HOA Board making change to the exterior against owners will

What do your documents say about which areas are homeowner responsibility vs. the association? If the area they want to change is common area, that's association responsibility and the board can take whatever steps as appropriate to care for it.

You may think this will affect your property values, but you don't know that for certain. Property values are subjective do what may or may not prompt a home to sell can depend on many factors, most of which you can't control.

You didn't get a response to your email, domyou might want to attend the next board meeting and ask point blank why this change is being made. You should also review past board meeting minutes - how long have e they discussed this? Were there any special homeowner meetings or polls (preferably both) to discuss the pros and cons of the project? What about the money - could it be the type of siding you have is no longer available or too expensive and thus costs less money and is easier to maintain?

If you don't like what you hear, talk to your neighbors- if there are enough people who are just as upset, perhaps you can petition for a special homeowners meeting to have another discussion and maybe delay the project until the board does more research. You should volunteer to he.pmeith that and you may find there may or may not be the effect on property values as you fear.

Well, I need to start out at the basics. Are your condos single story and attached to one another? Or Muti-story in several operate buildings, or? The reason I ask is because in CA, the HOA is responsible for termite control and repair. It probably says the same in your CC&Rs. Related, if any attached buildings are infested, my understanding is the whole structure must be treated. No owner can opt out. Where are the funds coming from to do the termite work?

Next, I searched my CC&Rs for my high rise and there's simply nothing about changing the exterior design an/or structure. But we're simple concrete and steel. I don't know what the wording would be in CC&Rs like yours, Sandra. I'm afraid it's-possible that Board can decide tome those changes IF it's not a capital improvement the cost of which would exceed 5% of your budget. Where WOULD th finds come. from to do this project??

A decent Bor, in my opinion would surely users on such a Hugh charge to the exterior aesthetics, Maybe you can grab a bunch of neighbors and and he next open boa meeting to give your opinions in open form

How many are in your HOA? Are all attached in some way, way, or in several separate buildings? I think the opinions of your fellow realtors is a good idea. As a long-ago former realtor in 2 different CA beach towns, I also know the closer to the beach the more valuable. BUT ocean views matter a lot, too, with white water views mattering the most.

-- These are exactly the circumstances where I believe competent HOA attorneys would advise obtaining a vote of the owners.

-- For one thing, the most recent reserve study should speak to replacing the siding. For the board to suddenly say, "Oh no. We are now going to use these funds for stucco... " is a violation of the implicit agreement among owners, the board and the corporation that funding of the reserves would be done pursuant to the reserve study.

-- Note this from Civil Code § 5510: (b) The board shall not expend funds designated as reserve funds for any purpose other than the repair, restoration, replacement, or maintenance of, or litigation involving the repair, restoration, replacement, or maintenance of, major components that the association is obligated to repair, restore, replace, or maintain and for which the reserve fund was established.

-- See also the following:
https://www.clemonslaw.com/hoa-condominium-law/removal-of-a-community-amenity/
(paraphrase: Changes likely to influence purchasing decisions demand careful consideration et cetera)

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f720599adde0126a08cb6ec/t/5f73825eefff8360b75a1860/1601405562463/Adding+Amenities.pdf

-- I think you all should exercise your statutory right to speak at the next board meeting, stating you have concerns about the legality of what the board proposes and your general opposition to such an extreme and drastic change.

-- If needed, pursue Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR). If you do not know what this is, ask.

I agree. A capital improvement.

We are 2 story townhome style units with 6-8 unit per bulding for a total of 37 units. The board sent me a copy of a newly adopted IDR, which I believe was adopted AFTER I asked about the stucco and said we didn't want it along the whole side of our unit. I will be sending letters to all the owners with a copy of a rendering I'm having done today. Thank you for all of your thoughts.

Thank you, this citation is very helpful.

I do like the look of modern construction, but they are leaving the fronts cape cod and thinking about making the sides rough stucco. Stucco does not last longer and actually can harbor mold and hide termites, plus it cracks here in earthquake country so you end up with crack repairs all over. What's recommended for coastal areas is cement fiberboard. I'm not really sure why they are considering this as an option except they haven't been maintaining the termite issue and now some areas are looking bad. If we have to, we will pay any cost difference to not have stucco, but I think the patchwork of materials does lower the value of a neighborhood and I don't feel we should have to pay extra to keep the look of the home as it has always been. Cape is very popular for our beach community, so most homes are Cape Cod or modern farmhouse.

They held a vote on tenting even though 2 different termite companies said it was the recommended fix when I think it's their duty to just have it done. The last time they tented was 2005, there was no vote, and it's recommended every 10-13 years for SoCal. I'm currently writing a letter for the other homeowners and including the pros and cons of stucco vs siding and my opinion that it lowers the value and reduces the charm of our neighborhood. I guess that's all I can do for now.

The IRD says that we have to take the dispute the through them first. It came with a note it was newly adopted because and we've never seen it before. I think they voted among themselves (the board & mgmt company) and sent it out because I told them I didn't think it was right to change the look and that they had an obligation to tent. It's a condominium on title not a PUD. I've sold both. The IDR was not a part of the original CC & Rs or Rules & Regs. I have those. The IDR itself says it was just adopted.

Thanks for the reassurance you're a condo CID.

I'm not following you, Sandra. IDR is. required by the state and surely it's your CC&Rs. It also must be summarized in the Annual Budget & Reserve Report & Policy Statement that every CA HOA owner must receive from their HOA a month before your fiscal year begins (Maybe 1/1/24?). So far as I know the Board IS correct that you must go through IDR before you take any further steps. Why is that troubling?

Can you possibly paste a copy of this "new" IDR "policy"* or whatever the heck it is? Delete anything that'd ID your HOA.

If this is a new "policy" ABOUT IDR, it is required by state law to have been voted on in an open Board meeting. There MUST be something in the meeting minutes. But PMs don't vote--so that's a surprise to see?

I think your work to better inform you neighbors about you opinions about the aesthetics of the building is a good approach. Also urge them to attend th next Board meeting and bring hid up at Open forum even if not on the meeting agenda.

* There is no such thing as "The IDR." It is Internal Dispute Resolution, which is a method to try to settle a dispute. It basically is a meeting between you & one perhaps more board members to try for resolution.

IMHO, I think it's laughable to think that a property's value would swing $100,000 for some side stucco work. Maybe because this is California, but for much of the US you are talking about 1/2 to 1/3 of the value of the condo likely. It would seem you have significant personal style and preferences which is fine, but it is important to recognize this when thinking about this issue and how your bias might affect things.

Fwiw, it is highly unlikely stucco is going to lead to more mold, especially in traditionally dry California. Go to Florida if you want to see what real humidity and constant rains can do to things. In addition, it is highly unlikely the stucco is to harbor more termites than wood. Both of your complaints/cons fly in the face of what anyone who is in the weeds of building science would tell you. You can always find an "expert" to agree with you but you are better off just being honest IMHO... Ie. you have a personal preference for Cape Code.

My first question for you would be why aren't you on this particular condo board? It seems you enjoy your current living situation and care about the place so why not be on the board?

That aside, I'm guessing there is a reason for the stucco. As you said it probably has something to do with either termites, maybe cost/upkeep or even flammability in California as we know wildfires have been an issue. You use the term "we" a few times in your posts. Who is the "we" you are referring to? Is it homeowners that agree with you? How many agree with you?

And frankly, I'm surprised the board would allow you to pay extra for Cape Cod. As a prior President, I'm not sure why I want to be making some stucco and some Cape Cod. It would seem they would have different maintenance requirements going forward so 2x the work. If Cape Cod were to get termites again, inevitably someone is going to complain that so-and-so got termites and cost the association xyz. This would seem like a liability especially if the board was advised that Cape Cod is a no-go in CA going forward for some specific reason. You say you have the money for siding so I am presuming there is some other reasons the board is not looking to replace with Cape Cod.

Many COAs have regulations that condos maintain uniformity which it sounds like this would also go against as well. You are now going to have some that are stucco and some that Cape Cod. Seems like more avenues for someone to make a complaint about uniformity.

But if they really are going to allow you to do Cape Cod, then are you going to have a second set of contractors for this? Will there be a second bidding process or are the owners supposed to take care of this on their own? If the owners are taking care of it on their own, who is taking responsibility for the work and making sure contractors are licensed and insured, the work is done, and approved, and the contractors are paid for? Who is liable if something goes wrong? Since this is a common element, if they are allowing you to pay extra for Cape Cod for "your" section how does that affect the upkeep? Are you going to be responsible for paying additional monthly dues to fund the repairs of the Cape Cod siding in the future? Should the owners who opted not for Cape Cod be exempt from paying dues to fund repairs of this siding? It all seems very complicated to me if I am a board member and seems like something that may anger other unit owners.

If you are going to write a letter to your homeowners with the pro/cons keep it objective. It seems disingenuous to me that you are going to fairly present the pro/cons based on what you have said here. What building science experts are you actually going to include to make your case? If you plan to make a case on home values are you really controlling for all the variables? I'm not talking about the level of care that a home appraiser puts into an appraisal, I'm talking about a legitimate scientific study with p values and that controls for all the variables the affect the price of a place. Are you opening yourself up to any personal liability here if you issue pro/cons or real estate values that turn out to be incorrect?

This might seem like an extreme (the above), but you yourself have already said the following: "If I don't go through them first, we can lose our ability to sue basically." Which is suggestive to me that you want to go the IDR process because you don't want to lose your right to sue, which to me means you are litigious. As a prior President, now I am going to be even more cautious about this project.

Wiping this all aside and focusing on next steps, I would be curious to hear concrete answers on why the board is going with stucco? It is possible they had people out to measure stucco not because they have decided on it, but that for companies to present real bids they have to come out and take measurements. In addition, as you said, why isn't Hardie-board type of siding being looked at it? It would seem Hardie-board offers a lot of the benefits of the Cape Code. It can look like wood, with the benefits of a cementitious product in preventing termites, but without the potential cracking of stucco and without the flammability of wood. You would probably find it to be cheaper frankly than stucco as well. To me it seems like a win-win for all to go with Hardie-board. Who knows, maybe the board is working on Hardie-board bids as well.

Climate change is a theory. The fires in California were caused mainly by the PGE utility company's failure to maintain its infrastructure, by high winds, by arson, and by decades of misdirected environmentalists who were afraid to cut any living plant.

I've stated the reasons for CA fires. Otherwise, it's called "weather."

We have a major home insurer who no longer gives a discount for home hardening if there is wood siding which we have. ☹️

You can laugh all you want, but 1100 square foot condos here go for a million, unless they are stucco and go for $850K/$860K The units are all already cape cod, so going to stucco would be a major visual change. I've actually never sued anyone, so no I'm not litigious which is why I'm asking here if anyone has seen this before and advice on how to approach it. Why would I sue myself and cause higher dues or lock up a potential sale with ongoing litigation? Someone else brought up the IDR, which we didn't have until 3 weeks ago when they the board added it out of the blue. I think they added it because I asked why they would even have fundamentally changing the look of the neighborhood as an option. If they take that question as litigious maybe they are trying to do something they shouldn't be doing???

$100k is the difference between neighborhoods similar in square footage, year built, where the only real difference is stucco or cape cod. That's just what it is here and also in adjacent beach cities. Any owner can drive through the neighborhoods and make the decision for themselves. Each neighborhood has a price range and the difference here is $100k. We are at the beach, it's moist, the ground is wet most mornings at least half the year and, in the summer, we get marine layer until noon or later. We are not in danger of burning down from wildfire. You have to get into the hills for that. The homes with stucco always start rotting at the bottom after a few years. The weep screed rusts after a year or two, then it starts going downhill from there. I have a client that has a contractor I just referred going out to redo stucco on their SFR home this week because of the moisture causing damage to his stucco. Huge mold problem no one saw until the termite guy touched the stucco on Friday and it dropped off. I've watched this happen for over 20 years at hundreds of properties. I can walk into most neighborhoods here and know exactly what type of problems each condo or home will have. Each builder also has a similar set of same problems. One particular builder has a leak in the same area of the garage on EVERY like unit because they didn't use flashing at a joint. Home inspection after home inspection, it's been the same. That's what I have seen here between stucco and other types of siding.

They are trying to find the cheapest route to fix what they haven't maintained. They have already offered to let us pay any difference to stay Cape Cod if "they decide" to go stucco. I don't think we should have to pay any difference if there is any to stay with the same look it's had for decades. I just don't understand why they would think it's ok to not tell anyone they are considering this complete change. I only know because someone was measuring outside my door without any notice, and I asked.

The legal department at my office recommends against us being on the board because we are held to a higher standard, I don't help anyone sell in here for the same reason....heaven forbid I forget to disclose something I heard at a meeting and forgot...and I don't want to change to a different company to be on the board here. I was on the board when I was with a prior company at a different unit, different community. That one was stucco, Spanish Colonial and it was a pain, we always had mold issues. I attend the meetings here and help where I can, which is usually messaging people to show when we need votes or if they want a vendor referral. I've also offered to meet vendors during the week when the board members can't.

Vinyl... don't even put that out there into the Universe. lol

Your docs ensuring maintenance of architecture and appearance may need an amendment in which case it would require a member vote by secret ballot in which case an injunction could be obtained in small claims court in which case IDR would not be required by members. I would scour your docs, the proposal and Davis-Stirling Act election Article.

Also owning in a condo building 2 blocks from a Bay and with bay & ocean views, I did sorta laugh when David said 100K would be be 1/2 to 1/3 of a condo's value. The might be true if the condo were 10 miles from the shore in a so-so neighborhood.

Agree, Sandra, about insurance -- ours went up but not by a lot.

Not sure if it applies to you, but my condo recently changed the appearance of our buildings color and finish. We were required to have a community vote to approve since it is considered an architectural modification to the buildings. I'm in Florida

👍