CCMIN081908 - Laserfiche WebLink

so they may be heard. Starting with something that is already built and saying should it be allowed is a vast distance from presenting a proposal and asking for a variance. Although the size of the tank has been reduced; it has yet to be determined if a 5,000 gallon tank is needed. Ms. Rocha has City water for domestic needs, has some landscape in front, some newly planted trees to water in back, some horses to water, but is not raising a crop. There is also a water aqua from which she can pump that stores water. The size or cost to move the tank has yet to be determined. If the project had gone through design review because of size and impact of view, that would have been addressed. Even though the Segundo's have put in vegetation, the tank is quite visible. Their efforts to screen the tank should not be held against them and they are asking the Council to grant the appeal. One option is to return this to design review process or suggest the tank be moved back to where it was or somewhere close to that and if it needs to be so large, and the Segundo's are open to mediation. Janny Rocha, Applicant, reported that 4 out of 5 Planning Commissioners granted her a conditional use permit on April 9`". Staff and commissioners visited the site and viewed the tank prior to that decision. The intent of this project was to have a water tank to hold water needed and to have more consistent water pressure to supply for current and future irrigation and for the current and new stock. According to the flow test dated August 11, 2006, between 5,000 and 10,000 gallons were needed per day to water one acre of ground. Ms. Rocha explained that her property is 1.33 acres and therefore, the new tank is at half the capacity. The old redwood tank was obsolete and requires maintenance. It had an open chicken wire top that posed a hazard for children and animals to drown. The position of the old tank required the pump to work all day in order to irrigate one acre. Ms. Rocha presented before and after slides, reported that the entire property was an eyesore before purchasing it in 2006. She said she has been respectful to her neighbors and has shown pride of ownership. Apparently, neighbors did not complain about the overgrown vegetation, debris piles and dilapidated structures prior to her ownership. The tank seems to have made everything objectionable. The transformation that has taken place has benefited immediate neighbors and the viability of the neighborhood. Ms. Rocha said she was not aware that a permit or conditional use permit was required for a tank replacement until the Segundo's complained. Knowing nothing about wells, tanks and related equipment, she relied heavily on licensed contractors for their expertise. Two quotes received indicated no need for permits or permit fees. Dan's Water Well was chosen as the contractor after speaking with neighbors, including the Segundo's, who were past customers. Replacement was time sensitive; waiting a year for approval would have compromised irrigation and water for stock. The contractor was consulted with frequently. He installed the tank on the Segundo's. If he knew a permit was required for their tank, he would have known one was needed. There was no hearing on the Segundo tank that Ms. Rocha recalled. She also thought that if the Segundo's had needed a permit they would have mentioned it. She did not recall that a hearing was held and that a permit was ever filed. As far as setbacks are concerned, she said according to the North Sycamore Specific Plan the property does not have approved site development standards which mean there are no set standards or setbacks for lots. The staff report in April used an example of approved standard for reference and comparison standards and by no means stated that those standards applied. The Commissioners were made aware of that fact in the report. City Council Minutes 8 August 19, 2008