Mailbag: Shooting holes in support for Banning Ranch

I commend Parker Douglas, author of “Commentary: Do not allow misinformation to dampen Banning Ranch project” (Aug. 22), for reading the project’s environmental impact report before writing.

However, the EIR to which he refers may not be the last, or most accurate, word on water quality for the Newport Banning Ranch project. In fact, the EIR is the subject of a lawsuit by the Banning Ranch Conservancy against the city of Newport Beach.

The conservancy prevailed in the Superior Court of Orange County in January 2013. The city appealed the trial court’s decision, and the 4th District Court of Appeal reversed it in May 2015. The conservancy then appealed and cross appealed the appellate court’s decision to the California Supreme Court, and the high court has now agreed to hear the case.

This is the lawsuit that Douglas refers to in his piece as “frivolous.”

The EIR will be one of the major issues argued in this precedent-setting case. To consider the report inviolable, or even accurate, at this point is frivolous. The document has truly been the subject of legal argument all the way to the highest judicial body in the state.

Second, to fully understand the developer’s most current plans for mitigating the project’s water quality impacts, the document to read is the 2015 Oil Field Abandonment and Remedial Action Report, which unfortunately isn’t yet available online. Also, it’s important to read beyond just the water quality section of the EIR, looking at soils and geology and hazards and hazardous material to understand how the developer plans to “remediate” the site.

Newport Banning Ranch, the developer, says it will take $30 million to $60 million to clean up the site. It fails to mention that this is necessary because of plans to develop the land for residential/commercial use (1,375 homes, a resort hotel complex and 75,000-plus square feet of commercial space).

Cleanup for open-space use of the land is a natural process, supported by extensive science, that would cost a fraction of those numbers.

The remedial action report says the developer plans to stockpile some portion of the 2.5 million cubic feet of dirt on the site, but it’s not clear how much. The original plan was to truck this dirt away. An El Nino is being predicted for this fall. Consider the impact of stockpiles of contaminated dirt on the project’s runoff during that kind of deluge. And what about the Santa Ana winds? According to the RAP, the mitigation planned for fugitive dust is sprinkler trucks.

Finally, Douglas refers to the project’s opponents as “extremists” who want the taxpayers to fund the purchase of Banning Ranch. On what basis are opponents of a huge development that will have grave impacts on the environment and on residents considered extremists?

As for the funding, if Douglas is referring to the conservancy, all monies received toward acquisition have been from private donors and grants. There is no expectation that taxpayers will pay to purchase the land.

Suzanne Forster

Newport Beach