PC 061307 - Laserfiche WebLink

The motion passed, and the minutes of May 30, 2007 were approved as amended. 3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA. Lee Fulton, 3407 Brandy Court, requested extra time during Item 8.a., PUD-33, Oak Grove, to read his prepared statement verbatim. Chairperson Fox indicated that would be acceptable. Michael O’Callaghan, 125 West Neal Street, inquired whether the appointment of a Planning Commission to the Downtown Vitality Committee of the Pleasanton Downtown Association would be an open forum item or a Consent Calendar-type of item. Ms. Decker confirmed that it would be a public hearing under Matters for Commission’s Review/Action. Mr. O’Callaghan also noted that in his presentation at the previous meeting for 725 Main Street, there was a condition of approval for a fire sprinkler system in the building. At that time, he had objected to the condition and would like to request that the Commission reconsider rehearing his arguments on that condition. In discussing the issue with staff over the past two weeks, he was not sure where the condition came from. He believed that based on his research, there were no requirements for fire sprinkler systems in the Uniform Fire Code or Building Code. He had also spoken with the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshall and did not receive a direct answer on that issue. He understood the Fire Department’s request for that type of condition on every project, but he believed it set a precedent of law-making by the Planning Commission, where it would require every project to have fire sprinklers. He noted that he could not appeal this particular project to the City Council as it would not be heard for months, thereby stopping the project from moving ahead. He requested the opportunity to have a full discussion with staff, specifically the Fire Department; he was unsure whether the Fire Department made that decision. He believed this requirement was outside the Planning Commission’s discretionary support. He noted that while Livermore had a fire sprinkler ordinance, Pleasanton did not. Commissioner Blank provided a brief background of the proposed fire sprinkler ordinance where the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to City Council that such an ordinance be considered. While the City Council was supportive, it did not move forward as a City Council priority due to lack of staff resources. The City Council stated that in lieu of an ordinance, the Planning Commission should condition all of the projects to have sprinklers. Since January 2005, the Commission had added that condition to every application for new construction. Ms. Decker further detailed the background of this condition and added that the Planning Commission and City Council considered not only new residential construction but also new commercial construction that are less than the 8,000-square-foot threshold for sprinklers that the Code required. She noted that the Planning Director had expressed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 Page 3 of 29