PC 042600 - Laserfiche WebLink

the Commission and City Council to discourage development west of Foothill Road and south of Dublin Canyon Road. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, Dublin, noted that adopting the guidelines will protect aesthetic standards, property fights, and value of homes. David Glenn, 10 Tehan Canyon Road, noted his property is in the County's jurisdiction and stated he is opposed to being included in the overlay district. Mr. Glen noted he is opposed to additional development on Tehan Canyon Road due to development increasing geotechnical hazards and fire hazards. He noted that the County has determined there should be no further development on Tehan Canyon Road and requested that the City not approve development in this al~a. Paolo Dicandia, 10807 Dublin Canyon Road, spoke in favor of the Commission adopting the guidelines. He noted that mature landscaping mitigates visual impacts. Neil Nelson, 8088 Bethel Lane, sought clarification bom Ms. Seto relating to clarification of the terms "police power" and "finding of fact." He noted he is opposed to the guidelines and spoke in favor of homeowners being allowed a preference for the color of homes, trims utilized on homes, and architecture of homes. He commented on the architecture and colors utilized for his hume and cautioned the City against taking away property rights for homeowners. Robert Byrd, 4650 Third Street, inquired whether there is a process for annexing from the City into the County and Ms. Seto noted that Mr. Byrd could apply to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for a de-annexation. He expressed concern with the 22-foot limit on house size as contained in the guidelines. Mr. Byrd referenced his memorandum previously submitted to the Commission and spoke in opposition to limiting the height of homes. Carol Varela, 3858 Mohr Avenue, spoke in opposition to the public noticing process and stated tlg boundaries should be extended for public noticing of the guidelines. Mr. Plucker noted that 2900 notifications were sent out to property owners and that the notice was published in the newspaper. Ms. Varela noted that the notices are not understandable. She requested that this item be continued to a future date to allow for additional renoticing to ensure public input. Marti Statues, 5050 Foothill Road, referenced her memorandum dated April 24, 2000, and noted that the ordinance impacts property owners' rights. She commented on the present views along Foothill Road. Ms. Statues requested that the Commission provide a response of what the ordinance will entail. Scan Lemoine, 4456 Foothill Road, noted that the ranges are protected from development due to the parks department acquisition of land. He stated that this ordinance will discriminate against the remaining property owners on Foothill Road who have not developed. He noted he is opposed to the process and that these guidelines are very restrictive. Kell and Don Etrigo, 5000 Foothill Road, noted they did not receive a public notice of heating and inquired how guidelines will affect their property and plans to enlarge their home. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 26, 2000 Page 7