A sweetheart deal that permitted nearly 300 mobile home owners to maintain homes in a state park at the beach has reached a conclusion. In a lawsuit alleging that the state's proposal to convert the mobile home park to a public campground violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled against the mobile home owners.

The ruling means that the mobile home owners must remove the structures from Crystal Cove State Park in Orange County by the end of the year. Construction of the campground is scheduled for 2005.

Through donations and purchases, the Department of Parks and Recreation began acquiring what would become a 2,800-acre park from the Irvine Company in 1979. The property included the 287-unit El Morro Mobile Home Park, as well as 46 pre-World War II beach cottages. The mobile home park owners were eligible for relocation assistance, but they waived that right in exchange for 20-year leases with rent increases kept to the rate of inflation. Years later, the state agreed to extend the leases by five years, concluding in December 2004. Since the original leases were signed, about 90% of the mobile homes have changed ownership and most of them have become vacation homes.

The fate of the spectacular parkland - and the dwellings located therein - has been a sticky issue since the 1980s, as has ensuring public access. The state and beachgoers have repeatedly battled with renters of the cottages and mobile home owners, who erected “no trespassing” signs and otherwise discouraged beach use.

Seven years ago, the state signed a contract with developer Michael Freed to build a high-end resort at Crystal Cove historic district, where the cottages are located (seeCP&DR, October 1997). Environmentalists, historic preservation advocates and beach enthusiasts vigorously fought the resort plan, and eventually the state dropped it. Instead the state agreed to overhaul the cottages, from which the state evicted the last tenants in 2001 after years of contention. This year, the state began restoring the cottages for use as overnight rentals and other visitor accommodations.

The plan for the mobile home park site has been clearer for a long time. A plan for the park adopted by the state in 1982 discussed replacing the mobile home park with picnic, camping and other facilities for the public. In 2002, the Parks and Recreation Department circulated an environmental impact report for the transformation of the mobile home park. The state proposed removal of all mobile homes and accessory structures, replacement of a group septic system with a connection to a municipal sewer, and construction of a 60-site campground, a parking lot, two restroom buildings and three group picnic areas. The project also included natural restoration of Moro Creek and other areas.

In August 2002, Parks and Recreation Department Deputy Director Bill Berry Jr. signed a notice of determination certifying the EIR and approving the project. The mobile home owners' El Moro Community Association (EMCA) and a group called The Wise Use Front sued the state, alleging numerous violations of CEQA. Orange County Superior Court Judge Jonathan Cannon ruled for the state, and a three-judge panel of the Fourth District, Division Three, upheld the lower court.

First, EMCA argued that Berry could not certify the EIR because he was not a “decision-making body” within the definition of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The mobile home owners argued that the State Parks and Recreation Commission was the decision-making body.

The Fourth District, however, ruled that Berry was authorized to approve the EIR. Guidelines § 15356 define decision-making body as “any person or group of people within a public agency permitted by law to approve or disapprove the project at issue.” The Parks and Recreation Department is controlled by an executive officer, who is appointed by the governor. The appointed commission sets policies for the agency, “[b]ut it is the department that executes those polices, and the director, or his or her designee, is the person with the power to approve specific projects,” the court ruled.

The second major argument from EMCA concerned technical reports on which the EIR relied. The mobile home owners complained that the EIR failed to refer to the reports by title, author and date, instead listing them only by general subject matter. EMCA argued the state attempted to hide technical information from the public.

Again, the court disagreed. “Guidelines direct the lead agency to 'cite all documents used in its preparation …' (Guidelines § 15148). But they do not tell the lead agency how specific it must be in those citations other than to suggest using page and section numbers when possible. Here, the department disclosed the existence of all the technical reports, by subject matter,” Justice Kathleen O'Leary wrote for the court.

“Certainly, the department could have included more detail about the titles of the technical reports. But we simply cannot say the [draft] EIR failed to advise the public about the existence of this technical information or that the lack of specific titles constitutes a failure to comply with CEQA's procedural requirements. In fact EMCA and other members of the public were obviously alerted to the existence of the technical reports and obtained them from the department,” O'Leary continued.

The court dealt separately with EMCA complaints regarding a traffic study and a hydrology analysis. EMCA argued that Berry could not possibly have considered the 295-page traffic study, which was dated one day before he certified the EIR. But the court noted that all but 18 of the pages in the traffic study were data sheets, and that the study's figures were similar to traffic and pedestrian counts contained in the draft EIR. The hydrology study required by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board was unnecessary for the project because the study concerned a failing septic system that the state planned to remove, the court determined.

The court's ruling, along with the Coastal Commission's project approval in October, means the state may proceed with the project.

The Case:
El Moro Community Association v. California Department of Parks and Recreation, No. G032990, 04 C.D.O.S. 9038, 2004 DJDAR 12345. Filed October 4, 2004.
The Lawyers:
For EMCA: Nelson Brestoff, Moskowitz, Brestoff, Winston & Blinderman, (310) 785-0550.
For the state: Hayley Peterson, deputy attorney general, (619) 645-2540.