Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1984/09/27 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED COUNCIL CONFERENCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, September 27, 1984 Council Conference Room 4:00 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL Councilmembers present: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers Malcolm, NcCandl iss, Moore Councilmembers absent: Councilman Scott Staff present: City Manager Goss, Assistant City Attorney Gill, Assistant City Manager Asmus 1. INTRODUCTION (City Manager) City Manager L~oss stated the conference has been called to discuss EastLake I public facilities and financing. It is primarily to bring the Council up to date on all of the information. EastLake I is a proposed 1,267.9 acre planned community located in the eastern portion of the City along Otay Lakes Road. Mr. Goss remarked there ~ill be a large workload expected in conjunction ~ith this project. The Council has already approved hiring a contract engineer and more temporary help will be added. The presentation will be made by the Director of Planning George Krempl, Project Consultant Bud Gray and Fiscal Planning Consultant Wayne Wedin. 2. BACKGROUND, PROCESS, PLAN SYNOPSIS (Director of Planning) Director of Planning Krempl presented a brief background of the plan for the development of the Janal Ranch which was submitted to the City Council in October 1980. The property at that time included 3,073 acres. It has subsequently been scaled down over the years, and in June 1982 the applicant submitted a reduced plan for EastLake I on 1,267 acres ~hich will contain a maximum of 3,683 dwelling units. The original design was modified in the arrangement of residential neighborhoods and the location of the high school and community parks. This scaled-down plan includes a 145-acre employment park, 34 acres of office and commercial, 290 acres of open space, and 166 acres of public facilities. In/~gust 1983 this property was annexed to the City of Chula Vista. Following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, the Council approved the requested General Plan amendment and planned community zoning for EastLake I. This planned zone now requires the dpreparation and ap roval of a Sectional Planning Area plan prior to actual evelopment. The ~ctional Planning Area plan (SPA plan) ~as filed in April 1984 and is one of five phases. |4r. Krempl noted the second phase will be the environmental impact uhich will include the traffic study. Other phasing ~ill be the public financing needs and the development agreement. Mr. Krempl stated Council ~ill be getting this as a total package in order to visualize its implications. The goal is for staff to bring this forward to public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council prior to the end of 1984. Adjourned Council Conference -2- September 27, 1984 Mr. Bud Gray, Project Consultant, spoke on the public facility needs for EastLake explaining the following eight major categories: 1) streets, 2) water supply, 3) sewer facilities, 4) school facilities, 5) fire protection, 6) parks and recreation facili ties, 7) library, 8) drainage facilities. A general discussion followed regarding the proposed open space, landscaping, traffic patterns, and the library. In answer to the Mayor's question, Mr. Gray stated there is a possibility that the library could be constructed to tie in with the hi gh school. There is also the possibility of having a branch library in connection ~ith Southwestern College. CouncilDan Moore questioned the funding which is a very important aspect of the project noting the question of the Long Canyon drainage. Mr. Gray indicated the amount of runoff at peak periods would be less with this project since water would be held on-site and released in a lower volume. 3. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND FINANCING NEEDS (Project Consultant) Mr. Wayne Wedin, Finance Consultant, stated this is a major undertaking project and, therefore, the financing plan will be very complex. Mr. Wedin reviewed the following financing approaches: 1) general fund monies, 2) transit district funds, 3) the Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, 4) the benefit of an assessment district, 5) a 1911 Act, 6) a 1913 and 1915 Act, 7) joint powers authority, 8) non-profit corporation (public facilities corporation), and 9) grants, both state and federal funding. In answer to Council's queries, Nr. Wedin stated State Route 125 is not the total responsibility of the City; the City should use as much tax- exempt financing as possible; there is nothing in Proposition 36 which would invalidate the City's use of assessment districts; the question of reimbursement is still open to question; as to the marketplace, the project has a triple A rating {10.34 tax exempt) which indicates that the market is ready; the next step is to prepare a draft public financing plan which will contain certain conditions; the plan uill contain dollar amounts placed on schools and public improvements; it will contain a phasing documentation. Councilman I,~lcolm, noting the 1,100 acres for the industrial park and 153 acres for the emplo3qnent park, stated this would be more than 10% of the total acreage. If the City is to give the developers tax-exempt status, he would like to see in writing commitments by the developers as to what they will do, such as recycling ~ater. ~. ~edin noted that this is a give-and-take proposition and everything will be spelled out in the financing plan. Director of Planning Krempl noted that the development agreement component does have a condition that reclaimed water be used for the golf course an d open space areas. ~s to ~le timetable, Mr. Krempl noted the environmental impact has a period of 45 days for public review, and the entire process will be set for public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the end of 1984. ~. Bob Santos, representing EastLake, commended the staff on the presentation noting they are ~orking on a "tight timeframe". A recess ~as called at 5:20 p.m, and the meeting reconvened at 5:30 p.m. Adjourned Council Conference -3- September 27, 1984 4. UNanIMOUS CONSENT RESOLUTION A~I~RDING PUBLIC LI~BILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE Councilman Malcolm questioned whether the insurance has gone out to bid. Assistant City Manager Asmus repl led it has not. He explained the present bid from Creaser Price insurance noting the joint powers attorneys are concerned over this bid. As of October l, the City's insurance will lapse. In this new quote, the City is not sure what they are buying. If the City stays ~ith the Joint Po~ers ~thority, it will cost $63,164 for the maximum limits of $15 million liability coverage and the City will know what it is buying. However, this particular quote (U. S. Fire Insurance) is for a total premium cost of $29,500. City Manager Goss explained the Joint Powers Agency informed the City that there would be a substantial increase in the public liability insurance. His bias is to stay ~ith the joint Powers; however, because of the low bid from Creaser Price, it ~as brought to the Council's attention. Under the Joint Po~ers, items such as comparable worth is covered; however, under this Creaser Price quote, it is not. Council discussion ensued as to the time element involved; the two bid quotes; that the City does not have the contract and does not know what they are bidding on; there is a 30-day binder in the JPA. Mr. Ted Davidson and Mr. Robert Gardner of the Robert Driver Insurance Company answered Council's questions pertaining to the "the rights of the City under the JPA" and the City's three-year policy with JPA which is now up for renewal. I,Ir. Davidson remarked that U. S. Fire has not submitted a bid for insurance in the State of California for the past five years; and they have never given a bid to the Joint Powers ~uthority. The Joint Powers has solicited bids from eight different companies. NS (Cox/Nalcolm) to refer this to staff to evaluate and recommend to the City Council whether the City should go with U. S. Fire or stay with the Joint Powers Authority. Discussion of the motion followed with Mr. Chuck Shippey, agent for Creaser Price, stating he does not have a copy of the U. S. Fire liability form. It was to be mailed and received today but he has not received it; therefore, he cannot get into the details of the insurance coverage. The City now has a $100,000 self-retention policy. Mr. Shippey noted the 40% retention on the premium and if the City should cancel with JPA, there probably would be a big penal ty i nvol ved. S UBST I TUTE MOT ION MSUC (Malcolm/~lcCandliss) to allow the City Manager discretion to cancel the existing Joint Powers policy on October 1 should the policy from Creaser Price provide coverage equal or comparable to the Joint Powers existing coverage the City now has or close to it--what the City Nanager feels will protect the City. (~4ayor Cox left the meeting - 6:05 p.m.)