Central Coast homeowners blocked access to trail. Now case could go to state Supreme Court

Attorneys for four Montecito homeowners who sued the county over Hot Springs trailhead parking want to take the case to the California Supreme Court after an appellate court sided with Santa Barbara County.

The California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled last week that the county could remove unpermitted encroachments in the public right of way along a portion of East Mountain Drive.

“We are thankful that the Court of Appeal recognized the legal authority of a California Road Commissioner to protect all the public who utilize the road rights-of-way within the county of Santa Barbara,” said Scott McGolpin, Santa Barbara County Public Works director and county road commissioner.

The conflict emerged after the county sent letters to three property owners, ordering them to remove any unpermitted “obstructions” in front of their homes in the right-of-way on East Mountain Drive, threatening them with fines if they didn’t comply. That includes boulders, landscaping and a bank of mailboxes, according to the county.

Montecito residents Christopher Anderson, Ross Bagdasarian, Peter Barker and James Moreley filed a petition to stop the county from pursuing its Hot Springs Trailhead Parking Design & Construction Project, citing environmental and evacuation concerns with the increased traffic.

The county, however, contended that private homeowners deliberately blocked public access to the Hot Springs Trail by placing boulders, walls, landscaping, illegal “No Parking” signs and other unpermitted private encroachments in the county road rights-of-way that otherwise would be available for parking.

The homeowners alleged in court that the county must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and perform an environmental review for its proposed parking project near the trailhead.

Two lower courts agreed, but the Second Appellate District Court on July 19 ruled that the county roads commissioner, McGolpin, has the legal right to move forward and remove the encroachments.

David Cousineau, an attorney for the homeowners, said the dispute is not resolved.

“While two veteran trial judges found that the county cannot so easily ignore CEQA, the appeals court disagreed,” Cousineau said. “We still believe the trial judges got it right. While the Court of Appeals is a higher court, they are not the last word. We intend to seek review in the California Supreme Court and ask them to get it right. The environmental laws are too important to carve out such a broad exception.”

The Appellate Court, Second Appellate District, agreed with the county.

“We conclude the trial court abused its discretion when it found County had no legitimate interest in enforcing the laws against encroachments and that respondents would be irreparably harmed by complying with those laws,” the appellate court judges wrote in the opinion.

“The record includes substantial evidence that encroachments in the public right of way present both fire safety risks and public safety risks to motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.”

The appellate court judges on the case’s opinion documents include Kenneth Yegan, Arthur Gilbert and Hernaldo Baltodano.

“We conclude the trial court erred because respondents are not correct on the merits of their CEQA claim and will not be irreparably harmed by removal of encroachments installed without permits in the public right of way of an existing road,” they wrote.

“Respondents will suffer no irreparable harm because ‘a party suffers no grave or irreparable harm by being prohibited from violating the law,’” they wrote, citing other legal cases.

A Superior Court order from Judge Donna Geck granting a preliminary injunction against the county is reversed, the appellate court decided.

Noozhawk staff writer Joshua Molina can be reached at jmolina@noozhawk.com .