Community urges preservation as district outlines RFP options for 11‑acre Banning Ranch parcel

The Newport‑Mesa Unified School District presented a review of competing proposals Wednesday for an 11‑acre surplus parcel at 16th Street, while dozens of residents urged the board to preserve the land rather than approve housing development.

Assistant Superintendent Dixon told the board the district issued a request for proposals after a surplus‑property committee recommended declaring the site surplus. “We received six lease proposals, and one proposal for purchase,” Dixon said, explaining the purchase offer from the Coastal Corridor Alliance was deemed nonresponsive because the RFP sought a ground‑lease response. Dixon also said the nonresponsive purchase offer was in the realm of $2,000,000 for the site.

In a string of public comments, speakers urged the board to prioritize conservation. Terry Welsh, president of the Coastal Corridor Alliance, asked the board to pause the current proposals and consider her group’s offer to acquire the parcel for permanent protection: “Please consider our offer before you to purchase a property for conservation,” she said. Other speakers cited endangered species and habitat loss, with teacher Shana Breslow saying the parcel supports “fragile native plants and animals” and urging preservation for environmental education.

Supporters of conservation pressed several practical points the board will consider in later deliberations: potential limits from the Coastal Commission and endangered‑species protections, the parcel’s adjacency to the Randall Preserve, and long‑term loss of habitat if development proceeds. David Tanner, a retired land‑use and environmental consultant, recommended staff assess litigation risk, infrastructure needs and permit feasibility before the board chooses among proposals.

District staff summarized proposal scenarios in nonbinding terms, noting the range of unit counts and heights varied by respondent. Dixon said some respondents proposed workforce‑housing mixes (in some scenarios up to roughly 35 percent workforce units), while others proposed more market‑rate product or for‑sale components. He warned the financial estimates are preliminary and will depend on entitlements: the district modeled potential revenue for early years under a 99‑year ground lease but characterized those as estimates tied to scenario assumptions.

Board members asked technical questions about how workforce and affordable percentages would be counted and how the proposals would be compared. Trustee Crane pressed whether the affordable and workforce percentages should be additive; staff replied the numbers reflected scenario options rather than a single required mix.

Dixon emphasized there was no action on the item Wednesday: the RFP presentation is an informational step required by the State Board of Education and any selection of a most‑desirable proposal would follow the statutory posting period and a future open‑session action. He said the board could take the next action in March if it chooses to proceed with a preferred proposer.

What’s next: The board may publicly state a most‑desirable proposal in an open meeting during the required review period, then direct staff to draft ground‑lease documents and return with them for approval in a subsequent meeting. Until then, staff and the public will continue to weigh environmental constraints, entitlement risk, community access and workforce‑housing objectives.

Provenance: District presentation and Q&A on RFP and lease proposals (SEG 2060–SEG 2227; SEG 2228–SEG 2460). Public comments urging preservation (SEG 1724–SEG 2055).