San Fernando Council Deems City Property Petition Illegal

The San Fernando City Council, deciding that an initiative calling for voter approval before any city property can be sold, leased or exchanged is illegal, unanimously voted not to take any action on the 1,220-signature petition.

The petition lists 20 tracts--including five parks, city hall and seven parking lots--as city-owned properties that would be protected under the initiative.

But, after researching the title of each property, city attorneys ascertained that three of the parking lots belong to the San Fernando Parking Authority, an autonomous city entity that owns, maintains and regulates parking lots around the San Fernando Mall.

In 1970, the parking authority purchased the lots from the city for $156,000. Meter revenues and tax assessments on mall merchants pay for the upkeep. Although City Council acts as the authority’s board of directors, the authority is a separate legal entity, said Betsy Cowles, assistant city attorney.

“Any vote of the people on these properties would be illegal because they are not owned by the city,” Cowles said. “Therefore, the document is invalid.”

In rejecting the petition, Mayor James B. Hansen said: “We can’t put the city in the position of approving something that could be illegal and end up costing the taxpayers thousands to defend.”

Not ‘a Dead Matter’

The goal of the initiative was to give voters the right to decide how city property should be developed, said Beverly Di Tomaso, petition organizer. Because the city covers only 2.4 square miles, she said, each piece of city-owned property is crucial to residents.

Di Tomaso asserted that Monday night’s council action does not mean “this is a dead matter.” She and other initiative committee members will be meeting with an attorney to decide what to do next, she said.

“This will definitely become a legal matter now,” she said. “I don’t want to make any other comment at this point.”

The 10-page petition states that voter control of city land is needed because previous council actions regarding city property “have not always been in the best interest of the city and its residents.”

This was in reference to a controversial council move in 1986 that involved a civic-center land swap with Los Angeles County to build a police station.

As a result of the police station land deal, Di Tomaso, who unsuccessfully ran for City Council that year, led a similar but smaller-scale initiative involving civic-center land.

In that drive, which won overwhelming voter approval in April, 1986, the petitioners were intent on protecting a piece of property directly across the street from city hall.

City Administrator Donald E. Penman said there is no city action pending that would lead to the sale, lease or exchange of city-owned property.