Major Obstacles Remain for Backers of Valley Secession

Now that the so-called San Fernando Valley Secession Bill has been signed into law, what next?

Secessionists already have drawn up tentative plans to form the state’s newest city, a municipality of more than 1.5 million people north of Mulholland Drive.

“The next step would be to start the process of forming a new city for the San Fernando Valley,” said Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. and one of the most vocal secessionists in the Valley.

If successful, Close and other secessionists will create the sixth-largest city in the nation, slightly larger than San Diego but smaller than Philadelphia.

But it won’t be easy.

The process is fraught with legal obstacles and probably will get wrapped up in an expensive and bitter political campaign that could pit neighbor against neighbor.

A simultaneous secession and incorporation of an area of this size has never been accomplished in California, according to officials. The closest example is the 1890 secession from San Diego that created the city of Coronado, which today has a population of only 30,000.

Still, Valley secessionists hope to circulate a petition as early as January that would ask for a study of the effects of a secession. A final citywide vote on a Valley secession could take place as soon as 2000.

Although the new legislation eliminates the City Council’s power to veto a breakup, it does not make secession a cakewalk.

If Close and other secessionists in the Valley are to succeed, they must complete a lengthy, complex and expensive process that could cost more than $2 million.

Here are some of the key steps and hurdles to secession:

* Boundaries--Hire engineers and lawyers to draft boundaries for the area that is to secede. This may cause disputes between residents who want to be part of a breakaway city and others who want to remain part of Los Angeles.

“Before you prepare boundaries you have to have meetings and discussions with all sorts of people to get a consensus from the people,” said Larry Calemine, executive officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, which oversees secession and incorporation matters in the county.

* Petition--Collect signatures from 20% of the registered voters in the Valley--roughly 80,000 people.

Close said he believes it will be easy to collect the necessary signatures because the petition will simply ask voters whether they want LAFCO to study the feasibility of a secession. The actual vote on secession comes later.

* Infrastructure--If the petition drive is successful, LAFCO begins the difficult task of figuring out how the city of Los Angeles and the Valley can split up public facilities, such as airports, sewer systems, reservoirs, city buildings, streets, parks and other properties.

According to state law, LAFCO can support a secession only if the breakup results in “fiscal neutrality,” meaning that neither the Valley nor Los Angeles suffers financially from the act.

But Calemine said the language in the law is unclear on whether the “fiscal neutrality” must be met immediately or over several years during which taxes are adjusted and bonds are paid off.

He estimates that the county-funded study could take up to two years and cost more than $1 million, barring any legal challenges, which Calemine said are highly likely.

* Hearings--If LAFCO supports secession, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors would have to conduct hearings for the public to comment on the results of LAFCO’s study. But again, Calemine said, state law is unclear on whether the supervisors have the power to kill the secession effort if they find flaws in the LAFCO findings.

* Election--If the supervisors approve the LAFCO findings, a majority of the voters in the Valley and a majority in the entire city must approve secession.

But even if a majority of voters supports secession, Calemine said, the Los Angeles City Council may be able to use a “silent veto.”

Before the secession can be completed, the law requires both the Valley and the city of Los Angeles to agree on a transfer of property taxes, he said. By rejecting the transfer, the Los Angeles City Council can kill the effort, he said.

Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks), one of the sponsors of the bill to eliminate the City Council’s veto power, conceded that the property tax transfer can be a problem and said he hopes the law can be changed to address it.

But even if a secession movement is successful, Hertzberg believes it will not end there.

He predicts that Valley residents won’t be happy as a part of a city of more than 1.5 million people spread over 275 square miles.

“Clearly, there is a frustration level. That is why this bill was written,” he said. “But ultimately, if we have a secession in the Valley, it will be lots of different secessions. I think it will break up into a number of pieces.”