Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Non-Agenda Item - Handout- * BParch an Cservancv April 28, 2016 To: California Coastal Commission c/o Amber Dobson CC: Newport Banning Ranch LLC c/o Michael Mohler Re: Application No. S-15-2097 (Newport Banning Ranch) Alternative Plan pvv 'JG COM A - � )� / I Submitted via email 04-28-1+6 At the California Coastal Commission (CCC) hearing held October 7, 2015, the staff report for the proposed Newport Banning Ranch LLC (NBR) project recommended denial based on significant Coastal Act inconsistencies. Rather than denying the Coastal Development Permit (CDP), Commissioners gave instructions to the CCC staff and NBR to work together to identify a project alternative that the {Commissioners could approve. it was also recommended from the dais that the Banning, Ranch Conservancy (the Conservancy) have a role in that process. To date, the Conservancy has not been invited to participate in meetings between NBR and CCC staff. On 1/28/16, the Conservancy contacted NBR to discuss whether a project alternative could be identified that could possibly be supported by the environmental' community. On 2/12/16 and 2/16/16, the Conservancy and NBR held "scoping" meetings to discuss what each party wanted to see in any project alternative. The basic requirements and goals for the development portion of any alternative project included: Conservancy: Coastal Act consistency, preservation of areas important for function of overall ecosystem, adandoment and reasonable remediation of the oil field, restoration, higher density/smaller footprint, development focused an periphery of site, and public access. NBR: Coastal Act consistency, adandoment and remediation of the oil field, public access, access to PCH, 151`' , 16`h and 17`h Streets (willing to give up one access at. either 151h, 16'h, or 17`h), feasible (profitable) project, diversification of product. In February, the Conservancy engaged Wild Heritage Planners, Carl Welty Architects and Blake Whittington Landscape Planner to develop a project alternative based upon the requirements and goals discussed above and the constraints of the site (ESHA, wetlands/vernal pools, buffering, fuel modification requirements, points of access, etc.). They were also tasked to use environmentally responsible designs and building techniques. Attached are preliminary drawings displaying recommended footprints and proposed building/housing unit layouts. The plan focuses development in two areas directly off 15`h and 17`r' Streets, previously identified in the CCC staff report as areas void of ESHA and wetlands/vernal pools. It has a development footprint of approximately 7 acres and proposes 108 housing units. An appropriate portion of these units could be offered at affordable, below market rates. Development Area Acreage Deusity Unit Square footage Total Number of Units A IS DU AC '_.]Ob 36 B 1.5 16 DI: AC I,9O0 24 D 3 16 DL; AC 2.500 48 TOTAL _,VMD T,\4 DBiaSH Y' 108 A more detailed description of the protect with a discussion of "Regenerative Design" will be forthcoming from Wild Heratige Planners. While the Conservancy considers the development footprint firm, numbers and mix of units, building layouts and design considerations may be subject to discussion. Presentation of this Conservancy Alternative represents a shift in the Conservancy's approach. However, the Conservancy retains all our previously stated positions that ALL wetlands/vernal pools and ESHA be properly identified and preserved, with appropriate buffering, and that ALL Coastal Act (Act) requirements and provisions be upheld by the Commission without re -legislating the Act, revision, re- interpretation, and/or compromising the provisions and/or intent of the Act. Further, the Act (and applicable case law) require that the Act be "liberally construed" to protect all valuable natural resources of the California Coast, which would include Banning Ranch's inestimable resources.. This Conservancy Alternative is the most protective of coastal resources while offering the owners/proposed developers of Banning Ranch a reasonable economic gain from their property. It also meets all Coastal Act provisions and, in our opinion, should be easily defensible. If timely, we ask that this submission be attached to the forthcoming staff report on the project for the Commission's May hearing. Thank you_ Sincerely, Terry Welsh, President Steve Ray, Executive Director BANNING RANCH CONSERVANCY 4 bukgngc 3 foom 3 ur*t,s each flow Id 2100saft. 40artmelus V4 • 7 Low kvpKt Dev6owYwW requtm p6aikv efopnwrRhydrologymbf c pf"ewelopawnt hydrology Alw DOW &- w 99. 0 RMFr- W 17tb St Devebpmefit can incogwatB nattxat waiter flow- to improve heatith of surroundtn3 naLve haktapt. Exist'ngand restored l abi'as may tpe wferymven =.irh develo.-e-st landscape. �WA Banning Ranch Area lte Alte►natrtive ►tlowM1.r- s h'iJaings W 11001$ a Unsts earn IMF ` 25©'G sq. ft, apartments u -18 units ',6 DLJA Parking 1,12 :euel beka* orsade W 15th S €tursd,N size. spac4ng nna atignmenma allow. - p ex Scenic - PU1V 8%OStirF,R t0 n78%vmfiB Pa$'";bYB FIR1t of all units to reduce energy consvmpt*n and need for artificial irghrng during daylight tours - Native habit and -water now through