Opinion ID: 4536539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Development Agreement

Text: After Congress closed the Oakland Army Base, the City of Oakland initiated redevelopment planning. In 2012, the City revised its redevelopment plan for the 34 acres (“the Project Site”) with that analysis never considering the possibility of coal at the terminal. In fact, in December 2013, Phil Tagami, an OBOT principal, assured community members that coal was not part of the redevelopment plan. In a newsletter, he stated that “It has come to my attention that there are community concerns about a purported plan to develop a coal plant or coal distribution facility . . . . This is simply untrue.” In July 2013, the City and OBOT’s predecessor-in-interest signed a “Development Agreement” formalizing its right to develop the Project Site into “a shipto-rail terminal designed for the export of non-containerized bulk goods and import of oversized or overweight cargo.” OBOT V. CITY OF OAKLAND 37 The Development Agreement did not mention coal or any specific commodity. The Development Agreement was adopted pursuant to the Development Agreement Legislation which permits a city or county to “enter into a development agreement” with any property owner “for the development of the property.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 65865. The statute “allows a city or county to freeze zoning and other land use regulation applicable to specified property to guarantee that a developer will not be affected by changes in the standards for government approval during the period of development.” Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo Cty., 84 Cal. App. 4th 221, 226–27 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). Under the words of the statute, Unless otherwise provided by the development agreement, rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the land, governing density, and governing design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications, applicable to the development of the property subject to the development agreement, shall be those rules, regulations, and official policies in force at the time of execution of the agreement. A development agreement shall not prevent a city . . . from applying new rules, regulations and policies which do not conflict with those rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the property as set forth herein. . . . Cal. Gov’t Code § 65866(a). The Development Agreement that was executed by OBOT’s predecessor-in-interest froze in place local land use 38 OBOT V. CITY OF OAKLAND regulations that existed at the time the Development Agreement was signed. An exception to the regulations freeze was provided in Section 3.4.2 of the Development Agreement which specifies that the City: [S]hall have the right to apply City Regulations adopted by [the] City after the Adoption Date [of the Development Agreement], if such application (a) is otherwise permissible pursuant to Laws (other than the Development Agreement Legislation), and (b) [the] City determines based on substantial evidence and after a public hearing that a failure to do so would place existing or future occupants or users of the Project, adjacent neighbors, or any portion thereof, or all of them, in a condition substantially dangerous to their health or safety. Development Agreement 3.4.2.