Click here … to download this summary as a PDF document.

This summary covers key points that should be clearly understood, irrespective of what final decision each director makes. The SROA Board of Directors should not get sidetracked by spurious arguments regarding potential restrictions on native plant protections.

Click here … to view a much simpler and more reasonable proposed set of rules.

I. At the most basic level this is a decision on whether to allow a few Sunriver owners to impose restrictions on many other Sunriver owners for no established reason other than the personal preference of those few owners pushing for restrictions.

A. There are two fundamental positions:

To a few owners, fencing material is visually undesirable; and its use by all other owners should be prohibited or severely restricted as a means of protecting any plants, including native plants.

To many other owners, reasonable use of fencing material should be allowed on their own property to protect native plants, including trees, shrubs, and wildflowers, when there is no practical alternative to damage or destruction by deer and beaver predation.

B. The use of reasonable fencing material to protect native plants has no concrete or substantial impact on any owner other than the owner of the property on which the fencing material is used. The only impact on other owners is that they don’t like any occasion when they might see fencing material on someone else’s property.

C. The use of fencing material to protect native plants has concrete benefits on the environment, including water conservation and habitat for native pollinators, birds, reptiles, and small mammals. Having native plants in a landscape is also a benefit to the owners who have native plants because of native plants’ beauty and the multitude of animals that visit the native plants.

D. The record that has been made available to Sunriver owners appears to include comments in support of total or severe restrictions by owners of fewer than 25 or so Sunriver properties.

E. In addition to submitted testimony opposing severe restrictions, the record includes testimony that more than 100 Sunriver residential properties have been identified (on approximately 40% of Sunriver residential properties) that currently use fencing materials to protect plants in their landscapes.

II. The disagreement is not about plants, it’s about the use of fencing material.

A. No one has argued that the Sunriver Consolidated Plan doesn’t recognize “trees” and “wildflowers” as Sunriver owners’ “community treasure[s].”

B. No objections have been raised to any means of plant protection (e.g., repellant sprays), other than the use of fencing materials.

C. Physical barriers, including use of fencing materials, are the only practicable method of protecting some native plants in some areas. No “foolproof” alternative method of protection has been identified, particularly when property owners aren’t full-time residents.

III. There is no inherent “wildlife” impact of significance from reasonable use of fencing materials to protect native plants.

A. There is no evidence at all that adequate food supply for deer and beavers would be significantly (or even measurably) diminished by any anticipated use of fencing material in Sunriver to protect native plants.

B. There is no evidence at all that the use of appropriate fencing materials would entangle any mammals or birds.

C. There has been no objection raised to prohibiting the (unreasonable) use of fencing material in a way that would prevent the passage of deer and other wildlife across private property.

IV. The only valid objection to the use of fencing materials that has been raised is “aesthetic” and solely based on personal opinions about the visual impacts.

A. There is nothing in the Sunriver Consolidated Plan that states or suggests that the reasonable use of fencing materials to protect native plants would be contrary to the plan’s principles. While some individuals’ personal opinions may be that the visual impacts impede on their own concept of what does or doesn’t conflict with Sunriver’s “natural environment,” that point of view is neither based on general evidence nor on any established, widely held opinions of other Sunriver owners.

B. While “aesthetics” are within the scope of community design standards, determining which aesthetics to impose through design rules cannot be decided by only a handful of individuals. Purely aesthetic decisions in Sunriver must reflect at least substantial agreement by the owners.

C. As yet, there appears to be no compelling evidence of Sunriver owners’ opinions on how to regulate, if at all, the use of fencing materials to protect native plants.
The evidence available from a limited number owners is that a significant number of owners (at least 100+) use fencing material to protect plants, and a number of owners have explicitly stated they support allowing reasonable use of fencing to protect plants. In contrast, the publicly available evidence is the only a handful of owners support prohibition or severely restricting fencing material to protect plants.

D. Because the only valid objection is to how fencing material appears, where the fencing material cannot be seen there is no impact on any owners who dislike fencing material. This for example, is the case for protecting Arrowleaf Buckwheat (Eriogonum compositum), which is a small, low-growing, flowering plant, and which can be protected with a welded-wired barrier that is only 8” high and 12”-18” in diameter.

V. The objection to prohibiting or severely restricting the use of fencing materials is that many existing native plants are likely to be destroyed or severely damaged, and the beneficial and attractive use of native plants in Sunriver landscapes would be overly and unnecessarily discouraged.

A. Native plants not only are “community treasures,” they are inherently compatible with Sunriver’s natural environment.

B. Native plants are generally adapted to the local climate and do not require substantial irrigation. Thus, they are better for the environment.

C. Native shrubs and wildflowers provide excellent, healthy nectar for native pollinators and seed for native birds.

D. Native flowering shrubs and wildflowers are exceptionally varied and beautiful.

E. In the environment of Sunriver, where deer are unnaturally tame, many of the most beneficial native plants, especially shrubs and wildflowers cannot survive the impacts of deer browsing unless the plants are physically protected. Appropriate fencing material is the optimal means of providing essential protection.

VI. Any design rule should address only the scope and nature of the use of fencing material, without regard to the nature of the protected plants.

A. Regardless of the position taken on the use of fencing material to protect native plants, it would be a fatal mistake to base any rule(s) on the type of plant (e.g., tree, shrub, or wildflowers) or on a “one-plant” criterion. The issue is only about the visual impact of the fencing materials, which can be addressed most effectively by criteria for the use of fencing material without regard to any plant characteristics.
This error of misdirection appears to arise out of some sense that trees have more need for protection, and it’s more complicated to create rules for flowers. By ignoring those irrelevant issues, the rules would become much simpler and the choice of how to use whatever fencing material is allowed would appropriately be left to each owner.

VII. Implications of any short-term decision that required substantial removal of existing uses of fencing materials.

A. There is no credible evidence of harm that would arise from deferring any prohibition or severe restrictions on the reasonable use of fencing material to protect native plants.

B. Claims that Sunriver owner’s use of fencing would “explode” without new restrictions have no basis in fact. The limited and quite reasonable use of fencing over the past five or ten years is clear evidence that there isn’t some huge pent-up demand for extreme use of fencing material that needs to be thwarted.

C. It would be simple and non-controversial to prohibit the misuse of fencing material to create barriers equivalent to lot line fencing that is already prohibited.

D. Immediately imposing prohibitions (e.g., against fencing materials to protect native wildflowers) or severe restrictions would create an enormous and unpopular enforcement task because there are an estimated 200 or more Sunriver lots that would not be in compliance.

E. Enforcement against owners who had protective fencing material in place prior to adoption of the new Design Manual would potentially be challenged in Circuit Court as a “taking” and lead to damages levied against the SROA.

F. On the other hand, taking the time to inform and genuinely engage Sunriver owners, including owners who are creating native landscapes, could almost certainly reach a balanced solution satisfactory to almost all Sunriver owners.

VIII. A potential interim standard for the use of fencing material to protect native plants

A. Despite the lack of any immediate need to adopt and enforce new restrictions on the use of fencing material to protect native plants, a majority of the Board may nonetheless decide to adopt some restrictions. In which case, the Board should adopt interim standards that are:

● Simple,
● Clear,
● Objective,
● Allow owners flexibility, and
● Not onerous.

B. Click here … for standards that would meet all of those criteria; and, hopefully, most Sunriver owners would find they could “live with these” during a more robust engagement of Sunriver owners to develop a broadly supported set of standards. Of course, the Board could revise the specific metrics in the rules that were approved.