City Council to Review Driving Range Extension in Closed Session

On April 6, 2011 the South Pasadena city council voted against (Ten and Sifuentes for and Schneider, Putnam and Cacciotti against) directing staff to negotiate with Donovan Bros. on a full extension of the driving range to the border with the Nature Park. On a 5-0 vote, the city council directed staff to negotiate in closed session a compromise position with the prospective golf course lessee.

For more information on this meeting, please call the city and request the meeting minutes. They were posted on the web but have since been taken down. I wrote about the meeting on this blog. There is also information in the following newspapers:

The South Pasadena Patch
The Pasadena Star-News
The South Pasadena Review, April 13, 2011, p.2, Council Seeks Compromise on Golf Course Driving Range

Having read through the 58-page agenda packet (yes, several page were "intentionally left blank" but it was quite a read) here are my continuing concerns about this endeavor.

Opposition to Including Extension of the Driving Range in the Golf Course Lease

I am opposed to the inclusion of an extension of the driving range in the golf course lease agreement on the following grounds.

1. Environmental concerns
Loss of habitat, increased irrigation (there are serious questions about the legality of withdrawing water from Arroyo Seco without proper Water Master rights), runoff concerns, and protection of native trees during construction and operation of the driving range extension. As the UC researcher noted during the April 6, 2011 city council meeting, although runoff from turf grass may be minimal, not having seen this site, it is not known whether runoff into the Arroyo Seco would increase or not. Although the city council voted to instruct staff to negotiate with the golf course lessee to protect trees in the land in question, there was no serious proposal on how to protect these trees and still create a driving range that may require significant grade changes. There was no arborist report on the trees, nor was there any information on the changes that might be needed to the existing grade in order to accommodate the driving range activity, both recreational and maintenance.

2. The public was not adequately informed of change in land use for the extension of the driving range
Although the Golf Course Lease Subcommittee did allow for public comment from February 2007 through June 2010, there were no public comments in support of a driving range extension. In fact the minutes for the February 17, 2010 city council meeting indicate that the council rejected a potential expansion of the driving range.

According to minutes of the February 17, 2010 city council meeting (attachment 4, page 298), on a vote of 5 - 0 city council advised city staff to “issue proposed RFP... taking into consideration changes recommended by Councilmember Cacciotti: … Section 1.5 to convey that the Nature Park will be expanded for trails and deletion of a footnote that states the range can be extended 30 yards; allowances are to be made to take into consideration the grant from Supervisor Antonovich that will involve moving a fence; and that the next lease agreement exclude a triangular piece of property (90 ft. by the Arroyo and 180 ft by the trail).”

Furthermore, the city had issued an RFP for use of this land as an extension of the Nature Park and unanimously approved a resolution for a $150,000 project from North East Trees to extend the trail, remove weeds, plant native plants, and place rocks and boulders in the area.

3. Financial considerations
The Arroyo Seco Golf Course RFP states in item 8. Operator Upfront Investment (pp. 265-266) that the golf course lessee will front the money to be returned through rent credits.

“City will negotiate a substantial Rent Credit which will compensate the Operator for the cost of money invested in approved Capital Improvements plus an incentive for making the investment. The Rent Credit will be applied to the annual rent as long as it takes to recapture the Operator’s investment.”

In other words, the risk for and cost of the capital improvements are completely assumed by the city. If the driving range extension does not result in significantly higher revenue, the amount of money the city will receive from the golf course lessee will be reduced by the Rent Credit until the investment, “plus an incentive for making the investment,” is fully repaid to the lessee.

It should be noted that the driving range grossed $232,763 in 2006, $219, 215 in 2007, $187,571 in 2008. We have no estimates on the cost of the driving range extension but even with significant increases in gross revenue from the driving range, the costs may be sufficiently high to make this improvement fiscally unwise.

4. Legal considerations
For changes in land use, CEQA requires an environmental analysis to determine whether a full EIR is required. Even if a Negative Declaration is ultimately issued after having conducted environmental analysis, a public comment period applies. In any event there has been no Negative Declaration or environmental analysis. I don’t believe there is a categorical exemption from CEQA because the property in question was encompassed within the footprint of the prior lease as the City Attorney appeared to suggest at the prior council meeting. With all of the physical changes and disturbance of ground that would ensue from the driving range extension, it strains credulity to think that CEQA would not apply.

There may be serious questions about whether the city was in compliance with the Brown Act during the Closed Session City Council meeting of March 2, 2011, during which the driving range extension was discussed. This would also apply to tonight's closed session meeting, item 5, in which according to the April 6, 2011 motion, the city will be negotiating a "compromise" position for a partial extension of the driving range. Although real estate negotiations on price and terms of payment can be executed in closed session, changes in land use are not specifically covered. Furthermore, the Supreme Court case of Laurel Heights Improvement Association teaches that the environmental analysis must precede any discretionary action by city council.

Full disclosure of the financial, environmental, and open space consequences of the driving range extension should be brought out into the open and given adequate time for public review and comment in accordance with applicable law.

City Council should take the appropriate time to review these points and possible needed actions. If there is concern regarding the impending expiration of the current lease, a number of solutions should be explored, including having the current operator function on a month-to-month basis, having the Department of Recreation and Parks operate the facilities on a temporary basis, or the city could go forward and enter into a lease with Donovan Bros., addressing all other modifications and improvements except the extension of the driving range. That last issue could be resolved by lease amendment, if necessary.