Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceDespite approving a plan late last year to put dozens of large-scale luxury homes along the eastern edge of the Gaviota Coast, the new incarnation of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted in closed session this week to revisit the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the county and hopeful Naples developer Matt Osgood. Such a reconsideration of the matter could potentially derail the project.
Music to the ears of activists and environmentalists, the 3-2 vote was anything but for Osgood. Clearly irked and somewhat caught off guard by the outcome, Osgood explained in the wake of the vote, “Obviously I am less than thrilled on this one : I just think it is a poor way to conduct business. I am not exactly sure what it means, but it is, at best, something that is potentially shameful.”
Paul Wellman
Orange County developer Matt Osgood-either a visionary or a conqueror, depending on one’s take on the Naples issue.
Back in early October, despite numerous cries of objection from the public and the various legal forces fighting against Osgood’s development dream for Naples, the supervisors - with Brooks Firestone in the 3rd District seat - decided to amend the longstanding MOU between Osgood and the county in such a way that the inland portions of the plan would be allowed to move forward even if the coastal portions were to get hung up while running the approval gauntlet at the California Coastal Commission. While Osgood’s camp maintained that the splitting of the project into two parts was in the cards all along, those opposed the development considered this twist a major and potentially illegal blow to their efforts.
Paul Wellman
Marc Chytilo
To that end, both attorney Marc Chytilo representing the Naples Coalition and the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation cried foul and accused the supes of violating the Brown Act. It was fear of this potential lawsuit that prompted the current board - with new 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr, an outspoken critic of the current Naples vision during her candidacy, now in place - to revisit the debate in closed session and, ultimately, decide to bring it back to the board for a more public dissection during the latter half of February.
Upset and hinting that Tuesday’s development could be a harbinger of a breakdown in what he characterized as historically “courteous” dealings with the county, Osgood cryptically predicted that “there is going to be a very interesting day coming up here before long.” In that regard, it should be noted that the MOU, when originally conceived several years ago, provided an end to years of legal bickering and potentially multimillion dollar lawsuits against the county by Osgood and prior owners of the Naples property.
For their part, both the EDC and Chytilo were enthusiastic about the vote. “It certainly vindicates some of the concerns we had last November about the entire approval process,” explained Chytilo, who then added, “I think it is the chickens coming home to roost for the haste and bad decisions the county and the applicant made last fall.”
Previous Month
Comments
If the county had been playing fair and square and following the rule of law Mr. Osgood would have a clearer view of what he can and cannot do. Instead the county, thanks to Mr. Firestone and to a lesser extent Supervisors Gray and Centeno, have rushed to bend over backwards, in violation of the law, to push this project forward with unseemly haste. EDC / Surfrider and the Naples Coalition have done nothing more, nor can do anything more than demand that the county's own policies, rules and regulations be followed. The issue at hand here was a sneaky back room deal that gave the developer more than was ever agreed to, either under threat of lawsuit or due to the 3 previous North County Supervisors infatuation with all things development. The political tide has now turned and the current board majority believes in the rule of law and supports the community's desire to preserve and protect the Gaviota coast and especially Naples.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2009 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ditto to Mr. Noletaman's comments!
Way to go, Supervisors. Nice to see a more measured, less "generous," approach to the whole issue.
mangomamma (anonymous profile)
February 2, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The only thing this has avheived is instead of 16 lots, you now have 50 on the south side of 101. I would have preferred 16. Smart move. It will be fun watching the county spend 100 million of tax payers dollars to try and overturn a California Supreme Court decision in the US Supreme Court, especially since the US Supreme court beleives in personal property rights. In addition, SBR project creates new jobs. Oh thats right, the haters are against new jobs, and a good economy. They had a similar experment in eastern europe. The guys name was Lenin, and the country was UNION SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. Never read about somany people in one county that dislike The American Way. Lets See Now, HMMMM, You beleive in freedom of speech, but you are against personal property rights, unless its yours?????WOW
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
February 9, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)