The council is right now considering the Desert Rose developer appeal. The Planning Commission rejected the development, but the developer is coming back claiming the rejection was illegal.
The development is clearly unwelcome and completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood is zoned Rural Residential - 2, meaning a maximum of 2 lots per acre, or a minimum of 1/2 acre per lot. Most properties in the neighborhood, however, are an acre or more. The developer is using the density bonus law to try to force 17 lots (one street lot, 16 dwelling lots) into a 7+ acre area that would normally be zoned for 15 lots. Even at 15 lots, this would be much denser than the surrounding neighborhood, and a burden on traffic and street parking in the narrow, rural street.
The question is whether the state density bonus law, written by developers for developers, mandates the city approve this development regardless of the impact on the community. There seem (to this lay reader) to be enough outs in the law to allow the city council to reject the appeal on a number of community impact grounds if they so choose.
That's just this week's hot council action. Next week: will the new green city council overturn the 101 bike lane approved by the old gray city council?
UPDATE: No decision on Desert Rose. Can kicked until March.
UPDATE: Correction from a Desert Rose neighbor:
One correction that I would request is that this property is zoned for either 7 units (identified in the GPU Update on pg. B-97, line 1. Project planner Roy Sapau also figured it in an email to Maggie Houlihan in January 2011. That that time, he figured that the actual zoning for this property was 8 houses without the application of any up zoning.
The misinformation that they are only asking for 4 more units than they are entitled came from the appeal that Marco Gonzalez placed. As you see, 16 units with 1 low income house and 1 fee paid to the City for the 17th is much more than 7 or 8 houses. In fact, there is currently a low income family who have tended the horses for over 20 years who are living there who will lose their home, so it is hard to understand what benefit to the community this project will provide.
Not sure why this differs from the RR-2 max zoning, but we'll take your word for it.