Plans to put several dozen mansions at the eastern gate of the Gaviota Coast remain very much alive this week after a ruling was handed down in a Santa Barbara Superior Courtroom. There was a chance Tuesday morning that a deathblow would be delivered to the long-stewing, highly controversial, and county supervisor–approved development dreams for the Naples property, easily the highest profile hunk of land in the Gaviota region.
However, in the end, Judge Thomas Anderle opted to disagree with many of the claims levied in a lawsuit challenging certain legalities of the supervisors’ 2008 approval of a plan to build 71 large-scale luxury homes, guest houses, garages, and an equestrian center on the historic and publicly beloved coastal ranch. Talking to the media in the hallway after the ruling, Linda Krop of the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), one of the lead attorneys in the nearly four-year-old lawsuit seeking to overturn the widely bemoaned approval, downplayed the significance of the setback. “The fight to save Naples is far from over,” explained Krop. “This decision made today was a very narrow one. … We are still going to go to the Coastal Commission, and we are likely to end up in the Court of Appeal.”
The EDC, on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation and in concert with Naples Coalition lawyer Marc Chytilo, filed a lawsuit in December 2008, less than two months after the supes, led by then–3rd District Supervisor Brooks Firestone, approved the Naples plan with a 3-2 vote. Among their complaints were allegations that the county had violated several mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it approved the Naples plan without properly evaluating possible project alternatives, without fully exploring green house gas emissions related to the development, or examining the potential impacts of some last-minute project tweaks that included a quadrupling of soil grading. They additionally argued that the approval was made despite the project’s conflict with terms of the county’s own General Plan and the fact that the plan was bifurcated (i.e., the inland portions of it separated from the coastal portions in terms of the permitted building timeline) after the associated Environmental Impact Report was certified.
And while the ground beneath that approval has shifted radically toward being less conducive to actual development in the years since — thanks to, among other things, hopeful Naples conqueror Matt Osgood defaulting on his loan, the Missouri-based First Bank assuming control of the property and currently shopping it, and the decidedly more enviro-minded Doreen Farr replacing Firestone on the Board of Supervisors — the impetus for the lawsuit, in the eyes of the EDC and Chytilo, has not. As EDC lawyer Nathan Alley summed up in court on Tuesday, “The county made both errors of fact and law [when it approved this plan]. … They are of extreme prejudice, and they cut to the very heart of what the CEQA process is all about.”
Unfortunately for those who would like to see the approval thrown out, Judge Anderle issued a tentative ruling late Sunday that dismissed most of the lawsuit’s claims and then, within seconds of the EDC and Chytilo concluding their arguments on Tuesday morning, stated simply in the direct, no-nonsense, rapid-fire tone that is his calling card, “I am going to stand with my tentative.” The only two claims he opted not to rule against — the legality of the fact that the as-approved project no longer includes a public beach access plan and whether or not a Coastal Development Permit is needed for the various lot mergers associated with the plan — he chose to simply take a flier and kick them on to the Coastal Commission for a final decision.
Though the rulings were anything but good news for the Save Naples camp, it seems, at least according to their legal teams, the loss was not nearly as significant of a development as a victory would have been in terms of achieving their overarching goal of preventing wide-ranging build-out on the mostly untouched property. “It is a setback, but it is certainly not fatal,” said Chytilo in the wake of the hearing. “There are still many, many hurdles to be cleared before the whole development can move forward.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Nathan Alley calling calling the old board majority "extremely prejudice". What a hypocrite. As is everyone at EDC. Since when are your views not slanted by your intrepretation of what is right or wrong (unless someone takes the opposing view from yours, then they are WRONG).
Hey, maybe if the developer would have donated $100,000 through a 3rd party as PXP did, they could have bought EDC's support. Just because they didn't like your alternatives, which were probably "don't build anything", they aren't required to spend thousands on an alternative that doesn't pencil out for them.
You want to stop development on this property. Buy it. I love that drive too, but that doesn't mean that I should have the right to stop the rightful owner from responsible development of their property.
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2012 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BeachFan,
"Extreme prejudice" is a technical legal term that in this case refers to the decision of the board to approve something that some attorneys felt was illegally approved. It does not imply that the pro development prejudices are any better or worse than the anti-development prejudices. We all have our opinions or prejudices and EDC works to preserve the land by legal means as does the Naples Coalition and Surfrider Foundation. Non legal means including fundraising to buy the property outright or to purchase development rights needs to be ongoing as well. If you love the drive and want to see the land protected as you claim, get ready to dig deep and contribute when the time comes. I know I will.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2012 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Me, too. By far a better solution than the usual California route of denying owners' private property rights.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2012 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Beach Fan calls this "responsible development.". Obviously not a beach fan. Please head back down South.
yerbaguy (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2012 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be nice if the community could raise the funds to buy Naples, but that outcome is unlikely. A prolonged legal battle would be tedious and unpredictable for either side. It is time for a compromise. Perhaps we could live with a couple (or a few) mansions on the north side of 101 in exchange for the preservation of the south side and the surf spot. Both sides need to figure out how to settle this in a way that preserves most of the open space and allows the owners to realize some return. Just saying.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
August 1, 2012 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yerbaguy: Let's have the government abscond with all privately held land that is near the ocean so that we can prove we're for protecting beaches AND a totalitarian society...
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2012 at 6:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
71 homes proposed on how many hundreds of acres? Some of the first discussions on development there in the 80s had over 200 going in there. I remember, I was here. Do you yerba? Or are you a transplant?
I've heard ad nausium EDC scream "prejudice, bias, lack of compromise" over and over with any project they don't agree with. When it comes to compromise, they are the worse at working with projects.
Hey, I'm good with it being bought. Question, who is going to maintain it? (fire abatement, arundo abatement, trash) Keep the land in a private trust. Handing it to the County would be a terrible mistake.
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2012 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is there a fund to which we can contribute? Would love to preserve this pristine property.
sallyt (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2012 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Would have to raise enough money to both buy the land and put cash in trust for management and maintenance. Unless the state could take it over - the state parks folks seem to have $millions in hidden funds. But there's also a trust issue - the State of CA could screw up a one man parade and spend a lot of money doing it - ya know all those committees and boards and unelected overpaid bureaucrats.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2012 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Grew up in Goleta since 1959, Beachie.
yerbaguy (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2012 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nothing spells certain doom like a committee.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2012 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)