Absolutely ridiculous that they banned it Absolutely!!
It looks just like wood and much safer in a fire Absolutely. This is an attractive, durable, and fire resistant material. It looks like authentic wood planks, akin to cement shake roof tiles which are permitted. It is absurd to prohibit this. Similarly, Trex or Timbertech decking should be an option for those who don't want to consume South American hardwood forests. Ipe and other hardwoods also require annual maintenance to keep attractive, unlike the modern alternatives. Any exterior building products that allow the Ranch to retain it’s charm and character should be permitted, unless it’s a fire hazard. As long as it looks the same as real wood when painted. Banning Hardie Board is ridiculous - properly installed and finished, it is impossible to differentiate from wood. Better than wood for many reasons. But it all depends on how they finish it Enter the modern age of building and allow residents to better protect from fire risk. What genius prevented residents from doing so because they thought the product was less esthetically pleasing? It’s illogical not to allow the material, and not in the best interest of residents and CA. Fire proof, we need choices, our insurance is too high already! Fire resistance is of premier importance in RSF. The "wood" look of hardie board is close enough from a distance. Fire resistant!
Ages better than wood.
Termites have no appetite for cement and Rancho Santa Fe supports a major colony of the critters.
The vast expanse of stucco on buildings detracts from the rural nature of the community that was prevalent when we moved here 50 years ago.
Stucco doesn't blend into the landscape as the ranch style homes do.
Fire resistant! FIRE RESISTANT! Given fire retardant benefits, ease of installation, appearance that cannot be distinguished from real wood and the fact that the entire rest of the world uses it successfully, it is crazy we do not allow it. Hardie board is a good sturdy product. Many homes are and will want to be in a wood appearance. Hardie board is longer lasting than wood and it looks just like wood. Hardie board is fire retardant and in our urban wildfire zone, it makes the most sense to me. Esthetically, Hardie
board doesn't look any different from wood siding. Our house is a wood-sided house. Hardie Board’s fire resistant quality and dead-ringer resemblance to wood should make it instantly approved, in the same way that cement roofing tiles replaced the look of shake shingle roofs. In fact, new (genuine wood)shake shingle roofs are no longer allowed in San Diego County. Holding on to what a 100-year-old covenant referred to for building materials when there were no other choices is reckless. New products that are fire-safe and energy-efficient are what make sense. Holding on to these antiquated rules is depressing our property values. Homeowners are currently allowed to used composite roof shakes, cultured stone veneer, aluminum cladded doors & windows, all of which mimic the real material, then why should cement fiber siding be any different? I agree that Hardie board is a better product then typical board and batten. However it is clear that the protective Coventry does not allow for fake materials. Unfortunately hardie board is just that. Something that is imitating wood and thus shouldn’t be allowed unless there is an extenuating circumstance as there is shake roofs where wood is not allowed per fire department. I have a second home with Hardie and it is wonderful. Easy to maintain, fire resistant, and looks like wood. Why would anyone say no to it? We have too many do-gooders in positions of leadership on the board. I hope they listen to our suggestions I say YES, but with regulations that control use. it cheapens the community It is a hell of a lot less combustible than wood siding. Our home is 72 years old and has clear heart bevel redwood siding. I am not interested in cutting down a centuries-old redwood tree if I have to replace the siding some day. Hardie Board would make a lot more sense. You couldn't tell the difference from 20 feet away. It is inflammable and looks like wood so it is a most appropriate siding to protect houses in Rancho Santa Fe, one of the highest wildfire hazard areas in San Diego County! It is used all over the north west
It looks good. And fire resistant it should be allowed with discretion as an alternate to redwood and cedar batt and board sidings. It is fire rated and also resistant to rot and insect infestation.
It also comes in a rough sawn finish which is great for added character rather than stucco and tile we see everywhere. By the way, the old clubhouse of the 60'swas board and batt I believe. It’s absurd to require the use of wood in this area of significant wildfire risk. How are people going to be able to insure their homes? Requiring wood siding effectively takes this material off the table as a siding option, so there will be even less architectural diversity in the Ranch. It’s attractive, long lasting and safer for all of us in a fire. -HD It’s fire safe and aesthetically fine so why ban this material that could save lives???
Philip Wilkinson It’s hard enough to get insurance in the ranch now. We need to have fire resistant options Looks the same as wood and is fire safe and termite free. makes so much sense - it's adaptable to the style and character of the ranch - and helps with fire safety No is a no brainer. We live in high risk fire zone. What if we insist a new home be built with wood versus Hardie Board and it goes up in flames? Can the homeowner sue? The Hardy Board and/or wood is painted or stained anyway. The naked eye truly cannot tell the difference. Wood is a liability. not attractive to me Obvious. It is fire resistant. OF COURSE!!!! The fire department does not allow wood siding like this anymore... The association allows CEMENT ROOF SHINGLES that model wood because WOOD ON ROOFS IS NOT ALLOWED. This is an absurd rule and you can not tell the difference from a foot whether it is wood or not. Our 1950s board and batten home was remodeled in keeping with that era’s ranch style design. We used the Hardie product for a gorgeous, nonflammable result. To restrict its use is outside the realm of common sense and smart design. Overly lawyered opinions shouldn't trump common sense. That’s one of the historic Rancho looks! Why would we want to ban a classic mainstay of the Ranch? Doesn’t make sense 🙁 The Art Jury's prohibition on Hardie Board is absurd! They allow, actually require cement roof shingle. Word shingles are not allowed.
I assume because of fire danger. The logic that applies to cement roof shingle is the same logic that should be applicable to Hardie Board.
Even more so for Hardie Board, since Hardie Board looks exactly like wood. The Art Jury's prohibition is irrational! the association is overreaching on material specs The Hardie Board product is superior to wood because it is fire resistant and maintenance-free. Moreover, it cannot be distinguished by the casual eye from real wood products. A prohibition against its use is simply illogical and against RSF's interests. The look that Hardie Board represents is what Lilian Rice herself used when she built the original golf club, and the buildings where Country Friends occupied, part of which are now offices. The original garden club was also board and batten style.
The fact that it is not flammable is key - existing ranch style homes could reduce their risk of fire by switching to Hardie Board - their style doesn't look right changing them to stucco - too flat looking, no texture, etc.
Please bring it back for a vote at the RSFA Board. I think the prohibition will be rescinded. It barely passed last time - 4 to 3. The original intent of Covenant prohibitions of construction materials that imitate natural materials is understandable. But the imperatives have to change when faced with even more pressing threats as fire safety. Hardie Board suits the construction of nearly 30% of Ranch homes and is highly fire retardant. To exclude it borders on dogmatic negligence. Unless there is a fire safety issue it should be allowed. We bought a spec house that's made from Hardie Board and it's great. We had a 1985 built wood house in Napa and replaced all the exterior wood surfaces with "Hardie Board" and it looked far better. Plus, since it requires virtually no maintenance looks like new, years later. Plus, more fire, bird and pest resistant that wood. This one is truly easy! We should allow it as we have for decades. Easier to maintain which equates with better appearance for the community! We should view the Protective Covenant written in 1928 as a living document. The intent should be respected. I'm sure the authors would have allowed Hardi Board had it been available almost 100 years ago. When you can use a composite material that is longer lasting, less maintenance, fire proof, and esthetically the same, it only makes common sense. We should allow the fences at the Osuna Ranch be replaced with composite material Why not? yes Yes, it is a superior material, and is in keeping with the design of many of the homes within the ranch. The board members need to stop being such dickheads Yes. You cannot tell the difference, I know this from personal experience. It is a fire safe material. Wood today is not the same as the wood used in original construction for the ranch style homes, its not the same quality and it is not termite resistant, fire resistant, and rodent resistant like Hardie Board is. The first building ever built by Lillian Rice was a batten board building by the way it was nt Spanish style and is located across from the Bank of America in town. Optional comment