1983 NOV 02 CC MINMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
November 2, 1983
I CALL TO ORDER
The E1 Segundo City Council convened in an adjourned
regular session on Wednesday, November 2, 1983 at 9:00
a.m., in the Council Chamber of the E1 Segundo City Hall.
II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Planning Commissioner Tom
Brady.
III ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Armstrong, Johnson,
Siadek, Synadinos and Mayor Bue
ABSENT: Council Members None
IV Mayor Bue announced that the purpose of this session was
to meet jointly with the Planning Commission to study the
feasibility of using development agreements in the City
of El Segundo.
The following Planning Commission members were in
attendance:
PRESENT: Commissioners Brady, Pitzer, Stewart
and Chairman Young
ABSENT: Commissioner Schott
V DISCUSSION
City Attorney Leland Dolley gave an overview and background
of the development agreement concept stating development
agreements can be a useful tool to assist in the orderly
development of the City. Mr. Dolley stated the law pro-
vides that a city can establish, by resolution, a process
by which development agreements can be entered into. It
does not require that development agreements always be
entered into, merely gives the City the authority to do so.
He stated there is a requirement that periodic reviews be
conducted to determine the progress being made under the
terms of the agreement.
Mr. Dolley stated development agreements must specify the
duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the
property, the density, maximum height and size of the
building and the provisions for the preservation or
dedication of land for public purposes. Any other terms
and conditions are negotiable.
Mr. Dolley stated that after the development agreement has
been negotiated, the City Council acts upon it. It must be
done by ordinance and is subject to a referendum. After
passage by Council, there is a requirement that the
agreement be recorded within 10 days.
/w) 6
Mr. Dolley stated the advantage of a development agr4IWAt
for a developer would be to ensure he has the right to
develop property in a manner the City has said at that
point in time it is satisfied with. The advantage for the
City can be an orderly development to the standards the
City has set and an instrument by which the developer
agrees to do things for the City.
Discussion then ensued among Council, Planning Commission
and staff regading the development agreement process. Some
points that were brought out are:
The law does not prevent the changing of permit fees
even if a development agreement has been entered into.
Development agreements generally are at the option of
the developer.
There will not be a savings of staff time (unless a
long -term agreement), possibly an increase due to the
negotiation process.
More matters will be open to negotiation; such as
ways for the developer to meet his requirement for the
dedication of streets, right -of -ways; payments for on-
site /off -site improvements; and establishing what and
how long requirements will be frozen in time.
If Council should rescind the enabling legislation,
that action would not affect agreements already
entered into due to the contractual obligations.
Pursuant to case law at this time, the City Council
has the power to contract away some of its police
power. That theory has never been tested, but Mr.
Dolley feels the courts will uphold it.
The City would not necessarily set a precedent by
entering into a development agreement - each project
stands on its own.
VI ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Doug Ring of Buchalter, Nemer, Fields, Chrystie and Younger
said he represented Overton & Moore, a prospective deve-
loper in E1 Segundo. He feels development agreements pro-
tect prospective investors from a changing government. He
feels it also protects the City by extracting from the
developer things that benefit the community, to the extent
those extractions represent a mitigating of circumstances
that the developer is creating. He encouraged Council to
pass the enabling legislation to allow development agree-
ments.
Richard Patterson, 1205 E. Oak Street, spoke about the
creativity that could be generated by both sides as a basis
for sound planning and design for the City and urged
Council to pass the enabling legislation.
Rev. Ed Erdely, 209 W. Acacia, questioned the difference
between precise plans and development agreements. Mr.
Romaniello stated precise plans generally are not of great
size, and since -they are not locked into time frames are
subject to changes in the regulations. He also stated that
due to a development agreement's contractual obligations,
it is a more binding legal document.
-2- Council Minutes
November 2, 1983
Mr. Erdely then questioned how the community could give
their input on a development agreement. Mr. Dolley
responded that a public hearing is required on each
development agreement since it would require an ordinance.
Jerry Saunders of Continental Development Corporation
stated he hoped a public hearing will be scheduled on
this subject because he was not authorized to make any
comments at this time.
VII After further discussion among Council, the Commission and
staff, it was decided to proceed on looking at the possibi-
lity of establishing development agreements in E1 Segundo.
Mr. Dolley will draft enabling legislation, present it to
the Planning Commission for review, then to Council for
action.
VIII ADJOURNMENT
No other busness appearing to come before the Council at
this meeting, MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN JOHNSON,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN SIADEK, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED,
that the meeting adjourn, the hour of adjournment being
10:37 a.m.
APPROVED: /
William D. Bue, Mayor
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie A. Burrowes, City Clerk
Council Minutes
November 2, 1.983