Dana Point council denies CNLM appeal, upholds need for subsequent EIR on preserve trail-hour changes

At its Oct. 7, 2025 meeting, the Dana Point City Council voted to deny an appeal from the Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) and to uphold the Planning Commission’s determination that CNLM’s Coastal Development Permit application for the Dana Point Preserve is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requires a subsequent environmental impact report (EIR).

The appeal challenged the city’s conclusion that CNLM’s proposal to limit public access—reducing trail use to four days a week, narrower daily hours, and a reduction of roughly 3,000 public-use hours per year—was not eligible for CEQA exemptions. City staff recommended denial of the appeal both on procedural grounds (a late appeal fee) and on the merits. The council voted to adopt staff’s recommendation.

The decision matters because the proposal would limit access to the only trail on the Dana Point Headlands, which provides access to five scenic viewpoints along the Pacific Ocean. Staff said the change could affect public access and scenic resources and that a subsequent EIR is necessary to evaluate potential impacts in detail and identify mitigation or alternatives.

CNLM attorney Sarah Mueller told the council CNLM’s proposal is part of long‑standing mitigation and management called for in the Headlands Development and Conservation Plan and argued the project is covered by the earlier EIR. “Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Coastal Commission have all told the city that trail hours should be reduced to protect the Pacific pocket mouse,” Mueller said, and urged the council to allow the CDP to proceed without an additional EIR.

Representatives of wildlife agencies opposed CNLM’s position at the hearing. Erin Wilson Olgin, regional manager for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the current level of public access has been a “significant threat to the recovery of the Pacific pocket mouse” and that CDFW and federal wildlife agencies have repeatedly recommended restrictions. “Based on our interest in conservation of the biological resources at the preserve and substantial scientific information on threats to the Pacific pocket mouse from public access,” Olgin said, “we request immediate reduction in existing public access hours.”

City staff described a multi-step review. Staff told the council CNLM’s CDP was deemed complete Feb. 24, 2025, and that City planners issued a detailed CEQA exemption memo on June 3, 2025; CNLM appealed the director’s determination June 18. Staff said the application proposes reducing monthly access days from roughly 30–31 to about 14 days per month and narrowing daily hours, which staff calculates would reduce trail access by more than 3,000 hours annually. Staff also argued the preserve’s location at the headlands and its role as the only trail accessing multiple scenic viewpoints make it a unique, sensitive resource that counsels against a categorical exemption.

Several council members said the project raises significant questions about alternatives and long-term effects. Council Member Jamie Federico said he regarded the CNLM proposal as a discrete project that could substantially change public access and therefore warranted the fuller environmental review an EIR provides. He said the council should see a wider range of alternatives and mitigation measures rather than immediately approve substantial reductions in access.

Council members heard from CNLM supporters and opponents in the public comment period, including longtime Dana Point residents who urged different outcomes. Staff also noted a procedural issue: CNLM’s second appeal fee had not been paid within the 15-day appeal period, which staff said made the second appeal untimely. Staff recommended denial on both procedural and substantive grounds.

After discussion the council voted to deny CNLM’s appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s determination that the CDP is not CEQA-exempt, and require preparation of a subsequent EIR to evaluate environmental effects and alternatives. The EIR will examine consequences for biological resources, public access, recreation, aesthetics, and other areas staff flagged in the initial study.

Council and staff said they expect future hearings on the content and scope of the EIR and encouraged CNLM, the wildlife agencies and the public to participate in that environmental review.

Sources at the hearing emphasized that the council’s action was limited to a CEQA determination and did not decide whether reduced access is ultimately the best conservation approach. The EIR will evaluate those substantive questions in a subsequent phase of review.