Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach

California Court of Appeal Apr 6, 2022 No. B307538Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the City's zoning ordinances did not distinguish between long-term and short-term rentals, meaning the City's subsequent ban on short-term rentals constituted an amendment to its local coastal program that required California Coastal Commission approval. Because the City failed to obtain such approval, the ban was invalid and properly enjoined.

Issues

Whether the City's existing zoning ordinances permitted short-term rentals, thereby making the City's new prohibition an amendment requiring Coastal Commission approval.
Whether the City's ban on short-term rentals was an amendment to its local coastal program under the California Coastal Act.

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court rightly ruled the City’s old ordinances did permit short-term rentals. This means the City’s recent laws against platforms like Airbnb indeed are amendments requiring Commission approval, which the City never got.”

“The zoning ordinances certified by the Commission thus allow rentals of single- and multi-family residences in residential zones for any duration, including short-term rentals of the Airbnb variety.”

“The City’s new ban on short-term rentals was an amendment requiring Commission approval.”

Filed 4/6/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

DARBY T. KEEN, as Trustee, B307538 etc., Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19STCP02984

CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.

Richards, Watson & Gershon, Quinn M. Barrow, Ginetta L. Giovinco and Marvin E. Bonilla for Defendants and Appellants.

Angel Law, Frank P. Angel and Talia E. Nimmer for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

This case is about getting a room near the beach. By law, public access to the beach is a California priority. The California Coastal Commission enforces this priority by reviewing amendments beach towns make in municipal laws affecting coastal areas. Amendments require approval. The legal question here is whether there was an amendment. In 1994, the City of Manhattan Beach enacted zoning ordinances, which the Coastal Commission then certified. Did these old ordinances permit rentals of a residential property for fewer than 30 days? The popularity of Airbnb and similar platforms has made the question acute. The trial court rightly ruled the City’s old ordinances did permit short-term rentals. This means the City’s recent laws against platforms like Airbnb indeed are amendments requiring Commission approval, which the City never got. We affirm. Our statutory references are to the Public Resources Code. I We begin with legal, factual, and procedural background. This section recaps the California Coastal Act, describes local battles over short-term rentals, and recounts the case’s posture. A The California Coastal Act of 1976 defined the Coastal Commission’s mission to protect the coast and to maximize public access to it. (§§ 30001.5, 30330.) We liberally construe the Act to achieve these ends. (Greenfield v. Mandalay Shores Community Assn. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 896, 898 (Greenfield).) The Commission works with local governments to ensure they take adequate account of state interests. (§ 30004, subds. (a) & (b); City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 170, 186.)

Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

WILEY, J.

AI Brief