Crystal Cove building permits in question

Alex Coolman

CRYSTAL COVE -- An environmental group is pushing for changes to, and

a possible revocation of, the Irvine Co.’s Crystal Cove building permits

in the wake of modifications to the developer’s water discharge plans.

The League for Coastal Protection, in a Friday letter to the

California Coastal Commission, argued that the Irvine Co.’s project has

changed enough since it was approved that the existing permits are no

longer adequate.

“The [commission] staff [should] either process these substantial

changes as a new permit or an amendment to the existing permit,” wrote

Susan Jordan, who sits on the group’s board of directors.

The Irvine Co. said the group’s moves were jumping the gun.

“It is premature to determine what, if any, specific action the

Coastal Commission should take on this issue,” said Mike Stockstill, a

spokesman for the developer. “The Irvine Co. is continuing to work

closely with Coastal Commission staff to reach a resolution.”

Plans for a 635-home area of the Irvine Co.’s Crystal Cove development

were approved by the Coastal Commission in August.

Since that time, the developer has been trying to satisfy concerns

raised by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, which has

questioned the project’s discharges of water into the ocean at Crystal

Cove.

Last Tuesday, the water board released the draft text of a

cease-and-desist order that would require the Irvine Co. and three other

agencies to stop all direct discharges of water at the beach, which is

considered an area of “special biological significance.”

In response to this pressure and threatened litigation from Orange

County CoastKeeper, the Irvine Co. has been steadily revising its plans.

The developer sent a pair of letters earlier this month to the water

board, detailing proposed modifications to its runoff drainage system.

Instead of dumping water through a 24-inch pipe and a box culvert, the

letter stated that the Irvine Co. now plans to divert the water to “Muddy

Creek upstream of (Pacific Coast Highway).”

Other flows that would have gone almost directly onto the beach are

now planned to be diverted to “Los Trancos Creek upstream of PCH.”

Jordan said the changes -- regardless of their intent -- are creating

a project different from the one approved by the commission.

“While it’s important to get rid of those direct discharges, you still

have to analyze and look at where they’re putting all that flow and what

they’re doing with it,” she said. “Our position is you can’t issue the

permit because the facts have substantially changed.”

The League for Coastal Protection is also considering asking the

Coastal Commission to revoke the permit it issued in August, arguing that

the developer “may have included inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete

information” in the drainage plans it presented to the commission.

“We believe that had the Irvine Co. provided the appropriate and

accurate information to the commission, they would have potentially

denied the permit or made different special conditions on it,” Jordan

said.

Stockstill strongly disputed Jordan’s charges.

“All previous testimony provided to the commission by the Irvine Co.

and its consultants was thoroughly researched and completely accurate,”

he said.

Garry Brown, director of Orange County CoastKeeper, said his group’s

approach to the developer’s project differs from that of the League for

Coastal Protection.

At this point, Brown said, CoastKeeper is not pushing for revocation

of any permits.

“An action like that would be counterproductive to what we’re trying

to do,” he said. “We’re actively working with the Irvine Co. to settle

the whole issue.”