by Chelsea Sektnan
At the January 13, 2026, board meeting of the Palos Verdes Homes Association & Art Jury, the board received the results of the 2026 board election. All five incumbents and two challengers were on the ballot.
The results were the same as they have been in every election since 2009, with the exception of the 2017 election.
The board declared the election invalid, and then reappointed itself to another term. (In 2017, the year of the exception, a Torrance Superior Court judge ruled the 2017 ballots must be counted, and as a result, the top vote getters, challengers Marlene Breene and Dick Faye were elected.)
As in other cities, property owners in Palos Verdes Estates must have city approval to build or remodel a home. Unlike in most other cities, PVE property owners must also have approval from the PVAH Art Jury. The Art Jury is a panel of five architects who are appointed by the PVHA Board of Directors.
PVAH Board of Director elections are held annually. The PVHA bylaws require a quorum of over 50 percent of its members to vote in order for an election to be valid. Otherwise, the board may reappoint itself. In this year’s election, 993 ballots were cast, which is fewer than half of the 2,700 ballots needed to reach the over 50 percent quorum threshold. That is why the board was able to reappoint itself. The approximately 5,400 eligible voters are comprised of property owners in Palos Verdes Estates and also in the Miraleste neighborhood of Rancho Palos Verdes.
“Elections mean nothing,” Brian Pressman, one of the two challengers on this year’s ballot said in a recent interview. “And as a result, the board is not accountable to the voters.”
“The only way we are going to change this realistically is to ask a judge for help,” Pressman said.
Pressman holds degrees in economics and Chinese from Boston College and is managing director of analytics at a media buying company.
Last year, he filed a lawsuit asking the court to reform the election process.
“Petitioner seeks nothing more than a democratic election in which an actual election is held, and those candidates who receive the most votes be allowed to serve as Board members,” the suit reads.
The lawsuit does not ask the court to abolish the PVHA & Art Jury, Pressman emphasized.
Hearings in the case are scheduled for Wednesday, July 29; Wednesday, August 5; and Wednesday, August 19 in Torrance Superior Court.
In anticipation of the hearings, Pressman addressed the board of directors at its meeting on Wednesday, June 17.
“I would genuinely welcome the opportunity to work with the board before those hearings to develop a system where member votes actually determine the outcome of our elections,” Pressman told the board.
“A joint proposal from both sides would send a powerful message to the court and to this community that we are all committed to the same goal — functional, representative governance,” Pressman said.
At the conclusion of Pressman’s remarks, Board President Christine McNamara asked her fellow board members if there were any questions.
Hearing none, McNamara announced the meeting was adjourned. The other board-appointed directors are Keith Geiger, Mahmoud Farzaneh, Philippe Kassouf, and Alex Howe.
Geiger was the only board member who responded to requests for comments for this article.
“Historically, it’s very tough to get 51% of members to vote,” he acknowledged.
Pressman said his concerns about the PVHA began when he questioned the board about its building and remodeling permit fees.
“Originally, I was interested in the building fee increases,” Pressman said. “I was trying to get a hold of the financial information. Then they refused to provide it.”
The PVHA fee schedule lists more than 50 plan approval charges, including $300 for a new air conditioner, $100 per window, $500 for a bay window, $600 for skylights, $1,000 for solar units, $5,500 for antennas, and a $3,500 Art Jury review fee.
A plan review meeting costs $1,000, according to the fee schedule.
As a result of Pressman’s suit over the election process, the PVHA building fees have also come under scrutiny.
Kim Rhodes, an attorney, and the director of employee relations at Loyola Marymount University, said her remodeling experience with the PVHA & Art Jury in 2017 is what motivated her to run for the board with Pressman in the election this year that was declared invalid, and resulted in the board reappointing itself.
Kim Rhodes, an attorney, and the director of employee relations at Loyola Marymount University, said obtaining PVHA & Art Jury approval for her home remodel in 2017 cost her $250,000 and delayed completion by a year.
Rhodes’ remodeling experience motivated her to run for the board with Pressman in the election this year that was declared invalid, and resulted in the board reappointing itself.
“They gave me a hard time about everything,” Rhodes said. “The whole time, I was like, ‘How is this possible?’ I learned nobody [at PVHA] cares about the homeowners.”
Rhodes said the review process for her remodel was especially difficult during the period she used an out of area architect.
“Six months or more, they wouldn’t approve one thing he submitted,” Rhodes said. “Nothing.”
After switching to a local architect, she said, her plans were approved.
“They don’t talk to you; there’s no back and forth,” Rhodes said. “There’s no feedback loop; there’s no interaction.”
“I am sure they cost me $250,000 in delays and costs,” Rhodes said.
“The current voting process is a sham, an absolute sham. You are never going to get a PVHA board that is responsive to residents if residents can’t vote,” Rhodes said.
Palos Verdes Estates City Manager Kerry Kallman said in response to a request for comment on this story that the city and PVHA & Art Jury do not collaborate on residential plan reviews.
Palos Verdes Estates Councilmember David McGowan said that separation itself is a source of frustration for homeowners.
“This is one screwed-up environment from a building perspective,” McGowan said. “You can get approval from the building department, but then be denied approval by the Art Jury.”
A lawsuit similar to Pressman’s was filed on behalf of ROBE (Residents for Open Board Elections) by First Amendment attorney Jeff Lewis in 2017.
At the time of that lawsuit, Lewis argued that the PVHA had gone eight years without electing a board member. The judge ordered the 2017 ballots to be counted. As a result, the two highest vote getters, Breene and Fay, were installed on the board for the first time since 2009.
In January of this year, Breene wrote a letter to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alan B. Honeycutt, who is presiding over the Pressman case.
“My experience of 4 years on the Board of Directors of the PVHA, including one year as president, leads me to agree with Mr. Pressman that a change is necessary. The pattern of self-appointments and ignoring term limits has been a disservice to the community.”
She further contended, “Often [Palos Verdes Home Association] members and professionals are afraid to speak up for fear that their project will be blacklisted, targeted for delays and charged extra fees.”
Pressman said the last valid election, in 2009, shows a quorum can be reached when the association makes the election a priority. He said meeting minutes from 2009 show the board worked to obtain a quorum by identifying members who had not voted, and re-mailing them ballots. The board also set up a phone bank to call members whose ballots had not been returned, he said.
Ballots are typically mailed before Christmas and must be returned shortly after New Year’s Day.
“It’s about the worst possible time of year to get people to pay attention and vote,” one resident commented.
Attorney Mike Gatto, a Palos Verdes Estates resident and former California assemblymember, said the over 50 percent threshold has become increasingly difficult to reach because “a significant percentage of homes in Palos Verdes are owned by overseas investors. Those investors do not vote.”
The Palos Verdes Homes Association and Art Jury dates back to the planning of Palos Verdes Estates, when Frank A. Vanderlip, Sr. envisioned a residential community distinguished by its architecture, landscape, and open space. The Art Jury, whose members are required to be licensed architects, was established in the 1920s.
In a 2017 bulletin, PVHA & Art Jurydescribed its mission as helping preserve “an ideal garden suburb and residence park, with all the advantages of the city, in the country.”
The Art Jury’s influence is evident in the city’s red tile roofs, protected views, and architectural consistency.
Like most people interviewed for this story, Realtor and PVE resident Cindy Hazard is supportive of the Art Jury, “It helps the community retain its character, its green space and relaxed vibe,” Hazard said. “It protects against McMansions.”
But Hazard and others said the permitting process has become overly cumbersome.
“I had to go back and forth, from the city building, over to the Art Jury building, back over to the city, and back over to the Art Jury,” Hazard said. “They ping pong you around.”
“The key thing everybody needs to remember is the Art Jury is fulfilling a quasi-governmental function,” Gatto said. “Essentially, the city has outsourced part of the planning process to a private party.”
Despite broad support among PVHA members for the association’s mission, many people are afraid to publicly criticize its board, according to Peninsula First Amendment attorney Jeff Lewis.
“I have three groups of potential clients — real estate agents, architects, and residents — who all want the system to change, but are afraid of getting involved for fear of retaliation,” Lewis said.
“I had a meeting in my office. It was standing room only in my conference room. Probably 30 people, and I’m guessing there’s probably another 20 who couldn’t attend the meeting, but were on the phone or had emailed me. So there’s 50 people I am in touch with who are pissed off,” Lewis said.
Lewis drafted a letter to the board that contended the fees are excessive “given the magnitude of certain charges and the apparent lack of proportionality.” He characterized fees required for meeting with staff and attending Art Jury meetings as “punitive.”
The letter was never sent, he said, because people were afraid to sign their names for fear of retaliation.
Board member Geiger said in his response for comment on the fees issue, that the PVHA board is “actively reviewing fees and looking at where we can look at adjustments to the fee schedule and reductions where possible.”
An architect critical of the PVHA & Art Jury, who asked not to be named, said criticizing the association publicly would amount to “professional suicide.”
Pam Velasquez, an Art Jury secretary for nearly 12 years before leaving in 2023, said, “I can understand why people are afraid to speak critically of the board. If they want to renovate their home, they know the board looks at their plans before going to the Art Jury.”
Several other former PVHA and Art Jury employees declined to be interviewed, citing nondisclosure agreements.
Kevin Moen, a longtime South Bay Realtor, explained that delays in the association’s completion-and-compliance process can mean buyers close escrow before a review is finished, saddling buyers with unexpected Art Jury fees, fines, and correction demands.
“My experience with the Art Jury over the last few years is that it takes six weeks to come out and even look at a property. If I have a thirty-day escrow, that’s a problem,” he said.
He also noted fees associated with compliance issues have increased in recent years.
“What I am seeing is a very unpredictable timeframe that may take months to get through and a cost that is now $6,000 to $8,000. A recent one was $20,000 because they’re tripling fines,” Moen said.
Moen said builders also have difficulties with the PVHA.
“I know builders who say they won’t build in PVE because the [Art Jury] elements are just too hard. It’s just too cumbersome of a process,” he said. “They’ve always had hurdles, but my understanding is that over the last three or four years, a lot of builders have just said they are not interested.”
Dan Withee, a licensed architect and current Art Jury member, explained that the review process necessarily touches even small, exterior changes.
“People want to change their mailbox; they have to go to us,” Withee said. “It’s pretty intense. It’s the colors of your house, the roofing, the windows, anything you want to change. You’ve got to have us involved.”
That authority, Withee said, is what enables the Art Jury to preserve consistency, but it’s also what makes the process frustrating for homeowners.
“People don’t like to be criticized. But we try to make the neighborhoods consistent. It’s very difficult,” Withee said.
Art Jury member and architect Stuart Magruder said he understands that homeowners, contractors, and builders can find the process difficult, but said the Art Jury is not trying to create obstacles.
“We’re not trying to make it difficult,” Magruder said. “We’re trying to ensure a level of quality.”
Former Art Jury architect Chris Gunderson wrote in a Jan. 4, 2024, resignation letter that he could no longer continue serving because of what he described as a breakdown in the relationship between the Art Jury and the PVHA board.
His letter cited “ongoing tensions between the Board and the Jury, including attempts by the Board to control the Jury’s opinions, findings, and actions.”
He also wrote that he could no longer provide his professional services to residents while the association was “in a state of turmoil and lacking a moral compass.”
Architect Jeffrey Dahl served on the Art Jury for 21 years before also resigning in 2024. He defended the Art Jury’s purpose.
He said the Art Jury had long functioned as a professional review body meant to help preserve the community’s architectural standards while working with residents and architects to improve projects.
“The Art Jury is what keeps Palos Verdes special. The Art Jury is to be protected and supported,” he said.
But he expressed concern with what he described as increasing pressure from the PVHA board.
Dahl said he felt the board was exerting increased influence over the Art Jury’s work, while the association became less focused on helping homeowners through the process.
“I left due to pressure from President Christine McNamara, board members, and things I felt were contradictory to the benefit of the community and upholding the high standards of what the Art Jury represented in that community,” Dahl said. “I did not want to be a part of the deterioration of what I saw that was happening.”
PVHA Board President McNamara, when asked for an interview for this article, responded in a June 3 email, “I am out of the country. I will contact you when I return in a couple of weeks.” Follow-up requests to McNamara for comment have not been responded to. Nor have PVHA board members Farzaneh, Howe, or Kassouf responded to requests for comment on this article.
The Palos Verdes Homes Association is represented by attorney Nick Meerson, of the firm Adams Sterling Community Association Law.
Following a request to Meerson for comment on this article, Meerson responded in a Friday, June 19 email:
The Palos Verdes Homes Association is aware of the petition filed under Corporations Code 7515 by homeowner Brian Pressman on July 25, 2025. The Association’s Board is defending the matter and is working toward a resolution that preserves the integrity of the Association’s administration and furthers the interests of its membership. Moreover, the Association’s Board and Art Jury operate on behalf of all the Association’s owners and conduct business in accordance with the applicable portions of the Association’s governing documents.
PVHA responds to lawsuit
Editor’s note: The following letter from the Palos Verdes Homes Association Board of Directors was addressed to member on Friday, June 19, 2026
Notice to Members of Palos Verdes Homes Association:
Upcoming Court Proceeds
Dear PVHA Members,
This is Your Official Communication from PVHA.
We are writing to inform you of upcoming court proceedings that could negatively affect foundational elements of our Association. In August 2025, Mr. Brian
Pressman filed a CC 7515 complaint, case# 25TRCP00366 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, to lower the current Board election quorum.
When Palos Verdes Estates was established, a simple majority (50% +1) quorum was established to ensure that no small group of motivated individuals could impose
their will on a largely abstaining membership. Mr. Pressman has stated that he seeks to lower this quorum percentage to 20% or any number of people who vote.
This change would fundamentally undermine that original intent and allow a vocal minority to make binding decisions on behalf of the entire community.
The presiding Judge, Judge Honeycutt, has communicated that he would like to see a resolution that lasts another 100 years. This means that all protective
elements are at risk – including very importantly the quorum requirement, protective future architectural review standards and housing density/development
issues. Judge Honeycutt has also said that he wants to hear from property owners to inform his decision. A vocal minority advocating for the lower quorum is
expected to be in attendance. Your presence — and your voice — matters significantly in his decision.
We encourage all members who wish to preserve the protections built into our Association’s By-Laws to attend and provide property owner testimony in person
to the court, at the Los Angeles County Superior Court 825 Maple Ave, Torrance, CA 90503, on the following dates:
- Wednesday, July 29 – Public Testimony | 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM (as needed)
- Wednesday, August 5 – Public Testimony | 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM (as needed)
- Wednesday, August 19 – Hearing | 10:00 AM
If you are unable to attend but wish to submit written testimony for the record, Judge Honeycutt is requiring property owners to do so in the form of a legal declaration (Judge Honeycutts has informed us that he will not read letters that aren’t in the form of a legal declaration). A legal declaration is a formal, written statement of facts made by an individual who swears or affirms
under penalty of perjury that the contents are true. It serves the same evidentiary weight as in-court testimony, without the benefit of cross examination or follow-up questions.
Declarations should be sent to Los Angeles County Superior Court 825 Maple Ave, Torrance, CA 90503. Please reference case # 25TRCP00366.
This is an opportunity for property owners to be heard before the court determines a new quorum percentage for future Board elections. The Board has an obligation to represent the property owners of all 5,420 parcels, not just a small discontent group.
We encourage all who wish to protect the Association’s future and the future architectural standards of the community to either speak or write a declaration
to the court, to support the original quorum requirement to ensure the future protections and stability of the Palos Verdes Homes Association. Once critically
important standards have been removed or destroyed, they will be gone forever. More updates will be forthcoming on this issue as well as many other Association
issues. Please encourage your property owner neighbors to sign up for our emails to stay informed. Thank you so much for reading this!
Sincerely,
Palos Verdes Homes Association
Board of Directors
Your 2026 PVHA Board of Directors
President Christine McNamara
Vice President Keith Geiger
Secretary Philippe Kassouf
Treasurer Mahmoud Farzaneh
Director Alex Howe
