Agreement. To support the City’s determination, the Owner has provided a description of the activities it has undertaken to comply with the Agreement. These activities are described in Attachment A.
Staff has reviewed the list of activities identified in the progress letter and agrees that the Owner has complied in good faith with the Agreement. Additionally, staff has met recently with the Owner to discuss the pending expiration of the Agreement.
AUTHORITY:
Section 9-84.060 (Periodic Review) of the Laguna Hills Municipal Code states:
“Each development agreement shall be reviewed annually by the City Council to determine compliance with provisions contained therein. A report of the findings of that review shall be made a part of the project record. Each developer or owner of land subject to a development agreement shall provide written data and report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.”
Section 18 of the Development Agreement also provides for the City’s periodic review, at least every 12 months, of the Owners’ good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement. At the time of each review, the property owner is to submit evidence to the City’s Community Development Director demonstrating its good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. The City Council then determines whether or not the property owner has, for the period under review, complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
In 2012, the Laguna Hills Investment Company, the owner of the Oakbrook Village Shopping Center, located at 24231-24391 Avenida de la Carlota in the Urban Village Specific Plan area, filed zoning applications requesting land use entitlement approvals for the redevelopment of Oakbrook Village Shopping Center with a two-phased mixeduse development (the “2012 Project”). The 2012 Project contemplated the development of up to 489 residential dwelling units (289 in Phase 1 and up to 200 in Phase 2) in multistory residential buildings and approximately 82,575 square feet of new commercial/retail space (23,974 in Phase 1 and 58,600 in Phase 2), along with building façade enhancements, pedestrian paseos (walkways), village greens, landscaping, and
4.13 Packet Pg. 260
Oakbrook Village Development Agreement Compliance
February 28, 2023
connectivity to the former Five Lagunas. To accommodate this new construction, the 2012 Project contemplated that a significant portion of the existing commercial building area would be demolished, resulting in a net total of at least 132,200 square feet of commercial/retail space in the center after completion of Phase 1 and at least 125,000 square feet of commercial/retail space within the center after completion of Phase 2.
On November 13, 2012, the Planning Agency adopted Resolution No. PA2012-11-13-1 approving Site Development Permit/ Master Sign Program/ Conditional Use Permit/ Parking Use Permit/ Vesting Tentative Tract Map/ Precise Plan/ Development Agreement No. 12-11-2137 for Phase 1 of the 2012 Project (the “Phase 1 Project Approvals”), subject to specified conditions of approval.
On November 27, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2012-4 approving a Development Agreement between the City and the Laguna Hills Investment Company pertaining to Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the 2012 Project (the "Development Agreement"), which Development Agreement became effective December 28, 2012 and was recorded in the Official Records, Orange County Clerk-Recorder's Office on January 2, 2013, as Document No. 2013000002329. The Development Agreement contains specific provisions regarding the timing of development of Phase 1 components of the Project, the provision of public art, and the completion of required public improvements. The new commercial space in Phase 1 includes development of two “Deferred Retail Pads” which, pursuant to the Development Agreement, may be completed at any time prior to, or concurrently with, Phase 2. In addition, the Development Agreement provides that, subject to obtaining all applicable Subsequent Development Approvals, in lieu of one or both of the Deferred Retail Pads, the property owner may develop an equivalent or greater amount of new retail space on the property. The initial Term of the Development Agreement runs for 11 years (through December 28, 2023), with an automatic 4-year extension (through December 28, 2027) if, prior to expiration of the initial Term, Owner has completed Development of all portions of Phase 1 of the Project and has obtained all Phase 2 Project Approvals. To date, Owners have not submitted an application for the Phase 2 Project Approvals.
On February 11, 2014, the Planning Agency adopted Resolution No. PA2014-02-11-2 making modifications to certain Conditions of Approval of the Phase 1 Project Approvals related to the early issuance of building permits and other project sequencing matters.
On April 24, 2014 Laguna Hills Investment Company assigned an interest in the Development Agreement to Oakbrook Urban Village I, LLC, as described and as set forth
4.13 Packet Pg. 261
Oakbrook Village Development Agreement Compliance
February 28, 2023
in that certain Assignment of Development Agreement dated April 24, 2014, as recorded in the Official Records, Orange County, Clerk Recorder, on April 2, 2014, bearing document number 2014000157001.
On July 8, 2014, the City Council approved Operating Memorandum No. 1 to the Development Agreement to clarify certain matters pertaining to the provision of public art in conjunction with the project. Under operating Memorandum No. 1, the deadline for the installation of the public art was moved from the first residential Certificate of Occupancy to the last residential Certificate of Occupancy.
Laguna Hills Investment Company and Oakbrook Urban Village I, LLC (collectively, the “Owners”) subsequently proposed an Amendment No. 1 to the Project Development Agreement to extend the time periods for commencement or completion of certain onsite improvements in Phase 1 of the Project. On February 10, 2015, the Planning Agency adopted Resolution No. PA2015-02-10-1 modifying Condition of Approval No. 47 of the Phase 1 Project Approvals to extend time frames related to the construction of the pedestrian and parking lot paseos consistent with the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Project Development Agreement. On February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2015-3 approving Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement, which Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement became effective March 27, 2015, and was recorded in the Official Records, Orange County Clerk-Recorder's Office on March 31, 2015, as Document No. 2015000163595.
On July 14, 2015, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the Operating Memorandum No. 1 to the Development Agreement, which modified Section 3.4 of the Operating Memorandum to require that the public art for Phase 1, specified in the approved Final Public Art Plan, be furnished and installed by the Owner prior to October 31, 2016.
The Owners subsequently proposed an Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement to modify the timing, location, and scope of development of certain on-site pedestrian, landscaping, and façade improvements. On March 8, 2016, the Planning Agency adopted Resolution No. 2016-03-8-1 amending Resolution Nos. PA2015-02-10-1, PA2012-11-13-1 and PA2014-02-11-2 to modify Condition of Approval No. 47 of the Phase 1 Project Approvals to be consistent with the Development Agreement, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to Development Agreement, and to modify Condition of Approval No. 54 of the Phase 1 Project Approvals to extend the time period by which Owner is required to construct secondary entry signs. On March 22, 2016, the
4.13 Packet Pg. 262
Oakbrook Village Development Agreement Compliance
February 28, 2023
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2016-2 approving Amendment No. 2 to Development Agreement, which Amendment No. 2 to Development Agreement became effective April 22, 2016, and was recorded in the Official Records, Orange County ClerkRecorder's Office on April 26, 2016, as Document No. 2016000181582.
On March 22, 2016, the Planning Agency and City Council approved the Five Lagunas Project, which proposed the redevelopment of the Laguna Hills Mall shopping center to the north of the Oakbrook Village Shopping Center (and also within the UVSP) into a mixed-use urban village center branded “Five Lagunas” (the “Five Lagunas Project”).
On August 23, 2016, the City Council approved the Second Amendment to Operating Memorandum No. 1 to the Development Agreement, which further extended the date to furnish and install the public art for Phase 1 to February 28, 2017.
On February 27, 2017, the City Council approved the Third Amendment to Operating Memorandum No. 1 to the Development Agreement. The Amendment extended the date by which the Owner was required to have furnished and installed the public art for Phase 1 to April 30, 2017.
In August 2017, the Owner submitted an application for a Subsequent Development Approval in accordance with the Development Agreement for the 2012 Project for Site Development Permit/Master Sign Program Amendment No. 8-17-3965 (a) to demolish the existing vacant 7,800 square foot Lone Star restaurant building, (b) to construct two new commercial/retail buildings (approximately 20,650 square feet total) in place of the existing Lone Star restaurant and in lieu of constructing one of the Deferred Retail Pads, (c) to modify the parking area and construct the relocated Parking Lot Paseo #2 and new East-West Parking Lot Paseo 2A described in Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement; and (d) to amend the Master Sign Program for the Oakbrook Village mixeduse commercial center (collectively, the “2018 Project”). On April 10, 2018, the Planning Agency and City Council adopted Resolution No. PA2018-04-10-1 approving the 2018 Project, subject to specified conditions of approval.
On September 6, 2018, the City issued building permits (COM-11-17-15833, 15834, 15836) to begin construction on the 2018 Project.
In June 2019, construction of the 2018 Project was completed, and the Trader Joe’s grocery store relocated from its previous location in Oakbrook Village into one of the new commercial/retail buildings.
4.13 Packet Pg. 263
Oakbrook Village Development Agreement Compliance
February 28, 2023
On March 8, 2022, the Planning Agency and City Council approved Merlone Geier Partner’s (“MGP”) Village at Laguna Hills Project, which proposed the further redevelopment of the Laguna Hills Mall/Five Lagunas project.
No development activity occurred in Oakbrook Village in 2022. However, staff has with the Owner to discuss the pending expiration of the Agreement.
Summary of Improvements Completed to Date
To date, the mixed-use building containing 289 residential units above ground-floor commercial tenant spaces (Reata), the Phase 1 Village Green, the required façade upgrades of the remaining buildings, and certain pedestrian paseos and other required Phase 1 Public Improvements have been completed. In addition, in April 2017, the public art piece approved by the City Council was installed at the Plaza Green of the Reata Apartments and serves as a community gathering place.
Future improvements remaining to be completed include the following:
• Development of the second Deferred Retail Pad. Pursuant to Section 5.4.2 of the Development Agreement, this may be completed at any time prior to, or concurrently with, development of Phase 2.
• Hillside Pedestrian Paseo. Pursuant to Section 4.B of Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement, the Hillside Pedestrian Paseo are to be completed on or before (a) the date that is six (6) months after the date the City issues the first certificate of occupancy for a new commercial building on the Five Lagunas Property adjacent to Oakbrook Village in the approximate location identified as “Building B” on Exhibit D to Amendment No. 2, or (b) December 28, 2023, whichever occurs first. To date, the referenced “Building B” of the Five Lagunas project has not yet been constructed. While MGP received approval to modify the Five Lagunas Project and rebrand the modified project the “Village at Laguna Hills Project,” the approval includes a residential building, Building III, located in the same location as Building B of the Five Laguna’s Project. • Improvements Along the North Property Line other than the Hillside Pedestrian Paseo. Pursuant to Section 4.C of the Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement, in lieu of construction of a pedestrian trail, Owner is to plan and construct new, enhanced landscape improvements and vehicular and pedestrian connections at the north Property line, which create coordinated and compatible
4.13 Packet Pg. 264
Oakbrook Village Development Agreement Compliance
February 28, 2023
linkages at the north Property boundary line between Oakbrook Village and the Five Lagunas Property. This will require coordination and cooperation between the Owners and MGP, and approval of Subsequent Development Approvals by the City. Pursuant to Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement, these improvements are to be completed on or before (a) the date that is six (6) months after the date the City issues the first certificate of occupancy for a new residential building on the MGP property near Oakbrook Village in the approximate location identified as “Building A” on Exhibit D to Amendment No. 2, or (b) December 28, 2023, whichever occurs first. Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement also provides for the Owners to submit a complete application for Subsequent Development Approvals to construct these north property line improvements on or before (a) the date that is 180 days after the date on which the City approves entitlements for construction of the referenced Building “A” on the Five Lagunas Property, or (b) March 2, 2017, whichever occurs last.
MGP received approval to modify the Five Lagunas Project and rebrand the modified project the “Village at Laguna Hills Project” with a Development Agreement for that project that requires the owner to complete construction and installation of all vehicular and pedestrian connections at the north property line between the two properties. As such, the north property line improvements contemplated in the Oakbrook Village DA will be completed, even if the Oakbrook DA expires on December 28, 2023.
• The Phase 2 improvements. These are currently contemplated to include, without limitation: (i) a maximum of 200 additional multi-family residential units; (ii) a minimum of 27,000 square feet of new retail space within the residential/retail mixed-use structures or on other areas on the Property; (iii) such additional new retail space necessary to result in a minimum of 125,000 total aggregate square feet of retail space on the Property; (iv) an approximately 7,000 square foot secondary village green area directly adjacent to the Phase 1 village green area; (v) a potential reconstructed north-south pedestrian paseo pursuant to Section 6.A of Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement; (vi) a potential new east-west pedestrian paseo pursuant to Section 6.B of Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement; and (vii) new light poles pursuant to Section 6.C of Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement.
Pursuant to Section 5.4.4 of the Development Agreement, in the event the Owners elect to proceed with the development of Phase 2, they must apply for
4.13 Packet Pg. 265
Oakbrook Village Development Agreement Compliance
February 28, 2023
all Phase 2 Project Approvals simultaneously. If Owners have not completed Development of all portions of Phase 1 of the Project and obtained all Phase 2 Project Approvals by December 28, 2023, the Development Agreement will expire pursuant to its terms.
Attachment A identifies a list of activities the Owner believes demonstrates its good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement. The information submitted by the Owner in Attachment A provides the City Council with sufficient information to determine that the Owner has complied with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement for this review period. All improvements provided to date are considered part of Phase 1 under the Development Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A – January 31, 2023 Letter from Fritz Duda Company
4.13 Packet Pg. 266
3425 Via Lido ● Suite 250 ● Newport Beach, CA 92663 ● 949.723.7100 ● Fax 949.723.1141 Dallas, Texas | Newport Beach, California | Reno, Nevada www.FritzDuda.com
January 31, 2023
Jay S. Wuu, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Laguna Hills
24035 El Toro Road
Laguna Hills, Ca 92653
Re: Development Agreement for Oakbrook Village Shopping Center Mixed-Use Project dated December 28, 2012 (“Development Agreement”)
Dear Jay,
Pursuant to Section 18.2 of the Development Agreement, Laguna Hills Investment Company hereby submits the following summary (attached hereto) of our development activities during the calendar year, 2022, constituting good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement, the First and Second Amendments to the Development Agreement, and the Site Development Permit/Master Sign Program Amendment 8-17-965 Approved by Resolution PA2018-04-10-1 on April 10, 2018.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any further information.
Sincerely
Paul Tanguay
Vice President
Fritz Duda Company
Manager for Laguna Hills Investment Company
Cc: John Loper, Palm Tree Communities Inc.
4.13.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment A – January 31, 2023 Letter from Fritz Duda Company (3077 : Oakbrook Village Development Agreement Compliance) 2022 Summary of Owner Compliance with the Development Agreement Terms and Conditions Development Agreement, Dated December 28, 2012
By and Between the
City of Laguna Hills (“City”) and Laguna Hills Investment Company (“Owner”) December 2022, (for full calendar year, 2022)
Phase 1 and Phase 1 Public Improvements
Description of Scope per Paragraphs 1.23
and 1.25 of Development Agreement
Paragraph 1.23 (Phase 1) Description of Compliance Activity (i) Demolition of 82,730sf of existing retail space Completed in July, 2014. (ii) Construction of Deferred Retail Pads plus 9,000sf Completed. Developer submitted and City approved subsequent development plans for
Buildings “A1” and “A2” as depicted on Exhibit E
of the Second Amendment to the Development
Agreement. Approved by Resolution PA2018-04-
10-1 April 10, 2018, Buildings “A1” and “A2” were
completed in June of 2019 and satisfy all
requirements of Section 1.23 (Phase 1) (ii) of the
Development Agreement. The satisfaction of this
section of the Development Agreement in no way
limits the future construction of a building of
Building F noted as a Deferred Retail Pad on
Exhibit E of Amendment Number 2 to the
Development Agreement.
(iii) Renovation of all retail building facades except D&E Building B exterior façade remodel completed July, 2014. Building H (Trader Joe’s) exterior façade
remodel completed on December 21, 2015.
Buildings A, C, P and Q façade remodel completed
in November 2016 as required under the Second
Amendment to the Development Agreement dated
April 22, 2016. All building under section 1.23
Phase 1 (iii) have now been completed.
(iv) Construction of 289 multi-family residential units Completed November 2016. C of O granted by the City of Laguna Hills on December 12, 2016
(v) Construction of Phase 1 Public Improvements (See below).
Paragraph 1.25 (Phase 1 Public Improvements) Description of Compliance Activity (i) Construction of 17,000sf Village Green Completed November 2016 (ii) Construction of east-west pedestrian paseo Completed December 21, 2015 (iii) Construction of north-south pedestrian paseo Completed in November of 2016 along with the completion of the required improvements for
Building A, C, P and Q under the 2nd Amendment
to the Development Agreement.
(iv) Construction of hillside pedestrian paseo Deferred under Amendment #2 to the Development Agreement.
(v) Construction of a north P/L pedestrian trail Pursuant to Amendment #2 to the Development Agreement the P/L Pedestrian Trail has been
modified for the benefit of a joint landscape
enhancement plan between LHIC and Mall
ownership.
4.13.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment A – January 31, 2023 Letter from Fritz Duda Company (3077 : Oakbrook Village Development Agreement Compliance) (vi) Construction of two parking lot paseos Complete December 21, 2015.Modified and completed as part of the Section 1.23(ii) Deferred
Retail Pads; Completed June of 2019. The new
“east-west paseo” has been split into two pieces
(Paseo 2A and Paseo 2B) Paseo 2A was completed
in June of 2019 and satisfies all requirements under
the Development Agreement. If/when Phase II
Apartments commence construction, Paseo 2B will
be required to be completed concurrently.
(vii) Construction of bldg. pedestrian connections Completed. Contained in Phase 1 multi-family and retail redevelopment
(viii) Installation of traffic signal on Carlota Completed. (ix) Dedication of public ROW for Carlota Completed.
(x) Construction of various storm drain items Completed. (xi) Installation of debris grates at catch basins Completed. (xii) Realignment of OBV driveway by Lone Star Completed. (xiii) Construction of ADA curb ramps along Carlota Completed. (xiv) Construction of misc. public improvements Completed. required per Existing Land Use Regulations
and conditions of approval to the Existing
Development Approvals
Phase 2 Pending
4.13.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment A – January 31, 2023 Letter from Fritz Duda Company (3077 : Oakbrook Village Development Agreement Compliance) City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: February 28, 2023
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Jarad Hildenbrand
City Manager
ISSUE: Resolution Establishing the Assistant Engineer Classification Along with Salary Range and Benefits for Position Within the Bargaining Unit Covered by the Memorandum of Understanding with the Laguna Hills City Employees Association
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled: "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA,
ESTABLISHING THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER CLASSIFICATION ALONG WITH SALARY
RANGE AND BENEFITS WITHIN THE BARGAINING UNIT COVERED BY THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE LAGUNA HILLS CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.”
SUMMARY:
The City recently reestablished and recruited for an Associate Engineer position.
However, the recruitment was not successful and did not yield any qualified candidates.
At this time and working with the Public Works Director/City Engineer, the City would like to establish and recruit for an Assistant Engineer.
The Assistant Engineer is an entry level position requiring a Bachelor’s degree with major course work in Civil Engineering, with possession of an Engineer-in-Training Certificate and one year minimum of public agency experience desirable. The Associate Engineer position is distinguished from the Assistant Engineer classification by performing more complex professional engineering functions, such as performing plan review and contract administration of public works projects/capital improvement projects, administering consultant services agreements, and having demonstrable
4.14 Packet Pg. 270
Establishing the Assistant Engineer Classification
February 28, 2023
knowledge of traffic and transportation engineering principles and practices. Typically, the Associate Engineer also possesses registration as a professional engineer in the State of California and has a minimum five years of public agency experience. Historically, the Public Works Director/City Engineer has been supported by an Assistant Engineer and the incumbent has been promoted to Associate Engineer with time and experience. This change allows the City to return to this past practice.
Since this classification will be included in the bargaining unit represented by the Laguna Hills City Employees Association (LHCEA), it is necessary for the City Council to add the classification and salary range to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by adopting the attached Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Attached to this report is the salary data used to arrive at the proposed monthly salary range of $7,359 to $8,945. Following the City’s belief and established employee compensation program to attract and retain highly qualified individuals, this range is based on the average of the comparator agencies’ average plus five percent for the Assistant Engineer position. This position would be subject to all provisions of the MOU.
This action can be absorbed in the current budget and will result in reduced personnel expenses.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Proposed Resolution -Establishing Assistant Engineer Classification • Assistant Engineer Salary Range
4.14 Packet Pg. 271
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-02-28-x
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE
ASSISTANT ENGINEER CLASSIFICATION ALONG WITH
SALARY RANGE AND BENEFITS WITHIN THE BARGAINING
UNIT COVERED BY THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE LAGUNA HILLS CITY
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
The City Council of the City of Laguna Hills, California, hereby finds, determines, declares, and resolves as follows:
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the City Council approved and adopted the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the City of Laguna Hills (“City”) and the Laguna Hills City Employees Association (“LHCEA” or “Association”), which became effective July 1, 2021, and will remain in effect until June 30, 2023; and WHEREAS, Section IV of the MOU, entitled “Salary and Pay,” establishes the employment classifications and the Salary Schedule for those positions in the bargaining unit covered by the MOU as of the time of the signing of the MOU, including both full-time positions (non-management) and extended part-time positions; and WHEREAS, upon recommendation of the City Manager, the City Council now wishes to establish a full-time, non-management position to the bargaining unit covered by the MOU.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA
HILLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The purpose and intent of this Resolution is to reestablish a full-time, non-management employment classification and salary range for the position of “Assistant Engineer” to Section IV, “Salary and Pay,” of the MOU between the City and the Association.
SECTION 2. The full-time, non-management employment classification and salary range for the “Assistant Engineer” position established by this Resolution will be included in the bargaining unit covered by the MOU and represented by the Association and all provisions in the MOU between the City and the Association will be applicable to this new position.
SECTION 3. The Assistant Engineer full-time, non-management employment classification is hereby established and assigned the following salary range:
FULL-TIME POSITION – NON MANAGEMENT MONTHLY RANGE
Assistant Engineer $ 7,359.07 $ 8,945.00
4.14.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Proposed Resolution -Establishing Assistant Engineer Classification (3083 : Establishing the Assistant Engineer Classification) Resolution No. 2023-02-28-x
SECTION 5. The Members of the Association have been notified concerning the actions set forth herein.
SECTION 6. The changes to the employment classifications and salary ranges set forth herein shall be effective March 1, 2023.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of February 2023. ____________________________________
JANINE HEFT, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________
JENNIFER LEE, CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS )
I, Jennifer Lee, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Hills, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2023-02-28-x adopted by the City Council of the City of Laguna HiIls, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held on the 28th day of February 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
(SEAL)
_____________________________________
JENNIFER LEE, CITY CLERK
4.14.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Proposed Resolution -Establishing Assistant Engineer Classification (3083 : Establishing the Assistant Engineer Classification) City Comparable Class Title Min C.P./Max
Brea Assistant Engineer 5,997.08 $ 7,677.74 $ Buena Park Assistant Engineer 6,354.00 $ 8,055.00 $ Proposed Salary Range Cypress No Comparable Class ‐ ‐Dana Point Assistant Engineer 6,086.00 $ 8,635.00 $ Step A Step B Step C Step D Step EFountain Valley Assistant Engineer 7,245.04 $ 7,607.29 $ 7,359.07 $ 7,727.03 $ 8,113.38 $ 8,519.05 $ 8,945.00 $ Irvine Assistant Engineer 5,643.73 $ 8,879.87 $ Laguna Beach No Comparable Class ‐ ‐Laguna Niguel Assistant Engineer 7,075.00 $ 8,843.00 $ Lake Forest No Comparable ClassMission Viejo Assistant Engineer 6,401.20 $ 8,952.67 $ Newport Beach Junior Engineer 6,745.77 $ 9,498.78 $ Orange Assistant Engineer 6,597.00 $ 8,461.00 $ Rancho Santa Margarita No Comparable Class ‐ ‐San Clemente Assistant Engineer 7,733.52 $ 9,400.14 $ San Juan Capistrano Engineering Assistant 6,112.00 $ 7,428.00 $ Tustin Assistant Engineer 6,850.13 $ 8,784.53 $ Yorba Linda Assistant Engineer 7,032.00 $ 8,548.00 $ $ 8,518.58 6,570.04 $ $ 8,944.51 6,898.54 $ Assistant Engineer
Mean
Mean * 5%
4.14.b
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Assistant Engineer Salary Range (3083 : Establishing the Assistant Engineer Classification) City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: February 28, 2023
TO: President and Directors
FROM: Jennifer Lee
City Clerk
ISSUE: Election of Public Improvement Corporation Officers RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors adopt a Resolution entitled: “A Resolution of the Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation, Laguna Hills, California, Electing Officers for 2023.”
SUMMARY:
The Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation (PIC) is a non-profit, public benefit corporation for the purpose of assisting the City in its issuance of Certificates of Participation related to the financing of the building of the Laguna Hills Community Center and Sports Complex and the Civic Center. Per the bylaws, the PIC is required to hold an annual meeting and the City Council sits as the Board of Directors. At this meeting, the Board will elect officers for 2023, and approve the minutes of the previous meeting of February 8, 2022. As the current President of the Public Improvement Corporation, President Wheeler will call the meeting to order. After the roll call, President Wheeler will entertain a motion to adopt the Resolution electing the Officers for 2023. President Heft will then take the gavel and chair the remainder of the PIC meeting.
BACKGROUND:
In September 1998, the City Council, acting as the Board of Directors for the Laguna Hills PIC, took several actions including the adoption of bylaws, election of officers, and adoption of a Resolution appointing the time and place of meetings. The PIC is a nonprofit, public benefit corporation whose primary purpose is to assist the City in issuing 1 Packet Pg. 275
Election of Public Improvement Corporation Officers
February 28, 2023
Certificates of Participation. In 2010, the PIC was involved in the City’s refinancing project and the subsequent lease payments (debt service) related thereto.
Pursuant to the bylaws, the Annual Meeting is to be held in February each year, and the Board of Directors is to elect officers at the Annual Meeting. A Resolution has been prepared that will elect the Mayor as President, the City Manager as Vice President, the Finance Director as Treasurer, and the City Clerk as Secretary.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Proposed Resolution No. 2023-1
1 Packet Pg. 276
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-1
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAGUNA HILLS PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION, LAGUNA HILLS,
CALIFORNIA, ELECTING OFFICERS FOR 2023
RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation, that the following persons are elected to the offices set forth opposite their names below, as officers of the Corporation, to serve until the election and qualification of their successors, as provided in Article IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws of the Corporation.
Name Office
Janine Heft President
Jarad L. Hildenbrand Vice President
Eric Hendrickson Treasurer
Jennifer Lee Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS )
I, Jennifer Lee, Secretary of the Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a Resolution duly passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation, at a meeting thereof held on the 28th day of February 2023, by the following vote of the Directors thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
JENNIFER LEE, SECRETARY
1.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Proposed Resolution No. 2023-1 (3068 : Election of Public Improvement Corporation Officers) City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: February 28, 2023
TO: President and Directors
FROM: Jennifer Lee
City Clerk
ISSUE: Approval of the Public Improvement Corporation Minutes for the February 8, 2022, Annual Meeting
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the minutes of the February 8, 2022, Annual Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
• February 8, 2022 PIC Annual Meeting Minutes
2 Packet Pg. 278
CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
ANNUAL MEETING
MINUTES
Tuesday, February 8, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Public Improvement Corporation of the City of Laguna Hills, California, was called to order by Interim City Manager Rosenfield at 7:21 p.m. in the Laguna Hills City Council Chamber, 24035 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, California.
BOARD ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Dave Wheeler Director Present
Janine Heft Director Present
Don Caskey Director Present
Erica Pezold Director Present
Don Sedgwick Director Present
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no Public Comments.
ELECTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION OFFICERS
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. 2022-1: “A Resolution of the Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation, Laguna Hills, California, Electing Officers for 2022.”
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dave Wheeler, Director
SECONDER: Don Sedgwick, Director
AYES: Dave Wheeler, Director; Janine Heft, Director; Don Caskey, Director; Erica Pezold, Director; Don Sedgwick, Director
2.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: February 8, 2022 PIC Annual Meeting Minutes (3067 : Approval of Minutes for February 8, 2022, Annual Meeting) City of Laguna Hills Public Improvement Corporation Tuesday, February 8, 2022 Annual Meeting Minutes
2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2020, ANNUAL MEETING Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the Minutes of the February 9, 2021, Annual Meeting.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Janine Heft, Director
SECONDER: Erica Pezold, Director
AYES: Dave Wheeler, President; Janine Heft, Director; Don Sedgwick, Director; Erica Pezold, Director; Don Sedgwick, Director
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Public Improvement Corporation at this session, President Wheeler declared the meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m.
Jennifer Lee, Secretary
Approved at meeting of February 28, 2023.
2.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: February 8, 2022 PIC Annual Meeting Minutes (3067 : Approval of Minutes for February 8, 2022, Annual Meeting) City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: February 28, 2023
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Larry Longenecker
Community Development Director
ISSUE: Short-Term Rentals
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive the survey results and provide direction to staff.
SUMMARY:
Short-term rentals (STRs) were discussed by the City Council at its June 28, 2022, meeting, with ten Nellie Gail Ranch residents complaining about a house party causing a nuisance in their community on June 18, 2022. The City Council directed staff to research the issue and explore options to regulate STRs. As discussed at the September 27, 2022, City Council meeting, Staff surveyed neighboring cities and learned a majority of them do not allow STRs. Staff also hired an STR compliance consultant that determined there is currently a total of 29 active STRs operating in the City: nine with only a room or portion of the property rented, and 20 with the entire property rented.
As further directed by City Council, staff conducted a resident survey, between November 14 and December 1, 2022, receiving 140 responses, including 71% in support of a ban on STRs. A summary of the resident survey results is provided in Attachment 1.
Staff also conducted a survey of the City’s Homeowner Associations (HOAs), with only one HOA allowing STRs and only two HOA’s aware of any STRs in their respective communities. A summary of the HOA survey results is provided in Attachment 2.
There are four regulatory options the City Council may elect to address STRs: take no action; adopt an ordinance banning STRs; regulate STRs; or regulate and tax STRs.
7.2.1 Packet Pg. 281
Short-Term Rentals
February 28, 2023
BACKGROUND:
Short-term rentals (STRs) are residential properties, or portions thereof, that are rented for transient occupancy of 30 or fewer days. At the regular City Council meeting on June 28, 2022, Mayor Wheeler introduced Agenda Item 8.1.1, Short-Term Rentals, and invited the public to address the City Council on the item. Ten members of the public spoke in opposition to STRs, primarily homeowners within the Nellie Gail Ranch living in proximity to an STR that was used as a party house on June 18, 2022.
As directed by the City Council, staff further researched the issue, including regulatory options, and returned to the Council on September 27, 2022. At that meeting, staff presented results of a City survey showing that a majority of neighboring cities do not allow STRs. Staff also hired STR compliance consultant Rentalscape, which determined there are currently 29 active STRs operating in the City, including nine STRs where only a room or portion of the property is rented, with the remainder of the property is occupied by the homeowner, and 20 STRs where the entire dwelling is rented out.
At the September 27, 2022, City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to conduct a survey of the City’s residents regarding STRs (see staff report and meeting minutes in Attachments 3 and 4, respectively).
DISCUSSION:
Resident Survey
At the September 27, 2022, City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to conduct a survey of the City’s residents regarding STRs. Staff prepared and conducted an on-line STR survey with both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The survey was launched on November 14, 2022, ran for 18 days, and closed on December 1, 2022.
Residents were advised about the STR survey using a resident email list, posting to social media (Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), and with a press release posted on the City’s website. The City received a total of 140 survey responses, with 71% of respondents supporting a ban on STRs within the City. A summary of the resident survey results is provided in Attachment 1, including responses to an open-ended question asking residents for additional comments.
7.2.1 Packet Pg. 282
Short-Term Rentals
February 28, 2023
HOA Survey
Staff also conducted an informal telephone survey of the Homeowner Associations (HOAs) within the City, see results provided in Attachment 2. None of the responding HOAs allow STRs, and only two of the responding HOAs stated they are aware of any STRs in their respective communities, citing loud noise and parties as the primary concern.
Regulatory Options
There are four regulatory options available to the City Council:
1. Take No Action. Historically, the City has not regulated STRs, neither permitting nor prohibiting STRs. No STR permits have been granted and no transient occupancy tax (TOT) has been collected. It should be noted that staff’s current interpretation of the Development Code is that STRs are prohibited in the City because they are not specifically enumerated as an allowed use in the Development Code.
2. Adopt an Ordinance to Ban STRs. An ordinance banning STRs would prohibit STRs throughout the City. The ordinance may require an amortization period for existing STRs that were legally established.
3. Regulate STRs. This option would permit STRs under certain conditions, and in accordance with specific criteria, included and considered as part of an STR permit process.
4. Regulate and Tax STRs. In addition to an STR permit process, the City would collect transient occupancy tax (TOT), a 10% City tax applicable to all transient occupancy stays within the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1- Short-Term Rental Resident Survey Results • Attachment 2- Short-Term Rental HOA Survey Results
• Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments • Attachment 4- September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes
7.2.1 Packet Pg. 283
Survey Results
1. Are you a resident of Laguna Hills?
Yes, and I own my home: 93%
Yes, and I rent my home: 4%
No: 3%
2. Are you aware of any short-term rentals operating near your home? Yes: 49.3%
No: 42.1%
I don’t know: 8.6%
3. How would you feel about having a short-term rental operating near your home?
Not an issue: 24.4%
Somewhat uncomfortable: 3.6%
Very uncomfortable: 72%
4. Have you ever been disrupted by short-term rentals in your neighborhood? Yes: 45%
No: 55%
5. What might be your biggest concern with a short-term rental operating near your home?
No concerns: 9.3%
Parking impacts: 24.3%
Noise impacts: 6.4%
Safety/security concerns: 56.4%
Trash or otherwise impacting the visual appeal of the neighborhood: 3.6%
6. Do you believe short-term rentals should allowed in Laguna Hills? Yes, with no specific regulations imposed: 10%
Yes, with regulations considered through a permit process: 18.6% No, short-term rentals should not be allowed in Laguna Hills: 71.4%
7. Please provide any additional comments you have regarding short-term rentals in Laguna Hills.
Please see next page.
7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment 1- Short-Term Rental Resident Survey Results (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Short term rentals in homes do nothing but cause disruption and are a business.
If we co to us to allow they should be taxed to cover cost of additional law enforcement.
They haven't been a problem.
Short term rentals should not be allowed in our city. These are unregulated by the rental websites and they have no control over the renters, safety of the neighborhood, do not enforce their own rules/contractual obligations, and the fines imposed are minimal compared to the nuisances the neighbors have to endure. Renters are often loud past the time limit, have large parties, disturb the residents, and bring crime into the neighborhoods. At a bare minimum there should be a 30+ day limit on rentals if permitted and they should have to file for a permit. Our surrounding cities already limit or prohibit STR's (AV, LN, SJC, Irvine, LB,LF, Tustin 31+ day ). There should be No Grandfathered STRs allowed. Please help keep our city safe, beautiful and a great place for families by prohibiting short term rentals.
Short term rentals bring noise and security concerns. If it's short term there is no pride of ownership. Brings property values down. We want to live in homes where we know our neighbors.
How about minimum 2 or 3 weeks? Not sure about 30 days.
Noise impacts, trash or otherwise impacting the visual appeal of the neighborhood, and parking impacts.
Leave property owners alone.
There seems to be a direct correlation between the care people give their property and the time they spend it that property. ie. owners take better care of their property and community than renters do. This seems evident when looking at Lake Forest.
Laguna Hills is a community of families raising their kids and trying to live the best quality of life. Short term rentals have no place in family neighborhoods. With increased crime why invite more opportunities for crime and noise? As residents we have a right to live in a quiet calm area where we don't have to worry about revolving door parties and increased safety concerns that come along with short term rentals. There is a reason cities are not allowing these.
HOAs have tried to impose restrictions in bylaws, however, due to state laws, not much can be done with existing Short term rental businesses There is a house on our street that is on Air BNB and a few months ago a motorcycle club rented it out and the next morning they were riding up and down our street and revving their engines for the longest time. Very unsafe and too loud. This is a family neighborhood and usually quiet, which we all love. Another time they rented to someone who threw a party and there were tons of cars and young people out in the street and partying. Not something we should have to deal with in our neighborhood! Turning a single family dwelling into a small hotel is not an intended use or what is was zoned for. The constant transient nature of people, vehicles and party rental trucks a STR in itself causes makes neighborhood watch impossible. Use of the Sheriff to police unruly events is using a resource for a purpose it was not intended for. Hotels exist within our City for the intended purposes and the City collects the appropriate taxes for their use. There is no benefit to allow STRs to exist other than the greed of the individual property owner who wants to use their property outside the normal limits.
Tax them like hotels with TOT. It's not fair for our hotel owners to compete with Airbnb and VRBO that don't have TOT tax on them.
7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment 1- Short-Term Rental Resident Survey Results (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Noice ordinance which already in place for all.
I don't see a problem with short term rentals in my neighborhood. What concerns me more are the half way homes housing people in drug recovery.
There are many just in my neighborhood.
Plenty of hotels in the area to accommodate visitors especially in the area proposed.
Thank you for considering the concerns of the residents.
Short term rentals do not fit into a community with young children. We need to have homes available to families and people who want to be part of a community for a long time.
Short-term rentals are detrimental to the community in which they reside - from safety/security, to noise, trash, lowering property values, and overall disruption to the sense of community are just a few of the reasons Laguna Hills must follow our local cities like Irvine, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley (to name a few) ...and ban STR's
Absolutely not in favor for STR's in Laguna Hills. The very big reason is safty & security, not to mention loud noises, trash all over on the street & adjoining streets. It's been scary due to weapon sensors have been used & guests urinating on the streets Last weekend the airbnb next door had 25 cars parked in our cul-de-sac overnight and had bright lights and equipment in the yard and driveway because they were filming a movie.
I know the residents next to the short term rentals in our neighborhood are living a nightmare. I feel strongly that those, as well as recovery houses, have no place here. Safety and crime are becoming larger issues every passing month and these do not impact our quality of life in a positive way.
People move to Laguna Hills to be part of a residential community, not in the middle of a party town.
It's the party aspect that's the issue. Noise trash security concerns Most cities are banning them, and for specific reasons. Hopefully they will be disallowed in all neighborhoods.
We already have a shortage of homes, short term rentals just encourage investors to purchase homes and rent out short term. It takes properties away from people who actually want to live here.
I lived a couple of doors down from an vacation rental and the noise was unbearable people are on vacation and wanting to have fun so they stay up late, play music, talk loud etc. The police was often being called on the vacationers.
Am aware of several “care/ rehab facilities†in my neighborhood and do not want those either. They are disruptive in all ways listed abovenoise,safety, parking etc.
We already allow drug rehab homes to be our neighbors so why would it be worse? We've had super loud arguments, people vomiting over the balcony, loud music and people yelling down to us when we are in our backyard ALL from a dry rehab, so no, a short term rental really isn't a big deal.
I am very concerned about the parking impact, noise impact, safety, and security problems. I have had conversations with Nellie Gail neighbors who have had bad experiences with short-term renters on their streets.
This creates an unsafe feeling in an otherwise quiet and safe neighborhood. It was never our intention to live near short term rentals with constant turnover and limited accountability. I'm concerned for the safety of my children and also worried about noise issues.
7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment 1- Short-Term Rental Resident Survey Results (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Between 5 year unfinished construction, renters who don't take care of the house or lawn and now hoards of people filling a short term rental (20 cars) the value of homes on our street has to be impacted. Shame on the HOA and city for allowing this! We believe that short term rentals create an unnecessary security (gun violence) and noise nuisance for permeant homeowners who have worked their whole lives to purchase a single-family home in order to enjoy a peaceful and secure lifestyle. Short term rental owners are profiting at the expense of their neighbor's well-being and there can be no good justification to support such a business in a residential neighborhood.
The short term rental doesn't even have to be close to you to hear very load noise - the sound travels through the backyards etc.
The city of Encinitas has quite stringent requirements for short term rentals, which might be worth looking at We saw first hand the impunity of the participants at the party in Nellie Gail. Very unsafe for all neighbors.
I moved here 3 years ago from my home in Danta CA Ynez. In 2015 a vacation rental opened next door to me. It was a constant nuisance . Think about it . It's a vacation rental and it becomes a party house . That's the only reason I moved from a home I loved for over 20 years ..Hotels do no belong in our neighborhoods . I was shocked to find that Nellie Gail had no restrictions ., Large home across street currently short term rental. Lots of cars every week, noise, parties and strangers coming and going all times of the night. Feel very unsafe. So sad that Nellie Gail and Laguna Hills allows this type of activity.
I would actually like reasonable regulations for short-term rentals (e.g. limitations on number of occupants, vehicles, noise restrictions, etc.), but not through a permit process. Limiting short term rentals by requiring permits opens the way for political favoritism. Property owners should have relatively free rein to operate their properties as long as they are not disturbing neighbors so as to be a nuisance.
The noise and trash are also concerns, for example current weekends at the park when empty marijuana debris is left on the trails . There are plenty of commercial venues to rent--why rent out homes in a residential community? Laguna Hills is not a resort town. It is a neighborhood. Each development has its own flavor and personality.
Short term renters have no vested interest in the community - parties, trash, security issues typically accompany short term renters. Vandalism following parties is not unusual.
We deserve to live a peaceful life, we pay for this peace of mind, with short term rental, out quality of life is worse than living in apartment We live in Nellie Gail and the short term rentals are so disruptive and negatively impact our neighborhood.
Short-term rentals in Nellie Gail have become increasingly disturbing I believe STR can be run responsibly with rules. Our family have rented STR to be near us. We used to run a STR. We had quiet hours, parking restrictions, no parties, no loud outside noise and other rules plus we required 4 reviews that were positive. We never had an issue. I actually think with rules, STR can control their tenants more than Long Term.
Not good for our home prices.
All short term rentals need to be abolished
7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment 1- Short-Term Rental Resident Survey Results (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Very little complaints associated with sounds and partying in this area. The visitors is good for business in the area and this will also help grow the value of our properties much faster than other areas as a destination city. We live in an area people would want to visit. We should be proud of that and not discourage. We shouldn't be scared this is the new America people now can work from different locations and most these people are professionals post Covid. This is not your Vegas crowd. Keep that in mind. This is not a retirement community that is Laguna woods next door.
Noise and unruly crowd with large parties causing a lot of disturbance in neighborhood We had an issue on our street, where the renter was having a raging party. It was so out of control the police wouldn't even get involved.
It has been scary, horrible experiences on my street & adjacent streets. Trash is all over.... it's been loud with bad language & loud music. It is pretty scary when a person witnesses weapon sensor is being used at the party.
Very concerned about personal safety.
Short term rentals are prone to abuse by design. There's no sense of ownership, little to no sense of obligations by the renters to respect the sanctity of the neighborhood.
It's disruptive due to the number of strangers who come into the neighborhood. Drugs are often used in these rental party places and the noise is unacceptable. Please no short term rentals.
7.2.1.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment 1- Short-Term Rental Resident Survey Results (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) HOA
Does the association allow
for STRs?
Aware of any STRs in the
Community?
Any issues associated
with STRs?
Bella Tierra No
Rooms for rent (they have
all closed) Pool usage
Bella Vista No No Parking, noise, trash
Casa de Laguna No No No
Crestline ll No No
Parking and facility
usage
Falcon Hill No No Parking
Indian Creek No No No
Lomas Laguna No No No
Moulton Ranch l No No Noise, parking and trash
Moulton Ranch lll No No No
Nellie Gail Ranch No Yes (about 12)
Yes‐ parties, noise,
parking, neighboring
propoerty infringment)
Quail Creek No No No
Ridgefield No No No
Vista Firenze No Yes
loud parties, demand to
use amentities
neighbors complaining
of potenial illegal
acitivuty drugs, birthing
house
Acacia Knolls (No Response)
Aliso Meadows (No Response)
Briosa (No Response)
Laguna Village (No Response)
Moulton La Paz Community (No
Response)
Indian Hill (No response)
Rancho Monterey (No Response)
Homeowner Association Survey ‐ Short‐term Rentals
7.2.1.b
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment 2- Short-Term Rental HOA Survey Results (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: September 27, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Larry Longenecker
Community Development Director
ISSUE: Short-Term Rentals
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council direct staff regarding regulatory options for short-term rentals.
SUMMARY:
Short-term rentals (STRs) were discussed by the City Council at its June 28, 2022, meeting, with ten Nellie Gail Ranch residents complaining about a house party causing a nuisance on June 18, 2022, at 25166 Rockridge Road. The City Council directed staff to research the issue and explore options to regulate STRs. Staff surveyed neighboring cities and learned a majority of them do not allow STRs. Staff also hired STR compliance consultant Rentalscape, which determined there are currently 29 active STRs operating in the City, including nine STRs where only a room or portion of the property is rented, with the remainder occupied by the homeowner, and 20 STRs where the entire dwelling is rented. There are four regulatory options to address STRs, the City Council may elect to allow, prohibit, regulate, or regulate and tax STRs.
BACKGROUND:
Short-term rentals (STRs) are residential properties, or portions thereof, that are rented for transient occupancy of 30 or fewer days. At the regular City Council meeting on June 28, 2022, Mayor Wheeler introduced Agenda Item 8.1.1, Short-Term Rentals, and invited the public to address the City Council on the item. Ten members of the public spoke in opposition to STRs, primarily homeowners within the Nellie Gail Ranch estate residential community living in proximity to 25166 Rockridge Road, an STR that was
7.2.1.c
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Short-Term Rentals
September 27, 2022
used as a party house on June 18, 2022. Following public testimony and City Council discussion, the Council directed staff to research and explore options to regulate STRs.
Staff provided an update to the City Council on August 23, 2022 (see Staff report and meeting minutes in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively).
DISCUSSION:
Regulatory Options
A confidential City Attorney memo was provided to the City Council detailing issues and concerns related to STRs. In summary, there are four regulatory options available to the City Council:
1. Allow STRs. This option maintains the status quo position wherein the City does not regulate STRs, no permits are granted and no transient occupancy tax (TOT) is collected.
2. Ban/Prohibit STRs. A ban would prohibit STRs, either City-wide or in specific sections of the City. A ban could also be applied to different types of STRs, such as STRs where the entire property is rented, compared to STRs occupied by the property owner, where typically only a room or minority portion of the home or property is rented.
3. Regulate STRs. This option would permit STRs under certain conditions, and in accordance with specific criteria, included and considered as part of an STR permit process.
4. Regulate and Tax STRs. In addition to an STR permit process, the City would collect transient occupancy tax (TOT), a 10% City tax applicable to all transient occupancy stays within the City.
City Survey
Staff researched how other cities currently address STRs. Four neighboring cities have banned STRs, including: Aliso Viejo in 2015; Lake Forest in 2017; Laguna Niguel in 2017; and Irvine in 2018. Dana Point and Anaheim prohibit new STRs, but existing STRs are allowed to continue operating until the owner elects to cease operations, or until the property is sold. Dana Point and Anaheim collect TOT for the existing STRs.
7.2.1.c
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Short-Term Rentals
September 27, 2022
Similar to Laguna Hills, Mission Viejo allows STRs with no permit process. Newport Beach also allows STRs, but caps the total number of allowed STRs at 1,550, with a waitlist established if and when the maximum number is realized. Newport Beach requires a permit process and collects TOT for all STRs.
Laguna Hills Short-Term Rentals
To better understand the scope and scale of STRs in Laguna Hills, staff engaged Rentalscape, an STR compliance consultant. According to the Rentalscape data, there is currently a total of 29 STRs located in Laguna Hills. Eight of the STRs are single rooms available for rent within a home occupied by the homeowner or tenant. One of the STRs is a detached accessory structure located on a property with the primary dwelling occupied by the homeowner. One of the STRs is an apartment home, two of the STRs are townhomes, and 17 of the STRs are single-family homes.
A total of 14 of the STRs are located in communities with no homeowner’s association or property management. Eight of the STRs are located within the Nellie Gail Ranch community, three of the STRs are located within the Laguna Village townhome community in North Laguna Hills, one of the STRs is located in the Crestline townhome community at Moulton and Alicia Parkways, and one STR is located in the Quail Creek condominium community at Moulton Parkway and La Paz Road. One of the STRs is located in the Alicia Plaza apartment community at Paseo de Valencia and Laguna Hills Drive, and one STR is located in the Reata apartment building in Oakbrook Village. A location map is provided as Attachment 3.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department reports that, since January 2018, calls for service, typically for a Loud Party, were made for ten of the City’s 29 STRs, with repeat calls for four of the ten.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1- August 23, 2022 City Council Staff Report • Attachment 2- August 23, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes • Attachment 3- Map of Short Term Rentals in Laguna Hills
7.2.1.c
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) City of Laguna Hills
City Council/Planning Agency
Staff Report
DATE: August 23, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Larry Longenecker
Community Development Director
ISSUE: Short-Term Rentals
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive the staff report and direct staff to continue researching Short-Term Rentals, returning to the City Council for discussion at a later date.
SUMMARY:
Short Term Rentals (STRs) were discussed by the City Council at its June 28, 2022, meeting, with ten residents complaining about a house party causing a nuisance on June 18, 2022, at 25166 Rockridge Road. The City Council directed staff to research the issue and explore options to regulate STRs. This report provides a brief update summarizing Staff’s ongoing effort. Staff will return to the Council at a later date for a full discussion regarding STRs.
BACKGROUND:
At the regular City Council meeting on June 28, 2022, Mayor Wheeler introduced Agenda Item 8.1.1, Short-Term Rentals, and invited the public to address the City Council on the item. Ten members of the public spoke in opposition to short term rentals (STRs), primarily homeowners within the Nellie Gail Ranch estate residential community living in proximity to 25166 Rockridge Road, where an STR was used as a party house on June 18, 2022.
Following public testimony and City Council discussion, the Council moved “A motion to direct staff to research and explore options to regulate short term rentals and Attachment: Attachment 1- August 23, 2022 City Council Staff Report (2969 : Short-Term Rentals)
7.2.1.c
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Short-Term Rentals
August 23, 2022
implementation of a business license program within the City.” This report is an update on the progress made to date with regard to STRs.
DISCUSSION:
Issues related to STRs have been discussed from time to time by the City Council. A confidential City Attorney memo was provided to the City Council detailing past issues and concerns related to STRs. In summary, the memo discusses issues related to whether the City can: 1) Permit STRs; 2) Ban/prohibit STRs; 3) Regulate STRs through a permit process; and 4) Regulate and tax STRs. The issues discussed in the City Attorney memo are being researched by staff and will be brought back to Council for discussion at a later date.
Staff’s initial research includes discussions with neighboring cities, researching related state law, and better understanding STRs in Laguna Hills, including the number and type of STRs, how often they are utilized, and at what rates. For assistance in this regard, staff has engaged a third-party vendor that works with cities to identify, track, measure, and manage STRs, including site and property owner information, booking history and availability, and revenue generated by the STRs. Staff will report back to the Council with these metrics when available.
With regard to the specific Nellie Gail STR discussed at the June 28, 2022, City Council meeting, located at 25166 Rockridge Road, City staff has discussed with the property owner the multiple nuisance complaints received from the residents regarding the June 18, 2022, house party, and the City’s expectations that similar violations will not occur at the property in the future. The property owner has indicated that these types of events will be prohibited. The property owner also indicated that they met with the Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Association (NGROA) and explained the same.
Coincidentally, on June 28, 2022, STR site Airbnb officially codified a permanent ban on party houses, with consequences for violators including suspension to full removal from the platform. VRBO has a similar policy in place to prohibit properties from advertising when house parties have been allowed to become a nuisance.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1, June 28, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes Attachment: Attachment 1- August 23, 2022 City Council Staff Report (2969 : Short-Term Rentals)
7.2.1.c
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Attachment: Attachment 1- August 23, 2022 City Council Staff Report (2969 : Short-Term Rentals)
7.2.1.c
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Attachment: Attachment 1- August 23, 2022 City Council Staff Report (2969 : Short-Term Rentals)
7.2.1.c
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Attachment: Attachment 2- August 23, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes (2969 : Short-Term Rentals)
7.2.1.c
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Attachment: Attachment 2- August 23, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes (2969 : Short-Term Rentals)
7.2.1.c
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) Attachment 3 – Short-Term Rentals in Laguna Hills
Attachment: Attachment 3- Map of Short Term Rentals in Laguna Hills (2969 : Short-Term Rentals)
7.2.1.c
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment 3- September 27, 2022 City Council Staff Report, with Attachments (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) City of Laguna Hills City Council/Planning Agency Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes
7 5. PLANNING AGENCY
There were no separate Planning Agency Business Items for this meeting.
6. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no City Council public hearings.
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
7.1. City Manager
The City Manager gave no Administrative Reports.
7.2. Finance Director
7.2.1 Financial Update and Mid-Cycle 2021-2023 Biennial Budget Review
Finance Director Reyes reviewed in the information provided in the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the financial update for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022 and provide direction to staff on proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2022/2023 adopted budget.
RESULT: RECEIVE AND FILE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Don Sedgwick, Council Member
SECONDER: Janine Heft, Mayor Pro Tempore
AYES: Dave Wheeler, Mayor; Janine Heft, Mayor Pro
Tempore; Don Caskey, Council Member;
Erica Pezold, Council Member; Don Sedgwick,
Council Member
7.3. Community Development Director
7.3.1 Short-Term Rentals
Community Development Director Longenecker reviewed in the information provided in the staff report, provided a PowerPoint presentation, and responded to Council Member requests for additional information.
City Attorney Simonian responded to Council Member requests for additional information.
7.2.1.d
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment 4- September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes (3076 : Short-Term Rentals) City of Laguna Hills City Council/Planning Agency Tuesday, September 27, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes
8 The following individuals submitted an electronic public comment on Item No. 7.3.1 that was received, forwarded to the Council prior to the meeting, and announced into the record by Interim City Clerk Lee:
Bruce Freeman, a resident of the Nellie Gail community, submitted an electronic comment in favor of prohibiting short term rentals.
Mary Freeman, a resident of the Nellie Gail community, submitted an electronic comment in favor of prohibiting short term rentals.
Recommendation: That the City Council direct staff regarding regulatory options for short-term rentals.
A motion to table the item to a future meeting and direct staff to conduct further research based on Council Member comments received, including conducting a survey of residents, was made by Council Member Pezold, seconded by Council Member Caskey.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Erica Pezold, Council Member
SECONDER: Don Caskey, Council Member
AYES: Dave Wheeler, Mayor; Janine Heft, Mayor Pro
Tempore; Don Caskey, Council Member;
Erica Pezold, Council Member; Don Sedgwick,
Council Member
8. MATTERS AGENDIZED AND PRESENTED BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS There were no matters agendized by City Council Members.
9. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS
9.1. Committee Assignment Reports
Recommendation: That the City Council receive oral reports on the following City Council Committee Assignments:
1. League of California Cities (Council Member Pezold)
September 7-9, 2022, Annual Conference and Expo
Council Member Pezold provided an oral report.
2. OC Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees (Council Member Pezold)
September 15, 2022 meeting.
Council Member Pezold provided an oral report.
7.2.1.d
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment 4- September 27, 2022, City Council Meeting Minutes (3076 : Short-Term Rentals)