Dana Point Sued Over Plan for Headlands

In the continuing controversy over the Dana Point Headlands, a co-owner of the property filed a lawsuit Thursday seeking to stop the city’s planning process for the 122-acre parcel overlooking the Pacific Ocean.

Developer Sanford Edward, president of the Headlands Reserve, which co-owns the property, said he was forced to take legal action because he and his partners have been excluded from the city’s planning.

The city “has been on its own political agenda since January,” Edward said, “and they have refused to engage in a dialogue with us.”

The lawsuit, filed in Orange County Superior Court, alleges that city officials are violating the law by pursuing a specific plan that is in conflict with Dana Point’s General Plan.

After 10 months of hearings, the City Council voted in June to allow 185 homes to be built on the bluff overlooking the harbor, and a hotel on the Strand, an area near sea level north of the bluff. City staff is now working out details of that proposal.

The city’s General Plan, however, would allow between 261 and 522 homes and a hotel to be built on the bluff overlooking the harbor, Edward said, which is consistent with what he has proposed. Though he has said he is willing to reduce the number of homes, Edward is adamant about building the hotel on top of the bluff.

The lawsuit seeks a court order stopping the city’s planning process.

City Councilman Harold R. Kaufman refuted the allegations in the lawsuit, saying Edward was “being shortsighted and silly” by taking legal action now.

“I feel if [Edward] is interested in working something out and he feels that he has to do it court, then that’s unfortunate,” Kaufman said. “I hope he’s not underestimating the resolve of the city and the City Council to reach a specific plan.”

“We’ve tried to be cooperative. He’s being silly, and I’ve told him that,” Kaufman said.

But Edward said city officials have not been cooperative. He said he attended Wednesday night’s Planning Commission meeting, as did 16 consultants and experts who were to speak about property storm drainage, grading, road and other project issues. But the commission cut testimony short, Edward said, prompting him to believe he and his partners are not being given a fair opportunity to be heard.

“After 2 1/2 hours of testimony, they said they heard a lot, but they didn’t see or hear enough to change their plans or notify staff of any recommendations,” Edward said.

The Headlands dispute has gone on for decades, including two referendums in 1994 that rescinded the City Council’s approval of a $500-million project calling for a 400-room hotel, a commercial center and 370 homes. Though the Headlands owner sued, the courts upheld the referendums--but also said that the owners have a right to use their land and that the city must allow some development or be ready to pay compensation to the landowners.

A year ago, the City Council ordered the municipal staff to hold informational public hearings to gather input as a gauge of what residents wanted for development at the Headlands, described by environmentalists as a “crown jewel” among California’s coastal bluffs.

The area has two marine refuges and 45 acres of environmentally sensitive coastal sage scrub providing habitat for the endangered Pacific pocket mouse and the gnatcatcher, a rare songbird that is threatened but not on the endangered species list.