DANA POINT : Group Sues Over General Plan Issue

Representatives of a grass-roots coalition seeking a vote on Dana Point’s General Plan filed suit Tuesday in Orange County Superior Court, claiming that the city violated their constitutional rights by not processing a referendum petition.

Attorney Michelle A. Reinglass, representing two coalition members, said the suit seeks a writ of mandate that would force City Clerk Mary A. Carlson and the city as a whole to accept the coalition’s referendum petition on the grounds that Carlson should not have rejected it solely on technical errors.

“The city of Dana Point has overridden the voters’ constitutional right to have the General Plan approved by a vote of the people,” Reinglass said. “We’re going to court to hopefully get an order compelling the city to recognize and uphold those constitutional rights.”

Reinglass admitted that the petition, filed in August, contains errors, but she argued that they were “trivial and inconsequential” and not enough to reject it outright.

“There is a body of law that allows for substantial compliance,” Reinglass said. “So long as somebody has substantially complied with the letter and intent of the law, that should be enough. You should not lose your constitutional rights for a minor technicality.”

Since July 9, when the City Council unanimously approved Dana Point’s first General Plan, the coalition has been attempting to bring it to the voters in a citywide referendum. To do so, state law requires submitting a petition signed by 10% of a city’s registered voters, which in Dana Point would have meant gathering slightly more than 1,600 signatures.

The coalition managed to gather more than 2,300 signatures by Aug. 8, only to have Carlson reject the petition on Aug. 14. She said she rejected it because of small problems in the text of the petition and because the the General Plan was not attached to it as it was being circulated.

In the text, those circulating the petition were showing potential signers a draft form of the approved General Plan resolution, not the final form, Carlson said.

Carlson said she had no choice but to reject it.

“I hear what they are saying,” Carlson said of the coalition’s contentions. “But as the city clerk, I cannot choose which sections of the government code or election code to enforce. I just rejected it because it did not comply.”

Reinglass said she is asking the court to order Carlson to accept the referendum petition for certification and filing so that it can be placed on the next city ballot in June.