If you want to read the development agreement itself, this "readers' guide"
might help you find what you want:
- Effective date of the agreement -- top of page 1 (For technical reasons,
the agreement really runs through June 22, not May 23rd.)
- Term of agreement -- paragraph 20, page 21
- Scope of the Project
- Description -- recital D, p 2
- No substantial changes without County review -- para 8, p 9
- Partial project does not benefit from "freeze" on land-use
regulations -- para 8, p 9ff in reference to para 7, p 8
- Responsibilities of the Owner:
- "exercise its reasonable best efforts to obtain the necessary
financing to construct the project" para 4, p 6 [The apparent
difficulties of getting full financing of the project are to be considered
in light of this requirement. This is one of the factors that the
annual reviews were to have covered.]
- "begin construction of the Project ... within five years of
the effective date" -- para 5A, p 7 [Construction began on a
small, detached office building in 2000 in satisfaction of this requirement
to begin something. However, this building -- at less than 1,500
sq ft, far smaller than the average new "monster home" on the Coastside
-- had not yet been completed by last September and the building
permit had expired.]
- "complete construction of the Project during the term of this
Agreement" -- para 5B, p 7
- Responsibilities of the County:
- Annual review of showings by owner of "good faith" [para
11, p 13]
- The "they only need to get permits" argument -- A favored
argument by the developer and the County is based on paragraph 20,
page 21 starting at "Following the expiration ... ." But
if the developer were to be in default, termination of the agreement
would not follow paragraph 20 but paragraph 15 (starting on page
15). Furthermore, paragraph 11 (p 11) specifically allows the Supervisors
to take "take such actions as it finds appropriate to enforce or
interpret the parties’ rights and obligations under the terms
of this Agreement.” We think that those actions are the ones
outlined in the County's letter of August 9, 2004 to the developer.