PC 021407 - Laserfiche WebLink

items were not disclosed to them by the developer. He read the following language: "Disclosure statement shall be provided to prospective purchasers and tenants by lot owners, developers, and future successors in the interest of providing full disclosure of potential for future mining operations...." He noted that it was common for developers to develop a piece of property under a shell company which would do the development, then would go bankrupt, after which another company held by the same group would continue the next phase of the development. He inquired who would be responsible if a future developer did not make the possible restrictions. Ms. Harryman noted that if a document has been recorded, the developer would be on notice. She noted that sellers and their real estate agents should disclose any items that would be disturbing to the purchaser. Commissioner Blank noted that he would be more comfortable with language reading, "A clause which states ...shall be provided." He noted that a disclosure statement was separate from a clause as part of the recordation and deed, which would be very difficult for someone not to provide. Ms. Hangman noted that Condition No. 27 read: "Prior to recordation of the parcel map, a deed restriction shall be recorded on all lots covered by this approval and shall include the following:...." She noted that the "buyer beware" language would follow, including future mining operations within the Specific Plan area, noise, odor, etc. She understood this condition to mean that the developer at the time, prior to recordation of the parcel map, must record something against the property that identified the disclosures. _ Commissioner Blank inquired whether with this condition, staff held that it would be impossible for someone to buy the land or the house without having signed that they have seen the deed restriction. Ms. Harryman concurred with that statement. Ms. Decker noted that the deed restriction must include all the items in the recorded document so that any buyer of the lots would be informed. Commissioner Blank inquired whether a condition could be added stating that the developer shall provide proof of the same to the Planning Director. Ms. Harryman stated that the City received the recorded copies. Ms. Decker added that they were checked by the Engineering staff to ensure the language was incorporated into those documents. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether the City had any liability if that was not done, Ms. Hangman replied that the City probably had immunities. Commissioner Blank requested that staff consider some mechanism, such as a check box or other follow-up, that could be used to ensure that the disclosures were made. He noted that the City of San Diego was recently sued for $40 million for approving a project that was allegedly later deemed illegal. Commissioner Blank noted that he would like the words "including noise and vibration" added to the Condition No. 27 regarding possible noise impacts due to overflying aircraft. Ms. Decker suggested the following language: "...due to potential aircraft overflights, including but not limited to noise and vibration." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 14, 2007 Page 6 of 14