Timing of Development. The California Supreme Court held in Xxxxxx Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that 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 intent of Developer and the City to cure that deficiency by expressly acknowledging and providing that any Subsequent Code Change that purports to limit over time the rate or timing of development or to alter the sequencing of development phases (whether adopted or imposed by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum process) shall not apply to the Property or the Project and shall not prevail over this Agreement. In particular, but without limiting any of the foregoing, no numerical restriction shall be placed by the City on the amount of total square feet or the number of buildings, structures, residential units that can be built each year on the Property except as expressly provided in this Agreement.
Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that OWNER cannot at this time predict when or the rate at which phases of the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not within the control of OWNER, such as market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California Supreme Court held in
Timing of Development. Permittee shall complete Project improvements pursuant to the schedule set forth in Attachment G of this Agreement.
Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that OWNER cannot at this time
Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that Developer cannot at this time predict when or at what rate the Property would be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not all within the control of Developer, such as market orientation and demand, availability of financing, interest rates and competition. Developer may therefore construct the Project in either a single phase or multiple phases (lasting any duration of time) within the Term of this Agreement. Because the California Supreme Court held in Xxxxxx Construction Co. v. 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.
Timing of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Xxxxxx Construction Co. v. 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.
Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that Developer cannot at this time predict when or at what rate the Property would be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors which are not all within the control of Developer, such as market orientation and demand, availability of financing, interest rates and competition. Developer may therefore construct the Project in either a single phase or multiple phases (lasting any duration of time) within the Term of this Agreement. Because the California Supreme Court held in Xxxxxx Construction Co. v.
Timing of Development. Land Owner has no obligation to develop or to construct the Project. The timing, sequencing, and phasing of the Project is solely the responsibility of Land Owner in the exercise of its business judgment so long as it is consistent with Applicable Law. In particular, the Parties desire to avoid the result of Xxxxxx Construction Co. v. 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.
Timing of Development. Timing of Development shall be as set forth in the Final Site Plan.
Timing of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Xxxxxx Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that failure of the parties 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 intent of Developer and the City to cure that deficiency by expressly acknowledging and providing that no Subsequent Code Change that purports to limit the rate or timing of development over time or alter the sequencing of development phases, whether adopted or imposed by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum process, shall apply to the Property or prevail over this Agreement. In particular, but without limiting any of the foregoing, no numerical restriction shall be placed by City on the amount of square footage that can be built each year on the Property.
