PC 030806 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the safety measures with respect to the water tank in the event of an earthquake, Mr. Cusenza noted that 99 percent of the buried tanks were reinforced and that this particular tank was concrete-reinforced and pre-stressed. He noted that reinforcing steel was built into the base, walls, and the roof, all of which were overdesigned to handle seismic events. He described the details of the siting and construction of the tank in response to the Commissioners' questions. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Peazce regarding whether this was a typical siting for a water tank in a residential azea, Mr. Cusenza confirmed that it was a very typical placement. He added that they were typically buried to reduce visibility. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Peazce regazding the color of the chain-link fence, Mr. Cusenza did not have the specific information but stated that they were generally painted oxy-coated green or black. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Greg Remick, applicant, complimented staff on its efforts during this long-term collaborative project. He noted that efforts were being made to meet the intent and the spirit of the Specific Plan, especially with respect to the realignment of the road at the base and the grading of the Neal School site. A more complete plan would be presented in the neaz future. He noted that this water tank was in the Specific Plan when he bought the property. He took slight issue with the placement of the "blobs" in the Specific Plan and noted that they had /^ modified the lot configuration due to the tank location, however, meeting the intent of the - locations provided in the Specific Plan. He noted that they placed the pads on the azeas that were most level. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas regarding whether he had an opinion on the elevation of 540 feet on Lots 3 through 7, Mr. Remick replied that the Specific Plan identified single-story homes above 540 feet. The only exception to that was an existing two-story home, and he noted that it might make sense to replace it rather than remodel it. He noted that it was difficult to find that house on the hillside, and the City had assured him that the single- or two-story issue was not locked in stone; the intent was to make the houses hard to see. He stated that with sensitive architecture, atwo-story structure would be possible and not be a visual impact. Mazy Roberts, 1666 Frog Hill Lane, thanked Mr. Remick for the time he spent with her and her husband explaining the project. She also thanked Wes Jost and Phil Grubstick, as well as Steve Otto, for explaining the engineering on the road. She wished to alert them to the fact that there was an electrical line going through the site along the easterly boundary. She noted that this was not as specific as the Sarich property and pointed out the proposed lot placements on the overhead screen. She noted that house placements on the ridge were not possible and was concerned that one of the houses had been moved closer to her house. She believed that she could work with the City's Engineering Department regazding that issue. She expressed concern about Lot 1, where the house was proposed to be moved closer to ~ Vineyard Avenue, especially regarding the proposal to fill and raise up the lot in prepazation PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 8, 2006 Page 11 of 22