Accordingly, the city was required to first obtain Coastal Commission’s approval, either through a coastal development permit, an amendment to its certified local coastal program, or an amendment waiver.The court explained that the reduction in the number of short-term rentals in the coastal zone was inconsistent with the Coastal Act’s goal of improving the availability of lower cost accommodations along the coast. Further, the court explained, its decision was consistent with Greenfield v. Mandalay Shores Community Association, 21 Cal. App. 5th 896 (2018), in which the court of appeal held that a homeowner’s association’s ban on short-term vacation rentals was “development” under the Coastal Act because it changed the intensity of use and access to single-family residences in the coastal zone.The court’s decision is also consistent with the Coastal Commission’s policy. In 2016, the Coastal Commission sent a guidance letter to local governments explaining its position that regulation of short-term vacation rentals constituted development under the Coastal Act.

The harsh effects on property rights resulting from the California Coastal Act’s broad definition of “development” are on display again following the Second District Court of Appeal’s March 27, 2018 opinion, in Greenfield v. Mandalay Shores Community Association, __ Cal.App.5th __ (2018) (Case No.B281089), where the Court held that “[t]he decision to ban or regulate [short-term rentals] must be made by the City and Coastal Commission, not a homeowner’s association.” The case arose following the Mandalay Shores Community Association’s adoption of a resolution barring the rental of single-family dwellings within the homeowner’s association for less than 30 days.