CCMIN081908 - Laserfiche WebLink

it stands, if that had a happened, a permit would not be needed. If the tank were in the same location it would be surrounded by the trees that are there. Councilmember McGovern confirmed that trees on the Rocha property, where it states "old tank looks like it was surrounded by trees" were removed. She disclosed that she visited both properties and talked to both of the families involved. In response to Vice Mayor Thorne's questions about locating the tank and wellhead close together, Ms. Decker explained that the well specialist indicated the old pump burned out because of distance which is why it was recommend placing them closer together to reduce friction, loss and hydraulics. However, that is not to say that it could not be redesigned and engineered to be further away in the original location. She also advised that the installer nor Ms. Rocha were aware that a conditional use permit was required. Councilmember McGovern verified the installer had worked in Pleasanton before and was concerned about that lack of knowledge regarding conditional use permits. Ms. Decker said it was not as straightforward as one would think in terms of the need and requirement for a permit for this site. When this PUD was developed these were remaining lands that were zoned PUD A and no development standards were approved for this particular site. The Code requires that if a site does not have a development plan there are two choices. Any changes to the site would require a conditional use permit or the applicant could file a planned unit development application. The difference is that an application for a PUD is $2,000 and it is an ordinance that comes to the City Council via recommendation of the Planning Commission. A conditional use permit is simpler; it costs $150 and goes to the Planning Commission. Staff offered both options and Ms. Rocha chose rather than provide a development plan for future development of her site as she wanted to correct the code enforcement action and filed a conditional use permit. Councilmember McGovern suggested contacting the installer who has worked in the City before and did not advise that a permit was required. She also wondered if the old pump burned out simply because it was old. In response to questions by Councilmember Cook-Kallio regarding actual annual vegetation growth, Ms. Decker explained the Redwoods should grow 3 feet a year to 15 feet in five years with trunks approximately 10-12 feet in diameter. The vegetation planted by the Segundo's is already mature and will continue to fill in. The Photinia should mature within two years along the fence line. Councilmember Cook-Kallio questioned the cost to move the tank to the original location and Ms. Decker said it has been estimated at $8,000. Costs for engineering and tank size have not been calculated. She said at this time, the neighbors are willing to talk, but are not close to an agreement. Councilmember Cook-Kallio understood the situation evolved from a mistake, but voiced concern about rules that are set up for obvious reasons. She hoped both parties could figure out something that was reasonable to both sides. Christopher Schlies speaking on behalf of the Segundo's, verified that the Council received his letter when the matter was scheduled in June and shared his views on mitigation for resolving disputes. He distributed a document relating to standards, said there is a mandatory design review process if something exceeds 10 feet, and one purpose of design review is to try to preserve views enjoyed by residents. He referred to page 5 of the Planning Commission report indicating setbacks should be 30 feet and it is only 20 feet, which is not in compliance. Although some rules are subject to a variance, that process is an application and neighbors are notified City Council Minutes 7 August 19, 2008