Environmental Challenge Revives Battle Over Dana Point Headlands

A prominent environmental group is keeping alive a decades-long battle to preserve one of Southern California’s last undeveloped coastal promontories, saying the state’s historic decision in January to let a developer build on the land violates state law.

The California Coastal Commission’s approval of a plan to build homes and an inn and shore up the majestic bluffs of Dana Point’s Headlands was hailed as the final chapter in the 30-year fight over the 121-acre property. Now, the national Surfrider Foundation says it intends to file a lawsuit to halt the development.

Surfrider has launched fundraising activities for a legal defense fund and plans to file suit, probably after the commission’s June 7 meeting, when the state panel is expected to adopt a final report showing conditions the developer must meet, said Surf-rider attorney Marco A. Gonzalez.

“We have significant habitat concerns as well as significant coastal concerns with the plan,” Gonzalez said.

Developer Sanford Edward -- who has proposed the multimillion-dollar project to build 125 homes, a 65- to 90-room inn and 40,000 square feet of commercial space -- expressed confidence that his plan will withstand a legal salvo.

Critics cite potential erosion at Strand Beach -- the seashore at the base of the promontory -- because of plans to fortify an existing sea wall, destruction of sensitive habitat and a “massive reshaping” of a natural resource by grading 2.2 million cubic yards of dirt.

In approving the project, the Coastal Commission overruled its own staff.

Both sides are awaiting the Coastal Commission’s final report, which will detail what kind of uses are allowed on the coastal property, housing densities and preservation of resources.

Called revised findings, they determine where construction can occur on the site, a commission spokeswoman said.

The report is key to both sides because it will offer a legal basis to allow the development, which was approved with more than 200 construction conditions.

The staff had initially found that in numerous ways, Edward’s plan was inconsistent with the state Coastal Act.

Because the commission approved the plan, the staff now must find ways to reverse itself and justify that approval.

“Surfrider is upset because their arguments were specious,” Edward said. “They’re going around saying they want to save Strand Beach. Well, we want to open Strand Beach to the public, and that’s it in a nutshell.”

When developed, there would be at least three public access points to a beach that has been fenced off for years. Edward said surfers want to keep the fences up so they can treat it as their own “locals-only beach.”

Surfrider has complained to the commission about what it alleges are high-pressure lobbying efforts by the developer and city to influence the report.

Potential violations of the Coastal Act can be smoothed over by staff, said Chad Nelsen, Surfrider’s environmental director, who said the staff is under pressure to make the Headlands plan feasible.

Allowing the sea wall to be fortified is an example, he said.

“The plan calls for the sea wall to be taken out with bulldozers and moved inland and then rebuilt,” which sounds much closer to building a new wall, he said.

Yet commissioners decided to categorize the sea wall work -- the wall would be moved up to 10 feet -- as repair and maintenance.

Under the Coastal Act, he said, a new sea wall, or revetment, can be approved if it protects an existing home or development at risk of erosion.

In the case of the Headlands, the revetment is believed to have been built in the 1950s, long before the Coastal Act became law.

The developer has said the work is needed to shore up the hillside because an ancient landslide makes the hill unstable.

How such a major sea wall project “squares with the Coastal Act, I don’t know,” Nelsen said. “But the commission approved it as part of the Headlands plan, so it’s up to staff to make it happen.

“When you have a developer and the applicant calling up staff and pressuring them for changes, it leaves the public out of the loop,” Nelsen said.

At a recent meeting, and after hearing Surfrider’s complaints, Commissioner Pedro Nava spoke out against behind-the-scenes lobbying.

In the Headlands and other coastal projects, Nava said, he has noticed that developers and applicants have started to pressure staff to add language in a final report “even more favorable than what was discussed at an open public meeting.”

Nava has raised the issue as part of a set of reforms he hopes the commission considers.

Edward and Dana Point City Manager Douglas Chotkevys said they contacted staffers on numerous occasions but denied pressuring them to change the report’s language.

According to the commission, the developer and city officials raised questions about the January approval and how the policy would be interpreted by the staff, said Deborah Lee, a commission spokeswoman.

Chotkevys said most of the contact was to speed up the process. He said he is responsible for most of the pushing, saying he was frustrated by the length of time the commission staff was taking to complete its report.

State law requires the city to review findings, adopt them and resubmit them for commission certification within six months of the commission’s January vote, Chotkevys said. “The 180 days was ticking,” he said.

Chotkevys said he “papered” staff numerous times with correspondence and then made follow-up calls.

Lee acknowledged that considerable communication has occurred among the staff, the property owner and the city, but that she wouldn’t describe it as undue pressure.

Lee said the report was taking longer to finish because of “material changes” from staff recommendations and the commission’s decision.

Meanwhile, Surfrider plans to take the environmental battle to the community, increasing public awareness with fundraising activities such as a recent benefit concert at the Coach House in San Juan Capistrano, and a golf tournament.

Those functions raised a total of about $10,000. The proceeds will be used, in part, on the group’s legal fight, a Surfrider spokesman said. Edward downplayed the level of community support behind Surfrider.

A recent Save the Strand Beach march was attended by few people, he said.

Mark Cousineau, a Surfrider spokesman from the San Clemente chapter, said: “The fire’s still there and the fight’s still on.”