The golf course extension is once again on the agenda for the next open session of city council, Wednesday, May 4, 2011. I am really trying to get this right but I'm no lawyer and so I am not completely clear on it. The following is a cut/paste of the agenda item and the supplementary info on it in the agenda packet.
I also received a couple of emails from individuals who believe that the golf course extension can not be included in the proposed lease until the environmental assessment is done.
I stand firm on not wanting any extension of the golf course driving range because of:
1. Financial risk for the city in the form of rent credits for "improvements" and incentive to make improvements. (Isn't increased business enough incentive? What other South Pasadena business is given rent credits, tax credits, or whatever to make business improvements?)
2. The land is better used as habitat for the health and well-being of plants, animals and people.
3. This very city council approved plans by a vote of 5-0 in 2009 to extend trails from the Nature Park into this land. In fact they approved a proposal by North East Trees to take on the project. An "about-face" reduces the city's credibility when it claims that it has an good environmental record. I am concerned that this move will make it harder for the city to get funding for projects for clean water, clean air, and other environmental improvements.
4. Before the land is given to the golf course it should be vetted fully with the public. This means the public is entitled to clear, accurate and complete information on what is at stake, including answers to the following questions:
May 4, 2011 Agenda Item 12. Consideration to add the property adjacent to the back of the driving range to the golf course lease agreement.As I read this, Donovan Bros. is not interested in leasing the golf course without being able to extend the driving range. The compromise number is 27 yards, as opposed to the original 35 yard extension. It is not clear to me exactly where either of these lines would be. My question to Donovan Brothers is, if the extension of the driving range is so important to the success of the entire golf course facility, are you willing to take on some of the financial risk?
Agenda Packet, Item 12:
Recommendation
May 4, 2011
Consideration to Add the Property Adjacent to the Back of the
Driving Range to the Golf Course Lease Agreement
It is recommended that the City Council:
I. Direct staff as to whether the Council wishes to consider including a portion of the property adjacent to the back of the range to the proposed lease agreement with Donovan Bros. Golf;
2. Direct staff as to whether it wishes to consider an approximate 27 yard extension to the driving range; and
3. Direct staff to return with a lease agreement including exact measurements of a proposed extension, capital improvement items, rent credits and appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Fiscal Impact
None.
Commission Review and Recommendation
The Arroyo Seco Lease Committee recommended Donovan Bros. Golf to operate the City'S Golf
Course.
Background
Formal negotiations with Donovan Bros. Golf began during Closed Session on March 2, 2011 and subsequently during closed session on March 16, 2011. At the March 16, 2011 Closed Session, City Council asked staff to bring the option of extending the driving range to open session. Staff presented a proposed extension of the driving range to the City Council at the April 6, 2011 where a motion to have the City Council consider allowing for a full extension failed. However, City Council directed staff to return to negotiations with Donovan Bros. Golf and propose a less-than-full extension of the driving range, which would leave a reasonable space between the Nature Park and the extended driving range.
Analysis
During negotiations with Donovan Bros. Golf on April 27, 2011 they were asked if they would be willing to enter into a lease with the City for the operation of the Golf Course if the driving range were to remain at its present length. Donovan Bros responded by saying that they were not willing to lease the golf course without the right to extend the driving range. Donovan feels that the driving range is the amenity that needs the most attention and extending it would make the golf course a more-viable operation. They did say that they would accept an approximate 27 yard extension of the driving range and they were willing to curve the fence, however this would prove more costly.
Should the City Council direct staff to bring back for its consideration a recommendation to allow for an extension of the driving range, staff will work with the Planning Deparhnent to begin the appropriate CEQA process. Furthermore, Staff will also address the pending grant applied for and awarded to North East Trees to expand the nature park into the unimproved area in the back of the driving range.
Legal Review
The City Attorney has reviewed this report.
Public Notification of Agenda Item
The public was made aware that this item was to be considered this evening by virtue of its inclusion on the legally publicly noticed agenda, posting of the same agenda and reports on the City's website and/or notice in the South Pasadena Review and/or the Pasadena Star-News.
I also received a couple of emails from individuals who believe that the golf course extension can not be included in the proposed lease until the environmental assessment is done.
I stand firm on not wanting any extension of the golf course driving range because of:
1. Financial risk for the city in the form of rent credits for "improvements" and incentive to make improvements. (Isn't increased business enough incentive? What other South Pasadena business is given rent credits, tax credits, or whatever to make business improvements?)
2. The land is better used as habitat for the health and well-being of plants, animals and people.
3. This very city council approved plans by a vote of 5-0 in 2009 to extend trails from the Nature Park into this land. In fact they approved a proposal by North East Trees to take on the project. An "about-face" reduces the city's credibility when it claims that it has an good environmental record. I am concerned that this move will make it harder for the city to get funding for projects for clean water, clean air, and other environmental improvements.
4. Before the land is given to the golf course it should be vetted fully with the public. This means the public is entitled to clear, accurate and complete information on what is at stake, including answers to the following questions:
- What will be the exact location of the border and what type of fencing will be used?
- How much soil disturbance and grade change is needed to extend the driving range?
- If soil is to be removed, how will it be disposed of? If there has been dumping on the site and the soil is contaminated, who will pay for the cleanup?
- How much is this project likely to cost and who will pay for it - both now and later? What are the possible cost overruns?
- How much is the Environemental Assessment and possible full EIR likely to cost the city? Will Donovan Bros. pay this upfront also? Will they get rent credits to cover the preconstruction costs even if they fail to get final approval for the extension?
- How much additional money can we expect the extension to generate and how are these numbers calculated?
- How will the trees be protected during construction and during use of the land as a driving range?
- How much pesticide- and fertilizer-contaminated runoff can be expected to enter the Arroyo Seco from the turf grass?
- How much additional water will be required to maintain the area and where will this water come from?
- Other water issues: Is the golf course currently irrigated with water drawn from the Arroyo Seco? Is this legal? If it has been irrigated with Arroyo Seco water, will it be allowed to continue to use this water and even increase this usage? Is it safe to use water drawn from the Arroyo Seco on turf that children and adults play on?
- Is it legal to include this provision (extension of the golf course driving range) in the lease before environmental review?
- Why should the lease include this provision before these questions are answered?
No comments:
Post a Comment