What are the future issues, and what are your ROBE candidates’ positions on those issues?
Your ROBE candidates pledge to Tackle these Future Issues with Integrity and Clarity – in coordination with PVE City Council:
Summary:
View Policy: Replace Resolution 185 (passed in 2019) which took away rights for about half the residents to pursue view blockage concerns
Art Jury Approval Process: Streamline and make more transparent
Fiscal Responsibility: Rebuild PVHA’s finances after the previous PVHA Board burned through over $1M in reserves defending their right to sell parkland. Reserves now only $56k
5G implementation: Minimize the aesthetic impact of new antennae towers
ADU: Push back on state usurpation of local authority and attack on our CC&Rs’ single family residency
Governance reforms: Reduce quorum, set term limits, implement online voting, update By-Laws and seek member approval
Communications and transparency with members: Improve PVHA website, collect emails, post Board meeting agendas in advance, etc.
Maintenance of Parklands: Demand that City of PVE enforces removal of Parkland encroachments and better maintain parkland and existing trails
Digitization of records: Mitigate risk of compromise to PVHA function from fire/earthquake
Specifics:
View Policy: How to strike the appropriate balance between ocean views and the Olmsted legacy of trees and landscaping to optimize quality of life and property values? Views have a significant effect on property values, and are protected in the CC&Rs. The PVHA Reversal in View Policy in May 2019 destroyed property value and needs to be revised. For decades, the PVHA has mediated disputes to resolve differences, but in 2019 passed a new view policy (Resolution #185) in an unannounced special meeting that restricts greatly those rights. New Board Members Fay and Breene opposed the policy, but the other three directors approved. Previously there were no restrictions on distance between neighbors, and now it is limited to “adjoining” or “adjacent” lots, which PVHA is now defining as sharing a boundary. Neighbors across the street don’t count, nor do neighbors that are next door but separated by one of PVE’s 80 or so 20 -foot paths or a sliver of parkland. Since most disputes are in hilly areas where roads run parallel to the slope lines. That means about half of the potential disputes (across the street) can no longer be taken to the PVHA for help in resolution. As a result of this unthoughtful about face, there are already residents threatening litigation over the policy change since it denies them rights that were previously in the underlying CC&Rs. Views clearly affect property value, and these lawsuits could have a material impact on the financial viability of the PVHA. By restricting half the homes from access to filing view disputes, it inherently favors trees, rather than a careful balance of trees and views. Fortunately, Marlene Breene has been working hard on a new more comprehensive policy and we are hopeful that a version will replace the current flawed policy; but the outcome is not known. We need more good Directors that will roll up their sleeves and make changes.
Streamline the Art Jury Approval Process. Many feel that the PVHA wastes Residents’ Time and Costs Owners/Members More Money in Architect Fees by Not Being More Transparent in Art Jury Process. Anyone who has gone through the approval process knows how long it takes, and how many iterations — all because of lack in transparency over what is “acceptable.” Each architectural style has its own “guidelines,” but the applicant is not allowed to know this in advance. Plans are often rejected without feedback specific enough to know what changes must be made. The relative roles and process of the PVHA Art Jury and the PVE City Building Department are not clearly explained for all to see and know in advance. It is arcane and too often unhelpful. Your new Board Members are trying to improve this, but they need help.
Fiscal Responsibility: How to rebuild PVHA’s finances after the previous PVHA Board burned through over $1M in reserve? In June 2009, PVHA had $1 million in cash reserves, which increased to $1.4 million after the illegal sale of parkland to Lugliani. PVHA has $56,386 as of June 30, 2019. This drop included over $900,000 in legal costs since 2013 spent unsuccessfully asserting and then defending PVHA’s right to sell parkland. This is after the President of PVHA in 2015 told residents in a public meeting that “pursuing the appeal would cost nothing since our legal costs are covered by insurance.” We cannot afford this kind of stewardship
5G: How to enable this critical new technology while minimizing the aesthetic impact of antennae towers? Cellular connectivity is a key quality of life issue and 5G is the future of cellular. PVHA has a role to play in the aesthetics of the towers and the location of the towers. Failing to implement 5G, or implementing it in an aesthetically acceptable manner, will harm property values. While the location of towers will be controlled by the City, PVHA can and should weigh in on the aesthetics of the towers in order to make them as innocuous as possible
ADU (Accessory Dwelling Units): How should PVHA respond to what could be a usurpation of local authority by our state legislature ignoring the contract we are all part of when we accepted our CC&Rs? California State legislature has passed a law and an amendment (AB 970) that overturns PVE’s CC&Rs as they relate to limiting to one habitable structure per lot and single families. This law overturns the aspects of our CC&Rs that forbid ADUS. Should we fight it? Should we define single family residence in a way that allows ADUs but limits use to family members?
Governance reforms: How should PVHA change its governance and election process? All ROBE candidates support:
Current ballot initiative to reduce quorum to 35%. If successful, subsequently seek to lower to 25% which would have meant that we would have had a valid election 65% of the time since 1941, compared to 56% at 30% quorum level, 51% at 35% and 29% at 50%. Moreover, in the past 20 years, lowering the quorum to 25% would have meant a valid election 100% of the time, compared to 85% at 30% quorum level, 70% at 35% and 15% at 50%.
Term limits to two terms (no more than six years in total)
Online voting, with appropriate safeguards, to improve participation in voting
Updating By-Laws and seeking member approval. The By-Laws were written in 1923 and require a 2/3 approval of members to change. In 1940, the PVHA was faced with the prospect of foreclosure and seizure by LA County over past due taxes on the approximately 600 acres of parkland it held. The solution was to create the City of PVE as a municipality that does not pay County real estate taxes, and then to transfer all parkland to the new City of PVE along with various responsibilities of local governance. Unfortunately, many responsibilities of governance (such as maintaining roads and sewers, trash removal, building plan codes and approvals, enforcement of parkland encroachments, etc.) were transferred to the City of PVE but remain in the PVHA By-Laws because the PVHA could never get 2/3 of the members to vote for such an update. These By-Laws should be updated to reflect the responsibilities that remain with the PVHA, as well as to lower the Quorum Requirement from 50% to something between 25-35%. Getting 2/3 of members to approve will be challenging, but it would be worthwhile because it would clarify the governance responsibilities between the City and the PVHA, and a lower quorum would mean validly elected Board Members. In summary, this would improve transparency, clarity and responsiveness in our government.
General support for democracy and responsiveness to members. The previous PVHA Board did not believe in a democratic process. ROBE and others asked to have candidates added to the ballot, and were told that only the Board decides who will be on the ballot. ROBE pleaded with the Board in 2015 to seek help from the Court in lowering the 50% quorum. But they refused. ROBE then pressed the case in Court and PVHA strenuously opposed lowering the quorum or even counting the ballots that were cast. At one point the lawyer for PVHA said “PVHA is not a democracy -- it is an HOA.” We need a Board responsive to members and not self-appointed “good old boys.”
Communications and transparency with members. How to improve? Your Robe candidates support multiple initiatives to reach out to members, such as:
Improve the PVHA website, and include timely posting of documents of interest (such as historical audited financial statements, board minutes, passed and proposed resolutions, agenda of next meeting, etc.), and use the email list to notify members of new additions to the website.
Collect emails and communicate regularly. The ROBE Candidates support accelerating the recently begun effort to collect member emails who would like to be kept abreast of developments at PVHA. This would be “opt-in”, but could include collecting permission to use email via website link, a check box on the office sign-in sheet, a place to write email address on the external envelope that comes with the election ballot, NextDoor announcements, asking the City of PVE for help promoting PVHA’s new email list to PVE’s eNotifications subscribers, etc.
Advance posting of Board meeting agendas both on the bulletin board at PVHA, website and emails to the list
Implement periodic open forums where members can address the Board with their concerns.
Involve members in advisory committeesMaintenance of Parklands: 600+ acres of PVE are parkland, which are owned and managed by the City of PVE. But PVHA has ignored its role in determining if that maintenance is consistent with the CC&Rs and deed restrictions covering those parklands. While there is minimal maintenance in terms of brush cutting done at the edges of the parklands, little is done to maintain the trails even though some are heavily used. The Deed Restrictions require “That, except as hereinafter provided, said realty is to be used and administered forever for park and/or recreation purposes only … for the benefit of the (1) residents and (2) non-resident property owners within the boundaries of the property heretofore commonly known as “Palos Verdes Estates”…¶ 3 (pp 6-7). If the City of PVE is preventing reasonable recreational purposes, then the PVHA should intervene.
Fire Prevention and Evacuation: How do we deal with the growing threat of wildfires in our parklands and the potential damage to homes? Climate change has led to hotter and dryer summers and significantly increased risk of fire. Growth in vegetation on our 600+ acres of parkland further increases that risk. Evacuation will be challenging given the limited exits from PVE. PVHA should take an advocacy role in promoting solutions and working with the City of PVE to implement them
Digitizing records: There is a significant risk to the community if the PVHA office were damaged or destroyed by fire – this is quite possible given both the ever-present earthquake and fire risks that are accelerating due to climate change. If the records of previous architectural plans were lost through such an event, it is hard to imagine how PVHA could perform its role adequately. We need to be better prepared. Your ROBE candidates support giving priority to scanning all architectural records as well as PVHA correspondence and governance documents and storing these safely in the cloud. It would also be beneficial to include OCR scanning of the governance documents and correspondence to be able to search for precedents. Digitization is mission critical insurance policy for PVHA, not a “nice to have.”