Correspondence - Item 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach, 77 Cal.App.5th 142 (2022) 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 366, 22 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3511, 2022 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3377 3 Cases that cite this headnote 141 Evidence ;-.— Local laws and ordinances Court of Appeal would not take judicial notice of almost 60-year-old ordinance that defined hotel a particular way, and import that definition into ordinance in local coastal program, in determining whether city's ban on short-term rentals was amendment of program requiring approval by Coastal Commission; different definition from decades before could not prevail over definition enacted by city and certified by Commission in existing ordinance at issue. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30514. **367 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCP02984 Attorneys and Law Firms 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. Opinion WILEY, J. *144 This case is about getting a room near the beach. By law, public access to the beach is a California priority. The California Coastal *145 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 [1] 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, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 (Greenfield).) The Commission works with local governments to ensure they take adequate account of state interests. (§ 30004, subds. (a) & (b); FMCity of Dana Point a California Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal.AppAth 170, 186, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 409.) In this endeavor, the Act's main tool is the local coastal program. (§ 30500 et seq.; City of Chula Vista v Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 472, 489, 183 Cal.Rptr. 909.) Each coastal government must develop one. (§ 30500, subd. (a).) Local coastal programs have two parts: the land use plan and the local implementing program. The latter consists of zoning ordinances, zoning maps, and other possible actions. (§§ 30512, subd. (a), 30513, subd. (a).) The Commission reviews the local coastal program. (§§ 30200, 30512, 30512.2, 30513.) If it conforms to the Act's policies, the Commission certifies the program. (§§ 30512, subd. (a), 30513, subd. (b).) *146 In accord with these provisions, the City submitted its local coastal program to the Commission years ago. The Commission **368 certified the City's land use plan in 1981 and its local implementing program in 1994. This local implementing program included zoning ordinances. WESTLAW © 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2