“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves”
This page summarizes the key takeaways from Palos Verdes Estates City Council Meetings. If you’d like to be notified when new minutes are posted, please sign up to our mailing list, click here
For an Archive of other City Council Meetings, click here.
October 13, 2020 PVE City Council Meeting - by Teleconference
For the Agenda with links to document – click here
For Video of the session – click here
For the Official minutes of the meeting -- (will post here when published)
PRESENT: Council Members S. Davidson, K. Kao, V. Lozzi, Mayor Pro Tem M. Kemps, Mayor D. McGowan
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEMS # 1-10 were approved. Anything remanded or pulled from discussion noted and then discussed below
City Council Action Minutes – 9/22/2020 [Special Meeting] and 9/22/2020 [Regular Meeting]
Approval of Miscellaneous Warrant Registers
September 2020 Monthly Investment Transaction Report
Planning Commission Actions: M-1391-20 [982 Paseo La Cresta]; M-1395-20 [801 Via Conejo]; NC-1678-20 [2773 Via Campesina]; NC-1677-20 [1505 Via Arco]; M-1390/G-20 [1425 Via Zumaya]; CUP-101-20 [2241 Via Cerritos]
Parklands Committee Actions: PC-539-20 [parklands by 1400 Chelsea Road]; PC-540-20 [center median adjacent to City Hall]; PC-541-20 [path by 1733 Via Coronel]; PC-542-20 [parkway by 2744 Via Campesina]; PC-543-20 [trees by 4415 Via Azalea and Mirlo Gate Lodge Tower]; PC-544-20 [Lunada Bay Fountain]
Council Member Lozzi stated Council needs to evaluate Parklands Committee landscape policies because its decisions are inconsistent and do not necessarily align with CC priorities. Requested future Agenda item. Per City Clerk: Parklands Committee has an ad hoc committee reviewing policies.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020-747 Affirming Urgency Ordinance No. 020-744u and Further Amending Chapter 18.45 (Accessory Dwelling Units) in the Palos Verdes Estates Municipal Code [Recommendation: Adopt by Title Only on Second Reading]
Council Member Kao received late correspondence about the ordinance. PVE needs to get ordinance to California Department of Housing and Community Development to be approved, conditionally approved or rejected; it can then stand as enacted or be amended as needed.
Acceptance of Donations [Recommendation: Accept as presented]
Resolution R20-33: Authorizing the Summary Vacation of the City’s Existing Storm Drain Easements over 2725 Via Oleadas [moved to Consent Agenda from New Business by Council Member Kao]
VOTE #1-8: Approved 5-0 [recused: Mayor McGowan (M-1395-20), Council Member Davidson (NC-1677-20]
MAYOR’S REPORT – Matters of Community Interest
Mayor McGowan:
1. Update from 9/22/2020 CC Meeting: Letter received by City and PVGC [Palos Verdes Golf Club] alleging that PVGC was granting preferential standing tee times to a small group of individuals. Allegation was investigated and found to have merit. On October 8, the PVGC Board approved a resolution providing that “all tee times shall be awarded in the most equitable and transparent manner” and providing that any changes in this policy or its implementation must be noticed in advance to Council.
2. Resident complaints regarding Impact [parking and trash specifically] of visitors to the city during the pandemic shutdown. Staff are addressing the issues to be reviewed in later in Staff Reports.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
3 comments addressing:
View ordinance/neighborhood compatibility
Police costs and actions or inactions
Neighborhood Watch (NW) “Power Out Night” event on Halloween to practice disaster preparedness; NW forum via Zoom on October 20 at 7:00 pm. Details re: both on PV.nw.org.
OLD BUSINESS
none
NEW BUSINESS
#8: Resolution R20-33: Authorizing the Summary Vacation of the City’s Existing Storm Drain Easements over 2725 Via Oleadas. [Moved to Consent Agenda on Motion by Council Member Kao]
#9: Adoption of Resolution No. R20-34: (1) Approve Reorganization of City Offices, Positions, Units and Departments (Specifically, Departments of Public Works and Community Development); Approving Revised Job Descriptions for the Job Titles of Public Works/City Engineer and Director of Community Development; and (3) Authorizing the City Manager to Commence Recruitment for Both Positions.
Council asked City Manager (CM) to conduct a top-to-bottom review of organization focused on best practices, service levels to residents, infrastructure and capital improvement project needs, efficiency, and risk mitigation. As the first step, CM focused on Public Works/Community Development. Previously separate departments, they were combined under former City Manager Dahlerbruch, netting a $41,000 savings. The combined department encompasses Planning, Building & Safety, Code Enforcement, GIS, Parklands, Street Maintenance and Public Works, which the new CM believes is too much responsibility for one person. City Staff presently is spread too thin, resulting in over-reliance on contractors to provide basic services to residents and insufficient oversight. Staff can respond only reactively, not proactively to residents’ expectations, leading to increased complaints about city services. CM’s proposal is to re-establish two separate albeit overlapping departments with well-defined positions and responsibilities and interface with contractors. The Community Development Director would oversee Planning, Building & Safety, Code Enforcement. GIS, and support the Planning Commission. The Public Works Director/City Engineer would oversee Parklands, Street Maintenance and Public Works (including Public Works Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Traffic Safety), as well as overseeing the HR Green public works’ contract. Re-establishing separate department heads could add salary and benefits up to $218,000 plus undetermined pension costs, depending on the outcome of recruitment, but some of those costs could be offset in the future. CM noted that the reorganization is necessary to achieve better role alignment, clearer position responsibilities, more effective oversight and enhanced accountability, and more responsiveness to the city’s project and infrastructure needs and residents’ service expectations.
Council Member Lozzi said that she wanted to see this proposal in the context of staffing plans for all City Hall functions and the overall budget, together with salary/benefit ranges for comparable cities, noting that the City has a finite amount for salary/benefit budget and currently is very top heavy (managers vs. workers). Council Member Davidson and Mayor Pro Tem Kemps voiced similar concern about overall staffing costs, particularly pension costs, expressing their strong desire to not add new debt. Council Member Kao supported the separate department heads, but encouraged the CM to find a candidate who could effectively fulfill both roles and preserve the cost savings from the merged department. Mayor McGowan endorsed CM’s proposal as the base case derived from zero-based budgeting and operational analysis, stating the City had not funded the full cost of these municipal services for years and Council should yield to the CM’s professional expertise in organizing these functions to improve services and project oversight.
Council Action: Discussion of this reorganization was continued to next meeting on October 27, to be considered in light of the overall budget forecasting process that will examine the City’s entire staffing and budget picture, including the search for other revenue sources.
#10: Consideration of Appeal of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Assessment Assignment [RHNA] [Recommendation: Review and provide Staff Direction]
Staff Report Summary: California Department of Housing and Community Development projects 1,347,000 new housing units need to be built in Southern California to accommodate the population expected by 2045. SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments, which includes all Southern California counties except San Diego) has distributed that allocation among its jurisdictions. In 2019, when SCAG was choosing among competing allocation formulas that would have assigned PVE new units of 547, 761, and 152 respectively, PVE submitted a letter highlighting factors SCAG should consider for PVE, such as lack of jobs and transit access, CC&Rs, parkland and open space restrictions, limited vacant lots zoned for housing, land geographically unsuitable for development, and very high fire risk. PVE’s 2019 letter was successful, judging by PVE’s RHNA allocation of 198 new housing units for the next eight years, the second lowest allocation in the South Bay, measured by units per square mile. (Note: PVE does not have to build those housing units, just provide that private development can construct them in the City. ADUs presently count toward that RHNA allocation.) Council is asked to decide whether to appeal SCAG’s RHNA allocation. For Council’s consideration, Staff noted that there are no new grounds for PVE to assert in an appeal beyond those taken into consideration by SCAG in late 2019 when assigning PVE’s RHNA number; the appeal is to the same agency that established the RHNA number; an adverse decision on appeal can result in a higher RHNA allocation; the RHNA Board decision is final, with no further avenues of appeal; and no other South Bay city is planning to appeal. Deadline to file the appeal is October 26 at 5:00 pm.
MPT Kemps suggested Council members review The Embarcadero Institute Report that demonstrates fairly persuasively that the RHNA allocation procedure erroneously doubled-counted RHNA numbers. Kemps agreed to distribute the Report to Council and Staff. He stated that PVE needs to object to the process, because down the road, the City could be required to build all the units that we have not opposed when allocated. PVE needs to align with groups challenging Sacramento’s housing density policies (he cited one, the California Alliance of Local Electeds) to show our strenuous objection to Sacramento actions.
Council Member Kao stated that he carefully reviewed the RHNA allocation process and, in his opinion, there are no grounds to appeal, but he too pressed for the City to join coalitions opposing Sacramento housing density policies.
Council Member Davidson listed a number of groups fighting to retain local control — California Cities for Local Control, Liveable California -- and urged Council Members to get involved in these groups individually.
Motion: Staff to review the Embarcadero Institute Report and research ways that the City can push back on Sacramento housing policies.
VOTE: Approved 5-0
#11: Request for City Council Direction Related to Palos Verdes Municipal Code Chapter 5.16 (Business License Tax) on its Applicability to the Business of Renting/Leasing Single-Family Residential Properties for a period of Greater Than Thirty (30) Days in the City.
Staff Report: In September 2019, HDL (the contractor administering the City’s business license tax) sent letters to 526 PVE single-family residential property owners stating that they were responsible for paying PVE’s business license tax for lease/rentals of their single-family residence for a periods of more than 30 days and assessing penalties for non-payment of the business license tax in the prior year. City Staff received many complaints about the letter and the tax (although within HDL’s purview, it does not appear that City staff approved HDL’s communication). CM seeks Council guidance: 1) should the business license tax apply to single-family residential property lease/rentals exceeding thirty (30) days [note: single-family residential rentals of less than thirty days are not permitted by the City]; and 2) if yes, Staff recommend that enforcement should begin October 1, 2020, and refunds should be authorized for fees or other assessments that have been paid for any prior period. The business license tax amount is specified in the ordinance ($.05 per sq. ft. of residential property leased/rented for more than 30 days), which would result in a $175 tax for a 3500 sq. ft. house. Staff does not know how many single-family residential properties are leased/rented for periods of more than 30 days.
City Attorney advised that Council can interpret the language of the ordinance, but because it is a tax, Council cannot not change the language without presenting that change to voters. The ordinance can be read as applying to lease/rentals of single-family residences. Council can read the language narrowly however, and determine by policy that the business license tax does not apply to single family residences leased or rented for periods exceeding thirty (30) days. The City Attorney stated landlords commonly pay a business license tax, but some cities do not apply the business license tax to single family residences.
Council Member Lozzi favored the practice of requiring a business license to rent or lease a single-family residence, because the license ensures that the landlord-owner responsibly complies with all zoning, building rules and regulations, fire and safety codes, etc. She questioned how the City could know which property owners have leased or rented their single-family residences for a period greater than 30 days.
Mayor McGowan, while sensitive to the City’s revenue needs, inquired if the incremental costs under the HDL contract to administer and enforce the business license tax for single-family residential lease/rentals made it cost effective to pursue this revenue.
Council Member Kao noted that the amount of tax is specified but duration of the lease/rental is not. Lozzi, Kemps and McGowan stated that the property owner pays the annual business license tax if a rental/lease exceeding 30 days occurs during the year.
Motion: Interpret term “business” license tax to include a property owner’s business of renting/leasing a single-family residence for more than 30 days deemed to have commenced on or after October 1, 2020, and authorizing the City to refund taxes and penalties paid by residents prior to October 1, 2020, and authorizing the CM going forward to collect the business license tax due on the first day of the quarter in which the property owner applies for the business license.
VOTE: Approved 5-0
#12. Consideration of the Palos Verdes Golf Club (PVGC) 2021 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget and 2020 Projected Fiscal Funds. [Recommendation: Approve proposed operating and capital budget, dues and fees schedule, and accept 2020 proposed fiscal results]
Recusal by Council Member Lozzi, from presentation and discussion (she is PVGC member).
Report presented by David Conforte from PVGC of 2020 Projected Fiscal Year Results, 2021 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget and 10-year Capital Improvement Fund Plan (“CIF”). 2020 saw lost revenues of $3.6 million due to Covid-19 shutdown and 24% of staff were laid off. With some limited revenue events adhering to Covid-19 protocols (2 golf tournaments, some “micro” weddings, modified member dining and brisk club membership sales), PVGC limited its overall operating loss to $120,000 in 2020. 2021: PVGC anticipates a Q2 (April) “return to normal,” and projects a $47,000 profit and return to 2019 Concession fee level paid to City, with Member dues and golfing fees unchanged, 35 weddings booked, and proceeding with dining room remodel from CIF. If “return to normal” is pushed to June 1, PVGC retains a comparable outlook by managing expenses. Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) balance is $4.6 million, anticipated contributions to CIF of $1.6 million from initiation fees and capital improvement fees ($90 per month per member); large capital projects slated for 2021 (held over from 2020) include the ala carte dining room remodel and ADA improvements ($2.6 million), golf course improvements ($325,000), water project ($200,000), but these are Covid-19 dependent. Finally, PVGC’s draft 10-year CIF plan was presented.
Council Member Davidson asked about handling more than one wedding at a time, because they are highly cost-effective revenue events. Mr. Conforte noted that event requests increased after remodel of PVGC’s private event space, and after the dining room remodel is complete, there should be two venues available. A public relations consultant has been retained to enhance revenue events at PVGC.
MPT Kemps stated that PVGC is a City-supported club and allegations of discrimination are wholly unacceptable. It is important to promote that PVGC is a city-supported club and does not discriminate among members.
Council Member Kao asked why PVGC did not proceed with capital improvements now when business is already disrupted by Covid-19, so that the facility is ready to host when the return to normalcy occurs. Mr. Conforte responded that work is progressing -- architectural and interior design drawings are done and contract bids solicited, to help PVGC evaluate costs and readiness to proceed.
Motion to approve PVGC’s proposed operating and capital budget, dues and fees schedule, capital funds improvement budget for 2021.
VOTE: Approved 4-0, Council Member Lozzi recused
#13. Consideration of the Formation of an Ad Hoc Committee to Evaluate and Provide Analysis of Potential Sources of Revenue for the City.
At the recent Pension Ad Hoc Committee Report meeting on October 8, Council Members agreed on the need to explore and analyze revenue enhancing opportunities for the City and forming an ad hoc committee to do so. Members of Ad Hoc Committee will be: CC S. Davidson and V. Lozzi.
VOTE: Approved 5-0
STAFF REPORTS
CM: (1) Trash on the bluffs. No expectation that the crowds on the bluffs will diminish significantly after pandemic. City has increased trash collections during the week, and city staff has been trying to cover on weekends (staff OT). CM is obtaining an estimate for limited weekend collections from Athens.
(2) Resident complaints about Acacia trees near RAT beach and unsanitary activities and conditions occurring under those trees: Staff is working with our street vendor to remove the trees which are an invasive species and not protected by the Coastal Act. CM thanked residents for bringing issue forward to City Staff.
(3) Vote by Mail Boxes. Official election ballot box is in the parking lot, just outside of the City Hall entrance. Official election drop-off boxes have a distinct appearance and are secure. Residents can use these drop off boxes, mail ballots at the post office or go to the polling site. But CM cautioned against using unofficial drop-off boxes which are not secure.
(4) Virtual Coffee Forum with Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi on Sat Oct. 24 at 10:00 A.M. Sacramento update and PVE resident concerns. Event information will be posted on the City’s website.
PVEPD: No update from Chief Dreiling
Marlene Breene [4:04:23] from Parklands Ad Hoc. Committee to address Council Member Lozzi’s concerns re: Parklands policies and inconsistent decisions. The Parklands Ad Hoc Committee (Deborah Richie Brae, Jeff Groves, and herself [representing the Palos Verdes Homes Association]) has been reviewing several Parkland policies – parklands use policy, parklands landscaping policy, changes to parklands policy and different types of parkland applications. Issue is that the policies and forms use different terms and historically, as issues surfaced in Parklands meetings, they made changes to documents to accommodate outcomes. Results of their review should be ready to present at the next Council meeting.
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS’ REPORTS
S. Davidson: Requested Agenda item to discuss term limits [per D. McGowan, term limits is on a list of future Agenda items he has developed with CM].
V. Lozzi: (1) PV Transit will provide free Dial-a-Rode service on Election Day. She urges publicizing this free service through PVE Cares, social media and Neighborhood Watch. (2) She requests an Agenda item updating the traffic plan for Malaga Cove, due to the apparent lack of action on it since last December. (3) She believes that many committees (Parklands, Technology) are acting without direction from the Council and are not aligned with Council priorities; she recommends considering CC liaisons to committees to provide guidance.
K. Kao: (1) Proposed developing guidance/policy for Council Members serving as liaisons on outside agency committees re: how to proceed when unsure of City’s position on an action item being taken by the outside agency or the Council is of split opinion on how to proceed.
M. Kemps: (1) Highlighted the recent PVE e-newsletter sent to residents. (2) Support CM re: information technology improvements, his firm has donated several firewalls needed in city’s technology systems.
D. McGowan: (1) With CC Kao, he has been working with PVGC and Tennis Club on ways to enhance revenue, and more information will be forthcoming soon.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2020 AT 6:30 P.M.