The County of Santa Barbara faces a legal challenge over its decision to open the Live Oak Trail to hikers and bikers, as detailed in a complaint filed by Suzanne Duca and other plaintiffs. The case was filed in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County on January 2021, against the County of Santa Barbara.
The plaintiffs argue that the County's approval process for the multi-use trail management plan violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, they claim that the County failed to make a Notice of Exemption (NOE) publicly available, thereby rendering their petition timely under CEQA’s 180-day statute of limitations rather than the shorter 35-day period. According to court documents, "the trial court issued a writ of mandate directing the County to set aside its approval of the project and suspend all activity on the trail other than horseback riding until full compliance with CEQA is achieved."
The controversy began when Santa Barbara County announced in January 2021 that it would open Live Oak Trail to hikers and mountain bikers. This trail had been reserved exclusively for equestrians since the late 1980s. On January 12, 2021, amidst COVID-19 restrictions, which closed public counters and limited public access to government buildings, the County posted an NOE for this project. However, during this period, members of the public were not adequately informed about how they could access these notices.
Angelica Ramirez, a deputy clerk responsible for filing NOEs during this time, testified that notices were posted on a clipboard in a lobby accessible only by appointment due to pandemic restrictions. Despite staff being present to allow entry upon request, there were no signs or online information indicating that these notices were available for review inside the building.
In July 2021, after discovering these procedural lapses, Duca and her co-petitioners filed their lawsuit. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that "the project to open Live Oak Trail to hikers and bikers is not categorically exempt from CEQA review because there is a fair argument that it might have a significant impact on the environment." Consequently, it issued an amended writ of mandate requiring Santa Barbara County to halt all non-equestrian activities on Live Oak Trail until proper environmental reviews are conducted.
Santa Barbara County appealed this decision on two grounds: first arguing that the petition was untimely based on their interpretation of CEQA’s statute of limitations; second contending that mandating compliance with NEPA exceeded judicial authority. The appellate court upheld parts of the trial court's ruling but agreed with Santa Barbara County that some mandates exceeded statutory authority under section 21168.9 subdivision (c), specifically those requiring compliance with NEPA and overly prescriptive measures for restoring equestrian-only access.
The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief affirming that any change in trail use must comply with CEQA and NEPA regulations before implementation. They also seek injunctive relief halting all non-equestrian activities until such compliance is verified.
Representing Suzanne Duca and other respondents are attorneys from Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck including Susan F. Petrovick, Matthew L. Hofer, and Paige E. Samblanet. The defendants are represented by Rachel Van Mullen from Santa Barbara’s County Counsel office along with Sr. Deputy Lina Somait and Callie Patton Kim. The case was heard by Judge Thomas P. Anderle under Case ID B3825999.