PC 053007 - Laserfiche WebLink

he did not want workers to walk on his new roof. He requested that the construction workers of this building, which he favored, not use his roof as a working platform. Peter MacDonald noted that he had a Downtown business and was very happy to see this project move forward. He believed the applicant had worked well with the neighbors and encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Mr. O’Callaghan stated that he agreed with all of the conditions except one, Condition No. 71, which was the requirement to place automatic fire sprinklers in the building. He noted that the proposed size was much smaller than the 8,000-square-foot threshold the current Code requires. Mr. O’Callaghan noted that in every case, insurance companies charged substantially more for buildings with sprinkler systems because the insurance companies pay out significantly more for water damage resulting from the activation of the sprinkler system than the cost of saving the structure. He wished to emphasize that the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, the California Building and Fire Codes, and the Pleasanton Building and Fire Codes all covered new construction and added that people complained about the cost of construction, development, and the price of the buildings and homes. He noted that this was one reason for that occurrence. He added that he could make an equally good case for a building with or without fire sprinkler systems. He noted that there were very few fires now because people were so savvy and that he was unsure whether it would be dollars wisely spent. With respect to the fire sprinklers, Ms. Decker noted that there had been recent concern by the Planning Commission as far as having new commercial construction under the 8,000-square-foot threshold along with single-family residential developments. As a result of the continuing conversations related to revising the Code to require fire protection sprinklers for all new construction, staff had been regularly conditioning all commercial and residential projects for sprinkler requirements. She advised that this has become the standard condition embraced by the City on all projects. She also noted where staff had not included the condition, it had been added by the Commission. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the nature of slumpstone, Mr. Huff replied that slumpstone was designed to replicate adobe block and described the fabrication process. He noted that if the stucco finish were to be chosen, they would need to set up a staging area on the Bronzini property. He noted that the slumpstone was not inexpensive and served as a one- to three-hour firewall as well. Commissioner O’Connor noted that there were many detailed conditions in the application that required returning to the Planning Director and inquired whether the applicant would rather work on those items first. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 30, 2007 Page 5 of 20