Dana Point Headlands Project OKd

The state Coastal Commission Thursday narrowly approved a multimillion-dollar development at the Dana Point Headlands, one of Southern California’s last undeveloped promontories.

The 7-to-5 vote ended a nearly 30-year debate over the land, home to the endangered Pacific pocket mouse and threatened California gnatcatcher.

The decision came after nearly six hours of testimony and over the staff’s recommendation to deny developer Sanford Edward approval to build 125 homes, a 65- to 90-room inn and 40,000 square feet of commercial space, as well as five public parks on the 121 acres.

Commissioners who supported the plan called it a “balanced approach” that allows development but also provides for more than 60 acres of public parks, including nearly 28 acres that will remain undeveloped.

Environmentalists opposed to the project were angered by the approval, especially the commissioners’ definition of upgrades to a sea wall, which the state panel described as repairs rather than new construction.

Debate over whether to call that work new construction or repairs took up much of the commission’s time. Under the state Coastal Act, new sea walls cannot be built.

The developer and the city of Dana Point, which already has approved the plan, contended that the sea wall, to satisfy the commission’s staff, would have to be moved inland up to 10 feet and raised to help stabilize the hillside where future homes would be built.

However, several commissioners were adamant that taking the old revetment apart, stacking the rocks and then relocating it to build new homes came under a definition of new construction.

“Don’t make any mistake: The purpose of the sea wall is not to protect the beach but to make it possible to provide new development,” said Commissioner Sara J. Wan, who voted against the project.

Before the vote, Commissioner Patrick Kruer, from La Jolla, expressed concern that moving the sea wall back a few feet would cause removal of more sand and dirt from the hillside, which could increase the risk of a slide. He eventually voted to approve the project.

“I’m outraged,” said Tarren Collins, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club. “They bent the law so far it broke.”

Collins and representatives from other environmental groups said they believe the next step is to file a lawsuit against the commission, but no decision to do so has been made.

“The commission thinks this sea wall is a repair, and obviously we disagree,” said Chad Nelsen, environmental director for the Surfrider Foundation, who said he was “shocked” by the approval.

More than 400 people attended the meeting at the Montage hotel in Laguna Beach, some opposed to the plan and carrying signs “Uphold the Coastal Act,” and others in support who wore lapel buttons that stated “Headlands Today.”

Though the commission approved development for homes, it rejected allowing a faux lighthouse and a cultural arts center because they would take away habitat.

Edward said he had to make compromises to the development but was thrilled to get the approval.

“It was hard-fought and we had to make compromises right to the very end, but I believe that [Commissioner] Mary Nichols summed it up best when she called this a landmark for development on the coast.”

Commissioners who approved the development were Cynthia McClain-Hill, Nichols, William A. Burke, Kruer, Gregg Hart, Toni Iseman and chairman Mike Reilly.

Those who voted no were Trent Orr, Scott Peters, Dave Potter, John Woolley and Wan.