SAN MARCOS --- After a lengthy and angst-filled discussion, the San Marcos City Council unanimously agreed Tuesday to seek proposals from consultants interested in helping the city update its development plan.

The council also set a tentative deadline that requires the project to be started in 2009, with a tentative goal of completion by 2010.

However, the decision came with a caveat that allows the city to extend the time line in the face of overriding monetary constraints.

The potential out was a nod to Mayor Jim Desmond and Councilman Mike Preston, who unsuccessfully tried to persuade the rest of the council to postpone action on the proposed update for financial reasons.

Councilman Chris Orlando more or less forced the issue, though, with a motion that the city seek the consultants' proposals.

"We can come up with a thousand reasons not to do it," he said. "We talk about the right process to do it 'til we're blue in the face, but it needs to be done. … It's the right thing to do."

The motion was seconded by Councilman Hal Martin but had to be amended several times before it got to a point all five council members found acceptable.

Questions about the best way to give residents a say in the update also sparked considerable debate.

City Manager Paul Malone told the council that soliciting consultants' proposals could help decide some of those issues.

"We're prepared to build a (request for proposals) that reflects your desire to have the broadest public outreach effort possible," he said about the city's staff. "And I suggest you judge the responses based on how well they incorporate that. … In other words, let them flesh that part of it out for you."

Officially known as the general plan, the document at issue was created in the 1970s and serves as a blueprint for development in San Marcos. Parts of the plan were revised in 1984 and 1987, but an overall update has never been done.

The plan has become a focal point in the last couple of years for people displeased by the council's approval of certain development projects. When the controversial Palomar Station mixed-use project near Palomar College got a green light last year, for example, critics said the council was ignoring the general plan.

However, city officials maintain the plan is outdated and note the document was created before anyone even thought of projects such as Cal State San Marcos and the upscale San Elijo Hills development.

The council added the plan update to a list of council goals in April 2007. The city has no money set aside for the project, which a consultant recently estimated will cost $1.1 million to $1.8 million and take one to two years to complete.

The price tag factored into Desmond's and Preston's arguments for holding off on the project. Noting that San Marcos does not know yet how much money it will get from the state this year, the men said it would fiscally irresponsible to move forward with the update before a state budget is approved.

That budget was due July 1, but state legislators have yet to agree on one.

Preston also favored waiting until the state attorney general establishes baseline global warming reduction standards for cities to meet -- something not expected to happen until next year.

Members of San Marcos' staff have said the standards are set, cities whose so-called general plans do not include a strategy for reducing emissions and other contributors to global warming will likely have to revise at least part of their plans.

The city's staff has recommended the council create a 15-member advisory committee to handle efforts to gather residents' input for the general plan update. The idea came under fire last month at a workshop about the project, with critics expressing concern that council allies would be the only ones appointed to the panel.

On Tuesday, three residents renewed the call for as much citizen involvement as possible, saying neighborhood meetings would be one way to ensure that. Councilwoman Rebecca Jones said she liked the idea of council members attending such sessions, as long as that approach created no legal problems.

City Attorney Helen Holmes Peak agreed to research that issue and report back to the council at its next meeting.

Contact staff writer Andrea Moss at (760) 739-6654 or amoss@nctimes.com.