SR-906-000 (7)
-
- I/~
Santa Monica. Ca11fornia. April 28. 1981
APn 2 8 1981
/?J~-~oo
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: C1ty Staff
SUBJECT: Sand and Sea Club Lease
Introduction
This report reviews the current situation with regard to the Sand and Sea Club.
lists alternatives for the use of the site and recommends a specific use.
B.ackground
The conceSS1on has been considered to be a private club. While the price of membership
may be restr1ctive. it is the only beach club where the general public 1S eligible to
J01n. A non-discriminat1on clause 1n the lease provides for th1S. There 15 a
restrict10n on the total number of memberships. This number has been about 500 families.
A membersh1p fee of $850 per family is charged annually, and the memberships must be
renewed each year. Current members are notified 1n March of the need to renew.
Depend1ng upon the response to this notice, new members may join up to the 500 fam11y
1 imit.
The State Department of Recreation and Parks has 1ndicated that the1r appra1sa1 of the
Sand and Sea Club site will not be completed unt11 after April 24,1981. The
appra1sal is intended to set the rental value for the slte based upon recreational use.
The State desires to see a club concept cont1nued w1th expanded publ1C access at the
proper rental payment. The state department staff would welcome city support for the
continuation of the club concept mod1fied to insure greater pub11C access and at a
rental rate commensurate with current market value. The state cons1ders the lease an
agreement between the C1ty of Santa Monica and a concess1onaire. It would be reviewed
by the state and must receive state approval.
I/~
f:I,?R'2 8 \98\
'TO:
Mayor and Cit~ncil
Santa Monl~alifornia, April 28, 1981
-2-
Greater public use can be gained by using the Seascape and other means to advertise
the aval1abillty of a 11mited number of memberships, by schedulinq department
activlties at the slte, and by issuing permlts under the policy currently employed
for department buildings at park sites.
Alternatives
Alternatives for the use of this site are:
1. Demollsh all structures except the public concession stand and pub11C restroom
and construct a landscaped parking lot.
2. Demolish all structures but the public concession stand, public restroom and the
north beach house. Construct a landscaped parking lot and lease the north house
for a publlC restaurant.
3. Enter lnto a lease with a concessionaire WhlCh is designed to guarantee greater
public access and the proper rental rate and lease the north house as a restaurant.
4, Renew the present lease and do not lease the north house as a restaurant.
5. Allow the present lease to expire. Contract with the concessionalre to operate
as a public recreation center.
Recommendations
Staff recommends alternative no. 3, enterlng into a lease for continued club operations
on rental terms and rates acceptable to the state as the minimum for blds, and to
lnsure greater public access through the issuance of permits and advertising of member-
ShlpS, and leasing of the north house as a restaurant.
Staff also recommends that City (ouncll appolnt the Mayor or their designated
representative to present this position at the State Parks and Recreation Commlssion
-TO:
Mayor and C;t~nci1
-3-
Santa Monlcatlll1ifornia, Aprll 28, 1981
meeting at their May 8,1981, at 2:00 pm in Los Angeles.
Prepared by: Donald T. Arnett, Director
Recreatlon and Parks
DTA:dc
-
e
Exerpt of Clt.y Counei t )1eeting of !~ay 5, 1981
Shore Item 11-[ is a recommendation that CouncIl inform State J)arks
& Recreation Dept. of desire to lease Sand anu Sea Club
property for continued club use and greater publJ C d.ccess
at rental rates acceptable to State and appolIltment of
representative to represent position on May 8, 1981 meeting.
McClaIn: r woulJ 11ke to request ~r. Arnett present the staff report.
Arnett: Hayor, members of the Counei 1, the State Parks and Recreat lon
Commission IS meetIng thIS coming Friday on ~he 8th to
dISCUSS the potential use of the Sand & Sea Club property
which is under lease by the City a~ a conceSSIon. The
Department's staff is recommending to their CommISSIon tlldt
the property be allowed to be used as a contjnued club
operatIon WIth greater publIC access at a fall' rental market
vdlue for that property, and the department's ~taff is
seekIng from the CIty concurrence with that pOSItIon 01 If
the Councll dIffers from that positIon) they woulJ like to
know it, and they would also 11ke to have that presented at
their commlSSlon meetlng, and that is the purpose lor thIS
request.
Conn: My sense about this, our current situatIon with Sand & Sea
Club 1S that It is in fact allows a great d~al of publIC
access, and that any, and I am concerned about what an
increase In the lease arrangement to be consistent WIth
current market value would mean in terms of that acce~s
as well as the access of prIvate club In the klnJ of way
it is now operating. I don't... I lIke what's gOIng on
there, r'rnnot sure I understand,,,rhat the ilHpllcatlon~ are
of to/hat the State is asking us.
Arnett: The State is not indIcd.ting other than the fact that they
would lIke to be able to JustIfy the existIng rental rate
better than they can. The rental rdte WdS entered Into
several years ago) 10 years ago. I think it was the lease
would be a total of 11 years when it expIres, and 1t IS
not adJusted to market value at all. The audItor's offlce
from the State has raIsed several questions about that
existlng rental rate) and the State has run a survey of
costs and have had an appralsdl made, and v>Jhen those fIgules
dre avaIlable, they will present them to their State [ummjsslon,
and the State Parks and Recrentlon plus the State Commission
plus the State LegIslature has to agree to the market rental
rate of that facilIty, and the Director of the Depdltment
and the Department's staff wish to see a club cOIlcept cont1Ilue.
They dre not reco~mending any specific organIzation tur that.
but they would lIke to see that cl ub concept contllllw at a
market value WhICh IS acceDtable to the Stat.e, .wd hiLh
greater public dccess.
--
.
Exerpt of CIty (ouncIl ;'.feetlng of Hay 5, ] 981
Pdge 2
Conlt: Do we have any Indicdtlons that increasIng It woulJ In any way
~eriously jeopdrdIze the kind of club that we have there. 1
am very concerned that thIS....
Arnett: T don't know what we are talkIng about In cost, yet. T
haven't seen the fIgures.
Reed
Goldway
Reed
Ed\<ldrds:
Arnett:
[dViarus:
Arnett:
I Jon't have dny questIon~ of Mr. A~nett. I hdve severdl
comments, but I \-/111 WIthhold them if there al'e other lllember:oo
of the public to be heard.
There IS noone else who wishes ~o speak on thi~ itenl, unless
there lS somebody In the audience here who would like to
speak? No? It's d qUIet group tonight. Do you want to
make your comments then?
I WIll defer until other people have questlons thdt are
speCIfIC.
Well, jt IS Just my concern much like it is WIth Mr. Conn's
and thdt IS while I can understand gettIng a better returu
because of inflation and 1t IS 10 years later ana so on,
I \'1/ould hate to see j t go to the maximum hI ghes t ma rLet
value If in fact it means curtaIlIng a lot of the publIc
uses thdt we have now, and that if in fact it is providing
a communI ty se TV 1 ce that should be cons i de red in nd t i gatlon
to the maximum rental.
We won't really know what that is untIl we see tho~e figures
and when we aciually should go out and bId th]s to determine
who's 1nterested and who can do it.
Perhaps what 11m saYIng from my particuLu concern 15 that
\vhoever does In fact represent this COUll":'ll' 5 VIelvS at
the State Commissiun point out that this Council is also
concerned about maInt~llllln~ Its public <H...Less along \"Ith
Increasing its City revenue, but that we are not gOIng to
JeopardIze publIC access solely to reach ffi3rket value, If
that IS In fact the case.
Whdtever the instructions. ..whoever that person js~
Zane: I guess the not j all that this ,wnId go 0 lIt to bid.. . J t:~ me get
It straIght about the process here.. .the State is going to
appraise the property to see \<Ihat kInd of rental jncome, you
know. they thlnk it apprOX1IDJtcJy can generate.
Arnett: Correct.
ldne: lhen, 15 it our optIon essentialJy to determIne whether, ]
guess 1t has been determined prevlou::oly that It ~~ould contInut'
I n the... as a...
Goldway: Thatls pdrt of the determlnatlOll.
--
.
E~erpt of Clty Council MeetIng of May 5, 1981
Page 3
lane' lhdt's part of the determInatIon, right, 50 we could detennlue
thdt the property would continue essentlally In the same SOlt
of use that it currently has, and then place It out to hid,
now It'S ImplIcIt here, but not made explIcIt th.1t that'~
what's entaIled. There's no presumption that the CUrIeDt
le~see would be the operator of thi5 club after....
Arnett. That's correct, but there 15 also no presumption that Ibe
current le~see would not be the operator, that person...
the current ope 1 a tor waul d be able to s uhnl.l t the i r p TOpOS "d
In response to the request as would anybody elJc would be
Interested In doing It.
Zane: In evaluating bids, does the fdct. ..how long ha~ the current
club had a lease there?
Arnett: Dh, gee.. .from InItIally, initIally Jt starteJ out with
Joseph Drown as the operator and then Paclfic Parks, Inc.
which IS doing DBA as Sand & Sea took over after that, dnd
there are a couple of optIons, and the current lease wlth
Sand & Sea, I belleve, has been 11 years.
Zane: The current conceSSIonaIre has been opelatJng the club for
11 years?
Arnett Yes.
Zdne. Is there any procedure that allows for specJal consideration
for long term lessees, etc. I mean I thInk that, you knO\~,
rdl~lng as much revenue is an important questlon. I thInk
also, that haVIng as much public access ]5 an .lfnportant
questIon, but I also think that people who have JTIvested
11 years in the communIty shouldn't be simply unLllrly...
Hell, you know, unfairly is still subject to 1Ilterpretatlon,
it should not precipitously ejected.
Arne l t: There 15 no j ntent all our part tot ake and put them au t
to pasture.
McClain: Your honor, the staff would not be makIng that deCISIon
(w/Arnett: The CounCIl makes that evaluation.) And awards the blU
to whom yOll fInd to be the best qualified bIddcl In your..
Zan~: The State then has to approve that...
McClaIn: That's correct. But, the CounCIl would l)e the body that
\v'ould be JIlaking the recommt:nJdt.lOn to the State for theIr
ratIf1.Cdtlon.
ZJlle.
I think.. .one other questIon here, and it says in lhe staff
recommendatIons where It recommends Altern..ltlve 3, "Enter in-
to lease \'11 th a concessionaire which IS des1gned to guarantee
greater puhlic acce~s, and the proper rental raLe.l1 The
-
e
Exerpt of Clty CouncIl Meeting of !via}' 5,1981
PD ge .t
Zane proper rentdl rate IS not presumed to be necessarlly the
going market rate, If for exampLe it. jeopardized pllbJlC
access by requITIng that fees of membershIps be raIsed too
much, what counts as proper rental rate can be bdseJ on a
number of crlter]a, 15 that not correct.
Arnett. rhdtr~ correct. What we have to look out, and thl~ is
beIng appraIsed as recredtional use, not highest and be~t
use for that property, which would be condOm]111UmS or
something like this, whIch would raise the thIng out of
sIght, without any question, but it IS being appraIsed
JS a recredtional rate, which would be whatever that fIgure
is. I uon't know, I haven't seen it, yet.
Pless: You saId that the State IS going to be developIng ~ollle
kind of flgures.
Arnett Yes.
Press: .. .WhlCh would Indicate what the increase cost should be.
Could you tell me what the current deal to the CIty IS?
Arnett. They pay approximately $ 82,000.00 this year.
Press: Elgh ty - two thous and doll a1's in rent d] to the U tv. Do they...
what control does the CIty have over thIS, at all, In term~
of the contract. Do they adnunlste1' completely, the COIl\.cCb~londllf
that's there now, I mean If a person wanted to JOIn thj~
they would deal ooly...would they deal WIth the CIty, at dll?
Arnett: No, they would not deal wjth the City.
the concessJonaire.
The',' would deal wlth
Goldway: In the current contract, doesn't 1t speclfy publiL access,
al though. . .
AiIlutt: 1\0.
Go] d >~ a y . . . . . the 1 e 5 see. 111 fa c ten C 0 U rag e .:. 1. t . It] s not 1 Jl the
contract now, so this would be an Improvement In the
contract to specify.
Press. Does the contract lImit it to 500?
Arnett: No. that is an administrative deCISIon of the conCl~Slon~lre.
Press. O.K., IS there a long waitIng lIst? Is ther~ a lot of de~~nJ
in addItIon...
Arnett: There is a \llalting lIst. I am not famIllar vnth tIle length
of it, but they do call upon the waItIng lIst If they hdve
a percentage. ..jf they have a few members that do not re-new
each year.
-
.
Ll\P!'pt ot Cll) COUllCl] ~leetlng of \.l.ay 5,1981
PClge 5
(;oldway: Any other question? CouncIl Jllernber Reed, dld you want
to go now, or dld you want to defer to all these que~tions?
Reed h j t yonr understan(hng that the State Recreation dnu Pal'ks
ComrnlSSlon in making their determinatIon as to value, wIl] then
reqUIre that that alJlOullt of money be collected as .J. flnIII ffiUnl.
Arnett: r would think that would be the minimum.
I:dwards: For the purpose of dIscussion, I would lIke to Illove staft
recommendatlon, and that the Mayor be deSIgnated or whoev0r
else she may choose....
Gold~dY. The Department Head shOUld be deSIgnated, please.
Edwards: That the Department Head be designated to represent the
Conncll's dlscussion, tonight's dISCUSSIon, at Friday's
State CommiSSIon MeetIng, and I would move staff lecom~endatlon
which 1S Alternative #3.
Zane: Se conJ.
Goldway: O.K., \ole have Conn, Reed and Zane, In that order.
Conn' A quest10n about the leas1ng of the North House a~ d restaurant,
IS It currently leased as a restaurant?
Arnett: ~o, it IS not.
Conn: Hmll would that affect the operat1on of the llub'>
Alnett. That ,..;ould not really materIally affect the operatIon of
the club. It would give another use to the facility, and
1n my eyes, Increase publ1C access, and gcnLrate an additlonal
amount of revenue from the SIte.
Conn: ThIS 1S something we have reVIew of later, also"
Arnett. Yes.
Reed: First of al I, 1 would lIke to say as the person who represented
the Ci ty 1 as t tlme and the State Recreat Ion and Pa d.s Cowm iss lon,
tha t I cannot 5 upport the mot ion on the floor, bu illS e j t 1.5
broader than the positIon we took last time, dnd I feel that
we should represent the same positIon that we represented last
tIme to the State Commission, and we should not preJudice ourselves
In any way as to a lease or an appearance of ~ sweetheard deJl.
I receIved a phone call of outrage, I sUppo~e would be d good
\va)' to characterize it, from a citizen about this whole matter,
and whIle I told th~t citIzen that I d1d not completely J&lee
wl.th his perceptIon of what the CounCIl Has about, 1 \..;ould
bring his concerns to you, and they were th<1t that III fact the
present lessee did have a sweetheard deal, that $850.00 fOl a
famIly membershlP did In fact res t r i ct cons 1 de rab 1 y the us e of
--
.
Lxerpt of C11y CouncIl Meeting of May 5, lY81
Pcige 6
Reed
thIS pubIle property whJch was purchased by the ftlnds of StJtc
tax payers, not by U'5 here In the City, and 111 fact the CIty
would he ablogatlng ItS legal obligatIons, and the State would
~lso he abrogatIng lts legal obllgat1on~ if ]t allowed the
mlnlmum rental payment, which has existed for the last ten
y~ars or so to continue Into the future, and that we ~houlJ
not do anythIng at all that would appear to preJudice an open
bidding ~ltuat1on. I would further suggest tu the CouncIl
that the preVlous posItIon that we took whlch Mr. Arnett. I
am sure in his files has a copy of the remarks because I had
wri tten them up and, to give th em to the Commi Ss] on, Ha s that
we :;;,upported a open membership beach cl ub at that locatIon,
dnd we supported the retention of the !-lorth House because of
its landmark status, and that was what we said before. At
that time. the Conmission was, and the Director, were of a
mind to remove everything and put in a parkJ ng lot, because
they felt that would be the maximum publ1C advantage. lhere
is a new director, and they have since changed their mInus
to some degree. I don't think that lYe shoul d in(hca te In
any way 1hdt l....e are gOIng to have a package deal. I think
that we mIght want to well consider separating the restaurdnt
In the Korth Pdrklng Lot as one lease, completely separdte
from the operatIon of a beach club, they donlt necessarIly
Jon't have to go together at all. Secondly, I think that there
]S d lot of discussion that the CIty mIght profIt from dS to
th e manne r In \'Ii'hlCh the rnembe rsh ip IS admIn! s te re d, and 1 f in
fact there lS a wai t Ing 115t, then perhaps the memhersh] p
ought to be allocated by lottery rather than by 01 J timers
gettIng fIrst dibseys. At least that would spread it around
J little bIt, and further I think that we have to be clear
on the point that we do intend to go to bId as thIS le~se enJs,
and whIle I appreciate Mr. Zane's concern for a person who has
a long term relationship with the CIty, I would remind hIm
that they entered into that lease with theIr eyes open and It
did have a term. .ending term.. .in It, and as a bus1ness transactJOll
It is certainly not a 5urpr1se to them that the lease IS endini,
and that they are In a pos1tion of now renegotIating or rc-blJJlng7
and I think that the appropriate thing for us to do, once we
have a determinatjon from the State as to the milufnum value I:,
that then we need to say, what exactly are the cundItions that
we WIsh to Impose, and then put that package out to bId, It 1.S
entIrely possible that the present lessee would be the only
bldderJ but we can't assume that, and it would he lllega1 for
us to assume that.
EJ\'>iards: I think that the 15sues that Mrs. Reed raises dre dLtu.llly
Issues of negotiation for a potential ledse anJ clon't really
speak to the motlon today which is to state to the State
ComIUlssion that we support the retentioll of that f.lCllity,
and that ] t be used for pub 1 ic access. I tlnnk th e l~ sues
that ale belng brought up are Issues thdt we dll agree that
a contract WXK that was slgned 10 years ago 15 not relavent
to potentlal revenue today, but perhaps as you stated when
at one time the alternative was to make it into a parkIng
.
.>
Exerpt of Clty CouncIl t.~ect1ng of May 5, 1981
l' Lq; e 7
Fch"ards: lot, tPdt certainly has changed, and I think a ma)Ollty of
CouP'_ll members at thi=- time are eXpreSSIng a ~trong deSlrt
th at thd t be reta liled for publIC us e, and Mayo r Calow d)'
points out that there IS a potential for greater use of
that club, because the prior publIc access has only been
voluntdJily, and what we're indIcating to ~he potentIal
lessee now IS that that will In fact be a part of the
contract, but I don't know If we need to get Jnto the
specifics of the contract now. We're rnearly authoriZing
staff to represent CouncIl's pOSItIon In terms of the
let e ut ion as a pub 1 ic facII i ty.
Conn: I wanted to ask you further, Ms. Reed,dbout your concern IS
that by dIscussing with the State a lease, potentIal lease,
of the Korth House as a restaura.nt that that is a SIgnal to
the State that we're more interested In income than we dre
pub 1 1 C a c C e s s, is t Ii at w hat you' res u g g est 1. n g \H t h tIll S
addltlonal language?
Re~'d: No, my concern IS that we. .the motion a~ the ~tdff recommend::.
lt appears to tie It all into one package, and I don't thInk
\...re should llmi t ourselves to one package. I think ~",e shaul d
retaIn the fleXIbility of haVIng beach club package separate
from the restaurant.
Conn: That's not my understand1.ng of the ImplIcation.
Reed: AnJ I thlnk If we are gOlng to make repre::.entations to the
'stdte, ,,,e ought to make It clear that we support the concept
of the beach club, and further that we are go Lng to do SOIlll'tlllng
to Insure that it has a more open membershIp pOlley, or more
.lccesslbillty to the membershIp than prevIoLl~ly.
Zane: Then, I Nould like to alter the language. I think tl1.1t Mrs. Reed's
suggestions are approprIate. I ,'wuld like to alter tht' language
of the alternative to say, "Enter into lease negotiatjon w1th
a concessionaire WhiCh 15 designed to guarantedd greater publ1C
access at a proper ren t al ratel', clnd 1 guess what \oJe ~I[ould say
hele, "for the club pIoper". What would the IdIlgudge thelc...
I Wtint to separate out the North House.
Reed: Could I make a suggestion? That the pO~ltion of the City CounLl1
be that we wll1 IndIcdte to the State our ::.upport {or the concept
of a public membership beach club at that 5 i te, and our ~upport
of the concept of leaSIng the North House as a icstdurdllt and
our support of accepting the State's minImum for hlddlng, and
that we WIll proceed in that matter, if we are authorized to Jo so,
WIthout mak1ng any further representations abuut actudlly enterIng
into leases, etc.
e
.
Lxt'rpt of CIty Councll t-teel.lng of ,\L11 5, 1<)81
Page 8
Goldway:
1 thlnk that 1S a good suggestion. Mr Edwards...
cd~...anls: No, 1 \..,rould say tl1.Jt that contr..ldicts what the begInning
of OUf dl:.cusslon was, that we are not nccessarJly gOlng
to say to the State that our only concern is leaSing at
illdximum, that we're also gOIng to glve considerdtlon to
other public access use.
Z.1TI0. She said that.
Edwards. I dlso don't know that we should necessarilv.. .the [det ~s
that \\'e w.wt it reta1ued our LCP talks about rctdllllng the
North House, and we don't need to separate it yet untIl we
understand that those ~ndividuals that made bid on the
beach club may in fact be willIng, or may 1n fact be able
to make a better deal WIth the C1ty wjth the use of the
club as d publ1C use facility if 10 fact we allow them to
tIe in the North Beach, and I don't know that elt this pOInt...
the North House... and I don't know that at this point we're
in a position to separate the two, because it may In [Jet
determine the kinds of bId:. we get and from Whuill we get them.
Goldway' I don't thInk ~rs. Reed's motion separated the two entirely.
It Just separated for her the Impl1cation III the staff's
language that they were necessar1ly combIned. \I1h at she sa 1 J,
I believe, was that she supports a beach use, and she supports
:1 restaurant use, and she supports the State mInImum. ~~Oh,
you may be concerned about the th ird point, but I don't tlnnk
the other two. f'.1y feel iug lS that the State has spent tl good
Jeal of time and expertise In evaluating the figures dud the
plesent lessee has been very cooperat1ve In glving the fIgures
about h1S income to the State, and we ought to at ledst go
wlth the mInImum to begin with. Now,]f we don't get the
minImum, then we can go hack to the State) and ~dY, !tlley, ~ve
can't get the minimum. There must be something wrong ~Vlth
your appraIsers. Let's do SOJTlethIng else". But. I ttnnk
It's the responslbll1.ty of the CIty to take that fInancla]
advice since we don't have it ourselves, and go wlth it, dnd
see what happens there. If \ve don I t need the fIlin i mUIIl, then
we'll ah>iays...we'll come back, or if we get d IIllnllnUm that
doesn't include In It the specifICS of public use that we
want, then \..,re'll go back to the State as well, ano Sa',. lh..Jt
you know, we have the bId at the mInimum, but It doesn't meet
thIS other aspect that we wanted.
Edwards: I just don't share her concern that the wordlng of the stdff
recoInJllenddt lon precludes us from Tu,tld ng nego tia t ions 0 f J
vdriety of types.
Caldway: T think these are all semantIC Items. T helve .L sense ',.,'e hdvc
more agreement here than we tllluk.
Reed: I would only say thdt \..hat I object to is the speCIfic langudge
entering Into a lease, and T object to that because 1 du not
believe that we have completed. here In Sant a NODIca alIa f the
e
.
EXeII'! of Clty CouncIl MeetIng of l'<fay S, lY8l
Page 9
ReeJ: necessary dIscussions as to what IS to go into thdl ledse,
dnd thdt LS why I will vote for a motion that supports the
concept. as th ey have be en out] Ined, but I WI] 1 not support
a motIon WhICh says entering Into a lease, because I don't
think we're ready to do that, yet.
Goldl'.'ay: I thlllk that's all that IS necessary. Let me pOInt out
to people that we have, sort of like In the bike lane,
a real mIlestone here by having the Commi 55 ion recogn ue
the City's desire to keep those facilities and not have d
huge asphalt parkIng lot, and 1 thInk what IS being 3sked
of us at thIS point 15 to encourage the COlllmissIon to go...
to agree WIth US, and once they are on record doing that,
then \<le will be able to come back, and If this i tern IS
not dead, WIll come back to us for the speCIfics We need
to proceed for bid, and the speCIfIcs we need to have for
expanding public use.
Zanc. 1 would lIke to offer language 1 think that h'oulJ meet h~n's
concern and Chris's concern.
Gold~vdY:
G1ve 1t a try.
Zane: And re-write 3 to say "We enter Into lease negotiations",
which I think meets ChrIS'S concern about saying we are going
tll enter Into a lease that sounds as If ''lie are t1eIng ourselves
to something objectionable. Does that meet your concprn, to
talk about lease negotiations~
GolJway. I stlll don't... .enter into negotIatIons with a conce~sionalle,
that doesn't.
Reed. Sec.. .It's a legal nicety that I don't feel good about at JII,
and I WJII move as a substItute motIon that our representative
be dIrected to Indicate to the State Recreation and Park::, Cornmls::don
tha t the CIty Counci 1 S uPllO rts the concept 0 f cont uIng a publ ~c
membership beach cl ub on the sIte of the Sand b Sea C1 uh, that
we ~upport the concept of utilIzing the North House as a publIC
restaurant, that we support the concept of as lUuch publIC access
as is practical gIven those uses, and that we WIll at the tIme
the State determines the rrLinlmum fu 1 bids, then proceed to
determine the perarneters for lca~e documents dod enter into
negotIations for same.
Zdne: Second
Reed: Perfect
Goldway: That's very good.
e
.
Exerpt of C~ty Counell MeetIng af Nay 5, 1981
Page 10
McClaIn" Your honor, mIght I suggest that rather than use the words,
"Enter Into negotiat~ons", perhaps the words. "Call ior
proposd.l~" .
Reel!. Sure, that's fIne, "Call for proposal~".
Go 1 d\.;d.Y:
O.K.,"Call fur proposals at th.Jt time". And, c.ll1 \.....e aJd
to that motIon that we are dIrecting the Director of P~rks
and Recreation to be our representative, unless another. o.
r don't choose to go.... I have other meetIngs, another
COUllCll Member IS perfectly willIng to....
Reed. I cant It
Press. O. K. That was going to be my quest] on. Why I t wa~ decnled
in the past that ChrIS would go rather than the Department
lIeaJ?
Reed. He went with me, but I volunteered.
Member to go.
They wanted cl CouncIl
Gold.>iay: That \Vas at a time when the CommISSIon was opposing OLlr
pOInt of VIew, and I think we needed a good deal more
emphasis than I thInk we need dt this point.
Reed. 1 will include that the Dlrector of Recreation anJ Parks ]s
d.uthorizeJ to represent us.
Gal d\"ay:
O.K. Can we have a roll call, please.
"Conn" - Aye
tlEdwards II - Aye
11 P re 5 ~ 11 - Yes
"Reed" - Ye s
1IZdne" - Yes
11 Go Idw ay't - Yes
"'[he motion carrles".