Of course one does also need to consider the spatial functions when designing a garden, but it is not necessarily wrong to design around what plants you want as well. I was just reading the notes of a garden lecture that the famous Brazilian landscape architect, Roberto Burle Marx, gave when he was doing a lecture tour back in 1982 both here in California and England, and he stated that he ALWAYS starts any new design by thinking about the plants he wants to use, FIRST! If that is good enough for one of the most revered modern designers in the world, it also works for me. It does need to be said that this requires some cautions; it helps if one is wanting to use plants that can actually work in your climate, and that will be able to combine together well. These intended plants will need to be vetted against your existing conditions, your intended level of maintenance, amount of water and fertilizing you intend to provide and/or make sense in your situation. As you can see, there is a lot more to designing around plants first than simply coming up with a list that pleases you. Right off the bat, it is more apparent that you will probably have some strong winds in your location, and using things like a Japanese Maple which tends to get burnt leaf edges in hot and/or drying winds would probably only work well up against the house where it is more protected. The distant views looking out over the right side neighbor's fence might also be something you want to keep? If so, planting something that only gets about 5 feet taller than the fence, and kept closer in to the midpoint of the fence would help preserve a view of the distant mountains while still blocking the sight line of the building visible in the distance, but then again, maybe keeping distant views of the surrounding mountains is not important to you from the ground level, but more privacy is. You look to have good opportunities to plant climbing roses against the fences/walls at the north side in particular, where they would get the most sun. Or it could also be an opportunity for other flowering vines that are more evergreen in your intended color range, there are pink/white tinged Bougainvilleas such as 'Blushing Thai' or pink vines such as Pandorea jasminoides 'Rosea', or a deep purple winter blooming vine such as Hardenbergia violacea. Other even longer blooming vines that are evergreen might include a Passiflora 'Lavender Lady', or the semi-shrubby scandent Plumbago auriculata 'Royal Cape/Imperial Blue', which can be pruned to stay flat against a wall. I also quite like the densely foliaged Grewia occidentalis, Lavender Star Flower shrub, especially when grown flat against a wall, and blooms nearly year round. Climbing roses that are quite easy in southern California would include Altissimo(deep single red), Iceberg(white), Mermaid(yellow) and the already mentioned Joseph's Coat(a vivid red-orange), but there are many more, and it mostly depends on whether you want one massive bloom spike or repeat blooms throughout the year. Combining Mediterranean flowering shrubs such as the various Rosemaries(upright or spreading), along with various Lavenders, perhaps some similar lower growing plants like Teucriums, Convolvulus mauritanicus, Armeria, etc could be a good choice for a lower water using part of the garden with more sun. Other shrubs that might work well in this mix could include fragrant foliage of Coleonema pulchrum 'Sunset Gold', Erysimmon 'Bowles Mauve', Helleborus argutifolius. If you like the idea of evergreen iris as an accent, I would highly recommend the less commonly seen iris relative from Brazil, called the Walking Iris, Neomarica caerulea, which blooms for about 6 weeks in mid summer with brilliantly blue flowers on top of 4 to 5 foot tall stems, and is a very dramatic accent foliage plant even when not in bloom. Other Iris members that have great foliage as well as blooms might include Iris pallida 'Argentea Variegata', along with other classic Bearded Iris cultivars. It might look very nice nestled within a lower mass of silvery foliage of a Lavender angustifolia 'Hidcote', or one of the Helichrysum petiolare 'Limelight'. Some grassy leaved plants in groupings, such as Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince'(tall and pale blue),or dwarfer Dianella revoluta 'Baby Bliss' or the deep greens of Zephranthes candida can also liven up a garden. Other taller growing sculptural grassy plants might include some of the Restios such as Chondropetalum tectorum or Elegia canpensis, both of which give wonderful movement in the wind and look good combined with flowering herbaceous things. If you wanted a few very fast growing shrubs that can also act as small trees in the garden, with long bloom seasons, I might suggest Psoralea pinnata or Lavatera thuringeaca 'Barnsley'. Some of the larger growing, virtually everblooming Salvia species such as Salvia leucantha 'Santa Barbara', S. 'Waverly', S. 'Indigo Spires' or S. involucrata are all very long blooming in the garden. As you can see, there are a million ways you can go with planting choices in your garden, these are just a few things that come to mind if you want things that grow well/easily in your area, have a long season of interest, and might combine to give a blues/purples/pinks range of colors over a long season, with accents of soft blue and silvery foliage. If you like the idea of interesting color/texture ground covers that continue the lower water use theme, you might also look into the wonderful silvery low growing Dichondra argentea, Dymondia margaratae, or Ophiopogon japonicus. One of the low growing Iceplants, such as the silvery foliaged Oscularia deltoides, or the Hens and Chicks, Echeveria elegans or Echeveria imbricata also make good massed ground cover plantings.

As a professional landscaper and also someone who has sold a home or two, I fully agree. Many people wind up tearing out the old landscape when they move in (at some point or another) so it won't add value to the house. Just make sure it doesn't detract either and you are on the right path to find an inexpensive solution. I once spent $5,000 on material and 4 weeks of my time putting in a massive and what everyone thought was a lovely deck. Shortly after the house was sold I had occasion to go back to the property next door and saw that they had taken the deck out and put something very different in it's place, a play area for the children with sand and a giant playhouse version of the Alamo. Grass seed is best, I especially agree with hoovb, a blank slate gets the imagination going. Make sure that eyesores are prettied up (broken fence boards, etc.)

Obviously, but obviously not everyone agrees with you either and we were asked for opinions. The question was not can I use wood chips and create a nice yard, The question was would more buyers like to see grass and do I need to do some work on this yard for resale. I reply to both in the affirmative, but have also suggested other options to grass -- though grass works great for me with two active med-large dogs. It is possible to use any combination of materials in a good looking garden. If you've like wood chips in your yard, I'm not trying to talk you out of them, but I've seen dogs with leg injuries because of wood chip yards at a dog park. I have also observed that far fewer people pick up after their dogs with wood chips and found it more difficult to do myself. I want a yard I can walk in, so , not to pick on you or the OP, I will not chose wood chips. And if wood chips were going to be a part of the yard, I would make sure they are a contrast to other colors and textures -- which isn't happening here, and that there is a clean, defined walkway between the steps and gate. Also not happening. This yard is not appealing and too many buyers see landscaping as expensive, hard work and don't know where to begin. An appealing yard, with or without wood chips, will help the house sell. If the OP has a few years before selling, it can be left until time to market or changes can be made now and enjoyed in the meantime.

I didn't want to mention the rock slide that crashed through the wall if it wasn't already bothering the homeowner's. Sometimes people don't want to have their attention drawn to something that's expensive to fix, if they're otherwise accepting of it. Since it came up, I'll not disagree with kiminpl's comments about the two elements being radically out of sync. I think the problem lies entirely with the rock fountain. We notice that the rocks are of relatively uniform, small size. In nature we would see some boulders in the mix. Also, the chute is straight, like a manufactured object. At the termination point, the stacking of stones is not at all like nature would do it, stable and in equilibrium. Instead, some stones are stacked vertically so an accidental bump could send them tumbling. That the "stream" has a given width at its base, but where it penetrates the wall it is only half that width, which looks unnatural. The pool at the base should be wider -- probably considerably wider -- than the stream, if it is to look natural. And It seems that replicating/simulating nature is the whole point. Looking at an example of a natural stream (or a good fake stream!) a quasi-alternating arrangement of boulders occurs more or less along the sides (encircled in yellow.) The boulders are "helped" by large, dome-shaped plant masses (encircled in orange) furthering the random, alternating arrangement. One might think of their arrangement as how a steel ball might travel a pinball course (red line.) In some cases these boulders extend, separate and outside of the stream, adding depth and drama to the scene. In the case of the property in question, no boulders to speak of exist at all! I would be tempted to mortar some stones together, making simulated boulders. (To be sure, though, it would require someone with an artistic sense to do this and massage the existing contents into a more natural arrangement.) Consolidating stones into larger masses could help to create more of a meandering effect. (It looks like the actual path of water flow might be curved.) It could also help to narrow the overall stream so that it fits better with the wall opening. It's going to be nearly impossible for me to describe in a concise way how the stream should meet the wall, but I think this portion needs a complete redesign. While the largest "boulders" might begin to penetrate the wall, I don't think all the "gravel" looks good spilling out and filling the pool. It should be more pool and less stream bed on the patio side of the wall. Given that the "pool" probably needs to be filled with gravel, it might be a smaller, different colored (dark) stone that simulates the effect of water. Don't know if this will help. Usually, creating these things like this are not for people working it out as they go. It generally takes someone with experience.