In what was music to the ears of opponents to Matt Osgood’s Naples development dream, the Santa Barbara County supervisors voted 3-0 this week — boardmembers Joni Grey and Joe Centeno abstained — to further delay the permitting process for the controversial 71-mansion plan. “Obviously, we are very pleased with what happened today,” explained Environmental Defense Center attorney Nathan Alley.
Despite a previous approval of Osgood’s plan by a different incarnation of the board last fall, the project has been in limbo for the past six months while legal teams for the county, the developer, and the preservationists argue over what comes next. The debate has seen Osgood’s camp threaten legal action and terminate a long-standing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the county stemming from a dispute over whether the inland portions of the project are linked to the coastal regions. Paramount because the California Coastal Commission must approve all coastal regions of the project, separating the project in two is something Osgood and his legal team have banked on. It means he can build non-coastal houses while the ocean-side lots run the gauntlet. Opponents of the project, however, say the physical links between the areas of the development such as water treatment infrastructure and the nuances of existing Williams Act land transferring into an agricultural conservation easement are too obvious to ignore.
Tuesday’s vote directed county staff to return later this summer with a better explanation of what a terminated MOU means for the various conditions of approval and land use permits approved last fall. Until the supervisors get that information, they will not send Notices of Final Action to the Coastal Commission, a procedural requirement that kicks off the state approval process. “I just don’t know how staff could go forward to the Coastal Commission right now,” opined 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr. “We really don’t even know what [type of project] we are looking at here, now.”
The matter is scheduled to return to the board on August 18.
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
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
When is a deal not a deal? When it's made with the SB County BoS.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When it's made by a lame duck land owning developer supervisor and his two over the mountain lackeys against the wishes of the people most affected by their decision and who won't stand for it?
I'm just guessin'
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
sa1 (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe he should have built a golf course first named Osgood's Hole.
Or maybe he could put in sheep, cattle and Avo trees and call it Checkmate Farms...
(I know, I got a million of em...)
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
sa1 (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The people most affected"? How about the owner of the land? Only in lala land do people think they own other people's property.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 26, 2009 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Be careful what you wish for. Invalidating the MOU was the developer's decision -- one his team will likely regret if and when this project ever limps in for genuinely rigorous review by the Coastal Commission -- which will put the slouchy pavement friendly SB Co. process to shame.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
4Oceans (anonymous profile)
June 26, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
71 new homes...maybe a few more dozen here and there, and voila!...Newport Beach!
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
sixdolphins (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2009 at 1:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical of the local alarmist rhetoric, sixdolphins. Have you actually been to Newport Beach? If so, you would know that it has rank upon rank of tightly packed homes climbing up the hillsides, numbering in the thousands, not '71 plus a few dozen'. Better to go for the relatively tiny number and thereby PREVENT the Newport Beach effect (duh). And, gee, also throw a bone to private property rights, although I would guess that would pain you greatly.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Osgood gambled not only when he relied on the rush-job decision of the lame-duck board but even more so when he shot off the letter to the county pulling out of the MOU.
risky moves by all involved....
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
sbsleuth99 (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment