San Fernando City Initiative Puts Land-Use Issue to a Vote

In the next two weeks, the San Fernando City Council and other opponents of a controversial June 3 city initiative will be trying to convince residents that they should give up their right to vote on the future development of an important piece of civic center property.

Proposition L asks San Fernando voters if they want to adopt an ordinance that would require them to approve city council decisions on the “sale, lease, exchange or transfer” of any portion of the city’s current police site property at 120 Macneil Street.

This vital piece of land, located directly across the street from city hall, will be left open for development in about two years, following the construction of a $2-million police station half a block away.

Initiative proponents, led by former city councilwoman Carmillis M. Noltemeyer, say they spearheaded the measure to protect the land from “bad decisions” the city council might make in the next few years.

“It gives the people the right to vote--pure and simple,” Noltemeyer said. “Once and for all, here is their chance to see the full terms and conditions of any agreement on a piece of property that is very valuable to the city.”

All five members of the new city council, however, are opposed to the initiative and think it is unnecessary for citizens to have to get involved in complicated land-use decisions. Mayor Jess Margarito said the measure promotes an “unhealthy attitude about local government.”

He accused Noltemeyer of being a “disgruntled” former councilwoman who is “playing up the issue that people cannot trust the city council to make responsible decisions.”

“It’s counter productive to put such roadblocks in the due process of decision making,” Margarito said.

Discounts Signatures

He does not believe the number of signatures--more than 15% of the city’s 5,915 voters--qualifying the initiative for the ballot is a strong indication of voter support, he said, because Noltemeyer was defeated in last month’s council election. Her ally in circulating the petition, Beverly DiTomaso, also ran unsuccessfully for a council seat.

Margarito said he and the four other councilmen are in favor of using the land for the expansion of the Los Angeles County Library branch in San Fernando. The current facility, located next door to the police station, is overcrowded.

Neither side has begun to heavily campaign on the initiative. Margarito said he and members of his political action committee, called Mission City Political Education Committee, will begin precinct walking next week to oppose the initiative.

Opposition Mailer Proposed

Richardson said a group of downtown merchants and members of the Friends of the Library are discussing raising $600 for a mailer opposing the measure. He may bring the issue before the council at the meeting tonight, he said, and possibly move for a council vote to publicly oppose the initiative.

Noltemeyer said she did not want to reveal how she planned to push for the initiative, but said nothing has yet been done.

The June 3 initiative grew out of a dispute that began last summer between Noltemeyer and other members of the council over issues dealing with the location and construction of the new police station.

Noltemeyer had been the sole dissenter in a council decision to exchange land with Los Angeles County so that a new police station could be built. The council voted to swap the city’s current 31,000-square-foot police station site for a larger piece of land--a 42,000-square-foot parking lot jointly owned by the county and city, half a block away.

In approving the land swap, the council felt it would gain a more desirable piece of land for their $2-million police station. At the same time, the county agreed to let the city use the existing police station while the new one was being built. After the new station was opened, the city would demolish the old one and leave the land clear for county development.

The county agreed to leave the old police station land vacant for a minimum of three years to give the county librarian time to find financing to expand San Fernando’s over-crowded county library branch. If library funding was not found in three years, the county would have been free to develop the property.

Noltemeyer called this exchange agreement a “bad deal” for the city because there was no guarantee that a new library would be built on the land. She contended that renovation of the existing police station had not been thoroughly studied.

Swap Would Be ‘Giveaway’

Since the city’s half interest in the jointly owned parking lot was only 21,000 square feet and the land the county stood to gain was 10,000 feet larger, she said the swap was a city “giveaway.”

Upset over the council’s approval of the agreement and saying her arguments had fallen on “deaf ears,” Noltemeyer circulated a petition to stop the deal. She joined forces with DiTomaso. They obtained the required 10% of voter signatures to force the council to either revoke their action or put it before the voters.

Faced with this, the council chose to revoke the land-swap agreement, fulfilling its legal obligation to act on the referendum petition. But the council then voted to purchase the same parking lot land it would have acquired in the exchange.

Angered by this council maneuver, Noltemeyer led the current initiative to “protect the land from bad city council decisions.”

“The mere fact that they so quickly rescinded shows that it wasn’t such a good deal for the city. Otherwise, they would have put it to a vote,” Noltemeyer said. “In my mind, it makes it clear that the taxpayers would have been able to see what a bad deal it was.”