Laserfiche WebLink
while he was waiting for direction from Mr. Roush and that he did not know what the process <br />was. With respect to the building construction, he indicated that they had not quite gotten all the <br />problems worked out with Mr. Moret's building to the north. He stated that there were still some <br />easements have to be put in place and some foundation work that needed to be done; however, <br />they were getting close to zeroing in and going full speed ahead. <br />Chair Blank noted that the Commission held additional meetings in May 2007 and that <br />Mr. O'Callaghan came before the Commission on May 30th because he was concerned that his <br />project was being delayed. He added that Mr. O'Callaghan then came back on June 13th <br />requesting that the condition to install fire sprinklers be removed. He asked Mr. O'Callaghan if <br />the reason he was not able to appeal the Planning Commission's decision was because of the <br />delay caused by the City Attorney's Office. <br />Mr. O'Callaghan replied that he is not saying that the City Attorney's Office caused the delay <br />but that he was not getting the directive from the City Attorney's Office regarding the correct <br />process to follow. He indicated that he was aware of the process s for appealing and that he did <br />appeal the decision immediately to the City Attorney with respect to whether his situation should <br />should he go back to the Commission for a public hearing or be handled administrative by staff, <br />or whether the Commission was in error in imposing this condition of approval and should have <br />instead strongly advised the installation of a sprinkler system because there is no law in place to <br />impose the sprinkler condition. <br />Chair Blank stated that Mr. Roush was present at the June 13th meeting and noted from the <br />Minutes of that meeting that Mr. Roush had indicated that there were reconsideration provisions <br />in the City Council Rules and Procedures and had suggested that because the appeal time period <br />had not yet expired, Mr. O'Callaghan could still file an appeal the next day to be heard by the <br />City Council. <br />Mr. O'Callaghan agreed that there were procedures. He added that he went to Mr. Roush with <br />his objection and asked Mr. Roush what steps he should take next. He indicated that he has here <br />tonight to follow staff's directive. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired if there were compelling reasons why there should or should not be <br />fire sprinklers in buildings that are less than 8,000 square feet and what types of business or uses <br />in buildings that are less that 8,000 square feet would be required to be sprinklered. She further <br />inquired if the Crown Pub on St. Mary Street has two stories and is less than 8,000 square feet, <br />and whether it has the same type of business and was required to be sprinklered. <br />Mr. Otto confirmed that the Crown Pub is a two-story building and that it was an existing <br />building that was remodeled with an additiona1600 square feet. <br />Commissioner Fox's inquired if the other building on 55 West Angela Street is the one in the <br />Pleasanton Station area. <br />Mr. O'Callaghan confirmed that it was and that it was a new building. He indicated that he was <br />arguing not the value of sprinklers but the law. He added that the City has due process and <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 10 of 28 <br />