the DA literature says it grows to 3-4 feet - don't believe it. In my climate it makes a very nice 8 foot climber I believe I've seen Graham Thomas make a very small 5-6 feet climber even up here north of Boston (& then die back to almost nothing during a particularly harsh winter). milieu serene, are you familiar with the Climbing Tea (vs. "Hybrid Tea") & Noisette roses? They are older roses that often, but not always, have a more relaxed flower form, yet they also often have the advantage of being bred from wild roses that naturally grow in a climate not unlike yours. In fact, the first Noisette rose came from a South Carolina plantation, back in the early 19th Century (or late 18th). They are all dependable rebloomers, even in hot summers, and it's not unusual for them to suffer little from diseases when grown in warm/hot, humid climates (the advantage of being bred from wild roses of the semi-tropics). If you aren't familiar with them, I encourage you to also take this question of yours over to the Antique Rose Forum. There you're bound to get good answers from other rosarians in the Southeast who can give you good recommendations about yellow Tea & Noisette roses that will handle your climate well. (Oh, and yes, a good number of the Noisette & Tea roses are varying shades of yellow, or yellow with pink &/or orange.)

Linda, they are two slightly different species. The C. eriophylla is hardier than the californica. The eriophylla is hardy to the mid teens is grows between 1,000-5,000 feet while the Californica is native to Baja California which doesn't get as cold. The common names are usually the source of confusion. I don't know which species we are talking about, but we got both of them covered now. Hope that helps Here is a link that might be useful: Calliandra eriophylla

"As a gardener I am worried that I will just plant things and not have them create the finished look I'm hoping for." This is exactly what will happen if work proceeds without a comprehensive plan! The drawing is a good start for something to add measurements to in order that you can plot it out accurately on graph paper. As Gardengal mentioned, it needs to be to scale, so someone preparing to figure out what will fit ... will know if it will fit. One can also see all the bed shapes at a glance and know that they are compatible with one another and use good geometry for their lines. There is a tendency for drawings drawn by those who don't do it regularly to become very cluttered and hard to read, so I'd suggest you leave out everything extraneous and draw only the necessary: buildings, fences, curbs, landscape walls, walks, drive, tree trunks, AC, etc. Label plants at the edge of the drawing and use a thin line to connect it's name to the plant. The initial plan is a base plan. It shows only permanent existing features. Proposed features will come later on a copy. I was trying to reconcile one of your photos (left side of house) with the plan. The curb should be drawn in so we can see where the yard ends and know that there's a street over there. I see a birch tree in the pic but not on the plan. Is it being removed? The triangular raised bed does not look good. If you plan to get rid of it, don't show it on the plan. If you don't plan to get rid of it ... why? Dimensional lumber raised beds are typically for back yard and growing vegetables. For front yard and landscaping why would you want one? Not using one will generally look and work better. If you're going to create a high dollar raised bed out of brick or stone it would be different. Otherwise, I'd leave it out. The plan calls out roses, peonies, irises, etc. but is not showing any on the plan. Do these things exist, or are they simply desired? If the former, their beds should be shown. If the latter, they should not be shown or labeled on the base plan. Draw the fence and call it out only as "fence" without using any additional arrows. If the picket fence will be in a different location, leave the fence out for now. The stepping stones seems like their path would be subject to changing in a new plan. I would leave them out for now. If there was foundation planting at the house and any planting along fence (which looks like their direction you're leaning) then the stepping stone path would probably only fit somewhere near the center line of the space between house and garage. It's a fairly skinny area and plants take up room. Right now the path is headed square into a patch of grapevines so that doesn't seem like a good walking experience. For the time being, I wouldn't think of plants. Just think of the hardscape portions of the project: walks, fences, drive, beds, etc.

Thanks all - these responses are so helpful! I love the idea of referencing older houses. I’ve driven around the historic homes in my neighborhood here, and it’s true that there aren’t many foundation plants besides the occasional boxwood - likely put in more recently than 1907! The pecans are actually part of an orchard. I always thought it was odd that we had these 2 perfectly placed pecans, similar to how builders put in a starter tree on either side of the sidewalks in new tract homes! Turns out that the trees were here well before the house! I suspect they were planted in the mid-1800s. Good info about the bulbs under pecans. I though about agapanthus as well, but I think that would require a lot of digging and....ugh! Clay soil and rocks are breaking my back! Love the 2 renderings! I wish I could bump my tree out farther to the right, but the electric lines run right over that corner, plus that’s our drainage area for the backyard. Eventually we may do a dry creek situation over there. Not authentic to the house, but sometimes preventing standing water wins out. ;)