CCMIN120704 - Laserfiche WebLink

__ properties are subject to the Specific Plan and not appropriate. Normally the contract requires certain minimum acreage and he did not believe there were any areas within the City that met the minimum. Mr. Brozosky pointed out that one of the conditions requires the final map for the property to be approved by the City within one year. He asked what would occur if the final map was not approved? Mr. Roush said the property owner would not pay the cancellation value fee until the final map is recorded. If a year goes by and the fee is not paid or the final map is not approved within this period of time, the cancellation becomes void. The property owner would not be able to develop on the property without further council action. Mr. Brozosky was concerned with the wording of the resolution. He took exception to the wording that the project will help offset the jobs/housing imbalance, as he personally believed there is not an imbalance. Ms. McGovern noted that the fiscal impact section of the staff report states there is no direct fiscal impact to the City by reason of this tentative cancellation and that a portion of the fee will make its way back to the City. She asked how much the City will receive? Mr. Roush said that when the staff report was written, it was staff's understanding that the fee would be paid to the County and treated like property taxes. Subsequent to - - this report being written, it is now the consensus that this fee is paid to the State. It is tenuous that some of this money will get back to the City in any type of direct way, like property taxes. Mayor Hosterman invited public comments. Geoffrey Etnire, Hoge, Fenton, Jones, and Appel, Inc., representing Lonestar Industries, was available to answer questions of the City Council. Mr. Brozosky asked Mr. Etnire if he had any concerns with developing houses next to an asphalt plant? Mr. Etnire said his firm has worked hard in Pleasanton, Livermore and other areas concerning the location of houses near an operating quarry. In Livermore, his firm developed the easement for noise, dust and vibration and also required disclosures to the property buyers. RMC cannot control real estate brokers, but recorded documents provide a disclosure so that everyone knows what they are getting into. Mr. Brozosky noted that there are disclosures for noise and dust but there is no disclosure for the asphalt plant. Mr. Etnire did not believe the asphalt plan is mentioned specifically, but the actual language of the easement includes odor. This easement applies to new property owners and building sites and not existing residents. Mr. Brozosky noted that the Specific Plan does not mention an odor easement and it only includes noise, dust and vibration. Pleasanton City Council 21 12/07/04 Minutes