Community

Font Size: + -
Share & Bookmark, Press Enter to show all options, press Tab go to next option
Print
Just the Facts Banner
City of Palos Verdes Estates

Fact Page

Providing Context and Clarifying Information

The City of Palos Verdes Estates is committed to providing residents with clear, accurate, and objective information regarding the City’s fiscal condition and public safety services.

 

As public discussion continues, residents may encounter a range of statements, claims, and opinions about the City’s finances, services, and future needs. The City has a responsibility to ensure that official information available to the public is accurate, consistent with adopted budgets and financial records, and grounded in publicly available documents.

 

This page is intended to provide context, clarify commonly repeated claims, and direct residents to official City sources, including adopted budgets, fiscal outlook materials, capital improvement planning documents, contracts, audits, and public meeting records.

 

Residents are encouraged to review the information, consult the source documents, and draw their own conclusions based on verified facts.

Role of the City

The City’s role is to provide factual, objective information to the public, including:

• Accurate financial data

• Clear explanations of how City services are funded

• How proposed measures are structured

• Objective information about the City’s current and projected fiscal conditions

• Opportunities for residents to engage in discussions about City priorities and budget decisions.

Ask a question

Have something we should address? Let us know so we can address it for everyone.

Email: Communications@PVEstates.org

Subject line: "Just the Facts"

Explore Topics

Use the tiles below to jump directly to detailed information on each topic.

✅ Pavement Management Plan Click to expand

Below are common questions and answers related to the City’s Pavement Management Plan.

1. If our streets are already in such good condition, why are we talking about spending $2.5 to $3 million per year?

That is actually the central lesson of the report. The streets are in strong condition precisely because the City has invested consistently and acted early. Pavement management is most cost-effective when we preserve streets before they deteriorate into much more expensive rehabilitation or reconstruction. The recommended annual range is what the model shows is needed to keep the City at or near its current high standard, rather than allowing conditions to gradually decline and become more costly later.

2. What is the most important takeaway from this update?

The most important takeaway is that Palos Verdes Estates continues to have an exceptionally strong pavement network, with an average PCI of 82, but the City now needs to keep a closer focus on arterial corridors and isolated lower-condition segments to preserve that advantage. The report is not signaling systemwide failure. It is signaling the need for continued attention.

3. How does the City compare to other agencies?

The City compares very favorably. The average PCI is 82, compared with about 67 for Los Angeles County and about 65 statewide. The report describes Palos Verdes Estates’ pavement condition as exceptional for Southern California, and more than 80 percent of the network is still in good or satisfactory condition.

4. In plain English, what does PCI 82 mean?

It means the network is performing at a high level overall. A PCI of 82 is in the good-to-satisfactory range and indicates that most roads are still in a condition where preventive maintenance and timely rehabilitation are effective. It does not mean every street is perfect. It means the network as a whole remains in a strong, manageable condition.

5. How much of the system is poor or very poor?

The report shows that about 14 percent of the network is poor and about 3 percent is very poor, with no streets in the failed or serious category. So the lower-condition streets are still a relatively small part of the system, but they are where the City gets the greatest value from timely intervention.

6. Did anything come in as very poor this time? I thought in 2023 there were no very poor streets.

Yes. This update indicates that there are now a limited number of very poor segments, although there are still no failed or serious roads in the City. The report specifically notes that a handful of roads, including areas such as Paseo La Cresta and Via Opata, are in the very poor category and should be watched closely so they can be addressed before becoming a larger backlog.

7. Why are arterials getting more emphasis now?

Because the residential street program has largely been working very well. The City’s local streets have historically performed strongly under the slurry seal rotation and annual maintenance approach. What the update identifies as the emerging risk is the arterial system. Arterials carry more traffic, are older in many cases, and now account for a disproportionate share of the City’s poor and very poor pavement segments. That is why the report recommends shifting more attention there.

8. Why wouldn’t a city prioritize arterials first?

In many cities, arterials do get the first priority because they carry the most traffic. What is somewhat unusual here is that Palos Verdes Estates has historically done such a good job maintaining residential streets through its zone-based preservation program that those streets have stayed in very strong condition. The report suggests that the next step is not to abandon that program, but to rebalance investment so arterials receive more targeted rehabilitation before they slip further.

9. What is happening on Palos Verdes Drive West?

The staff report identifies Palos Verdes Drive West as a corridor needing increased attention. It notes that the segment in front of City Hall is rated poor but is being addressed potentially through a separate Metro-funded interim project, so it is not included in the City’s near-term pavement program. It also notes that other portions of Palos Verdes Drive West range from very poor to fair, especially between Via Coronel and Margaret Road and between Paseo Lunado and Via Zumaya, and that those areas are expected to be included in upcoming work.

10. Why does one segment look bad in person but have a better rating, or look good but rate lower?

That can happen for a few reasons. First, the pavement management system rates segments using standardized distress data, not only visual impression. Second, the report specifically notes that small differences in PCI may not be obvious to the eye, and changes of less than about 10 points are often imperceptible. Third, condition ratings may reflect structural or distress patterns that are not immediately obvious from a quick drive-by. So the model is a planning tool, but staff still uses field inspection and engineering judgment when scoping actual projects.

11. How reliable is the data?

The update uses current pavement data collected in October and November 2025 using a semi-automated vehicle-based system, then loaded into StreetSaver and paired with the City’s treatment history and model assumptions. The report also notes that this is more objective and more efficient than older manual methods. At the same time, the report is clear that these are planning-level tools and that field verification and engineering judgment remain important before construction decisions are finalized.

12. What does the $8.8 million number really mean?

That is the model’s estimate of the current cost to address all deficient pavement segments citywide. It is not a recommendation that the City spend $8.8 million all at once. It is essentially a measure of the current backlog or system need if the City wanted to address every deficient segment immediately.

13. Should the City spend the whole $8.8 million now to save money later?

Not necessarily. The model is not telling the City that it must deliver one giant year-one project. The more practical takeaway is that steady annual investment is needed so the City keeps pace with deterioration and avoids growth in the backlog. The recommended strategy is balanced annual funding, targeted rehabilitation, and continued preservation, not a single catch-up project of that full magnitude.

14. What does the report say about spending now versus later?

The report reinforces the standard pavement management principle that earlier treatment is more cost-effective than later treatment. It explains that preventive maintenance and timely rehabilitation cost less than deferred reconstruction, and it includes inflation assumptions in the model. So while the report may not present one simple slogan like “spend X now to save Y later,” its conclusions clearly show that delaying work usually shifts streets into more expensive treatment categories over time.

15. Does the model account for inflation?

Yes. The report states that the cost assumptions are time-dependent and include an inflation rate of 2.5 percent and an interest rate of 4.8 percent for planning purposes. So the long-range scenarios do reflect the increased cost of doing work later.

16. Why is the annual need shown as about $2.3 million, but the recommendation is $2.5 to $3 million?

The roughly $2.3 million figure is the modeled average annual need through 2035 assuming proactive maintenance continues. The higher recommended range of $2.5 to $3 million reflects the budget and performance testing that showed what is needed not just to keep the system functioning, but to maintain the City’s current higher standard, keep average PCI above about 80, and reduce the presence of very poor pavement.

17. Is the recommendation basically the same as last time?

Yes, broadly speaking. The recommended target budget remains in the same general range of about $2.5 to $3 million annually. What is more pronounced in this update is the clearer need to focus more of that investment on arterial corridors and the isolated low-condition segments.

18. What is the seven-year look ahead?

The deck provides a seven-fiscal-year CIP outlook through 2032. It continues the slurry seal rotation program while scheduling resurfacing and rehabilitation work on corridors such as Palos Verdes Drive West, Palos Verdes Drive North, Via del Monte, Paseo del Mar, Paseo Lunado, Via Cataluna, Via Pacheco, Via Panorama, Via Ramon, and others over the upcoming years.

19. Are we using restricted transportation funds only, or are we close to using General Fund?

The City has roughly $2 million per year in restricted transportation-related funds from sources such as gas tax, RMRA, Measure M, Measure R, Prop A, and Prop C. The pavement model’s recommended range is somewhat above that level, which means long-term capital planning will continue to be important in deciding how to bridge any gap between restricted revenues and desired service levels.

20. Do we have staff capacity to deliver a much larger paving program?

That is a fair implementation question. The PMP tells us what level of pavement investment is advisable for the asset, but delivery capacity is a separate operational consideration. In practice, the City would likely continue to implement the program through annual capital planning, consultant support, design packaging, and construction management rather than trying to absorb a very large one-time program all at once. The recommended approach in the report is steady, multi-year implementation, which is more realistic operationally than a single large catch-up project.

21. Why not just wait until roads are visibly worse and then fix them?

Because that is the most expensive point in the pavement life cycle to intervene. Once a road drops from satisfactory or fair into poor or very poor condition, the treatment typically shifts from lower-cost preservation into heavier rehabilitation or reconstruction. The City has been successful specifically because it has not followed a wait-until-failure approach.

✅ Measure PF Tax Timing & Billing

Does Measure PF have to be paid in full in November 2026?

No. If approved, it would generally be collected through the regular Los Angeles County property tax bill process, which is typically paid in two installments each year. For the first year of this tax, two installments would typically be due in November, 2026 and February, 2027.

Would Measure E and Measure PF overlap so property owners would pay both?

No. Resolution No. 26-08 states: “The intent of this Ordinance is that the Public Safety Parcel Tax imposed by this Ordinance shall replace the Law Enforcement Services Special Tax currently imposed by Chapter 3.36 of the Municipal Code beginning with the tax for fiscal year 2026-2027.”

When would the first Measure PF payment begin if approved in June 2026?

If approved in June 2026, the resolution states that the tax is intended to begin “with the tax for fiscal year 2026-2027,” and it also provides that the ordinance “shall become effective upon its adoption by the electorate.” Because the parcel tax is collected on the County property tax bill, that is typically paid in two installments each year. For the first year of this tax, FY 2026–27, two installments would typically be due in November, 2026 and February, 2027.

If no new measure is approved, when would Measure E end?

The City Attorney’s impartial analysis states that Measure E “started collection on July 1, 2018 and will expire on June 30, 2027, unless extended by voters.” Since that expiration date is June 30, 2027, the final Measure E tax bill installments would generally be due in November, 2026 and February, 2027.

FACT CHECK: Fire/Paramedic services are already funded by our property taxes. Why pay twice?

This is inaccurate. PVE receives only about 11.3 cents of every property tax dollar, and because of how property tax allocations were set after Proposition 13, PVE does not receive fire protection through the County fire tax structure the way many other cities do.

That is why PVE must fund fire and paramedic services from its limited General Fund. The City also lacks the commercial sales tax and hotel tax base that many other cities use to support these core services.

Official Sources:

FACT CHECK: The City has no goals and no spending plan.

This is inaccurate.

The City’s priorities, financial planning, and spending framework are reflected in its adopted budget, fiscal outlook materials, capital improvement planning documents, and public meeting discussions.

These documents identify the City’s major obligations, projected fiscal pressures, infrastructure needs, and service priorities. They also provide a public framework for how the City evaluates needs, sets priorities, and plans for the delivery of services over time.

Recent community survey research further shows that residents place high importance on maintaining fire protection services, reducing wildfire risk, supporting 911 emergency response, maintaining public safety services, and helping prevent burglaries and theft.

The City’s planning documents and public records show that there is an established framework for decision-making and resource allocation.

Official City Council spending plans after the June 2 election would be speculative in nature and inappropriate. Should the measure pass, all spending associated with parcel tax revenue will go through the same public process as all City spending.

Official Sources:

FACT CHECK: The City has plenty of time to get this right.

The City’s budget planning and fiscal outlook have clearly outlined the financial pressure. The FY 2025–26 budget closed a projected $5.1 million deficit through reductions and deferred capital work, but still required $1.97 million in one-time reserves to close the gap.

And, Measure E, which currently provides about $5.1 million annually for police services, sunsets after FY 2026–27 (ending June 30, 2027). The City would have been in this position sooner if not for one-time federal ARPA funds.

The City’s fiscal outlook materials have made clear that ongoing structural pressures, expiring revenue, rising costs, and deferred capital needs are not long-term issues that can simply be postponed without consequences. Delaying decisions can reduce financial flexibility, increase future costs, and place greater pressure on City services.

FACT CHECK: The need for additional revenue is unjustified because there is no real need.

The need is documented. The City’s materials identify approximately tens of millions of dollars in capital needs over a 10-year period that includes streets, stormwater, sewer, facilities, parks/open space, and ADA-related improvements.

The City’s public information also states that 59% of the five-year CIP is currently unfunded. These are not wish-list projects. They are investments tied to safety, infrastructure protection, maintenance of public assets, and avoiding higher future costs from continued deferral.

FACT CHECK: There’s no accountability.

The City’s financial decisions are subject to multiple layers of public accountability, including annual independent audits, publicly adopted budgets, City Council review, noticed public meetings, and opportunities for resident participation.

Budget decisions, fiscal planning documents, contracts, and audit materials are all part of the public record.

FACT CHECK: More taxes are planned after this.

This is inaccurate. There are no plans for future city taxes.

If any future revenue proposal were to be considered, it would have to occur through a public process, with noticed meetings, public discussion, and official action. Residents should rely on the City’s official records and public proceedings, not speculation or unofficial materials, for accurate information about City actions.

The current Measure PF was brought forth by a group of citizens with a desire to protect the City’s public safety and the quality of life they have come to expect. The City has said it faces a structural problem created by Measure E’s expiration, rising costs, and large unfunded capital and public safety needs, and that revenue options must be explored.

FACT CHECK: A recent community publication (not City) stated maintaining 8-minute response times.

Inaccurate — PVEPD emergency response times are less than 3 minutes. Responses to non-emergencies are 5 minutes.

✅ Fire Hydrant Maintenance

The City of Palos Verdes Estates has continued to receive numerous questions from residents regarding the maintenance and functionality of fire hydrants within the City. The City is providing additional details and the following statements from CalWater and LA County Fire Department to ensure that residents have comprehensive information about the fire hydrants within the City.

CalWater:

Cal Water owns the fire hydrants within Palos Verdes Estates and conducts its own inspection of every hydrant each year and performs more extensive maintenance every five years. This includes exercising valves, greasing or replacing components, repainting, and confirming that each hydrant remains fully pressurized and operational. Cal Water has made significant investments in our Palos Verdes system to improve water reliability and regularly reviews the infrastructure for potential upgrades.

LA County Fire Department:

Each year, typically in February and March, the Fire Department inspects every hydrant in the City. Crews confirm that hydrants are accessible, clear vegetation, check caps and fittings, and exercises the hydrant valves to verify function. The logs documenting the 2025 inspections have previously been shared by the City of Palos Verdes Estates.

If you notice a hydrant that appears damaged, obstructed, or leaking, please contact Cal Water’s 24-hour emergency line at 310-257-1400, or reach out to the City so staff can forward your report.

This coordinated inspection and maintenance program meets standard hydrant maintenance protocols and has been confirmed by both agencies as the standard and complete process for maintaining fire hydrant reliability in Palos Verdes Estates.

✅ Zoning Map

At the September 9 Council meeting, staff presented a draft of the City’s Official Zoning Map. This map is a recreation of the City’s original zoning map, which was lost years ago. Re-establishing an official map is important to ensure residents, staff, and decision-makers all have the same, accurate reference point when it comes to understanding zoning across the City.

It is important to note:

  • No new zoning is being created. The zoning map does not upzone or downzone any properties. It simply compiles and displays the zoning designations already established.
  • Recently adopted zones are reflected. The map includes the two zones approved in June as part of the state-required Housing Element project, ensuring all current zoning is shown in one place.
  • Deed restrictions remain in place. These operate separately from zoning and continue to provide another layer of land protection. To make this clearer, Council directed staff to add language to the zoning map acknowledging the role of deed restrictions.
  • Separate from re-zoning discussions. Following questions at the meeting, City Council also directed staff to analyze the process for potentially re-zoning the Parklands portion of the Coastal Zone as Open Space. This area has not historically been zoned Open Space, and that consideration is a separate project from adopting the zoning map of current zones.
  • Because questions were raised on September 9, the Council continued the item to September 23 for additional review. At that meeting, Council determined that more detailed research is required before adopting the map.
  • Council directed the City Attorney’s Office to:
    • Conduct a deeper review of reversionary rights tied to certain Parklands parcels.
    • Research the underlying deeds and titles to determine whether the Parklands portion of the Costal Zone are, in fact, restricted as Open Space because of reversionary clauses.
    • Evaluate whether the zoning map should be adjusted to align with deed restrictions, where applicable.
    • Ensure that any adopted map accurately reflects both zoning and the legal status of the land.
    • Because this research is substantive and necessary for accuracy, the Council did not adopt the zoning map on September 23. The item has been continued to a future date, to be determined, pending completion of the legal and historical deed review.
  • Next Steps
    • Once that work is complete, the zoning map will return to Council for consideration. When finalized, the map will serve as an important planning tool, providing clarity, reducing misinterpretation, and ensuring ordinances and long-term planning are aligned with both zoning and the City’s long-standing land protections.

✅ City Budget & Financial Overview

Each year, the City Council adopts a budget that reflects community priorities while maintaining essential services.

View the adopted budget and long-term fiscal outlook below.

Links / Buttons:

✅ Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

The City plans and prioritizes infrastructure investments through its Capital Improvement Program (CIP), a long-range planning tool that identifies needs for streets, storm drains, sewers, parkland, and other essential infrastructure.

Inclusion in the CIP does not mean a project is funded or scheduled for construction. In fact, many initiatives are currently unfunded and would require a dedicated funding source. Many projects are included for planning purposes only and may depend on future grants, outside funding, or Council direction before moving forward.

The City Council held a discussion on October 14 about how the CIP should move forward. During that meeting, Council reviewed recent efforts to identify citywide capital needs and provided direction on the next steps. Specifically, Council directed staff to:

  • Determine the cost of conducting a full, citywide inventory of all City infrastructure assets.
  • Compile and consolidate past studies on streets, storm drains, facilities, and other systems to avoid duplicating work already done.
  • Develop a comprehensive inventory list capturing the condition, status, and projected needs of all infrastructure.
  • Use that consolidated inventory to anchor CIP Workshops, where long-term priorities for the next 5–10 years can be established.

This direction ensures the City’s long-range infrastructure planning is grounded in accurate, up-to-date information before any future funding decisions or prioritization discussions take place.

View or Download the current CIP: