Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmailed comment from Scott Levitt311 Main Street, Suite 8 | Seal Beach, CA 90740 Phone: 562-493-7548 | www.levittlawca.com | scott@levittlawca.com June 20, 2025 Seal Beach City Council 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Attn: City Clerk gharper@sealbeachca.gov SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL RE: Opposition to Proposed Short-Term Rental Ban Near Schools Public Hearing on June 23, 2025 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: This firm represents residents and property owners in Seal Beach affected by the possible municipal action being discussed which would prohibit short-term residential rentals (“STRs”) within a specified proximity to schools. While we support the City’s responsibility to safeguard minors and uphold public welfare, the proposed ban is not only overbroad and lacking evidentiary foundation, but it is also legally susceptible to challenge under both California and federal law. Such would create, more, unnecessary litigation which would be paid for by the residents of Seal Beach. Platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO currently employ comprehensive screening tools that incorporate identity verification and criminal background checks for all U.S.-based users, including hosts and guests. These checks are conducted in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., through certified consumer reporting agencies. Such screening includes review of national and state sex offender registries, county criminal records, and the U.S. Treasury’s OFAC list. Individuals convicted of serious felonies, including child molestation, rape, and violent offenses, are permanently barred from using these platforms. These systems are bolstered by layered user reporting, internal reviews, and automated detection algorithms. A categorical prohibition on STRs near educational institutions fails to consider these safeguards and imposes a blanket restriction without a compelling and narrowly tailored justification. As confirmed by the Ninth Circuit in HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 918 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2019), local governments possess regulatory authority over STR operations, including licensing, taxation, and host verification. However, enforcement must conform to constitutional principles. Blanket prohibitions implicate rights protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, especially where they interfere with vested property interests and lack a demonstrable nexus to a specific harm. 311 Main Street, Suite 8 | Seal Beach, CA 90740 Phone: 562-493-7548 | www.levittlawca.com | scott@levittlawca.com In addition to the foregoing, the proposed short-term rental ban would conflict with the California Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq.), which mandates the protection and enhancement of public access and low-cost visitor-serving accommodations within the coastal zone. Seal Beach lies entirely within the jurisdictional boundaries of the California Coastal Commission, and the imposition of geographic STR bans near schools would have the foreseeable effect of reducing public lodging opportunities, thereby impeding coastal access for non-resident families, educators, and economically disadvantaged visitors. Under Coastal Act provisions, including but not limited to Sections 30210, 30211, and 30213, any municipal regulation that effectively restricts affordable overnight lodging must be justified by substantial evidence and must avoid creating barriers to coastal enjoyment. The Commission has routinely advised that local coastal programs and ordinances seeking to regulate or eliminate STRs be narrowly tailored to avoid infringing on the public’s constitutional and statutory right to access California’s beaches and shoreline communities. This position was upheld in Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 1089, where the Court of Appeal found that local bans on STRs within the coastal zone cannot be enacted without prior Coastal Commission approval, and further emphasized that such restrictions may impermissibly interfere with public coastal access, a right protected by state law. Further, in Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 142, the California Court of Appeal held that a municipal ban on STRs within the Coastal Zone, absent prior approval by the California Coastal Commission, constituted an unlawful de facto amendment to the city’s certified Local Coastal Program. The court emphasized that such restrictions, including geographic or conditional bans (such as those near schools), materially affect public access and therefore fall within the purview of the Commission. The decision reaffirms that cities located within the Coastal Zone may not enact STR restrictions that curtail access without Coastal Commission oversight and approval. The City would be better served simply through ensuring enforcement of the current ordinance, and without infringing on fundamental rights or exposing the City to potential legal challenges. Any proposed ordinance with restrictions discussed at prior council meeting(s), risks undermining lawful property use and reducing lawful accommodation options for family travelers, substitute educators, and visiting professionals, without yielding measurable public safety benefits beyond those that are already achievable through current technological enforcement tools and existing municipal oversight. We respectfully request that the Council decline to pursue and adopt any changes to the current STR Ordinance. As you are aware, there has been no evidence that any STR has led to an attack of a minor at a local school or in such area around a school. Further, the only reason this topic is before the Council is because the people near the STR in question simply don’t want to have a STR on their street. 311 Main Street, Suite 8 | Seal Beach, CA 90740 Phone: 562-493-7548 | www.levittlawca.com | scott@levittlawca.com Sincerely, Scott L. Levitt Scott L. Levitt, Esq.