Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!The debate over the fate of Naples was not meant to begin until next week at the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. But after the results of a semi-secret, closed-door supervisor session on the subject were read into the record Tuesday morning, the fireworks began in earnest several days ahead of schedule.
Outraged by the supervisors' decision this week — via the standard-issue three North County to two South Coast votes — to amend the language of a longstanding agreement betwixt the county and hopeful Naples conqueror Matt Osgood, opponents of the controversial plan to put 72 luxury homes at the easternmost gate of the Gaviota Coast blasted the supes for everything from bowing to developer demands and failed leadership to possible Brown Act violations and willingly undermining the approval process itself. Testifying before the board, the Environmental Defense Center's Brian Trautwein summed up Tuesday's unexpected twist: "The vote this morning represents nothing less than a transparent effort to give away the scenic bluffs at Naples to a developer from Orange County."
Paul Wellman
Matt Osgood
The agreement was first hatched in 2002, when the county — looking to put an end to years of Naples-related litigation, including a state Supreme Court ruling validating the 233 legal lots drawn on an 1888 map —entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Osgood, who acquired the Naples property in 1997. That MOU promised to stop the legal bickering in exchange for the county's agreement to fairly consider 54 mansions on the property's 485 acres. In the years since, the MOU has been tweaked to contemplate a hybrid plan that involves the neighboring Dos Pueblos Ranch and features 72 large-scale luxury homes spread over about 4,000 acres, plus public beach access trails and 2,600 acres of preserved open space.
That 72-home project is what received a publicly unpopular thumbs-up from the county's Planning Commission in August; it remains scheduled for final approval from the Board of Supervisors on October 13, the date that everyone thought the latest battle in the war over Naples would begin. But the first shots were fired this week when, at the request of Osgood, the board chose to meet behind closed doors on October 7 to revisit the language of the 2002 MOU and voted 3-2 to allow for phased construction of the project, a move that the Planning Commission also endorsed with a 3-2 vote. That vote was then announced in Tuesday's public session.
For the developer, this is a major victory, as it's long been speculated that the coastal portions of the project will face a decidedly uphill and lengthy battle when they come before the California Coastal Commission. If the project were not split into two, Osgood would have to wait for the 16 bluff-top homes to gain approval before he could break ground on the inland portions of the project, a delay that could potentially last years.
For the preservationists, the surprise attack doesn't just mean that some development might happen sooner. The real downside, according to attorneys representing the Naples Coalition and the Santa Barbara chapter of Surfrider, is that Tuesday's vote could jeopardize the public benefits, such as the access trails and agricultural easement.
Paul Wellman
Marc Chytilo
Discovering the county’s plans to tweak the MOU “by accident” during a California Public Records Act request, Naples Coalition lawyer Marc Chytilo sounded the alarm last week that a potentially damning development was afoot after he found a draft version of the now-official MOU changes. Done without public input or proper environmental review, the changes, in the opinion of Chytilo, create a major and potentially illegal situation that only gets incrementally worse when considered in light of the previously stated positions of the California Coastal Commission and the Schulte family, whose Dos Pueblos Ranch contains much of the modified Naples plan’s open space.
In a letter submitted to the Planning Commission, the Schultes said they reserved the right to back out of the project should the Coastal Commission or the county deny the proposed subdivisions on their property or ask them to provide coastal access or restore Dos Pueblos Creek. Add to this a letter submitted by Coastal Commission staff to the county in January detailing concerns about the lack of creek restoration and proposed subdivisions at Dos Pueblos, and you have the makings of a very messy situation. With Tuesday’s phased-development vote, Chytilo explained that the county could now see Osgood’s inland houses built, yet lose many mitigation measures promised in the original deal.
For his part, Osgood explained this week that his 2002 MOU did in fact include allowances for phased development and that he sought a revision simply as a point of "clarity" due to turnover at the County Counsel's office in the years since it was executed. "Absolutely it was part of the deal back then," said Osgood, "and it had to be part of the deal now. If I didn't get it, I would pull out [of the MOU] and Schulte would pull out too." As for speculation on the Coastal Commission's current stance on the project and the potential for it imploding the currently conceived Naples plan, Osgood downplayed the staff letter, saying he suspected it was the work of a "rogue employee" acting without consent and that he "sees no reason for Schulte to want to back out."
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.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
So, what is happening on the 13th, next Monday, when it was originally scheduled? Nothing? Apparently so if they've already allowed "phased construction" to proceed --- without any public input.
No wonder government is considered corrupt.
No wonder, too, they're rushing ahead with this, knowing that Firestone is a lame duck and there is not much chance of having a third vote.
It's totally outrageous ... and I speak as one who is not a part of the Naples coalition and has never participated, but only live here and love the unspoiled, somewhat unspoiled, coast.
at_large (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i'D LIKE TO FLUSH THIS OC DEVELOPER DOWN MY ELONGATED TOILET. HE'S JUST ANOTHER TOWBS WHO WRECKED GOLETA. GUESS HE FINISHED OFF OC SO HE'S UP HERE TO HELP US.
stevesurfing2002 (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2008 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This MOU is from 2002? And many of you are acting as if this just happened yesterday??? The developer is building less then half the buildable lots, and people want to flush him down the toilet. Have any of you ever bought a multi-million piece of land just so you can look at it??? Why not get rid of all developments, and live in Tee Pee's??? Oh, I see. You want to keep your houses. Has any of you donated your houses latey?? Oh, you like having a home. I guess you just dont like OC people. Has SB succeeded form the union recently? 233 legal lots down to 72??? Seems like the developer is giving up a lot of profit to try and appease people. Doesnt seem to do any good. People need to worry about their own lives, instead of destroying other peoples lives. This is America, and a free country. Be happy.
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a complex project and process. The facts are that the 2002 MOU required that if the inland area was rezoned, which it is, than final County approval should wait until the Coastal area approvals were final from the Coastal Commission. Yesterday the Supes deleted that requirement, and gave Osgood a green light to begin bulldozing the inland orchard as soon as County approvals are finalized. That is a huge change. And they did it in closed session with no notice to the public and no CEQA consideration whatsoever. Outrageous, cowardly, and probably illegal.
The County (but not the Coastal Commission) has recognized that Osgood has 213 lots, however no one contends they are all buildable, even Osgood. The County opines 82 may be buildable, Osgood says 125. So you should compare Osgood's 72 luxury mansions and guest houses to 82 (or 125), and you see its not such a major reduction.
Just about everyone can see why the Gaviota Coast is the wrong place to build a private gated subdivision. A robust TDR program could give Osgood his money and save Naples, but Osgood spurned the TDR program, and the Supervisors missed their chance to adopt a strong program, principally because Osgood objected. We'll see what the Coastal Commission says about that.
Gaviota is special because it isn't dominated by pink rooks, Osgood's project will be a blight on the landscape -- should it ever be built. Even with the Supes likely approval next Monday, this project faces many more hurdles.
Come to the Rally at noon on 10/13 in Sunken Garden, and tell the Supervisors that afternoon what you think about their actions. More information at www.GaviotaAction.org.
Marc_Chytilo (Marc Chytilo)
October 8, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rennergizer: great points.
Is it not crazy the entitlement mentality that is displayed by today's general public?
It is everywhere.
Kelp805 (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The opinions of Rennergizer and Kelp805 are the kind of attitude that has made Orange County what it is today. At some point there has got to be is a limit to growth and a protection of our last remaining ranch, agriculture and natural resources land. That is, unless you want Santa Barbara county to look like Orange County.
Sadly we are stuck in a constant state of defending the remaining land that OC developers are salivating to build upon. At least SB citizens are working to defend remaining land, however, unlike OC citizens.
sunnyday (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's be clear: "Entitlement" is wanting to build a dwelling for one's personal use on one of the last remaining undeveloped coastal areas and seal rookeries on the southern California Coast. Fighting to preserve those areas, even thought doing so would have no direct personal benefit, is the opposite of entitlement. Surfrider and other people fighting to "preserve" Naples mainly would like Osgood to build his houses on the north side of the freeway, or at the very least on the north side of the railroad tracks. This would allow Osgood to make money developing his property, but would leave the bluffs, which are too unsafe and erosion-prone to build on anyway, as preserved habitat for other species. I guess I've always been brought up to believe that we aren't "entitled" to use our property in ways that hurt others, and that we aren't "entitled" to pave over and withdraw from the earth until it collapses.
UCCU (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
... don't see how the CCC can lawfully object to the inland subdivision if it's out of the coastal zone.
It's up to the County to interpret or revise their MOU as they see fit. The developer can count to 3, and plainly sees that he's gotta move before Nov 4 changes the count after January 1.
A Brown Act challenge looks pretty ripe ... at least to this wingnut.
wingnut (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If people feel so strongly about keeping it undeveloped, why not buy it from him?
Hey I know, all of the affordable housing SB needs could be built in Gaviota, solving 2 problems at once!
Then we could find out if people are really objecting to the mansions or the idea of any housing at all.
Carpreader (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rennergizer is either Osgoods mom or sleeping with him. Osgood could give a $#%@#$ about anyone living in this county. It is all about the $$ for him. I have no beef with him building on the other side of the free way. Honestly, why doesn't UCSB or some one who has a vested interest in the natural resources of this area with all their resources buy it off him? Oooops, another pipe dream.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This property was first stolen form the Chumash. Then it was mapped out in a bogus development scam by some crazy and crooked East Coast Developer. Now it is the get rich scheme of an Orange County developer who has himself been in trouble with the law on several occasions for shady practices but who has the support of Joni Gray, Brooks Firestone and Joe Centeno whose religion it appears is private property rights always take precedence over the public good. Neither the Naples Coalition nor Surfrider Foundation, two close allies working together to reduce, not completely stop, this really massive project that is way out of scale for the area are attempting to prevent this developer from making a small fortune, just not a huge fortune. The community can still have a huge impact if it wants to. Time will tell if it wants to. I urge you all to go to www.gaviotaaction.org and find out how to stop the madness. Will greed win out over the environment? Its up to you people now.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen Noletaman, Amen!
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope we don't end up with a bunch of foundations and bull dozed orchards cuz Osgood runs out of financing and customers at the same time...Why else is he in such a hurry to start?
sa1 (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In addition to this project, does anyone want to join my cause, which is closing down Hope Ranch and converting it to a restored natural habitat? Gated communities and private beach access must be stopped and dismantled.
rc251 (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment