I used to run a landscaping business in NorCal and I planted a lot of CA native gardens. In general you wouldn't amend the soil for native plants, but that's assuming you're planting locally native plants in the same kind of soil and habitat they would normally be growing in. And that your soil is relatively healthy. Stripped, graded, compacted soil from recent construction will need some kind of work before you could plant anything except stuff that likes those conditions. California is a political designation, plants don't care. There are multiple ecoregions within that political boundary. Plants native to one, won't necessarily grow that well in others. I had a real issue with that in my landscaping. Most of the 'CA Native' plants available from nurseries were from particular ecoregions, like the Channel Islands. They did ok most of the time but they weren't frost tolerant at all. Bush monkey flowers (Diplacus) were a popular native plant when I was working there, but they barely made it through most SF Bay Area winters and were all wiped out in one bad winter. Native to CA, but not locally native to the SF area. Then even within a particular ecoregion you have different habitats. Big-leaf maple is a CA native but it's a riparian tree, needs water and drainage. Plant it in the central valley or the desert and it's not gonna make it on its own. Up here in Washington it's a weed, grows anywhere and everywhere. Even the driest soils are wet enough for it. Down in CA you need a wetter soil for it to thrive. But not a wetland soil. I would plant stuff in unamended soil usually, with drip irrigation for the first couple years or so, to get them established. Then depending on the species and the weather they ideally wouldn't need irrigation after that. Or fertilizer. But that's assuming you're choosing locally adapted native plants. Woodland plants would like mulching, but desert or alpine plants probably not. I don't believe I mulched chaparral plants, like the manzanitas and ceanothus. Chaparral soils tend to be dry and lean and that's what the plants native there need. Rott: pepper trees are not native to CA. They're from South America, even though they're called CA Pepper Tree. And I'd be careful with Matillija poppy. they're a garden thug. Unbelievably aggressive rhizomes. I wouldn't give them any compost or fertilizer or water, that's for sure!

That looks exactly like the Oriental Poppies I planted in my backyard almost 15 years ago. Originally, I planted a seed packet -- I don't remember the brand, but it was cheap -- in the front. After about 3 yrs I divided a large clump and stuck part in in the back (temporarily, sure). Eventually, the front ones died out and the backyard ones have spread from benign neglect.

I'm not an absolutist about using natives, and sometimes they're not the best for my goals. My goals: -Reduce inputs (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides), ideally to nothing -Waterwise -Encourage more wildlife -Meet my functional needs -Please me aesthetically Sometimes to tick all these boxes I have to use a non-native. For example: I've gotten rid of most of my lawn, having instead a meadow and a bunch of ornamental grasses and shrubs. But I still have a small 20'x10' patch as a 'high activity / high traffic area'. Most of the native lawn substitutes are okay for light to moderate traffic, but most native-plant enthusiast landscape designers I know say that a waterwise turfgrass is still the best bet for high traffic areas, as the natives will get torn up/worn down. So I have some deep-rooted turf type tall fescue. To reduce the need for fertilizer, I've interseeded nitrogen-fixing clover (both crimson and dutch white) with the grass. I no longer have a monoculture. It uses less water and no fertilizer. It's lush, healthy, thick and green. It attracts TONS of pollenators: honey bees, bumble bees, hover flies. It attracts predator insects like yellowjackets and big wasps. Birds come to eat the insects. So I met most of my goals, and created an ecosystem that is good for the wildlife, and didn't use any yucky chemicals. Was this bad? Then there is the issue of trees: Most of the native trees of the San Francisco Bay Area, where I live, are really really large (redwoods, big leaf maple, valley oak, california black oak), 30-100 feet tall, 30-50 foot spreads. I live on a small suburban plot, with power lines at the edges of my property. Trees this large, while they may be manageable as a 'teenager', will become an issue when mature, encroaching on property and utilities in a way that would quite possibly lead to the tree having to be 'dealt with' in a way that isn't good for the tree. So should I be a purist and stick with the native shrubs, which stay a more manageable 10-15 feet tall? Sure, I'd be native, but I'd be foregoing the benefits of having a tree. Or should I get a non-native tree that is more suitable to the size of my property and also is low-water? And then I'd gain shade, reduce heating/cooling in my house, water plants in the shade less, and provide shelter for birds and other nesters... Thus, I've come to the following set of guidelines: 1. Use natives as a first choice when they meet all or most of the goals, but don't throw away all the goals just for the sake of using a native 2. Realize I can't create a wildlife preserve. I live in a suburb. I have streets front and back. Neighbors on either who side who grow random things. I don't own enough land to get very high up the food chain and to start hosting deer, foxes, mountain lions, etc (although I seem to be hosting gophers just fine). Insects and birds are probably the upper limit. 3. I can't do habitat restoration. As far as I've been able to discover, 200 years ago the area where I live was a combination of tidal marsh, estuarine meadow/grassland, and a bit of riparian habitat near the creeks. I can't make my property into a wetland. And yet the soil I have is from 200 year old wetlands -- clay, silt, poor draining. A lot of the native plants from the foothills, chapparal, and coastal sage may like the 'dryness' level I keep my garden at, but they're not fond of the soil texture. And amending is controversial. So compromises must be made. 4. Realizing that sustainable practices and use of natives are not always 100% synchronized. Sometimes there are plant choices that are great for sustainability or permaculture, but aren't native.

Does it matter if the shrubs you use are evergreen? Do you have a maximum height or depth of the bed in mind? Do you like the more formal look of all the plants being the same, or do you want a variety of plants to extend the season? IME with V. dentatum Blue Muffin, the Viburnum leaf beetle, Pyrrhalta viburni, chewed the leaves unmercifully until I finally pulled it out and burned it to kill off the eggs (which overwinter in the twigs.) I have other Viburnums which they don't chew up much. This pest is in NJ, so I would avoid the types of viburnums that are particularly susceptible. You should also know that many viburnums aren't self-compatible, and so you need more than one selection to get berries; thus only planting Blue Muffin would leave you without berries unless a neighbor had a cultivar other than Blue Muffin. It also had no fall color in my garden. Having Winterthur and Brandywine would allow for berries, and IME the beetles aren't especially fond of V. nudum. I don't know those particular cultivars, but in general V. nudum has good red fall color. I think you are right about Ilex glabra sometimes being too short, such as the selection 'Shamrock' @ 4', but there are other ones that reach 6'-8'. If it doesn't need to be evergreen, I love Ilex verticillata, winterberry holly. It has tiny blossoms that are unobtrusive other than up close though the pollinators love them, and the berries really sing through fall into winter. You could also look at Rhododendrons. There are selections of natives, and I like the evergreen leaves for long season interest after the flowers or there are quite a number of native and native crosses of deciduous azaleas and rhododendrons, some of which have lovely vanilla-like scent. Many of the deciduous ones have good fall color. I'm afraid I can't help with the deer as I live in an area where the deer prefer to avoid people. However, in general, unless a plant is actually toxic, there isn't much deer won't eat if they are hungry enough, so you will have to judge based on what you see around you as far as deer damage and what alternatives to planted yards the local deer have for food. Before purchasing, I'd consider planning field trips to some of the world class public and botanical gardens in NYC if you are in a reasonably close part of NJ, or if not, check out your more local area to see what is closer. There are some amazing nurseries with demo gardens in NJ as well. There's nothing like seeing the actual plants in person to help you decide.