Driftwood decision awaits more ‘dialogue’

Barbara Diamond

Talk. Talk. Talk.

The City Council decided Tuesday that more talks between the

developer of Driftwood Estates and its neighbors were needed before a

decision could be made about the proposed development.

“We need to continue the dialogue between the neighbors and the

applicant with participation by one or two council members,” said

Councilman Steven Dicterow, who volunteered his services.

The council reached its decision after 2 1/2hours of testimony by

32 members of the public, the project architect and city staff and

council discussion.

The council had held a previous meeting in January on the proposed

subdivision, on which the Planning Commission had held 10 hearings

and recommended approval.

However, developer Steve Vliss had something new to say Tuesday.

Vliss submitted a revised proposal to the council, which included

reducing the number of lots from 15 to 13 on 10 acres of the

228.5-acre parcel overlooking the long-established Driftwood Drive

neighborhood, Aliso Creek Shopping Center and Montage Resort in South

Laguna.

The original proposal two years ago was for 19 lots. As has been

offered all along, the remaining acreage would be donated to the city

as permanent open space.

Loretta Drive resident Debra Morris was the only speaker, other

than project architect Morris Skendarian, who outright supported the

project.

“We have acres and acres behind us.” Morris said. “We thought it

was the greenbelt. Imagine our surprise to learn it was privately

owned.

“All of us in Porto Fino are thrilled that the land is being

donated [as open space] by the developer,” she said.

Neighboring property owners, sympathizers and representatives of

environmental groups were among the 31 speakers opposed to the

project.

“We take a strong position that the project does not comply with

the city’s general plan,” said Christopher Koontz of the Sierra Club.

The California Subdivision Map Act requires a decision-making body

to justify approval of a project with seven findings:

1. The proposed map is consistent with general and specific plans.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is

consistent with the applicable plans.

3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.

4. The site is suitable for the proposed density of the

development.

5. The proposed design or improvements are not likely to cause

environmental damage or substantially or avoidably injure fish or

wildlife or their habitat.

6. The design or improvements are not likely to cause serious

public health problems.

7. The design or improvements will not conflict with easements

acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property

within the proposed subdivision.

City staff said the findings can be made.

Staff also recommended that an access road on an easement to Ocean

Vista should be redesigned for entry-only traffic.

Proposed use of the easement as a road has divided neighbors, none

of whom want more traffic on their streets.

Allison King, who lives on Ocean Vista, said it wouldn’t be fair

to put traffic onto her street, which has 120 properties, rather than

Driftwood Drive, which has only 10 properties.

“Ocean Vista already has problems,” she said. “It is not a through

road. What goes up, must come down. Also, it doesn’t have a

beginning. It starts in the [Aliso Creek Shopping Center] parking

lot.”

Driftwood Drive resident Mort Jones said the addition of 13 homes

would create a significant increase in traffic for him.

Construction disruption, the increase in noise, the sizes of

proposed homes, the loss of privacy in neighboring homes and

neighborhood incompatibility also came in for criticism.

Existing homes in surrounding neighborhoods range from 3,236

square feet to 1,336 square feet, according to a study of 37 selected

single-family homes. Eleven of the homes surveyed were two stories

and average 2,170 square feet.

There are at least four homes to the acre in the neighboring

areas, compared to a proposed 1 1/4home per acre proposed for the

Driftwood Estates development, Skendarian said.

“We are not looking at fitting a single home into an established

neighborhood,” Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman said. “Driftwood Estates

is a whole new neighborhood.”

Developer Vliss also submitted changes in the grading plan for the

project, which Skendarian said will now be balanced -- meaning no

dirt will be exported.

Whatever is dug out -- cut -- will be used as fill on the site.

Midtown resident Marv Johnson made no comment on the project, but

submitted a letter also signed by Open Space Committee member Don

Black supporting the relocation of a trailhead on the property to the

intersection of existing trails.

“It would be nice if the trailhead included two benches, some

shade trees, screening shrubs and an appropriate trail sign,” Johnson

said.

The proposal includes the removal of a watercourse from city maps,

which the Planning Commission recommended 4 to 1 after determining

that it served no distinct functional, scenic or ecological purpose.

“Deletion of a significant watercourse from the map doesn’t delete

the water,” Ocean Vista resident Tom Fagan said.

The council set May 15 for the next hearing on Driftwood Estates,

allowing about three months for continued dialogue and any changes in

the proposal that might come out of the talks.

“I support the dialogue and I would like to get started right

away,” Vliss said after consulting with his architect and other

associates.

Not everyone wanted more talk on the project.

“I have spent more time on this project than any other in the past

five years,” council meeting regular Clay Leeds said. “This is a

waste of my time and my taxes and all of the city’s tax dollars.”