Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!The Naples debate returned with vengeance at the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors this week. Confusion and legal bickering reigned supreme as the supes voted 3-1 to reverse a closed session decision made by the board last fall en route to their eventual approval of Matt Osgood’s 71 large-scale luxury home vision for the historic Gaviota Coast property. (Joe Centeno opposed; Joni Gray abstained, due to a self-admitted lack of understanding.)
While all parties involved were left wondering what exactly this week’s vote means for the fate of the project and a longstanding — though currently on-hold multimillion dollar lawsuit levied against the county by Osgood and Naples former owners, one thing is certain: Despite enjoying both development agreements and approvals from the county, Osgood’s plan is no closer to becoming a reality than it was five months ago. In fact, to hear opponents tell it, it might be even further away.
Paul Wellman (file)
In early October last year, the supervisors decided behind closed doors to separate the inland portions of the project from the coastal one, basically paving the way for houses out of the coastal zone to commence construction even if the bluff-top mansions get held up at the California Coastal Commission. The Environmental Defense Center cried foul over this decision, calling it a Brown Act violation and, in a closed session meeting last month, the new incarnation of the board voted to revisit the discussion.
This week’s vote basically says the October vote never happened, but the implications of this are very much up for debate. Included in the list of unknowns is whether inland and coastal projects are now linked or separate. The supervisors hope to explore the topic in early May once county staff has ample time to digest the situation.
Osgood, meanwhile, explained after the meeting that little has changed from his perspective and that he plans to move forward with his inland construction and his application process with the Coastal Commission to gain approval for the controversial 16 bluff-top homes. He hopes to break ground by 2010. When asked if he intended to be a part of a May meeting, Osgood laughed, “That is a great question. I am not sure what there is to talk about.”
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
Steve---don't insult Los Angeles. Osgood hails from the Orange County...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
sbsleuth99 (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2009 at 5:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well now were back to 200+ lots. I would bet the developer starts selling lots immediatly. There will be far more homes at SBR now. You always have to be careful what you wish for. No more beech access, That is for sure. More tax payers dollars spent on lawsuits. Super, Lets celebrate.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2009 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
200 small lots with reasonably scaled homes is better than 71 faux-estates. And, just because a developer asserts he has the right to do what he wants doesn't necessarily make it so. If Osgood doesn't come to terms with the changes that are taking place in our communities, he'll find himself much poorer in many ways.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
inchronic (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2009 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This battle has a long way to go. The economy is really bad now and doesn't look likely to improve any time soon. Osgood will have a hard time selling houses of whatever configuration. The county Board of Supervisors is no longer firmly on the side of developers. Even under the worst case scenario for environmentalists the coastal portion will require Coastal Commission approval and they will require some form of public access so that has not been lost. I suspect "rennergizer" is either a shill for the developer, a developer him or herself or just ignorant of the facts. There is absolutely no way that there are 200 lots that are truly buildable ( septic, slope, habitat etc. restrictions are numerous). What the final number might be is hard to tell but selling them and developing them will be a nightmare and a quagmire. It is a bogus threat and the environmental community needs to call the developers bluff and tell the supes to have some spine!
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Noletaman.. you must be an old school guy!
SPINE?!, I too remember when there were men and women who actually had them. You're quite right. When Osgood (and others) proclaim he/they can do what he/they want no matter that the environment and community disagree, it's quite amusing. When are these boys going to get it.. We're all in this together!
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
inchronic (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The developer keeps saying he is going to sell all 200 lots... but that doesn't really pass the laugh test. I've heard many of the lots are undevelopable and the long process of moving each lot through the review process would take forever. He has billed this as a luxury development. Lots of little lots on the current market coupled with those challenges... makes one wonder if there would be many takers....
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
eclinsb (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment