After yet another eight-hour day of deliberations on the subject, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission approved Orange County developer Matt Osgood’s controversial vision for the historic Naples property at the easternmost gateway of the Gaviota Coast. With a 4-1 vote (2nd District commissioner Cecilia Brown the lone dissenter) shortly after 6 p.m. on Wednesday, August 20, the commissioners gave the thumbs up to Osgood’s long-stewing plan to put 72 massive, multi-million dollar homes, an equestrian center, and dozens of assorted other structures that stretch from the foothills north of Highway 101 to the coastal bluffs on the largely undeveloped Naples property.
Navigating various incarnations of his Naples development dream through the county approval process since 1999 and against an ever-growing wave of community resistance every step of the way, Osgood was a happy man on Thursday morning, with his plan now moving toward the Board of Supervisors for final approval later this fall. “We are not in the end zone or winning the World Series just yet” said Osgood, “but it feels good- really good.”
The Planning Commission’s final vote on the Naples project — which looks to spread the dozens of luxury homes throughout both Osgood’s property and the neighboring Dos Pueblos Ranch — was not expected to come until August 27. But the commission decided late last week, at the end of their August 13 hearing, to hold an extra meeting on the subject on August 20 in hopes of arriving at a decision sooner rather than later. After their eighth full-day Naples-centric hearing in less than four-months, the five-member board did just that.
While commissioners Joe Valencia, Daniel Blough, and C.J. Jackson (in whom’s district the project resides) all spoke glowingly of the plan before casting their final vote, it was the show of support from the 1st District’s Michael Cooney, who had been an outspoken critic of the project for much of the hearing process, that came as the biggest surprise. Because an antiquated though legal Naples map identifies more than 200 lots on the property allowed Osgood to threaten selling off individual properties whenever he didn’t get his way, Cooney explained, “We didn't have the choice of denying this project altogether because of the hand we were dealt.” Commissioner Jackson, however, said that he would have supported the McMansion-ization of Naples even if the nearly 100-year-old map and a related memorandum of understanding with the county didn’t exist.
Additionally, prior to approving the project, the commission — in a gesture that Naples Coalition lawyer Marc Chytilo called “absolutely crippling” — voted 3-2 to recommend that Osgood be allowed to build his project in phases. That will allows the building of the roughly 50 inland mansions to commence even if the highly controversial bluff-top homes get held up at the California Coastal Commission, the state agency that has final say over all seaside development with the state’s Coastal Zone.
Both Chytilo and Environmental Defense Center lawyer Nathan Alley, who is representing the Surfrider Foundation in the fight against Naples development, expressed surprise in the wake of the hearing. But they seemed more shocked by the fact that a final vote was taken this week when all signs were pointing to an August 27 decision. “I can’t say it was unexpected” explained Alley of the approval. “But the final hearing was supposed to be next week. I think this was just the latest in a long line of decisions by a commission that is trying to get this done sooner than later.”
Paul Wellman
Santa Barbara Planning Commission L to R Cecilia Brown, Daniel Blough, C.J. Jackson, C. Michael Cooney, Joe H. Valencia
Chytilo concurred, admitting on Thursday that he was “still reeling from the debacle.” It should also be noted, despite the undeniable significance of Wednesday’s hearing, most major news agencies were not in attendance and neither were the standing–room-only crowds of public speakers that have come to be the calling card of most Naples hearings — especially those where actual votes are being taken.
The final step for Osgood is scheduled to come on October 7 in what is sure to be a long and emotional day at the county Board of Supervisors’ hearing. Despite the surprising defeat this week, Alley already has his eyes on the historic hearing six weeks away. “Regardless of the Planning Commission’s recommendations,” he explained, “the Board of Supervisors will be an entirely new opportunity. This is far from over.”
Related Links
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This


Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Well we know how Firestone and the North Co. Supes are going to vote so I don't know why Alley thinks things will be any different. How much influence does Cooney have, one of the County's smartest lawyers, on Salud and will it make a difference if this comes back after the Coastal Comm. or litigation, and Farr is on the Board. Once again land use comes down to politics and that is ultimately sad.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope the County stupidvisors also reguire Osbad to build large concrete blocks of affordable housing in "Naples" for all the gardeners, maids, cooks, nannys and personal assistents the trust fund babies, Wall street crooks, mafia and exchange rate rich foreigners will need to enjoy the fruits of their mostly undeserved wealth. We also should put a trash dump next to them for all the waste these uber-consumer will create. A miniture nuclear powerplant will probably be required to light the homes and maybe a canal should be dug right into the Sierras so that the privleded will have plenty of water for all those acres of landscaping they'll put in. One only has to look at Montecito water consumption to figure that one out..
I guess the upside is that the county will be able to afford fat raises and more vote getting "entitlements" handouts for the lazy. Time for me to get back to work as I feel a big tax bill coming...
sa1 (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The retail value of this project may reach $500 million unless the market for these low end mansions collapses. That would produce about 5 million in new taxes. Not really that much in light of the financial storm the County is facing with housing values dropping to who knows where. But the threat of existing lawsuits is much more of an incentive for the County to roll over. The reality is that under Firestone the Board has gutted Planning and Development to the point that only a few good people remain. Most are hacks, bottom feeders who eat off that which sinks down from the fat sharks at the top of the Administration.
gaviotamilitia (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"water,water, everywhere and not a drop to drink"
lordleadbetter (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
how come the planning commission decison was moved from what was previously scheduled (next week) without public notice?...sly
osum21 (anonymous profile)
August 22, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Two comments for Sa1: There will be no fat raises for County employees, as a matter of fact, the whole county staff has been furloughed, meaning, that t not only are they getting NO raises, but they are losing part of their paychecks.
Second, how do you know that the wealth of the future Naples inhabitants is undeserved? Can we not just stick to facts, please?
CommonSense (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is now clear that politics trumps planning again. It is dismaying that the PC never publicly reviewed or understood many parts of this project, including project conditions provided by staff, and approved the project based on terms of a development agreement released only 2 days before the hearing.
Ethan referenced my comment on the PC's 3-2 action to endorse separating the inland part of the project from the coastal part, the latter being subject to the Coastal
Commission's review. Up to now, the MOU and County planners have held that the project should be processed as a whole, not allowing the inland development to start first, as the developer has requested. The Alt.1B project must be viewed as a package, and the PC's recommendation allows piecemealing of the project and likely future costs and consequences to the County.
This is different from simple construction phasing, where the project may be constructed a bit at a time, rather than all at once. Construction phasing may indeed be appropriate, but as always, the devil's in the details. Lets hope the public gets an opportunity to see these critical documents with enough time to know what they mean.
Keep posted on Naples and how the public can be involved by visiting www.GaviotaAction.org.
Marc_Chytilo (Marc Chytilo)
September 1, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think 6 years is long enough to review docs. Stall, Stall, Stall, especially when there are no grounds to stop project. Insulting Mr. Osgood for taking this from 233 legal lots to 65??? Wow. I think the only thing that would satisify some here are for the land to be gifted to them.
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
September 16, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment