Montrose: Artificial turf war versus water usage restrictions

I’m not sure about using turf in one’s front yard, but here’s an amusing example of conflicting city laws (Glendale News-Press, “Not the typical turf war,” Melanie Hicken, 6 Aug 2009): David Wood has become ensnared in a web of competing city codes and bureaucratic headache — and all over a desire to be green. Last month, with mandatory water conservation in place, he installed artificial turf in front of the house he built on Piedmont Avenue, but the fake grass is illegal under a city ordinance that bans it anywhere that’s visible from the street. But in order to receive final city approval and adhere to his approved landscaping plan, he will have to replace the artificial turf with live grass. The new sod, though, requires daily watering to take root, which would violate the two-days-a-week irrigation limits imposed by the Crescenta Valley Water District. But if the grass dies, he can be cited by code enforcement for dead landscaping in a front setback . . . With local utilities limiting irrigation to only a few days a week, Wood is one of several residents across the city who say they feel caught between adhering to the water conservation measures and Planning Department design standards while avoiding penalties from Neighborhood Services inspectors who can issue citations for brown lawns.

My comments: The article does a nice job of explaining the arguments that support each of the conflicting issues: no artificial turf, brown lawn citations and water restrictions. I have to admit finding these sort of conflicting city laws amusing.