Planning Commission certifies EIR and approves coastal permit for Dana Point Harbor hotels

The Dana Point Planning Commission on June 23 certified the final environmental impact report and approved a coastal development permit for a two‑hotel project in Dana Point Harbor that would demolish the existing Dana Marina Inn and replace it with a 169‑room lower‑cost hotel and a 130‑room market‑rate hotel, add new boater service buildings and associated parking and public‑access improvements.

The project drew a lengthy staff presentation and public support from local residents, business groups and labor before the commission voted unanimously to certify the EIR and approve Coastal Development Permit CDP 19‑17.

The item before you is a coastal development permit, in the Dana Point Harbor, principal planner Kirk Nelson told the commission as he opened the staff presentation. Nelson said the permit package includes the demolition of the existing 136‑room Marina Inn and two boater service buildings; construction of two new hotels (the Surf Lodge, 169 lower‑cost rooms; and the Dana House, 130 market‑rate rooms); replacement boater facilities totaling roughly 66,800 square feet of boater facilities; a mix of underground and podium parking; a shared‑parking program and parking management plan; a lot‑line adjustment; and building and wayfinding signage and streetscape improvements.

Nelson summarized the project history: the project was submitted in 2019, required a local coastal program amendment (LCPA) to Planning Area 3 and underwent review by the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission’s suggested modifications were incorporated and certified by the commission in February 2025, which led to a recirculated draft EIR because the LCPA added 33 rooms beyond the original plan. Nelson said the revised draft EIR was circulated for 48 days and that five of 14 environmental categories required mitigation: aesthetics, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous resources, noise and public services.

The two hotels are organized on a shared site plan with separate guest flows and shared podium parking. Nelson described the Surf Lodge as the lower‑cost accommodation (169 rooms) and the Dana House as a market‑rate hotel with a rooftop restaurant and event facilities. He said both buildings are proposed to the 50‑foot height allowed under the harbor district regulations (the base limit is 35 feet; specific design standards apply when the higher limit is used) and that terraced massing, offsets, terraces and materials are intended to reduce visual bulk and protect key harbor views.

Public access and community benefits are central conditions of the approval. Nelson said food and beverage areas required by the LCPA must be publicly accessible and that the project will provide a free public viewing station south of the pedestrian promenade, with a telescope and interpretive signage, maintained for the life of the harbor operation. The Coastal Commission’s environmental justice provisions require the applicant to contribute to programs for underserved youth and public access; Nelson said annual contributions will equal or exceed $110,000 for the life of the hotel development and be paid to Orange County.

The Coastal Act requirement that 25% of new market‑rate hotel capacity be provided as lower‑cost rooms drove part of the project design, Nelson said; the applicant placed those rooms in the Surf Lodge. Nelson described the rate limits included in the conditions: replacement rooms equivalent to or below the Marina Inn’s annualized average daily rate (estimated at $186 adjusted to 2022 dollars) and the lower‑cost standard for the 25% requirement set at 75% of the statewide peak‑season average daily room rate (calculated in staff materials as $153.12 per night for 2022, with adjustments allowed for additional occupants).

Parking and boater access were major discussion points. The project proposes three parking areas—one for each hotel and a designated boater podium lot—and a shared‑parking analysis that projects peak demands of about 477 spaces on a weekday and 490 on a weekend, leaving a modeled surplus of 31 spaces for the hotels and ancillary uses. Nelson said designated boater parking must be located within 300 feet of the dock connection point (600 feet maximum) per Harbor District regulations; where boater parking is farther, drop‑off areas or other amenities are required to serve boaters.

Sea‑level rise and coastal hazards were described in the staff presentation. Nelson said the applicant used the Ocean Protection Council 2024 guidance and an intermediate‑high scenario that projects about 4.5 feet of sea‑level rise; Surf Lodge occupiable areas sit above the modeled elevations while parts of the Dana House podium (garage and some occupied podium areas) are closer to the projected high water elevations. The Dana House podium will include perimeter trench drains, pumps, flood‑resistant windows and doors and raised concrete curbs; staff characterize most near‑term impacts as nuisance flooding and included conditions requiring design measures and coordination with South Coast Water District and county shoreline management work.

Applicant Bob Olsen, founder and president of R.D. Olsen Companies and a partner in Dana Point Harbor Partners, presented the applicant’s concept and emphasized local economic benefits. "I am the founder and president of R. D. Olsen Companies," Olsen said in his introduction to the commission. Olsen described Dana House as an upscale hotel with rooftop dining modeled in part on Lido House and Surf Lodge as a more family‑oriented, surf‑themed, lower‑cost property. He told commissioners the development team expects local employment opportunities including valet and hospitality roles.

Public speakers were almost uniformly supportive. Resident and boater Dave Tennis said, "I'm excited about the project, and I really mean this from my heart," then described the project’s potential to improve the harbor’s appearance and provide local construction work. Jimmy Arevalo of the Western State Regional Council of Carpenters urged the city to require local hiring, prevailing wages and use of state‑certified apprenticeship programs. Abby Paulson, a district associate for County Supervisor Katrina Foley, and Vicky McMurchie, president of the Dana Point Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the project and tied it to economic and visitor goals for the harbor.

The Planning Commission voted to adopt resolutions certifying the EIR and approving CDP 19‑17, incorporating staff corrections and the memorandum distributed at the meeting. The motion to certify the final EIR and adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and to approve the CDP, was moved and seconded; the commission then voted in favor with no recorded opposition.

The permit includes multiple conditions of approval intended to ensure implementation of mitigation measures and operational limits specified by the LCPA and Coastal Commission, including public access maintenance, annual reporting on room rates (annualized average daily rate calculations), required boater facilities, parking management and ongoing coordination with the county on shoreline management and flood‑adaptation measures.

The commission’s action sends the approvals required under local rules forward; the development remains subject to the recorded conditions, county/utility permits for work in rights‑of‑way, and any further state or county approvals applicable to harbor infrastructure. Nelson and staff said building permits and subsequent plan checks by the County of Orange and reviews by agencies such as Caltrans, OCFA and South Coast Water District will follow. The applicant said it intends to proceed to final design and permitting and noted the project team includes local contractors and consultants.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Certify the final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2020099024), adopt findings of fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve Coastal Development Permit CDP 19‑17 with the conditions in Action Document 2, including staff revisions. Mover: not specified. Second: not specified. Vote: unanimous (yes: 5, no: 0).