Planning commission overturns director's incompleteness finding, advances CNLM coastal permit for Headlands trail hours

The Dana Point Planning Commission on Feb. 24 granted an appeal by the Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) and overturned the community development director's December 18, 2024, determination that CNLM's coastal development permit application (CDP24-0022) to set trail hours on the Headlands Preserve was incomplete. The commission voted 5-0 to consider the application complete as of the commission's action and to allow the permit process to move forward.

City staff described the item as procedural: the commission was being asked to decide only whether the director's incompleteness determination should stand, not to rule on the underlying merits of CNLM's proposed hours. The CNLM application, originally submitted Oct. 1, 2024, would establish restricted public access hours on the portion of the Headlands Preserve managed by CNLM; CNLM said those hours are intended to protect sensitive resources, including the endangered Pacific pocket mouse.

Sarah Mueller, representing CNLM, urged the commission to find the application complete as of Oct. 31, 2024, or no later than Nov. 19, 2024. Mueller said CNLM's application included the materials on the city's checklist and that the city violated the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) by issuing an incompleteness determination 78 days after receipt. "The City cannot add new incomplete items after an initial incompleteness determination," Mueller said, and contended that the December 18 letter added five new requirements that were not on the city's checklist and therefore could not be demanded under the PSA.

Staff acknowledged the city had treated its own earlier CDP on the Headlands differently in 2024 and offered two options to the commission: deny CNLM's appeal (uphold the director) or approve it and set the date the application would be deemed complete. Staff indicated it was prepared to accept the commission setting the completeness date if the commission chose that route.

During discussion commissioners repeatedly returned to two themes: statutory timing under the Permit Streamlining Act and the Headlands' history and conservation commitments. Vice Chair Nelson noted the Headlands trail area is a small portion of the preserve but is a public-access mitigation element from prior development approvals and said limiting hours would be a "significant reduction" in access that merits analysis. Nelson observed the city waived the application fee for CNLM and that waiver triggered the formal review period; he supported allowing the commission to set the completeness date that night so the application could proceed.

Several commissioners emphasized the need for additional analysis of impacts to resources and public access as the permit moves to the merits stage, and noted maintenance of the preserve as a factor affecting habitat outcomes for species such as the Pacific pocket mouse. Legal counsel Terrence Gallagher attended the hearing to advise the commission on legal matters related to the appeal and the city noted Jennifer Farrell would advise staff on technical matters.

A motion to approve CNLM's appeal and overturn the director's incompleteness determination for CDP24-0022 was made and seconded; the commission voted 5-0 in favor. The commission's action makes the director's prior determination nonfinal and enables staff and the applicant to proceed with completeness as determined by the commission and to move forward with the substantive review, including any subsequent CEQA determinations.

CNLM's application requests limiting public access hours for the Headlands Trail to protect sensitive biological resources and cites recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Coastal Commission. CNLM argued the city's December 18 letter required materials not on the city's checklist (for example, a wetlands or biological assessment, visual impact study, mitigation plan, alternatives analysis, and an initial CEQA study and deposit), which CNLM said the PSA does not allow the city to demand at the completeness stage.

Commissioners did not rule on whether CEQA applies or on the specific conditions CNLM or staff might later propose; instead, the commission resolved the procedural dispute to allow the application to proceed to substantive review. By overturning the director's determination, the commission set the procedural path for staff and CNLM to continue the coastal permit process.