HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10011996 - D9 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: October 1, 1996
SUBJECT: BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT - BUCHANAN EAST HANGAR COMPANY - SECOND
AMENDMENT TO LEASE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to EXECUTE, on behalf of the County, a Second
Amendment To Lease with Buchanan East Hangar Company, under the terms and conditions more
particularly set forth in said Second Amendment To Lease.
II. Financial Impact:
$13,400.00 will be deposited into the Airport Enterprise Fund.
III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background:
The Buchanan East Hangar Company (tenant) currently leases approximately .40 acres of land at the
Buchanan Field Airport. The tenant has expressed its desire to extend its lease by an additional ten
years. This item was brought before the Board of Supervisors at the September 17, 1996 Board meeting.
At that meeting, Mr. Anthony Tiritilli asked that the item be held over for one week so that he could gather
additional information. The Board then directed the Manager of Airports to provide a report on this
matter. The following is a summary of the pertinent issues.
In 1984, the County leased a parcel of land at the Buchanan Field Airport to the Buchanan East Hangar
Company. The lease term is due to expire on June 30, 1999. One of the principal owners of the
Buchanan East Hangar Company is Mr. Gerry Alves. In 1991, the County leased a separate parcel of
land at the Airport to L.C.A., Inc. (LCA). Mr. Alves is also a principal owner of LCA. Mr. Alves has built
four individual executive T-Hangars on the Buchanan East Hangar Company site. Mr. Alves has built
ninety individual aircraft T-Hangars on the LCA site. These leases are for locations on opposite sides
of the Airport, have varying terms and conditions, and are not related in any way other than in Mr. Alves'
involvement.
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: /V
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON /D-O/-/9 9b APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
APPROVM the recommendations as set forth above and REFERRED all County
and lease polices to the Finance Committee for report to the Board within
60 days.
VTE OF SUPERVISORS
V'-UNANIMOUS(ABSENT )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
HEW:DRA:kd I twit CW*Mettrfa is a bve and d
c1.B01a.t10 O�oard of SuBarvlsaCtIon taken m on the date the oorfe �x aWwrL
Orig Div:Airports(Contact-H.Wight 646-5722) PHIL BATCHELOR,Cle of the board
cc: County Administrator t•
Public Works Director -
Public Works Accounting aPw
Auditor/Controller
Aviation Advisory Committee
Federal Aviation Administration
r ,
BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT - BUCHANAN EAST HANGAR COMPANY -
SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE
October 1, 1996
Page Two
In early 1996, Mr. Alves requested that the County consider extending the LCA lease for an additional
ten years. The County agreed to extend the LCA lease in exchange for a payment of$112,500 to the
Airport Enterprise Fund. The Board approved the LCA amendment on July 23, 1996.
While the LCA lease extension was being negotiated, Mr. Alves also expressed an interest in extending
the term of the Buchanan East Hangar Company lease. At that time, Mr. Alves was informed by the
Manager of Airports that the County would consider this as well, but after the LCA amendment had been
completed. The Manager of Airports made it clear to Mr. Alves that the Buchanan East Hangar Company
lease extension would be a separate transaction from the LCA negotiation.
In July 1996, after the LCA agreement had been reached, Mr. Alves again asked that the County
consider extending the Buchanan East Hangar Company lease term by ten years. The value of the lease
extension was estimated to be approximately $15,000. Rather than requesting a cash payment to the
Airport Enterprise Fund, the amendment provided that Mr. Alves would perform certain specific
improvements to the Airport in exchange for the lease extension. This was the basis of the lease
amendment brought before the Board on September 17, 1996. The improvements have not been
completed pending the Board's authorization of the lease amendment.
In order to remove any doubt regarding the improvements, the Manager of Airports requested and
received a specific quote for the cost of the improvements from the Public Works Department. The quote
for this work is $13,400.00. Mr. Alves has agreed to pay this amount in cash. Mr. Alves will not be
completing any improvements on the Airport as part of this lease amendment. A revised lease
amendment is attached to this Board Order for the Board's consideration.
The Board should also be aware that Mr. Tiritilli is a tenant of Mr. Alves on the LCA site, and is not
involved with the Buchanan East Hangar Company site. Our understanding is that Mr. Alves and Mr.
Tiritilli have not been pleased with each other for some time.
Lease extensions are a sound method of raising additional revenue for the Airport Enterprise Fund. The
County has extended the lease term for one other tenant at the Airport (unrelated to Mr. Alves), and has
been approached by other airport tenants who have similar desires.
IV. Consequences of Negative Action:
The lease with Buchanan East Hangar Company will not be extended, and $13,400.00 will not be
deposited in the Airport Enterprise Fund.
423 Scottsdale Road
Pleasant Hill, CA,94523 .
September 30, 1996 'f
The Contra.Costa County
Board of Supervisors
Honorable:
Jim Rogers, 1 st Di strict,
Jeff Smith 2nd District
Gayle Bishop, 3rd District, <'t "
Mark DeSaulnier, 4th District,
Tom Torlakson, 5th District
Ladies and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: Request for 160 Day DO.ay For) ;#�f ` bid ern D-9, "Buchanan:Field Airport -Buchanan
.-,-
East Hangar Company- Second (io Lease" dated 9/24/96
This is the third week and occasion I have regiies#i d-4h 4§oard to delay its approval of the subject lease
extension to assure due process was followed and fe'V'4 v circumstances of two lease eactensions. 4n
both September 12th 1996 and September 17th 199fs- Piave requested a 60 day delay to permit me to
acquire information regarding the extension ofthe sulject-lease and its reported relationship to a lease
extension approved by the Board on July 23rd I996.1he'Board has carried the matter over only a week
at a time to ask questions of Staff. You have Been stplied some information by Mr. Alves, myself and
others. Some members of this Board have reeeivetl repoils of threats of reprisal made by Mr. Alves' to
other sub-tenants if they spoke at the Septemberjlth.n i king about the connection of these lease
extensions. It is difficult for individuals who.;have.theirretirement funds invested in hangars to risk not
getting an extension on their leases as well as'iake of'woirk to appear at midday Board meetings.
Each time this request for a 60 delay has be►tiwi9k&1"no one has identified any adverse effects to
either the County or Mr. Alves: These requests 00,-bot made to a11ow the Board a week for Staff to
prepare new summaries of the transactions. This.kino is�"ceded b3'myself and others to inquire and
collect information, Information provided by' `t&'re AM—Ing the July 23rd and the subject lease
extensions is inconsistent and materially incoilet . ;::`:
With respect to the subject lease extension it apl eaft"`
• The lease extension was unannovnved. r
• The County could have easily generated,ncioe` e by bidding.
• Mr: Alves made several statements the lease.extesit7is were dependent on one another with regard
to having to perform substantial grading v�br C'to swoten the(July 23rd) deal for the County.
• After Mr. Alves' comments were referenced At` hO S tember l 2th Board.meeting threats of .
retribution against anyone who.came to or spoke at-the September 23rd Board meeting. These
were reported to some Supervisors. (I had.noihil it ation from the Board anyone should come to
speak until Friday afternoon prior.)
tet.i i-+ i JJV 11 CJJ i r.�i-i rlaC�C 4.1 J LCVr-LLUrI'ICI'^I I rr,UJ I U
Page 2
• Supervisor DeSaulnier's office reported Mt W"igM6Uve verified the grading above was required
to secure the lease extension.
• The September. 12th request for approval.ib'6Wded_a'. h'ange from Mr. Alves performing the grading
work to making payment. This*thajVe in i o`, Sy=ero des evidence of separation.of the lease
extensions, e.g, either way he paid.
• The September 23rd approval request notes"th6e reek' requested approval for the lease extension
is valued at $15,000.00. Yet Mr. Alves suddeuly.'psid only the $13,400.00 estimate of the grading.
The estimate of the value of this land lease;as tie astute of the land lease value. There is no
explantation for the sudden decrease in the value ofthis lease.
Regarding the July 23rd 1996 lease extensioa.h appears `>
• Airport Management-was aware of Mr.. Alves"repretations to his sub-tertaitts to `Turn over. the
land lease to a group of"owners" since MAy.1993:
• This lease extension immediately followed`,lease ex" ion with the "Port-A-Port" hangar group,
where the"owners" were afforded an oppoiiunityto"16id with the existing landlord, 8 years prior to
its expiration..
• The LCA lease extension was approved 26 ye8rs w�advance, for a total of 36 years and is said`to be
very uncommon.
• This lease extension was done without the kiiowlea ',of sub-tenants (in secrecy)when Mr. Wight
could have easily communicated.
• Thea ,oval request of Jul 23rd ]996 is;nGot3taete< It does not indicate Mr. Alves was afforded
pP eq Y p .:.i
the opportunity of making a$30,000.00 'd61 rii ply,d,nt" with a balance due in November-time
enough to collectt double the amount charged'by.#lyeounty from the sub-Tenants. .
• Mr. Alves has utilized this approval to int-hi nidate hi regarding their appearance at this
Board's meeting by threatening to not "let thorn extetid their sub-leases". ,Apparently this has been
reported to some of the Supervisors. Also; you hie each a copy of the only written notification of
the lease extension afforded to sub-tenants. So>txte hive been told they would not get the extension,
some did not get a notice, there is nothing izt wiritingfor anyone other than this notice to call Mr.
Alves. 1 did not get a notice from Mr. Alves:. 'l<he Board should at least have some concern over
this aspect of this lease management by the.County i1 d Mr. Alves. Bath have responsibilities.
• The County has INITIALLY handed Mf,`.Alves$;I 1,2;000.00 with the extension of this lease to pay
the County, the ability to instantly finance I is,payments by collecting from.sub-tenants or after
commitments are made, borrow, and the ability to'discriminate against.any sub-tenant he wishes.
• The County will in the future have given.Mr.`"'AM hangar he wishes to rent for the ten year
extension time period.
The 60 day delay requested here is to permit,tt ySej#'(M.'4.'�Qthers) sufficient time to examine Grant
Assurances, the Enterprise Fund, Mr. Alves 1*toohi' iW4s for lease management and to confer with
counsel. Again there are no adverse impacts`i�*t tt:0 :.,00;...-I to permit this delay. It behooves this Board
to consider they have received more inforntation`tl3ai lis merely a personal conflict described by
Mr. Alves and act to afford due process to your otho,sub-tenant constituents.
Anthony R. Tiritilli
r
TOTAL P.03
V�.i-14-lyyb 13:23 FPOM PG&E CIS UEOELOPHENT PROJ TO
515133351513 P,01
October 14, 1996 FA,CSI 1:10 p.m.
TO: Ms Ann Cerbelli Assistant Clerk of the.Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
FAX: 510,335.1913
TWO.PAGES
FROM: Anthony R. Tiritilli, 423 Scottsdale Road,;:Pleas ht.Hill, CA 94,523
PAGE: 510.340.4612, FAX: 510.671.0556, MESSAG, *,:,510.674.1001, OFFICE: 415.973.3665
SUBJECT: TRANSCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT.OF MOTION FOR BOARD ACTION OF
ITEM D-9, OCTOBER I, 19%
After reviewing the copy of the tape sent to me ftrii youf,--*ffice, I agree with your interpretation of
Supervisor DeSaulnier's amendment in the last sentence:-`Initially I interpreted this to read.,.."So we
will not only defer your motion is to refer the issue.of all the leases .....". After our conversation.today
I listened again and agree it says....". So we wilt.my.only.d vergence with your motion is to refer the
issue of all the leases....". Below, I have italic ii6d.,W it I^think is the language on my copy of your tape.
I do not yet understand how you interpret this:to:;Meatt the lease extension in question is approved
prior to the Finance Committee report due in 60--OVs." Your response will be appreciated. Again., I
have copied Supervisor DeSaulnier's office and will seek clarification. Here is my revised transcription-
Chainnan, Supervisor Smith: "Let's hear frorfi the Supervisor that represents the District: Supervisor
DeSaulnier?"
Supervisor DeSaulnier: "I would seco A ilia:itt'iW6i, although i have a little different perspective
and that is: I'veetvifli`'lulr. Tiritillz, I've met with Mr. Alves, I've met
with our:Staff'` You kno think: `yeah, you're right, that this is
separate'. I think. would be wise, maybe if you would take amendment
to the motion,;just to`xefe.r the issue to report back on all the leases
which were included inn Mt. Tiritilli's (I DO NOT HEAR A MISSING
WORD HERE, Si PEA VISOR IS REF1:RMG TO MY LETTER) to
the Finance Corw*nitted"s:in so much as Supervisor Torlakson,
and I have two oftkee at`irports in our Districts. So we will my only
divergence withyourMotion is to refer the issue of all the leases and
how they were handled to the Finance Committee to report back in 60
days.,
Chairman, Supervisor Smith: "OK, is that ah.acceptabl�e'amendment to your motion?"
Supervisor Bishop: "Yes, definitely:. And-the only reason I made the motion was because
it is.in Mark. 3 isttictj because, I think probably, I was responsible for
pulling the, e'nd"a us d`.sking for further (pause)whatever, and uh, I
was more com 6rta le with where you were corning from."
TOTgL P.01
TO: Ms Assn Cerbelli Assistant Clerk of the 6ritra,CC6s lCounty Board of Supervisors
FAQ;: 510.3 3 5.1913
FOUR PAGES
FROM; Anthony R. Tiritilli, 423 Scottsdale R*6ad,:Plea t Hill, CA 94523
PACE: S1V,J/4U./v31%, FAX: 110.671.0556) ES $10.674.1001, OFFICE: 41.5.973.36M
SVB.lECT: TRANSCRIPTION OF A:MMMIENTF MOTION FUR BOARD ACTION OF
rrEM A-91 OCTOBER 1, 199+
I am writing you regarding the subject motion,ind Doa4.iction taken at the Board's October 1, 1996
meeting, I appeared at this meeting arab drhvl�itd letter#ti the Burd and mad's comments identical to
tray letter(cy attached). Last week l i;alled your o#S'eato End out when.the,BoardItactioll would be
reported and was informed of the draft wvrdirIg. I received a copy of thc, midio Lapp for this itet1s Friday
Octvbtj* 11,1996, transcribed pertinent portion and, it is clear; Supervisor DeSaulnier's amendment to
Supervisor Biz%hvp's wvtivo w, approve the lmz Z;�t�;�3i+3:t� «'d0 deYfermd. Below, I have., transrrihAd
the tape. Pc:l,ap: ;t ,a,ay Lt useful in your review
TU,, tA¢uaLllk,ttVlf Lq&,i15s whila ,&UpttvigQv Rich* orn ang motion to apprntrP Mr Alvns' East RAmp
lease extension for th.c Buchanan East HangartQ�p�y:{
Chairman, Supervisor Smith: "Let's hear frolfi theS""I! visor that represents the District: Supervisor
DeSaulnier?"
Supervisor DeSaulnier• "I would second,the a in6i h, although I have a.little different perspective
and that is: I'vi,met wit '`VIr. Tiritilli, I've met with IvTr. Alves, I've met
with our Staff. You know, I think: `yeah, you're right, that this is
separate'. I think it would be wise, maybe if you would take amendment
to the motion,just to'refer the issue to report back on all the leases
which were included in i� Tiritilli's (I DO NOT HEAR A MISSING
WORD HERE, SUPERVISOR IS REFERRfNG TO MY LETTER) to
the Finance Committee's:in so much as Supervisor Torlakson,
and I have two of the a0orts in our Districts. So we will not only defer
your motion is to refer the issue of all the leases and how then were
handled to the Finfan(>e G`t mmittee to report back in 60 days."
Chairman, Supervisor Smith: "OK, is that an acceptaable,'amendment to your motion?"
Supervisvx BWiop: `'ve$ definitely. Arad:th:-',only reason I made the motion was because
it is in Mark's Distr'idt is because, I think probably, I was responsible for
pulling the agenda acid Asking for further (pause) whatever, and uh, I
was more comfortable with where you were coming from."
GCT-14-1996 13:24 FROM PG&E CIS UEVELOPME1,4T PRUT TO 915103351913 P.01
Page 2
Chairman, Supervisor Smith: "Perfect! OIC, we have`a-4hotion, we have a second. All in favor?"
]Board: "Aye"
Chairman, Supervisor Smith: "Opposed?"
No response
Chairman, Supervisor Smith: "That's unanirh6u5'.
END OF ITEM D-9 "r
I will phone the Supervisor's office today and whatevet'-tte outcome suggest he phone you. Please
contact me at 510,340.4612 (page)and/or leave a ihes#ge at 510.674,1001,
Sincerely,
Anthony R. Tiritilli
C: Hon Mark I3eSaulnier, Supervisor, Distric#4 `FA;X:`�10.646.5767
TOTAL P.01
OCT-1"4-1996 11:07 FROM PG&E CIS DEVELOPMENT PROJ TO 915103351913 P.01
IFA CSI.ME
TO: Ms Ann Cerbelli Assistant Clerk of the Oontrd.Cosh.County Board of Supervisors
FAX: 510.335.1913
FOUR PAGES
FROM: Anthony R. Tiritilli, 423 Scottsdale void,,",P*�L. t Hill, CA,94523
PAGE: 510.340.4612, FAX: 510:071.0556 UESSAGIE: 510.674.1001, OFFICE: 415.973.3665
SUBJECT: TRANSCRIPTION OF AMEND1 ENT:OF MOTION FOR BOARD ACTION OF
ITEM D-9, OCTOBER 1, 190t
I am writing you regarding the subject motionAttd Boa d,'Action taken at. the Board's October 1, 1996
meeting, I appeared at this Meeting and delivered.etter tb the Board and made comments identical to
my letter. (cy attached). Last week I called your office to find out when the Board's action would be
reported and was informed of the draft wording. I received a copy of the audio tape for this item Friday
October 11,1996, transcribed pertinent portions and, it is'-clear; Supervisor DeSaulnier's amendment to
Supervisor Bishop's motion to approve the lease extensions was deferred. Below, I have transcribed
the tape. Perhaps it may be useful in your revlew.
This transcription begins while Supervisor Bishop is mdaldng motion to approve Mx. Alves' East Ramp
lease extension for the Buchanan East Hangar Corrip* an'
Chairman; Supervisor Smith: "Let's hear ftb b6� ,°SUt J.sor that represents the District; Supervisor
DeSaulnier?" .
Supervisor DeSaulnier: "I would seootid.ffie�i bb§''h although I have a little different perspective
and that is: I've:met with Mr. Tiritilli, I've met with Mr. Alves, I've met
with our Staff: You know, I think: `yeah, you're right, that this is
separate'. I think it would be wise, maybe if you would take amendment
to the motion,just to.ft&rthe issue to report back on all the leases
which were irieluded in Mr. Tiritilli's (I DO NOT HEAR A MISSING
WORD HERE, SUPERVISOR IS REFERRING TO MY LETTER) to
the Finance Comiivtt'e'' s in so much as Supervisor Torlakson,
and I have two ofthei.airports in our Districts. So wc will not only defer
your motion is to refer the issue of all the leases and how they were
handled to the Fihaticd.Committee to report back in 60 days."
Chairman, Supervisor Smith: "OK, is that anacmeptable anneTaclment to your motioi%?"
Supervisor Bishop: "Yes, definitely. Acid tkie only reason I made the motion was because
it is in Mark's District is:because, T think probably, I was responsible for
pulling the age,
nOa'atd:aslcing for further (pause)whatever, and uh, I
was more comfortable vv4ith where you were coming from,"
z
Page 2
Chairman,'Supervisor Smith: "Perfect! QK.,*,* have:a'01`otlon, We have a second. All in favorT
Board: "Aye"
Chairman, Supervisor Smith: "OpposedT
No response
Chairman, Supervisor Smith: "That's unanin;iPus"-, :-y
END OF ITEM D-9
I think the amendment made by Supervisor I)Oaulnie r; s clear: All the leases'noted in my letter, and
how they were handled were refered to the ftan0O1-mmittee for report back in 60 days. In the event
your office disagrees and issues its report as d a# d, `; i `requestin immediate notification. You may
page at 510.340.4612 and leave a message at.1.10.674.I041,
Sincerely,
Anthony R. Tiritilli
C: Hon Mark DeSaulnier, Supervisor, District 4; F'AY<`; 10.646.5767
M1
BOYD G. STEPHENS,M.D.
119 SHIPLEY AVE. _.
September 26.4996 DALY CITY, CALIFORNIA 94015 RECEIVED
Area Code 415
Telephone 878-5431
Board of Supervisors SW 2 7 IN
County of Contra Costa
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
651 Pine Street; Room 106
CONTRA COSTA CO.
Martinez, California 94553
RE: Buchanan East Hanger Company Lease Extension Request
Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors:
I am one of the occupants of the four hangars (AA) located on the East side of the field and
leased as "Buchanan East Hangar Company." I am a partner in that company along with Mr. R.B.
Mattheson and Mr. Gerald Awes.
Between my father and I, my family has maintained an aircraft continuously at Buchanan Field
since the very early 1950's. As an owner-pilot and user of one of the hangars, I have at all times
been very satisfied with the management, maintenance and operation of the hangars. I am not
aware of any complaints from any of the other three tenants or occupants of the hangar complex.
As a partner in the Buchanan East Hangar Company; I'm very concerned that the Board is
entertaining objections to the Buchanan East lease extension by tenants of LCA. Inc., an totally
unrelated corporation which leases hangars on the other side of the airport. I have no interest in
or involvement with LCA, Inc. I am not a shareholder, investor, employee, officer or director of
that company.
The application of Buchanan East Hangar Company for an extension of its lease should stand or
fall on its own merits. Buchanan East has always been a good tenant of the County, has paid its
rent in a timely manner; has cooperated with the airport manager; and has done everything asked
of it. Compensation which we propose to pay for the lease extension is fair and maintains active
taxpaying pilots on the field.
Therefore. I request that the objections from apparently disgruntled tenants of another landlord
agreement be ignored in this matter and that the Buchanan East Hangar Company lease extension
be granted.
Sincerely,
Bo G. Step , M.D.
t
423 Scottsdale Road
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
September 30, 1996
The Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
Honorable:
Jim Rogers, I st District,
Jeff Smith, 2nd District,
Gayle Bishop, 3rd District,
Mark DeSaulnier, 4th District,
Tom Torlakson, 5th District
Ladies and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: Request for 60 Day Delay For Approval of Item D-9, "Buchanan Field Airport - Buchanan
East Hangar Company - Second Amendment to Lease" dated 9/24/96
This is the third week and occasion I have requested the Board to delay its approval of the subject lease
extension to assure due process was followed and review circumstances of two lease extensions. On
both September 12th 1996 and September 17th 1996 I have requested a 60 day delay to permit me to
acquire information regarding the extension of the subject lease and its reported relationship to a lease
extension approved by the Board on July 23rd 1996. The Board has carried the matter over only a week
at a time to ask questions of Staff. You have been supplied some information by Mr. Alves, myself and
others. Some members of this Board have received reports of threats of reprisal made by Mr. Alves' to
other sub-tenants if they spoke at the September 17th meeting about the connection of these lease
extensions. It is difficult for individuals who have their retirement funds invested in hangars to risk not
getting an extension on their leases as well as take off work to appear at midday Board meetings.
Each time this request for a 60 delay has been made, no one has identified any adverse effects to
either the County or Mr. Alves. These requests were not made to allow the Board a week for Staff to
prepare new summaries of the transactions. This time is needed by myself and others to inquire and
collect information. Information provided by Staff regarding the July 23rd and the subject lease
extensions is inconsistent and materially incomplete.
With respect to the subject lease extension it appears:
• The lease extension was unannounced.
• The County could have easily generated more revenue by bidding.
• Mr. Alves made several statements the lease extensions were dependent on one another with regard
to having to perform substantial grading work to sweeten the (July 23rd) deal for the County.
• After Mr. Alves' comments were referenced at the September 12th Board meeting threats of
retribution against anyone who came to or spoke at the September 23rd Board meeting. These
were reported to some Supervisors. (I had no information from the Board anyone should come to
speak until Friday afternoon prior.)
, a
Page 2
• Supervisor DeSaulnier's office reported Mr. Wight to have verified the grading above was required
to secure the lease extension.
• The September 12th request for approval included a change from Mr. Alves performing the grading
work to making payment. This change in no way provides evidence of separation of the lease
extensions, e.g. either way he paid.
• The September 23rd approval request notes the current requested approval for the lease extension
is valued at $15,000.00. Yet Mr. Alves suddenly paid only the $13,400.00 estimate of the grading.
The estimate of the value of this land lease is the estimate of the land lease value. There is no
explanation for the sudden decrease in the value of this lease.
Regarding the July 23rd 1996 lease extension it appears:
• Airport Management was aware of Mr. Alves' representations to his sub-tenants to "turn over" the
land lease to a group of"owners" since May 1993.
• This lease extension immediately followed a lease extension with the"Port-A-Port" hangar group,
where the"owners" were afforded an opportunity to bid with the existing landlord, 8 years prior to
its expiration.
• The LCA lease extension was approved 26 years in advance, for a total of 36 years and is said to be
very uncommon.
• This lease extension was done without the knowledge of sub-tenants (in secrecy) when Mr. Wight
could have easily communicated.
• The approval request of July 23rd 1996 is incomplete. It does not indicate Mr. Alves was afforded
the opportunity of making a $30,000.00 "down payment" with a balance due in November-time
enough to collect double the amount charged by the County from the sub-tenants.
• Mr. Alves has utilized this approval to intimidate his sub-tenants regarding their appearance at this
Board's meeting by threatening to not "let them extend their sub-leases". Apparently this has been
reported to some of the Supervisors. Also, you have each a copy of the only written notification of
the lease extension afforded to sub-tenants. Some have been told they would not get the extension,
some did not get a notice, there is nothing in writing for anyone other than this notice to call Mr.
Alves. I did not get a notice from Mr. Alves. The Board should at least have some concern over
this aspect of this lease management by the County and Mr. Alves. Both have responsibilities.
• The County has INITIALLY handed Mr. Alves $112,000.00 with the extension of this lease to pay
the County, the ability to instantly finance his payments by collecting from sub-tenants or after
commitments are made, borrow, and the ability to discriminate against any sub-tenant he wishes.
• The County will in the future have given Mr. Alves ANY hangar he wishes to rent for the ten year
extension time period.
The 60 day delay requested here is to permit myself(and others) sufficient time to examine Grant
Assurances, the Enterprise Fund, Mr. Alves responsibilities for lease management and to confer with
counsel. Again there are no adverse impacts for the Board to permit this delay. It behooves this Board
to consider they have received more information than this is merely a personal conflict described by
Mr. Alves and act to afford due process to your other sub-tenant constituents.
Anthony R. Tiritilli
RECEIVED
3
1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD.,
Oft
STARR& SUITE 700, ^
WALNUT CREEK, CLERK BOARD OFSUPERtt��ViSpRa
REGALIA CALIFORNIA 94596 CONTRA COSTA Ct3 OAKLAND OFFICE
A PROFESSIONAL FACSIMILE (510) 933-4126 ' "" -'"" ° FACSIMILE (510)465-1202
LAW CORPORATION TELEPHONE (510) 935-9400 TELEPHONE (510)465-3800
GEORGE B.SPEIR
GEORGE B. SPEIR
September 26, 1996
The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chairman
Members of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94552
Re: Second Amendment to Lease with Buchanan East
Hangar Company, Buchanan Field Airport
Dear Chairman Smith and Members of the Board:
This office represents Buchanan East Hangar Company
with respect to its request for a ten-year extension of its lease
at Buchanan Field Airport.
In 1984 the County leased a 4/10th acre parcel of land
on the east side of Buchanan Field to Buchanan East Hangar
Company. Buchanan East constructed four individual executive
aircraft storage hangars on the site. The lease will expire in
2004 . By this application, Buchanan East seeks a ten-year
extension of the existing lease term.
Buchanan East Hangar Company is a partnership comprised
of three partners: Rouen B. Mattheson, Bo-,;'d Stephens, and
Gerald Alves. One of the four hangars is used .by Boyd Stephens,
and the remaining three are rented to third-party tenants.
For 12 years Buchanan East has been a good tenant of
the County, has complied fully with the lease terms, has paid its
rent, and has worked cooperatively with the airport manager and
other County staff. The strong working relationship between
Buchanan East and the County is borne out by support for this
proposal by the County Public Works Director, the Manager of
Airports, and the County Lease Manager. This support is
documented in Michael Walford's September 24, 1996 report
requesting that the Board approve and authorize this ten-year
lease extension.
The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chairman
Members of the Board of Supervisors ,
County of Contra Costa
September 26, 1996
Page 2
Significantly, there is no opposition to this proposal
from any party associated with Buchanan East Hangar Company or
the leased site. None of the Buchanan East tenants have appeared
or have protested the requested lease extension. To the
contrary, Buchanan East owners, users, and tenants support the
application.
The only opposition to this application comes from a
small group of tenants who lease hangars from LCA, Inc. at the
west ramp of the airport, the opposite side of the airport from
Buchanan East Hangar Company's site. LCA leases property from
the County on which aircraft storage hangars have been
constructed. The LCA lease was extended by the Board on July 23 ,
1996 for an additional ten-year term, for which LCA paid the
County $112, 500. There is no application pending before the
Board from LCA and the hangars on the west side of the airport
have nothing whatsoever to do with this application.
The opposition to this request is a product of a
personality clash between Gerald Alves, one of the shareholders
of LCA, Inc. , and Anthony Tiritilli, a tenant of LCA. Because
Mr. Alves is one of three partners in Buchanan East, Mr.
Tiritilli has brought the dispute to the Board. Mr. Alves is not
the sole owner of LCA, Inc. and neither of the other partners at
Buchanan East have any interest in LCA, Inc. They are separate
legal entities with separate ownership.
In his comments to the Board on September 24 , 1996, Mr.
Tiritilli requested that if the Buchanan East application is
granted, that it be conditioned upon LCA, Inc. being compelled to
offer lease extensions to tenants at this unrelated project.
Comments were also made regarding potential retaliation by LCA,
Inc. in refusing to grant leasehold extensions to tenants who
appeared and spoke before the Board. The only retaliation here
is the vindictive actions by Mr. Tiritilli and a handful of
disgruntled LCA tenants who are appearing here to interfere with
an unrelated lease extension request by an unrelated company.
To set the record straight, the following facts should
be considered by the Board.
Shortly after this Board approved a ten-year lease
extension of the LCA site, LCA offered each of its 37 tenants the
opportunity to extend their lease. A copy of the notice is
attached. The offer was sent to every tenant, including Mr.
Tiritilli. LCA's 37 tenants lease 60 aircraft hangars at the
The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chairman
Members of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
September 26, 1996
Page 3
site. Of those, 25 tenants, leasing 43 hangars, accepted the
extension offer. Nine tenants, leasing 14 hangars, declined the
offer, and three tenants failed to respond, including Mr.
Tiritilli and Fred Egli, another disgruntled tenant.
Instead of responding to the extension offer, Mr.
Tiritilli obtained a list of the telephone numbers of each LCA
tenant and contacted them in an effort to convince them not to
accept the offer, but rather to band together to negotiate a
better deal. The interference with LCA's leaseholds with the
other tenants became so pervasive that on August 28, counsel for
LCA was forced to write letters to both Mr. Tiritilli and Mr.
Egli, and instruct them to cease their interference with LCA's
contractual relations. Copies of these letters are also
enclosed.
From the foregoing, it is obvious that there has not
been, nor can there be, any retaliation by LCA against tenants
who speak before the Board with respect to their leasehold
extensions. The extensions have been offered, the time to accept
the offer expired September 1, and 34 of 37 tenants specifically
responded to that request. Mr. Tiritilli's request, therefore,
that this Board condition Buchanan East Hangar Company's request
for a leasehold extension on LCA, Inc. , being required to offer
lease extensions to its tenants is motivated solely by his
personal interests. The only retaliation present here is Mr.
Tiritilli's continued harassment of LCA, Inc. and Gerald Alves as
a result of a personality clash which apparently exists between
the two men.
Buchanan East's request for a ten-year lease extension
should be granted for the ioll-lowing reasons:
1. The $13 , 400 lease extension payment is fair and
reasonable. In fact, it is believed to be the highest per-hangar
lease extension payment ever made at Buchanan Field.
2 . Buchanan East has always been a good tenant, has
cooperated fully with the County, and its application is
supported by County staff.
3 . Buchanan East tenants, users and partners support
the application. Opposition to the request comes from tenants
across the airport, at an unrelated hangar site.
The Honorable Jeff Smith, Chairman
Members of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
September 26, 1996
Page 4
4 . It would be unfair andimproper for the Board to
deny this lease extension based upon the vindictive and
retaliatory complaints by tenants of another landlord, at another
site.
5. It would be unfair and improper of the Board to
condition the Buchanan East application upon conduct of a third
party, i.e. , LCA, Inc. , in demanding that LCA renew its offer of
leasehold extensions to Messrs. Tiritilli and Egli.
This application for a leasehold extension is a
relatively simple matter and is fully supported by every party
having anything to do with the Buchanan East Hangars. Buchanan
East Hangar Company requests that the application for lease
extension be granted as requested by staff.
Resp tfully submitted,
MI E STARR & REGALIA
4
o pe
GBS/ckh
Enclosures
Rx TIUNANTS
From GER"AMS, LCA,IM 1
No; 'FEN-YEAR LEASE EXTENSION � �
i
Dat**. August t`3, 1996 {
I
■ ANY TENANTS tHA`T ARE INTERESTED 114 A s
I O-YEAR. LEASE LXTFNSTUN FOR$2,500 PER
HANGAR OR 51;250 PER HALF HANGAR PLEASE
CON.rACr ME BY PAGER AT 5101926-8426 AS SOO
AS.POSSIBLE FOR MORE INFORMATION.
THIS OFFER.WILL BE GOOD UNTIL SEYr 1 ST ANIP
WILL NOT BE RIEPEATED. I
t
f
i
i
t
■
MILLER 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD.
STARRY SITE 700
WALNUT CREEK OAKLAND OFFICE
REGALIA CALIFORNIA 94596 TELEPHONE (510) 465-3800
A PROFESS IONAL FACSIMILE (510) 933-4126 SACRAMENTO OFFICE
LAW CORPORATION TELEPHONE (510) 935-9400 TELEPHONE (916) 443-6700
PAUL D.MARISK HAL
August 28, 1996
Anthony R. Tiritilli
423 Scottsdale Road
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Dear Mr. Tiritilli:
The undersigned represents LCA, Inc. which is the
Master Lessee of a Ground Lease with Contra Costa County
concerning real property located at Buchanan Field Airport.
As you know, our client has recently negotiated a ten
(10) year extension of its Ground Lease with the County of Contra
Costa. Following this 10-year extension our client contacted its
various subtenants to solicit their interest in extending their
various subleases for a 10-year period.
It has come to our attention that you are intentionally
interfering with our client's efforts to negotiate these sublease
extensions and that you are attempting to interfere with our
client's lease with the County of Contra Costa.
Demand is hereby made that- you immediately cease all
efforts to interfere with our client's efforts to negotiate
sublease extensions with its current subtenants and with our
client's existing Ground Lease with the County of Contra Costa.
Your efforts to interfere with these relationships (presumably to
obtain more favorable lease terms from our client) have and will
continue to cause substantial damages to our client for which you
will be held responsible.
ALEU133432
122000.1
Anthony R. Tiritilli
August 28, 1996
Page 2
Therefore, I urge you to cease all such actions
immediately.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Very truly yours,
MILLER, ST AL
Paul D. Marienthal
PDM/sld
ALEul33432
122000.1
MILLER 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD.
ST1L\Zl{-{l1{{L A TR SUITE 700
WALNUT CREEK OAKLAND OFFICE
REGALIA CALIFORNIA 94596 TELEPHONE (510) 465-3800
A PROFESS IONAL FACSIMILE (510) 933-4126 SACRAMENTO OFFICE
LAW CORPORATION TELEPHONE (510) 935-940C TELEPHONE (916) 443-6700
PAUL D.MARIENTHAL
August 28, 1996
Fred W. Egli
1900 Meadow Road
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Dear Mr. Egli:
The undersigned represents LCA, Inc. which is the
Master Lessee of a Ground Lease with Contra Costa County
concerning real property located at Buchanan Field Airport.
As you know, our client has recently negotiated a ten
(10) year extension of its Ground Lease with the County of Contra
Costa. Following this 10-year extension our client contacted its
various subtenants to solicit their interest in extending their
various subleases for a 10-year period.
It has come to our attention that you are intentionally
interfering with our client's efforts to negotiate these sublease
extensions and that you are attempting to interfere with our
client's lease with the County of Contra Costa.
Demand is hereby made that you immediately cease all
efforts to interfere with our client's efforts to negotiate
sublease extensions with its current subtenants and with our
client's existing Ground Lease with the County of Contra Costa.
Your efforts to interfere with these relationships (presumably to
obtain more favorable lease terms from our client) have and will
continue to cause substantial damages to our client for which you
will be held responsible.
M.EU\33432
122000.1
Fred W. Egli
August 28, 1996
Page 2
Therefore, I urge you to cease all such actions
immediately.
Thank you for your anticipated -cooperation.
Very truly yrs,
MILLER, S'F & E ALI
Paul D. Marienthal
PDM/sld
ALE1J133432
122000.1