Headlands Plan Rekindles Ire

A new salvo in the continuing controversy over the Dana Point Headlands has been fired by the new owner, Sanford Edward, whose firm bought half the 122-acre parcel overlooking the Pacific Ocean.

His plan to build more homes than what the city would like has already sparked intense debate over one of the last remaining coastal open spaces in Orange County.

Edward submitted a plan to build up to 267 homes, which is 82 more than the city has approved. The new proposal, said one environmentalist, essentially puts the controversy back to Square One.

“This is the old plan, very similar,” said Geoffrey Lachner, former chairman of the Committee to Save the Headlands. “This is very similar to what we went through with the referendum; it was about a hotel and too many homes. That’s what we fought about, and [Edward is] renewing the fight.”

The Headlands dispute has gone on for decades, including two successful referendums in 1994 that rescinded the City Council’s approval of a $500-million project calling for a 400-room hotel, a commercial center and 370 homes. Although 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.

After 10 months of public workshops, the City Council voted on a plan that limits construction to 185 homes and takes into account residents’ concerns about the environmental significance of the Headlands.

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.

In addition to housing limits, the city also decided to locate a hotel near sea level in what is referred to as the Strand, north of the Headland’s bluff. City staff must devise a specific plan and an environmental impact report and have them ready for the Planning Commission by the fall.

But Edward and his partners from Headlands Reserve LLC also would like the City Council to consider their plan. The new plan is scheduled to go before the City Council on July 28.

Initial reaction from council members was not positive.

“This is a much worse plan than the one the voters already overturned. It is not acceptable,” said Councilwoman Toni Gallagher, a staunch supporter of Headlands preservation. “It is more dense, and it gives less space to the community.”

Councilman Harold R. Kaufman said he also is concerned about the new plan: “It’s more intense. It’s too much. But my priority is to keep the city from getting sued again, so we must find a compromise.”

Edward said his new proposal calls for 267 homes but that only 206 to 211 homes are realistic because of lot sizes and the terrain. Kevin Darnall, a Headlands Reserve partner, said there is a possibility that public agencies may buy part of the property, such as an eight-acre parcel known as the pocket mouse area.

“The federal government has an option to buy the eight acres,” Darnall said. “And a public agency might, or probably will, eventually buy it, but we included it to be consistent with the general plan. With a project of this size, there is room for negotiation.”

Edward also wants to build a resort overlooking Dana Point Harbor near Harbor Point, east of Cove Road, where the city has proposed housing.

“This is such a magnificent view, and really, we’re not planning a huge resort but something very low-key, and it would be a shame to not utilize that view,” said Edward, who is opening up an office in Dana Point staffed by a community relations professional.

Edward said he and his partners don’t seek a big resort, such as the 400-room hotel originally proposed, but “something symbiotic” with the area, such as a resort-type spa with about 75 to 100 rooms.

“A place where people could spend a nice weekend or up to a week and enjoy their stay, not some big, huge hotel,” he said.

Edward, his partners and the M.H. Sherman Co. and Sherman Foundation, which owns the other half of the Headlands, believe that a resort near the Strand would only add traffic congestion to the discomfort of nearby residents, who have told the developer in informal talks that they desire a limited number of vehicles.

The city’s philosophy, said Daniel Bott, a planning consultant hired by the city, was to have the resort in the Strand because it’s a unique opportunity to separate the “hustle and bustle” of the business end of the resort from the serene coastal bluff.

In addition to the number of homes, the greatest difference between the city’s plan and the developer’s plan seems to be grading, said Bott.

“One of the city’s concerns is that Sanford Edward’s open space is manufactured slope, and we take exception with that,” Bott said. “In 10 months of public workshops, our residents were extremely critical of any manufactured areas. They want as much natural area as possible.”

Jeff Chambers, the developer’s new community liaison, said the plan’s open space will remain natural. “[But] in order to stabilize the geologic conditions where the houses will be constructed, there will be substantial grading,” Chambers said. “However, our proposal is to balance the dirt on site, instead of the city’s proposal, which would have a substantial amount of dirt being exported off site.”

Chambers said he has represented many real estate developments in the last two decades, ranging from residential projects to large commercial shopping centers such as the recently constructed Brea Union Plaza.

“We do plan on having an open-door policy where the community can come in and look at our plans and provide us with input,” Chambers said. “And that way we can interact with the community and make certain of addressing the people’s needs.”

The dispute, which goes back decades, came to a head in April 1994, when the City Council unanimously approved the $500-million project. The council’s action sparked an uproar that led to two referendums on the November 1994 ballot to rescind the council vote, 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 referendums, and his decision was upheld by an appellate court. In April, the state Supreme Court let the ruling stand.

Times staff writer Erika Chavez contributed to this report.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Conflicting Plans

After 10 months of public workshops, the Dana Point City Council has a plan for development of the Headlands. But the developer, Headlands Reserve LLC, finds the city’s plan unacceptable and will submit its own proposal to the council on July 28.

City Plan

* Construction of up to 185 homes

* Hotel to be built in the Strand area north of the bluff

* About 70 acres of open space

Developer’s Plan

* Construction of up to 267 homes

* A low-key resort to be built atop the bluff to take advantage of the panoramic view of the ocean and Dana Point Harbor

* About 60 acres of open space

Sources: City of Dana Point, Headlands Reserve LLC