09/21/2011
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
September 21, 2011
Present: R. Peter Stasis Chair
Michael Engelmann Board Member
Patricia Power Board Member
Elizabeth Drayer Board Member
Absent: D. Michael Flanery Board Member
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Ed Chesney Environmental Manager
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. at the Municipal Services Building.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
1 – Citizens to be Heard:
None.
2 - Discussion on Residential Use of Artificial Turf in the City of Clearwater
In support of artificial turf, it was stated the turf at Botanical Gardens is several years old
and looks natural, not weathered. An impromptu survey of 12 Northwood Estate homeowner
association members indicated none opposed its use as a way for some residents to maintain
their yards. It was stated most people want to retain nice landscaping and artificial turf looks
more groomed than some groundcovers that appear overgrown. It was noted one neighbor had
indicated a preference for green artificial turf rather than a bad lawn. Concern was expressed
that the Countryside area is declining due to lack of maintenance. It was felt some live grass
should be required. It was stated some people are tired of moles, fertilizer, and pesticides yet
want their dog to run on a surface other than a garden.
As artificial turf cannot be installed and then forgotten, it was recommended that permits
be required and restrictions be adopted, such as requiring a licensed contractor and not
allowing it in drainage swales, easements/rights-of-way, or vehicular traffic areas. It was agreed
that artificial turf that leach contaminants should not be permitted and quality standards should
be imposed. It was suggested that trained City inspectors could deny inappropriate
installations. It was felt that artificial turf may be a poor candidate for use on Clearwater beach
due to high winds and flooding.
It was noted that artificial turf does not require watering or cutting, which require the
burning of fuel. It was felt ambient temperatures would not be an issue, as turf lacks sufficient
storage to provide a radiation effect. It was stated as the science of artificial turf improves,
leaching issues will subside. It was noted that roofs deteriorate and pollute the environment in
similar fashion. It was felt residents would accept artificial turf if they understand what the City
is trying to accomplish.
Environmental Advisory 2011-09-21 1
It was felt that run off from artificial turf would be less dangerous to the environment than
run off from natural grass with its fertilizers and pesticides. It was stated some studies were
unable to determine if noxious chemicals had leached from artificial turf, or carpeting, or latex
gloves, etc. It was indicated that artificial turf fill does not have to be manufactured from rubber.
It was stated that studies indicate that fungus does not flourish under artificial turf.
In opposition to artificial turf, concerns were expressed that it is more costly than lawn
service and too expensive for those who cannot afford to maintain live lawns. It was noted
information referenced the Northeast and California desert climates but included nothing on the
reaction of turf materials to months of constant heat, high humidity, and fungi. It was felt
artificial turf would be dangerous in a flood zone as it could break away and cause significant
damage. Concern was expressed the material had not been tested for hurricane wind
conditions. It was stated successful installations have been in confined places with good
maintenance.
It was felt artificial turf is not Florida Friendly as its ambient temperature is 60 degrees
higher than grass, it contains zinc and hydrocarbons and it does not generate oxygen. Concern
was expressed that heavy use would cause Clearwater temperatures to increase and clog the
land fill. It was recommended the City encourage drought resistant vegetation and native
plants, rather than lawns, as they are friendlier to the environment and require little water. It
was felt that rubber infill releases a bad odor when it gets hot and will burn the paws of pets that
walk on it. It was noted artificial turf does not contain organisms necessary to break down
waste, such as dog droppings and this contamination could spread as children also walk on the
turf.
It was felt that rules permitting artificial turf would allow too many exceptions and
chemicals leaching from artificial turf in areas such as Island Estates would runoff directly into
Clearwater Harbor. It was questioned why the City would permit something potentially
dangerous. It was recommended the City not be a trend setter.
It was questioned how the City could enforce artificial turf restrictions and provide input
on proper locations for artificial turf when it has insufficient staff to stop dune destruction and
could not ensure residents that installations will remain safe and attractive, free from fading,
tears, dirt, mud, ruts, odors, and unkempt edges. Concern was expressed that problems with
artificial turf will affect many people and could pollute the environment for many years. It was
felt allowing artificial turf will open up a host of problems. It was noted that artificial turf with five
levels of quality is available for self installation at a local store.
Planning & Development Director Michael Delk said the City Council had questioned if
artificial turf could replace living ground cover. He said currently the City would consider it as an
accessory use that would count against impervious space. He said allowing artificial turf would
not discourage residents from installing Florida friendly landscaping. Assistant City Attorney
Leslie Dougall-Sides said the Code regulates landscaping but does not require permits for its
installation. Planner III Lauren Matzke said older studies found artificial turf to be more harmful;
recent studies reported less concern regarding environmental impacts. Some communities
prohibit artificial turf with infill, rubber, silica, etc.
Environmental Manager Ed Chesney said laboratory tests of stormwater were unable to
detect leaching in stormwater run off studies. The Tampa Bay Estuary Program has not
Environmental Advisory 2011-09-21 2
broached this topic. Assistant Planning & Development Director Gina Clayton said staff does
not have the expertise nor is trained to make qualitative decisions regarding the best locations
for artificial turf. No licensing body exists to advise the City on proper installation. Ms. Matzke
said Stormwater staff considers artificial turf to be impermeable as they could not determine the
efficiency of the drainage system, how compacted the earth is, etc. Ms. Clayton said artificial
turf would not be practical for large areas. Some residents have changed their lawns’ drainage,
making it difficult to determine how artificial turf would drain. Artificial turf is new to the
marketplace and is rarely used in Florida.
The City Council requested staff to gather input and develop an Ordinance to permit
artificial turf. Staff indicated that the shade of green and quality of the product would be
important, although current categories of tufted weight are difficult to understand. Many
communities prohibit indoor outdoor carpet for this purpose and permit replacement like for like.
Most communities require eight-year warranties, the industry standard. Runoff, pooling, and
flooding would not be apparent until after the fact. The Pinellas County Construction Licensing
Board does not regulate landscaping and there is no clear cut information regarding licensing its
professional installation and inspections.
Member Engelmann moved that the EAB (Environmental Advisory Board) recommends
that the City Council permit the installation of artificial turf on a maximum of 100 properties for
three years to determine how well the product holds up in the City’s climate, with restrictions
such as not permitting it in drainage swales, and for the City department familiar with runoff and
root systems to determine if the proposed location for the turf is a good candidate before it is
permitted. And that the applicant would need to apply for a permit.
In response to a question, Member Engelmann said if the pilot program did not work out,
artificial turf already installed could be grandfathered until it was unusable, at which time it would
not be replaced.
There was no second.
Member Power moved that the EAB recommend that artificial turf should not be allowed
because of problems related to its ambient temperature, run off, and City costs related to
permitting and monitoring installation and upkeep as there is no legitimate cost benefit for the
City to perform this work. The motion was duly seconded.
Concern was expressed that cost should not be a consideration. It was noted that the
City never acted on the board’s request to enforce laws to stop dune destruction which
undermine health and safety. Concern was expressed it would be more difficult to rid the City of
artificial turf once it is allowed. It was noted with current cost cutting efforts, requiring staff to
oversee this use would be an inordinate amount of work for small return.
It was felt the board has insufficient data to conclude that artificial turf should be
permitted. It was recommended that the Planning and Development Department continue their
research including the effects of hurricanes, flooding, and strong wind. It was noted additional
staff training would be required. Concern was expressed that staff is not equipped to handle a
permitting process nor oversee new technology.
Environmental Advisory 2011-09-21 3
Upon the vote being taken, Members Power and Dryer and Chair Stasis voted "Aye";
Member Engelmann voted "Nay." Motion carried.
It was recommended that more information and research is needed. It was noted that
no hurricane data was provided or design criteria regarding materials necessary to strap down
the turf under high wind conditions. It was requested that staff check if the Synthetic Turf
Council provides certification and to contact the Building Official regarding licensing.
Consensus was to reschedule the October meeting to October 12, 2011.
3—Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 5:52 p.m.
4,46„,r.
Chair
Environmental Advisory Board
Attest: / /
dAA 1
Bo-rd Reporter
Environmental Advisory 2011-09-21 4