Driftwood talks continue

Barbara Diamond

It seems time is not of the essence for negotiations fostered by the

City Council between the developer and neighbors of the proposed

Driftwood subdivision.

“I am pleased with the direction the meetings are going in and we

will have several more,” said Councilman Steven Dicterow, who

represents the council in the negotiations.” We are making great

progress.”

The project has been in the pipeline for more than two years,

partially because of the council’s decision in February to intervene

before taking action on the Planning Commission recommendations.

Dicterow, who generally supports the policy of upholding the

advice of city boards and commissions, not only proposed the

intervention, but fancies the notion that the negotiations might

serve as a model for similar projects.

“Steve believes that he is good at bringing people together and he

has been successful in doing that in several instances,” Planning

Commissioner Norm Grossman said.

“What concerns me is that at the commission level we were very

diligent at having open, public meetings on all aspects of the

project. We held many more meetings than any other jurisdiction I

know of and gave everybody the opportunity to speak and to know what

was going on. This process has been subverted by private meetings.”

The negotiation meetings have not been publicly noticed.

Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman, who was appointed with Dicterow to the

council subcommittee, has not attended any meetings. She declined to

give a reason.

“Steve has been keeping me informed of the progress of the

committee,” said Kinsman, a former planning commissioner who also

supports the policy of backing boards, commissions and city

committees.

Councilman Wayne Baglin, a proponent of “sunshine government,”

isn’t worried about the non-noticed meetings because no decisions are

being made.

“What Steve is working so hard at is to get compromises between

various parties,” Baglin said. “The general public will be notified

when the council has another hearing. Meantime, anyone who feels left

out should contact the council secretary and asked to be notified of

the meetings.”

Dicterow announced at the June 6 meeting that negotiations were

still underway.

“If we had concluded them, it would be a failure,” Dicterow said.

“The issues are complex and many.”

He declined to set a new deadline for a presentation to the

council because he felt it would change the dynamics of the

negotiations and the resolution of some questions.

“I thought all the questions were answered in the hearings we held

over a period of a year -- not including many one-on-one meetings

between individual commissioners and members of the community,”

Planning Commissioner Anne Johnson said this week.

The Planning Commission and city staff presented an inch-thick

report with recommendations based on 10 public meetings at the Jan.

14 council meeting. The recommendations included approval of a 15-lot

subdivision on 225 acres, with 90% of the acreage dedicated to open

space. Alteration of a significant watercourse was recommended for

safety considerations. No variances -- deviations from usual

requirements -- were requested.

However, the council had questions it wanted answered before

approving the commission recommendations. The meeting was continued

to Feb. 25, at which time Dicterow volunteered to meet with the

developer and the neighbors to try to resolve their differences,

although he had said in January that he didn’t recall ever having

dealt before with a subdivision.

“ ... I would like to get started right away,” said developer

Steve Vliss, who had announced at the meeting a reduction from 15 to

13 lots in the project and a consequent reduction in grading.

Dicterow wasn’t available until mid-March for talks, due to

business obligations, which have made him miss three regular council

meetings and the budget workshop held since the Feb. 25 meeting.

Among the most divisive questions facing the neighborhood was

which street to use for access to the development, although the

environmental study stated there would be no significant impact on

neighborhood traffic.

“Treasure Island showed us what happens to traffic when

development comes in,” Hobo Canyon Neighborhood Assn. founder Penny

Elia said Monday.

Elia is a participant in the negotiating meetings, although she

shies from the phrase.

“We’ve tried very hard to stay away from trade-offs,” said Elia.

“If you make a compromise for one area of the neighborhood, another

area suffers.

“I think part of the challenge at the Planning Commission was

trying to get something together that worked for everybody’s quality

of life. At the last meeting, we all stepped back and said, gosh!

wouldn’t it have been wonderful if we could have started this process

three years ago?

“We are making strides, but it will probably take two or three

more meetings to reach a point where we have discussed everything, I

don’ know that we will ever reach complete agreement, but it won’t be

for lack of trying.”

City Planner Ann Larson said the city is fortunate that developer

Steve Vliss has been open to revisions that meet the concerns of the

staff and the community in spite of the added costs.

“This has been a very long process for a project of this size,”

Larson said. “Something like this wouldn’t even have required an

[impact report] in San Bernardino or Riverside counties. But

developers have to consider the community where they propose a

project.”

Delays in a project can be costly for the developer. Every change

in the Driftwood project has to be reviewed for compatibility with

the environmental report, not to mention consultation with the

developer’s hired fuel modification expert, architect, engineers,

etc.

“You’d like to get started sooner rather than later,” Vliss said.

“The process was little more involved than I expected, but I am not

distraught. We are getting to the point where we can bring closure to

all the open questions.

“It has increased the costs of the project, while we are being

asked to reduce the number of lots, which reduces the potential

profits. Some of the profit reduction will be offset as we continue

to refine the project.”

The California Coastal Commission staff has expressed an interest

in visiting the site, before the project is put on the agenda.

“They called and said their biologist was going to be in the

neighborhood and figured it might be a good idea to stop by,” Larson

said.

Seven findings -- justifications -- must be made to meet the state

Subdivision Map Act requirements for approval of a project.

City staff determined the findings could be made for approval of

the project as recommended by the Planning Commission. Substantial

changes might require a re-circulation of the environmental report if

the potential impacts are greater or greatly different from the

current document.

“It just depends on what we get in front of us,” Larson said.

The Planning Department will have to review any changes for

compliance with city codes and make the appropriate findings,

according to Larson.

“Anything we do must comply with all city zoning codes and

ordinances,” Vliss said. “I am please with the way the project is

shaping up and I am glad we had the opportunity to seek further input

from the neighbors.

“This is a project we believe in and in many ways it is a better

project than when we began.”