|
Updated 02/06/20
|
|
|
|
|
I'd raised concerns about a couple ARC worksheet errors and some DG water-wasting anomalies during my 2018 ARC landscape project cycle, but never heard back ***. INSTEAD .... The most current ARC Landscape Checklist #19 (Rev 03/2019) introduced logic that might backfire on all those who were hoping to avoid buying more plants, cut back on irrigation water, and/or, minimize fire fuel hazards, by increasing front yard deco rock and boulder coverage to HOA maximum permitted, 30% of PA (plantable area). And, the proposed ARC Design Guideline 2020 revision for "DG 6.0 Landscape Requirements" still lacks sufficient logic or worksheet calculation, for supporting desired-optimal, 'no more, no less' than the HOA minimum required plant coverage goal of 50% PA. (Am I missing something? It's my impression, that our homeowner best interests may not be part of ARC landscape equations -- pun intended.) WHY THIS MATTERS EVEN MORE TODAY: -- Strict water rationing is looming in our state .... -- Many drought tolerant / low moisture content plants are flammable (some extremely so) .... -- We share borders with a "Tier 2 Fire Hazard " area .... https://www.tdworld.com/vegetation-management/article/20970687/california-commission-adopts-new-fire-safety-regulations Excessive shrubbery on any lot obviously wastes water and increases fire fuel hazard .... Common sense, suggests limiting our own plant coverage to the HOA minimum requirement * .... or, at least becoming more aware when this is not the case. * HOA front yard plant coverage requirement is currently equal to 50% PA (plantable area), up from 20% PA in 2000. ???? >>>>>>>>>>>> NONE-THE-LESS >>>>>>>>>>>> Proposed revision to DG 6.2 "Front Yards and Corner Side Street Landscape Requirements" "For front yards and corner lot street yards, a minimum of fifty percent, (50%) of the plantable area must be covered with an approved living material such as shrubs and groundcover plants. The required coverage must be achieved when the plants reach MATURITY. The plantable area is defined as Yard Area minus hardscape, rock and turf areas. Essentially, the remaining dirt area. New plantings must include 7 shrubs, (a minimum of four, 5-gallon shrubs and three 1- or 2- gallon shrubs) for each 100 square feet of plantable area requiring plants. Fewer than the minimum plant quantities may be considered for approval if the design drawing clearly shows that the number of plants specified will achieve the appearance of a fully landscaped plantable area or at plant maturity. Each individual non-turf area of the yard shall have the required coverage. This includes both sides of the driveway. The remaining plantable area shall be covered with approved landscape walls, decorative rock, or boulders, but each must not exceed the quantity limitations. The remaining bare ground shall be covered with approved landscape bark and/or approved chipped wood." 6.2.1 No more than twenty-five percent ( 25%) of the Plantable area shall be covered with decorative rock. 6.11.2 The maximum total square footage of the boulders shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the plantable area. BUT .... 1. ARC worksheet calculations for ARNP (area requiring new plants) have not considered that lots in this maturing community -- particularly, all those yards going through ARC landscape approval process during the past 10 years -- ......may already have EPA (existing plantable area) which meets, or even exceeds, the HOA required minimum 50% PA (plantable area) coverage. 2. ARC worksheets using ARNP (area requiring new plants) equation to calculate the total, ARC-minimum-required plant quantity, fail to subtract any coverage by DRA (deco rock area) and BA (boulder area). Since DG 6.2 allows up to 30 (thirty) percent of PA to be covered by deco rock plus boulders, the potential for excessive plant purchasing and overcrowded plantable area in a front yard at maturity can be considerable, although, all excess may not 'clearly show' on landscape design drawing, as required to use fewer plants***. 3. There is a much easier and more accurate way (used for HOA compliance here in early days) -- to determine how many plants a lot owner needs in order to achieve the HOA minimum 50% PA coverage in any plantable area. (See revised ARC worksheet logic below *****). MEANWHILE: The DG 6.2 'eyeball' strategy for more aware lot owners trying to justify NOT going over HOA 50% minimum plant sq ft coverage, has replaced the earlier section containing this statement: ......"Fewer than the minimum plant quantities may be considered for approval if the design drawing clearly shows that the number of plants provided will achieve the stated goal of fifty percent (50%) coverage at MATURITY as stated above." (....which in my own experience was not realistic for design drawings with randomly spaced plants***, but, at least this clause referenced '50% goal'.) with this revised version: ...... "Fewer than the minimum plant quantities may be considered for approval if the design drawing clearly shows that the number of plants specified will achieve the appearance of a fully landscaped plantable area or at plant maturity." .... I haven't been able to grasp, how a 'fully landscaped appearance' ensures meeting, but not exceeding, HOA 50% minimum sq ft plant coverage ....? Even just a few 'extra' plant sq ft can consume significant water over time. (How many lot owners concerned with staying within the HOA minimum 50% plant coverage sq ft, will be winning this argument with ARC: "I can 'clearly see' more sq ft than the required 50% plant coverage sq ft on this design drawing .... why can't you .... ?") >>>>>>> WHY, I'm not a fan of 'eyeball' coverage compliance strategy: In 2018 my own landscape drawing failed to 'clearly show' that my front yard actually had eight (8) plants 'too-many' for 50% PA .... conceivably wasting water .... while the ARC worksheets were instructing me to ADD 48 (forty-eight) more .... definitely wasting water while piling on fire fuel hazard ... *** (I've heard similar tales from several folk unhappy with ARC perspectives.) END RESULT: The flawed DG 6.0 and Checklist #19 Landscape ARC worksheet logic may effectively BLOCK unwary lot owners from covering their front yards with HOA maximum-allowed bark sq ft to restrict water use and reduce shrubbery fire fuel hazard ... -- Technically, bark can be used to fill up to 50% of all PA (plantable area), depending on deco rock and boulder coverage (max = 30% PA). If there are any concerns about window sun reflection igniting bark, window sun screens are an effective preventative. .... Which might help explain some maturing, over-crowded shrubbery around here, and answer why, switching yards from turf to bark coverage no longer guarantees saving water .... (?) (What am I missing ....?) OK ..... HERE'S THE PART I REALLY DO NOT GET The expected plant ground coverage sq ft for each and every plant to be used on our lot....and therefore, our total plant coverage sq ft ..... is ALREADY available to whomever creates the ARC-required, scaled landscape design drawing .... (There is no need, to gamble on achieving 50% PA coverage by packing at least 7 / 8 plants into each 100 sq ft of plantable area.) Monitoring a minimum 50% PA coverage sq ft goal SHOULD be proverbial 'piece of cake'....particularly, for the "Landscape Architect, Landscape Designer or Licensed Landscape Contractor" folk dictated by DG 6.1 .... -- A landscape designer's working, desired-plant list always contains plant name, expected width at maturity and quantity of that plant to be used .... -- The ARC worksheets conveniently provide the pre-calculated coverage sq ft* for permitted boulders of varying width; this data can also be applied to plants of varying width **** *Pre-calculated sq ft = total area sq ft for circle shapes with given widths. Total plant ground coverage can be easily monitored via ARC-required, desired-plant detail list as follows .... (this is how we complied in early days): ..... Create the landscape design drawing per the lot owner's plant preferences and DG 6.1 lot appearance requirements, observing all ARC setbacks and the DG Approved Plant List: a. Keep a column on the desired-plant detail list for each plant's expected coverage sq ft at maturity .... -- Use the expected sq ft on ARC Checklist #19 worksheet for boulders of varying widths ****, or, plug the plant's expected width at maturity into any online sq ft calculator for circle shapes, such as: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/construction/square-footage-calculator.php b. Keep a 'Plant Total sq ft' column on the desired-plant detail list to record this plant's total coverage = sq ft area for each plant at maturity x total quantity of that plant. c. Tally all mature plant coverage sq ft = 'Final Plant Total sq ft' for each yard area, and compare this to 50% PA (plantable area) sq ft. d. Add or subtract plants from landscape drawing and desired-plant list to achieve 'no more, no less' than minimum 50% HOA required plant coverage. IN OTHER WORDS .... It appears to me, that the working, desired-plant list detail which is used to design our landscape plan is ALL that is necessary to purchase the correct number of plants to fully comply with HOA 50% PA minimum sq ft coverage .... WE NEVER NEEDED to pack x number of plants into 100 sq ft sections 'in hopes' of achieving minimum 50% PA coverage sq ft at maturity .... ? (Although, I suspect such policy might be enthusiastically embraced by many professional landscapers.) (What am I missing ....?) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI -- HOA PLANT COVERAGE COMPLIANCE HISTORY DIY gardeners here always knew the correct number of desired plants to buy for achieving minimum HOA ground coverage in early days .... We designed our yard's landscape plan to our heart's delight .... subject to ARC approval, of course .... But, we did so with no special consideration for plant quantities, other than meeting the HOA minimum of 28 plants for front yard total PA planting area * .... When the HOA minimum plant coverage goal was (inexplicably) increased from 20 percent to 50 percent during our five drought years, our simple, reliable plant coverage compliance strategy was dismissed from ARC worksheet calculations .... the columns monitoring expected growth coverage were removed from ARC-required plant detail lists .... Lot owners were told to pack 8 plants into each and every 100 sq feet of plantable yard, "with a goal of achieving 50% coverage" .... regardless, of expected mature growth or recommended-healthy spacing between plants. -- I am seeing many unattractive / unhealthy / over-crowded front yards where turf was switched out for bark a while back to try to save water .... although, very little bark is visible on these lots now. -- I also have difficulty visualizing, how the forced placement of 7 / 8 plants into each and every 10 x 10 ft section of plantable area available, can be aesthetically reconciled with DG 6.1 lot appearance requirements: "All landscape designs shall result in an integrated design solution .... 6.1.5 Plant material should be dispersed to provide a balanced design. " (IMHO, the proposal to down-size from 8 to 7 plants per each 100 sq ft has nominal impact on resolving this situation.) BOTTOM LINE Aside from perhaps attracting profiteering landscapers, there appears to me, to be no practical or logical reason for the ongoing DG 6.2 mandate to purchase x number of plants per every 100 sq feet of front yard PA .... in lieu, of calculating more precise plant totals to meet minimum 50% PA coverage compliance .... by using the desired-plant detail data needed for creating the ARC-required, scaled landscape design drawings. (What am I missing .... ?) IMHO, the ARNP (area required for new plants) worksheet calculation is not only, unnecessary to achieve HOA minimal coverage compliance, its perceived, inherent tendency to overcrowd our plantable areas (see examples ****) interferes with our DG 6.1 required yard's design aesthetics, and could waste a good deal of water while significantly increasing fire fuel hazards. Begging questions ....? Aside from this not being 'rocket science' -- anyone using basic arithmetic can handle plant sq ft coverage totals on ARC-required detailed plant lists -- then, given DG 6.1: "All landscape designs shall be prepared by a Landscape Architect, Landscape Designer or Licensed Landscape Contractor..." 1. WHY are such professionals NOT helping lot owners monitor the ARC required, desired-plant detail lists, to achieve a considered-prudent, 'no more, no less' than HOA minimal plant coverage sq ft goal of 50% PA .... ? 2. In the interest of water conservation and fire prevention, WHY does ARC NOT give lot owners a 'heads up' when landscape plans call for many more plants than necessary to meet HOA compliance ....? 3. WHY NOT include instructions on ARC Checklist #19 worksheets for tracking total plant coverage sq ft? (WHAT am I missing .... ???) FOOTNOTES >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SCLH ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES JANUARY 23, 2019: https://files.constantcontact.com/78eeb84e201/e1ac07f3-7ac6-497e-8a08-8a232e8535a9.pdf Landscape Checklist #19 https://sclhresidents.com/documents/10184/251862/Checklist+19+Landscape+Plants+Trees/1972f43b-39e2-44b2-940b-6ef4698d2cb8?version=1.4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Early 2000 DGs required a total of 28 plants in all front yards to help ensure landscape variety .... which makes much more sense to me, than the 124 plants now required, were I to redo my own front yard today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** The elusive odds for DG 6.2 bulk plant purchases to ever effectively support 'no more, no less' conservative plant coverage goals for residents concerned about water waste and unnecessary fire fuel potential, are demonstrated here: https://ourimaginalcells.info/devil-in-the-detail.html (I personally doubt, new DG draft revision to downsize required plant quantity from 8 per 100 sq ft to 7, significantly impacts 2018 examples) .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** When, the ARC worksheets requiring bulk plant purchases at the rate of 8 per 100 sq ft dictated the addition of 48 new plants to my own front yard.... although specific coverage sq ft data from the plant detail list for creating my scaled landscape design drawing indicated 8 plants too many: https://ourimaginalcells.info/my-project-worksheets.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **** The ARC landscape worksheet precalculated data for sq ft ground coverage by boulders / circles of varying widths, is extended here to include sq ft area for expected width of plants ranging from 1' to 10': Where W = Mature Plant Width in feet = 1' 2' 3' 4' 5' 6' 7' 8' 9' 10' Then total Plant Coverage sq ft = 1 3 7 12 20 28 38 50 64 78 Any online calculator can also be used to find circle shape sq ft coverage: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/construction/square-footage-calculator.php >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***** REVISED Checklist #19 Landscape Worksheet Calculations Landscape Area (LA) = Total Yard area (TYA) - Hardscape Area (HA) Plantable Area(PA) = Landscape Area (LA) - Turf Area (TA) INCOMPLETE (see NOTE1) Total DRA (Deco Rock Area) must be less than 25% PA ___________ Total BA (Boulder Area) must be less than 5% PA ___________ ADD NEW EQUATION Remaining Dirt Area (RDA) = PA (Plantable Area) - DRA (Deco Rock Area) - BA (Boulder Area) NOTE1 The ARC worksheet PA calculation does not match DG 6.2 definition of PA; (area used for deco rock and boulder sq ft is missing). According to DG 6.2: "The plantable area is defined as Yard Area minus hardscape, rock and turf areas. Essentially, the remaining dirt area. " Result: ARC worksheet instructs lot owners to purchase 7/8 plants per each 100 sq ft of PA (minus existing plant coverage) before subtracting any area used for deco rock and boulders; plant excess will crowd PA already used for planting, and override PA eligible for bark filler. Area Requiring New Plants (ARNP) = Plantable Area (PA) - Existing Plants (EPA) INCOMPLETE (see NOTE2) Calculate 8 (now 7) plants per each 100 sq ft of ARNP = ___________ USE NEW EQUATIONS INSTEAD: Total Remaining Plantable Area (TRPA) = Remaining Dirt Area (RDA) - Existing Plants (EPA) = ___________ If EPA (existing plant area to remain) is > = 50% PA, flag and inform lot owner that no more plants are 'required' to comply. Calculate 8 (now 7?) plants per each 100 sq ft of TRPA = __________ for comparison with TPP (Total Plants to Purchase) from desired plant detail list (see revised worksheet.logic below). NOTE2: -- Since the equation for ARNP = PA - EPA does not factor in the HOA minimum 50% PA coverage sq ft allowed, "Area Requiring New Plants (ARNP)" is misleading; avoid confusion with "Total Remaining Plantable Area (TRPA)". *********************************************************************************************** REVISED WORKSHEET LOGIC FOR CALCULATING TOTAL PLANT QUANTITY TO BUY Assuming, that the plant detail list includes all existing as well as all contemplated plants: TPQ = Total Plant Quantity on landscape design desired-plant detail list = _______ -- Is TPQ greater than or equal to the HOA minimum number of plants required for this yard? (HOA min quantity in early 2000 = 28 for all yards). If NO, then add more plants to landscape design drawing and desired-plant detail list .... Plantable Area(PA) = Landscape Area (LA) - Turf Area (TA) RDA (Remaining Dirt Area) = PA (Plantable Area) - DRA (Deco Rock Area) - BA (Boulder Area) -- Is EPA (Existing Plant Area to remain) sq ft greater than or equal to 50% PA (Plantable Area) sq ft? If YES, then In the interest of conserving water and minimizing fire fuel hazard, the worksheet should flag this event, giving lot owners options to: a) remove plant sq ft coverage greater than 50% PA from the landscape design's drawing and desired-plant detail list, and b) fill remaing PA with bark (or more rock, boulders to max allowed SQ ft of PA) .... per DG 6.2 for 'no more no less' than HOA minimum plant coverage ...... TPPC = Total Plant Planned Coverage sq ft = 'Final Total' sq ft on landscape design desired-plant list = ________ sq ft -- Is TPPC (Total Plant Planned Coverage) sq ft greater than 50% PA (Plantable Area) sq ft? If NO, then add plants to landscape design drawing and desired plant detail list until 50% PA is reached. If YES, then flag for consideration of excess plant removal and bark filler addition, per HOA minimum 'no more no less' coverage sq ft goal ..... -- Is TPPC (Total Plant Planned Coverage) sq ft less than RDA (Remaining Dirt Area) sq ft? Add more plants to landscape design and detail plant list if desired, or fill with bark. -- Is TPPC (Total Plant Planned Coverage) sq ft greater than RDA (Remaining Dirt Area) sq ft? If YES, then this lot's plantable area will be OVER-FILLED; go back and remove plants from the landscape design drawing and desired-plant detail list until TPPC is equal to or less than the RDA. Plantable Area sq ft still open for plants or bark filler TRPA (Total Remaining Plantable Area) = RDA (Remaining Dirt Area) sq ft - TPPC (Total Plant Planned Coverage) sq ft = _________ sq ft If no more plants are desired, use bark filler on remaining PA sq ft: BRA (Bark Required Area) = TRPA sq ft -- Is BRA sq ft greater than 50% PA sq ft - DRA - BA? If yes, someone has made a mistake; DG 6.2 effectively limits total bark coverage to this amount. (Remove excess bark and add more plants / deco rock / boulders.) NOTE: If there are concerns regarding window sun reflection igniting bark, sun screens are an effective preventative. How many plants do we need to buy? TPP = Total Plants to Purchase = TPQ ('Total Plant Quantity' on landscape design desired-plant list) - total existing plant quantity on desired-plant list to remain = _______ Divide into ARC required number of 5 gallon and 1 gallon plants. ADD CAUTIONARY TO WORKSHEET ..... "Whenever TPPC (Total Plant Planned Coverage) exceeds the HOA minimum 50% PA sq ft coverage goal, plant removal should be considered for minimizing water waste and fire fuel hazards." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Letter to BOD
| letter_to_bod__05-29-2020.pdf |
| response_to_bod_response_6-02-2020.pdf |
