Crystal Cove Plan Is Faulted

The Irvine Co. on Thursday ran into another snag in its effort to build homes above Crystal Cove State Park--a recommendation from staff of a state environmental agency that the controversial project be denied a key permit.

In a new report, the staff of the California Coastal Commission recommended that the board next month deny a development permit for 635 homes in the project. Construction already has begun on a separate section of the project along Pacific Coast Highway.

Concerns centered on a detention basin that would be built in Muddy Canyon Creek. Added to plans to protect the environmentally sensitive beach and ocean from dirty storm water, the basin itself creates serious environmental problems, the staff report concluded.

Environmentalists, who have bitterly contested the project as a blight on the edge of one of Orange County’s most pristine beaches, cheered the recommendation. But Irvine Co. officials called it a minor detail when viewed in context of many changes the project has undergone over 34 years.

The issue is “one detention basin in one creek,” said Irvine Co. spokesman Paul Kranhold. But the recommendation shows, he acknowledged, “we obviously still have some work to do.”

The proposed project includes not only homes but open space and recreational facilities on about 980 acres above the state park between Laguna Beach and Corona del Mar. Development would involve massive grading and filling of the hills above Crystal Cove.

Environmentalists and state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have been particularly critical of how the project would handle urban runoff--water washing everyday chemicals from streets, lawns and sidewalks.

The developer’s original plans channeled runoff into Los Trancos and Muddy Canyon creeks, across the state beach and into the Pacific Ocean. Plans also included drainage construction in the state park, water pipes and a detention basin in federally protected wetlands, and a fire road through endangered grasslands.

Although Orange County approved a development permit earlier this year, Coastal Commission Chairwoman Sara Wan challenged it because of concerns about inconsistencies between the county permit and the area’s state-approved coastal plan.

The Coastal Commission voted in October to hold a hearing on the project, concluding there are “substantial issues” as to whether Orange County planning officials improperly approved Irvine Co.’s plans for handling runoff. The hearing and vote will take place at the commission’s next meeting, Jan. 11-14.

After the commission’s October vote, the Irvine Co. changed its runoff plan to divert summer flows into a sewer system, place filters in catch basins, use street-cleaning vacuum machines, install drainage basins and other measures. The company also reduced the width of the fire road and deleted references to grading within the state park in the county permit.

The developer also has proposed planting 1.6 acres of purple needle grass in the open space and creating three seasonal wetlands to compensate for environmental effects. And Kranhold notes that the county will eventually receive 7,500 acres of open space land from the Irvine Co. to compensate for construction of 2,600 homes along the Newport Coast.

But the Coastal Commission’s staff remained concerned by the placement of a detention basin in Muddy Canyon Creek, which is within a protected environmentally sensitive habitat area. The basin would hold runoff during periods of heavy rain to prevent a rush of water that could erode the beach and pollute sand and ocean with oils, fertilizer and other urban contamination.

The Newport Coast local coastal plan requires that all development be set back from sensitive habitat streams by 50 feet and that detention basins be within development areas or tributary drainages--not major streams. The Muddy Canyon detention basin would be located in the stream--which is in an environmentally sensitive area--and would cause the loss of 0.12 acres of wetlands.

Commission staff concluded the developer has not fully explored alternatives, such as redesigning the project.

Kranhold said the company’s plan comes as close as feasible to satisfying conflicting requirements in the coastal plan by balancing concerns about water quality, runoff and erosion. “We’re confident that when we present the plan directly to the commission, they will grant the permit.”

If not, however, the company would have to modify its plans to get the permit, necessary for construction of the 635 homes. The developer also needs approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill creek beds.

Environmentalists have fought the project for years, saying it has never received appropriate scrutiny in developer-friendly Orange County.

“We’ve been concerned from the very beginning that the scope of the project had not received a thorough level of environmental review,” said Susan Jordan, a board member with the League for Coastal Protection.

“The staff recommendation is a conservative and thoughtful one. Hopefully, the commission will view it this way. The real test will come at the public hearing.”