor costs. Typical maintenance for synthetic turf can involve raking, sweeping, and patching holes in the turf (2). When labor costs are added, both seem to be about equal and the your decision between the two will most likely depend on the health benefits rather than monetary savings.<<
It seems to me that cost aside the environmental concerns of the heat island effects and pollution caused by water run off should be enough reason to avoid artificial turf and go with natural grass as the better choice. But if the costs of artificial turf and natural turf were weighed accurately, there wouldn't be any reason to choose artificial turf either.
As a 36-year resident of Glendale, I am asking you to avoid artificial turf and all its immediate and longterm destruction on our environment and to vote for natural turf. Or at the very least, get an accurate assessment of the costs and revenue.
Sincerely,
Joanna
Joanna Pringle
Mobile 213-509-0005
793 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 4:59 PM
To: [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Sustainability; Jones, David; Harris, Elizabeth Subject: FW: Artificial Turf
The message below was sent to the Parks Commission account.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: ARMOND AVAKIAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 4:51 PM
To: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Artificial Turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear City of Glendale Officials,
I appreciate all you do. I've played soccer for nearly 35 of my 52 years on this planet. I have played on professional fields, on dirt fields, on school grass, and on artificial turf.
Having lived in Glendale since 1997, I am more than comfortable stating that the city needs more soccer fields and more specifically, I support artificial turf fields. Those fields allow for participants to use the facility throughout the year as opposed to natural grass which is unusable for up to 3 days after a rainy day. Natural grass also requires constant reseeding as well as the need to take weeks off to allow for the grass to regrow itself naturally. Lastly, given the extremely dry and hot weather here in Southern California, the dirt under the grass turns into concrete from the months of April through October.
I, along with numerous others have been injured on a number of occasions including two friends who stopped playing as a result of hitting their heads on dirt, yes dirt, and suffering concussions. I, my kids and thousands of soccer players throughout Southern California will always choose artificial turf rather than natural grass that is not cared for properly (watering at least 6 times a day, using the field for one month and letting the field rest for two weeks, etc.). Please think about the useability of the fields and how important it is for all the community to get a chance to play and enjoy sports outdoors. Please vote in favor of artificial turf for our playing/soccer fields.
Thank you for your time,
Armond Avakian 794 of 1332
2 Glendale Resident
795 of 1332
Joint Special Meeting Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission
June 2, 2022
Public Comments Document 5
Public comments regarding the Thursday, June 2, 2022 Join Special Meeting Sustainability Commission and Parks, Recreation & Community Services.
Comments from the public regarding agenda item 3. a. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Triple Bottom Line (3BL) Assessment Natural Turf vs. Artificial Turf. 796 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 5:23 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Jones, David
Subject: FW: Artificial Turf
The message below was sent to the Parks Commission account and has not yet been included in the posted packet.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Esmeralda Navarrete <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 4:59 PM
To: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Artificial Turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Hello Parks and Recreation Commissioners,
Please vote in favor of artificial turfs. I cannot tell you how upset my son and his fellow teammates (10 year old boys) get everytime it rains and their practice gets cancelled at grass fields. Ever since their practices got switched to artificial turf fields, we have not had a single rain delay. Furthermore, given the hot weather, without constant watering (we are in a major drought), the grass fields turn into dangerous concrete grounds where young boys break arms, fingers, and legs on a constant basis. Please consider how beneficial the artificial turfs are for our kids and vote in favor. --
Esmeralda Navarrete
OPTIMA
Office: (818)547-6333
Email: [email protected]
Address: 333 E Glenoaks Blvd #100 Glendale, CA. 91207
797 of 1332
2 Join OPTIMA:
https://www.joinremax.com/RemaxOptima
798 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 5:43 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Subject: Please vote for natural grass, not artificial turf.
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners, I hope to call in tonight with concerns not already given in the report from GEC and Sierra Club, but til then, I want to express my sincere hope that you will vote to recommend natural grass fields for our city today. I'll simply quote the LSA itself as to my personal MAIN reason why, all though there are many, many others:
“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.”
As a parent of a middle schooler who thankfully has a grass field to play on at his school now (Toll) and someone who is genuinely concerned about the serious lack of green spaces for residents of South Glendale in particular AND the high temperatures on our South Glendale and South Glendale adjacent school campuses and as someone who is actively planting trees and finding ways to reduce the heat and pollution impacts on one specific GUSD campus (Franklin) and working the best I can to help advocate for more greening on other campuses, like Cerritos Elementary or Wilson Middle School, whose only real green spaces are their currently grass fields, I am genuinely worried about what these proposed new artificial turf fields would mean to the health and well-being of both the players and the children and staff and others who share the spaces, ESPECIALLY at Wilson MS, Cerritos Elementary, Fremont Park and Pacific Park. HEAT is pretty much the only thing we can count on increasing these days sadly. We need to be focused on doing everything we can to cool our city and schools down. Investing in something that will become too hot to play on for many days per year is not a smart or kind investment.
Best wishes,
Monica Campagna
Glendale resident
799 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:43 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Subject: Re: Please vote for natural grass, not artificial turf.
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners, here are the final comments I could not fit in, with some concerns about the LSA:
- These fields have major impacts to everyone from other students on the campuses of Wilson MS, Cerritos Elementary and Edison Elementary which is right next to Pacific Park, and families enjoying Fremont Park. They create a localized urban heat island, in four sites in our city where temperatures are already very high, that have very little green space and most surfaces are concrete and asphalt where the playing field is literally the ONLY play space.. For 4 out of 5 sites, we are talking about schools that have very little green space in areas of the city that are extremely park poor and we are talking about removing ⅓ of Fremont Parks natural environment and replacing it with plasƟc. - Storm water percolation and Fertilizer run off should be mitigated for grass fields with bioswaling techniques to prevent runoff. Parks says they plan to mitigate artificial turf drainage issues with additional drainage systems. They could mitigate any fertilizer or stormwater runoff issues with tactics like bioswaling and integration of water capture systems around the field. Parks says they would not include drainage systems for grass fields. Why not? And just a note on rain. We have so few days of rain here in SoCal, that if fields must be closed for a bit after rain, we should all be gratefully enjoying the weather.
Here are just a few of several issue I saw with the LSA:
- how does artificial turf achieve a 2 (out of 5) regarding connection to nature? - How does artificial turf with geofill receive a 2 when it comes to cooling effects? When it has no cooling effect? It should get a 1. Not any better regarding COOLING EFFECT than any other type of synthetic grass product with any kind of infill. None is none.
- Why did they give a slight score benefit to artificial turf with geofill, for hydrating the geofill after three days - when the parks WILL NOT be hydrating geofill?
Thank you,
Monica Campagna
800 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Rachel Ridgway <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 5:49 PM
To: Sustainability; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Cc: Glendale Environmental Coalition
Subject: Opposed to artificial turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Esteemed Council Members:
This letter is to express my evidence-based opposition to the installation of artificial turf in public parks or in any place that is likely to have regular close human contact. The reasons for this are well-documented:
1. Reducing greenspace will exacerbate the urban heat island effect, making local temperature even more susceptible to summer spikes. We must advocate and preserve as much green space as possible, not only to mitigate the urban heat island effect, but also to acknowledge the role of its many benefits to human health, such as oxygen regeneration, carbon sequestration (both in soil and plants), as well as documented improvements in local air quality. If Glendale want to remain the Jewel City along the L.A. River then it should invest in the water reuse and recycling infrastructure needed to preserve vital greenspace. Supporting Study: Site-by-site analysis of Pollution and Heat Conditions
2. Installing artificial turf would not only negate the many social and ecosystem services that natural turf provides, but it would also act as a potential source of air and water pollution, introducing known carcinogens into our local environment. I know this is not a choice that the City wants to be responsible for making. Supporting Study: Artificial turf: chemical flux and development of silicone wristband partitioning coefficients
I urge you to act decisively to protect the health of Glendale's citizens and workforce.
Together we can help maintain and grow the City's vibrance and verdancy.
Thank you for you consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
rr
Rachel Ridgway
Instructor of Oceanography & Geology (CR-142)
Glendale Community College
1500 North Verdugo Road Glendale, California 91208 801 of 1332 2 Cell Phone (Call/Text): 657-667-3423
Campus Phone: 818-240-1000 ext. 5768
[email protected]
Want to chat on Zoom? Please click here to schedule a time to visit during student office hours. 802 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 6:27 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Jones, David
Subject: FW: Vote for turf fields
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account and has not been posted as part of the packet as of yet.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Edwin Arakel <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 1:28 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote for turf fields
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Commissioners,
I am a long-time resident of Glendale. I am writing to tell you that artificial turf is the only way to vote. This provides our kids a place to play close to our home yearround. Why should any Glendale resident have to drive our children anywhere out of the City to play sports? Glendale needs more fields. Artificial Turf gives us more fields. Vote for artificial turf, vote to keep Glendale residents who love sports, to stay in Glendale to play these sports.
Edwin Arakel
US Youth Soccer Coach
803 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Paul Berolzheimer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 6:45 PM
To: Sustainability
Cc: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Subject: No artificial turf in Glendale parks
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Please vote for natural grass and NOT for artificial turf.
Thank you,
Paul Berolzheimer
Adams Hill, Glendale, California
818-331-8514
Incorrectly autocorrected by my iPhone
804 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 7:34 PM
To: [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Sustainability; Jones, David Subject: FW: NO SYNTHETIC TURF!
The message below was sent to the Parks Commission account and has not been posted as part of the packet as of yet. However, I am communicating with Ms. Harris, and she is keeping a tally even as the meeting is in progress.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Abby Walthausen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 7:28 PM
To: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission <[email protected]> Subject: NO SYNTHETIC TURF!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Dear Parks Commission,
I am writing to say that I strongly oppose the installation of synthetic turf on Glendale playing fields. They are dangerous for children in the short term due to the high heat they produce and the hard surface they create due to compaction underneath, They are also harmful in the long term, due to the microplastics they leach over the years both when in active use and in their long afterlife in the landfill.
Please DO NOT install these fields. They are unwise in the short and lon gterm.
Sincerely, Abby Walthausen
Mother of a Glendale public school student
--
www.abbywalthausen.com
805 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:43 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Jones, David
Subject: FW:
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account during last night’s meeting and is not part of the posted packet.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: mike torosyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 8:31 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject:
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Hello
I am writing to you as a Glendale resident and advocate of youth and adult sports in our community. You have a decision to make regarding the approval for the use of artificial turf for potentially five different projects and more OR use of natural grass.
As a long-time user of our city's fields for personal development, and as a parent of children who now use those same fields for their own development, I urge you to vote for the playing surface that provides numerous generations the ability and accessibility to recreation and sports facilities yearround.
Additionally, we urge you to vote for the surface type that doesn't deprive youth access to athletic facilities because of seasonal changes related to rest and maintenance.
Lastly, we urge you to vote for the surface type that balances the disparity of available fields. North Glendale has three artificial turf fields whose residents get to use it year-round. South Glendale only has one field. These projects bring four out of the five new fields to south Glendale, a more densely populated part of the City, bringing balance to access to athletic facilities to north and south Glendale Best Regards
Mike Torosyan
________________
Apex Cartage Inc 806 of 1332
2 4001 Inglewood Ave
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Main Line (310) 984-6868
Cell (818) 748-7512
This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by e-mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this message and all attachments. 807 of 1332
1 Harris, Elizabeth
From: Community Services & Parks
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 1:45 PM
To: Sustainability; [email protected]; Susan Wolfson; 'Ara Kalfayan'; Regina Alcazar; [email protected]; Bulanikian, Onnig; Panossian, Koko; Aleksanian, Tereza; Goglia, Gabrielle; Garabetian, Sevag; Jones, David
Subject: FW: Artificial Turf vs Natural Turf
The message below was sent to the CSP Admin account during last night’s meeting and is not part of the posted packet.
Iris Moreno Hernandez, Administrative Associate ● City of Glendale ● Community Services and Parks 613 East Broadway Room 120 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2000● [email protected] From: Harout Boyadjian <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2022 9:56 PM
To: Community Services & Parks <[email protected]>
Subject: Artificial Turf vs Natural Turf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Sent from Mail for Windows
Dear Commissioners,
The new projects eliminate one of California's most precious resources, water. We are seeing signs all over the city that says, Save Water, Save California. How contradictory would you be if you were to vote for natural grass that requires constant watering, grey or potable water, year-round? How contradictory would you be if during a drought, with watering restrictions, you implement the use of something that will hurt us more in the short term from a water perspective and the long term from a cost benefit analysis perspective.
If the argument is that fields in Glendale use reclaimed water, one of the identified sites requires over $500,000 in funds to connect to the nearest reclaimed water line. Additionally, what is reclaimed water, is it not fresh water that has been treated and safe enough for reuse but not safe enough to drink? Where is this supply of reclaimed water coming from if we are all reducing our fresh water supply consumption? Less rain, less reclaimed water supply, less fresh water use, less reclaimed water supply. Don't fall into this trap, potable water or reclaimed water is still the same water supply and in an area where droughts are prevalent, there is just less resources to go around.
Don't contradict the direction our city leadership is taking by eliminating waste by voting for a playing surface that requires more maintenance, more resources, more time, and more energy and claim its 808 of 1332
2 for the betterment of the environment, when all you are doing is shifting the impact from one aspect to another.
Vote for what makes sense. More fields, and more access to fields year-round only makes sense with artificial turf in mind.
Don't pretend to want to build more amenities and outdoor spaces only to heavily limit their use because you didn't do it right and build it with the correct material in the first place.
Vote for artificial turf - it's the best material for the type of use and the frequency of use for these fields and projects.
Thank you
809 of 1332
Exhibit 4
810 of 1332
811 of 1332
812 of 1332
813 of 1332
C:\INETPUB\WWWROOT\GLENDALE\TEMP\CC_06282022_MOTION_8C1.PDF MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that as a result of the discussion at the June 28, 2022 City Council meeting regarding the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Triple Bottom Line (3BL) assessment of natural turf versus artificial turf as the preferred surface type for multi-purpose fields at Freemont Park, Pacific Park, Sports Complex # 3, Cerritos Elementary, and Wilson Middle School, and based on the background provided in the Director of Community Services and Park’s June 28, 2022 Report to the City Council, the City Council hereby directs staff as follows:
Vote as Follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
814 of 1332
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\ CC_06282022_Resolution_8c2.pdf RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 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
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
1. Resolution No. 19-135— Adopting Public Works Specification No. 3624 for Construction of the Fremont Park Renovation Project, and Directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids— is hereby repealed.
2. The revised plans, specifications, and contract documents― on file in the City Clerk’s Office― for construction of the Freemont Park Renovation Project (“Project”), are hereby approved, adopted, and designated, and will be known as Specification No. 3624R. The Director of Public Works is authorized to include non-substantive amendments to the Specification’s technical sections.
3. The Council finds that the Project requires the bidder to install only Shaw Sports Turf’s NXT Play with Geofill coconut husk infill synthetic turf system, which is a brand-specific product, in order that the City can make a field test or experiment to determine the product’s suitability for future use at the City’s sports fields [California Public Contract Code Section 3400(c)(1)].
4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for the work, equipment, and materials described in Specification No. 3624R, adopted by this Resolution.
Adopted this ________ day of __________________________, 2022 ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Aram Adjemian, the City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain: 815 of 1332
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\ CC_06282022_Resolution_8c2.pdf
City Clerk
816 of 1332
817 of 1332
818 of 1332
819 of 1332
820 of 1332
821 of 1332
822 of 1332
823 of 1332
824 of 1332
825 of 1332
826 of 1332
827 of 1332
828 of 1332
829 of 1332
830 of 1332
831 of 1332
832 of 1332
833 of 1332
834 of 1332
835 of 1332
836 of 1332
837 of 1332
838 of 1332
839 of 1332
840 of 1332
841 of 1332
842 of 1332
843 of 1332
844 of 1332
845 of 1332
846 of 1332
847 of 1332
848 of 1332
849 of 1332
850 of 1332
851 of 1332
852 of 1332
853 of 1332
854 of 1332
855 of 1332
856 of 1332
857 of 1332
858 of 1332
859 of 1332
860 of 1332
861 of 1332
862 of 1332
863 of 1332
864 of 1332
865 of 1332
866 of 1332
867 of 1332
868 of 1332
869 of 1332
870 of 1332
871 of 1332
872 of 1332
873 of 1332
874 of 1332
875 of 1332
876 of 1332
877 of 1332
878 of 1332
879 of 1332
880 of 1332
881 of 1332
882 of 1332
883 of 1332
884 of 1332
885 of 1332
886 of 1332
887 of 1332
888 of 1332
889 of 1332
890 of 1332
891 of 1332
892 of 1332
893 of 1332
894 of 1332
895 of 1332
896 of 1332
897 of 1332
898 of 1332
899 of 1332
900 of 1332
901 of 1332
902 of 1332
903 of 1332
904 of 1332
905 of 1332
906 of 1332
907 of 1332
908 of 1332
909 of 1332
910 of 1332
911 of 1332
912 of 1332
913 of 1332
914 of 1332
915 of 1332
916 of 1332
917 of 1332
918 of 1332
919 of 1332
920 of 1332
921 of 1332
922 of 1332
923 of 1332
924 of 1332
925 of 1332
926 of 1332
927 of 1332
928 of 1332
929 of 1332
930 of 1332
931 of 1332
932 of 1332
933 of 1332
934 of 1332
935 of 1332
936 of 1332
937 of 1332
938 of 1332
939 of 1332
940 of 1332
941 of 1332
942 of 1332
943 of 1332
944 of 1332
945 of 1332
946 of 1332
947 of 1332
948 of 1332
949 of 1332
950 of 1332
951 of 1332
952 of 1332
953 of 1332
954 of 1332
955 of 1332
956 of 1332
957 of 1332
958 of 1332
959 of 1332
960 of 1332
961 of 1332
962 of 1332
963 of 1332
964 of 1332
965 of 1332
966 of 1332
967 of 1332
968 of 1332
969 of 1332
970 of 1332
971 of 1332
972 of 1332
973 of 1332
974 of 1332
975 of 1332
976 of 1332
977 of 1332
978 of 1332
979 of 1332
980 of 1332
981 of 1332
982 of 1332
983 of 1332
984 of 1332
985 of 1332
986 of 1332
987 of 1332
988 of 1332
989 of 1332
990 of 1332
991 of 1332
992 of 1332
993 of 1332
994 of 1332
995 of 1332
996 of 1332
997 of 1332
998 of 1332
999 of 1332
1000 of 1332
1001 of 1332
1002 of 1332
1003 of 1332
1004 of 1332
1005 of 1332
1006 of 1332
1007 of 1332
1008 of 1332
1009 of 1332
1010 of 1332
1011 of 1332
1012 of 1332
1013 of 1332
1014 of 1332
1015 of 1332
1016 of 1332
1017 of 1332
1018 of 1332
1019 of 1332
1020 of 1332
1021 of 1332
1022 of 1332
1023 of 1332
1024 of 1332
1025 of 1332
1026 of 1332
1027 of 1332
1028 of 1332
1029 of 1332
1030 of 1332
1031 of 1332
1032 of 1332
1033 of 1332
1034 of 1332
1035 of 1332
1036 of 1332
1037 of 1332
1038 of 1332
1039 of 1332
1040 of 1332
1041 of 1332
1042 of 1332
1043 of 1332
1044 of 1332
1045 of 1332
1046 of 1332
1047 of 1332
1048 of 1332
1049 of 1332
1050 of 1332
1051 of 1332
1052 of 1332
1053 of 1332
1054 of 1332
1055 of 1332
1056 of 1332
1057 of 1332
1058 of 1332
1059 of 1332
1060 of 1332
1061 of 1332
1062 of 1332
1063 of 1332
1064 of 1332
1065 of 1332
1066 of 1332
1067 of 1332
1068 of 1332
1069 of 1332
1070 of 1332
1071 of 1332
1072 of 1332
1073 of 1332
1074 of 1332
1075 of 1332
1076 of 1332
1077 of 1332
1078 of 1332
1079 of 1332
1080 of 1332
1081 of 1332
1082 of 1332
1083 of 1332
1084 of 1332
1085 of 1332
1086 of 1332
1087 of 1332
1088 of 1332
1089 of 1332
1090 of 1332
1091 of 1332
1092 of 1332
1093 of 1332
1094 of 1332
1095 of 1332
1096 of 1332
1097 of 1332
1098 of 1332
1099 of 1332
1100 of 1332
1101 of 1332
1102 of 1332
1103 of 1332
1104 of 1332
1105 of 1332
1106 of 1332
1107 of 1332
1108 of 1332
1109 of 1332
1110 of 1332
1111 of 1332
1112 of 1332
1113 of 1332
1114 of 1332
1115 of 1332
1116 of 1332
1117 of 1332
1118 of 1332
1119 of 1332
1120 of 1332
1121 of 1332
1122 of 1332
1123 of 1332
1124 of 1332
1125 of 1332
1126 of 1332
1127 of 1332
1128 of 1332
1129 of 1332
1130 of 1332
1131 of 1332
1132 of 1332
1133 of 1332
1134 of 1332
1135 of 1332
1136 of 1332
1137 of 1332
1138 of 1332
1139 of 1332
1140 of 1332
1141 of 1332
1142 of 1332
1143 of 1332
1144 of 1332
1145 of 1332
1146 of 1332
1147 of 1332
1148 of 1332
1149 of 1332
1150 of 1332
1151 of 1332
1152 of 1332
1153 of 1332
1154 of 1332
1155 of 1332
1156 of 1332
1157 of 1332
1158 of 1332
1159 of 1332
1160 of 1332
1161 of 1332
1162 of 1332
1163 of 1332
1164 of 1332
1165 of 1332
1166 of 1332
1167 of 1332
1168 of 1332
1169 of 1332
1170 of 1332
1171 of 1332
1172 of 1332
1173 of 1332
1174 of 1332
1175 of 1332
1176 of 1332
1177 of 1332
1178 of 1332
1179 of 1332
1180 of 1332
1181 of 1332
1182 of 1332
1183 of 1332
1184 of 1332
1185 of 1332
1186 of 1332
1187 of 1332
1188 of 1332
1189 of 1332
1190 of 1332
1191 of 1332
1192 of 1332
1193 of 1332
1194 of 1332
1195 of 1332
1196 of 1332
1197 of 1332
1198 of 1332
1199 of 1332
1200 of 1332
1201 of 1332
1202 of 1332
1203 of 1332
1204 of 1332
1205 of 1332
1206 of 1332
1207 of 1332
1208 of 1332
1209 of 1332
1210 of 1332
1211 of 1332
1212 of 1332
1213 of 1332
1214 of 1332
1215 of 1332
1216 of 1332
1217 of 1332
1218 of 1332
1219 of 1332
1220 of 1332
1221 of 1332
1222 of 1332
1223 of 1332
1224 of 1332
1225 of 1332
1226 of 1332
1227 of 1332
1228 of 1332
1229 of 1332
1230 of 1332
1231 of 1332
1232 of 1332
1233 of 1332
1234 of 1332
1235 of 1332
1236 of 1332
1237 of 1332
1238 of 1332
1239 of 1332
1240 of 1332
1241 of 1332
1242 of 1332
1243 of 1332
1244 of 1332
1245 of 1332
1246 of 1332
1247 of 1332
1248 of 1332
1249 of 1332
1250 of 1332
1251 of 1332
1252 of 1332
1253 of 1332
1254 of 1332
1255 of 1332
1256 of 1332
1257 of 1332
1258 of 1332
1259 of 1332
1260 of 1332
1261 of 1332
1262 of 1332
1263 of 1332
1264 of 1332
1265 of 1332
1266 of 1332
1267 of 1332
1268 of 1332
1269 of 1332
1270 of 1332
1271 of 1332
1272 of 1332
1273 of 1332
1274 of 1332
1275 of 1332
1276 of 1332
1277 of 1332
1278 of 1332
1279 of 1332
1280 of 1332
1281 of 1332
1282 of 1332
1283 of 1332
1284 of 1332
1285 of 1332
1286 of 1332
1287 of 1332
1288 of 1332
1289 of 1332
1290 of 1332
1291 of 1332
1292 of 1332
1293 of 1332
1294 of 1332
1295 of 1332
1296 of 1332
1297 of 1332
1298 of 1332
1299 of 1332
1300 of 1332
1301 of 1332
1302 of 1332
1303 of 1332
1304 of 1332
1305 of 1332
1306 of 1332
1307 of 1332
1308 of 1332
1309 of 1332
1310 of 1332
1311 of 1332
1312 of 1332
1313 of 1332
1314 of 1332
1315 of 1332
1316 of 1332
1317 of 1332
1318 of 1332
1319 of 1332
1320 of 1332
1321 of 1332
1322 of 1332
1323 of 1332
1324 of 1332
1325 of 1332
1326 of 1332
1327 of 1332
1328 of 1332
1329 of 1332
1330 of 1332
1331 of 1332
1332 of 1332