19730828 Proposed Incorporation City of Rancho Palos Verdes PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ELECTION
AUGUST 28, 1973
ANALYSIS AND ARGUMENTS
"ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED
LAWS ARE THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHORS."
The foregoing proposition will be presented to the electorate of the Pro-
posed Incorporation of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for its,approval
at the Special Election on August 28, 1973, in substantially the following
form:
FOR INCORPORATION 3ins*
AGAINST INCORPORATION 5
*ANALYSIS BY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
"This is a proposal to incorporate as a general law city all of the contiguous
unincorporated territory on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, excluding that area
which is in the Los Angeles City School District that lies northerly of
Summerland Street. The subject area is surrounded by the Pacific Ocean
and the cities of Lomita, Los Angeles, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills
and Rolling Hills Estates. The primary development within the proposal is
for residential use. There are in excess of 19,138 registered voters."
*Section 34323.1, Government Code, requires the Executive Officer of the
Local Agency Formation Commission to prepare an impartial analysis of
the proposed city incorporation.
, ARGUMENT FOR THE PROPOSED INCORPORATION
• OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Incorporation is essential to insure local control of our community. Local
control is essential to keeping advantages now enjoyed by Peninsula resi-
dents. Local control is possible only through incorporation of this new
city.
OBJECTIVES: 1. Preservation of the community's semi-rural character
and its unique coastline.
2. Retention of the Peninsula's ability to provide high
quality education.
3. Curtailment of high density development now leading
to congested roads, air and land pollution, and over-
crowded schools.
BENEFITS OF INCORPORATION:
1. Local decisions made by local citizens based on local
needs and desires.
2. Preservation of the environment with development keyed
to semi-rural, single family homes in contrast to high
density, urban, apartment house standards.
3. Cooperation with the three existing Peninsula cities to
guide the future of this special area,
4. Local control of local taxes by locally elected officials
responsive to the community's wishes.
5. Positive sense of identity as residents of Rancho Palos
Verdes contrasted with residency in a nameless county
island.
FUTURE SHACK: Continuation of present policies under County control
would:
1. Urbanize the Peninsula's 4th City area and turn this
scenic, semi-rural community of primarily single family
homes into an unbroken urbanized sprawl of wall-to-wall
apartments and condominiums.
2. Destroy hills and canyons of the Peninsula for wide lane
thoroughfares shown on the County master road plan.
3. Overcowd the schools, leading to decreased quality of
education and increased costs.
•
4. Damage the Peninsula coastline irreversibly and impair
forever visual and physical access to the bluffs, coves and
beaches.
5. Increase drastically the costs of public services to provide
for tens of thousands of new apartment dwellers.
SOLUTION: Only LOCAL CONTROL will prevent these results.
Only INCORPORATION of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes
will assure local control.
We urge you to vote FOR incorporation.
Dr. Gunther Buerk, President
Palos Verdes Peninsula Advisory Council
Robert S. Gruhn, Chairman
4th City Campaign Committee
Dorothy Le Conte, Co-Chairman
Save Our Coastline
. ARGUMENT AGA1NSTTHE PROPOSED INCORPORATION
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
A "Fourth City" in Palos Verdes would not be a viable entity, economi-
cally, and would create an -unreasonable tax burden on homeowners and
renters, with severe reductions in services now supplied by the County.
Proposition 20 has eliminated local control of coastal development.
All permits for land use go through the South Coast Regional Commission.
Appeals go to the State Commission.
The "Local control" issue, now gone, cannot justify incorporation of a
city that does not have the tax base necessary to support it. Rolling Hills
Estates with its huge tax base in the Peninsula Shopping Center has per-
mitted high density dwelling construction within its City along Highridge
overlooking the Center.
Even with that huge tax base, Rolling Hills Estates refused to annex
the "pocket" because tax revenues were insufficient to cover the cost of
servicing and maintaining the pocket. How, then, can a new city, faced with
salaries of 10 employees, police protection estimated by the Sheriff to cost
between $800,000.00 and $1,000,000.00, and the cost of maintaining roads
along the Portuguese Bend slide, among many other expenses, provide for
servicing and maintaining its area without a comparable tax base? The ad-
ditional property tax can be as high as $1.00 per $100.00 of assessed value.
If this proposed City becomes a reality and is the colossal blunder that
the facts predict it will be, the leadership of the proponents who DO NOT
RESIDE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED CITY
(Gordon Curtis, Dorothy Leconte, Fred Hesse, all Rolling Hills residents,
to name only a few) will NOT be affected. Only you and I, taxpaying resi-
dents, will suffer; once incorporation is voted for, there is no practical
method to reverse that decision.
VOTE NO on a fourth city that:
WILL NOT provide local control;
WILL NOT be economically feasible.
COMMITTEE FOR INFORMED VOTERS
LEONARD R. URBAN
JACK W. TUCKER