Commentary: Developer should instead clean up, preserve Banning Ranch

“Traffic and noise resulting from the proposed Banning Ranch development would exceed acceptable levels and the effects may be unavoidable.”

This is per the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on Banning Ranch. There has been much discussion on how to best develop (or not) Banning Ranch. Much of the discussions have focused on just part of the issues involved.

For instance, the developer focuses on how building the project will allow the area to be cleaned up, but the resulting extreme increase in traffic is never brought up in the same discussion. Some say the Conservancy will not compromise.

As someone who lives in the area, I would like to offer my observations.

The Project is Massive

The project was initially set to be 1,375 homes on 412 acres, along with commercial space and a hotel. It is since been cut down to 895 homes.

Originally, the car trips per day would have been close to 15,000 more but with the lower amount of homes, the extra traffic per day will still be almost 10,000 more.

To put this in perspective, other recent projects in Orange County resulted in much less density. Bolsa Chica has 349 homes on 2,000 acres, and Newport Coast has 635 homes on 980 acres.

Compromise

I have read that there should be more compromise on the part of the people that oppose the development. Compromise is fine as long as it is really a compromise.

Using the same proportion of homes to acres as in recent projects, the size of Banning Ranch should be somewhere between 70 and 268 homes on 412 acres. If we talk about that size, both sides may be able to agree.

Traffic and Pollution

The topic of traffic is addressed heavily in the EIR. Yet the developer never brings it up in the hyped-up ads or commentaries.

Most of the traffic will come through Costa Mesa, which will bear the brunt of the cost for necessary road improvements, while Newport will receive all the benefits (developer fees, taxes, etc.). Per the EIR, seven intersections will be negatively impacted in Costa Mesa and one in Newport. Most of this traffic trying to get on the 55 Freeway, which most of us travel often.

The building of the project, estimated to last 10 years, will itself cause pollution and severely impact the community near the project.

Clean Up and Access

I do not accept that the only way to clean up the area and protect the species living there is to destroy a significant portion of it. The portion that is being built on is not the only damage. Roads and the autos that drive on them create significant pollution for nearby homes and wildlife.

This is the last remaining open space of this size on the Orange County coast. Why not save it from development? We all want more open space. What a grand goal to have Fairview Park, Talbert Nature Preserve and Banning Ranch combined to form one beautiful stretch of open land.

According to the LA Times, once oil production is stopped on a property, the owner is required to clean it up. Why not make the property owner clean up the pollution after making millions off the land? Why make the public or a developer, for that matter, pay to clean up the dangerous pollution?

Economics and Water

Some have tried to point out that building on Banning Ranch would increase the number of homes, thus the law of supply and demand would then bring down the cost of homes. This argument was put forth by someone from Irvine.

How many homes have been built in Irvine over the last 30 years? Have property values increased or decreased over the last 30 years in Irvine? Many factors go into property values; i.e., school quality, open space, crime.

Like it or not, we are in a drought that is likely continue. More water devoted to this development will only put more stress on resources and increase the cost we currently pay.

The current owner of Banning Ranch could enter into a conservation easement and save significant taxes.

The Coastal Commission meeting will be Sept. 7 at the Newport Beach Civic Center.

RON FRANKIEWICZ lives in Costa Mesa.