Discrimination against Artifical Turf?

We live in California where we have AB 349 that is supposed to nullify any architectural guideline or HOA governance that prohibits the use or artifical turf. As such, HOAs can no longer ban artificial turf for those that want water saving landscape.

Our HOA has developed a stringent set of guidelines that I feel effectively prohibit the use or artifical turf by creating hurdles and design limitations that you would not have if you had grass turf. I get making provisions on turf colors, look, and feel as we don't want cheap looking carpet lawns in or community. However, what I think is excessive is the Architectural committee has imposed a minimum planter width surrounding any proposed turf at 3 ft from side property boundaries and the sidewalk and a limit of 50% of the landscape allowed to be artificial as opposed to living.

We have have small lots with alley garages so a homeowners primary yard is usually out front. A 3 ft planter requirement especially on the side boundaries greatly limits your design and ability to have a lawn area if going with artifical turf. Now if one were to plant living grass there would be no 3 ft planter rule or 50% rule.

Is this not either:
1) discrimination against homeowners who wish to use artificial turf by imposing a separate set of design limitations?
2) guidelines that have the effect of prohibiting artificial turf implementation

Here is a link to what Richard referenced: http://www.davis-stirling.com/Main-Index/Statutes/Civil-Code-4735

I for one would not recommend or have for my HOA separate requirements for artificial turf. That could possibly be seen as putting an undue burden and condition on those owners. Real or artificial should be equal requirements.

Andrew: Has the board denied you or made a provisional counteroffer in writing? Have you responded yet in writing? If so, I would respond to the ACR with a certified copy to the Board requesting reconsideration of the ARC decision. This letter would then be part of the Official Record and acknowledged in the minutes.

If there is no reconsideration forthcoming, I would send a documented certified letter to the board outlining the situation so that they can reconsider the future possible legal implications of ex post facto rule and selective, discriminatory behavior. They would most likely not be prevailing if arguing that their ARC standard was reasonable.

This is not the first HOA battle with homeowners wanting to install artificial turf, vegetable gardens, rock gardens or drought-tolerant planting. Water-thirsty grass and high pollutant fertilizers and such are not environmentally responsible. Believe it or not, during the severe drought in California, some HOA's insisted homeowners run the sprinklers to keep the grass green! In my city, that would have been a $500 fine! The law is on your side. Good luck.

Correct me If I am wrong Andrew, but didn't California embrace drought tolerant legislation that promotes zeroscape landscaping?
We have been doing this in Southern Nevada for over 15 years, and out HOA's encourage it.