ATTN: ALL CA COASTAL STR OWNERS & PMS BE- PREPARE TO CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY

Donna M

4 hrs ago

Member for 8 years 47 posts

ATTENTION ALL CALIFORNIA COAST STR PROPERTY MANAGERS AND OWNERS FROM DEL NORTE COUNTY TO SAN DIEGO COUNTY-- TODAY'S THE DAY-- BE PREPARED TO CONTACT YOUR CALIFORNIA STATE REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY!
CA Senate Bill SB 1318 is to be heard in Appropriations Committee. That said, some believe it will remain in "suspense" a bit longer. Various groups are pushing for hostile amendments to the bill. However, if the bill moves out of committee, all host STR groups, PMs and Individual Owners should be prepared to call and email their California State Representatives quickly‼️

👉 Find your Representative: https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

It is imperative that you are ready to write, call, meet with your State Representative ahead of any vote on SB 1318 once out of committee.

Rhetoric from some commissioners in California Coastal Commission meetings over the last two years has become increasingly hostile toward STRs with the exception of the two newly appointed commissioners — Chris Lopez and Jose Preciado.

Learn more about the proposed law change and how it intends to hamstring the California Commission:
https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb1318

Donna M

4 hrs ago

Member for 8 years 47 posts

Big picture (before the details)
SB-1318 is not a tax or reporting bill (like SB-346).
It’s much more structural:
It targets non-owner-occupied short-term rentals in the Coastal Zone And ties them directly to the California Coastal Act permitting system
That’s a big deal.
What the bill actually does
At its core, SB-1318 would:
1) Require Coastal Development Permits (CDPs)
It amends coastal law so that non-owner-occupied STRs may require a Coastal Development Permit
That means STR use is treated more like a regulated coastal land use, not just a zoning issue
Translation:
Your STR could be treated similarly to development or a change of use in the Coastal Zone.

2) Strengthens local Coastal Program authority (LCPs)
Local governments (all coastal counties from Del Norte to San Diego) would need to:
Address STRs explicitly in their Local Coastal Programs (LCPs)
Potentially require permits, conditions, or restrictions
Translation:
Your local jurisdiction gains more legal footing to regulate—or restrict—STRs along the coast.

3) Focuses specifically on non-owner-occupied
This is key:
Primary residence rentals are often treated differently
This bill targets whole-home vacation rentals not lived in by the owner
Translation:
Properties like yours (classic vacation rentals) are squarely in scope

Why this matters (real implications)
1) You may need a Coastal Development Permit
If adopted locally, you could face:
New permitting requirements
Fees
Conditions of operation (occupancy, use limits, etc.)
And CDPs are not trivial—they can be:
Time-consuming
Publicly reviewable
Appealable to the Coastal Commission

2) STRs become a “coastal resource” issue
This shifts the debate from:
“tourism vs housing”
to:
“coastal access vs coastal impacts”

That matters because the Coastal Act prioritizes:
Public access
Environmental protection
Visitor-serving accommodations
Your STR could be evaluated based on:
Does it support or limit coastal access?
Is it replacing lower-cost visitor accommodations?

3) Greater risk of restrictions or phase-outs
Because:Coastal permitting allows conditions or denial
Local Coastal Programs must align with Coastal Commission policies
This opens the door to:
Caps on non-owner STRs
Permit expiration/attrition models
Geographic restrictions
4) Increased legal complexity (and leverage—on both sides)
This bill cuts both ways:

Risk:
More regulation
More bureaucracy
Potential limits on your ability to operate
Opportunity:
Coastal Act also protects visitor-serving uses
STR advocates can argue:
STRs provide coastal access alternatives to hotels
Removing them may violate Coastal Act principles
Expect litigation if this advances

How this fits into the bigger trend
SB-1318 is part of a broader shift:

SB-346 (already law) → forces platforms to share STR data
Local ordinances → tightening permits, primary residence rules
Coastal Commission → increasingly involved in STR policy
The direction is clear:
More visibility → more enforcement → more land-use control

What it means for CA Coastal Properties (specifically)
Given your profile:
Coastal location
Non-owner-occupied
Professionally operated
You are exactly the type of property this bill targets.
If it passes and is implemented locally:
You could see:
A new permitting layer beyond your current county rules
Potential operational conditions
Possible long-term uncertainty on rights to operate
Strategic takeaways (practical, not alarmist)
1) Stay engaged locally (this matters more than state level)
LCP updates happen at the county level
That’s where rules will actually be written

Company

Features

Help