Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Sale City Yard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Covina council authorizes exclusive negotiations for city yard despite state compliance questions
Summary
The West Covina City Council authorized an exclusive negotiation agreement (ENA) with developer Brandywine for the city yard property after a contentious debate about whether the city has documented compliance with the California Surplus Land Act (SLA). The substitute motion passed 3–2.
The West Covina City Council voted to authorize an exclusive negotiation agreement with Brandywine Acquisition Group for the city yard property (811 South Sunset Avenue), a decision that drew sharp public comment and a divided council over whether the city has complied with the California Surplus Land Act.
The vote came after residents and speakers urged postponement. Gloria G., a public commenter, said the city has not complied with the Surplus Land Act and urged the council to “table this project until the city meets regular regulatory and environmental requirements and conducts a cost-benefit financial analysis.” Other speakers warned the city could face large penalties — speakers referenced HCD guidance about potential fines tied to SLA violations.
Acting City Manager Mylan and the city attorney told the council staff is in regular contact with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and is searching for records to demonstrate good-faith compliance. Mylan said staff has discussed the documentation with HCD and is attempting to locate earlier negotiation records that HCD requested.
Mayor Pro Tem Contos and Councilmember Gutierrez urged caution, with Contos saying it would be “premature” to move forward without HCD’s written confirmation of SLA compliance and a cost analysis of relocating city yard operations or rebuilding Fire Station 1. Councilmember Tony Wu and Councilwoman Diaz argued the city needed to move forward to address long-standing challenges, particularly firefighter housing and a condemned Station 1.
After extended council debate and public comment, a substitute motion to approve the ENA — described by proponents as a first, nonbinding step to negotiate terms and perform due diligence — passed on a 3–2 vote. Council discussion emphasized that an ENA itself does not convey property and that any purchase-and-sale agreement would require further due diligence and another council vote.
The council did not adopt any final sale or disposition terms at the meeting; staff said that any future purchase-and-sale agreement would follow completion of due diligence and, if needed, further coordination with HCD.
What happens next: Staff said it will continue negotiations under the ENA, continue to search for HCD-requested documents, and bring any purchase-and-sale agreement back to the council for approval. The acting city manager said any HCD determination that the city has not complied would require pausing or restarting parts of the process, including potentially reissuing an RFP.
The council’s discussion and the public comments made the legal and financial risks central to future steps: speakers and several council members noted that SLA violations can trigger steep penalties tied to disposition values. The council did not finalize relocation plans for city yard operations or a replacement plan for Fire Station 1; those items remain subject to future study and council review.
