The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the DP Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

City Council offers compromise to Coastal Commission regarding gates at Dana Strand, cites precedent

Dana Point City Council voted on Tuesday to move forward with a Coastal Development Permit, nearly identical to one recently approved in Malibu by the California Coastal Commission, for the regulation of hours of operation at Strand Beach. New hours—open from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset—went into effect Wednesday. Photo: Andrea Swayne
Dana Point City Council voted on Tuesday to move forward with a Coastal Development Permit, nearly identical to one recently approved in Malibu by the California Coastal Commission, for the regulation of hours of operation at Strand Beach. New hours—open from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset—went into effect Wednesday, Nov. 4. Photo: Andrea Swayne

By Andrea Swayne

Dana Point City Council changed the direction of its efforts to continue limiting hours of access—with a revision of the current schedule—at two of the five accessways to Strand Beach leading through the Headlands at Strand development. By unanimous vote on Tuesday, the council approved a Coastal Development Permit it feels adequately balances public access with public safety and interests of neighborhood residents and is in line with precedent set by a recently approved CDP in Malibu.

The council also directed city staff to change posted open hours at the two gated pathways—controlled by automatic timers and locking mechanisms—along with the un-gated North Strand access way, South Strand Switchback trail, the revetment trail along the beach, the funicular and at all other parks and trails that are a part of the Headlands Development and Conservation Plan (including Hilltop Park, Harbor Point Park and the Nature Interpretive Center) from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset, effective Wednesday morning.


The dispute between the city, the Coastal Commission and the Surfrider Foundation over the gates and restriction of hours at the Mid-Strand and Central Strand paths, set off more than five years of litigation.

In 2009 the city built gates and began locking them from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. October through April and 7 p.m. to 8 a.m. from May through September. The Coastal Commission deemed the action as contrary to the Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program and ordered the gates be removed and told the city a CDP was necessary.

The city disagreed and in 2010 issued an emergency nuisance abatement ordinance it contended gave the city the right to set hours at the gates as a protective measure against crime and vandalism in the neighborhood.

The dispute eventually led to a Sept. 17 decision by a San Diego Superior Court judge in favor of the Coastal Commission, calling the city’s nuisance ordinance an illegal attempt to avoid Coastal Act requirements.
Throughout the legal battle, the Surfrider Foundation has continued to oppose the gates and hours, as it feels such restrictions amount to a slippery slope that could potentially set precedent allowing municipalities statewide and beyond to restrict beach access.

And the city has continually maintained that the restriction of access through the neighborhood during nighttime hours is necessary to public safety and does not restrict the public’s access to the beach, as the two paths north and south of the neighborhood are ungated and open 24/7.


At Tuesday’s meeting, City Attorney Patrick Munoz said that although the city has long disagreed with the Coastal Commission’s position that a CDP is necessary, after losing in court in September, the city, in an effort to avoid further litigation, has agreed to apply for one. It is believed, he said, that the proposed hours in the CDP will be acceptable as they mirror the “Ackerberg” CDP—he referred to as precedent setting—approved last year by the commission in Malibu.

Mayor Carlos Olvera asked Munoz why the city hadn’t processed a CDP in the first place.

Munoz responded by saying that at the time it was believed that the commission would, under no circumstances, have approved gates and the city strongly believed nighttime closure was necessary. He also cited a higher level policy concern that the commission‘s position would have precluded the city adopting nighttime closure in its other coastal zone parks.

“The law has changed … our choices now are to appeal and keep fighting this fight or to put litigation behind us,” Munoz said. “People have said that the city is trying to somehow create a private enclave for wealthy homeowners. That couldn’t be further from the truth. We are trying to balance public safety needs with public access.”

City Manager Doug Chotkevys agreed, saying his wish is that the CDP will be successful in balancing everybody’s rights. “The Malibu CDP tells me we can do that,” he said.

Public speakers for and against gates and restricted hours were fairly evenly mixed.

Dana Point resident and Surfrider Foundation member Denise Erkeneff said the Mid-Strand and Central Strand access ways were mandated by the original development plan as the shortest paths to the beach and brought a list of examples of beach access hours approved across the state by the Coastal Commission.

Erkeneff also said the legal fees associated with the litigation, which she contends could reach over $21 million, include not only trial costs but a potential for retroactive enforcement costs.

Resident Buck Hill asked where the real benefit to the city is in regard to the gates.

“Who’s the beneficiary?” Hill asked, adding that the developer has likely been selling lots based on the expectation of locked gates. “The city attorney has benefited wildly, even though he lost all his cases, but what good has this done for the citizens of Dana Point?”

Cristine Lindenfelser, a Headlands at Strand property owner, said she has been reluctant to build on her land due to the ongoing litigation and that she simply expects the right to safety and security the closures provide.

Lynn Taylor, a Lantern Bay Estates resident, said she also supports the city staff recommendation to restrict access during nighttime hours.

“I walk the Strand morning and evening and have never felt restricted,” she said. “There are two paths that can be accessed 24/7 and I think, if anything, those should be restricted … Nobody needs to be on the beach after dark.”

Councilman Joe Muller, who is in his first year on the council, said he agrees with the new CDP and made a motion to approve it, with the added caveat that the hours be changed, effective the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 4.

“Maybe the past council did overreach, but everything the developer did does make sense,” Muller said. “We’re not making sense here… I understand (as a surfer) why we need access early in the morning … I don’t get why people think we need access 24/7.”

Councilman Scott Schoeffel asked Munoz that with City Council having heard the disposition of the trial court loud and clear, if the CDP is responsive to that and to correspondence received by the city from the Coastal Commission.

Munoz answered with an affirmative “yes.”

“I am concerned with ending this litigation and am hoping this will be the first step,” Schoeffel said.

Directly following the close of the meeting, Mayor Olvera signed a letter addressed to Dr. Charles Lester, Coastal Commission executive director. The letter was immediately forwarded to Lester informing him of the council’s decision to move forward with a CDP “similar, if not identical” to the recent Malibu CDP.

The letter also said when the commission originally approved the LCP and HDCP in 2004, the plan called for the city to determine hours of operation on the area’s public trails and also included a depiction of gates in the plan diagrams.

The Mayor’s letter, in part, reads: “While we may not necessarily agree with the recent Statement of Decision regarding the city and Coastal Commission litigation … I believe that we will both agree that it is time to put the litigation behind our two agencies and focus on the future … The city’s hope is that our two agencies can move forward with a spirit of conciliation and deal with these issues in a constructive manner that carefully balances the need to protect our sensitive resources and to protect the privacy rights of private owners while honoring the public’s right to access. We believe that the CDP approved tonight does just that, and we look forward to working with the Coastal Commission in a collaborative manner in the future.”

Stay tuned for updates.

Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Dana Point Times

comments (9)

  • If “security ” is what the homw owners are so worried about. They need to fire their security staff and hire an agency that will make them feel better about prtocting their investment.

    This is total crap. I feel sorry for the entire council. They must not get a lot of sleep at night knowing they are taking away basic human freedoms. I.e. Comb the beach whenever we want for the pure joy of a full moon and a empty beach.

    • Try to pay attention, there are two paths to Strand, at the North and South end, that are open 24/7.

      • That is true and both skirt the development. The request is to go thru the middle. It’s our beach. Attention paid.

      • Longer-Time Resident Reply

        There’s attention and then there’s comprehension. Both are required. The law regarding hours of legal beach access isn’t limited to the gate access points.

        There needs to be significant cause for limiting citizens’ access to our beaches. Fear of the general public is not a good enough reason to restrict us from going for a walk on our beaches at any hour of our choosing.

        • Don’t have a problem with leaving the beaches open 24/7, but the Council didn’t take any action on that subject. Apparently all OC beaches are closed at least from midnight to 5AM, why I don’t know.

  • I realize having wealth affords certain individuals the ability to purchase somewhat exclusive properties, however, when that action permits these individuals to restrict access to a resource that belongs to all of us, something has gone off the rails. In fact, I would also state that by allowing our city and state governments to build parking lots on our land and then charge us for the privilege of using said parking lots, they are effectively doing the same thing (ie blocking our god-given right to reach the coast). I say that all gates should be removed permanently. If I want to go dance on the beach at mid-night, it’s my right to do so and if these over-entitled money whores want their “privacy”, they can go buy a home in one of the many gated INLAND communities. You wont’ be missed. As far as the city council goes, you really could not be more obvious in your booty kissing activities. Pucker up toots

  • The bigger issue is that the gate was a violation of the Strands development agreement with the Coastal Commission. It was not legal to put the gates on a dedicated open access way. The city has supported that “mistake” by creating ordinances that enforce it and then providing the services of the City attorney to defend it. It is important that the City attorney has lost four court cases on this matter, although he collected many hundreds of thousands in fees while doing so. The City now faces a cease and desist order from the Coastal Commission. We may also have to pay the prevailing party’s legal expenses over this protracted and stupid battle.
    The City manager and City Attorney should be gone for their part in this debacle. Providing City resources for the benefit of a private party is profoundly wrong. Providing five years of bad advice to the council should have consequences.

  • I don’t understand why the City would go to bat for a private developer. Exactly what City interest was being protected in this legal battle? The City’s declaration of the Strands beach area as a “public nuisance” in order to justify reduced access hours is a bit of a joke. A couple of graffiti instances and suddenly it’s a public nuisance and gates are required to protect the property owners from untold horrors? Meanwhile, many areas of Dana Point endure public urination, littering, drunkenness, drug dealing and “real” nuisances on a daily, if not hourly basis and citizens can’t get police to do routine patrols. Sounds like a pretty obvious double standard to me! Can we recall these clowns?

  • Can someone explain how the Dana Point Times chooses its front page story? The City is embroiled in an extended, and clearly inappropriate battle with the Coastal Commission, complete with a cease and desist order and a potential for huge penalties, and, at the same time, 20% of voters have signed an initiative to rein in the Council’s reckless disregard for its own Town Center Plan, and what’s on the front page? The vitally important and newsworthy Festival of Whales. Come on, DPTimes! You can do better than this. Give us some real news and put the fluff on the back pages.

comments (9)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>