Landscaping Committee

January 29, 2007

Dear Trevor,

Re: Sunridge Estates Landscaping Committee

First, let me offer you a belated welcome to Sunridge Estates. It is my hope that this letter might more accurately inform both of us of the problems associated with the common property. I am thinking that if I tell you what I know and ask you to tell me what you know we might better identify and correct any misconceptions about the management of the common property and projected costs of the landscape remediation. In this regard, I would like to speak to the Landscape Architect. Perhaps, if all goes well, owners will have the ability to make reasonably informed decisions on the use and appearance of the common property.

History

My husband and I have lived here since 1988 when this development was new, and it is no secret that we think that the common property has since been mismanaged. When we bought here, Sunridge Estates was high-end, and the grounds were beautifully, and expensively, landscaped. The work of the landscape architect, which original owners were so proud of and paid so much money for, has been destroyed. In our opinion the grounds have looked like a war zone for well over a year, however, in the past few weeks we have noticed the property is looking quite a bit tidier. If you are responsible for that, we would like to thank you.

Landscaping Committee

In view of misrepresentations in the November 30, 2006, minutes of the council meeting, I am concerned that you and other new owners may have been inadvertently misled.

In the past I have presented several landscaping estimates, reports, and suggestions to Council and have made repeated attempts to promote responsible management of the common property. I asked to join the landscaping committee before it was formed and before trees and bushes were cut down in the hundreds.

At the only meeting of the landscaping committee that I was given notice of, I repeated my requests not to remove what remained of the original plants without first consulting with a landscape architect and arborist, as well as the city, and obtaining resumes, cost estimates and plans for the prescribed remediation.

Ben Abbott’s response was to tell me that he’d thrown out all the competing estimates because he thought the prices were too high and that Peter Slack’s nephew, Kevin, was qualified and would do the job and that my ability to think clearly was in question.

I asked that my objection be recorded and requested Kevin’s resume, to no avail. On over 20 million dollars of real estate, I truly believed that due diligence would require at least a resume in order to ensure that qualifications fit the scope of work.

Bayside is now reporting that a landscaping committee is required and that, although owners have complained about the landscaping, they have not volunteered to assist in planning and re-instatement of the landscaping. It seems that in addition to not providing me with notice of the committee meetings, that I was not informed that the committee had been dissolved. Unfortunately, my reports and recommendations apparently did nothing to assist.

I have made considerable contributions, which I had believed would be helpful. I may even have hoped they would be appreciated. I put in a lot of time and trouble before I came to the realization that my work was not only ignored, but that my efforts to preserve and restore the value of the landscaping seemed to be conflicting and interfering with an unspoken alternate agenda.

I trust that you can understand that, although it may seem like I have stopped trying, I still care enough to work on improving the common property to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, I have been exhausted and am reluctant to volunteer to continue wasting my time. If you want my help in any way, please ask for it.

My last 3 months have been taken up with drafting and presenting bylaw proposals, gathering and presenting material requested by council with respect to repairs to our unit, gathering data to clear up misrepresentations on the deck issue, lobbying for improved tree protection bylaws in Coquitlam, researching costs, esthetics, roots, pests, and erosion control, and legal issues regarding tree replacement and common property issues. I would like an opportunity to discuss the common property with you and the landscape architect now that I finally have some time. If you are interested, please let me know.

Landscape Design

Most of the trees and bushes were cut down and torn out for reasons I cannot understand. It is apparent that the number of plants removed was much higher than was necessary to accommodate the scaffolding around the buildings. Particularly when the specifications for the envelope project expressly required that all trees and shrubs be protected from incidental damage and that every attempt be made to preserve the existing mature trees. Any trees that would interfere with the work were to be identified and Council was supposed to make arrangements to trim and/or strap such trees wherever possible. Instead they were cut down, without authorization from the owners or the city, and with apparently little, if any, regard to the costs.

Historical Problems

I have also tried in vain to stop low budget gardeners from continually poisoning our grounds. Rather than pull weeds, they smothered the plants and applied chemicals to prevent germination, which made the earth bare and brown where, for more than 10 years before, it had been green with ground cover. I complained as top soil was lost along with ground cover, and Council responded by claiming there was no problem.

I wonder if you can tell me if you think the year and a half delay in planting and the fact that so little has grown during that time has anything to do with a lack in the soil’s ability to support new plants.

Before the scaffolding went up, I spoke against removing the original plants without first consulting with a landscape architect and arborist, as well as the city. I asked Council to set a mandate to get advice from appropriate experts on a remediation plan, as well as to obtain resumes and cost estimates for the prescribed project from at least 3 landscaping companies, before commencing any destructive work.

In spite of everything I said, I understand that Council did not retain the services of a landscape architect or arborist until after most of the trees were cut down.

Funding Shortfalls

Although the management companies can and do prepare Financial Statements that reveal no funding shortfalls, it is often due to suspension of landscaping services. Last year the suspension of services was particularly extreme. I have observed similar policies over the years, which although unofficial, are not unusual.

While it may be true that the trees that were removed in significant locations are, in fact, not irreplaceable, it will be predictably expensive to transplant replacements with a survival guarantee that are of the size required to fulfill their functional and esthetic roles.

Legislation

It particularly bothers me that trees, bushes, and ground cover were removed in violation of the strata bylaws, city bylaws, and Strata Property Act.

The most likely obstacles to obtaining the required 75% approval vote from the owners would seem to be that the environmental benefits and funding priorities of certain people would prohibit needless tree removals and replacements, stump grinding and clean up. If nothing else, it looks like council decided that owners might consider such a proposal to be more damaging to the common assets than an improvement to the common property, or that owners on limited budgets would be unwilling to spend the large amount of money required to carry the vote. Contemplating the costs put me in a state of shock.

Out of about 280 trees and about 3,000 bushes on the original landscape design, I can count over 130 lost trees. I can’t count the number of lost bushes. My count covers only the trees showing on the diagram, not the extra trees, including the fir trees planted by owners and the weed-trees grown from suckers or planted by nature. I don’t have an exact count of trees removed for the scaffolding, but it is obvious that far more have been cut down during the past 2 years than were required.

Oppression

I lived here for about 12 years before expressing concern about ongoing mismanagement of the common property. Since then I have felt punished and blacklisted like a whistle blower.

The birch tree in front of our unit was surveyed by Kevin on our landscaping committee tour of it in 2005. I made it’s value very clear. During our discussion at that time he did not voice any concerns associated with it. It had just been pruned to remove a damaged branch when Al MacLeod had it cut down, while we were away on vacation and could do nothing to interfere. Every single one of the 7 trees planted near our unit by the landscape architect was cut down, leaving nothing but weed trees around us growing from suckers.

I said a tree cutting permit was required and made every effort to preserve the trees on the common property, particularly those of extreme significance to our particular unit. The damage to the pavement at unit 402 at the east end of the complex had existed for years and was no reason to cut down anything else so suddenly, or at all, definitely not in front of our unit. Doing so caused a significant change to the appearance of our property, which is predictably far more detrimental to us than of benefit to anyone else. After more than a year of requests, none of the 7 trees removed around our unit have been replaced, and another growing season is coming up fast.

Kevin said that the landscaping was going to be restored to a uniform overall design. Perhaps you, as a journeyman landscaper, know why the patchwork scraps that we have complained about in front of unit 410 have not been cleared off to match the rest of the complex. Does it make sense to you to tear out the surrounding landscaping and leave such annoying remnants from a deceased previous owner?

Do you have any idea why the dead stump in front of our unit has been left there all this time? Is the landscaping committee being informed by Council of owners’ complaints in such matters? Who is making these decisions? Is it the landscape architect?

Our kitchen was flooded during every holiday meal for a couple of years after the previous owners of the unit above us moved in, and we had to pour buckets of water over our deck to get rid of it. The water was full of drain cleaner, which in turn killed the plants. Can the soil below our deck be tested to see if it is still contaminated?

After being cut off at the ground the roots of the rhododendron in front of our unit were not removed the same as the bushes in the rest of the complex. Over 2 feet of it has grown back in the past year since my husband tried to save it, however, since it was so suddenly and severely infested with root weevils about 5 years ago it has never returned to health. The new leaves are chewed up and deformed. As a journeyman landscaper, how do you think that a single rhododendron right in the centre of a complex like this could get chewed up so severely, when all the rhodos in front of the other units looked fine? It took several years for the weevils to slowly begin spreading to other units.

Do you think the weevils would still be alive today if this stump had been dug out last year when all of the others were dug out?

Do you think there is any connection between the sudden onslaught of slugs and snails on my deck and the radical pruning of the birch trees in front of our unit around the same time, followed by the death of all of those trees within the next few years? What does our landscape architect have to say about the cause of such troubles? I suspect that the disparity between inadequate budgets and the reasonable expectations of owners created an impossible situation for the gardener, who apparently retaliated against my growing anger as complaints were not forwarded on to him by management in a timely way, or at all.

Present Issues

Trees and Plants

In general, the long term environmental and geotechnical consequences of removing so many trees may not be immediately obvious.

Do you happen to know if our landscape architect has reviewed the original landscaping plan?

Perhaps we can agree that it looks like removing some of the trees increased corresponding property values, immediately, while removing others immediately reduced corresponding property values. It depends on where the trees were. Some trees were high risk, or an insurmountable obstruction. They had to be removed. But others did not.

Removing the mature pine trees along the northwest meridian opened up the views for the units in that area. In my opinion something smaller should be planted in that area.

Removing the mature birch trees around unit 409 has a negative and continually detrimental impact on the appearance and enjoyment of this particular property that was, and still is, severe. We want those trees replaced with something that screens our windows again.

I have found that it is not only expensive, but can be difficult, to obtain suitable replacement trees, whether of the same type or of a different species, that are large enough to restore the:

1. screening foliage that provided privacy between the windows of the adjacent units and shielded us against the exposed views of stark buildings and roof tops, (which now fill our windows, needlessly spoiling our enjoyment),
2. shade from the heat of the summer sun,
3. sound dampening effects,
4. geotechnical security, and
5. all the other environmental benefits.

Do you know of any tree movers who could keep a lookout for trees of the size and type our landscape architect suggests for particular areas of this site?

My understanding from the committee meeting I attended in 2005 was that the landscaping was to be restored. To a uniform overall design. Is this still true? The concern I expressed then over the need to keep and approve minutes of the meetings, reports, quotes, contracts, and decisions was rejected. If you have minutes or records from any landscaping committee meetings, please let me take a look at them, or take copies, so I can get an idea of what is going on here that is not obvious to see by looking.

Funding

The original budget for the building envelope project allowed $50,000 for landscape remediation, plus an addition amount for a contingency fund. The problem seems to be that the scope of the levy was limited to restoring landscaping and decks only so far as the damage arose from the building envelope project. I do not know if it would be legal to use the project levy for upgrades beyond the original strata plan design or building envelope damage. The levy was not intended to pay for excessive tree removal or demolition and reconstruction of rotten deck additions.

The $500,000 that is remaining from the levies was supposed to be a contingency fund to be spent on remediation to fully restore the property to its original strata plan condition. According to the person I spoke to at the HPO it is at the strata corporation’s discretion to decide how much we need to restore the common property and how much will be surplus, if any. In general, HPO “allows” whatever amount is deemed to be required, up to the $500,000 that is remaining. The owners, on the other hand, may not.

I have asked Council to have Bayside file liability insurance claims to compensate for the extensive loss of trees.

Do you think you might be able to help me go over the budget so as to reduce the potential for errors in calculation regarding the scope of the remedial work and any extra requirements? Maybe we could get together before the AGM. Please let me know.

Strata Plan Decks/Patios/Balconies

At the November 8, 2006, information meeting Al MacLeod said deck repair estimates have been restricted to meeting the minimum acceptable standards, and that Council did not seek or receive estimates for the same high quality of materials as in the original construction. I am afraid that if the owners allow this portion of the remediation to be restricted to the $150,000 that Al MacLeod has alleged to be the amount “allowed” that the whole property will be proportionately devalued, as the owners who are not planning to sell will be foreseeably prone to special assessments for future expenditures.

If all the owners pay for discretionary expenses associated with deck additions, which are for the exclusive benefit of particular owners, while structural damage and design defects that the strata corporation has a duty to repair continue to go begging, the detriment to the one excluded will continue to far exceed the benefit to anyone else. The damage is foreseeable.

Extensions to strata plan decks

As far as the strata plan deck repairs go, they have been paid for out of the special levy exactly the same as the balconies. The only difference is that during the project repairs Council had the deck repairs severed from the scope of work due to the complications raised by additions and extra decks that were rotten and unfunded.

Owners of the lower units have already contributed far more money than the owners of the upper units have for the repairs made to all of the balconies on the upper units. This is because the upper unit balconies and the lower unit decks are both limited common property, and are therefore funded by unit entitlement, which is based solely on the size of the respective units' interiors - with upper units being on average at least 20% smaller than the lower units.

The lower units paid for their strata plan decks to be restored using the same quality of wood as the original product. Yet the estimates requested are based on the cheapest options. Please, can we get at least one estimate for deck repairs using a quality of wood that best matches the original, not something inferior and cheaper, and at least one estimate for demolition and removal of the extra decks. Is having that information too much to ask when making such major decisions and spending more than a hundred thousand dollars?

It is already foreseeable that we will have to pay a dollar to save a dime as a result of changing the vinyl membrane on the balconies from the double ply in the original scope of work to single ply. I would hope that we would learn from such false economy.

The decks and landscaping are sharing the same budget and are considered together in common property decisions. Deck additions on the lower units that cause no significant change to the use or appearance of the common property and are proportionately funded do not seem to be a problem, as long as the owners who benefit pay the extra expenses associated with their particular addition and do not create problems for others. In my opinion the extra decks on the upper units in the centre of the complex are raising the more serious concerns.

Extra decks for upper units

Each of the second decks that have been built onto the common property on the northside of the 2-bedroom upper units are in addition to the strata plan balconies that those units each have on their southside. This is a significantly different use of the common property, and the size and location of the decks significantly changes the appearance of the common property as well.

As the 2005 Deck Committee was so keen to point out, if the owners of the upper units refuse to pay their share of the added expenses that flow from the existence of their extra decks, the burden transfers to the owners of the lower units who must indeed pay for the extra expenses, whether the expenses be for removal, reconstruction, or legal disputes. However, since the upper units all pay so much less than the lower units do, and so few have taken so much more exclusive use of common property than the lower units have, the converse can never be true.

Some of the owners who benefit from the extra decks value them enough to pay their share of the corresponding expenses and understand proportionate responsibility. Others do not.

When I took a walk about a few years ago and counted them, there were 17 extra decks out of 68 units, or about 25%. It is a small minority who have a second deck that is of any significant size or expense. I believe it is also a small minority who are determined not to pay their share for the extra repair and maintenance expenses that flow from their existence. I do not understand what their objection is to paying user fees to make this situation fair enough to make it reasonable for their extra decks to continue to exist. Or why the rest of the owners would allow them to transfer the expense onto them, when estimates are about $58,161.62 to repair 30 lower unit decks and $50,617.80 to repair 16 extra decks on upper units. Do you?

It is not that I don’t like decks. I do. I believe strongly in making the very best use of every bit of the common property. But just like trees, it depends on whether the deck creates an overall improvement, or a continuing detriment. As long as an addition does not interfere with another owner’s use and enjoyment of the property, and is fairly and realistically funded, I would vote to approve it. Otherwise, it is a detriment, which I want removed.

Many of the extra decks appear to be used more for storage than anything else, and are apparently not worth their expense, or are a luxury that the owners who benefit do not want to pay for. Amending the strata plan to make the deck additions limited common property would in my opinion serve to perpetuate unfair spending and responsibility and further spoil the look and value of the common property and the quality of life.

It is like houses. In general, building a wooden deck on the side it will probably enhance property values. Building the same deck out front will probably lower overall property values in the whole neighbourhood. So we need trees and bushes to hide the extra decks and their contents from view. This is probably why you seldom see big wooden decks built in the front yard of houses. You don’t see developers building them on the front of townhouses either. Landscaping looks far better. A big wooden deck in a high profile location like the front yard spoils the view from both the windows and street and ruins the look of the neighbourhood. People in houses complain about such things. So do I.

Flowers and Fencing

Given our limited strata budget and the maintenance demands of flowers and fences, I am having a hard time understanding why such choices are being suggested for this complex.

I love flowers. I used to fill my deck with flowers every summer until the new building envelope wrecked my water taps so I can’t screw on my hose. It always took a lot of watering and about $300 a year to stock my small deck alone. When I owned a house and had a garden full of them, the flowers always took a lot more work than the bushes and ground cover, and a lot of earth was left bare and brown for half the year. I am wondering if you or the landscape architect know something I don’t that would help me understand how the immediate and long-term expenses of flowers would be a practical choice for Sunridge Estates in comparison to low maintenance green spaces.

As far as fences and painted concrete go, I have experienced both and deeply regretted it. Unpainted concrete is easy care and trouble free. Once it is painted it rarely looks better for very long and can never be restored to its original maintenance free condition. When neglected, even slightly, painted concrete is considerably less attractive than when left natural. Take a look at the stucco covered hydro kiosk in front of our unit as an example.

As far as fencing goes, sound barrier masonry fencing that plants can grow over, may be of benefit, but I doubt it for two reasons. One is that the buildings are located on a slope so the height required to act as an effective sound barrier would have to be fairly high.

The second is that the front of the property is a high profile location and the cost required for fencing that would present an appearance of quality equal to the original landscaping may be more than the strata corporation is willing to spend.

Not that we are the street of dreams, but you can see landscaping there that is very similar to what we had originally, and you cannot see any wooden decks in the front yards or wooden fences running along the front of those properties. I do not think wood fencing would look good or serve our purposes from a maintenance and graffiti perspective, especially over the long term.

I would rather see the chain link fencing at both entrances screened with trees and bushes, both for esthetics and to stop them from being cut. Perhaps we should seek guidance from the city, especially in regard to the security issues associated with this particular street corner.

Sidewalks

I think we should probably stop ignoring the dangers on the common property. Owners have literally died waiting for sidewalks on the high risk corners and the steeper lines of travel. Seniors complain about being too afraid to make the trip to the mailbox or that they can’t leave the complex on their scooter because it is too dangerous. Parents complain about being continually afraid their children will be hit by a car. From living here for last 18 years I am afraid that it is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt on one of the hills or hairpin corners. I like to ride my bike to work, because the city has provided a nice, safe, bike lane all along Guildford. But pushing that same bike up the hill around the hairpin corner to come home again is so dangerous that I often wonder if the environment and exercise is worth the risk, and so I take my car instead.

Proposed Solutions

If you would be so kind as to notify me of any committee meetings that you hear of and the names of the current members of this committee, I would really appreciate it.

Design

The city of Port Moody has adopted the Naturescape BC principles. I would like to see Sunridge Estates ask our landscape architect to design a plan that adopts similar policies in order to better encourage visually appealing, low maintenance landscapes and promote environmentally beneficial green spaces for both now and tomorrow.

I think all the owners should be provided with a copy of the proposed landscape design plans including maintenance and funding requirements in comparison to the original strata plan design, maintenance, and funding requirements and be allowed a reasonable opportunity to review the information and make suggestions before having to vote on such a major issue.

Owners may need something like a 5-year plan if they want to add upgrades to the common property such as:

1. environmental water management paving stones to replace asphalt on flat driveways
2. more retaining walls and better material than wooden railway ties
3. cluster stairs on the pathways to match the original design
4. sidewalks around the hairpin corners
5. address lighting
6. trellises where needed
7. screening landscaping where needed
8. sound barrier masonry fencing if needed.

Decks

The way I see it there should be no issue over decks. All strata plan decks and patios are fully included in the proportional strata funding, as is the landscaping. The levies were paid in proportion to unit entitlement to restore to the property to its original as-built standard of quality, not to a cheaper standard.

An additional user fee is required from upper units for rent and to compensate for exclusive use of the common property, which lower units that extend less than an extra 25% already pay for and have proportionate ownership of.

Each individual owner has the opportunity to pay their share of the added expenses that flow from the existence of their deck addition and their exclusive use of the common property. If they do not wish to do so, or cannot afford such a luxury, or use the common property to create a problem, the strata corporation has a duty to spend the minimum amount needed to ensure safety or prevent significant loss or damage.

Anything beyond that would be discretionary spending, which would require others, who may be less able to afford the extra cost, to pay more than their share for their neighbour’s exclusive benefit than their neighbour does. In most, if not all, cases, removal of the extra deck from the common property is cheaper than reconstructing it. I think it is also fairer. Each owner has the same choice. Council just has to present it.

Funding

One of the first things to do in my mind is to find out how the amount for the landscaping remediation and deck repair budget was determined and whether it is truly adequate.

I estimate that it would cost about 10 times more to reconstruct one extra deck and make it common property than it would cost to remove it and restore both the landscaping and the corresponding property value of my unit.

I would like to ask the landscape architect to advise us as to how his current proposal compares with the original design as to the estimated cost and number, size, quality and type of plants and material. Perhaps you can confirm whether it would take about double the enclosed plant list, which is for Phase II only, in order to cover the whole complex and estimate the cost of replacing mature trees.

Al MacLeod said that HPO approved $150,000 of contingency funds for release from trust, however, HPO says they lend enough money to cover a full remediation of the common property, including landscaping, but once the money is lent it is no longer part of their mandate to determine or approve how it is spent.

When you consider the number of mature trees that were lost, I suspect that it might take the entire $500,000 that is remaining from the special levy to properly restore the landscaping and the decks. We are probably not entitled to spend more than what is required for remediation from the building envelope project, but we may have an insurance claim to cover the additional losses if Council does not allow the limitation date to expire.

The high profile public areas need attention to overcome the stigma and overall loss of property value from the extraordinary failure to repair and maintain the common property over the past year. The private areas, which are seen only by the owners who pay equally for their share of maintenance fees, need equal attention in order to fully restore and maintain those areas so they are not a constant source of trouble, and to avoid unfair allocation of funds.

It would be helpful if you could give owners an idea of what it might cost for mature replacement trees or trees of a fairly large size and advise on the proper procedure for obtaining the required estimates, plants, and proper installation.
As the loss of these 7 trees has had a devastating effect on us and our property, we definitely don’t want to miss another year of growth and will therefore pay for the costs in order to get them planted before the end of April. Six of the trees were deciduous and the replacements should be at least 16 feet high and substantial enough to compensate for the loss of the original trees.

I would like to meet with you this week if possible, and in any event, before the AGM. Please let me know what your availability is.

Best regards,

Dianne Bond
Unit 409