Artificial Grass & Synthetic Lawn Industry INFO

NEW Guide for HOAs and Artificial Grass Published By ASGi


HOA – CID
Artificial Grass
Buyer Guide

ASGi’s recently published  HOA  Guideline for Artificial Grass  and Synthetic Turf  is a full-color downloadable PDF – This 6 page guideline is full of photos and illustrations with a focus upon How HOA Guidelines Maintain Property Value & Popular Artificial Grass Products and Up-to-date CalGreen/LEED Permeable Installation guidelines.

ASGi built this general information PDF to answer your basic questions about artificial grass and synthetic turf used for lawns, putting greens and other residential projects. HOAs and other community interest properties will often apply design guidelines, to insure that their collective standards of building excellence and product quality are met or exceeded – the ASGi Artificial Grass HOA Guide was published in collaboration with several California HOA communities and

Any HOA or CIP is welcome to use the guide as a template and adopt it for their own use. Please call [888-705-8880] or  email us your request and we will send you hi-resolution files for print, of this guide, personalized with your association logo and phone number!

=== Watch a Flip-Book of the Guide! ===========

Click for FULL Screen – ESC to Close.



Copyright (c) 2010. ASGi, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


HOA LAW BLOG Asks:
“Are We Really That Opposed to Artificial Turf?”

HOA Law Firm Supports AB.1793 - California and Artificial Grass

An Editorial by

David C. Swedelson, Esq.,

Senior Partner, Swedelson & Gottlieb

Many of you received an urgent request by the California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC) for grassroots letters to be sent to the legislature opposing Assembly Bill 1793 (Saldana). I am not sure that I agree with what CLAC stated, and I really wonder if this is legislation that the CID industry should oppose.

[continued ...]
View the ASGi Artificial Grass & HOA Guideline PDF ONLINE – HERE
[continued ......]

I do not now personally have any artificial turf at my home, but I have considered it. I do have neighbors that have installed it, and my daughter’s school installed it on the athletic field. I do not have an interest in any company that manufactures, sells or installs artificial turf.

Today’s artificial turf looks a lot different than the “Astroturf” we may be familiar with. Esthetically, the newer products I have seen look like real grass. Even if I get on my hands and knees to check, it is hard to tell if it is artificial grass.

We should seriously consider every opportunity to conserve precious water resources in California, and this legislation is an excellent example.

The proposed legislation allows associations to set quality and esthetic standards for artificial turf, as long as it does not have the effect of prohibiting it outright, so there is no reason to believe that property values will be negatively impacted.

The bill was passed on the State Assembly floor with overwhelming support, 69 Ayes and only 1 No vote. AB 1793 is currently under review in the State Senate, and we will be supporting this bill.

CLAC set out a number of reasons we should oppose AB 1793, and I have to say that I do not agree with CLAC’s reasoning. CLAC’s letter stated the following reasons for opposing this legislation, and I have included my comments on each point.

(b)(2) This section shall not prohibit an association from applying landscape rules and regulations established in governing documents that establish design standards and quality standards for the installation of artificial turf, or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass, to the extent the rules and regulations conform with the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).

AB 1793 provides for the following additions to Civil Code Section 1353.8:

1353.8(a)(2) [A provision of the governing documents shall be void and unenforceable if the provision] prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass.

1. It singles out a class of property owners in common interest developments and may violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

I do not see how the proposed legislation that is designed to help owners that want to save water (which we should all agree is a good thing) will be singled out, and is this really any different then past legislation that requires community associations to permit the installation of low water-using plants and solar power systems?

2. Artificial grass may ruin a community’s curb appeal and reduce owner and neighbor’s property value.

I do not see how this is possible if the owners are required to use appropriate product. As I said above, I have seen artificial turf installed at some homes and elsewhere that looks so realistic that I have had to get on my hands and knees to inspect it up close, and even then, it was hard to see that it was not real. So what is the problem, so long as associations get to set standards? And think about the water savings, not to mention the environmental benefit from the absence of toxic chemicals (fertilizers, etc.) that will not be used and as a consequence, and which will not run off into our waterways.

3. Existing law already mandates local public agencies to adopt and enforce water usage by which CIDs must abide.

But what does this have to do with owners who want to remove their water-intensive, chemical dependent lawn and replace it with nice looking, always green artificial turf?

4. Civil Code 1353.8 already addresses water usage and landscaping in CIDs per AB 1061 (Lieu), which just became effective in January.

That legislation prohibits community associations from “prohibiting the use of low water-using plants as a group, as well as prohibiting or restricting compliance with a local water-efficient landscape ordinance or water conservation measure.” That legislation had nothing to do with artificial turf! Also, local ordinances may not necessarily address artificial turf.

5. It micromanages communities and overrides local control.

We seem to make this argument each time the legislature tries to pass a new law that impacts community associations (and the legislature has made about 47 changes to the Davis-Stirling Act since the mid 1980s when it was first adopted). In this case, the legislature wants to ensure that individuals have the power to choose whether to install artificial turf. CLAC’s use of the word “micromanaging” suggests that there will be no impact outside a particular community – to the contrary, water conservation benefits all of California.

6. It lacks definition of “grass”… what variety, color shade, seasonal vs. perennial, length?

The bill allows associations to set standards, so this is not really a reason to oppose the bill. An association might even choose to require a specific kind or type of artificial grass in its Rules and Regulations or Architectural Guidelines to ensure uniformity.

7. It statutorily promotes certain company products.

This is just wrong. I read the bill and do not see that it promotes any particular product. Why is CLAC raising this non-issue?

8. It does not address possible water runoff, flammability, and toxicity issues identified in various governmental studies.

I did a little checking, and apparently, there is a debate as to this issue. But my limited research showed me that on balance, artificial turf is less toxic than maintaining real grass. Growing grass requires chemicals, such as fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticides. These are potent chemicals that include numerous carcinogens.

So what about artificial turf? I read one report out of Connecticut from Environment And Human Health, Inc. (EHHI), which claims that EHHI did some testing that showed the release, when heated, of four potentially hazardous chemicals from the tire infill in synthetic playing fields. But EHHI’s report gives no details on that testing or their testing protocol.

It was suggested that the laboratory testing done by EHHI bore little relationship to the real world conditions where the turf is in the open air, and where any chemicals released most likely would be quickly dispersed. Moreover, those same chemicals are emitted from tires on highways, so they are already in the air.

9. CLAC suggests that this bill, if passed, will increase an HOA’s liability and generate lawsuits due to harm that can be caused by the toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing of the artificial lawns.

I do not see how this is possible. Liability for what? If the legislation is passed, community associations will be mandated to allow artificial turf. So, no one can expect to win a case against their association because it allowed another owner to install artificial turf when mandated to do so by the legislature.

Typically, community associations are not liable for any defects in construction that the association approves. Saying that a community association will be held liable for allowing an owner to install artificial turf is like saying that an association will be held liable for allowing an owner to plant poisonous oleander. Following CLAC’s logic, should there not be a huge backlog of lawsuits against associations for allowing owners to utilize toxic chemicals such as fertilizers on their real grass lawns? We are not aware of any.

=============================================

original post:

http://www.hoalawblog.com/2010/06/are_we_really_that_opposed_to_1.html

AB.1793 – Online Update

WATER: Bill would let agencies trump homeowners association rules

Measure could void HOA moves to limit drought-tolerant landscaping

Two of California’s most powerful forces —- water agencies and the property rights of homeowners’ associations —- may be on a collision course.
Southern California’s giant water wholesaler, Metropolitan Water District, is sponsoring state legislation to make ordinances from local water districts trump homeowner association rules.

Introduced Feb. 27 by Assemblyman Ted Lieu, a Democrat from Torrance, the legislation is known as AB 1061. No date has been set for a committee hearing.

Metropolitan says the bill clarifies how homeowners can install water-efficient landscaping without running afoul of association rules. With California in a drought and rationing under way or looming in many districts, the agency is looking for any way to stretch out its supplies.

But homeowners association representatives say the bill is unnecessary and a waste of time.

The bill concerns landscaping restrictions on so-called “common interest developments,” such as Shadowridge in Vista. These developments contain single-family homes governed by condo-like regulations. Nearly 25 percent of the state’s population live in such developments, Lieu said when introducing the bill.

There have been isolated instances of conflicts between homeowners eager to save water and associations that outlawed particular types of water-efficient landscaping.

Associations fear that if homeowners are allowed to violate such standards, the aesthetic appeal of their neighborhoods will decline, and property values with them.

Last year, a Shadowridge couple, Judy and Richard Bieksha, came into conflict with their homeowners’ association when they installed low water-use landscaping without first seeking approval. The dispute is still unresolved, said Norm Halus, a Shadowridge board member.

Halus installed low-water-use landscaping for his own home about 15 years ago. Halus says the difference between him and the Biekshas is that he consulted association architectural guidelines and sought approval before installing his landscaping.

“Any HOA worth its salt is keenly aware of the looming water shortage and is discussing ways to help reduce water usage,” said Linda Ralphs Kaeser, a member of the 4S Ranch homeowners association.

Consistency sought
AB 1061 would enforce a model conservation ordinance that state officials plan to complete next year. Local water districts would be able to use the model ordinance as a blueprint for their own conservation rules.

As long as the water districts obey the model ordinance guidelines, the bill specifies, anything in the rules of a common interest development that conflicts with district regulations or restrictions would be “void and unenforceable.”

“We feel it’s really important to have a consistent way of dealing with outdoor water-use efficiency,” said Steve Arakawa, manager of water resource management for Metropolitan Water District.

Metropolitan supplies most of the water used in Southern California, including San Diego and Riverside counties. The agency is pushing outdoor conservation as the best way to save water.

An estimated 60 percent of water used by homeowners is applied outdoors, Arakawa said.

Homeowners associations say the bill doesn’t advance the goal of conservation and could be counterproductive.

Critics see no need
The bill is just “feel-good” legislation, said Jim Fraker, vice president of the San Diego division of Professional Community Management. The company works with homeowners associations representing about 10,000 homes in San Diego County, including Shadowridge, he said.

“It’s kind of comical,” Fraker said. “It’s trying to micro-manage in Sacramento something that does not need to be micro-managed.”

Fraker said existing law already forbids architectural guidelines from restricting the use of low-water plants, so there’s no need to restate the prohibition.

Kaeser, of the 4S Ranch board, said she is concerned the bill’s language is overly broad.

The language could be interpreted to mean any homeowner “could pave over his entire front yard and park cars there with impunity, cover his entire front yard with pink gravel, plant any size cactus he fancied, stop watering everything and leave a dead front yard, etc,” Kaeser said.

Patrick Catalano, an attorney whose firm represents homeowners associations throughout the state, said the bill means little. Associations already allow drought-tolerant landscaping, as long as it doesn’t clash with the community’s character.

“Most homeowners’ associations would be happy (to accept drought-tolerant landscaping), as long as somebody doesn’t want a desert scene with a bunch of rocks where everybody else has lawns,” Catalano said.

However, Catalano said, the question of whether artificial grass would be compatible with lawn-oriented guidelines is a “wild card,” and whether the bill would mandate its acceptance is unclear.

Contact staff writer Bradley J. Fikes at (760) 739-6641 or bfikes@nctimes.com. Read his blogs at bizblogs.nctimes.com

This post:

http://www.northcountytimes.com/articles/2009/03/10/business/z49c4485bcb5277ed882575740056faf1.txt

Florida Community’s HOA Approves Plans for Artificial Turf

Greenbrook OKs shade, fake grass

LAKEWOOD RANCH — Harry Mosher may be the closest thing Lakewood Ranch has to a playground expert.

Mosher, who lives in Greenbrook, was an elementary school teacher in Indianapolis for 35 years and was part of playground design team for some schools.

“We’ve gone from real grass to bark mulch to tiny pieces of rubber from ground-up auto tires pieces to artificial grass,” Mosher said of the evolution of playground surfaces. “But artificial surface is best because it’s solid for footing and forgiving when you fall.”

The entrance to Greenbrook Village, on Lorraine Road in Lakewood Ranch, is an open community compared to some other communities that are gated.

Mosher was pleased recently when the Greenbrook Village Association came up with the idea to remove the current mulch surface under the playground equipment at Adventure Park and replace it with an artificial green grass system, installed for lawns and landscape uses.

The new faux grass and a forest green canvas shade canopy to go with it,  got the green light from District 4 supervisors recently to become the first two items coming through the pipeline of a Greenbrook Village, Florida, open space plan.

Continue reading story here

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes

Artificial Grass & Synthetic Turf Water Rebate Programs

arizona water rebate programs for artificial grass turf

aurora colorado water rebate for artificial grass turf

SoCal Water Smart artificial turf rebates

north marin water district rebate program for landscape and artificial turf grass

australian water saving rebate for artificial grass

SAB

sam antonio texas water rebates for artificial grass turf

new mexico water rebate programs for artificial grass turf

southern nevada water district landscape and artificial turf grass rebates

Green LiNKS

Green Events - Green Magazines and Journals - Green Building Codes & Programs - LEED/USGBC - CalGREEN
======================================

Green School Summit - California Green Event Show

Green Colleges Summit California

EPA Watersense

SF Environment

Build It Green - sustainable and green building org

West Coast Green Show

WTLE - Landscape and management show

Design / Cost / Install

ASGi Public PDF Downloads
Library of Artificial Grass
Buyer Guides, Cost Guides
Estimating Guides, Forms,
Installation Guidelines
and more ... HERE

NEW! Buyer Guide For HOA Property Owners/Management

Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-CopyProtect.