Coastal Commission staff calls for big cut in Banning Ranch building plan to help protect owl habitat
California Coastal Commission staff wrote in a report released Friday that for it to recommend approval of the hotly debated Banning Ranch development proposal, the project’s footprint needs to be scaled back to about a third of the current plan.
Newport Banning Ranch LLC has proposed building 895 homes, a 75-room hotel, a 20-bed hostel and 45,100 square feet of retail space on about 62 acres of the 401-acre Newport Beach coastal spread. Most of the rest, about 329 acres, would be preserved as natural open space with public trails, plans show.
However, Coastal Commission staff members wrote that they only would sign off on development of about 19.7 acres that fall outside of areas they have identified as environmentally sensitive habitat.
Sam Singer, a spokesman for the project, said the development team is reviewing the report to determine whether the project is viable, given the staff’s recommendation.
“At first glance, we are deeply concerned and disappointed that the staff report doesn’t appear to reflect the discussions or agreements we’ve made with Coastal Commission staff over the last year,” Singer said.
He said the recommendation eliminates many of “the benefits that would open and clean up the property and provide access to the California coastline.”
The project is expected to go before the 12-member Coastal Commission for consideration Sept. 7 in Newport Beach. Singer said Friday that Newport Banning Ranch intends to present its project at that time.
In May, staff identified about 55 acres of the site as having potential for development. The reduction in the recommended buildable area boils down to a foraging area for the burrowing owl, which has been present at Banning Ranch for decades.
Staff in May determined that the owl’s wintering burrows on the site were an environmentally sensitive habitat area and assigned a buffer to it. However, staff did not identify the owl’s separate foraging habitat as a protected area, which was scrutinized by biologists who noted that without protecting the foraging space, protecting the burrow habitat was basically pointless, according to the staff report.
“Thus, even with their burrow habitat protected and designated ESHA, there would be no food source and the owls would be extirpated from the site and from the region,” staff wrote. “As such, the ESHA determination has been revised to reflect that the grasslands of the site rise to the level of ESHA because of the special role they serve as valuable habitat for the sensitive owl species.”
Staff also is recommending conditions to eliminate a proposed thoroughfare known as Bluff Road, which would run through the property to connect West Coast Highway with 17th Street.
Staff noted that the plan for Bluff Road tries to minimize effects on two arroyos on the property but still would have a direct impact on wetland habitat and other sensitive areas.
Staff wrote the project instead could be supported by existing roads around the site.
The report is the latest development in a back-and-forth relationship between Newport Banning Ranch and the Coastal Commission.
The developer originally proposed 1,375 homes, 75,000 square feet of retail space, a hostel and several parks on about 95 acres. That plan was approved by the Newport Beach City Council in 2012.
But after an eight-hour hearing last October, the commission, which has final say over development along California’s coast, sent Newport Banning Ranch back to the drawing board to make significant cuts to the project’s footprint and scope.
Commissioners and staff suggested at the time that they likely would favor “less intense” development. They also cited merits of the project, including opening the land for public use and condensing oil operations that have long occupied the site.
In May, staff recommended approval of the development with a series of conditions to further reduce its footprint, but the developer opted to postpone a hearing before the commission, saying some issues remained unresolved and that it needed more time to review the staff’s proposal.
