PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Narum commented that the Council did not take a vote directing the Commission to do so. Chair Blank noted that he did not know if a formal vote was taken and that he would have to go back and check; however, he indicated that it was actually documented in the City Council Minutes. Ms. Decker clarified that it occurred during the discussion on the prioritization of the Council's Work Plan. She stated that the sprinkler ordinance was added for consideration because it was an item of interest by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. She noted, however, that because the Work Plan had already been established by then, and there was so much work to be done that would require the obligation of staff resources, the Council did not want to press forward with the ordinance then and directed the Commission to proceed in the manner it has been going of conditioning all new residential structures and commercial buildings of 8,000 square feet or less to install a sprinkler system. Chair Blank asked Fire Chief Cody to identify the differences between the sprinkler requirements of the City of Pleasanton and the City of Livermore and the value of having sprinklers in commercial buildings. Chief Cody stated that there is nothing one can do better to protect life, property, and the environment than to install fire sprinklers and that the least expensive time to do it is during new construction. He noted that the value of sprinklers is irrefutable and that some of the fires in which there was a public assemblage or a large number of lives lost were in non-sprinklered buildings. He pointed out in the fire at the nightclub in Rhode Island that had pyrotechnics, everybody died because the building was not sprinklered. He added that had there been sprinklers, there would not have been one death in that building. He continued that more recently in Pleasanton, the Baci Restaurant on Hopyard Road was targeted by an arsonist, and the fire sprinklers saved building; one fire sprinkler head went off and suppressed a Molotov cocktail that was thrown into the building. He noted that had the building been occupied and not sprinklered, there would have been an incredibly high number of lives lost, and based on time of the night the fire occurred, the building would have been burnt down before the Fire Department would have arrived at the scene. He emphasized the value of fire sprinklers and added that the action the Planning Commission takes to condition buildings to be sprinklered is the right way to go. He noted that the Fire and Planning Departments are working together to develop a fire sprinkler ordinance that would initiate a Code amendment and that the process would be taken out for an extensive public review to get input from the community. He added that it should be on the agenda this coming year. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Michael O'Callaghan, representing the owner, stated that there two things man fears: being eaten by a shark or bear and being burned alive and that there is a certain amount of risk that goes with getting out of bed each morning. He indicated that he did not take exception to the Chief Cody's statement that a building may be a better building if it had sprinklers or that fire sprinklers are a good thing for safety and life. He noted that there are National Building and Fire PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 8 of 28