Mailbag: Here’s my case for developing Banning Ranch

For the last several years, the Banning Ranch Conservancy has attempted to convince the public that Banning Ranch should not be developed primarily because they claim it would be damaging to valuable environmental resources.

According to the project environmental impact report (EIR), and contrary to the claims of the conservancy, the most environmentally valuable land, and over 75% of all of the Banning Ranch, will remain as open space at no cost to the taxpayers if the Banning Ranch development is approved by the Coastal Commission.

The conservancy wants taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the least environmentally valuable land to carry out its vision for somebody else’s property. It won’t happen because in an era of limited resources, the sources of funding for conservation land have much better alternatives than paying a huge price for something the public can mostly get without paying anything at all.

Here is what the Banning Ranch development will do: Set aside about 234 acres of filled or degraded wetlands so the damage to that area can be remediated and the area restored to functioning wetlands overseen by a conservancy; and make available and improve another 70-plus acres for publicly accessible parks, open space and walking trails that will provide the missing link between the beach and Fairview Park.

So in total, out of the 401 acres in Banning Ranch, 304 acres will ultimately be used for open space, parks or trails, with 97 acres (about 24%) being developed. And the 97 acres is predominantly the portion of the site that is elevated, or more proximate to the industrial areas of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Little of that land is presently wild, pristine habitat. A lot of it is a grungy, oil stained wasteland.

Banning Ranch-immediate neighbors take turns writing the Daily Pilot with unsubstantiated claims of environmental catastrophe because the development would affect some of their views and solitude. But the public needs to hear the case for the development of Banning Ranch and what is in it for the public.

Its public parks, trails and open space are a great deal for West Newport residents and restoration of wetlands and clean-up of the residue of oil operations is a great deal for the environment, all at no cost to the public. The alternative is not accessible natural open space, rather the land will stay degraded as it is, closed off from the public in perpetuity.

Larry Tucker

Newport Beach

The writer sat on the Newport Beach Planning Commission when it approved the Banning Ranch development.

*

Banning Ranch development must be stopped

As a longtime resident of the Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach areas, I am appalled to learn about the development plan to build on Banning Ranch.

Banning Ranch is more than 400 acres of open land nestled between Coast Highway and Superior Avenue in Newport and the Santa Ana River. Thousands of people drive by this coastal bluff daily and appreciate the sense of calm that having wild, undeveloped land brings to a heavily traveled intersection. However, if the developers and the city of Newport have their way, a development plan will be approved that will forever damage our community.

A California Coastal Commission hearing on the plan is scheduled for Oct. 7 at the Long Beach Convention Center.

The plan consists of a residential neighborhood with more than 1,300 homes, a hotel and a shopping center. This plan violates the wishes of Newport residents who voted against developing the land in 2006. The plan is based on putting money in the pockets of developers. It does not have the health of our community at heart.

Traveling from the 55 Freeway to Newport will become gridlock as a result of the additional 15,000 cars expected to traverse the area every day, while traffic-related air pollution will increase as a result of heavy emissions.

Banning Ranch is the site of an oil field, and digging up the underground oil wells and pipelines will emit additional substances into the air we breathe. Also, the homes will be built a stone’s throw from Hixson Metal, a metal finishing company designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a toxic release inventory facility. Hixson Metal has been cited multiple times since 2014 by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, primarily due to the release of chromium-6 into the air.

If the politicians of Newport Beach, who approved the project in 2012, believe they have the best interests of residents in mind, why would they want to invite families to live on top of gases from the oil field and next to Hixson Metal?

If they stop to examine their consciences and make the ethical choice to protect the health of local residents, this development plan could be halted immediately.

Please sign the petition against the development plan at banningpledge.com/brc and attend the hearing at 9:30 a.m. Oct. 7 to support the Banning Ranch Conservancy and appeal to the Coastal Commission to deny the development permit.

Maureen Gates

Huntington Beach