Agenda packet — Lake Forest City Council, January 4, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

Additionally, if a city intends to rely on nonvacant sites to make up more than fifty percent of its lower income housing need, it is also subject to Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2).

This provision requires the city to make an affirmative factual showing that the existing use is not an impediment to development. More specifically, the city must present “findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.” Without these findings, the existing use is “presumed to impede additional residential development.” Inadequacy of the City’s Draft Housing Element
The sites inventory in the City’s draft Housing Element does not meet these requirements.

The inventory does not adequately account for the impediment created by the existing uses on the listed nonvacant sites, including the possibility that a site will be maintained in its current use rather than redeveloped during the planning period. Indeed, the inventory appears to assume that every listed nonvacant site will be redeveloped during the planning period. Also, the information about the existing uses is woefully underspecified as it does not state anything other than the site being “underutilized.”
What’s more, the City’s draft housing element appears to rely on nonvacant sites to satisfy over 50% of the City’s lower income RHNA. But the inventory does not identify evidence that the existing uses on each of these sites will be discontinued during the planning period. Instead, the body of the City’s draft Housing Element contains the following broad statement:

Although each of these sites are developed with office, industrial, and/or retail uses, the sites typically are underutilized and are suitable for infill development or redevelopment (potentially without needing to demolish existing improvements), have structures at or near the end of their useful life, and/or existing intensity of development substantially lower than allowed by the City’s 2040 General Plan.

Furthermore, the current COVID-19 pandemic has seriously impacted the viability of many retail, service, and restaurant businesses. In recent years, many non- residential sites in the region have been redeveloped with mixed-use or residential- only projects.

This comes nowhere near meeting the City’s obligations under Section 65583.2(g)(2). It is not enough to state that a higher-intensity use can develop on a site. Instead, it must be shown that the actual existing use is likely to be discontinued. Furthermore, the factors that are discussed in the body of the Housing Element are not present in the sites inventory, so it is not possible to link analysis of the factors to any specific site.

Accordingly, as it stands, the existing uses of the non-vacant sites listed in the City’s inventory would be presumed to impede additional residential development, making those sites inappropriate for inclusion.

Request for Additional Information
Because the City’s draft Housing Element does not meet the requirements in subdivisions (g)(1) and (g)(2) of Government Code Section 65583.2, the City may face the significant risk of Item: 9
529
Item: 9
530
Item: 9
531
Item: 9
532
Item: 9
533
Item: 9
534
Item: 9
535
Item: 9
536
Item: 9
537
From:

To: PlanningCommission
Cc: Rona Henry; [email protected]; McDougall, Paul@HCD; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Item 5 - Lake Forest 2021-2029 Housing Element of the General Plan Date: Thursday, November 4, 2021 12:27:54 PM
Dear Lake Forest Planning Commissioner Chair Barajas, Vice Chair Armando and Commissioners Fuentes, Ludden and Villwock,

Lake Forest has an opportunity to address the challenging crisis that is touching so many people – housing. As a resident of Lake Forest over the last eight years and a member of Welcoming Neighbors Home I look forward to seeing new steps taken to address the lack of affordable housing for those from low and very low incomes. Business as usual will not address the housing challenges our low-income residents and essential workers face.

In particular I have a concern related to the City’s Hispanic or Latino population.

They are the
second largest racial population in Lake Forest, making up 22.7% of Lake Forest population ( HE BR 19). Given this group’s size I was pleased to see that:

The City’s Housing Element Overview video was subtitled in Spanish.

The City has made efforts to address this population’s needs via the homeless and safety net programs since most of these clients served are lower income Hispanic/Latino households.

What confounds me is that I found no mention of any public specific outreach to the Hispanic/ Latino population in Lake Forest. At the Community Open House, October 7, Amanda Tropiano, from De Novo, said the City had reached out to faith groups and stakeholders. Given the Hispanic Community’s size and needs such input seems critical. Their needs appear to be distinct.

According to the 2014-2018 ACS data, poverty rates and economic indicators are particularly severe for Hispanic and Latino populations. In 2018, Hispanics/Latinos had a poverty rate of

11.8%, the highest amongst the races in Lake Forest. ( HE BR 24).

Did the City reach out to Santiago de Compostela Catholic Church, Arbor CFR Spanish Mission, or Cristo Rompe Las Cadenas, faith groups that have highly Hispanic memberships? When and where did this happen, how many people came, what was the outcome? Input from the Hispanic Community is critical as public engagement needs to include listening to all residents.

I look forward to hearing back about actions taken to date or planned.

Thank You
Barb Daly

Sent from Mail for Windows

Item: 9
538
From: Ann Owens
To: PlanningCommission
Subject: Please post 6th cycle housing element comment
Date: Thursday, November 4, 2021 2:34:58 PM
Dear Lake Forest Planning Commission,
I am a 37 year resident of Lake Forest and a retired teacher from the Saddleback Valley School District. I am writing tonight to comment on the 6th Cycle Housing Element which you have before you on the agenda. I have been retired for quite a while, but when I was teaching at Serrano, I had homeless students and many students who were living several families to an apartment. This had a direct effect on their schoolwork and not in a positive way. This has only gotten worse over the years. I work with Welcoming Neighbors Home and thus have read through many of these elements. Lake Forest has done a good job of spreading proposed sites throughout the city and have chosen sites that seem to be realistic. I know that the Community Development staff has put many hours into this document and are excited about revitalizing many older and underused sections. However, there are a few items I wish to point out which I feel would make this a more robust and transparent document.

First, I feel the document is lacking in detail as to outreach. The city’s population is almost 1/4th Hispanic yet little detail was given as to how, when, and where this group was addressed and polled.

Seniors also make up a good part of the community, but I was never asked as a senior for my input.

The one survey I did answer did not address the issues of seniors in the community. It was basically aimed at fair housing practices.

I actually could go on in other ways, but you have been given two extremely professional documents tonight from both the Kennedy Commission and Welcoming Neighbors Home which go into vast detail as to what can be added to the 6th Cycle Housing Element to make it stronger and more robust. The main issue both documents address is how the city can attract developers who would be willing to build and include low- income housing in the future. This was not done in the 5th Cycle Housing Element so you can see why we question whether this will be done in the next eight years. I realize that the city has two senior apartments in the works and two apartment buildings that are aimed at strictly low and very-low- income residents. I applaud you for that. However, if you are going to meet your RHNA numbers, there must be much more of this type of housing on the horizon.

I encourage you to read the two previous letters I have just mentioned with a fine- tooth comb and take into account the possibility that theses mandates would make workforce housing a much more realistic possibility in the future. Cities such as Irvine and Laguna Beach have inclusionary mandates that they have even strengthened thus they are not an obstruction to construction but a fact of life.

Teachers in the Saddleback School District should not have to drive 60 miles each way to school because they cannot afford to live here as both housing costs and astronomical rents leave them with no choice but to commute. Let’s be a city that strives to provide housing for its citizens to make it an inclusive and thriving community for all.

Thank you for listening.

Ann Owens
Item: 9
539
Public Comment to the Lake Forest Planning Commission
November 4, 2021
After reviewing the draft Housing Element, as well as the Land Use Element in the 2040 General Plan, I was encouraged by their acknowledgment that our cityscape cannot remain static in the face of changing conditions and the changing needs of our current residents, as well as potential future residents. I’d like to thank the City for its work to plan for the future. This is such an important way to keep Lake Forest vital and strong.

I’d like to offer a comment regarding the data in Part 2: Background Report.

The HE describes current residents and their housing situations. But at this time when businesses are scrambling to find and keep workers, I encourage the City to also examine the housing needs of people who work in Lake Forest, but may not live here. What can they afford? How far away do they live? Could they and their employers benefit from more affordable housing in Lake Forest? Do Lake Forest employers have difficulty finding and retaining workers due to the high cost of housing in this area? My last comment speaks to the City’s current project to update its zoning code. This project is an opportunity to implement more robust affordable housing policies that would be codified in the new zoning code. I encourage the Planning Commission to advocate for measures such as an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and a Density Bonus Ordinance that would be applied to incentivize affordable housing development.

We ask you to take our public comment letter to heart, and welcome you to talk with us further if you would like more information about our recommendations.

Regards,
Sheryl Sterry, Resident of Lake Forest
Member of Welcoming Neighbors Home, an initiative of Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation
Mobile/Text:

Email:

Item: 9
540

October 21, 2021
Regarding: Lake Forest September 2021 Housing Element Draft & November 4, 20201 Planning Commission Meeting -

Dear Lake Forest Planning Commissioner Chair Barajas, Vice Chair Armando and Commissioners Fuentes, Ludden and Villwock,
We write representing the Welcoming Neighbors Home (WNH) Initiative, a ministry of Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation – which has members in South Orange County – including Lake Forest. The WNH initiative works to end homelessness and promote the development of more affordable housing – especially for those with extremely low and very low incomes.

We have reviewed Lake Forest’s September 2021 Housing Element Draft. We offer the following comments and questions – some of which amplify our previously submitted comments (see attached).
1) Seeing that 22.7% of the Lake Forest population is Hispanic or Latino, it was pleasing to see the Housing Element Overview Video of Lake Forest subtitled in Spanish. Lake Forest also works with safety net programs addressing this population’s needs. The Lake Forest Public Engagement Summary (P.18) asked, “How important are the following housing priorities to you and to your family?” The top priorities listed as either “very important” or “somewhat important” were “Support fair/equitable housing opportunities.” Therefore, it was disappointing that there was no mention of specific outreach to the Lake Forest Hispanic population in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

At the Community Open House on October 7th, Amanda Tropiano, from De Novo, said the City had reached out to faith groups and stakeholders. It seems that more specific data is needed for a comprehensive study.
a. Did the City reach out to Santiago de Campostela Catholic Church, Arbor CFR Spanish Mission, or Cristo Rompe Las Cadenas, faith groups that have highly Hispanic memberships? When and where did this happen, how many people came, and what was the outcome?
b. What stakeholders did you reach out to, and when and how did this occur? c. What other creative means did you try to reach this community? Item: 9
541

2) We applaud the City’s willingness to proactively collaborate with affordable housing developers. WNH will continue to support projects such as the Mountain View Affordable Housing Community. We appreciate the City’s efforts on affordable projects such as The Arroyo at Baker Ranch and Portola Center that were built through affordable housing implementation plans that were negotiated into development agreements between the City and developers.
3) We compliment the city on Program 23 - its plans to conduct an Economic Displace Risk Analysis, by December 31, 2023.
4) We were pleased to see that there are a number of sites already designated for residential mixed-uses that are on the Site Inventory – and that they are spread throughout town. We recognize that when the program-level environmental impact studies have been completed for sites, it will help save on development costs and that new standards for mixed-use areas will give clear direction to the development community.
5) We note that, because the city is built out, most of the sites on the Site Inventory have existing uses and structures. Our concern is that we do not see a set of housing programs that we think are commensurate with the challenge of attracting developers to build affordable housing on these sites with existing structures. a. We wish the city had achieved a more balanced distribution between lower and above moderate income housing units during the 5th RHNA Cycle. Only 57 lower income units were built compared to 2,625 Above Moderate units. b. We fear this unbalanced ratio of 1 lower income unit for every 46 above moderate units will only continue. The city’s past “case-by-case” practice of negotiating development agreements resulted in only 5% of its 5th RHNA Cycle being achieved.
c. Although the city is achieving a degree of success in encouraging the redevelopment of underutilized developed sites, we think that a much more robust set of programs are needed to affirmatively attract developers to build lower income housing in Lake Forest.

RECOMMENDED HOUSING PROGRAMS:

We have consulted with staff at the Kennedy Commission to learn what housing programs facilitate the production of affordable housing. Below is their advice. We are in agreement with their recommendations.
===========
The Kennedy Commission recommends the following affordable housing policies and programs to provide development incentives and collaborative opportunities for the production of affordable homes:

1. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - Given the urgent need of residents for low- income housing, the Commission strongly recommends the City adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance within the next year to ensure that identified Item: 9
542

sites are truly feasible and effectively provide affordable housing in a balanced manner. We recommend that the ordinance include a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely-low-, very-low- and low-income categories and that it apply to all residential projects. The ordinance should be flexible to allow for the development of affordable housing onsite, off site, or provide for an appropriate in-lieu fee option. We recommend an in-lieu fee option in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per unit, or $10 to $15 per square foot, to go along with this policy. The in-lieu fee must be calculated to achieve the gap financing needed to create affordable housing and be used to leverage additional state and federal housing funds. We recommend the affordable units be deed restricted for at least 55 years. A feasibility study and implementation of the ordinance should be completed no later than one year from the adoption of the Housing Element.

2. Mixed-Use Zoning – We support the city’s planning for mixed-use developments that provide residential units along major corridors and can provide significant opportunities for affordable housing development. We understand that mixed- use zoning allows for the integration of housing with other uses on underutilized commercial or industrial sites while retaining existing commercial/industrial square footage usage to provide services to new residents and the surrounding community. We recommend that the City require 15% of housing to be affordable at the extremely-low-, very-low-, and low-income levels in the mixed- use zoned focus areas.

3. Affordable Housing Overlay – The Commission recommends that the City adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay, especially over the mixed-use focus areas that are being rezoned and upzoned. A minimum of 15% of all units should be set aside for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income levels in exchange for development and regulatory incentives. The City must identify a timeframe to study the policy and a timeframe for adoption and implementation. We recommend that this happen in the first year of the 6th Cycle as part of the Zoning Code update.

4. Congregational Housing Overlay - A Congregational Housing Overlay Zone provides an opportunity for the development of affordable housing on religious sites while retaining the existing religious use. The overlay would provide 100% affordable units on congregational sites, with a focus on extremely-low-, very- low- and low-income categories.

5. Adaptive Reuse Ordinance - Certain building, fire code, and parking requirements add additional costs to building conversion projects and reduce the likelihood of developers converting commercial buildings to residential. The City should consider the adoption of an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, such as Santa Ana’s ordinance, to provide alternative building and fire standards for the Item: 9
543

conversion of eligible buildings in exchange for 15% of converted units dedicated to extremely low-, very low- and low-income categories.

6. Community Land Trust - The City should consider developing a Community Land Trust that would allow the City to retain ownership of land (either donated or purchased) and lease the land to the owner of the improvements for community benefit and the creation of 100% affordable housing.

7. Density Bonus - The City should analyze the effectiveness of the City’s density bonus ordinance to develop affordable housing for lower-income households.

The City’s 5th cycle RHNA progress demonstrates that moderate and above moderate-income housing production has outpaced lower-income housing development by a 46 to 1 ratio. The City should prioritize affordable housing for lower-income households in its update and implementation of density bonuses.

The review should include analysis as to how the density bonus is being implemented. This is especially important when analyzing its effectiveness in higher density specific plans and rezonings that give density and land use incentives and parking reductions, similar to the density bonus, but without requiring affordable housing. It is worth noting that rental developments can only use density bonuses to incentivize lower-income units.

8. Incentivizing 100% Affordable Housing - Regulatory, zoning and administrative requirements can contribute to high construction costs, and negatively affect the feasibility of producing affordable housing. The City should develop a program that incentivizes 100% affordable developments and reevaluate the current zoning code to eliminate barriers and create incentives for affordable housing developments. Incentives could include reducing or eliminating permitting fees, offering additional by-right incentives beyond density bonus, reducing parking standards, and alternative development standards. The City should consult with for-profit and nonprofit developers to determine appropriate regulatory incentives.

9. City Owned Sites and Surplus Property - The city should prioritize city owned sites and surplus land to be developed exclusively for 100% affordable housing for low, very low and extremely low income families. The City must be proactive and implement a program that markets available surplus land to affordable housing developers.

===========

6) Program 8 – ADUs: We support Program 8, which would include monitoring to track the creation and affordability of ADUs and assistance to residents to build ADUs. Rather than make Item: 9
544

it optional reporting, we would prefer to see it required so the affordability levels can be accurately tracked. In addition, we recommend incentivizing homeowners to create an affordable rental unit on their property by offering them assistance for financing (e.g. an ADU Forgivable Loan Program), designing, and permitting ADUs in exchange for building a deed- restricted, affordable ADU.
7) Program 14: Rental Assistance - We ask that the City be more specific in their plans for educating residents about the Federal Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance program.

What communication channels will they use to do outreach and how often? What are their plans to do outreach to landlords to encourage them to accept housing vouchers? 8) Program 15: Conservation of Existing Affordable Units - Is it possible to work even earlier than 60 days with the property owners and tenants regarding the notice of intent to convert at- risk units to market rate rents?
9) Program 22: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Outreach and Coordination Program - We ask that the City be more specific in their plans to affirmatively furthering fair housing. For example:
o How often will they provide fair housing literature to schools, libraries, and post offices?
o How often will they collaborate with local organizations – and which organizations - to encourage, expand, and publicize fair housing requirements as part of programs that provide rental assistance to lower income households? o By what means will the City actively recruit residents from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty to serve or participate on boards, committees, and other local government bodies as positions are made available due to the regular appointment process or vacancies? How will we know what steps the city has taken in this regard?

The need for more affordable housing for those earning less than $50,000 per year is acute.

We urge the city to take proactive steps, such as those outlined above, to promote the production of more affordable housing in Lake Forest.

We also recommend that the city issue an RFP to actively solicit affordable housing developers to the city. We would like to see the city offer support from the fund of collected in-lieu fees in exchange for development of extremely-low-, very-low and low-income housing units as well as funding available from the State of California’s HomeKey funds (https://homekey.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/NOFA Homekey 0.pdf ), and the federal government American Rescue Plan Act funds. It is important for the city to take advantage of these funding sources NOW to make important strides in the provision of affordable housing.

Item: 9
545

Thank you for considering our public comment – for your public service. If you have questions regarding our public comment, please contact Rona Henry at

Sincerely,
Rona Henry
Chair, Welcoming Neighbors Home, Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation

Rev. Kent Doss
Minister, Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation

Sheryl Sterry
Resident, Lake Forest
Volunteer Lake Forest City Monitor, Welcoming Neighbors Home Initiative

Barbara Daly
Resident, Lake Forest
Volunteer Lake Forest City Monitor, Leadership Team Member, Welcoming Neighbors Home Initiative

Ann Owens
Resident, Lake Forest
Leadership Team Member, Welcoming Neighbors Home Initiative

Cc: Debra Rose, Lake Forest City Manager
Keith Neves, Lake Forest Assistant City Manager
Gayle Akerman, Director of Community Development
Amy Stonich, Assistant Director of Community Development Ron Santos, Senior Planner, Community Development
Mayor Scott Voights
Mayor Pro Tem Robert Pequeno
Councilmember Doug Cirbo
Councilmember Neeki Moatazedi
Councilmember Mark Tettemer
Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director, Mildred Perez, Daisy Cruz, Cynthia Guerra - Kennedy Commission
Paul McDougall, Melinda Coy, Mashal Ayobi - California State Housing and Community Development Office
Item: 9
546

PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED COMMENTS FROM WELCOMING NEIGHBORS HOME OCTOBER 19, 2020

Lake Forest and Affordable Housing
Review and Recommendations
Submitted by
Welcoming Neighbors Home,
a Ministry of Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation

Observations
Lake Forest achieved only 5% of its affordable housing requirements for building very low income (VLI) and low income (LI) homes, under the 5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) through 2019.1
However, the City recently took two important steps toward its commitment to improving the availability of affordable housing.

In August of 2020, the City Council approved the National CORE Mountain View project which included a mix of 70 units of affordable housing and supportive housing. And in September of 2020, the City approved the 2040 Comprehensive General Plan which includes housing for High Density and mixed-use units, creating more opportunity for affordable housing.

In our review, Welcoming Neighbors Home (WNH) found that the City’s existing policies and program strategies as used in the 5th RHNA Cycle will benefit from further evaluation and updating with current best practices. We hope that our recommendations here will assist Lake Forest in meeting its future goals for affordable housing and in reaching RHNA requirements.

1Lake Forest Housing Needs Allocation Progress: 2014-2019, supplied by the Kennedy Commission Item: 9
547

1) History of Lake Forest’s rapid growth
a. Between 2000 and 2018, median home sales prices in Lake Forest increased 207% while median prices in the Southern California region increased 151%.2 b. The time period from 2010 to 2019 was also one of intense growth for the City. c. The City Council began planning for new Lake Forest community development in 2008, obtaining over $100 million in public funds.
d. After several years of study, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and zone changes for approximately 800 acres of land, ultimately building over 3000 new homes.
e. Some incentives were created at that time for market rate developers in order to facilitate the building of affordable housing.3
f. An “Opportunities Study Environmental Impact Report” was also completed. g. This comprehensive planning and funding paved the way for the housing projects mentioned in this report, which were constructed during the 5th RHNA cycle.

Review and Observations of 5th Cycle Housing Element

1) Lake Forest has not yet met its 5th Cycle RHNA goal of 1097 VLI and LI affordable units4 5 a. Under the 5th RHNA Cycle (2013-2019), 1097 units of VLI and LI housing were required, divided into 647 VLI homes and 450 LI homes.6
b. Only 57 affordable VLI and LI homes were permitted for building, over a seven-year period.
c. This is only 5%7 of affordable housing required under RHNA, a 95%8 shortfall in the number required.
d. However, during this same time period, 2625 homes were added for Above Moderate Income (AMI) residents—achieving 232% of the RHNA requirements. In addition, 204 Moderate income (MI) homes were built, reaching 41% of the RHNA targets (see table below).

2 SCAG, Local Housing Data for the City of Lake Forest, August 2020, page 12 3 Lake Forest Developer Agreements with attached Affordable Housing Implementation Plans 4 As our report was being finalized, we became aware of two new pending projects from late 2019 that did not appear on the Cycle 5 update: Teresina (85 units) and Nakase. (planned 101 affordable senior units in addition to market units). These 2 developments are not included in our data review. When official data is available, data review can be updated.
5 The Arroyo Project, with 189 affordable units, appeared to be completed in 2015. It is our understanding that it was permitted before the start of the 5th Cycle, and that is why it does not appear in that data. 6 Lake Forest Annual Housing Element Progress Report for 2019. p.13, Table B 7 57/1097 = 5%
8 1040/1097 = 95%
Item: 9
548

Housing Needs Allocation Progress: 2014-2019 9
Income Level RHNA 2014 2015

2016 2017

2018 2019 Total Units
to Date
Remaining
RHNA
Percentage
to RHNA
Very
Low
Deed 647 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 615 5%
Non-
deed
0 0 0 0 0 0
Low Deed 450 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 425 6%
Non-
deed
0 0 0 0 0 0
Moderate 497 145 48 8 2 1 0 204 293 41%
Above
Moderate
1,133 688 461 489 749 237 1 2625 -1,491 232%
Total RHNA 2,727 833 509 497 751 238 58 2,886

2) Lake Forest housing projects built under 5th Cycle Housing Element:
a. Baker Ranch
i. 3000+ homes planned.
ii. Planned, projected affordable units: 455 VLI and LI10 units. iii. 0 affordable permits issued.
iv. In-Lieu fees paid, but the amount is not publicly available. b. Serrano Summit11
i. Approximately total 900+ homes were planned.
ii. Projected affordable units: 608 VLI & LI homes.12
iii. 0 affordable permits issued.
iv. Unclear if In-Lieu fees were paid.

c. Portola
i. Total 930 units planned.
ii. Projected, planned affordable units: 331 VLI & LI homes.13

9 Table obtained from The Kennedy Commission
10 Table H-31 p. 40, Lake Forest Housing Element 75% built, Baker Ranch is estimated at 455 units (640- 185 = 455)
11 56.2 acres within Serrano Summit will be devoted to medium density residential uses , Lake Forest Developer Agreements and attached Affordable Housing Implementation Plans 12 Table H-31, p. 40 of Housing Element. “Justification for Serrano Summit” all units can be credited against the lower income RHNA
13 Lake Forest Developer Agreements with attached Affordable Housing Implementation Item: 9
549

iii. 57 affordable permits issued.14
iv. Portola is the only development site from the RHNA Site Inventory that is building affordable units.

3) Inclusionary Housing Program
a. Developers are encouraged, but not required, to have 15% of all units built as affordable.15
b. Decisions are made on an individual project basis, as agreed with the developer. c. Developers for two of the housing projects discussed here had the option of choosing to pay In-Lieu fees instead of building affordable housing units.16 d. It appears these In-Lieu fees were then used as the City’s $3.7M financial contribution for building Mountain View. This is the National Core project recently approved by the City Council with 71 units of VLI and LI affordable housing. e. Lake Forest uses a point system meant to increase ways that developers can meet the 15% affordable housing goal in their projects. (i) The In-Lieu fee appears to be a base of $12,000 per unit, as modified by the point system.
(ii) The point system seems very thoughtful but is quite complex. (iii) More information needs to be understood about what the total In-Lieu fees paid were that eliminated almost 900+ units of affordable housing for VLI and LI residents.
(iv) It is not clear if the current In-Lieu structure creates the appropriate compensation funding so that the City can incentivize building the omitted affordable units of elsewhere.
f. It appears that negotiations and concessions to developers worked to eliminate the commitment as outlined in the Cycle 5 Housing Element to use these developments to meet RHNA requirements for VLI and LI.
g. Lake Forest did not activate a sufficient back-up plan to build these RHNA required units elsewhere. 17

14 Portola Center is a 195-acre site which includes 57 affordable senior units, Lake Forest Developer Agreements and attached Affordable Housing Implementation Plans 15 Lake forest Housing Element, Policy 1.8 p. 72; private conversation with city staff 16 Lake Forest Developer Agreements and attached Affordable Housing Implementation Plans 17 The new Mountain View development approved in September 2020 did authorize 70 affordable units, including 12 PSH. This is a real accomplishment. However, it has not yet been included in RHNA data, so it is excluded from data analysis in this study.

Item: 9
550

4) Inclusionary Zoning
a. In the 5th Cycle Housing Element Lake Forest used three large development sites to support the assertion that it had enough available sites to comply with the required RHNA goals of 1097 VLI and LI housing units.
b. However, most of the planned low-income housing was eliminated from the developer agreements and the final build. This resulted in an almost complete collapse of Lake Forest’s commitment to build the number of low-income affordable income homes as proposed in the 5th cycle.
c. So, even though significant inclusionary zoning was proposed as part of the 5th Housing Element, the developments as built failed to achieve the goal. 5) Density Bonus
a. A density bonus allows for increased development density in excess of existing limits if affordable housing is included in a project. It can create a better overall cost model as an incentive to build more units.
b. In the three projects under discussion, the density bonus option was specifically waived by developers, as noted in available developer agreements.18 This appears to have been a sign that inclusionary housing needs would not be seriously considered in the project development.

6) Donation of Land
a. Baker Ranch had the option to donate 6 acres in-Lieu of affordable housing with a permanent restriction on affordable housing.
b. Portola Center has no land donation option in agreement. c. The Serrano Summit agreement did not have any land donation.

7) Easing governmental and other constraints for market rate developers 19 a. Lake Forest did change some of its internal city processes in the 5th Cycle to streamline and expedite the permitting process and the design review. b. High density and mixed-use zoning is now used.
c. The program includes case-by-case flexibility, if rezoning is required.

Recommendations for 6th Cycle Housing Element

1) Revise current Policy 1.8 to include a requirement for affordable housing. a. Policy now reads: “Encourage residential developments to incorporate a minimum of 15% affordable units, including units affordable to extremely low-income households.”

18 Lake Forest Developer Agreements with attached Affordable Housing Implementation Plans 19 Lake Forest Developer Agreements with attached Affordable Housing Implementation Plans Item: 9
551

b. Without a mandate, affordable housing can be overlooked or ignored. c. Strongly suggest Lake Forest strengthen its ordinances to require incorporation of inclusionary housing that includes all below market income levels in sufficient numbers to meet RHNA requirements.20 Under current 6th Cycle RHNA requirements, this is 187 units per year on average for people with lower incomes. d. Suggest that the City ensure clear accountability in the internal planning and development process to ensure that projects that do not appropriately contribute to RHNA targets are carefully documented and reviewed by the Planning Commission.

2) Strengthen the process and the results of the City’s Inclusionary Housing program a. Lake Forest will need to make some significant changes in approach for developing the 6th Cycle Housing Element, especially in the area of meeting RHNA requirements for VLI and LI housing.
b. The 6th Cycle new RHNA target requirements includes 1,494 VLI and LI units – a 36% increase over the prior cycle. With new housing laws in effect that hold cities much more accountable in achieving RHNA goals, Lake Forest will need to create a much stronger Housing Element plan to meet the needs of these disadvantaged income groups.
c. In the recently approved 2040 General Plan, it appears that the City has taken a very proactive approach to creating more opportunity for low income housing over the next twenty years.
i. Planned housing includes 620 units zoned for High Density (at 25 to 40 du/ac), 7,467 mixed-use units (at 43 du/ac) and 3,265 mixed-use units (at 60 du/ac). ii. It appears that this planning could allow for sufficient housing units to meet RHNA requirements over the 6th Cycle.
iii. Many of these sites should be included in the Housing Element Site Inventory so that the needs of below market buyers/renters can be accommodated. iv. The City should prepare an in-depth feasibility assessment of the Housing Element sites to provide better information on site suitability to prospective developers.
v. It will be very important for the City to develop a strong, proactive marketing strategy to attract and engage housing developers at various income levels throughout the 8 year cycle.

20 Currently, Lake Forest’s 6th Cycle RHNA has increased building requirements in the amount of 1,494 in the very low and low-income categories. This is 46% of the total of 3,229 homes. This means that on average 187 housing units per year will need to be developed over the 8-year 6th Cycle for people with lower incomes.

Item: 9
552

3) Assess the current In-Lieu fee structure and explore other options for creating additional funding
a. In-Lieu fee programs differ widely across cities and counties in California. i) When planners or developers eliminate affordable units from projects, the In-Lieu fees assessed need to be large enough to allow for sufficient fund accumulation to build the required affordable units elsewhere. Often the City can leverage these In- Lieu funds to gain matching financing from other public or private sources in partnership with non-profit developers.21
ii) The fees also need to be reasonable, in order to not create barriers that prevent developers from building the necessary projects.
iii) We suggest the City use a specialized land-use economic expert to perform the economic analysis needed to determine the cost/benefit of In-Lieu fee options that best fits the City’s goal and objectives.
b. We recommend that the City work with the Orange County Board of Supervisors and neighboring cities to create a regional local housing bond program to help fund affordable housing and permanent supportive housing.
i) Other California cities and counties have taken this approach or are in the process of creating such a program. 22 23
ii) Other steps that could make building affordable housing more financially feasible and attractive to developers include: increased density bonuses, parking capacity reductions, fee waivers, fast track development processes, building off-site affordable units, land donation, and locating developments near transportation centers.

4) Ensure that new 6th Cycle processes take advantage of current best practices and builds on what others have learned
a. As the urgency of affordable housing needs grows, regulatory oversight will likely continue to be a factor for California cities in their community development. This oversight can include changes through legislative and case law that may require increased accountability for cities and counties.
b. Recommended best practices continue to evolve as the experience of stakeholders adds to the knowledge base of “what works”.
c. California public funding opportunities will continue in the 6th Cycle.

21 This leverage of In-Lieu funds occurred in the Lake Forest Mountain View project 22 The San Diego City Council voted 6-3 to place on the November ballot a $900 million housing bond that would raise taxes on city property owners to pay for roughly 7,500 subsidized apartments. ... The estimate had ranged from $500,000 to $785,000, but now it's $700,000 to $1.2 million per ballot measure. San Diego Union Tribune, July 14, 2020.
23 Los Angeles also has a bond program, known as HHH.

Item: 9
553

d. The City may find these resources useful in updating its programs and approaches. Both are available online:
i) “Meeting California’s Housing Needs: Best Practices for Inclusionary Housing”. 24 ii) “Designing Affordability: Innovative Strategies for Meeting the Affordability Gap Between Low Income Subsidy and the Market in High Cost Areas.” 25

24 https://www.lgc.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/inclusionary-factsheet v2.pdf 25 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/designingaffordability2015.pdf

Item: 9
554
Item: 9
555
Item: 9
556
Item: 9
557

October 21, 2021
Regarding: Lake Forest September 2021 Housing Element Draft & November 4, 20201 Planning Commission Meeting -

Item: 9
558

RECOMMENDED HOUSING PROGRAMS:

manner. We recommend that the ordinance include a 15% requirement of affordable housing production at extremely-low-, very-low- and low-income categories and that it apply to all residential projects. The ordinance should be flexible to allow for the development of affordable housing onsite, off site, or provide for an appropriate in-lieu fee option. We recommend an in-lieu fee option in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per unit, or $10 to $15 per square foot, to go along with this policy. The in-lieu fee must be calculated to achieve the gap financing needed to create affordable housing and be used to leverage additional state and federal housing funds. We recommend the affordable units be deed restricted for at least 55 years. A feasibility study and implementation of the ordinance should be completed no later than one year from the adoption of the Housing Element.

conversion of eligible buildings in exchange for 15% of converted units dedicated to extremely low-, very low- and low-income categories.

7. Density Bonus - The City should analyze the effectiveness of the City’s density bonus ordinance to develop affordable housing for lower-income households.

===========

6) Program 8 – ADUs: We support Program 8, which would include monitoring to track the creation and affordability of ADUs and assistance to residents to build ADUs. Rather than make Item: 9
561

The need for more affordable housing for those earning less than $50,000 per year is acute.

We urge the city to take proactive steps, such as those outlined above, to promote the production of more affordable housing in Lake Forest.

Item: 9
562
Item: 9
563
Item: 9
564
Item: 9
565
Item: 9
566
Item: 9
567
Item: 9
568
Item: 9
569
Item: 9
570
Item: 9
571
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Sheryl Hagen
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 2:55 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Advocate for Affordable Housing

Dear Lake Forest Housing Element Project Team,
I am a long time resident of Lake Forest and I have watched as my city, our city, has grown and changed since I moved here in 1988. From my back yard I have an unobstructed view of the giant Lake Forest Civic Center as well as the many, many new and very costly homes that are being built adjacent to this huge complex. These housing prices make it impossible for many to afford to buy into our city. One of the things that first drew my husband and I to move from Irvine to Lake Forest was the diversity of people, both
ethnically and socio‐economically. We believe that when we include everyone at the table we all benefit, all of our lives are richer.

I think as a citizens and employees of this city, together we have an obligation to require builders, at a minimum, to allocate15% of their developments for low income housing.

Many of us check Zillow to see our homes worth. There is no way that I could ever afford to buy the house I live in today, even factoring in income increases. If we want to be a truly inclusive community, I believe that by requiring more from builders, by finding incentives to encourage them to consider more than their bottom line, we will make the Lake Forest community a better place fo
r all of us.

You have the opportunity to start planning for a future for Lake Forest that serves a wider range of people. Please use the opportunity you have to make Lake Forest a city that cares for and includes everyone.

Thank you,
Sheryl Hagen

Item: 9
572
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Ramesh Joshi
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 11:08 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Dire need for affordable housing and also Permanent housing for Homeless Dear Housing Element Team:

Your work is admirable and pertinent for livable and affordable housing for all.

I used to regularly visit my church in Lake Forest about twice a week and even in the evenings sometimes before the cruel pandemic made it hard to do so. But I still shop in the Lake Forest area as needed since I live close to the businesses of inter
est to me.

It is disheartening to see some homeless people often around my church and also on the traffic intersections and hear for those who work in the businesses how long they have to drive every day.

Next to food, housing is the second necessity all humans have to fulfill to survive. The homeless can no t afford to sleep
in the winter without getting in the way of the local residents.

It is my submission that your team should make it a priority to mandate at least 15% of the housing by the builders to meet the need for affordable housing for low wage
earners and permanent housing for the homeless anticipated in the requirements all over the state. In case of failure to do so, a heavy fee should be imposed to allow the city to collect funds to help build the needed housing.

With kind regards.

Ramesh C Joshi

Item: 9
573
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Andrea Alexander
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 2:58 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Housing Element
I am a Lake Forest resident of over 33 years.

I am writing to you to express my concern over the lack of low income and very low income housing in Lake Forest. It is sad to see that people who work in our community cannot afford to live here.

They provide services for us so why are we not doing what we can to serve them. The very least we can do is allow for adequate affordable housing. Think about what our community would be like if we did not have the people in those low wage jobs here to help, now lets help them.. Lets gets people off the streets and in homes.

I think the City should change its inclusionary housing policy to REQUIRE, not just encourage, developers to include at least 15% of Very Low Income and Low Income Affordable housing units.

The City should include policies, programs, and incentives in their housing element that will help stimulate the building of more affordable housing in Lake Forest and not allow for in lieu buyouts of this obligation and if not that then the in lieu fees should be used to do what it was intended fo, affordable low income and very low income housing. It would be in your best interests to provide incentives to builders who would provide this type of housing rather than build walls that make it more difficult to accomplish the very thing the city is most in need of.

Again, please remember those folks who work in our community at low wage jobs that provide services to us. Let's support them and provide affordable housing for all members of our community.

Thank you,
Stay safe and well,
Andrea Alexander

Item: 9
574
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Ann Owens
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 10:47 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Housing element
Dear Housing Element Team,
I am a thirty five year resident of Lake Forest and a retired teacher from the Saddleback School District. I have been involved with the homeless situation in California since my retirement, actually even before that as I had homeless students in my classroom. I am writing to encourage you to include several items in your Phase 6 Housing Elemen t. The first is to change your verbiage from” encourages to requires” a percentage of low cost housing when addressing possible contractors. It has been shown that such wordage makes a huge difference when it comes to a contractors decision if they are going to include low cost housing in a proposed development. I would also encourage you to “raise the fees charged “when a contractor de
cides not to build such affordable units. I would also encourage you to” raise the required percentage of low cost housing” that is included in a project to 15% . All of these efforts will hopefully enable cities to meet their new RHNA numbers.

Many young fa
milies, including my own ,cannot afford a home in Lake Forest even if they are making what many would see as a good salary. My daughter is a teacher, but a teacher’s salary cannot pay the mortgages required here. We want Lake Forest to be a place where people can both wor
k and live. We want Lake Forest to be an inclusive community. We want Lake Forest to be a role model when it comes to low cost housing that meets the realities of the tim es.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Ann Owens

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Item: 9
575
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Ryan Lenney
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2020 7:20 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: The Need for Affordable Housing
Dear Housing Element Team,
As a churchgoer in Lake Forest, I am writing to express my support for programs and incentives which will increase the amount of affordable housing available. As this Housing Element sets the goals for years to come, I believe it is of the utmost importance that we envision a Lake Forest for all, not just those with the wealth needed to purchase high‐ income housing. One such change that could go a long way toward s reaching a more inclusive city is requiring that
developers include at least 15% very low and low‐income affordable housing units. Our city has fallen short of including housing for all in previous years, and the 112 Lake Forest residents without hom es do well to enunciate this point. I hope
that you will join with me in understanding the importance of restructuring our goals to reflect the needs of all people who call Lake Forest home.

Thank you for your work,
Ryan Lenney
Item: 9
576
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Frieda Gorelick
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 3:51 PM
Subject: The Need for Affordable Housing
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Lake Forest Housing Element Project Team, December 7, 2020

I attend church, volunteer in a school, and shop in Lake Forest. I am sending this e‐mail in support of the City of Lake Forest to include policies, programs, and incentives in the building of more affordable housing. According to your housing element, a portion need s to include seniors, disabled, low income and the homeless population by providing a variety of home dwellings that meet low costs, government regulations, environmental constraints, and the land.

It saddens me to see many homeless walking along El Toro, other roadways, and in the various shopping centers.  We have a moral obligation to fight for our neighbors who are unable to advocate for themselves! My personal
experience is the story of my first cousin who was homeless for over thirty years.  She and her boyfriend, a wounded Vietnam vet who was hooked on drugs, would beg for food, live in carports and walked the streets in LA.  She was forced to relinquish her daughter. She got a second chance with provided shelter and
family support. She is able to live independently but has processing challenges! In addition to the homeless crisis, the low income, lower than low income population needs help too!  Lake Forest is a beautiful place! I could not afford to live there when the median home ranges for $775,000 and
average rent is $2,200 monthly. We would love to see our adult children move closer to us, however, they are unable to meet the exorbitant housing costs.

Whether you are homeless, young couples, single person, family, senior, or disabled, it is incumbent to provide opportunity for all economic levels.

With every new housing project, I would like to see a minimum of 15% be designated for housing the low, low income.

If unable, the City of Lake Forest could increa se builders' fees which could be used elsewhere such as non‐profits.

Put a face on a family member, friend, or stranger that you see every day who has experienced hardships. With cold temperatures, loss of income, food insecurity, pandemic and other illnesses, stand‐up and fight for housing justice!

Now is the time for implementation! We cannot wait to address this serious concern. Shelter is one of the basic Hierarchy of Needs according to Maslow. We appreciate your efforts in movi ng forward!

Sincerely,
Frieda Gorelick

Item: 9
577
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Anna Riviere
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 2:05 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Lake Forest Housing Element Project Team
Dear Lake Forest Housing Element Project Team,

As a resident of Mission Viejo who attends church and frequents many businesses in the City of Lake Forest, I would like to voice some input on the development of Lake Forest’s Housing Element.

For some time now, I have heard and have been learning about the many hardships and difficulties of people, including my own friends and family trying to find affordable housing in this area. Many of these people are hard‐working employees who provide the essential services that make this area such a wonderful place to live. It also includes those who have grown up in the area but can no longer afford to stay in the area that they’ve always called home.

This email is written to ask the Lake Forest Housing Element Project Team to include policies and programs that will stimulate and provide incentive for building of affordable housing in Lake Forest. One way that Lake Forest can increase the number of affordable housing is to require that new developments include at least 15% of its units designated for affordable housing for people in the extremely‐low, very low and low‐income ranges. In addition, if a new development does not include a portion of the development to be designated for
affordable housing, then the city should require a fee be paid by the developer to go into a special fund for helping with affordable housing development elsewhere in the city.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
Anna Riviere
Item: 9
578
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Erin Schwarz
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 11:14 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Lake Forest Resident Feedback on the Housing Element Dear Housing Element Team,
I am a resident and business owner in Lake Forest (Foothill Ranch). I am urging the City of Lake Forest to develop policies, programs and incentives in the new Housing Element which will stimulate the building of more affordable housing in our city.

I have become very concerned about the inability of essential workers and low-wage earners, such as grocery store clerks, gas station attendants, EMTs, teachers, nurses, and others, to find affordable housing in Lake Forest. We are all connected, and as a community, we do better when we all have the opportunity to thrive. If we were to require that developers include at least 15% very low and low- income affordable housing units, we would support those workers upon whom we all rely.

If some affordably-priced housing isn’t included in a new housing project, the builders should be required to pay substantially higher fees than currently assessed into the special city fund that will help build affordable housing elsewhere in the city. These housing funds are critical to creating affordable housing elsewhere, often built by non-profit developers.

Let’s use this opportunity to ensure we make housing possible for everyone who is part of our community because it is everyone who make this city such a wonderful place to live! Thank you in advance,
Erin Schwarz

Foothill Ranch, CA

Item: 9
579
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Christine Morinello
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 5:23 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Lake Forest Housing Element Project Team
Dear Lake Forest Housing Element Project Team:

My name is Christine Morinello, and I want to thank you for your dedicated service to the City of Lake Forest, and to the greater community of South Orange County at large.

For a number of years I lived in Lake Forest, first as a renter of two different properties and then as home owner of a two story condominium. I would have preferred to purchase a single family home in Lake Forest, but the housing pric es
made that impossible for a single career woman. I later moved to Rancho Santa Margarita in preparation for my retirement from the workforce because I could not find an affordable small (approximately 995 square feet), single story house in Lake Forest. When one is enter
ing the "Golden Years," it is wise to avoid architectural features such as stairs which may become barriers to mobility.

I continue to have strong ties to the Lake Forest community. I regularly patronize a variety of Lake Forest
businesses: retail; restaurants (currently take out and delivery only due to the pandemic); grocery shopping. Additionally, my long time income tax preparation service is located in Lake Forest. I am also part of the "volunteer family" of the Laundry Love program at Sparklea n Laundry in the Orange Tree Plaza.

Lake Forest urgently needs to establish inclusionary housing policies and programs which require builders and developers to set aside 15% of new units for extremely‐low, very‐low, low income, and disabled residents. Simply "encouraging" builders and developers to set aside 15% of their units for lower income and disabled occupants is not enough; it must be mandated.

Additionally, the "in‐lieu of" fees need to be substantial for two reasons. If builders and developers are al lowed to pay
minimal fees in lieu of creating lower income and accessible units, they will simply consider it "a cost of doing business." Furthermore, if the builders and developers wish to avoid building the lower income and accessible units themselves, the fees need to be large enough to pay for the city's cost of buildi ng a number of units equivalent to the 15%. I would like to see Lake Forest levy such fees in amounts at least equal to, if not more than (to serve as a disincentive), 15% of the total cost of each new development.

Thank you for allowing me to offer my thoughts on the City of Lake Forest's housing poli cies and practices.

Very truly yours,
Christine L. Morinello

Item: 9
580
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: John Mendonca
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:11 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Housing Element plan
Housing Element Team:

Although we don’t live in Lake Forest, as Laguna Woods residents we are very frequent visitors to your city. We bank in Lake Forest, do nearly all our grocery and general shopping there, and are customers of many of the restaurants along the El Toro and Lake Forest Ave. corridors. We appreciate and rely on the quality of services in your city.

We are concerned about the high housing costs in all of South County. Besides leading to locking younger people out of the area, it also leads to increased homelessness. We are therefore writing in support of a Housing Element that is inclusive of specific plans and initiatives that lead to building affordable housing for those who work in, and want to live in, your city. To keep Lake Forest a vibrant community, the housing plan should include a required minimum number of affordable housing units for all future developments. The plan might include incentives to encourage such housing and make it easier for developers to work with the city.

We hope Lake Forest can be a great city well into the future. Thank you for your good work.

Bruce L. Johnson,
John Mendonca

Laguna Woods, CA 92637

Item: 9
581
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Bev Huff
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 3:24 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Housing Element
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I am a 40 year resident of Lake Forest. Over those 40 years, I have seen many changes, both good and bad. The price of housing in Lake Forest now, although good for resale, is really unaffordable to young families just starting out and even essential workers helping us through this pandemic. I urge you to make the American dream possible for all those young people and the people that serve us all during this national crisis.

We need more affordable housing and we can get that housing with a few minor changes to the Housing Element currently under discussion. First of all, 15% of all new construction should be required to be affordable with the following distribution: 5% Extremely Low Income, 5% Very Low Income and 5% Low Income. That kind of distribution would definitely help the city meet its RHNA goals. Secondly, Lake Forest should raised in-lieu fees to at least $15,000. Finally, Lake Forest should put out an RFP to non-profit affordable housing developers for gap funding to build on the sites in the site inventory. Furthermore incentives, e.g. density bonuses, and removal of government constraints should be used freely.

Affordable housing is possible and desirable in Lake Forest. Looking forward to reviewing the draft Housing Element when it comes out.

Beverly Huff

Lake Forest CA 92630

Item: 9
582
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Monica Rinderer
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:56 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Lake Forest Affordable Housing
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Lake Forest Housing Element Project Team, December 14,2020

Like other cities in Orange County, Lake Forest is grappling with the challenge of providing affordable housing to essential workers and low wage earners. During the 5th RHNA Cycle seven-year period, the city met only 5% of the low and very low affordable housing units required under RHNA.

As a Lake Forest homeowner, I believe we can do better. With the work underway for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, we have an opportunity to reevaluate our policies and practices to better address the specific these of these groups. While local governments do not build housing, zoning and land use powers directly impact both the supply and affordability of housing.

Lake Forest’s current housing policy encourages residential developments to incorporate a minimum of 15% affordable units, including units to extremely low-income, very low and low- income households. However, more is needed than an encouragement.

I recommend that Lake Forest require that developers set aside a minimum of at 15% of units for these low, very low households and extremely low incomes. In those situations where this is not feasible, require current in lieu fees be paid by the builder and that these fees be raised significantly to help fund affordable housing by non-profit developers.

As a Lake Forest homeowner, I would like to see the City Council work to implement this and other practices and policies that make it possible for essential works and low wage earners to find housing in Lake Forest.

Significant progress in this arena will enable Lake Forest to make good on its stated commitment to ensure an optimal quality of life for all of its community members.

Thank you for carefully considering this request.

Monica Rinderer
Lake Forest CA., 92630
Item: 9
583
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Randy Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:43 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Lake Forest Housing Element Feedback

Hello,

I've been a very active participant at both the city council meetings and at previous General Plan workshops in the City of Lake Forest on the housing element topic. I'm concerned that in the eleventh hour (just prior to the surveys being closed) I received an email regarding about the Virtual Workshop on housing. This was not announced to the residents at any city council meeting. I view them on a regular basis. I was completely
unaware that a virtual workshop was in motion . If I was unaware it makes me wonder how many other concerned residents were not contacted for their feedback on this critical subject matter. All of us who live in Lake Forest are stakeholders.

I've made my opinion known on multiple oc
casions at the City Council speaker's podium on the low‐income apartment complex across from the post office, the SCAG RHNA allocation for Lake Forest and the General Plan. I also submitted emails and consulted with personnel in Gail Ackerman's department on th e topics.

In recent years Lake Forest has gone above and beyond what most south Orange County cities have done with regard to housing creation and increasing our population count. In fact, the California Department of Finance reported Lake Forest to be one of the fastest growing cities in the state population‐wise in several recent years in our size category. We've
built over 5,000 new homes in the last several years. And just recently, the council approved, much to the chagrin of many local residents, a 71‐unit low‐income housing complex on Raymond Way. Our current affordable housing units outshine the maj ority of other south county cities.

The 3,228 unit RHNA allocation is disproportionately high for the city of Lake Forest as compared to most other south county cities. At the Oct 06, 2020 council meeting I submitted written documentation during general public comments. In that document I included a table that compared RHNA allocations on a population per capita ba
sis and per square mile with seven (7) of our neighboring cities. Lake Forest's allocation is substantially higher both on a per capita and per square mile basis than six (6) of the seven (7) other cities.

Mission Viejo has about 10,000 more residents and is a square mile in land mass larger than Lake Forest. Yet their RHNA allocation is about 1,000 less than ours. And the Mission Viejo council was angry at their assigned number. In fact, they've appealed it through official SCAG channels. And the City of Lake Forest failed to appeal our allocation. How is that explained rationally?

At the Oct 06 meeting I implored council to independently appeal the assigned allocation prior to the Oct 26 SCAG deadline. During council co
mments Councilman Robinson motioned to do just that and received a majority consensus vote for staff to move forward on the appeal. Then, for some unknown reason that remains a myster
y, staff never submitted an appeal and the omission was never explained to the public. Half of the other cities in Orange County (to include Mission Viejo, Laguna Hills, Ranch Santa Margarita, Irvine, Item: 9
584
2 Laguna Beach and Newport Beach) filed independent appeals. If their appeals are granted and their allocations are reduced ‐ the residual units could be added to Lake Forest's total allocation.

The traffic congestion in Lake Forest is already intolerable from the over 5,000 new housing units that were added in recent years. Our main thoroughfares like El Toro Rd and Lake Forest Dr. can't be widened. More housing means even more congestion which is unfathomable.

This
will also put pressure on providing more electricity and water to new residents, when both have been rationed in recent years. Low‐income units also bring in more crime. This has been borne out wherever low‐ income units are built ‐ just pick a city. Look at Anaheim and Santa Ana. Our infrastructure is already overburdened.

We have en
ough housing in Lake Forest. Let the surrounding cities who have disproportionately fewer housing units than Lake Forest pick up the slack if more housing is needed.

Maybe if we had more staff members who actually lived in Lake Forest we'd get more sympathy and support
from Lake Forest government on this critical issue.

Put it to the vote of the people. Lake Foresters do not want more density in our city. We have done MORE than our fair share to remedy the housing shortage. I want to live on Newport Coast but can't afford it. So I live in
Lake Forest. Just because someone wants to live in a certain city it doesn't mean they are entitled to low‐income subsidized housing. Many of us weren't able to afford housing in the cities where we grew up ‐ so we had to move. That's
part of life.

I will continue to follow this issue and participate in the discussions.

Randy Johnson
Item: 9
585
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: De La Paz, Sharlyn
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 8:37 PM
To: Ackerman, Gayle; Stonich, Amy
Cc: Channing, Brett
Subject: FW: Affordable Housing in Lake Forest
FYI… I received this from the United Way

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Kimberly Adams
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:52 AM
To: Kimberly Adams
Subject: Affordable Housing in Lake Forest

Good morning United to End Homelessness advocate:

We hope you are well and enjoying the holidays! I write today because there is a wonderful opportunity to make a difference in your city, Lake Forest, because they are right now planning for their future housing needs. Affordable housing is the answer to housing instability and homelessness.


Please take the City of Lake Forest’s Community Surveys that will inform the development of their Housing Element (aka Housing Plan) for 2021 to 2029. They will be planning for affordable housing, which will prevent housing instability, along with permanent supportive housing for our unhoused neighbors. Click on this link https://lakeforest.generalplan.org/current‐community‐events to reach the surveys, which are at the bott om of the page.

 Send an email to Lake Forest Housing Element project team at [email protected] to ask them to include programs and incentives in the Housing Element to spur the development of more Very Low and Low‐Income affordable housing in Lake Forest.

In addition, you may ask them to change the city’s Inclusionary Housing policy to require, not just encourage, that developers include at least 15% of Very Low and Low‐Income affordable housing units in each development. Any housing should include units that are affordable to our most vulnerable.

Please feel free to reach out with any questions you may have and if you would like assistance with writing your email. Thank you for your time and effort ‐‐ together, we can help #EndHomelessnessOC.

Best regards,
‐Kimberly

Kimberly Adams
Housing Advocacy Program Manager, United to End Homelessness Orange County United Way
18012 Mitchell South, Irvine, CA 92614
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 949.263.6140

Item: 9
586
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From:

Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 1:42 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Lake Forest Housing Element Project Team
Dear Lake Forest Housing Element Project Team: December 16, 2020

Lake Forest has been my families’ home and my workplace for the last six years. With the updating of the 6th Cycle Housing Element now underway, we have a great opportunity to rethink our affordable housing policies and programs, so they better address the needs of seniors, veterans, working class families and single parents.

Housing affordability has been a persistent issue in Lake Forest and many other Orange County cities. Even before the Pandemic Southern Orange County’s suffered from a dramatic housing shortage. This shortage is especially severe for low and very low‐income families, many of our essential workers. In fact, Lake Forest on ly
achieved 5% of its affordable housing requirement for building very low income and low‐income homes, under the 5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment, a 95% shortfall.

Clearly, the City has fallen short in addressing the needs of these individuals. My request is that the City carefully research the existing barriers and incentives to affordable housing preventive services so that we can do better for these individuals.

For example, we can see that more is needed than recommending that developers set aside a certain percentage of the housing units for low, very low and extremely lo w‐income units. Rather, Lake Forest needs
to require that developers set aside 15% of the new construction units for this group. A change in policy like this can enable the City to better reach its RHNA goal for very low and lo w income. In other instances where
this is not feasible , require the builder pay current in lieu fees which can help fund affordable housing projects by nonprofit developers.

Thank you for consideration of this and other policy changes to help stimulate more affordable housing for these populations. The challenges are
real but strong leadership will move the needle forward.

Barbara Daly

Lake Forest, CA, 92630

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Item: 9
587
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Shirley Maldonado
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 1:15 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: GENERAL
To whom it may concern:

Dear Sir/s:

Being a Senior Citizen and a resident of Lake
Forest, my question is there going to be a house
development built for Seniors, not only to
purchase, and rentals as well.

A concerned Senior

Thanking you in advance
Shirley Maldonado
Item: 9
588
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Rayna Hamre
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 1:04 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Comments for LF Housing Element Planning
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Project Team‐

As the Community Minister at Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Lake Forest, housing issues are extremely important to me, as they are to our entire congregation.

As one who has been observing our county housing shortages, and been advocating for expanded housing in Orange County, I know how important it is to address housing issues in each city. It is easy to think the re sponsibility will be
passed along to our neighboring cities, and to the OC County Board of Supervisors. It is clear now that each city will need to do its part to address our acute housing shortage. The decisions of each city directly affect our larger community.

Due to the lack of affordab
le housing, workers are often forced to live at burdensome distances from their jobs, many people are forced to live in unhealthy crowded living situations, and many of our young people must move elsewhere to buy or rent homes.These issues result in increased economic stressors to our families, increases in th e number of those
experiencing homelessness, and serious public health issues; they impact everyone in our community.

Developers need to be informed and then held accountable for designating at least 15% of housing projects to very low and low‐income units. Our citizens, of all income levels, deserve to share in the wealth and prospe rity that makes Lake
Forest, and our other OC cities, a desirable place to live.

Thank you for the work you do for our community.

Regards,

Rev. Rayna Hamre
Community Minister,Tapestry A Unitarian Universalist Congregation

‐‐
Rev. Rayna Hamre
she, her
Item: 9
589
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From:

Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 9:40 AM
To: Voigts, Scott; Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Moatazedi, Neeki; Tettemer, Mark; Stonich, Amy; Ackerman, Gayle; Santos, Ron; Luna, Marie; Mansur, Jennifer; Amanda Tropiano Subject: 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear City Leaders,

As a resident of Lake Forest, I’d like to support the work of the City Council in addressing the challenges faced by Lake Forest as home sale prices escalated over the last years and wages stagnated. As you know this dynamic makes it impossible for many of our essential workers to afford housing here. Building housing units for these very low and low‐ income folks is criti
cal.

During Lake Forest’s 5th Cycle Housing Element time period it was exciting to see you pull together the many pieces needed to respond to this critical need. By gathering the funding, locating the right land, and identifying a highly credible developer, the National CORE Mountai
n View project was approved. This mix of 70 units of affordable housing and supportive housing is a needed start, but sadly met only 5% of the 5th Cycle RHNA targets.

It is encouraging to see the City’s current Comprehensive General Plan includes rezoning for Density and mixed‐used housing which can support additional affordable housing. As the Planning Commission partners with De Novo to update the Housing Element there are several other approaches that have shown to increase the chance of producing the affordable housing target set out by RHNA. Policy and program changes are needed on these fronts:

 Undo Exclusi
onary Housing ‐ Establish an Inclusionary Housing policy where any development would include a certain number of a units for very low‐ and low‐income folks. Rather than encouraging this, as was done in the past, move to make it a requirement.
 Build in Density Bonus – a bonus for increased development density beyon d the existing limits if affordable
housing for low and very low incomes is included.
 Where a developer needs to exclude affordable units, charge an in‐lieu fee which will allow for fund accumulation to build the needed affordable housing units elsewhere.

Business as
usual will not address the housing challenges our essential workers face. The City Council’s and Planning Commission’s openness to these kind of changes are our best chance to dramatically build more affordable housing for low and very low income folks.

Sincerely,
Barbara Daly
, Lake Forest, 92630

Item: 9
590
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Santos, Ron
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 8:12 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: FW: From Sheryl Sterry - Thanks!

From: Sterry, Sheryl Kazue Hayashi
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 8:09 PM
To: Santos, Ron <[email protected]>
Subject: From Sheryl Sterry ‐ Thanks!

Ron,
Thank you for returning my call so quickly. It was a pleasure to learn from you about the ways that our city encourages the development of affordable housing. As I mentioned, I am a long‐time resident of Lake Forest. I bought my townhome in Serrano Highlands back in 1987, and I have enjoyed livi ng here ever since. I am an architect and have
focused on educational facilities planning over the last decade.

As a resident of Lake Forest, my aim is to support our civic processes and participate in ways that are helpful and productive. I am motivated to help our unhoused neighbors, and to make it le ss likely that anyone would lose their
home in the first place. I feel strongly that affordable housing helps our local economy because it attracts younger people who are starting their careers and having families, as well as people of all ages who contribute to the life of our community.

Thanks again, Ron, for sharing your time and knowledge. I look forward to meeting you in person in our post‐pandemic future.

Sheryl Sterry
, Lake Forest CA 92630

Item: 9
591
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: HERB COHEN
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 4:56 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Comments - Housing Element
To Whom It May Concern;
I am a City of LF resident and would like to make the following comments:
1] Housing for Developmental Disabled population -- The Irvine Land Trust working with Momentum4all.com (formally United Cerebral Palsy-LA) has been very successful in building and operating homes in Irvine for people with disabilities.

My recommendation is that the City touch base with them and determine if the City could partner with them for housing people with development disabilities.

2] Housing for low income seniors -- The Housing Element draft referenced housing that will be built in the City for very low income seniors who would pay "market level rents". Funding is via a bond issue and the City would have no liability for this project.

Question: How can very low income people pay 'market rents' in a high cost of living city?

_herb cohen
Item: 9
592
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From:

Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 9:15 AM
To: Stonich, Amy
Subject: Housing Element
Fully support increased densities overall in Lake Forest. Due to new laws on no net loss, I would even recommend to increase the buffer more now. Add increased densities closer to the 5 freeway off lake forest and el toro. Those areas are perfect for increased density with mixed use. While it’s already identified, I would recommend increasing the unit counts there. Plus add overlays within 1/4 of those intersections, including the single family areas, to allow increased opportunities.

Exclusive single family zones are a thing of the past so embrace the change and increase the allowable density!

We need more housing and we need it now.

Thanks!
Item: 9
593
Item: 9
594
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Randy Johnson
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:41 PM
To: Stonich, Amy
Subject: 2021-2029 Housing Element - Public Comment

I reviewed Lake Forest's Housing Element Draft for 2021‐2019 and wish to have my comment made part of the public feedback requested by the city.

I noted that the lion's share of the parcels selected by the city for affordable housing are located in District 5 from Jeronimo Rd. south the I‐5 freeway. In fact, 3 of the 5 parcel groupings are found in these areas, mostly along the El Toro
Rd. corridor.

Our city council has already approved the 71‐unit Mountain View affordable housing complex that would be capable of housing upwards of 350 people, located on Raymond Way just west of El Toro Rd.

Raymond Way is a one‐way in and one‐way out road from El Toro Rd. A U.S. Post Office and two busy retail
business centers are also located on Raymond Way. The Mountain View Business Center, which will be demolished and replaced with the affordable apartments, are offices and not retail stores ‐ with limited traffic to and
fro. Despite the results of a traffic study paid for by the builder National Core, common sense tells us that an apartment complex with 300 or more residents would produce more incoming and outgoing traffic during peak and non‐peak hours than 50 small non‐retail offices.

Even today, with Mountain View Business Center completely vacated, there's routine congestion and long
lines at the traffic lights during business hours ‐ at Raymond Way and El Toro Road. Go look for yourselves.

El Toro Road is one of the heaviest trafficked roads in the County of Orange. The traffic buildup, especially during peak hours, between the I‐5 freeway and Jeronimo is a major burden for our motorists, even with the
apparent recent stop light synchronization. The road cannot be widened more than it is. If anyone questions this ‐ simply stand on the corner of El Toro Rd. and Rockfield Bl. during peak traffic hours and observe with your own eyes.

And then consider that the City of Laguna Hills will almost ce rtainly approve 1,500 apartments at the proposed
'The Village at Laguna Hills' at the former Laguna Hills Mall, just south of the I‐5 freeway. Up to 4,000 new Laguna Hills residents will compete for traffic space along the El Toro Rd. corrid or. Imagine the congestion of
cars exiting and entering the I‐5 freeway.

The very last thing Lake Forest needs is more traffic congestion on El Toro Rd. that would result from affordable housing complexes built along the corridor. It would create huge pockets of gridlocked traffic that would be int
olerable. None of this was discussed during the recent General Plan approved by our council.

The council already approved the Mountain View low‐income apartments along El Toro Rd. It's time to select another part of the city to step up and accept the next low‐income (permanent supportive hous ing) project ‐
like Mountain View, which was unique to our city.

Item: 9
595
2 Plus, we are in the midst of a drought and energy shortages illustrated by rolling blackouts, etc... More people place a greater burden on water distribution and our energy grid. And our current residents would be forced to sacrifice their access to water and energy, or pay higher amounts for each, as a result.

Finally, many Lake Forest residents, like myself, moved here to avoid other densely populated and high‐rise environm
ents that we see in Orange County and throughout the state. The city is in the process of dismantling the very reason we made Lake Forest our homes.

I noticed the city hasn't polled the residents about whether we want more density or co ntrolled‐growth that preserves some breathing room in Lake Forest. The city has never been shy about taking polls. Why not take one on this topic to learn what your residents think? Good governance means listening to and serving your residents ‐ and putting our needs first. This critical topic deserves more resident feed back in many forms since
we will have to live with your decisions for many years to come.

Randy Johnson, Lake Forest Resident

Item: 9
596
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

STATE OF CALIFORNIA- -- - - - CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM. Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12
1750 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 100
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
PHONE (657) 328-6000
FAX (657) 328-6522
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district12

Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.

October 21, 2021

Ms. Amy Stonich
Assistant Director of Community Development
City of Lake Forest
100 Civic Center Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
File: IGR/CEQA

12-ORA-2021-01799
SR 133, PM R4.534-R6.548
I-5, PM 17.771-20.077
SR 241, PM 21.021-24.001

Dear Ms. Stonich,

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update for the City of Lake Forest. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.

The project proposes an update to the Housing Element in the City’s General Plan.

Regional access to the project area is provided by Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 241 (SR 241). Caltrans is a responsible agency for this project and upon review, we have the following comments:

Transportation Planning

1. Caltrans recognizes our responsibility to assist communities of color and under- served communities by removing barriers to provide a more equitable transportation system for all.

The Department firmly embraces racial equity, inclusion, and diversity. These values are foundational to achieving our vision of a cleaner, safer, and more accessible and more connected transportation system.

Please consider including a discussion on equity in the City’s General Plan Element updates.

2. Caltrans supports the city’s evaluation of potential sites for housing of all income levels. The state mandates that cities must plan for housing needs of future residents of all incomes. This analysis would assist in accommodating the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation per the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD).

3. Caltrans encourages the City of Lake Forest to discuss the transit mobility opportunities on any current transit services that may connect to the nearby Item: 9
597
City of Lake Forest
October 21, 2021

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

train station for Metrolink and Amtrak Pacific Surfliner rail services as regional connectivity.

4. According to Table 10 of the Housing Element Draft document, the use of public transportation for work is low. Please consider providing a section or discussion on potentially improving multimodal transportation (i.e. freight, walking, biking, and transit) options to address access and safety issues that improve opportunities for future residents, visitors, and workers in the city as part of the Housing Element.

5. Caltrans supports projects which provide a diversity of housing choices and destinations accessible by Active Transportation (i.e. bicycle and pedestrian) and transit users. New development projects should incorporate opportunities to support sustainable and multimodal transportation options, including, but not limited to transit, walking and biking, and electric cars and bicycles.

6. Any pedestrian facility enhancements from future housing development projects that are within Caltrans’ Right of Way will need to comply with Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82-06. The aforementioned DIB can be found here:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/dib82-06- a11y.pdf

7. The Title location for each table in the Housing Element Draft are misplaced and seem to be overlapped by other text.

Traffic Impact Study

8. New developments resulting from the City’s Housing Element update should provide a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) based Traffic Impact Study (TIS). Please use the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Guidance to identify VMT related impacts

9. The TIS may also need to identify the future project’s near-term and long-term safety or operational issues, on or adjacent to any existing or proposed State facilities.

Encroachment Permit

10. Any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State Right-of-Way (ROW) would require an encroachment permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans’s requirements for work done within State ROW, additional documentation would be required before approval of the encroachment permit. Please coordinate with Caltrans to meet requirements for any work within or near State ROW. For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Caltrans’s Encroachment Permits Manual at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/
Item: 9
598
City of Lake Forest
October 21, 2021

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph Jamoralin at (657) 328- 6276 or [email protected]

Sincerely,

SCOTT SHELLEY
Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning
District 12
Item: 9
599

1 www.kennedycommission.org
17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949 250 0909

October 21, 2021

Amy Stonich, AICP,
Assistant Director of Community Development,
100 Civic Center Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630

RE: Comments to City of Lake Forest Housing Element Draft dated September 2021

City of Lake Forest Planning Department:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Lake Forest’s 2021-2029 Housing Element Draft. We have reviewed the draft and are submitting this letter to provide public comments,

The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad-based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $27,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land-use policies that have led to the construction of homes affordable to lower-income working families.

Public Engagement
Public engagement is a necessary component of the Housing Element process. As California Housing Element law states: “The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element...”1 Broad participation and true engagement of the public increase the likelihood that the community members involved in the discussion and planning processes will support new housing strategies and housing developments. Public engagement should include participation from residents of diverse communities, housing consumers, service providers, and advocates.

The city conducted one virtual community workshop which was not live but rather a recording that residents could access for a month, one community meeting on October 7, 2021once the initial Housing Element Draft was finalized, and two surveys. This does not constitute adequate community engagements. The city should have provided additional options for residents to participate in the Housing Element process and specific outreach to lower income residents. The city does not provide information on the number of participants in the community workshop and, specifically, how many were low-income residents. Furthermore, the City’s surveys were only available to residents for a little over a month, from November 23, 2020, to December 22, 2020.

That is not enough time for residents to participate, especially low-income and special needs residents who generally face more digital connectivity issues. Not surprisingly, the surveys only had a total of 111 respondents. The City does not provide information on the number of lower income survey respondents, however, the City does state that 79% of respondents for the first survey were homeowners which are generally higher earning residents.2 The City needs to properly engage community stakeholders and residents in the evaluation and creation of policies, goals,

1 Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(9)
2 City of Lake Forest Housing Element Update Public Engagement Summary, p. 8.

Item: 9
600
Kennedy Commission Comments
Lake Forest Draft Housing Element
October 21, 2021

2 of 10
programs and sites for affordable housing development, especially low income and special needs residents who are the most vulnerable to the housing crisis and document these efforts.

In addition, the availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment prior to submission to HCD is essential to the public process. However, the City did not provide sufficient opportunity for the public to review the Housing Element draft. The draft was released to the public on September 22, 2021, and it was also submitted to HCD for review on September 23, 2021. The city should proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including making revisions to the document where appropriate.

Community Needs
According to SCAG’s pre-certified housing data, there are a total of 13,595 renter households in Lake Forest, with 4,345 or 50.6% of those households’ spending thirty percent or more of gross income on housing costs.3 Additionally, 2,190 or 25.5% renter households are extremely rent burdened and are paying fifty percent or more of gross income on housing costs. These households cannot afford the current cost of renting an apartment in the City which is on average $1,650 - $2,098 for a 1-bedroom and $1,900 - $2,549 for a 2-bedroom.4 Table 15 shows that 17.1% of renter households fall within the extremely low income level and 15.4% fall within the very low income level.5 Moreover, 7.1% of residents have an income that is below the poverty level.6 This highlights the need for housing at the extremely low and very low income levels.

Employment:

The majority of Lake Forest’s workforce, 50.3%, holds jobs that have a median income of $41,417 or lower which places people with these jobs at the very low-income level.7 This indicates that a significant number of residents in Lake Forest are in need of affordable housing. The rest of the workforce, 49.7%, has a job with a median income of $81,087 which places these jobs at the low- income level. The City of Lake Forest should take into account its local economy and offer healthy and affordable housing options that the current market-rate housing development is not offering.

The Housing Element must also describe employment trends by industry and how changes either recent or anticipated can affect the housing market and discuss opportunities for improving work- housing balance, such as mixed-use to facilitate housing that is located near jobs.

5th Cycle Housing Element RHNA Performance
The City must “review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element.”8 While the element includes a program-by-program review of implementation in the prior planning period, the review of past programs should also analyze the cumulative effectiveness of programs on addressing special housing needs over the previous planning period.

3 City of Lake Forest 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, p. BR33, September 2021 4 City of Lake Forest 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, p. BR30, September 2021. 5 City of Lake Forest 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, p. BR-24, September 2021. 6 City of Lake Forest 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, p. BR-24, September 2021. 7 City of Lake Forest 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element, p. BR-21, September 2021. 8 Gov. Code § 65588 (a) and (b)
Item: 9
601
Kennedy Commission Comments
Lake Forest Draft Housing Element
October 21, 2021

3 of 10
As the 5th Cycle progress indicates, the City’s housing policies have developed housing in an unbalanced way and prioritized market-rate housing over housing for low-income families. During the current 5th cycle planning period the city had a total Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of 2,727 units, 647 at very low-income, 450 at low-income, 497 at moderate and 1,133 at above moderate. To date, the city has approved 205 units at moderate and 3,388 at above moderate.9 At the very-low-income level, the city has approved 32 units and 25 at low-income. The number of moderate and above moderate units approved in the last seven years was 63 times more than those at low and very low income. This imbalance in housing production and lower income housing deficit in the City indicates that the City’s affordable housing policies have not been effective in incentivizing and producing affordable housing for lower income households.

5th Cycle Identified Opportunity Sites:

In the 5th Cycle, the City identified housing opportunity sites for very low and low income housing primarily in the following neighborhoods: Baker Ranch, Serrano Summit, and Portola Center.10 The lack of affordable housing production on these site during the 5th Cycle shows the need for a strong affordable housing policy, like for example a policy that requires that at least a 20% housing units in all projects is set aside for very low and low-income households, Without strong affordability requirements, the zoning circumvents the efforts of the State density bonus law to include affordable housing in exchange for development incentives and increases in density because these sites provide market-rate developers the densities they need by-right.

For the upcoming 6th Cycle, we recommend that the City include policies with stronger affordability requirements instead of continuing to hope that the market will deliver affordable housing by identifying higher density sites for lower-income RHNA needs. Examples of policies the City can implement are in the section below titled “Recommendations.”

Housing Policies and Programs to Increase Affordable Housing in the 6th Cycle To ensure that affordable housing is created in the sites identified for the 6th Cycle, the Commission recommends the following revisions to the programs proposed by the city for the 6th Cycle:
● Program 1 - Residential Sites Inventory: The City proposes to facilitate housing production, including lower income housing, by identifying sufficient sites with the appropriate densities. However, as proven by the little amount of affordable housing production that has occurred in these areas over the 5th Cycle and the overproduction of above moderate housing, the city needs to implement strong regulatory incentives on these sites to ensure lower income housing is produced on these sites. We recommend that the city require that at least a 20% of units in all residential projects be set at the very low and low- income households to ensure that the needed affordable housing is being built. ● Program 3 - Public Property Conversion to Housing Program: Given that public properties are under direct control of the City, we recommend that the City require that these properties be used as community assets only. That includes ensuring that residential projects are 100% affordable at the very low- and low-income level. The contribution of public or

9 Lake Forest 2020 Housing Element Annual Progress Report, Table B 10 City of Lake Forest 2014-2021 Housing Element, p. 34, January 2014.

Item: 9
602
Kennedy Commission Comments
Lake Forest Draft Housing Element
October 21, 2021

4 of 10
surplus land can help leverage regional, state, and federal housing funds to make the creation of affordable housing for lower income families more feasible. ● Program 5 - Facilitate Affordable and Special Needs Housing Construction: The City proposes to work with developers to encourage them to make 15% of units in their projects.

This approach does not guarantee the production of affordable housing continuing to give developers too much discretion over the production of affordable housing. Furthermore, the city proposes to provide to developers State incentives as a way to encourage the development of affordable housing. However, the lack of production at the very low- and low-income level indicates that these incentives were not effective during the 5th Cycle.

Instead, the City should implement a type of Inclusionary Policy that requires that all projects set aside 20% of their units for affordable housing at the very low- and low-income level. ● Program 7 - Zoning Code Amendments: Providing the appropriate densities needed for affordable housing is important. However, providing these densities without including strong affordability requirements circumvents the city’s ability to take advantage of the incentives it intends to pursue like density bonuses because developers obtain these densities they seek by right, The City needs to implement these zoning code amendment with strong affordable housing policies like an Inclusionary Policy or Affordable Housing Overlays that requires that all projects set aside 20% of their units for affordable housing at the very low and low income level in exchange for increased densities and development incentives. ● Program 8 - Accessory Dwelling Units: The City is assuming that the majority of ADU production, 8 ADUs at the very low and 14 at the low-income level, will be affordable.

However, the city is proposing to conduct an ADU affordability study by the end of 2022.

Those are studies that should have been conducted in preparation for the Housing Element.

The city needs to propose a better plan to ensure ADUs will be affordable and lower the number of ADUs allocated at very low- and low-income level for the 6th Cycle and lower the number of ADUs allocated at the very low- and low-income level until the city can provide evidence that these units will be affordable.
● Program 15 - Conservation of Existing Affordable Units: During the 5th Cycle, five apartment buildings with affordability covenants and 6 apartment buildings obtained with the now defunct Redevelopment Agency converted to fully market-rate. Given how many affordable housing units were lost during the 5th Cycle, the City should consider implementing policies that will help make affordable housing more permanent. For example, the City could develop a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOP) policy that would allow residents in at-risk units to buy their building and maintain it affordable. The city could also create a Community Land Trust (CLT) or incentivize community groups and residents to create a CLT. Unlike the TOP policy in which the building is bought, in a CLT a either the City or residents would acquire the land a building is on and can thus ensure that any project on that land has permanent more permanent affordability. Furthermore, the city should commit to providing relocation assistance to residents who are displaced from apartment complexes that convert to market-rate.
● Program 22 - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): In the AFFH analysis the city provided in its Housing Element Draft, the city makes the claim that there are no substantial patterns of segregation within the city. However, the city must also look at segregation patterns within a regional context. According to the analysis, Lake Forest is one of eight cities that has disproportionately high levels of isolation among white residents. One of the reasons is likely the lack of affordable housing options in the city which creates a barrier for low-income residents, who are often people of color, from moving into the city. If Item: 9
603
Kennedy Commission Comments
Lake Forest Draft Housing Element
October 21, 2021

5 of 10
the City truly wants to address AFFH, the city needs to move beyond providing educational materials to residents. It must also implement policies that will produce lower income housing throughout the City and identify ways to increase investment in low resource communities. The city should consider the suggestions the Commission has provided in the section below titled “Recommendations”.
● Program 23 - Economic Displacement Risk Analysis: The City should have already conducted an analysis on the risk of displacement and should have done policies that addressed the findings of that analysis.

In addition, the Kennedy Commission provides a list of recommendations on housing policies and programs in the recommendations section below.

Housing Element Opportunity Sites Inventory
Identified Low Income Sites:

As part of the analysis of adequate sites, the city has reviewed potential housing sites citywide and has identified opportunity sites for lower-income households in Mixed-Use Zoning-32 (MU-32), Mixed-Use Zoning-43 (MU-43), and Urban Industrial-43 (UI-43). The sites are predominantly identified based on zoning and default densities for lower income units. No other housing policy has been incorporated that will effectively incentivize affordable housing on these sites. The lack of progress developing affordable housing on these specific plans in the 5th Cycle shows the need to accompany zoning and default densities with regulatory tools that will effectively produce housing at the lower income levels, such as an Affordable Housing Overlay, Inclusionary Housing Policy or other policies that achieve balance housing production for all income segments.

Suitability of Non-vacant Sites:

The city has only selected underutilized non-vacant sites to meet its lower income RHNA requirement. For non-vacant sites, the Housing Element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of non-vacant sites. To address this requirement, the Housing Element should describe and support the potential for additional development in the 6th Cycle and consider additional factors such as the age of structure, presence of expiring leases, condition of the structure, and expressed interest in development.

However, the city does not provide adequate evidence of the likelihood of the non-vacant sites being developed into affordable housing in their Housing Element draft. For example, based on a Google search it seems all the sites are currently used for retail, commercial, and office purposes.

The City did not provide evidence that the owners have expressed explicit interest in developing their properties and, if so, by when they would transition their properties. This information is especially important for the sites that have a larger unit capacity like the site with APN 617-053-11 which is currently a Bank of America, site with APN 617-474-10 which is currently Las Fajitas Restaurant, site with APN 617-493-01 which is currently an Eyestyles for Lifestyles, site with APN 612-093-13 which is currently a Regals Cinema, site with APN 617-053-11 which is currently Royal Rasoi restaurant, and the site with APN 617-501-04 which is currently a Ross Dress-For- Less. All of these have unit capacity that range from 40 to 157 units.

Moreover, to facilitate the publics’ ability to assess the suitability of the selected sites, the City should have noted in their site inventory which sites have been reused from previous housing Item: 9
604
Kennedy Commission Comments
Lake Forest Draft Housing Element
October 21, 2021

6 of 10
element cycles and a description of what the City has done to increase the likelihood of development, the current use of the property, and the owners.

No Net Loss:

The city will also have to consider No Net Loss when it identifies opportunity sites. It is crucial that affordable housing moves along with market-rate housing given the limited sites that are available.

Considering the state’s, No Net Loss requirements, if the sites identified for affordable housing are developed for market-rate housing, the city will have to rezone new sites for the appropriate density.11

Credit Towards 6th Cycle RHNA
The city also claims 107 credits towards their 6th Cycle RHNA that the city claims decrease the number of sites the city has to identify to meet their RHNA. Specifically, the city claims 107 credits towards their very low income RHNA requirement and 97 towards low. Of these credits, 122 units were obtained through the senior housing in The Meadows and Portola Senior developments. While the Commission fully supports the production of housing that is affordable to seniors, we also strongly encourage the city to prioritize housing for low-income families and individuals that do not fall within this age bracket given that senior housing is not available to them.

It is important that the city address the concerns we raised with the 6th Cycle Housing Element site inventory and further evaluate constraints to and the likelihood of the development of affordable housing on these sites. Moreover, the City needs to identify affordable housing policies and programs that will equitably facilitate and incorporate affordable housing at the extremely low, very low and low-income categories on these sites.

ADUs
The Commission questions the affordability of the 32 ADU units the city anticipates for the 6th Cycle. The city is assuming that the majority of ADU production, 8 ADUs at the very low and 14 at the low-income level, will be affordable. However, the City does not provide strong enough policies that will ensure these ADU units will be affordable at the lower income levels. In Program 8, the city says it will conduct a study to assess the affordability of ADUs by the end of 2022. Those are studies that should have been conducted in preparation for the Housing Element. The city needs to propose a better plan to ensure the affordability of ADUs.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
The Housing Element has some basic information on demographics and overall scores for access to opportunity. However, the element generally does not address AFFH. However, the city has failed to provide a thorough analysis of risk of displacement, gentrification, and exclusivity in the City or policies that address these issues. The City has also not provided adequate recommendations on how the City will address contributing factors to fair housing issues in the City.

Based on the City’s AFFH analysis, while there may not be severe patterns of segregation within the city, the city must also look at segregation patterns within a regional context. According to the

11 Government Code § 65863

Item: 9
605
Kennedy Commission Comments
Lake Forest Draft Housing Element
October 21, 2021

7 of 10
analysis, Lake Forest is one of eight cities in the County that has disproportionately high levels of isolation among white residents. One of the reasons is likely the lack of affordable housing options in the city which creates a barrier for low-income residents, who are often people of color, from moving to or remain in the city. To address this, the City must also implement policies that will produce lower income housing throughout the City and identify ways to increase investment in low resource communities.

As a reminder, AFFH requires the following:
● Identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.
● Identification and prioritization of fair housing contributing factors ● The preparation, adoption, and implementation of a housing element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community, including by doing an analysis of the disproportionate housing issues faced by vulnerable groups ● Investment in low resource areas that will improve quality of living in those areas ● Programs with a schedule of actions with timelines and specific commitment to have a “beneficial impact” within the planning period to achieve the goals and objectives of addressing contributing factors to Fair housing issues.12

We ask that the city prioritize the housing needs of low, very low and extremely low-income residents and minorities, who encounter a disproportionate level of difficulties in finding decent, affordable housing.

Recommendations
As the City moves forward with the Housing Element update, the Commission urges the city to support the development of affordable homes. The City needs to ensure opportunity sites are not simply up zoned or rezoned without including affordable housing policies that will capture the financial and land use incentives being given to property owners and market rate developers. This approach did not create affordable housing in the 5th Cycle and nor will it have a different outcome in the 6th Cycle. The Commission is providing the city the following recommendations:

1. Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that sets a 20% requirement of housing production at extremely low and very low-income categories on all residential projects.

2. Identify City-owned sites and prioritize these sites for the development of housing exclusively at the extremely low and very low-income level.

3. The city needs to prioritize and expand affordable housing in opportunity sites identified in the site inventory, where enhanced densities and incentives will only promote market rate housing.

4. Prioritize affordable housing funding and programs to increase affordable housing options for families of lower incomes, especially at extremely low and very low-income.

5. Ensure that development sites being identified and discussed in the Housing Element draft are realistic and available during the planning period.

12 Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A)
Item: 9
606
Kennedy Commission Comments
Lake Forest Draft Housing Element
October 21, 2021

8 of 10

6. The city should provide an adequate analysis and recommendations on how the city will address AFFH. For example, how will the city ensure that affordable housing is developed in high opportunity areas of the city? What housing policy will be implemented to ensure that affordable housing is built along with market rate housing in all identified potential sites and areas of the city? In addition, the City should include anti-displacement policies that protect low-income residents from rising rents, commit to reinvesting in low resource areas to improve the quality of living of residents in those areas, and identify lower income housing sites in higher affluence areas.

7. The city should update and improve the effectiveness of the city’s density bonus ordinance to develop affordable housing for lower-income households. The city should prioritize affordable housing for lower-income households in its update and implementation of density bonus. The city should ensure that specific plans and incentives in land use plans are not circumventing the goal of the density bonus law. Incentives should not be given away to developers without increasing affordable housing for lower income households.

8. Congregational Housing Overlay - Develop a Congregational Housing Overlay Zone to expand opportunity sites for affordable housing. The Overlay would provide an opportunity for the development of affordable housing on religious sites while retaining the existing religious use or transitioning to residential or mixed uses. The overlay should incentivize 100% affordable units on congregational sites, with a focus on extremely-low-, very low- and low-income categories.

The Commission looks forward to partnering with the City of Lake Forest to create opportunities to increase affordable homes for lower income households in the city. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director

cc: Mr. Colin Cross, Land Use and Planning Analyst CA Housing and Community Development Mr. Paul McDougal, Manager, Housing Policy, CA Housing and Community Development Item: 9
607
1 Mansur, Jennifer
From: Andrea Alexander
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 7:25 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Draft housing plan
Hi Amy

Thank you so much for sending this very valuable information. It all looks great on paper.

My only concern is that the city maximize the numbers when it comes to low income and very low income housing.

Also It would be very unfortunate if we were to ever be penalized by the State for not meeting our RHNA numbe rs.

I’m trying not to be a pessimist …but our performance during Cycle 5 Housing Element was lacking low and very low income housing by a lot. I think it might be wise in Cycle 6 to make sure that does not happen again.

People who work in our city should be able to live here. We all know that th e cost of housing in LF has increased
exponentially and yes that’s good for the homeowners and for the City but not good for those who can not afford the mortgage or rents, like our teachers and people who work in the service industries in LF. , etc etc.

I will attend the meeting tonight at 5:30 pm. Thank you so much for the invitation and the information that was included.

See you tonight

Andee ϖϗϘϚ

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Item: 9
608

ATTACHMENT 5
Item: 9
609
Item: 9
610
Item: 9
611
Item: 9
612

ATTACHMENT 5

EXHIBITS A AND B

https://lakeforest.primegov.com/Portal/Meetin
g?compiledMeetingDocumentFileId=11679
Item: 9
613

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/04/2022
DEPARTMENT: Management Services
SUBJECT:

VETERANS PARK MEMORIAL DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Exercise City Council discretion regarding a flagpole at the Veterans Park Memorial.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On October 19, 2021, Mayor Pro Tem Pequeño received majority consensus from Council Member Cirbo and Mayor Voigts to bring back a discussion item related to the absence of a flag at the Veterans Park memorial (Attachment 1).

Staff has provided the origins of the memorial planning and construction of Veterans Park below.

In May of 2013, a contract was awarded to NUVIS Landscape Architecture (“NUVIS”) to develop a conceptual plan for the renovation of Village Pond Park.1 Staff conducted a series of outreach workshops in the late summer and early fall of 2013 to receive input from the surrounding community regarding the park renovation. NUVIS attended these meetings with staff to hear community feedback and shape the conceptual design of the park. Upon conclusion of its workshop series, NUVIS presented its results to the Parks and Recreation Commission (now referred to as the “Community Services Commission”) in November of 2013. The results of the workshops included addressing the overpopulation of waterfowl and other avian species, adding trees and fountain geysers, replacement of vegetation to deter waterfowl, and removal of a concrete walkway near the pond. Many residents expressed their opposition to constructing restrooms or play areas at the park, preferring to keep the park quiet and passive. After receiving feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission, NUVIS presented the conceptual plan to the City Council on August 5, 2014. Subsequently, on November 18, 2014, the City Council approved a contract with NUVIS for the final design element of Village Pond Park and awarded the contract for construction of the park on March 7, 2017. 1 Village Pond Park was renamed Veterans Park in 2017.

Item: 10
614
1 7
6 3
During its July 18, 2017 meeting, amid the construction phase of the project, the City Council approved renaming Village Pond Park to “Veterans Park” to recognize those who have served in the military. The City Council also directed staff to create and work with a resident committee to design a park feature to honor veterans. Staff notified residents within a 500-foot radius of the park, sent emails to those who attended the first set of outreach workshops in 2013 (approximately 158 people), and reached out to the Lake Forest United States Marine Corp Support Committee that adopted the First Law Enforcement Battalion at Camp Pendleton. Staff also posted information on the City’s social media outlets and provided the OC Register newspaper with information about the park, who ran a news story shortly thereafter. Twelve individuals participated on the formed Veterans Park Commemorative Committee (“Committee”), including residents from the community and surrounding neighborhood, Commissioners, and City Council members Basile and Gardner. The Committee met four times over a period of three months, and NUVIS was present to receive feedback and provide design options to the Committee for review.

At the November 21, 2017 City Council meeting, NUVIS presented the proposed design for the Veterans Monument at Veterans Park (Attachment 2) with an option for a flagpole or tree in the center. The conceptual design offered six monuments, five of which were representative of each branch of the military and the other with an inscription acknowledging the memorial itself, encircling a flagpole. Aware of the typical placement of flagpoles in veteran memorials, NUVIS chose to address this element in a creative manner by including a mosaic of tiles at the top of each military branch monument, replicating a folded American flag. This decision not only made the Lake Forest Veterans Park memorial original, but it also alleviated the need for a flagpole, resolving the concerns of nearby residents related to potential light pollution caused by the upward lighting required for a flagpole and to prevent vandals from defacing the flag. Furthermore, since the project had been budgeted at $100,000 and the addition of the flagpole would increase the budget by $3,000, this decision also considered financial implications. However, at the Committee’s final meeting, they suggested having a flagpole instead of the tree. Therefore, that option was presented by NUVIS to the City Council and recommended by staff during its November 21, 2017 meeting, along with a $3,000 budget adjustment to add the flagpole.

During the public comment portion of the item at the November 21, 2017, City Council Meeting, eight individuals spoke. While much of the discussion was related to restroom facilities, the opinions on the flagpole were split. Those in favor of the tree justified their selection by adherence to the community’s original design feedback from 2013 that the park should be a quiet and reflective space.

Those in favor of a flagpole indicated concerns over the tree’s attractiveness to birds, as well as a desire to adhere to tradition, where a flag and flagpole are a typical component of an installation honoring veterans.

Item: 10
615
1 7
6 3
Following public comment, the City Council ultimately approved the design with the tree at the center of the memorial instead of the flagpole by a 3-2 vote. The City Council members in support of the tree noted that it would help maintain the contemplative and passive feel of the park. The City Council also approved reducing the surrounding monuments to five, by removing the sixth monument without a military designation, and instead etching the proposed language into the concrete around the memorial. (Attachment 3).

The Veterans Park project was completed and the park opened in the fall of 2018. To date, staff has received few complaints regarding the memorial area of the park. For reference, below are photos of what the memorial section of Veterans Park looks like today.

Item: 10
616
1 7
6 3

Item: 10
617
1 7
6 3

Inasmuch as this item was placed on the agenda at the direction of the City Council, further action is at the City Council’s discretion.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Fiscal impact is dependent on City Council discretion.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Excerpt from City Council Meeting Minutes, October 19, 2021

2. Proposed Designs for Veterans Monument at Veterans Park

3. Excerpt from City Council Meeting Minutes, November 21, 2017 Initiated By: Nicole Houston, Management Assistant
Submitted By: Brett Channing, Deputy City Manager
Approved By: Debra Rose, City Manager
Item: 10
618

Attachment 1
Item: 10
619

LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK OCTOBER 19, 2021
Page No. 1

MINUTE EXCERPT

LAKE FOREST REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 19, 2021
____________________________________________________________

During the City Council comment period of the City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Pequeño received majority consensus from Mayor Voigts and Council Members Moatazedi, Tettemer and Cirbo to to discuss the proposal of installing a flagpole to fly the American flag at Veteran's Park.

Item: 10
620

Attachment 2
Item: 10
621
Lake Forest, CACity of Lake ForestCONCEPTUAL RENDERINGVeterans Memorial -451-
Item No. 11.

Item: 10
622
Lake Forest, CACity of Lake ForestCONCEPTUAL RENDERINGVeterans Memorial -452-
Item No. 11.

Item: 10
623
T
Lake Forest, CACity of Lake ForestCONCEPTUAL PLANVeterans Memorial MANUAL AMERICAN FLAG POLE ORTREE WITH SPOT LIGHTINGPLAZA WITH ENHANCEDCOLORED PAVINGCONCRETE BANDBACKLESS CONCRETE BENCHARMY, MARINES, NAVY,AIR FORCE, & COAST GUARDMEMORIAL SCULPTUREWITH MOSAIC FLAG. TOTALOF 5 SCULPTURES

MONUMENT WITH CITY SEAL AND PLAQUEROSE GROUNDCOVER
-453-
Item No. 11.

Item: 10
624

Attachment 3
Item: 10
625

LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOVEMBER 21, 2017
Page No. 1

MINUTE EXCERPT

LAKE FOREST REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 2021, ITEM NO. 11

VETERANS PARK DISCUSSION ITEMS
____________________________________________________________

City Manager Rose introduced Director of Community Services Scott Wasserman who presented the staff report dated November 21, 2017. Mr. Wasserman introduced Perry Cardoza, President of Nuvis Landscaping, who presented the proposed design for the monument. He reviewed the various design elements.

The City Council agreed to hear items 11A and 11B simultaneously.

Discussion of lighting at the monuments and throughout the park ensued. Mr.

Cardoza described the new pathway design, encircling the park with low level lights on the ground shining upwards. Mr. Cardoza recommended an oak for the memorial center if the tree option is chosen.

Mayor Voigts discussed his support for a tree in the center of the memorial.

The following members of the public offered comment:

Tom Cagley, Lake Forest resident, spoke regarding the park design outreach to the community, stating his belief that people were adequately informed, citing residents who attended design meetings who live around the park. He stated his support for a quiet, reflective monument and the flagpole design.

Connie Hughes, Lake Forest resident, stated her appreciation for the park renovation. She encouraged the Council to direct the architect to add a restroom to the park design.

Mr. Cardoza reviewed the comments from residents at the three design workshops, stating shade structures, restrooms, and active play areas were not supported by participants.

Discussion regarding the addition of restrooms ensued. Mr. Wasserman recommended additional community outreach if changes to the current design plans are proposed.

Sharon Ota, Lake Forest resident, spoke against installing restrooms in Veterans Park. She stated she supports a passive park. She recommended no tree or flagpole in the center of the memorial as a method to deter ducks and water fowl.

Item: 10
626

LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOVEMBER 21, 2017
Page No. 2

Larissa Clark, Lake Forest resident, commended Mr. Wasserman for his conducting of the Veterans memorial design meetings, and thought the public outreach was informative and helpful. She stated her support for a passive, reflective memorial.

Bob Holtzclaw, Lake Forest resident, stated his support for the flagpole design and highlighted the low light illumination feature. He complimented staff on the design of the monument.

Martin Henderson, Lake Forest resident, recommended incorporating features that improve the visual background when taking photographs. He also suggested moving the flagpole to the lake island or the edge of the monument area.

David Glick, Lake Forest resident, expressed enthusiasm for the renovations at Veterans Park. He inquired as to the maintenance schedule once the renovations are complete. He stated his support for the flagpole design and his opposition to the installation of a restroom.

Council Member Gardner commented, stating the City Manager has committed to the responsibility of maintaining Veterans Park once it opens.

Responding to Council inquiry, Mr. Wasserman stated he had nothing further to report on Agenda item 11B.

Discussion of community outreach regarding the renaming and redesign of Veterans Park ensued.

Council Member Gardner discussed the monument design. He suggested removing the sixth monument. He stated his support for the tree design.

MOTION: It was moved by Council Member Gardner, second by Mayor Voigts to use a tree in the center of the memorial design.

Council Member Hamilton suggested additional outreach to the community prior to a vote on the design of the park and monument.

ACTION: It was moved by Council Member Gardner, second by Mayor Voigts to use a tree in the center of the memorial design. Motion carried with Mayor Pro Tem Basile and Council Member Hamilton opposed.

MOTION: It was moved by Council Member Gardner, second by Mayor Pro Tem Basile to remove the sixth monument from the monument design. Motion carried with Council Member Hamilton opposed.

Item: 10
627

LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL MINUTE EXCERPT PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOVEMBER 21, 2017
Page No. 3

Mr. Cardoza suggested the language from the sixth monument could be memorialized in the concrete flooring of the monument area.

MOTION: It was moved by Mayor Voigts, second by Mayor Pro Tem Basile to move the language from the sixth monument to the concrete flooring of the monument area. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MOTION: It was moved by Council Member Gardner, second by Mayor Voigts to add one foot to each side of the design of the concrete bench. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Brief discussion of personalized plaques for purchase ensued.

Item: 10
628

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/4/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO REGIONAL BOARDS
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

1. Affirm the current seats to regional boards.

2. Reappoint Council Member Tettemer to the Audit Committee for an additional one-year term.

3. Exercise discretion in considering a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA,

DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING ITS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Traditionally, City Council Members have been appointed to serve on various regional outside Committees, Boards, Commissions, and Agencies. Each appointee is responsible for representing the City and voting on behalf of the City Council. This matter is listed on the agenda for the City Council to conduct the annual review and make changes to appointments, if desired. The only exception is the appointment to the Orange County Fire Authority (“OCFA”) Board, in which a Resolution is required. Otherwise, the City Council may make appointments to each Committee, Board, Commission or Agency by nomination, and Minute Order confirmation. In addition, the City Council will need to appoint one member of the City Council to serve on the City’s Budget / Audit Committee.

The Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPCC”) regulations require the adoption and posting of Form 806, Agency Report of Public Official Appointments, for individual City Council Members to participate in a City Council vote that would result in her or him serving in a position that provides compensation of $250 or more in any 12-month period.

Staff recommends the City Council exercise discretion in affirming the current seats to regional boards and reappoint Council Member Tettemer to the Audit Committee.

Item: 11
629
1 7
9 2
BACKGROUND:

The Mayor and City Council represent the City’s interest in regional issues by serving on regional boards that make public policy decisions in the areas of transportation, water resources, fire services, and government facilities. In January of each year, the City Council reviews the various designated members on the submitted City Council Committee Appointments list.

Historically, the City Council has confirmed the existing memberships through reappointments or made new appointments. At the same time, the Appointment List itself is reviewed and Board, Commission, Committee, and Agency memberships were added or deleted as appropriate.

In previous years, the City Council considered its appointment to the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control Board at the same time as its other Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Agencies. During the December 17, 2019 regular meeting, the City Council appointed Lake Forest resident Vladimir Anderson as the City’s representative to the Vector Control Board for a four (4) year term, concluding December 31, 2023.

Pursuant to the City Council Travel and Expense Reimbursement Policy, expenses incurred in connection with the performance of official duties at meetings attended as the City Council-designated representative (or City Council designated alternate in the absence of the City Council designated representative), as documented on the Appointments List, are eligible for reimbursement from the City Council travel budget (Attachment 1). Additionally, pursuant to FPPC Regulation 18705.5 (Materiality Standard: Economic Interest in Personal Finances), public officials may participate in a City Council vote that would result in her or him serving in a position that provides compensation in the form of stipends, reimbursement, or direct payment of $250 or more in any 12- month period. Regulation 18705.5 specifies, however, that the body making such an appointment(s) must adopt and post a list of the appointments on its website, as provided in Form 806.

DISCUSSION:

The City Council Committee Appointments List documents the various committees and boards to which the City Council appoints its members (Attachment 2). In previous years, the City Council reviewed the list at the first meeting of the new year and made changes, additions, or deletions to the appointments by Minute Order.

Item: 11
630
1 7
9 2
Pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”) for the OCFA, the appointment of Directors is to be formalized by a Resolution of the City Council. In compliance with the terms of the JPA, a draft Resolution appointing the City’s representative to the OCFA Board of Directors is attached for the City Council’s consideration (Attachment 3). Following City Council action, the Resolution may be finalized and formatted, with the name of the City’s appointee, and the recorded vote added before the Resolution is presented to the Mayor for signature and forwarded to the OCFA. Should the City Council choose to reappoint Council Member Tettemer to the OCFA Board of Directors, it is not necessary to adopt a new Resolution.

In 2020, the City Council adopted the Financial Management and Budgetary Policy, which established an Audit Committee consisting of two City Council Members and the City Manager. The purpose of the Audit Committee is to provide a direct line of communication between the auditor and the City Council.

The City Manager provides quarterly reports to the Audit Committee that compares year-to-date actuals with revenue and expenditure projects.

In 2021, the City Council appointed Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo to the Audit Committee for a two-year term and City Council Member Tettemer to a one-year term. Over the past year, the Audit Committee has focused on potential uses for American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”) funds and related federal compliance considerations.

The implementation of the City’s ARPA Grant Plan is complex and will require Audit Committee direction for at least another year. City Council Member Tettemer and Mayor Pro Tem Cirbo have a unique familiarity with the intricacies of the City’s implementation strategy that is valuable for the timely implementation of the ARPA Grant Plan. As a result, staff is recommending the City Council reappoint Council Member Tettemer to the Audit Committee for an additional one-year term.

Following the finalization of the Appointments List, the City is required to post on its website FPPC Form 806, identifying:
• Each appointed position receiving compensation in excess of $250 per 12-month period;
• the salary or stipend for each appointed position
• the name of the public official appointed to the position • the name of any public official appointed as an alternate • the term of the appointment.

Following City Council action, Form 806 will be finalized and posted with the names of the City’s appointees.

Staff recommends the City Council exercise discretion in affirming the current seats to regional boards, reappoint Council Member Tettemer to the Audit Item: 11
631
1 7
9 2
Committee, and authorize the attached resolution if the City Council desires to appoint a City Council Member other than City Council Member Tettemer to serve as a Director for the OCFA.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is minimal fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council Travel and Expense Reimbursement Policy

2. City Council Appointment List

3. Resolution Designating the City’s Representative to OCFA Submitted By: Lisa Berglund, MPA, City Clerk
Approved By: Debra Rose, City Manager
Item: 11
632

ATTACHMENT 1

Item: 11
633
CITY COUNCIL POLICY: TRAVEL AND

EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
Revised : January 2, 2019

City Council Members and Commissioners (“Official” or “Officials”) are allowed their actual and necessary expenses when traveling on official City business consistent with this policy, as outlined below. Council Members and Commissioners are encouraged to participate in trainings and conferences in an effort to enhance education and to represent the City of Lake Forest. Reasonable modifications to this policy are allowed for an Official(s) with disabilities.

1 Before Your Trip.

1.1 Authorized Budget.

Travel is subject to the dollar limitations set forth in the City’s Annual Operating Budget. City Council travel is budgeted within the City Council Department “Travel, Conferences, and Meetings” account. Planning Commission travel is budgeted in the Community Development Planning Division “Commissioner Travel” account. Community Services Commission travel is budgeted in the Community Services Recreation Division “Commissioner Travel” account. Traffic and Parking travel is budgeted in the Public Works Traffic and Parking Commission Division “Commissioner Travel” account.

1.2 Authorized Functions (i.e., Where can I go?).

Expenses incurred in connection with the performance of official duties at functions described below are eligible for reimbursable:

a) Meetings of the City Council, Successor Agency, Housing Authority, Financing Authority, and any other government body or Ad Hoc Committee established by formal action of the Lake Forest City Council.
b) Meetings attended as the Council-designated representative(s) (or Council designated alternate(s)) of the City as documented on the most recently adopted City Council Committee Appointments List. c) Meetings with the City Manager or his or her designee. d) City-sponsored events.

Item: 11
634
Adopted March 2018

Page 2 of 8 ends

City Council Policy: Travel Policy, Rev. 1-2019

e) Meetings of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities (LOCC) and Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACCOC).
f) Attendance at LOCC Annual Conference, LOCC Mayors and Council Members Executive Forum/Summit, LOCC policy
committees (subject to LOCC appointment), and LOCC New
Mayors and Council Members Academy.
g) Attendance at educational seminars, conferences or activities designed to improve the Council Member or Commissioner’s skill and knowledge provided the City is a member of the organization sponsoring the activity.
h) Attendance at training sessions required by federal, state, or local law.
i) Appearances before, or attending meetings of, state legislative committees, state regulatory bodies, state commissions, entities regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, and other government entities, on behalf of the City of Lake Forest. j) Meeting or functions of public agency or non-profit organizations contract partners.

1.3 Advances.

The City does not issue advances for travel. In lieu of an advance, officials may utilize a Cal-Card (i.e., a purchase VISA card) for expenses incurred while traveling on official City business. 1

1.4 City Council CAL- Cards.

City Council Members are authorized to use a CAL-Card (i.e., a purchase VISA card) for travel expenses associated with out-of-town travel. When traveling, an official’s Cal-Card shall have an expenditure limit of $2,000. When not in use during specific travel, Cal-Cards shall have an expenditure limit of $0. CAL-Cards are to remain in the possession of Officials, and Officials are responsible to report lost or stolen cards.

1.5 Reservations/Registrations.

1 The CAL-Card program, a State purchase VISA card program administered by US Bank, is offered to designated City officials as a streamlined way to procure and pay for City-related goods and services while reducing reimbursement, invoice, and check processing costs. Officials that utilize CAL-Cards are subject to program rules and regulations as outlined in the City’s Purchasing Guidelines. CAL-Card purchases are restricted to specified merchant category codes.

Item: 11
635
Adopted March 2018

Page 3 of 8 ends

City Council Policy: Travel Policy, Rev. 1-2019

Officials attending meetings or traveling on official business may request staff assistance in arranging conference registration, hotel, and other travel reservations for authorized functions as listed in this policy.

1.5.1 Airline & Train Reservations.

The City will purchase airline and train tickets for travel to functions listed in Section 1.2 (f) on an official’s behalf no later than fourteen (14) days in advance of travel. The City will purchase airline and train tickets for travel to all other authorized functions as listed in this policy on an official’s behalf. Tickets for functions listed in Section 1.2 (f) requested thirteen days or less in advance of travel must be purchased directly by the traveling official. Eligibility for reimbursement of airline and train tickets is outlined in Section II of this policy.

1.6 Cancellations.

In the event an Official is unable to travel according to pre-arranged and/or pre-paid itineraries, the Official shall cancel his or her reservations prior to the cancellation deadline established by the vendor (i.e. hotel, airline, etc.) so as not to incur charges or in order to receive a refund or credit. In the event an Official does not cancel his or her reservations and the City is charged a fee or unable to receive a credit or refund, the Official shall reimburse the City the full cost of the fee or non-cancelled charges within thirty (30) days of the cancelled travel.

2 While on Your Trip.

2.1 Traveling to Your Destination.

Officials shall use the most economical mode and class of transportation reasonably consistent with scheduling needs and cargo requirements, and the most direct and time-efficient route.

2.1.1 Air and Train Travel.

Airfare and train fare shall be reimbursed at the actual ticket cost as stated on the receipt. Baggage handling fees up to $2 per bag are reimbursable. Long-term parking shall be used for travel exceeding 24 hours.

Item: 11
636
Adopted March 2018

Page 4 of 8 ends

City Council Policy: Travel Policy, Rev. 1-2019

2.1.2 Personal Automobile.

Automobile mileage is reimbursable at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rate in effect at the time of the trip. The reimbursable amount shall be based on the actual mileage traveled for the purposes of the Traveler’s official duties. In no case shall the amount of the reimbursement exceed the cost an airline ticket to the same destination purchased fourteen (14) days in advance of travel and, if applicable, the cost of a standard-size rental car.

2.1.3 Ground Transportation.

Taxi, bus, train, shuttle or other similar fares, including associated gratuities of up to 20 percent, are reimbursable. Baggage handling fees up to $2 per bag are reimbursable.

2.2 Meals and Incidental Expenses (M&IE).

The City maximum full day meal and incidental expenses rate shall be not greater than the maximum federal per diem meal and incidental expenses (M&IE) rate established by the General Services Administration (www.gsa.gov) based on the limit for the city or county to which the Official is traveling. Partial days per diem amounts are also established by the GSA. The GSA maximums include taxes and gratuities. Official must provide receipts for all meals and will be reimbursed at the lower of the appropriate per diem amount or the actual expense.

2.2.1 Meal Gratuities.

Meal gratuities of up to 20 percent are reimbursable.

2.2.2 Alcoholic Beverages.

There shall be no reimbursement for alcoholic beverages.

2.2.3 Meals Provided as Part of Functions.

An Official may not request reimbursement for any meal which is provided or otherwise available to the official at a function, whether or not there is an actual charge for the meal. For Item: 11
637
Adopted March 2018

Page 5 of 8 ends

City Council Policy: Travel Policy, Rev. 1-2019

example, if lunch is provided at a function, the traveler may not request reimbursement for eating elsewhere.

2.3 Lodging.

Actual lodging costs will be reimbursed when an Official’s travel on official City business reasonably requires an overnight stay due to distance or an Official’s need for sleep or rest to properly and safely perform their duties. The Official shall use lodging that is either: offered by a provider of lodging that is consistent with the per diem rates for lodging as established: (1) in IRS Publication 1542, as amended, or any successor publication; or (2) as a governmental rate offered by the provider of lodging.

2.3.1 Lodging for Conferences or Other Educational Activities.

Lodging costs shall not exceed the maximum group rate published by the conference or activity sponsor, provided that the lodging at the group rate is available to the Official at the time of booking. If the group rate is not available, then the Official shall use comparable lodging that is consistent with the per diem rates for lodging as established: (1) in IRS Publication 1542, as amended, or any successor publication; or (2) as a governmental rate offered by a provider of lodging.

2.4 Miscellaneous Expenses.

Bridge, road tolls, housekeeping tips, parking fees and other similar miscellaneous expenses are reimbursable. Baggage handling fees up to $2 per bag are reimbursable.

2.5 Unauthorized Expenses.

Expenses the City will not reimburse include, but are not limited to:
a) The personal portion of any trip.
b) Political or charitable contributions or events.
c) Family expenses, including a partner’s expense when
accompanying the Official on City-related business, as well as children or pet-related expenses.
d) Entertainment expenses, including theater, movies (including in- room), sporting events (including but not limited to gym, massage and golf-related expenses), or other cultural events.

Item: 11
638
Adopted March 2018

Page 6 of 8 ends

City Council Policy: Travel Policy, Rev. 1-2019

e) Non-mileage personal automobile expenses, including traffic citations.
f) Personal losses incurred while on City business.
g) “Pre-boarding”, “upgrade” or “change” fees charged for the convenience of the traveling official.

3 After Your Trip.

3.1 Documentation of Expenses/ Expense Reports

Officials shall submit expense report forms, as provided by the City, to the City Manager or the Manager’s designee within thirty (30) days of incurring the expense. The expense report is to be signed, under penalty of perjury, and state that all expenses listed were necessary, reasonable and incurred in connection with City business and in conformity with this Policy. If an Official does not submit expense report forms within thirty (30) days of incurring the expense, the Official will be ineligible for any future City paid travel arrangements or use of City Cal-Cards until the signed expense report form is submitted.

3.1.1 Expense Documentation.

To qualify for reimbursement, expense reports must be
accompanied by documentary evidence, such as a receipt, canceled check, or bill for each expense. The documentary evidence should show the amount, date, place, and essential character of the expense.
a) If the evidence submitted is a bill, it must be itemized so as to sufficiently indicate which costs the Official claims are in connection with City-approved travel and for what purpose such costs were incurred (e.g., an itemized hotel bill would indicate cots for room, parking fee, meals, and room tax, with the respective cost of each listed on the bill).
b) Any evidence submitted must be attached to a written statement signed by the Official attesting the evidence is an accurate depiction of the expense and that the charges are appropriate and incurred in connection with City business and in conformity with this Policy.
c) Receipts shall document the expenses of the Official exclusively. Personal expenses (including, but not limited to, a partner’s expenses) shall not be included on the submitted receipt.

Item: 11
639
Adopted March 2018

Page 7 of 8 ends

City Council Policy: Travel Policy, Rev. 1-2019

3.1.2 Substitute Expense Documentation.

If documentary evidence (e.g., receipt or bill) is not available, the following limitations on reimbursement shall apply:
a) Lodging, food, and beverage expenses shall not be
reimbursed.
b) Per IRS guidelines, only expenses of less than $75.00 shall be reimbursed where substitute documentary evidence is
provided.

Acceptable forms of substitute documentary evidence may include, but are not limited to, written statements from the Official’s guests or other witnesses setting forth detailed information about the expense, or an In Lieu of Receipt Form signed by the traveling Official. A sample In Lieu of Receipt Form is attached to this policy (Attachment 1).

3.1.3 California Public Records Act.

All documents related to reimbursable City expenditures are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1.

3.2 Reimbursement.

The City will reimburse Officials for all actual and necessary expenses within the limitations of this policy.

3.2.1 Preliminary Review by Staff.

The City Manager or his or her designee shall review all forms and documentary evidence as outlined in the attached Staff Travel Expenditure Review Procedure (Attachment 2).
.

3.2.1.1 Reimbursement .

Once the expense report is complete, signed and all
necessary receipts are attached, staff will submit the
report and supporting documentation to the Finance
Item: 11
640
Adopted March 2018

Page 8 of 8 ends

City Council Policy: Travel Policy, Rev. 1-2019

department for processing with the next scheduled
Warrant Register.

4 Policy Violations.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53232.4, penalties for misuse of public resources or falsifying expense reports in violation of expense reporting policies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) The loss of reimbursement privileges.
b) Restitution to the City.
c) Civil penalties for misuse of public resources pursuant to California Government Code Section 8314.
d) Prosecution for misuse of public resources, pursuant to Section 424 of the Penal Code.

In addition to the above penalties as prescribed by State law, violation by an Official of this Policy shall result in the following:
a) Termination of that Official’s privilege to use City CAL-cards, unless such privilege is reinstituted by the City Council; and/or
b) Ineligibility for any future pre-paid travel, unless such eligibility is restored by the City Council.

Item: 11
641
ATTACHMENT 2
Item: 11
642

Page 2 ends

CITY OF LAKE FOREST

CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS LIST
Revised 1/4/2022

COMMITTEE DESIGNATED

MEMBER(S)

ALTERNATE MEETING DAY /
TIME

MEETING LOCATION STIPEND/

MILEAGE
California Joint
Powers
Insurance
Authority (CJPIA)

MOATAZEDI
All Council
Members,
City Manager, &
Risk Manager
Annually
July
CJPIA Office
El Capitan Room
8081 Moody Street, La Palma
$100/mtg + Mileage
Reimbursement
Foothill/Eastern
Transportation
Corridor Agency
(TCA) **
VOIGTS PEQUEÑO 2nd Thursday of the
Month at 9:30 a.m.

TCA Offices
125 Pacifica
Irvine
$120/mtg.
max. 18 mtgs/qtr.;
mileage at IRS rate
Upper Newport
Bay Watershed VOIGTS Staff
Quarterly, 3rd
Wednesday,
1:30-3:00 p.m.

Irvine Ranch Water District
Offices
15600 Sand Canyon Ave., Irvine
None
Orange County
Fire Authority ** TETTEMER N/A 4th Thursday of the
month
6:00 p.m.

Regional Fire Operations &
Training Center Board Rm.,
One Fire Authority Rd.,
Irvine, CA
$100 per meeting;
max $300
Orange County
Public Library
Advisory Board
PEQUEÑO MOATAZEDI Meets three (3) times a
year
OC Public Library Headquarters
Yosemite Conference Room B,
2nd Floor, 1501 E. Saint Andrew
Place, Santa Ana
None
South Orange
County
Watershed
Management
Area
MOATAZEDI PEQUEÑO Semi Annually Laguna Niguel Council
Chambers 30111 Crown Valley
Prkwy,
Laguna Niguel, CA
None
City Council
Budget / Audit
Committee

CIRBO &
TETTEMER N/A Meets four times a year Lake Forest City Hall None
** FPPC 700 Form required
Item: 11
643
4 7
9 9
0 ATTACHMENT 3
Item: 11
644
RESOLUTION 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE

FOREST, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING ITS

REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE
AUTHORITY’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WHEREAS, the City, as a “member” of the Orange County Fire Authority Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is entitled to appoint a representative director (“Director”) to the Orange County Fire Authority’s Board of Directors, and WHEREAS, each member agency, by resolution of its governing body, shall designate and appoint one representative to act as its Director on the Authority Board of Directors, except the County whose Board of Supervisors shall appoint two representatives to act as its Directors, and
WHEREAS, each Director shall be a current elected member of the governing body, and
WHEREAS, each Director shall hold office until the selection of a successor by the appointing body, and
WHEREAS, each Director is to serve at the pleasure of his or her appointing body and may be removed at any time, with or without cause, at the sole discretion of that appointing body, and
WHEREAS, any vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment of a Director.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lake Forest, California, does hereby designate and appoint __ as its Director to the Orange County Fire Authority Board of Directors.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of January 2022. _
ROBERT PEQUEÑO
MAYOR
Item: 11
645
ATTEST:

LISA BERGLUND, MPA

CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

MATTHEW E. RICHARDSON

CITY ATTORNEY
I, Lisa Berglund, City Clerk of the City of Lake Forest, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-xx was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Lake Forest City Council on the 4th day of January 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

LISA BERGLUND, MPA

CITY CLERK
Item: 11
646

Lake Forest City CouncilJanuary 4, 2022

Lake Forest City Council
January 4, 2022