Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmailed Comments from Mike and Julie WestmorelandGuidance for Legally Justifying STR Restrictions Near Schools State Preemption and Legal Authority for STR Restrictions Near Schools in California 1. State Preemption - Not Likely a Barrier In California, there is no statewide law that preempts local governments from regulating short-term rentals (STRs). This means cities retain broad zoning authority to regulate or prohibit STRs in certain areas, including zones adjacent to schools. Unlike some states with strong preemption statutes (such as Florida or Arizona), California grants municipalities extensive home rule powers through the state constitution (Article XI, Section 7). Cities can therefore enact ordinances that ban or limit STRs within a defined radius of K-12 schools, as long as they do not conflict with state law or constitutional protections. 2. Constitutional Issues - Takings and Due Process Cities must avoid violating the rights of property owners under the U.S. and California Constitutions. If a city's STR restriction is too broad or retroactive, it could be challenged as a regulatory taking or a due process violation. Legal principles: - A regulation that removes all economically beneficial use of a property may constitute a "taking" requiring compensation (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992). - A zoning law that unfairly targets specific property owners or lacks rational basis may violate due process (Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926). To reduce risk: - Provide advance notice of new rules. - Grandfather in existing permitted STRs for a grace period. - Offer a process for appeals or variances. 3. Fair Housing and Anti-Discrimination Concerns If an STR restriction disproportionately affects protected classes (e.g., based on race, disability, or family status), it could be challenged under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or the federal Fair Housing Act. To comply: - Apply restrictions geographically and neutrally (e.g., "within 500 feet of schools"). - Avoid rules that appear to target renters or certain household types. - Document the rationale in terms of public safety, not the identity of STR guests. 4. Practical Considerations and Enforcement Cities must ensure that their STR ordinances are practical and enforceable. Best practices include: - Requiring STR registration and permits. Guidance for Legally Justifying STR Restrictions Near Schools - Conducting inspections for compliance. - Imposing penalties for violations and a clear appeals process. 5. Summary A California city can legally restrict or prohibit STRs near schools, using its zoning and police powers. Such ordinances must be carefully drafted to avoid takings, due process, or discrimination issues. With proper evidence, public process, and narrow tailoring, these restrictions are likely to withstand legal challenges. Guidance for Legally Justifying STR Restrictions Near Schools Legal Foundations for STR Restrictions Near Schools in California 1. Zoning and Police Powers Under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, cities and counties may make and enforce within their limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. This includes the ability to regulate land use through zoning. Key Case: - Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974): Upheld a zoning ordinance limiting the number of unrelated individuals living together, finding that preserving the character of residential neighborhoods is a valid use of the police power. This authority allows cities to prohibit or restrict STRs in specific zones or proximity to sensitive land uses, such as schools. 2. STR-Specific Case Law in California Santa Monica v. Airbnb, Inc. (9th Cir. 2019) - The court upheld a local ordinance that required STR hosts to be licensed and present during stays. It rejected claims that the ordinance violated federal laws or infringed on property rights, affirming cities' power to regulate short-term rentals. CHBO, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2023) - This ongoing litigation concerns San Diego's STR licensing system. Preliminary court decisions have supported the city's authority to limit STRs, particularly unhosted ones, to preserve housing and neighborhood integrity. These cases reinforce that cities can regulate STRs so long as they do not completely strip away all property value or violate constitutional protections. 3. Takings and Due Process Yee v. City of Escondido (1992) - The Supreme Court held that a regulation limiting rent increases was not a taking because the property owner voluntarily rented out the property and retained core ownership rights. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) - The Court found a taking occurred where a regulation deprived the owner of all economically beneficial use. Cities must ensure that STR restrictions allow other viable uses, such as long-term rental or owner occupancy. Conclusion: Guidance for Legally Justifying STR Restrictions Near Schools California cities have strong legal footing to restrict STRs through zoning and licensing ordinances, especially when protecting sensitive uses like schools. Key court decisions affirm that as long as ordinances preserve some reasonable economic use and follow procedural fairness, they are likely to be upheld. STR Restriction Justification: Step 1 Step 1: Establishing the Legitimate Government Interest To defend an ordinance that restricts short-term rentals (STRs) near schools, a city must begin by articulating a clear and legitimate public purpose. Under the "rational basis" standard, the regulation must be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. Courts generally defer to local governments when their regulations serve health, safety, or welfare purposes. A city can justify STR restrictions near schools by asserting the following interests: 1. Student Safety STRs involve frequent turnover of visitors who may not be vetted or familiar with local laws. Increased transient activity near schools may raise concerns about child safety, particularly during school hours or in walking zones. 2. Traffic and Parking Impacts STRs often increase short-term vehicle traffic and competition for parking, which can endanger children walking or biking to school and interfere with school drop-off and pick-up routines. 3. Noise and Neighborhood Disruption STRs may contribute to noise complaints, late-night activity, or other disruptions inconsistent with stable school-adjacent residential neighborhoods, where quiet environments are essential. 4. Long-Term Community Stability Allowing STRs near schools may deter long-term residents or families from remaining in the area, undermining the residential character and social cohesion that support schools and local institutions. 5. Alignment with General Plan Policies Many General Plans include goals for preserving family-oriented neighborhoods, reducing land use conflicts, and supporting safe school environments. Restricting STRs near schools can help fulfill these planning objectives. Supporting Evidence to Include: - Letters or testimony from school officials or parent-teacher associations - Traffic studies showing congestion near schools - Records of police or code enforcement calls related to STRs near schools - Surveys or community input from residents affected by STRs - Analysis of STR density in relation to schools Conclusion: Articulating and documenting these interests in staff reports, findings, and council deliberations forms the legal foundation for the ordinance. This step is essential to defend against claims that the regulation is arbitrary, overbroad, or lacks justification.