CCMIN040400 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver asked if he had reviewed the staff report. There is a section that says access for the second floor use is not a subject for appeal. Council cannot grant any exceptions related to Title 24. The only thing subject to appeal is the commemial use on the second floor, the requirement for fire sprinklers and the withholding of issuance of building permits for commercial use on the second floor until life and safety issues are addressed. In addition them is the fee waiver request. Mr. Churka felt the staff report was incorrect. He then referred to the definition in the Uniform Building Code of"Board of Appeal,, and read it. He did not feel he was receiving due process of law because the Board of Appeal has to be comprised of professionals not employed by the City, and staff and Councilmembers are all employed by the City. Mr. Roush said there is not a technical Board of Appeals in the City of Pleasanton. What has happened historically when a person disagrees with the decision of the Building Department, the City Council would sit as the Board of Appeals. The fact that the Councilmembers receive a stipend does not disqualify them from sitting as the Board of Appeals. It is staffs opinion that the issue regarding the elevator is an administrative decision and the Board does not have the power to waive it. Mr. Churka has been told there are some matters Council can deal with, but the review of the decision concerning the elevator would have to be filed in the Superior Court. The only issues before Council at this meeting are the tim sprinklers, life and safety requirements and the application of the development impact fee to commercial uses on the second floor. Ms. Acosta also stated the elevator involves standards for wheelchair access. Mayor Tarver clarified that applies to retail not office use. Mr. Churka said he is applying for a hardship based on the elevator that was there and not that he is installing a new one. Because it was designed under the 1991 Code, he did not feel that was unreasonable. He felt a wheelchair could turn in the elevator and also pointed out that it has two entrances, so a person would not have to turn. Ms. Michelotti clarified that Mr. Churka keeps talking about 1991 and means the 1991 Code, not that the basement was dug in 1991. According to the material before her, the approval for the one story restaurant with storage on the second floor was given in July 18, 1995 and it was not until May 29, 1996 that he received a plan check approval for a foundation only. So that elevator could not have been built until after May of 1996, which means the Code in effect in 1996 is what would apply. Everything else is a moot point. Mr. Smith said the plans submitted had written in the margin that they were designed according to the 1994 Building Code and were plan checked according to the 1994 Building Code. He did not know why Mr. Charka referred to the 1991 Code. Pleasanton City Council 13 04/04/00 Minutes