Planning Begins Anew for Disputed Dana Point Site

After a two-year court battle, all sides returned to the starting point Thursday to begin planning the future of the 122-acre Dana Point Headlands.

At a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission, the landowner and residents provided input as city officials took the first steps toward creating a new plan for the embattled site.

“Dana Point is facing a crossroads,” longtime resident Robert Moore said. “Do we want to remain a distinct, quaint community or are we to become what I call ‘Demolition Freeway,’ a plastic, overcrowded, commercial city?”

Moore’s comments reflected the majority made by residents Thursday about any large development on the bluff-top area that is home to the Pacific pocket mouse and California gnatcatcher.

City officials said they intend to hear from and protect the rights of residents as well as the property landowners.

“I think we can reach a fair and reasonable compromise,” Mayor Bill Ossenmacher said.

Other speakers urged the city to get an appraisal for the land and hire a grant writer to help find revenue to buy all or part of it.

Daniel Bott, the city’s project manager for the headlands, said the entire process now moves to the Planning Commission, which will consider the idea of buying the land.

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

In a letter given to the City Council, D.T. Daniels, president of M.H. Sherman, said the company will be “active and cooperative” in assisting the city as long as their rights are not abused and the specific plan “progresses at a streamlined pace.”

Daniels also reminded the city of an appellate court’s caution that a plan for the land should be developed “sooner rather than later.”

The development dispute, which goes back decades, came to a head in April 1994, when the City Council unanimously approved scaled-down plans for a 400-room hotel, a commercial center and up to 370 homes.

The council’s action sparked an uproar in the community, where many residents thought the development would be too large for the 117-acre property on the bluffs at the west end of Dana Point Harbor.

Opponents of the plan put two referendums to rescind the council vote on the November 1994 ballot, and the measures won easily. The landowners then sued the city, claiming that the referendums were unconstitutional because the owners had been prevented from developing their property.

A Superior Court judge upheld the two referendums, and his decision was upheld by an appellate court. In April, the state Supreme Court let the ruling stand.

But the courts also warned that the owners have a right to use their land and that the city must allow some development or be ready to pay something to the landowners.