City of Camarillo Sample Clauses
City of Camarillo. 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), the California Supreme Court ruled that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development and controlling the parties' agreement. It is the intent of the Parties to avoid such a result by acknowledging and providing for the timing of development of the Project in the manner set forth herein. The City acknowledges that such a right is consistent with the intent, purpose and understanding of the Parties to this Agreement, and that without such a right, Developer's development of the Project would be subject to the uncertainties sought to be avoided by the Development Agreement Statute, the Development Agreement Ordinance and this Agreement.
City of Camarillo. 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984) where a subsequent growth management program adopted by initiative prevailed over a prior land use agreement which did not expressly address the timing, phasing or sequencing of development.
City of Camarillo. (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, that the failure of the parties therein to consider and expressly provide for the timing of development resulted in a later- adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties' agreement, it is the Parties' intent to avoid that result by acknowledging that Owner shall have the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, and that the timing, rate or sequence of development and occupancy of the Project shall not be restricted or dictated by any means other than as specifically may be recognized in this Agreement.
City of Camarillo. OWNER: Minimum Maintenance Requirements For Post-Construction Treatment Devices
City of Camarillo. 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development permitted a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development and controlling the Parties’ agreement, Developer and the City do hereby acknowledge that Developer has the right to develop the Project in an order and at a rate and times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its sole and subjective business judgment. The City acknowledges that this right is consistent with the intent, purpose and understanding of the Parties to this Agreement.
City of Camarillo. 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties in that case to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later-adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over the parties’ agreement, it is the specific intent of the Parties to provide for the timing of the Project in this Agreement. To do so, the Parties acknowledge and provide that Owner shall have the right, but not the obligation, to complete the Project in such order, at such rate, at such times, and in as many development phases and sub-phases as Owner deems appropriate in its sole subjective business judgment.
City of Camarillo. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, where the failure of the parties therein to consider and expressly provide for the timing of the development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties' agreement. The Parties therefore acknowledge that Land Owner shall have the right to develop the Project at such time as Land Owner deems appropriate in the exercise of its business judgment so long as such development is consistent with Applicable Law.
City of Camarillo. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of Development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of Development to prevail over such parties' agreement, the Parties' intend to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Developer shall have the right to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment, and shall not be subject to any after-enacted initiative measures, ordinances or policies which purport to regulate or limit the rate, timing or sequencing of any Development permits necessary for the Project.
City of Camarillo. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, the California Supreme Court held that a construction company was not exempt from a city’s growth control ordinance notwithstanding that the construction company and the city had entered into a consent judgment (tantamount to a contract under California law) establishing the company’s vested rights to develop its property in accordance with the zoning. The California Supreme Court reached this result on the basis that the consent judgment failed to address the timing of development. It is the intent of the Parties to avoid the result of the Xxxxxx case by acknowledging and providing in this Agreement that the Developer shall have the vested right to Develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such time as the Developer deems appropriate, subject to the thresholds for completion of certain public facilities as specified in this Development Agreement and the Performance Schedule attached as Exhibit J. In addition to, and not in limitation of, the foregoing, but except as set forth in the following sentence, it is the intent of the Parties that no City moratorium or other similar limitation relating to the rate or timing of the Development of the Property or any portion thereof, except a moratorium or limitation necessitated by a public safety emergency or to avoid a public safety emergency, whether adopted by initiative, referendum or otherwise, shall apply to the Property to the extent that such moratorium, referendum or other similar limitation is in conflict with this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer acknowledges that nothing herein is intended or shall be construed as (i) overriding any provision of the Existing Land Use Regulations relating to the phasing of Development of the Property; or (ii) restricting the City from exercising the powers described in Section 11 of this Agreement to regulate Development of the Property. Nothing in this Section 6.1 is intended to excuse or release the Developer from any obligation set forth in this Agreement which is required to be performed on or before a specified calendar date or event without regard to whether or not one or more Owners proceeds with any portion of the Project.
City of Camarillo. 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), the California Supreme Court ruled that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development and controlling the parties’ agreement. It is the intent of the Parties to avoid such a result by acknowledging and providing for the timing of development of the Project in the manner set forth herein. Accordingly, the Parties agree that except for the construction phasing required by Section 3.2, the requirement to provide the Associated Community Benefits in accordance with this Agreement if Developer elects to Commence Construction and pursue to Completion a particular portion of the Project to which such Associated Community Benefit is tied, the Mitigation Measures and any express construction dates set forth in a Later Approval, (i) Developer shall have the right to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its sole and subjective business judgment, and (ii) such right is consistent with the intent, purpose and understanding of the Parties, and that without such right, Developer’s development of the Project would be subject to the uncertainties sought to be avoided by the Development Agreement Statute, Chapter 56 and this Agreement; provided, however, this Affordable Housing Plan requires that Phase 1 include affordable units built on-site, either by construction of Inclusionary Units or by 100% Affordable Units located on the Project Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains authority to reject any Developer request for temporary or interim Public Improvements or deferral of the construction of the permanent Public Improvements and can require permanent Public Improvements with each Development Phase. Additionally, there are certain obligations under the Port Lease that allow for termination of the Port Lease if certain conditions are not met.