Does Lake Forest Need Even More Homes

Tonight (Thursday) at 7 pm the Planning Commission (PC) is considering a proposal to add more homes to the FHR/Portola area. In this case it is 250 more homes to the commercial space across from the Sports Park. To build these 250 new homes they need to re-zone the area to residential since it is now commercial.

Here are some issues I hope the PC considers-

1. Should the City approve 250 more home when there are already nearly 5,000 in the pipeline and we have no idea yet how these homes will impact traffic, the availability of water and electricity, and the use of public resources like the library, post office, etc.

The population of the FHR/PH area is about to increase by 50% in a few years. This is a staggering change and will have impacts on the quality of life for people who live in this area. Should we be adding even more people before we have any idea of the impact of such a large density change?

2. Should the City reduce the amount of commercial space when Lake Forest already trails the rest of Orange County in our sales tax revenue? We already lost commercial space when the Brookfield and Trumark properties were approved.

The City staff report (page 25) says that “if there is any site in the City that is well suited for new commercial development, this may be it.” In addition, the report says that “While the [new homes]l…offer the benefit of significant one-time revenues in the form of public benefit fees, commercial (and certain industrial users) offer the potential of on-going public revenue in the form of sales taxes as well as new employment opportunities.”

3. The only entrance into and out of the project is opposite the entrance to the Sports Park. Ordinarily this might not be a problem, but the City has recently committed to hosting large scale events with thousands of participants. During such times, a single exit/entry opposite the Sports Park may result in a major traffic problem. What can be done to mitigate these problems which were not anticipated until recently?

4. The DA (Developer Agreement) does not require the developer to create affordable housing which is required by State law. Instead the developer will give the City “in lieu” fees. However, the City may not need more money in the affordable housing area. Some people say that what the City needs is more affordable housing to be built by the developers, not money which it cannot spend effectively to create affordable housing. It has been argued that the City shouldn’t be in the business of building or managing affordable housing, but rather require the developers to provide the affordable housing. Shea/Baker and Portola Hills all provide affordable housing. Brookfield and Trumark were allowed to build without affordable housing. Should this developer be exempted from providing the affordable housing on site?

5. The DA also will not create any new schools. Instead it will add more children into a system that may already be strained by the 7,500 new children who come with the 5,000 new homes. What assurances do we have that the new children will not overcrowd the existing system?

It can be argued that what difference will a few hundred more children make? However, this is the same argument that has been made previously, and now we have some 7,500 more children going to be added to the school system.

6. The site may not be compatible with residential homes. There are no residential homes anywhere near this site (see site map). What rationale is there to build homes in an isolated area?

7. Proximity to the Sports Park means that any potential residents may be bothered by noise, lights, and traffic. The City report notes the problem with the current level of noise on Rancho Parkway. This will be much worse as time goes on, and especially when hundreds/thousands of people show up to participate in City events. How will the developer mitigate these problems, especially when the plan was developed before the City decided to turn the Sports Center in a destination where large scale events would take place?

8. The proposed 0.5 acre park inside the complex is inadequate for the 30 acre site which requires 3.64 acres for the proposed 728 people who will live there. The developer plans to rely on the Sports Park across the street. This may not be safe for children to cross such a busy street. If the streetlight gets heavy use, this will interfere with the traffic signaling system and add to traffic congestion. If approved, should the developer be asked to build more park space inside the complex?

9. The developer claims that traffic will be less with residential vs. retail and industrial. While this may be true, it is true only for overall traffic. Residential traffic tends to clump at critical times (go to work, drop kids at school, pick up kids, return from work) while retail and industrial are more steady. Thus even if residential results in less overall traffic, it may contribute more to congestion because of the clumping.

These are the issues that the Planning Commission needs to discuss.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Jim Gardner is on the City Council for Lake Forest. You can check him out on LinkedIn and/or Facebook and you can share your thoughts about the City at Lake Forest Town Square on Facebook. His comments are not meant to reflect official City Policy.

Dr. Gardner has office hours every Tuesday from 2 pm to 5 pm at the City Hall. In addition, he holds a mini town meeting every moth. The next meeting will be April 18 from 2 to 4 pm at the Foothill Ranch Public Library.

kn