The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.0 - Public Comments Banning Ranch Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 r Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Banning Ranch Public Comments „ - Conservancy April 28,2016 Submitted via email 04-28-16 To: California Coastal Commission c/o Amber Dobson CC: Newport Banning Ranch LLC c/o Michael Mohler Re: Application No.5-15-2097(Newport Banning Ranch) Alternative Plan 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 on periphery of site, and public access. NBR: Coastal Act consistency,adandoment and remediation of the oil field, public access,access to PCH, 15`h, 16`h, and 17`h Streets(willing to give up one access at either 15`h, 16th,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. PI nnno n� ss� n ,August 18, 2016 Attached are preliminary drawings displaying recommended footprints an�. ro u Cd n �°onlu n F��di�or�g aterial� Pre e�ted at Meeting unit layouts. The plan focuses development in two areas directly off 15 an� 17 Streets, previous Oublic Comments 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 Acreage Density Unit Square footage Total Number of Area Units A 2 18 DU/AC 2,100 36 B 1.5 16DU'AC 1,900 24 D 3 16 DU/AC 2,500 48 TOTAL MEDIUM 108 DENSITY A more detailed description of the project 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 Planning Commission - August2016 Additional Materials Presen -• at Meeting Public • No do Vo ;k�,{pie% �•.- 1 r 7 � s.11i r • _ is Banning Kinch Development y Afternatives 1 ;ytiffi Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 it fond'Norials nted at Meeting blic Comments Banning Ranch Area 'A Alternative Orroso Dr a 4 buMdings, 3 Noss.3-wigs welt 2100 sq.h.apartmems ---. —_-- 36 units, 18 DUA Alf,IAL .. S it 7w tow Mttpatt DevelopmeM requires post-devetopmtrit hydrutogy mimk preikvelopment hydrology. •p F Planning Commission - August2016 Additional" -• at Meeting V ..... _I _ Public Comments Banning Ranch f WOr �i� 1 aµ . . . . • d , iG. Planning Commission - August 18, 2016 Additional Materials Presented at Meeting .K: I've llb�- Public Comments 4 buOsq.ft ors 4 units each floor 250rtments Dwompfro tan klwtporate �,. , 48 units 16 DUA wow flow to improve Parking 12 level below gtatlu of surrounding native t. s W 1`iM St .. I y be interwoven with P Buadmg size.spacing and alignment allow for -Scenic views -Full sun exposure to maximize passive heating of all units to reduce energy consumption and need for artificial Ight,ng during daylight hours -Native hatatat and water Gov.through