The California coastline is known for its natural beauty, recreation opportunities, world-class developments and — increasingly — conflict. In many places up and down the state, continued development at the coast contravenes both the letter and the intent of the California Coastal Act, but local communities remain deeply divided about how to plan for the growing impacts of sea level rise.

The California Coastal Commission has a mandate to protect and enhance the state’s coast and coastal resources. Under the California Coastal Act, the Commission must consider a range of environmental, economic, public access and recreation, and scientific factors while doing its job of planning, regulating, permitting, and providing conflict resolution.

However, recent events show a troubling lack of uniform process for conflict resolution at the Commission when it comes to approving what are known as Local Coastal Land Use Plans (“LCP”). The Commission’s controversial approval of the city of Pacifica’s LCP in May 2025 applied the conflict resolution provisions in a discretionary manner that threatens the very coastal resources the Coastal Act was enacted to protect. Our research points the way toward a systematic analytical framework with consistent factors to guide the analysis of each conflict.

This paper seeks to analyze the legislative and statutory history of the Coastal Act’s conflict resolution provisions, lays out the scattershot approach to conflict resolution that has been the norm, and offers a series of recommendations for how the process can be standardized to effectuate the Coastal Act’s intent for generations to come.

Download the paper.