Laserfiche WebLink
Main Street Property <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired about the status on the former Union Jack property on <br />Main Street. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker replied that the project was approved for design review approval a year ago <br />and that a demolition permit was subsequently granted. She stated that the building was <br />demolished, and the design review was due to expire on June 15, 2008. Staff had <br />extended the approval for another year, and the new expiration date was June 2009. She <br />stated that she believed the project was in the plan check process and that staff would <br />follow up. <br /> <br />Commissioner Narum inquired whether the design review extension could be appealed by <br />the Planning Commission. Ms. Decker noted that the extension was a staff level <br />approval, which she signed as the Principal Planner, acting as Zoning Administrator. She <br />noted that action could be appealed. She noted that it was extended on June 13, 2008, as <br />the expiration would have occurred on a Sunday. <br /> <br />California Splash Buildings <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox inquired about the buildings that had been put up for California <br />Splash and that she thought would be dismantled. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan noted that the East Bay Regional Park District was considering an alternative <br />use for the buildings other than their original intent. He noted that the District had been <br />somewhat slow to act and that there had been some dialogue within City Hall to <br />encourage it to make a decision; if nothing is to be done with the buildings, they should <br />come down. He noted that the City did not wish to encourage another public agency to <br />waste its funds. He believed the District was leaning towards using them for another <br />purpose. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding whether the District would <br />have to come to the City for a conditional use permit or whether it would be <br />grandfathered in, Mr. Dolan replied that it depended upon the intended use. <br /> <br />Sprinkler Ordinance <br /> <br />Chair Blank inquired whether staff could provide a target date for the completion of the <br />Sprinkler Ordinance, which was referenced at the last meeting as being very close. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker replied that staff would continue to follow up on this issue and would provide <br />additional information at the July 9, 2008 meeting. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 25, 2008 Page 12 of 14 <br /> <br /> <br />