The Coastal Commission met in Ventura on March 10 and 11 for a compact but action-packed two-day meeting. The Commissioners earned three Pro-Coast votes (✅) via approval of new Nature-Based Adaptation Strategies Guidance, strong anti-armoring conditions for a new home on a hazardous Dana Point shoreline, and an enforcement agreement — also in Dana Point — to protect a critically endangered mouse. But they also incurred their first Anti-Coast vote (❌) of 2026 by approving a major Ventura County LCP amendment that gives too many concessions to beach-killing seawalls.

Read on for a quick recap, then head to our full report for analysis of key votes, 50th anniversary highlights, and a preview of the latest state bill threatening the Coastal Act's public access protections.

The Commission approved their Nature-Based Adaptation Strategies Guidance ✅ on Wednesday morning. Ventura was a fitting location — it’s home to Surfer's Point, perhaps the state’s finest example of harnessing the power of nature to restore a once-threatened beach.

Sadly, the Commission also approved Ventura County's Sea Level Rise and Coastal Hazard LCP Amendment without requesting amendments. While the majority of the language mirrors the protective framework of the Coastal Act itself, it also includes several unwarranted carveouts giving special protections to beach-killing shoreline armoring up and down the Ventura coast.

Lastly on Wednesday, the Commission approved a new home development ✅ at a highly hazardous location on Beach Road in Dana Point . They earned a Pro-Coast vote by holding the line on a strong suite of legally enforceable special conditions to ensure the home neither armors nor encroaches upon public tidelands.

On Thursday, the Commission approved a Consent Enforcement Agreement to protect the critically endangered Pacific Pocket Mouse’s small remaining population at the Dana Point Preserve ✅. The agreement includes reduced hours at the public coastal trails. ActCoastal scrutinizes any and all reductions in public coastal access. However, we firmly supported the enforcement agreement because the species’ survival hung in the balance.

‍