CCMIN020789 - Laserfiche WebLink

239 of the closed community, but that can be a part of the PUD decision. In the overall nature of the development this particular developer has gone to some length to solve the problems that were associated with the previous proposal. He feels the lot sizes and open space are appealing. Councilmember Brandes stated he does not favor the new alignment of Foothill Road because it will increase speed; the current alignment is better. He also felt the developer did not do very much on the Specific Plan about density on the small triangle portion of the parcel. Mayor Mercer stated this piece of property is a key piece to Foothill Road. He stated when he made a motion to have only one unit per acre last year his motion failed. When Mr. DeSilva opted to purchase the property, Mayor Mercer told him the property should remain rural. He felt that straightening Foothill Road would increase speed and accidents; not many accidents have occurred at this location. He felt the lot density could be increased next to Foothill Knolls. He felt it would be nice to have neighborhood schools but the School District has reviewed this matter and it is their ultimate decision. The concept of a gated community needs to be addressed. The open space/park issue needs to be decided; if maintenance of the park becomes a problem to the homeowners then a gated community might be the solution. He feels this is an entrance to the City and needs to be something special. He does not envision curbs and gutters; it should remain rural and new trees need to be planted. He stated the developer has done a good job in trying to meet the needs of the neighbors, Council and City staff. If Bernal Avenue is to be widened and a new bridge installed, he felt the bridge should look like the old one. He felt the triangle piece of property should be single- family residential to buffer the noise. He concluded by stating he felt this developer has tried to do everything possible to satisfy everyone. Councilmember Tarver stated it was not his intention to say that a school would serve only this development, but it would be for all developments in that area. He agreed that the developer has gone a long ways but he felt he could go a little farther. Councilmember Brandes stated he could not support this Specific Plan because he felt the density is too high. It was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Mohr, that Resolution No. 89-59, approving the Laguna Oaks Specific Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission and as set forth in Staff Report 89:62, be adopted. - 8 - 2-7-89