PC 071311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan replied that a dialogue was actually held about this and the fact that it is impractical to reach the City's standard when the train goes by on this property or any other property along the railroad. He added that this is the noise level for people who live all along the line and that it is just the understanding of a practicality that anyone cannot, in any reasonable way, mitigate it down to the standard during that short duration when the train goes by. inquired what decibel level is expected when the train goes by if the whistle was removed from the equation. Mr. Dolan replied that this was not distinguished. He noted that the trains only blow the whistle when required to and that they have no choice at the crossing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Chair Narum disclosed that she met with Mr. Paul Martin. Paul Martin, representing Donato Builders, applicant, and Robert Molinaro, property owner, stated that he would like to bring up three items: the first and second deal with Condition No. 45, payment of the developer's fair share of the Capital Improvement Program costs for the reconstruction of Stanley Boulevard; and Condition No. 105, payment of the in-lieu park dedication fees. He indicated that his concern is not with the payment itself but with the timing of the payments. He noted that Condition No. 45 requires payment prior to Final Map and Condition 105 requires payment prior to approval of the Map. He explained that normally, in construction financing, these will be part of the line items to be funded by the bank, and construction financing cannot be obtained until a Final Map is approved. He requested that the timing of the payment be changed to prior to issuance of the grading permit or before work starts to allow them to put the project together in dealing with the financing. Mr. Martin stated that the third item deals with Condition No. 42 regarding the installation of playground equipment for the tot lot. He indicated that their issue is not that they do not want to have a tot equipment for children in the subdivision but for two reasons: (1) there is a rash of litigation all across the country over tot lot equipment, and it is a liability which almost guarantees that they will be sued; and (2) it has been his experience that use of tot lot equipment depends on the demographics of the residents moving into the subdivision. He proposed that they will fund the tot lot equipment if the homeowners association (HOA) wants this installed, tied to a vote of the HOA after the thth sale of the 10 or 11 lot so they have an idea of who's living there. He added that in the meantime, prior to that decision, the developer would propose constructing the tot lot as shown in landscape plans that have been submitted. With respect to the tot lot, Commissioner Blank asked Mr. Martin how it could be ensured that this is really the desire of the HOA without being overridden by the builder, as the builder has the ability to go over the HOA. He added that he assumes the developer would fund the tot lot and not defer the cost to the HOA. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 13, 2011 Page 6 of 21