Judge rejects deal restricting public access to beach
SANTA BARBARA — In a major victory for coastal advocates, a Santa Barbara judge refused to approve a controversial deal that would have allowed access to Hollister Ranch’s coastline only to landowners, their guests, visitors with guides, and those who could boat or paddle in from two miles away.
The settlement agreement, struck between the ranch and coastal officials behind closed doors, sparked public outrage last year after the Los Angeles Times published the terms of the deal. The outcry became a flash point in the mounting pressure on state officials to ensure that California’s beaches are open to everyone — not just to those fortunate enough to own oceanfront property.
Hundreds of people have since lambasted the deal, calling on officials to fight harder against the ranch to open some of California’s most coveted beaches and surf breaks — still behind private gates after decades of legal battles and stalemates.
The backlash culminated in a coalition of advocates challenging the deal in a court intervention — stepping in, they said, to speak up for the public where the state had faltered.
Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Colleen Sterne, in her ruling Friday, agreed that the public’s interest was not fully represented, acknowledging the “substantial opposition on behalf of the absent but affected public interest.”
“Plaintiffs (Hollister Ranch) have not met their burden to show that the Class Settlement is fair and reasonable,” she said. “The motion for final approval of the Class Settlement will therefore be denied without prejudice.”
Sterne, in her careful ruling, also did not outright reject the settlement. Citing the unusual situation with the public intervention, she instead established a legal path forward for advocates to make the case that the deal should be thrown out completely. Next steps include suing the state for failing to include a public process prior to making this deal with Hollister.
The coalition, the Gaviota Coastal Trail Alliance, celebrated the ruling this weekend and said it was a step forward in an almost 40-year battle that has pitted beachgoers against ranch owners, who have long contended that unfettered access would undo years of careful work to protect the land.
“Hollister threw everything that they could at the last hearing, and they did not prevail,” Susan Jordan of the California Coastal Protection Network said. “Now we can move forward and restate all the ways that we think this settlement is a bad deal for the public — and frankly, illegal.”
Beth Collins, one of the attorneys representing Hollister Ranch, declined to comment on the ruling, deferring to the judicial process while the litigation is ongoing.
During her arguments in a packed courtroom last month, Collins made the case for closing this legal battle, and questioned whether the advocates could represent the general public more than state agencies like the California Coastal Commission and State Coastal Conservancy.
“This has been a long, expensive, contentious and hardfought litigation,” Collins said. “The opinion of one special interest group simply cannot undermine … final approval.”
In a statement, Coastal Conservancy Executive Director Sam Schuchat said: “We appreciate the Judge’s thoughtful approach in this case. Throughout this process, the Conservancy has sought the best outcome for the people of California, both in terms of public access and balancing the risks and costs of continued litigation. If, through this ruling, the court believes the outcome of the case could be more favorable to the public, we are happy to pursue that.”
“Whatever the outcome of the lawsuit,” he added, “the Conservancy and the Commission are committed to working to develop broader public access to Hollister Ranch.”
With the settlement back in limbo, there are now two separate but high-profile efforts under way to open Hollister’s coastline to the general public. The state, in response to the public backlash, has in recent months teamed up its agencies to follow through on a broader access program to the ranch’s 8.5 miles of coastline.
Fighting for access on both fronts, advocates say, is not only strategic but also a matter of principle.
In court, the battle centers on a decades-old dispute over a rugged road that the YMCA had offered in 1982 as a public access way — as a condition of approval for a recreation center.
Ranch owners successfully sued in 1982 to halt the YMCA’s construction and obtained the property as the result of a settlement. Attorneys since have argued that the proposed access way should be canceled because the YMCA never had the authority to grant it to the state.
In the deal last year, officials agreed to give up any claim to this public route.
In return, the public was granted a roughly three-quarter-mile section of beach, accessible only by ocean “via surfboard, paddleboard, kayak or soft-bottom boat.” The beach is about two miles from Gaviota State Park beach.
Landowners also agreed to expand the Hollister Ranch Managed Access Program. This includes inviting disabled veterans and other underserved groups on guided trips, and providing at least 24 opportunities a year for K-12 groups of at least 20 students to learn about tide pools and marine ecosystems.
These programs would have been funded by Coastal Conservancy money, according to the settlement terms. Critics said this was an insult to the original intent of public access and further hampered the state’s ability to fight for more access in the future.
The public backlash over this deal was fierce. Hundreds of beachgoers emailed the state, worried that coastal officials were giving up the access fight at Hollister in favor of landowners.
Officials in response had said that after so many years of dispute, the deal at least would have provided the first opening of any public access at the ranch.
The route itself also involves walking through a drainage tunnel that opens into a steep and sudden drop, depending on the amount of sand. Making this trail safe for the general public, officials said, would be challenging and costly.
Jamee Jordan Patterson, deputy state attorney general representing the Coastal Commission and Conservancy, said that they did not drop the ball on fighting for access.
“Public access is their job. They’re not pushovers,” Patterson said in a packed courtroom last month. “Do we want more access out there? Yes … Is this the right way to get it? My clients don’t think so. There are other avenues that could be pursued.”
Some at Hollister have also expressed their desire to end this specific court battle, acknowledging that other efforts are now under way to establish access to the ranch’s coastline that they hope will balance environmental protection, property rights and public access.
Dozens of owners and ranch supporters, in detailed emails and public testimonies, have pleaded their case to the commission. They point to the temporary access they already grant to scientists, academics, historical societies, environmental groups and schoolchildren, and question how someone unfamiliar with the rugged terrain could safely navigate the steep canyons, unpaved roads and high tides without cell service.
Public anger over the settlement pushed officials last year to dig through old records and uncover other ways to obtain access at the ranch. Their latest strategy now relies on updating a ranch-wide access program that the state had adopted in 1982 after a complicated legislative history that had faded from institutional memory.
The program includes a walking trail and bicycle lane that would run parallel to the ranch’s main private road. To minimize the number of cars, a van would operate from nearby Gaviota State Park to six Hollister beaches, where there would be picnic areas and bathrooms.
The Coastal Commission, along with the Coastal Conservancy, the State Lands Commission and State Parks, are now working quickly to update the plan.