My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 010908
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 010908
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:36:15 PM
Creation date
11/26/2008 11:15:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/9/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 010908
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
public hearings and the vast majority of the country and California do not require sprinklers for <br />buildings under 8,000 feet, but the Pleasanton Planning Commission requires it. He stated that <br />the Commission could also require conformity to the Green Building ordinance by using <br />language such as "strongly advising" or "if at all possible" or "use your best efforts." He noted <br />that the owner may eventually want to put in sprinklers depending on the type of use or business <br />that would occupy the building and that he would have to come back for a conditional use permit <br />for which sprinklers would be required. <br />Chair Blank recalled that Mr. O'Callaghan stated the last time he was before the Commission <br />that the sprinkler system would cost about $100,000, and tonight he stated that it would cost <br />about $35,000. <br />Mr. O'Callaghan stated that he erred on the $100,000 because in consultation with the <br />contractors, the fire mains can be installed on Main Street for less than the original cost. <br />Chair Blank noted that Mr. O'Callaghan had mentioned that the building would cost $1 million. <br />He asked Mr. O'Callaghan to verify that the sprinklers would be $35,000 to the million. <br />Mr. O'Callaghan confirmed the figures and added that it would include tenant improvements. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired if the occupancy for the Redcoats (Crown Pub) is the same type as <br />what is proposed for this new building. <br />Mr. Deaver replied that there is a difference; the Redcoats building was a remodel. He stated <br />that there are national, State, and Pleasanton Codes and that the Pleasanton Code is based on the <br />City's layout and how it operates, what the City would like to see, and what the citizens expect. <br />He added that the Livermore Building Code and ordinances require every new building to be <br />sprinklered. He noted that the subj ect building is a mixed-use building which brings an assembly <br />as a Restaurant, which immediately puts it within the same category as a residential building. He <br />added that the three-to-six-hour separations are structural and a determination is needed for that. <br />Mr. Deaver stated that he has worked with Mr. O'Callaghan and that he was good at what he <br />does. He added that Mr. O'Callaghan has indicated that he believes in fire protection. He <br />indicated that the Fire Department recommended sprinklers for this building because of exiting <br />issues, its close proximity to other buildings, and the mixed-use category. He noted that the <br />building at 55 West Angela Street has the same use and also has fire-wall separations; however, <br />there are openings around the building and does not have the potential exposures the Main Street <br />building presents. He stated that the time to install sprinklers is at this time when the building is <br />being replaced. He explained that the Fire Department does not want to carry on as before as it <br />has identified exiting issues and it is locked-in with other buildings. He added that this is the <br />time to provide a better product, and sprinklers make the building safer. With respect to the cost, <br />he indicated that he was not aware of today's inflation costs and that $25,000 would be about <br />right. He stated that the construction costs should be weighed against the benefits of safety and <br />protection of life and property as well as the overall safety of the building. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 11 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.