PC 101001 - Laserfiche WebLink

project site objected to the extension, citing that it would cause too much traffic, the crowding of ,,- schools, and negative impacts on the environmental. Another neighbor from the same neighborhood sent an e-mail supporting the extension. Ms. Kline stated that staff worked closely with the applicant at its initial application in 1999 to ensure that the West Foothill Road Corridor Overlay District (WFRCOD) guidelines and regulations were met. She continued that the Planning Commission subsequently reviewed the WFRCOD ordinance and proposed revisions to the regulations, now called the West Pleasanton Overlay District (WPOD). The City Council reviewed the WPOD regulations in August 2000 but took no action then, and it has been continued indefinitely. Ms. Kline pointed out that the project complies with all the provisions of the WFRCOD ordinance and a majority of the WPOD regulations. Because the existing regulations are still in effect, staff recommends that the applicant not be required to comply with the new, unadopted WPOD regulations. Ms. Kline stated that staff believed that the approved project would maintain the unique character of Foothill Road. Ms. Kline further indicated that because the Commission would like to see green building practices incorporated in all projects, new conditions were added with respect to green building, outfitting the roofs of structures to accept roof-mounted photovoltaics in the future, wiring homes for telecommunications infrastructure to promote telecommuting, and restricting types of fire places. She advised that the applicants have indicated their willingness to accept all the conditions, but they have expressed concern about the outfitting requirements for the installation of photovoltaics. ,,- Commissioner Roberts stated that PUD Condition #12 required that a fencing plan showing the gate and gate lighting be installed prior to Tentative Map approval. She inquired when the Tentative Map was approved and why this condition was not complied with prior to that approval. Ms. Kline advised that the Tentative Map was approved in May 2000. She added that it is a routine practice that sometimes PUD/Tentative Map requirements are deferred to Final Map approval when there are on-going issues with neighbors and residents. Commissioner Sullivan requested an elaboration of why the environmental work took longer than expected. Ms. Kline referred the question to the applicant. In response to Commissioner Arkin's inquired regarding expiration dates for Final Maps, Ms. Seto replied that under the subdivision improvement agreements, the applicant has two years to complete all improvements that are part of the original final map. She explained that in the event that the project does not go forward and no infrastructure is built, that project ends up effectively going into default. The City can then go through the process called reversion to acreage in which the City brings back a new map, which effectively wipes out all the parcels. She added that in most cases, the City only takes over when a project is partially completed and the City wants to finish it. But in cases where the project has not been started, the City generally does not go in and build whole new streets and infrastructures. Ms. Seto continued that the City, then, would have to take affirmative steps to revert it to acreage. ,.-- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10,2001 Page 10