DANA POINT : Compromise Over General Plan Aired

City Council members suggested this week that they may be willing to compromise with critics of the city’s new General Plan to avoid a costly legal battle.

Meeting with the critics to craft a compromise was one of four alternatives offered by the council Tuesday night as a method of settling a bitter dispute with the plan critics, who claim it is pro-development.

The seven-month-old dispute heated up last week when a court ruling forced the city clerk to process a petition calling for a referendum on the plan.

“What we are trying to do is find what specific areas of the plan are creating the problems,” said City Councilwoman Karen Lloreda on Wednesday. “If there are any specific issues we can address, we would like to try and work out something on those without throwing the whole General Plan out.”

The plan’s critics have said they have no problem with about 80% of the four-inch-thick, $700,000 plan adopted unanimously by the council last July. But other portions of the plan will alter the small-town character of Dana Point, they say, turning the city into a destination resort.

Other alternatives for the council would be to appeal a recent court ruling or to give in to the critics and schedule a citywide referendum that would give voters a chance to reject or accept the plan.

Such a vote could come as early as June. Critics have gathered about 2,300 signatures, about 700 more than the 10% of city voters needed to force a referendum. Those petitions have yet to be sent to the county registrar of voters for certification.

Following closed-door discussions Tuesday, the council directed City Atty. Jerry Patterson to investigate how a referendum on the plan would affect the processing of building permits within the city.

City officials have previously indicated that placing a challenge to the plan on the ballot would halt the granting of any permits, an assumption the plan critics deny.

“We have been told that if we are ordered to go to the ballot, that can literally shut the city down,” Lloreda said. “At that point, this (dispute) doesn’t impact just the issues they are concerned about, but it impacts everyone.”

Mayor Mike Eggers said the city has always been willing to discuss the plan with its critics.

“We’ve always been open,” Eggers said. “But at the moment, we want the city attorney to spell out these alternatives.”

While the council met in closed session on the plan this week, Patterson’s report back to the council on all the options will be made during the public portion of the meeting on Feb. 25.

“Hopefully, when everything is laid out in front of us, we can come up with something feasible everyone can agree on,” Lloreda said. “Until then, we’re just sort of in limbo.”