Synthetic grass not necessarily greener

Newport Beach resident Connie Hollstein is just in love with her synthetic lawn.

It keeps her water and gardening bills low, allergies at bay, and home — once occasionally marred by her dogs’ muddy paws — conspicuously clean.

“It looks nice — people walk by and don’t even know its artificial grass,” she said, adding neighborhood kids often knock on her door for permission to play on the lawn.

Considering the significant amounts of water typically consumed by a square foot of conventional grass — about four feet annually — it’s no wonder the synthetic turf has become a cherished lawn ornament of conservationists. Indeed, the Municipal Water District of Orange County even offers a 30 cent per square foot refund to encourage property owners to install the product.

But while modern synthetic turf has come a long way since the Astroturf of the 1960s, the laws governing its installation have not. Unlike Newport Beach, Costa Mesa prohibits the product in most of the city’s development zones, including single-family residences like Hollstein’s.

“[Costa Mesa has] an ordinance which dates back 16 years, when ‘synthetic turf’ still meant Astroturf and cheesy plastic plants,” said Costa Mesa Principal Planner Willa Bouwens-Killeen. “It’s actually come a long way, so we were hoping City Council can come up with something to give us better direction.”

City staff cautiously suggested the Costa Mesa City Council reconsider its ban on the product, saying the models could save the city water and money, but could also deteriorate if neglected. Following a preliminary discussion of the proposal at a study session last week, some members seemed hesitant about changing some aspects of the city’s regulations.

“These days, everyone’s looking at every alternative to conserve water, though at the same time we want to keep our city looking nice,” said Councilman Allan Mansoor. “I think it’s important to keep all options on the table — I’ve seen some places where that looks good in front of homes, and if it’s done right, I think that a homeowner should have the right to do it.”

“I don’t see a problem in giving property owners the right, where it makes sense,” said Councilwoman Wendy Leece. “But I don’t think Costa Mesa is going to go for pulling out live grass and trees, and putting in fake grass for the sake [of] efficiency.”

While local experts said they saw some benefit to easing restrictions on synthetic turf, they characterized the potential environmental benefits as, at best, a mixed bag. While run-off is lessened and water conserved, the product is developed with plastic — a petroleum-based product — and is an inorganic addition to local ecosystems that may rely on it.

“Intuitively, my reaction would be is that it’s not obvious that it’s a really good thing for the environment, and it’s not obvious it’s a bad thing,” said Michael Goulden, a UCI professor specializing in ecological cycles. “It has to beat mowing the lawn, though.”

“There are a few trade-offs,” said David Feldman, a UCI professor of social ecology. “In Orange County, we use a tremendous amount of water, and any extent to which you can save water is a huge benefit. Most artificial turfs are using recycled plastics, too, so you’re not generating all of the bad side effects you typically do when creating plastic from scratch. On the whole, I won’t say it’s a perfect benefit, but it’s a pretty fair trade-off.”

City staff will likely schedule the issue for a council meeting sometime in the next few weeks, Mansoor said.

CHRIS CAESAR may be reached at (714) 966-4626 or at chris.caesar@latimes.com.