PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Codes, California Building and Fire Codes that are more restrictive than the National Codes, Pleasanton Codes, and due process. He referred to Chief Cody's statement that the fire sprinkler ordinance would take much due process, public hearing, and input from the public to develop a good and fair ordinance that is far-reaching in terms of the value of buildings and the health and safety aspects. He added that in the meantime, he felt it was inappropriate that laws are being legislated from the dais without due process, notwithstanding the fact of the important charge the Commission has of determining public health, safety, and welfare. He stated that this condition did not come from the Planning, Building, or Fire Departments but from the Commission, based on its previous decisions. He indicated that his client, the property owner, had asked him why he was being required to put sprinklers when the Code did not require it. He noted for the record that the building is a wooden, historic building between two existing buildings with bad building standards with a real concern about fire consuming the entire block. He stated that George Thomas, the City's Chief Building and Safety Official, had indicated that this particular building is an A-3 building with three-hour fire walls on both side property lines; the building to the north belonging to Mr. Moret has three-hour fire walls around his building, and the building to the south is a masonry block building with afully-poured concrete block three-hour fire walls. He noted that while the Building Code only requires aone-hour fire wall on the property lines, the three buildings have six-Hour fire walls on their property lines. Mr. O'Callaghan stated that he would like to know if the Commission knew of risks and concerns on which its decision was based and of which he was not aware. He noted that categorically imposing a $35,000-$40,000 conditions on the building without full due process is inappropriate and affects multiple things having to do with construction, the value of the building, and property owner rights. He indicated that he was aware that the Commission would like to protect the property rights of the buildings next door; he noted that the firewalls far exceeded the requirements of the Fire Code. He requested the Commission to go by the standards of the Building Code which does not include that all buildings have to be sprinklered. He compared this to driving a Chevy that has less safety equipment than a Mercedes Benz which would be better for safety and handling; yet people have the right to decide and are allowed to drive the Chevy in the most hazardous streets. He added that if the Commission sees any evidence regarding why this particular building should be imposed with mandatory sprinkler system, that should go on record and should be taken into consideration for applicants and builders. Mr. O'Callaghan stated that the new 7,900-square-foot building on 55 West Angela Street does not have sprinklers, and Mr. Bob Byrd's St. Mary Street building, which is less than 8,000 square feet, is also not sprinklered. He pointed out that the reasons people died in the example of the night club in Rhode Island were because the building was ahigh-density, over-populated building whose exits were locked with chains so the people could not get out, and whose doors opened the wrong way so that the people piled against them and were asphyxiated. With respect to why he did not appeal the Planning Commission decision during the 15-day appeal period, Mr. O'Callaghan explained that he was negotiating back and forth with the City Attorney's Office, and Michael Roush, the City Attorney, was not sure about how to deal with his question regarding the Planning Commission legislating an ordinance from the dais versus the provisions of the Municipal Code. He indicated that the time frame for an appeal passed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 9 of 28