CC SR 20201215 J - Confirming Position on In-Person Outdoor Dining
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12/15/2020
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to adopt a resolution opposing the Los Angeles County
Health Officer Order prohibiting outdoor dining operations.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2020 -__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER ORDER PROHIBITING OUTDOOR DINING OPERATIONS
WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
REVIEWED BY: Same as Below
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2020 -__ including the City’s December 4, 2020 Letter to
the Board of Supervisors (page A-1)
B. Unsigned Peninsula Letter to Board of Supervisors and Dr. Ferrer (page B-1)
C. December 8, 2020 Tentative Ruling:
http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/Result.aspx?Referer=Index
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On March 19, 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“LA County
Public Health”) issued a “Safer at Home” order for COVID-19. This order was revised on
March 21 to align the LA County Public Health order with Governor Gavin Newsom’s “Safe
at Home” executive order. Governor Newsom issued the Safe at Ho me order on March 19,
shortly after LA County Public Health issued its first order. LA County Public Health has
amended the Health Officer Orders numerous times since March to align with state
guidance as the pandemic has progressed.
On November 25, 2020, beginning at 10 p.m., the most recent Health Officer Order enacted
the following restrictions:
1
• Prohibiting indoor and outdoor in-person dining at restaurants, bars, breweries and
wineries for a minimum of three weeks. Delivery, drive-thru services and takeout is
permitted.
• Limiting maximum capacity to 25% for non-essential indoor businesses such as retail
stores, offices and personal care services;
• Limiting maximum capacity to 50% at cardrooms, outdoor mini-golf, go-karts
and batting cages;
• Limiting maximum capacity to 50% at grocery stores and convenience
stores;
• Requiring appointments-only at personal care establishments; and
• Prohibiting services that require customers to remove their face coverings such
as facials and shaves and not allowing food and drinks to be served to customers
at these establishments.
Additionally, the state has issued a limited Stay at Home Order prohibiting all nonessentia l
activities from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. through December 21, 2020. LA County Public Health has
modified its Health Officer Order to align with the state.
Since the issuance of the modified Health Officer Order, proponents of maintaining outdoor
dining open at 50% capacity have stated there is no data supporting the dramatic increase
in cases solely due to outdoor dining. Additionally, Dr. Ghaly from the California Department
of Public Health, Dr. Davis with LA County Public Health, and Dr. Ferrer with LA County
Public Health have stated that the rapid increase in COVID19 positive cases are due
primarily to indoor gatherings. These range from small household gatherings to large public
gatherings that primarily occur indoors.
As such, on December 4, 2020, the City Council signed a letter addressed to the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Dr. Ferrer regarding the recent Health Officer
Order, requesting to rescind the prohibition of in-person outdoor dining (Exhibit A of
Attachment A). Additionally, a letter to the Board of Supervisors from the four cities of the
Palos Verdes Peninsula affirming this position and requesting a decentralized approach to
the pandemic response was also prepared and is scheduled to be delivered this week.
Attached is an unsigned copy of the Peninsula letter and a signed copy of the letter will be
provided to the City Council as late correspondence (Attachment B).
To further solidify the City’s position, tonight, Staff presents a resolution for the City
Council’s consideration opposing the Los Angeles County Public Health Officer Order
prohibiting outdoor dining operations within the County of Los Angeles and the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
It should be noted that on December 8, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant
issued a tentative ruling on a legal challenge to the county order from the California
Restaurant Association. The ruling tentatively limits the order to be in effect until December
16 and requires the county to provide a risk-benefit analysis to extend the order. A copy of
the tentative ruling is included in this report (Attachment C). It should also be noted,
however, that outdoor dining will remain prohibited until the state’s Regional Stay Home
Order, which overrides the county order, is lifted.
2
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Do not adopt the resolution.
2. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
3
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER ORDER
PROHIBITING OUTDOOR DINING OPERATIONS WITHIN THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom
proclaimed a state of emergency due to the spread of COVID-19 in California;
WHEREAS, following the March 4, 2020 declaration of a state of
emergency, Governor Newsom and the Los Angeles County Health Officer have
issued orders limiting social contact and activities; requiring pers ons to wear face
coverings; and restricting the operation of services and businesses, including but
not limited to restaurants;
WHEREAS, all businesses located in the County of Los Angeles Public
Health Jurisdiction except cities which have their own Publ ic Health Department,
such as Long Beach and Pasadena, must follow the Los Angeles County Health
Officer Order which may be stricter than the State’s Public Health Order, and such
businesses are required to comply with whichever Order is stricter;
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2020, the County of Los Angeles Public
Health established thresholds for additional actions if the five -day average of new
COVID-19 positive cases reached 4,000 or more or hospitalizations exceeded
1,750 per day. If either number was met then the Los County Health Officer would
issue an Order to prohibit outdoor and indoor dining at restaurants, breweries,
wineries and bars, and these businesses would only be able to offer takeout, pick -
up and delivery;
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2020, the County of Los Angeles Public
Health announced the five-day average of new cases had increased to more than
4,000 cases;
WHEREAS, in response to the five-day average of new cases exceeding
the 4,000 new cases of COVID-19 the County of Los Angeles Public Health issued
a new Health Officer Order to prohibit in-person dining (including outdoor dining)
at restaurants, breweries, wineries and bars which went into effect on Wednesday,
November 25, 2020 at 10:00 p.m., for a minimum of three weeks;
WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Public Health has stated the
restaurant industry has achieved 95 percent compliance with all of the Los Angeles
County Public Health Officer guidelines and the restaurant industry has expended
millions of dollars to comply safely with County Health orders by constructing
outdoor patios and procuring Personal Protective Equipment;
A-1
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation
(“LAEDC”) predicts approximately 700,000 jobs in the food industry would be lost
by the new Los Angeles County Public Health Officer Order and that 75 percent of
these job losses would be those earning $50,000 or less;
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Health Officer Order will negatively
impact the economic viability of restaurants, bars, wineries and bre weries and the
loss of revenue generation for these businesses, could result in the closure of
businesses in Rancho Palos Verdes and the loss of numerous jobs in our
community
WHEREAS, the modified Los Angeles County Health Officer Order will
negatively impact the vitality of employees, patrons, vendors, and others
connected with the restaurants in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the
imposition of the order will likely have a permanent negative effect on the
restaurants in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes who will not have the ability to
sustain their current levels of revenue to stay in business causing multiple vacant
properties and other hardships in the City.
WHEREAS, there is no imminent federal relief on the horizon for small
businesses or the unemployed which will mitigate the demise of an industry that
employs among the largest segments of communities of color;
WHEREAS, the current rise in cases is cause for concern, and likely
intervention, the County of Los Angeles Public Health should seek other options
to tighten restrictions so as to focus on specific areas of the County rather than to
seek a one size fits all approach;
WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Public Health should reserve the
tightest restrictions for activities data proves are leading causes of outbreaks rather
than assuming the current increase in COVID-19 cases are tied to outdoor dining;
WHEREAS, as the Los Angeles Superior Court recently concluded [T]he
Restaurant Closure Order is an unmistakable example of the Politicia n’s Fallacy:
“1. We must do something. 2. This is something. 3. Therefore, we must do this.”
The actual scientific evidence . . . shows that transmission of COVID in an outdoor
dining scenario is negligible . . . If closing an entire industry without evidence of
any significant quantum of disease spread is not arbitrary, what is?;
WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Public Health Department has
provided neither contact tracing data nor scientific evidence in support of its
blanket outdoor dining prohibition.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE and RESOLVE as follows:
Section 1. The Council is unanimous in its opposition to the prohibition of
outdoor dining operations in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes which is neither
based on actual data nor science, and has communicated its concerns regarding
A-2
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Page 3 of 4
the same in a letter to the Board of Supervisors and the County Health Officer,
attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and incorporated herein.
Section 2. The Council respectfully requests that the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors and County Health Officer immediately modify the Los
Angeles County Public Health Order to focus on implementing restrictions based
on data and localized to the area of the outbreak.
Section 3. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully requests that all
future Los Angeles County Public Health Officer Orders be based on actual data
related to a particular industry, sector, or area and not be applied unilaterally to
every jurisdiction in Los Angeles County.
Section 4. If warranted by the data, the Council would be supportive of a
Health Officer order which would increase the distance between restaurant tables
to eight feet; require outdoor dining to occur by reservation only, as appropriate;
and to create a safer social distancing model for patrons waiting to either pick up
their food order or for their table to become available.
Section 5. The Council is supportive of increasing the usage of the public
right of way in a safe manner to accommodate the greater social distancing of both
the patrons and the tables.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of
Resolutions of the Council of this City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of December 2020.
_____________________________
Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby
certify that the above Resolution No. 2020-__ was duly and regularly passed and
adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December
15, 2020.
__________________________
City Clerk
A-3
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit A
A-4
Eric Alegria, Mayor
David L. Bradley, Mayor Pro Tem
John Cruikshank, Councilmember
Ken Dyda, Councilmember
Barbara Ferraro, Councilmember
December 4, 2020
L.A. County Board of Supervisors
Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
The Honorable Dr. Barbara Ferrer
L.A. County Public Health Director
5050 Commerce Drive
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
SUBJECT: City of Rancho Palos Verdes – Request to Rescind Closure of Outdoor
Dining
Dear Supervisors and Dr. Ferrer:
On behalf of the residents and business owners in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, we
are once again writing to voice our concerns regarding the recent Temporary Targeted
Safer at Home Health Officer Order for Control of COVID-19: Tier 1 Substantial Surge
Response issued November 28, 2020. Due to the lack of specific data indicating such
drastic actions are warranted or effective for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the
Palos Verdes Peninsula in general, we strongly urge the Board to reconsider this
impactful decision and take the necessary steps to rescind the action that requires the
shutdown of outdoor dining. Other adjacent counties, as close as Orange and Ventura
Counties, have not moved in this direction and taken such blanket drastic action.
Los Angeles County, being comparable to the size of Delaware and Rhode Island
combined, is the largest populated County in the United States, and larger in population
than 41 individual states. The "one size fits all health officer orders" is simply not
workable and should not be looked at monolithically, but rather divided into constituent
parts to help ease the burden and craft area specific remedies.
Currently, LA County Public Health's web site states, "Due to the large size of LA
County (4,300 square miles), it has been divided into eight geographic areas (Service
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 7 A-5
L.A. County Board of Supervisors and Dr. Ferrer
December 4, 2020
Page 2
Planning Areas ((SPA)). These distinct regions allow the Department of Public Health to
develop and provide more relevant public health and clinical services targeted to
the specific health needs of the residents in these different areas.” We agree and
urge the department to begin implementing COVID-19 responses by area!
To that point, we request that you appoint deputy directors for each of the eight districts
to govern and service our communities better. Each deputy director can collect precise
data for their respective district to “provide more relevant public health and clinical
services targeted to the specific health needs of the residents in the different areas.” By
not basing directives on precise data specific to the service areas, it compels cities,
such as Rancho Palos Verdes, to consider exploring creating its own health
department.
The concern with a County-wide blanket shut down of all outdoor dining without regard
to the science and data is best illustrated on the chart below. It seems unfair to our
residents, who are reasonably controlling the pandemic by following mitigation
measures of wearing a mask, socially distancing, and their businesses who have
invested in protective equipment and diligent sanitation to be “lumped in” with the
County as a whole.
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 7 A-6
L.A. County Board of Supervisors and Dr. Ferrer
December 4, 2020
Page 3
We mourn every death from COVID-19; however, death rates in Rancho Palos
Verdes, compared to other deaths from various causes, are also statistically
negligible. For example, for the City of Torrance, the COVID-19 attributed death rate
is 0.05% per capita, Rolling Hills Estates 0.04%, Palos Verdes Estates 0.01%,
Manhattan Beach 0.01%, Rolling Hills 0.00%, Redondo Beach 0.02%, El Segundo
0.01%, and Rancho Palos Verdes 0.03%.
Our hospitalization rates are also different. We do not suffer from the lack of beds or
ICU capacity in our world-class hospitals like Torrance Memorial, Providence Little
Company of Mary, etc. The image below for the South Bay region (District 8) is
currently reporting nearly two new cases per 100 hospital beds, which is among the
lowest of the region. In the summer surge, the South Bay region number was closer
to three. Other regions within the County are currently reporting between four and six
new cases per 100 beds. According to representatives from some of the South Bay
hospitals, many of the patients being admitted are not residents of the area. Thus,
underscoring the relatively low case rates in the South Bay and further
justifying directives that are region district based.
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 7 A-7
L.A. County Board of Supervisors and Dr. Ferrer
December 4, 2020
Page 4
Your actions are devastating our communities, especially our communities who need
the most employment and economic stability. Our small businesses are our economic
engine. While disproportionately allowing large companies to operate, you have made
it impossible for small businesses, in this case, mostly restaurants, to continue their
existence. As the California Restaurant Owners Association aptly pointed out in its
recent filings with the Los Angeles Superior Court, this “order would have devastating
impacts on a vulnerable population; jobs in the food industry would be lost during this
government-imposed shutdown.” See Kathryn Barger, ‘Supervisor Barger Opposes
Unnecessary Restrictions,’ November 23, 2020, at
https://kathrynbarger.lacounty.gov/supervisor-barger-opposes-unnecessary-
restrictions/. Employees at or near the poverty line would be most affected, as 75% of
all projected job losses affect workers who earn $50,000 or less. Likewise, over 60% of
Los Angeles restauranteurs and workers are people of color, who face
disproportionate burdens by further restaurant closures. These economically fragile
workers have already gone through the whipsaw of government shutdowns and
reopenings and have gone to extraordinary lengths just to survive in the face of
constantly changing requirements dictated by state and county officials.”
By contrast, Governor Newsom’s “Blueprint for a Safe Economy” “Has always
contemplated allowing restaurants to operate outdoor dining throughout the pandemic,
consistent with the scientific understanding that spread of the coronavirus is severely
limited in outdoor conditions.” Governor Newsom has dictated that California’s response
to the coronavirus pandemic “must be driven” by a scientific analysis of the effects of
this latest closure order. Yet the County Health Officials have failed to articulate a
scientific rationale that would even explain their departure from Governor Newsom’s
Blueprint for a Safe Economy. Other counties in the Purple Tier with higher infection
and new case rates have not moved in this direction.
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Exhibit A
Page 4 of 7 A-8
L.A. County Board of Supervisors and Dr. Ferrer
December 4, 2020
Page 5
Based on the information publicly provided, there is simply not enough scientific
evidence to support the modified order to shut down outdoor dining, which has
jeopardized tens of thousands of jobs and businesses. Based upon the data from the
County, only 10 to 15 percent of positive cases reported dining out with someone who
tested positive, while more than 50 percent reported being at a private social gathering
with someone who was COVID-19 positive. Decisions not to ban outdoor dining
universally exist in every other county in the Purple Tier, and the City of Pasadena.
Additionally, the City of Los Angeles, which represents 40% of the population of Los
Angeles County also urged the Board to make the right decision for its constituents. It is
our understanding that many more Los Angeles County cities and council of
governments (COGs), such as the South Bay COG, have or will be taking a similar
stance.
It goes without saying that the restaurant industry, including here in Rancho Palos
Verdes, have been devastated by the impacts of the pandemic. Restaurants have
invested time and money to appropriately adjust their operations to adhere to outdoor
dining restrictions and prepare for the upcoming winter months. By continuing the
stance to ban outdoor dining, the County will do nothing more than drive residents to
host and attend private indoor gatherings and encourage our residents to patronize
business in neighboring counties and the City of Pasadena.
Government has asked its citizens to make unimaginable sacrifices and has failed in
providing the appropriate support to those who need it. While many people are doing
their part, we acknowledge more can be done to stop the COVID-19 spread, but this
approach is not the way to get there. To slow the spread, we must put more emphasis
on holding each other accountable, encourage physical distancing, wear face coverings
and investing in protective equipment and sanitation measures for businesses. Our
constituents and businesses are doing just that, and are now asking why they are being
punished for following the measures advised by health officials and doing their part to
reasonably control the pandemic.
We continue to urge the County to factor in local transmission data when developing
restrictions and reopening plans, rather than imposing the most severe limitations
across the vast county, with its varying rates of infection. This includes the school
waiver process, which is based on the percentage of students who are eligible for free
or reduced-price meals, not community case and positivity rates. We acknowledge and
respect the common goal not to overwhelm the healthcare system but stand firmly by
the opinion that this shortsighted order does not support a long-term approach to the
well-being of our collective community.
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 7 A-9
L.A. County Board of Supervisors and Dr. Ferrer
December 4, 2020
Page 6
The City Council would like to thank Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Janice Hahn for
their open opposition to the recent order and urge the Board to take a common-sense
approach to the ongoing challenges of COVID-19 so as to not further the impact on
small businesses. Again, we ask that you promptly reconsider your decision and allow
restaurants to continue serving their customers in county-approved outdoor dining
environments especially during the holiday season. We understand your concerns and
do not question your heart. We need to learn to live with this deadly virus rather than
hide from it indefinitely.
Sincerely,
Eric Alegria
Mayor
Dave Bradley
Mayor Pro Tem
John Cruikshank
Councilmember
Ken Dyda
Councilmember
Barbara Ferraro
Councilmember
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Exhibit A
Page 6 of 7 A-10
L.A. County Board of Supervisors and Dr. Ferrer
December 4, 2020
Page 7
cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District
Al Muratsuchi, Assembly Member, 66th Assembly District
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Ara Mihranian, City Manager
Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
William Wynder, City Attorney
Rolling Hills Estates City Council
Palos Verdes Estates City Council
Rolling Hills City Council
Jacki Bacharach, SBCCOG
Eileen Hupp, Palos Verdes Chamber of Commerce
Resolution No. 2020-xx
Exhibit A
Page 7 of 7 A-11
December 7, 2020
The Honorable Kathryn Barger and Members of the Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
500 W. Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Honorable Chair Barger and Members of the Board of Supervisors,
We, the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, firmly joined together by a common cause, are writing to you
today to request you to follow science and, more importantly, data and statistics to make decisions about COVID-
19 across our Los Angeles County (County). We support our colleagues throughout 88 cities of the County who
oppose your decision. In strong terms, we also support our South Bay COG's position, which in a letter on
December 1, 2020, highlighted the importance of a decentralized approach to the pandemic response. Before
many cities and regions consider forming their own health departments, we ask for the restructuring of the County
Health Department's governance to fit the mission described on its web site.
Los Angeles County, the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined, is the largest populated County in the
United States, and larger in population than 41 individual states. As such, a “one size fits all” approach to
policymaking is simply not workable and has become untenable.
As you know, the County of Los Angeles Public Health's web site states, "Due to the large size of LA County
(4,300 square miles), it has been divided into eight geographic areas (Service Planning Areas ((SPA)). These
distinct regions allow the Department of Public Health to develop and provide more relevant public health and
clinical services targeted to the specific health needs of the residents in these different areas." We agree and urge
the Department of Public Health to begin implementing COVID-19 responses by area.
We respectfully request that each district collects precise data for its respective district to "provide more relevant
public health and clinical services targeted to the specific health needs of the residents in these different areas."
This precision already in place is all we ask to govern and serve our communities better.
The undersigned are elected representatives of jurisdictions located in "District 8 (South Bay)." Our geographic,
demographic, and pandemic realities are substantially different than other districts in this vast and beautiful
County. The County’s decisions ignore these realities. To be specific and to use the County data, here is how our
jurisdictions compare to others.
The City of Torrance prepared the chart below for the majority of jurisdictions in District 8. This chart makes it
abundantly clear our realities compared to those of the County at large.
B-1
To further illustrate our point, we highlight a few specific comparisons in District 8 from the beginning of the
pandemic to November 22. This data presumably became the basis to shut all outdoor dining in the County
without regard to the science and data shown on the chart below. While this data represented your decision point
last week, our current data as of yesterday does not show much change at all. Our constituents want to know why
their excellent work of reasonably controlling the pandemic by following mitigation measures of wearing a mask,
socially distancing, and their businesses investing in protective equipment and diligent sanitation is being
punished.
B-2
Every death is tragic; however, our death rates, compared to other deaths from various causes, are also statistically
negligible. For example, the COVID-19 attributed death rate per capita on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is
extremely low: Rancho Palos Verdes is 0.03%, Palos Verdes Estates is 0.01%, Rolling Hills Estates is 0.04%,
and Rolling Hills is 0.00%.
Our hospitalization rates are also different. We do not suffer from the lack of beds or ICU capacity in our world-
class hospitals like Torrance Memorial, Providence Little Company of Mary, etc. The image below for the South
Bay region (District 8) is currently reporting nearly two new cases per 100 hospital beds, which is among the
lowest of the region. In the summer surge, the South Bay region number was closer to three.
B-3
We expect policy decisions affecting our community to be based on our jurisdictions’ statistics rather than the
County’s collective data. We, as a vast County, must reverse this course. Every signatory to this letter respects
you all. We have a tradition of working with you in contract cities as well as independent cities. We also
understand your concerns. By our requests, we do not question your heart. We suggest that we need to learn to
live with this deadly virus rather than hide from it indefinitely. We seek collaboration as opposed to competition
with your policy.
The County’s actions are devastating our communities, especially our communities who need the most
employment and economic stability. Our small businesses are our backbone. While disproportionately allowing
large companies to operate, you have made it impossible for small businesses, in this case, mostly restaurants, to
continue their existence. Our chefs, servers, kitchen staff depend on their wages and tips to feed their families.
To the extent that funds are available, we urge you to work with the Governor to use some of the unexpected tax
proceeds of $26 billion to provide relief to small businesses and restaurants that are struggling to survive.
Our local jurisdictions, especially those that are "low, low" property tax cities, rely on sales tax revenue to provide
local services. Some of these services under the contracting model are provided by the County for a fee. While
the County takes close to 25% of the property tax revenue (not counting County related special districts revenues
for another 25%), most of our "low, low" property tax cities receive less than 7%. The County’s actions are also
devastating to our cities. Unfortunately, there is no data to support your last decision countywide, much less in
our jurisdictions. We have seen no evidence that outdoor dining is the cause of any COVID case surge in various
parts of the County. The City of Pasadena chose science and data over your decision. We in District 8 ask for the
same treatment as Pasadena, which is located in the same County.
While we disagree with the state’s “one sizes fits all” approach, we understand that the County is currently
operating under the state’s Stay-at-Home Order for the Southern California Region due to ICU bed capacity.
When the state’s Order is lifted, we respectfully ask that you act on our request for a regional approach using
regional data. In particular, we expect the re-opening of our outdoor dining facilities as soon as possible. Failing
to do so is causing some cities to explore constituting their own health departments.
Respectfully,
David McGowan, Eric Alegria
City of Palos Verdes Estates, Mayor City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Mayor
Jeff Pieper Velveth Schmitz
City of Rolling Hills, Mayor City of Rolling Hills Estates, Mayor
B-4