ELECTIONS SAN FERNANDO’S PROPOSITION O : Fate of Old Police Station Is Once Again in the Voters’ Hands

It’s the ballot issue that won’t go away, the bitter little San Fernando political dispute that for the second time the town’s voters are being asked to settle. Just what is the city to do with its former police station?

Three years after residents overwhelmingly approved a proposition prohibiting the City Council from selling, leasing or transferring the title of the former police station without voter approval, the council is seeking to overturn part of the measure.

Council members, who never liked the proposition’s restrictions, placed on the Nov. 6 ballot Proposition O, which would allow them to lease the city-owned facility without further voter approval. Voters would still have to approve any sale or transfer of the site.

What opposing sides of the latest measure agree on is that the building and land are crucial pieces of civic center property whose future must be carefully managed. What they disagree on is whether the City Council or the voters should assume ultimate responsibility for future development or the terms of lease agreements.

The 32-year-old, 31,500-square-foot San Fernando Police Station is at 120 Macneil St. in the heart of the civic center. The Police Department vacated the facility two years ago when its modern, more spacious station opened. The building, next to the San Fernando Superior Court, is considered an attractive office site for law enforcement agencies and attorneys.

City workers have used the building for about a year while San Fernando City Hall has undergone extensive renovations. Next month the remodeled City Hall will open, leaving the station vacant for the first time.

Mayor James B. Hansen and Councilman Doude Wysbeek, who wrote ballot arguments in favor of Proposition O, said the current law restricts the city’s ability to negotiate lease agreements with potential tenants and would lead to the loss of potentially lucrative rental income. Also the $10,000 to $15,000 cost of holding a special election every time a new lease is negotiated would burden city coffers.

“If we find a tenant, we have to tell them to wait a few months while we call a special election. And special elections are expensive,” Hansen said. “We feel that we were elected to the council to make decisions like this.”

Beverly Di Tomaso, a former city parks commissioner and leader of the original 1986 initiative, said that “in the simplest terms the council wants to break the law by going to the people” with Proposition O. “I thought this issue was settled. Now here we go again.”

Proposition O would require the city to offer to lease the police station site at fair market value. No estimate is available of how much income the building could generate, city officials said.

Di Tomaso, who said she informally has organized opponents, explained that the cost of an election “is a small price to pay” so that residents can learn the terms of a lease agreement before it is signed.

“The people have already spoken on this three years ago,” she said. “They want to protect this vital piece of property from any more bad deals.”

The police station dispute is rooted in a political controversy from 1985, when the council decided to build a $2-million station rather than renovate the old one. As part of the deal to obtain land for the new building, the council majority voted to exchange the old police station land for more desirable property a block away owned by Los Angeles County.

The lone council dissenter on the land swap issue, former Councilwoman Carmillis Noltemeyer, was so angered that she and supporter Di Tomaso collected enough signatures to put the issue before voters. Faced with the petition challenging the land swap, the council rescinded its approval and instead bought the county land outright.

But fearing that the old police station site might someday become part of another giveaway by the council, the pair successfully waged the 1986 initiative drive, which won 76% of the votes cast during a contentious election. The outspoken Noltemeyer was ousted from office in the same election and has since moved out of the city.

City Administrator Mary Strenn said she has received preliminary inquiries about leasing the station from the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office and the federal Drug Enforcement Agency among others.

“I can’t think of another city where you have to go to a vote of the people to approve the terms of a lease,” Strenn said, adding that expecting a potential lessee to wait for the outcome of a city election is unreasonable.

Council members said they are not actively campaigning to win approval of Proposition O, but instead are attempting to spread the word by talking to residents.

Di Tomaso criticized the low-key approach as an attempt to keep voters in the dark. “Memories have not faded,” she said.

Wysbeek said, “When the original initiative was passed, it was an emotional issue and the inflexibility of it was not taken into account. Today, people may look at things a little differently.”