Anonymous
By the County of Santa Barbara
On July 19, 2023, the California Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the Santa Barbara County Superior Court could not prohibit the County Road Commissioner from enforcing the encroachment laws.
In 2022, the Santa Barbara County Road Commissioner posted notices to remove unpermitted road encroachments to property owners along East Mountain Drive, near the Hot Springs trailhead, in Montecito. Four private property owners on East Mountain Drive sued the County.
The preliminary injunction issued by the trial court in Anderson, et al. v. County of Santa Barbara, et al. supported the property owner’s argument that removing unlawful private encroachments from the public right of way requires environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The California State Association of Counties supported the County in an amicus brief, arguing that the Court of Appeal should reverse the preliminary injunction as a statewide matter of public safety because it decreased the ability of County Road Commissioners and Caltrans to enforce encroachment requirements quickly.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeal concluded that:
-
The Superior Court erred because the record contained no substantial evidence that the homeowners would be “irreparably harmed by removal of encroachments installed without permits in the public right of way of an existing road.”
-
“The County Road Commissioner is authorized by statute and local ordinance to remove any encroachment on a public right of way.”
-
“CEQA is not ‘a limitation or restriction on the power or authority of any public agency in the enforcement or administration of any provision of law which it is specifically permitted or required to enforce . . . .’ ”
-
The homeowners “will suffer no irreparable harm because ‘a party suffers no grave or irreparable harm by being prohibited from violating the law. . . .’ ”
County officials applauded the Court’s decision. First District Supervisor Das Williams said, “This decision is vital to every County’s ability to protect the public with road widths adequate for safety, pedestrian paths, and legal safe parking.”
Santa Barbara County Public Works Director and County Road Commissioner Scott McGolpin said, “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 right-of-ways within the County of Santa Barbara.”
Click on the following link to read the Court’s ruling: https://cosantabarbara.box.com/s/qfyxer2kxynuya9a2omp05tk63ei8rgn
For information on road encroachment permits, visit https://www.countyofsb.org/2061/Road-Encroachment-Permits.
These people bitch and moan about their property right. You can almost feel sorry for them, EXCEPT these public right of ways existed when they bought their properties. Suck it up.
I could not believe that the property owners prevailed at the first level. This seems like a no-brainer. You block public right of way and we remove it without pause. The trial court judge may have had some friends in Montecito is all I can think.
Yeah, I don’t get it. If “the property owner’s argument that removing unlawful private encroachments from the public right of way requires environmental review under CEQA,” doesn’t the original encroachment require review?!
Maybe we can now take back Channel Drive right of way that forces people to walk in the middle of the lanes along Butterfly Beach, only a matter of time before someone gets hit or clogs and a fire truck can not pass… A tourist got hit there a few years ago by a suspect fleeing police, it boggles my mind that not more folks have been hit by cars or bikes there.
Sorry. You were talking about lower Channel and I was talking about upper Channel
I thought the channel drive right of way went over the edge
“You block public right of way and we remove it without pause” which is exactly what the County did not do for the past 70 years and that pause is part of the problem. I own a property where a previous land owner deeded rights to the State of CA on one side and to the County of SB on the other back in the 1920’s. I still have rights in that easement as well as rights that the state and county cannot encroach upon. The improvements that were made in the easement that were left in place since the 1920’s would take quite a bit of legal work to overcome
Edney you represent the worst of the establishment. No sense of community. No sense of noblesse oblige even. Humpf….
This is great news!
Who is this Duhs Williams Guy?