Voter Rejection of Dana Point Project Upheld

By LEN HALL and ANNA CEKOLA

Jan. 1, 1997 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

SANTA ANA — A state court Tuesday upheld two 1994 ballot measures that blocked a $500-million resort and housing complex on the Dana Point Headlands, but it affirmed the landowners’ right to build eventually on one of the last large undeveloped coastal properties in Southern California.

The unanimous decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal leaves the door open to other development proposals for the environmentally sensitive, 121-acre parcel, which has been the subject of deep political division in the community.

But for the moment, opponents of the Headlands project--which called for a 400-room hotel, a commercial center and up to 370 homes--were elated by the ruling.

“This is great. . . . The judge upheld the vote of the people of Dana Point,” said resident June Golumbic, a member of Save the Headlands, a local group that helped organize the referendums against the project.

The City Council approved the resort proposal in April 1994, sparking an uproar by residents who contended that the development was too large and without sufficient open space and parkland.

The property is owned by M.H. Sherman Co. and Chandis Securities Co., a firm that oversees the financial holdings of the Chandler family, major stockholders in Times Mirror Co., which publishes the Los Angeles Times.

The referendums were placed on the November 1994 ballot and won easily. The landowners then filed suit, contending that the measures exceeded the city’s power and violated state planning law. The owners also argued that the referendums constituted an unlawful taking of land without just compensation.

In April 1995, Superior Court Judge Marvin G. Weeks ruled that the suit had no merit, a decision that was upheld Tuesday.

The 12-page appeals court opinion, written by Justice William F. Rylaarsdam, said voters have a right to use the power of referendum over governmental actions involving land-use plans.

“A rule declaring the voters cannot reject a proposed specific plan falling within the parameters of the city’s general plan would render the exercise of the power of referendum meaningless,” the decision said.

The court also said the referendums were constitutional because they merely rejected one specific proposal, and the city’s general plan still “contemplates development of the Headlands.”

“There has not been a final decision denying [the landowners] all economically viable use of the property,” the court said, noting that 11 other development options were included in an environmental review for the property.

The decision leaves the landowners with several options. They could appeal to the California Supreme Court, come up with a new development plan or wait for city government to propose another plan on its own.

Project spokesman Dan T. Daniels, president of M.H. Sherman, could not be reached for comment.

Dana Point Mayor Karen Lloreda said it is now up to the council to help formulate a new plan for the Headlands.

“This has been very divisive in our city,” Lloreda said. “I think everybody would like a plan that is acceptable to all of us. Right now, no one has access to the land. The fences are up and the gates are locked.”

Lloreda said she hopes the council begins discussing another plan early this month, a desire shared by newly elected Councilwoman Ruby L. Netzley, who opposed the resort complex.

“We need to get right on it,” Netzley said. “I think we should pass something better than what was offered before. . . . We need more open space and more parkland that is more accessible to the public.”

The appeals court decision is the latest chapter in a decades-old dispute over the proposed development of the Headlands peninsula, a bluff-top property that is home to the California gnatcatcher and the Pacific pocket mouse. The gnatcatcher, a small songbird, is considered threatened, and the pocket mouse is on the federal endangered species list.

The court warned that the city must either allow some development in the future or be ready to compensate the landowners. In their lawsuit, the landowners had sought reimbursement of $3 million spent processing the development plan, plus attorneys fees, which the court denied.

But the appeals court agreed that “unnecessary delays in approving a proposed development or repetitive denials of specific plans complying with the city’s general plan will amount to a taking requiring Dana Point to pay compensation. . . .”

Ken Rozell, Dana Point’s assistant city attorney, said the court is warning the city that “at some point” a development plan must be approved.

“That time has not yet come, but the court is saying it is close,” Rozell said.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Voter Power

A 4th District Court of Appeal decision has upheld a voter referendum blocking development of a $500-million project on the Dana Point Headlands.