LOCAL ELECTIONS / HEADLANDS : Pitched Battle Over Bluff Development : Campaigns for and against measures C and D have been marked by name-calling, charges and countercharges.

To boaters and beach-goers, the steep Headlands promontory near Dana Point Harbor is a landmark visible for miles up and down the Pacific coast.

Its presence was noted as far back as 1835 in the novel “Two Years Before the Mast,” written by a young sailor named Richard Henry Dana, who became the city’s namesake.

The tranquil sagebrush and sandstone bluffs belie a harsh political battle over the land. A proposed $500-million resort development for the Headlands that was approved by the City Council in April has become the focus of two local referendums, Measure C and Measure D, on the Nov. 8 ballot.

The landowners and others who support the development plan urge Dana Point residents to vote “yes” on the measures, saying the project is balanced and will generate millions of dollars in annual revenue for the city, among other benefits.

Foes ask for a “no” vote to stop what they consider to be a massive development that would change the character of the city and, among other things, worsen traffic congestion.

Proponents, who have spent more than $136,000 on the political campaign so far, say the development has been shaped by the community over 50 public hearings. The plan calls for a 400-room hotel and up to 370 homes to be built on 121 acres of the coastal bluffs.

“The landowners have literally worked for 15 to 18 years to come up with a project that is acceptable to the city and its various constituencies,” said Jeff Adler, a spokesman for the Headlands Fair Plan Committee. “Except for a small group that is opposed to anything at all on the Headlands, this plan has the support of the people.”

Opponents, who successfully petitioned to get the referendums on the ballot and have spent only $3,100 on the campaign, claim that the project is still too dense, despite the fact that it has been reduced by more than 30% from previous plans. (The referendums are essentially the same, but there are two of them because the council approved the plan in two separate actions.)

“The plan is just not good,” said Elinor R. Orlandella, an attorney and member of the Committee to Save the Headlands. “It will overwhelm what is already here. That’s the one point that I don’t think has been taken seriously enough--the overwhelming impact this project would have on all of us who are already here.”

The campaign has taken on many of the negative aspects of this political season: name-calling, sign stealing, charges and countercharges, even a lawsuit over the right to use the phrase “Save the Headlands.”

The Committee to Save the Headlands won a court order this week banning use of the “Save the Headlands” slogan by plan proponents. The order, however, was reversed by an appeals court on Thursday.

“I absolutely believe the public is totally confused,” said Geoffrey Lachner, a 13-year Dana Point resident who opposes the plan. “But my real complaint is with the City Council, not the developer. The council is sworn to preserve the quality of life for the people of this town, and you cannot improve the quality by putting thousands of more car trips on the streets, which this development will do.”

Dan T. Daniels of Laguna Beach, president of Newport Beach-based M.H. Sherman Co., one of two landowners of the Headlands, said that he has reduced the number of homes in the project to “the lowest density of anywhere along the coast.”

He has also dedicated 28 acres to open space, promised hiking trails and vista points and given the Dana Point Headlands Conservancy an option to buy more than seven of the most environmentally sensitive acres at the tip of the peninsula for $6.5 million if the measures pass. The option won support for the measures from the conservancy’s board.

“We believe it is a fair plan,” Daniels said. “We have done everything we have been asked to do--traffic studies, environmental impact reports, geologic studies--and have reimbursed the city for every dime spent on the project by their staff and the consultants. We feel we have done everything that could be expected of a property owner in our circumstances.”

The Headlands property is also owned by Chandis Securities Co., which oversees the financial holdings of the Chandler family and is a major stockholder of Times Mirror Co., publisher of the Los Angeles Times.