Woody, I've had to face the same sort of issues with removal of a large anchor tree in both my own garden, and also design clients' gardens, and prefer to think of it as an opportunity rather than a loss. For what it is worth, I think there is usually more design impact if you replace with a group of the same variety to give more continuity, rather than one of this, one of that. It is also easier to get the garden looking good if you don't try to force the shade requiring perennials to fit into the sunnier garden, I'd move the Hostas, etc if you have room elsewhere, and treat the new sunny beds as an opportunity for sun perennials/annuals until you have shade there again. Laws regarding permits to take down large trees vary from town to town here in the San Francisco Bay Area, in almost all towns here locally, our native Coast Live Oak is the most protected, here in my town of Berkeley, other species do not require permits to remove, whereas in nearby Oakland, anything of size to be removed requires a permit, even if a weed species such as Eucalyptus globulus, or old dying giants such as Monterey Cypress or Monterey Pines. I do work in a lot of gardens with 80 to 100 year old Monterey Pines and Cypress trees, that are reaching the end of their life spans and are in declining health and more risk of dropping limbs or falling completely. I love the appearance and skyline aspects, but tend to be pragmatic in generally recommending removal before they do damage. We have an advantage in our California climate that new trees, depending on the species selected, can get height and size rather quickly. In one Alameda town garden right on the bay, I replaced a 100 foot tall by 50 foot diameter Pinus radiata with a grouping of 5-15 gallon saplings of the Lemon Gum Eucalyptus. Just 5 years later, these Euc's are already nearly 40 foot tall and looking beautiful as a replacement for the pine, and I have also removed the two smallest to retain the best 3 trees.

I have soaker hoses on the perimter with quick disconnects so I can drag my 250 feet plus hose to each. While its being watered, I like to weed or deadhead. Then, I hand water the interior. One day (on the to-do list), I'd love to trench in some pvc-type piping underground from the faucet. Then there'll be no more near misses with running over my hose with the lawn mower. My mom always shakes her head and says, "Isn't a kitchen garden supposed to be by the kitchen?" Well, yes, but the sunniest spots were either where the garden is now or smack in the middle of the lawn the kids play on. And, so, I get to hose wrestle when its time to mow.

Hi, I'm building a fence here in sunny southern California. I'm using con heart redwood 4x4 posts. I've found some conflicting theories about how to set the posts. Some say concrete, some say gravel... and I'm looking for some advice on what wood protector to use for the base of the posts. Because my soil is heavy clay and the drainage is poor, I don't think gravel is a good idea, it'll just create a cauldron of water for the post to soak in after it rains. Even though concrete doesn't seem much better, I think that's the way I'm going to go. I'm definitely going to use about 6" of gravel at the bottom of the hole, and make sure the base of the post is set in an inch or two of said gravel before the concrete goes in. Since the fence is going to be unpainted and I want the natural look of the wood, I'm avoiding using PT wood for the posts, and I've had recommendations to use either asphalt emulsion (Henry 107) or Woodlife Copper Coat green to coat the part of the post that's going into the concrete. The Henry seems like a waterproof coating, while the copper is more of a wood preservative. It doesn't rain very often here, but when it does the posts will get a good soaking, and the ground will take a while to dry out due to the poor drainage. Some say that the Henry 107 will cause water to get trapped inside the wood below ground, accelerating rot. The copper coat would at least allow the wood to "breath" a little and allow it to dry out during our long periods of no rain. I know no matter what I do these posts may only last 10 years or so, but I'm looking to give them the best protection to start with, so they'll last as long as possible. Thanks for any input!

sombreuill (so nice to see you pop in on my thread), that's the way we're going to go. After much discussion and research, we're keeping the existing kitchen door and addressing the jam rot only. I talked to a supplier about purchasing a custom made new rot resistant jam for the TT door (their old doors were an inch taller than all other brands). And then I talked to the owner of the window contracting company who suggested that since the rot was minimal, another option was to remove the affected wood, fill with epoxy and sand it smooth. Once painted, we'll never know that it was damaged and there would be no reason for further damage to occur (the leak that caused the rot happened years ago and has since been addressed). This is a cost effective solution that won't delay the exterior or interior work so we're quite happy about it. This company has an excellent rep (BBB, contractor's board, Angie's List, Yelp, etc, plus two suppliers told us that, hands down, this is *the* company to work with. Their work is excellent). They are conscientious about making sure that all installs are to code and won't cause water issues down the road. The amount of flashing, wrapping, etc that they are adding to our windows and doors is more than twice what our initial install had 21 yrs ago. You should have heard them mumbling about how poorly the house was flashed and how amazed they are that they haven't uncovered any dry rot (so thankful for that but it could have been a different story if we hadn't replaced the failed LP siding when we did.). Thanks for the brand recs, ak0402. I'll keep them in mind should we ever need to buy a new door.