We’ve spent this week discussing the Baker Ranch proposal to convert 30 acres of commercial property into residential where they plan to squeeze 250 new homes (including multi-family) into the site opposite the new Sports Park. The main points we’ve covered are –
The city is already burdened with traffic congestion and problems in the delivery of public services (e.g., post office, library, DMV, court system).
The city has already approved 4,700+ new homes to be built within a few miles of the proposed Baker Ranch site. These new homes will probably result in some 13,000+ new residents, some 6,000+ new school children, and nearly 40,000 new vehicle trips on the streets of the City every day.
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Is it wise to add even more homes at this time, when a City with existing multiple problems is about to be inundated with a 15% increase in population? Does it make more sense to wait until the enormous increases have been absorbed before committing to even more homes?
No new schools have been approved despite the 6,000+ new children who will probably be added to our City. Can the school system absorb these new children with no new schools, and without putting an undue burden on families?
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Staff, Commission, and Council were worried last year that the changing economic conditions and the already approved increases in homes changed the best uses for the commercial land in the Foothill/Portola area, and at that time they wanted an independent study to determine the best uses before going ahead with a proposal to add 250 more homes. That study was never done, but with the approval of those 250 homes, the need for that study is even more pressing. Should the Commission proceed with the Baker Ranch proposal without this information?
The argument can be made that Baker Ranch LLC has the right to develop their property, and if they want to convert from commercial to residential, they should be allowed to do so.
Baker Ranch made a multi-part agreement with the City to develop certain land as commercial and certain land as residential. Generally speaking this agreement has worked out well for Baker Ranch, and if this final piece of land might create more profit for Baker Ranch if it was converted, nonetheless they agreed to this land as commercial and this agreement defines the land use.
The argument can be made that we've already approved 4,700+ new homes, so how much can another 250 hurt?
- The City should have never approved the last 250, and only by manipulating the City Council were the developers able to get these added. If we approve the next 250, what's to stop the next 250, and the next 250, etc. A line has to be drawn in the sand that says - "Wait. Let's see what's going to happen" before we proceed any further. That line should have already been drawn.
For the sake of argument, suppose a truly independent (and competent) study demonstrates that (a) Lake Forest doesn’t need any more commercial space and (b) the revenue from converting the site from commercial to residential is advantages for the City. On that basis should the proposal be approved?
No.
There are still too many unknowns that revolve around the absorption of the 15% increase in population, with critical impacts to traffic congestion, school, use of public resources, and utilities.
Suppose 2 or 3 years down the road, the City’s plans for traffic mitigation actually work, the City’s plan to synchronize traffic lights finally is completed, the drought has disappeared and the deficit created by shutting down San Onofre has been more than corrected. In addition, suppose that the school system has managed to absorb the new kids without any unreasonable changes to the lives of the families who send their children to school. On that basis, should the project be approved?
Of course.
So the real issue is whether or not the wellbeing of people who live in the City of Lake Forest and the new people who are going to move into the City is more important than postponing the Baker Ranch proposal by a few years. Hasn’t Baker Ranch made enough profit from their investment to allow the necessary time to pass? They say they've been a good neighbor. Can they be a good neighbor one more time?
