Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07251989 - 2.4 2.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 25, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: (TWO MOTIONS - SEE SEPARATE VOTES BELOW) ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: Revenue Ground Lease for Public Works Department, Buchanan Fields Golf Course, 3330 Concord Avenue, Concord CA (WAM 819) The Board had before it this day, as a determination item, the recommendation of the County Administrator to authorize the Director of General Services to execute, on behalf of the County, a Revenue Lease with Buchanan Fields Golf Course, Inc. , for approximately 49 acres at 3330 Concord Avenue, Concord, California, for the operation of a public golf course on Buchanan Field Airport, under the terms and conditions more particularly set forth in said lease. The Public Works Director explained the details of the lease and the need for acquisition of a portion of the land for a clear zone to be fenced off as required by the FAA and for the extension of Diamond Boulevard from Concord Avenue to Center Avenue to provide access to the development of the West side of Buchanan Field. Board members discussed with staff their various interests and concerns with respect to the development of the Buchanan Field area, possible uses for the land, and the terms of the lease, including extension of Diamond Boulevard, a possible restaurant and club house, and the reconfiguration of the golf course, and comparables. The Chair recognized persons in the audience who requested to speak: Christine Callahan, 2204 Concord Boulevard, Concord, attorney for Buchanan Fields Golf Course, advised that she had submitted a packet of six letters of recommendation and a petition containing over 2 , 000 signatures appealing to the Airport Land Use Commission and Board of Supervisors to preserve Buchanan Fields Golf Course for golf course and driving range purposes. She advised that her client agreed with the staff recommendation. She urged the Board to approve the recommendations of staff. Supervisor McPeak advised that the Master Plan designated this area be maintained as a golf course, and recommended that the Board reaffirm the previous designation of golf course and open space landscaping as appropriate land use for approximately 49 acres at Buchanan Field Airport as designated in the existing airport layout plan and the draft master plan. Chairman Torlakson read into the record remarks left by Mr. J. K. Kramer (no address given) favoring retention of the Buchanan Fields Golf Course, and from H. E. Hern, 1384 Baily Place, Walnut Creek, commenting favorably on the flat course enjoyed by seniors and the fact that they don' t have to wait. Arnie Levitt, 4520 Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, architect for Buchanan Fields Golf Course, described the improvements proposed, and answered questions by Board members, including provisions for water conversation landscaping which will be required by the County. Ben Gore, 931 Redwood Drive, Danville, advised that he felt that the lessee' s reputation as a successful golf course operator is not relevant to the proposed lease and stated that he had submitted an offer which he felt would provide more dollars to the County, which offer he felt had not been properly considered. He further questioned the adequacy of the environmental studies and requested that the Board reject the lease. He asked for the opportunity to come back again to discuss other options. David Fowler, 329 Camelback, #8, Pleasant Hill, the golf professional and instructor at Buchanan Fields Golf Course, described the benefits to members of the community, both young and old, and urged that the lease be approved. Supervisor McPeak inquired of staff what had been the history of correspondence with Mr. Strickland and Mr. Gore, and asked for comments on Mr. Gore' s testimony. Dee Bell of the County Administrator' s office advised that Mr. Gore and Mr. Strickland had brought their proposal to the County Administrator and that he was asked to review it. He commented that it was a very attractive proposal in the way of high revenue and if that in fact could be verified and it was consistent with the County' s objective for the site, the County would certainly have to take a look at it or any proposal like it; but that he had prepared a list of questions trying to get a verification of the details and backup material, what they may have prepared for that proposal, and that he had tried to find out what they were trying to do, who they were, what kind of experience they had, what kind of verification they had for the revenue figures they had projected, and they responded saying that they had no backup but that they could prepare that if given enough time; and that his advice back to them was that if they didn' t have the backup available, then the County certainly would not want them to spend a lot time and money trying to prepare something now, and so that is where it stands from staff ' s point of view now. They have given the County an unsolicited proposal, the County doesn' t know what it is as far as what they are really proposing as a complex or development and they have not been able to provide any backup or verification for the revenue figures that they have guaranteed in their proposal. Dee Bell noted that therefore staff has not been able to evaluate it at this point in time. Supervisor McPeak advised that she had asked the question because the proposal made by Mr. Gore and Mr. Strickland was also shared with her office and that she had asked the County Administrator to get involved and to respond, and to get the information needed in order to evaluate the proposal. She noted that the County had not yet received the information that would allow the County to evaluate it. She inquired as to what was the staff ' s understanding of a proposed sports complex, whether it was buildings on the property and did it relate to the clear zone. Dee Bell advised that had not been determined inasmuch as Mr. Strickland and Mr. Gore had not shared any of that information with staff, but that it sounded as if there was not a lot of interest in the golf course portion of it, but it sounded, especially with those kind of revenue projections, as if it would require some much higher volume of sales in order to come up with that kind of revenue, but that staff really does not know because they have not been furnished any kind of detail or backup. Supervisor McPeak advised that she had two motions to offer the Board. She thereupon MOVED to reaffirm the Board' s previous designation for land use in this vicinity for the purposes of a golf course and open space landscaping. Supervisor Powers seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Supervisor McPeak then MOVED that the Board declare its intent to re-negotiate the lease with the current lease holder, and to request the County Administrator, the Public Works Director and County Counsel to review the comparables, and receive any input that any individual from the public or other party wishes to provide in terms of comparables; to meet with the lease holder and review the proposed structure of revenue back to the County, and to present no later than August 15, 1989, a lease for the Board' s approval that will in their opinion maximize the revenue to the County off of the use of that property as a golf course, given the configuration the County wants for the realignment; and to share with the Board all correspondence that has transpired between any other parties interested in this parcel and any of the Departments within this County. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Powers. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Schroder. Supervisor Schroder indicated that he would rather not declare intent before receiving the information, but would prefer to get further information and then take action. Supervisor McPeak commented that in her view it is in the interest of the County to secure earlier than the termination of the lease two years from now a re-negotiation so that the County can market the property on the west side of the airport and return revenue to the County, not just to the airport, but to the County General Fund. She stated that that is one of the reasons that she is persuaded that the County should negotiate. She noted that she was withholding judgement on the proposed lease structure. She reiterated her desire to see comparables. i hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervis o the date shown. ATTESTED: PHIL BAT ELdR,Clerk of the Board of Supervl ra and County Administrator cc: General Services - Lease Management By u Deputy Public Works Director Airport Manager County Counsel County Administrator