“At a meeting Tuesday, the Garden Grove City Council will re-examine the city’s ban on synthetic turf, over which residents are starting to raise concerns. Garden Grove is one of five Orange County cities where synthetic turf is completely banned in both residential and commercial uses,” according to the O.C. Register.
Once again a neighboring city is doing a better job than Orange County’s “downtown,” Santa Ana. Why is it that the City of Garden Grove is considering allowing home owners to install artificial turf, which can save thousands of gallons of water every year, while the Santa Ana City Clowncil is doing nothing about this, as usual?
“The Municipal Water District of Orange County offers a rebate to households which install synthetic turf. Of seven water rebates denied because of bans, three were in Garden Grove, according to the water district.”
What a joke – Santa Ana home owners can’t participate in the MWD rebate program. But many would benefit. In fact notorious Santa Ana ETAC Commissioner Don Cribb, who lives on my street, would be amongst them. I had a new turf and a sprinkler system installed last year. Cribb’s lawn is full of bare spots and his grass appears to be the sort that you have to apply weed killer to. And the strip in front of his house is bare, with chunks of broken concrete arranged on it. Wouldn’t Cribb’s house look better with artificial turf on its lawn?
I doubt any of the clowns on the Santa Ana City Clowncil will wake up and realize that they need to consider this issue. But who knows? They all read this blog. Perhaps they will finally get a clue.
Art,
At last nights Planning Commission meeting I asked that staff prepare us a presentation on artificial turf and offer up an explanation as to why they won’t allow it here in Santa Ana.
I will be pushing for the legalization of artificial turf. The city uses it at Eddie West Field and other locations throughout the city, why shouldn’t the residents be allowed the option as well.
This could work for the illegal immigration situation. Less work for gardeners – more self deportation.
Art,
A couple of months ago at the Riverview West NA meeting we had a very good presentation by a young lady who works for the city, (sorry, I don’t remember her name) about recycling, water conservation, etc. She was very good! She talked about how she had redone her back yard to mostly hardscape. I asked her what her dept was doing in working with code enforcement, or whoever was responsible for that sort of thing in Santa Ana, for front yard use.
I talked with code enforcement years ago about hardscaping my front yard years ago and was told they would fine me in a white hot second for it. So, figuring my luck with them in the past, I wasn’t going to stick my finger back in that light socket again and kept the grass. Now watered much less, and looking pretty sad. Between the lack of water and my back problems it would be a much nicer alternative.
It’s time for the cities to reconsider the hard line they have taken in the past. It’s time to allow those of us who wish to use water saving techniques without worry that the city is going to make our lives hell, because we do the right thing, not only for ourselves but to save water for all our good. Maybe that stupid clothes line rule too. Heck of a note when you can’t even hang clean clothes to air without being in violation of some obtrusive and invasive city ordinance.
Sean, good for you!
Hate to say it, but it seems like there’s lots of lawns in Santa Ana that don’t get watered anyway, and I don’t see artificial turf going over well with the North of 17th crowd. So I’m failing to see how allowing artificial turf would have a significant impact in Santa Ana when it comes to water usage.
And if it DID go over well, I’d begin to have questions about the environmental/air quality impact.
Testing.
Why don’t you ask for the orginal report that the ban was based on.
Dose the city have a FOIA reading room?
Anon #4,
I believe that we should allow homeowners the right to choose for themselves whether or not they want artificial turf. It should not be up to some city hall bureaucrat, who most likely does not live in Santa Ana, to decide what choices residents have.
I realize that many folks north of 17th believe that they should dictate what the city should do, but those days are over.
Sean,
I agree with you on that one principle…I just think there is more to this, as there often is, than just a simple matter of WHO gets to decide this. We elect our government to make wise decisions that are in our best interest, don’t we?
Is a city with a large percentage of fake lawns in our best interest?
Clearly, the issue needs further study. Another question would be does having a neighborhood with a large percentage of fake lawns affect property values. Is there a clamor for this option by Santa Ana residents? And as I ask before, is there an environmental impact to having many fake lawns? Lots of questions that go beyond who controls the choice.
Anon #8,
It has not affected the property values in south county enclaves such as Dana Point and other affluent communities throughout the county.
I am not sure that you would see a tremendous proliferation of properties going to artificial turf because of the cost. However I believe that this option should be available to homeowners should they choose to go that route.
In regards to the environmental impact, just imagine all the water that could be saved. Considering the draught conditions we are suffering here in California I believe that artificial turf would be environmentally beneficial to our state.
Sean,
Should 17th then be renamed to Mason-Dixon St.?
Sean,
Fair enough, but as a Planning Commissioner, I hope you’re open to empirical evidence that may come your way that says otherwise. The citizens of Santa Ana expect that level of rigorous analysis.
Carl,
If someone sites you for a clothes line, fight them on their stupidity. Smart cities are reexamining such rules of old and lifting bans.
But as far as “fake lawns for everybody” goes you have to examine what that would do to the environment as well. Mother Earth needs to be fed and styrofoam and polyethylene isn’t Her cup of tea.
Instead opt for drought “tolerant” plants. Mediterranean plants like Lavendar, Rosemary, Salvia, Sage can give you heaps of color while Cypresses, Junipers can give you some linear height. Pea gravel is a nice ground cover for paths and warding off predators/thieves. You get also get a topical look with succulents and palms.
If you like a bit of farming, try a raised bed vegetable garden. Stack up some concrete blocks or railroad ties and fill with dirt. Plant with Perennials like Curry, Rosemary, Thyme, garlic and gow seasonal veggies like tomatoes between.
A sprawling lawn is not a wise design choice today. I think they started with the folks not having enough money to make them topiary gardens like the Royals. Today patches of grass are better intended as “white spaces” or a place to rest the eye in a landscape.
Anon #11,
I have asked that the entire Planning Commission be given a presentation on artificial turf. I have to believe, and certainly hope, that we would get to hear the pro’s and con’s of the issue.
As with any other issue that comes before me at the commission, I of course will weigh all the evidence presented to me before I make a decision.
Also, if you can’t get away from the idea of a lawn, go with something like a drought-tolerant and no-mow Korean grass.
There is also this one:
http://www.stewardshipgarden.org/ conservation/lawn.html
This looks good with large boulders. the grass seems to flow around them like a river.
“As with any other issue that comes before me at the commission, I of course will weigh all the evidence presented to me before I make a decision.”
Glad to hear that. It was sounding a bit like your mind was already made up.
I just spoke with city staff and according to their interpretation of current city code artificial turf is an acceptable ground cover for R-1 properties. Current code allows for appropriate dry ground cover, which includes artificial turf, to be installed without a permit.
Art,
Cities don’t usually have a ban against syn turf, they have a “requirement” for live vegitation of 50 or 60…% of front yards. This was done to stop some homeowners from paving entire frontage of homes and turning yards into parking lots.
Clearly the great improvements to syn turf were not considered when these ordinances were drafted years or even decades ago. Its time for cities to update their codes. BTW most cities (unless you live under a HOA) allow the turf, you just can’t qualify for the rebates in cities were turf is not allowed.
Sean,
Interesting news. I guess Art was uninformed. Surprise surprise.
Write first…research later.
Anon #18,
Actually it has been widely reported that Santa Ana did not allow artificial turf. The Register article today stated that Santa Ana does not allow it and the MWDOC has been stating that Santa Ana does not allow it.
So if Art was uniformed, so are a lot of other folks.
Members of the city staff have told me in the past that artificial turf was not allowed in Santa Ana. However Karen Haluza took a look at the existing code after I raised the issue last night and it is now the city’s interpretation that artificial turf is allowed.
Art did not get it wrong. Those that misunterpreted the code were.
Sean,
I guess it’s safe to say confusion reigns.
It appears that artificial is not all that safe.
I guess if you read the reasons for the ban’s of the past, you will find the same risks the CDC has resently issued a warning.
(cut and paste)
This is an official
CDC HEALTH ADVISORY
Distributed via Health Alert Network
Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 16:10 EDT (4:10 PM EDT)
CDCHAN-00275-2008-06-18-ADV-N
Potential Exposure to Lead in Artificial Turf:
Public Health Issues, Actions, and Recommendations
http://www2a.cdc.gov/HAN/ArchiveSys/ViewMsgV.asp?AlertNum=00275
Cook,
I am familiar with that directive. There is a certain type of turf that is used by schools and parks for sports fields. The underlying rubber pellets were found to have trace amounts of lead. According to Thomas Gordon, his employer, LA Unified, is having these materials removed.
Turf found at homes would not involve this product – and it is no longer commercially available.
as a landscape architect myself, I would strongly encourage the use of xeriscaping practices and not the use of artificial turf. Sure, platic turf does not need irrigating .. but wouldnt you want to wash the grass if a dog urinates on the grass .. the dust collects, it burns .. also, no one has mentioned the fact that it is impervious and water needs to be drained into the ground where it falls and not out to the ocean. The heat from the surface does not help the microclimate around your home. Futhermore, for sports, an increase in injuries, potential pathogens from injuries and the breathing of the turf remnants by athletes. We can go on.
Why avoid the wonderful palette of native and adaptive plants. Xeriscape is not cacti and marble rocks but a landscape of color, seasonal character, low water usage if designed with care or perhaps guidance from a nursery.
So … drop the European look .. we don’t live in a landscape with sufficient water .. and why attempt to dress our landscapes in plastic costumes … we live in an era of less and less resources … when the irrigation is cut to perhaps onces or twice a week, you can find many xeriscape landscapes doing just well.
It is time the city lifted the ban on artificial grass.
It really does save yard maintenance and water costs.
In today’s economy, every little bit helps.
Take some time to research the fact that sythetic grass is toxic and you may change your minds about thinking it is so wonderful. There is also the case that the temperature in the air above (were our childern play) can get upwards of 86 degrees hotter than the temperature on a real grass lawn. This is dangerous to our children and our atmosphire.
Artificial turf makes good sense in industrial and commercial construction, and in State and Federal buildings where water conservation and low costs are expected to be a part of good public management to control costs.
Changing to artificial turf at the White House and State Houses would make a big different in operational costs and conservation costs, creating a preference for residential grass as the appropriate turf use by families, and family pets.
But what about the irrigation industry?