Driftwood developer to revise proposal

Barbara Diamond

The developer of a proposed subdivision in South Laguna is revising

the project after running into opposition from city planners as well as

neighbors.

Changes are expected to include a reduction in the number of lots

proposed by the developer for Driftwood Estates.

It seems impossible that the reduction could be low enough to satisfy

opponents of the project who say they don’t want any homes built on the

plateaus above Treasure Island and nor, perhaps, low enough to suit city

staff, which has recommended a seven-lot subdivision.

“The project is not economically viable with just seven lots,” said

project architect Morris Skendarian. “There is too much work to do -- and

water quality issues -- to have seven lots pay for it.”

Opponents say they would be happy to see the project fold and that

they would be willing to pay to stop development.

“There are many reasons to save this land and prevent another

subdivision from swallowing more of Orange County’s shrinking open space,

but task force members have a tough job ahead,” said Penny Elia, a member

of the Sierra Club’s Hobo Aliso Task Force and president of the Hobo &

Aliso Canyons Neighborhood Assn.

“We need to help the City Council understand that Proposition 40 funds

are available and that the Sierra Club is ready to work with a

conservancy to purchase the land and preserve it as open space. That’s in

writing.”

However, the Esslinger Family Trust, the property owner, already has a

buyer for the parcel.

Highpointe Communities has an option on the 19-plus acres and

submitted the proposal to them, which included 18 single-family residential lots, streets, open space lots, a quarter-acre park and 13.1

acres of open space.

“The site was previously graded 40 years ago and there is enough space

for 18 lots larger than the city’s R-1 standards,” Skendarian said.

“Access in and out is adequate and the development is in keeping with

contiguous development and is compatible with the existing neighborhood.”

A planning commission hearing is scheduled for Wednesday to decide if

the commissioners want to visit the site again. The commission visit is

open to the public, although comment will not be taken.

“I have suggested that a botanist accompany the commission if they do

decide on a walk-about,” project opponent Elia said.

The planning commission is scheduled to consider the application for

the subdivision and the draft environmental report on the project at the

June 5 meeting.

Revisions were prompted by a May 9 staff report that found fault with

the project as originally proposed and recommended a seven-lot project. A

new staff report was to be available today, but due to discussion at a

May 16 meeting between the staff and developer representatives, it

probably will only be a new cover letter, said John Montgomery, community

development department assistant director.

The staff report stated that the 18-lot project as proposed is at odds

with several general plan policies. Specifically, the applicant proposes

construction that intrudes into significant, natural watercourse and into

high or very high value habitat. A project must be denied if it is

inconsistent with the general plan, according to city planners. City

engineer Steve May determined that a proposed catch basin and storm drain

would be a public benefit and the city code allows alteration of a

significant natural watercourse in the interests of public safety.

“Improving the watercourse could prevent flooding in the

neighborhood,” architect Skendarian said. “But staff is still saying that

a variance is required.”

Skendarian also said he takes exception to the staff’s determination

that building a road in an existing 50-foot-wide easement connecting to

Ocean Vista Drive requires a variance for indirect access.

Variances are deviations from the usual building standards granted

only when strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the

property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the

vicinity and zone.

“We believe that city staff, in requiring the applicant to apply for a

variance for indirect access, has misinterpreted the Laguna Beach

Municipal Code,” Skendarian said. “The 50-foot-wide easement was granted

40 years ago to the previous developer by adjacent property owners for

access purposes.”

The seven-lot subdivision recommended by the staff, would eliminate

the need for the indirect access variance and inconsistencies with the

general plan, according to the May 9 report. A single-access, no variance

alternative is one of four options contained in the draft environmental

report.

The report states that none of the four options are likely to cause

substantial environmental damage, and, it states the single-access, no

variance proposal would have considerably less impact on the

environmentally sensitive areas.

“My point of view is that every bit of open space left in Orange

County should be preserved,” said Jean Bernstein, a downhill neighbor of

proposed Driftwood Estates development and a founder of the Hobo & Aliso

Canyons Neighborhood Assn. “The proposed development is attached to more

than 200 acres that are contiguous to Aliso and Wood Canyons Regional

Park and to Laguna Coast Wilderness Park. It should be part of the

greenbelt.

“I wouldn’t consider any development there.”