Dana Point Beach Road Home - Maintain Strong Precedent for Coastal Resource, Asset Protections

The Commission approved a coastal development permit for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new home on caissons at 35665 Beach Road in Dana Point, but imposed significant conditions to protect coastal resources over the project's 75-year lifespan due to its beachfront siting on a rapidly eroding shoreline. 

Commissioners approved the project as recommended despite objections from the applicant and his attorney from Pacific Legal Foundation, who argued the conditions—particularly the requirement for an open carport instead of an enclosed garage—were inconsistent with Dana Point’s LCP. 

For upholding the precedent of strong coastal access and resource protections for homes on Beach Rd and other increasingly hazardous beachfront locations, the Commissioners earned a Pro-Coast vote. Commissioner Jackson entertained a motion to allow the applicant his enclosed garage, but there were no takers on the Commission. Surfrider delivered public comment in support of the Commission staff's recommendation, playing the video below to reinforce the coastal hazards and threats to public access inherent in developing on Beach Road.

‍

‍

We should note that this item was one of three new home build projects the Commission approved on Beach Road on Wednesday. All three projects included the same set of conditions, however only in this case did the applicant and his attorney object to the conditions. We included this one as a Pro-Coast vote because the Commissioners held strong despite these objections.

Key protective conditions included the following: 

‍

Elevated Design: The residence must be elevated on 14 concrete and steel caissons with the lowest habitable floor at +26.05 ft NAVD88 (approximately 8 feet above Beach Road), designed to withstand a future base flood elevation of +22 ft NAVD88 accounting for 75 years of sea level rise. The caisson foundation must be designed to facilitate future removal if necessary.

No Future Armoring & Mandatory Removal: The permit requires the applicant to waive all rights to construct shoreline armoring to protect the development, preventing the property owner from seeking seawalls or other armoring that would block public beach access and accelerate erosion even as coastal hazards intensity. The development (or portions of it) must be removed if: (1) it becomes unsafe for occupancy; (2) essential services can no longer be maintained; (3) the mean high tide line (MHTL) migrates landward so any portion encroaches on Public Trust lands; or (4) new armoring would be required.

MHTL Monitoring: The permit requires MHTL surveys prior to permit issuance and every 5 years thereafter to track the landward migration of the public/private boundary. Current surveys show the beach is only 34 feet wide at this location, with long-term erosion rates of 4-6 feet per year—meaning the MHTL could reach the development's patio in 14-28 years even without accelerated sea level rise.

Open Carport Requirement: The Commission required an open two-stall carport instead of a proposed enclosed garage with breakaway walls. Commission engineer Jeremy Smith found that an enclosed garage at grade elevation would be repeatedly flooded, with breakaway walls failing with less than one foot of wave action, creating marine debris and releasing hazardous materials into the ocean. The open carport prevents pollution, creates ocean view corridors from Pacific Coast Highway, and still satisfies LCP parking requirements.

Existing Seawall Removal: TThe permit requires removal of an existing pre-Coastal Act seawall when adjacent structures no longer need protection, are demolished/redeveloped, or when the seawall deteriorates.

‍

A Brewing Legal Challenge?

‍

The applicant and his attorney objected to several of the conditions, especially the carport requirement, arguing that an enclosed garage with breakaway walls was consistent with Dana Point's certified LCP. However, Commission staff provided detailed legal analysis showing carports satisfy the LCP's parking requirements, garages with breakaway walls are permitted in some cases but not required, and that an enclosed garage at this specific location would violate multiple LCP policies protecting marine resources, water quality, public safety, and visual resources due to the inevitable failure of breakaway walls creating marine debris and hazardous material releases. The City of Dana Point confirmed a carport satisfies LCP requirements.

California's beaches belong to the public. The public owns all sand from the water to the mean high tide line (MHTL)—and that boundary moves landward as beaches erode and seas rise. But public ownership is only maintained if private development doesn't block migration with seawalls or encroach onto public sand.

Without the Commission's conditions, this owner could demand armoring to "protect" his investment—fixing the beach boundary in place, eliminating public dry sand, and accelerating erosion. Along Capistrano Beach, over 90 cases of unpermitted armoring already illegally obstruct access. The Commission's removal requirements and MHTL surveys ensure this development gets removed when the tide line reaches it—not armored to privatize public beach. The armoring ban prevents the owner from claiming "changed circumstances" decades later to demand coastal protection at public expense.

The carport requirement protects both the ocean and public safety. When breakaway garage walls fail during storm surges—which will happen with increasing frequency as sea levels rise—they become debris floating where people swim and surf, along with the paints, motor oil, and other hazardous materials typically stored in garages. An open carport prevents this pollution while maintaining ocean view corridors from Pacific Coast Highway.

The Commission's detailed legal analysis shows the carport requirement is fully justified under Dana Point's certified LCP—which itself implements the Coastal Act's mandate to protect public access, marine resources, and coastal waters.

This approval maintains critical precedent for the 202 homes along Beach Road and similar eroding beachfront communities statewide. If new development can be conditioned to plan for removal rather than future armoring, beaches can migrate landward as nature and sea level rise dictate—preserving the public's constitutional right to access the coast. If developers can build with the expectation of armoring later, we lose beaches permanently to protect private property that never should have been built there in the first place.

The Commission got this right. Let's hope it survives any legal challenge the Pacific Legal Foundation throws at it.

‍