Lake Forest - Planning the Next 5 Years

Yesterday I indicated that the Council will hold a special meeting to discuss the “5-Year Strategic Business Plan”. Today I want to go through some of the basic information that can be used to prepare ourselves for a good discussion.

At the City’s website listed next to the agenda item there are links to several documents that can provide a basis for helping make decisions. Here are some of the highlights from those documents along with some thoughts.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Here are some data to consider -

· Population growing slowly and steadily at less than ½% per year from 2002 through 2014.

· BUT new homes will bring nearly 15,000 new residents in the next 5 years – a growth of 19% or 4% a year. That’s a multiple of 10 times our normal rate. Even if the housing market turns South and the growth rate slows, this is still unprecedented.

· BUT the new population growth will be in the FHR/PH area, not spread throughout the community. In fact, the growth in the FHR/PH area will be 50% - an unprecedented number.

· Over the past 5 years we are gaining older people (20% vs. 24%) and loosing children (27% vs. 24%). Hence, median age is growing older, from 36 (2009) to 38+ (2014).

· White people are 54% of the population, which is the lowest for any South County City. Hispanics are 27% of the population, which is the highest for any City in South County.

· Over the past 5 years, Hispanics are increasing (22% vs. 27%) more than any other group. Whites (51% vs. 54%) and Asians (12% vs. 14%) are marginally more while African-Americans (2% vs. 1.6%) and Others (13% vs. 3.5%) are decreasing.

· The % of people with some college education has remained stable at about 75%. The percent with college degrees or advanced degrees is low compared to other South County cities.

· Median household income is $89,698 which is low compared to other South County cities.

· There are 9,000+ licensed dogs in the City; meaning that there are probably 15,000+ dogs. More than half the families in the City have pets, mostly dogs.

· Demographics in the City are different for different parts of the City. Older and poorer people and people with no children tend to live in the older part of the City (except for the Hispanics who live in this part of town and who tend to have more children). Younger people with more income and more children tend to live in the newer parts of the City.

If we take the trends, we can begin to look forward and project the future needs of the people in the City. For example, in a City with an aging population that is simultaneously losing the youngest part of the population, we probably don’t need to be building more sports parks. Instead, the needs of our senior citizens should be examined more closely.

On that subject, should we be building a senior center in a part of town where there are very few seniors? Will that not only create problems for the seniors but also result in more traffic getting the seniors to and from the new center?

Do we build a centralized dog park in a part of the City where few people walk their dogs?

Do we spend millions upgrading parks for active sports in areas of the City where the population under 18 is declining?

When population growth is going to be so dramatic (by historical standards) and confined to such a small area, what kinds of City resources can be applied to lessen the harsher impacts of this phenomenon? What advantages (if any) will come from this and how can they be exploited?

We need to plan based on what we know and what we can anticipate.

SATISFACTION SURVEY

There’s a lot of information in the satisfaction survey. Here’s what I found to be helpful for our upcoming planning session -

· People said that the main way to make the City a better place to live is to reduce traffic congestion. Most of the problems were getting to, on, and from the freeway (56%), but major streets were also a problem (45%). Local streets were mentioned less often (20%)

· The second major way to make life better was to improve parks and recreation. Expanding walking, hiking, biking trails was mentioned most often (75%) followed closely by upgrading park equipment (73%). An off leash dog park came in 3rd (56%) followed closely by a community swimming pool (54%) and more sports courts (53%).

· #3 on the residents’ list was limiting growth and development. In a City that has embarked on a consistent growth and development program for the last decade, this is a remarkable finding and may indicate that “enough is enough”.

· Improving infrastructure came in at #4 followed closely by improving public safety at #5.

· People who enjoy the City more tend to be homeowners, live in the newer sections of town, be older, lived here longer, and be males.

As a City we have limited funds and a long wish list. Most of the funds we have are already accounted for, so the amount of “new money” that can be deployed is even more limited. To help us spend the money in the most judicious manner, we need to take account of what data is available to us. And we need to be cognizant of the fact that virtually all capital improvement programs carry operational and maintenance costs.

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.