Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!Contrary to popular opinion, Matt Osgood is not the boogeyman. A handsomely middle-aged, affluent, Range Rover-owning, cowboy-boot-wearing Lakers fan who prefers the fresh air of Santa Barbara’s foothills to the hustle of his native Newport Beach, Osgood is like many who are trying to call the 805 home these days. Save for one potentially damning detail, of course: He wants to put dozens of large-scale luxury homes on one of the most untouched and cherished slices of oceanfront in Santa Barbara County.
For nearly a decade, Osgood — who bristles at the label “Orange County developer” — has been angling to build out the historic Naples Ranch at the easternmost gate of the Gaviota Coast, a feat that, despite massive public opposition, might become a reality before 2009. With the summer’s first heat wave just starting to smother the South Coast late last week in a steamy embrace, Osgood stood at the top of his now 1,085-acre property, surprisingly cool and confident despite the soaring mercury and the soon-to-begin county approval process for his ever-evolving and always controversial Naples vision. (Osgood originally owned just the 485-acre Naples township site, but strategically picked up an additional 600 adjoining acres last year in order to give his project more flexibility.)
Paul Wellman
Trying to get a large building project approved on the Gaviota Coast is a complex and unpopular process. Just ask Orange County-based developer Matt Osgood (pictured), who has been playing the development approval chess game at his Naples property for almost 10 years now.
Gesturing toward the patchwork of story poles dotting the rolling hills around him, the 16-foot red-and-white markers hinting at the latest incarnation of his development plan, Osgood said simply, “For the activists, I think this is about as good as it’s going to get.” He then added, in what those “activists” will surely take to be a thinly veiled threat, “We are at the point now where, one way or the other, something is going happen. People have to understand, I could start selling these lots today if I wanted to.”
In a series of financially taxing redesigns and land deals with Naples’s western neighbor, the Schulte family’s Dos Pueblos Ranch, Osgood has been refining his controversial development plan since he first entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Santa Barbara County in 2002. (Technically, there was an earlier MOU with the county that fell apart for various reasons prior to the 2002 arrangement, but that MOU was short-lived and called for a project vastly different from what is being proposed today.)
“You can only hold onto a property for so long before you are forced to do something. And to be honest, after 10 years, there isn’t a single day now that I don’t think about it,” Osgood said.
Previous Naples owner the Morehart Company fought a lengthy legal battle with the county that ended with a now 120-year-old map of the Naples property being ruled valid by the California Supreme Court in 1994. The map identified at least 233 legal lots at Naples, meaning Osgood has an ace up his sleeve in his dealings with the county. In short, if things don’t go his way during the approval process, he reserves the right to pull out of the MOU, revisit the litigation efforts against the county, and start sell ing the 200-some lots one by one to the highest bidder. “You can only hold onto a property for so long before you are forced to do something. And to be honest, after 10 years, there isn’t a single day now that I don’t think about it,” Osgood said, referring to the possibility of selling.
Currently, the MOU identifies two project options. The original calls for 54 homes on both sides of Highway 101 ranging in size from 3,700 to 13,000 square feet and spread out over 485 acres. Alternative One, which links the project to some estate planning at Dos Pueblos Ranch, results in a total of 72 similarly large luxury homes, 16 of which would be on the coastal terrace south of the 101. The homes would be spread over more than 3,100 acres, with 2,600 of those acres are permanently preserved as open space.
Alternative One was long preferred by the developer, key decision makers, and even to a lesser degree by project critics. That all changed earlier this month when Osgood unveiled what is now being called “Alternative Prime,” a supposedly more earth-friendly, viewshed-minded version of Alternative One that speaks directly to criticisms from the county’s Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission. This new plan moves 14 homes planned for the inland side of Naples deeper into the property, rendering the majority of them invisible from the 101. Furthermore, Osgood has abandoned his millions of dollars worth of prior architectural designs for sprawling Mediterranean villas, replacing them with the markedly more green-minded work of Santa Barbara architect Barry Berkus. Explaining the significance of his presumably strategic redesign, Osgood said, “It’s a no-brainer now … If you are educated on the issues, I don’t know how anybody would not prefer Alternative Prime.”
Though they have yet to have the opportunity to fully digest the implications of Alternative Prime, members of the Naples Coalition — a group of stakeholder organizations, such as the Gaviota Coastal Conservancy, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, and Citizens Planning Association, that are opposed to a McMansion invasion at Naples — are, according to chief counsel Marc Chytilo, less than impressed with what they’ve heard. (As of press time, coalition members, save for one, had not yet been able to inspect the new plan up close and in person, though, according to Chytilo, they have been asking since May.)
“There is just no way you can call it a good project with that many houses in a place as important as Naples.”
Admitting that he is, at the very least, “interested in seeing the plan up close,” Chytilo explained that for him and his constituents, the bottom line remains the same. “Our main objective has always been to get development off of the bluff,” he said, “And this new plan doesn’t do that at all, so, in that sense, our position hasn’t changed … There is just no way you can call it a good project with that many houses in a place as important as Naples.”
Furthermore, Chytilo said, the decision to shift a number of houses inland is more than just a viewshed-motivated move; it is also an act of gamesmanship, as it takes a number of the proposed homes out of the Coastal Zone and thus out of the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission — an entity that many have long felt will be a serious, if not potentially project-derailing, roadblock to Osgood’s plan. “At this point, we are definitely in the chess game phase of things,” Chytilo said.
To that end, it should also be noted that the Naples Coalition, which spoke optimistically about Alternative One when it was first unveiled in 2005, has now, to a degree, come out in favor of the original MOU, which calls for the greatest number of houses sited in the Coastal Zone — no doubt an argument born in a similar vein of Coastal Commission conscience gamesmanship.
Like all good chess games, the Naples controversy also has a time limit. The MOU establishes a timeline for the project’s eventual approval or disapproval, with the aforementioned Planning Commission entitlement hearings set to begin on June 30 and run, at the very least, into mid July. The MOU gives the Board of Supervisors four months after Planning Commission hearings begin to sign off on the project. Speaking to this established gauntlet of meetings, Osgood opined in late May in no uncertain terms, “Should it deviate too much, my historical patience [to not sell the lots individually] could definitely wear thin.” But, given the penultimate importance and unrivaled complexity of the issue, time is exactly what it is going to take to vet all the issues at the Planning Commission level — a process that has not yet even identified what development alternative they will explore in their final rulings.
And then there is the wholly separate matter of the Board of Supervisors. With Brooks Firestone’s 3rd District seat up for grabs this November and two outspoken critics of Naples development, Doreen Farr and Steve Pappas, vying for it, it becomes, at least on paper, even more imperative for Osgood to get the deal done before 2009 arrives and for the Naples Coalition to try to hold the line against approval until a new 3rd District supervisor has taken his or her seat.
When pressed late last week on the issue of opting out of the MOU and an ad hoc sale of antiquated yet legal lots, Osgood was coyer than he was in his earlier musings on the subject. “Sure, I could be tempted.” he said “But it is more complicated than that.” He then went into a lengthy explanation of the various challenges in building along the Gaviota Coast — the classic Santa Barbara conundrum of density, the individual and community
balancing acts one has to pull off when weighing wants against needs, and the frustration of being in a process that has lasted “twice as long as I ever thought it would.” But he concluded, nodding his head, his hands firmly at the wheel of his SUV as it crawled slowly down a sun-soaked hillside above Dos Pueblos Creek, “It’s absolutely a chess game.”
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
Wait, let me get this straight, some LA/Newport Developer driving a Range Rover thru the rolling hills of Naples, and you’re telling me he is not the bogey man? LOL! I don't care how long he has been here. Is this article serious? Tongue in cheek? Are you trying to make us like him or what he is doing? Has your medical marijuana prescription been checked? Go check how the Bacara got approved some time. I think it was when Willie Chamberlin was in, which was overturned. This "squeak it thru before an elected board changes majority BS" really needs to stop, because then all the rest of us have to live with it FOREVER. Yeah, Matt, if I see you out in the line up, I will be sure not to drop in on you. NOT. LA GO HOME! In your defense, you are probably taking direction from architects/lawyers that will have you to maximize your investment. Perhaps thinking a little bit more about the BIG picture will help things move along and your approval rating.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
June 26, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not sure what a boogeyman is...but I think this article tries from the very beginning to make us want to like this developer. I'd rather decide myself what I think of his plan for the Gaviota Coast based on facts other than being told that a Range Roving-driving, handsome, non-boogeyman are somehow credentials to develop this land.
cissyross (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2008 at 3:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Osgood may not *boogey* but a moneyman he is. All he sees, smells, embraces, worships is money His development also serves others of like minds. Not homes for the needy or even the common person. No homes for the ubber wealthy, not first homes but second homes or third homes. Not homes for shelter but homes for parties, for fun. Osgood, your project is doomed.
gaviotamilitia (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, if this new plan is so bitchen, put a jpeg of it up on the internet (architects rendering). Is there an arial view for the public available? Or is this a private matter at this point? That would be a great thing to include in this article. I wonder to my self: are we basically getting another little Hollister Ranch, only more dense, in our neck of the woods? You will never please all of the people all of the time, but is anyone learning anything, and applying it regarding coastline development/access decisions, or are we at the mentality of "it is my land, @#$%@# all the rest of you, I will do what I want!" I think Oregon's governor along time ago made the entire coast public property? Pretty cool. Yes I know a pipe dream but read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Coas...
Maybe some day, Arnold will figure it out.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Many writers fall into the trap of trying to color an article with human interest texture. But it can obscure and appear to bias the underlying story.
I don't think it is a newswriter's job to humanize a developer; it is irrelevant. The story is about the 'new' development this developer is proposing that he so far appears to have refused to show anyone.
That would be a short story. But that would appear to be the story. The current subplot is the posturing that is taking place in the run-up to the hearings.
Regardless of how many miles he drives his Range Rover around, he is still an Orange County developer with his hands in the pocket of Gaviota. There are no two ways about that. His only reason to be in Santa Barbara is to profit from that one project.
When it concludes, he'll be gone with his $$ like so many others and the rest of us will have to forever live with the consequences and the cold regret of what might have been.
HueyChapala (anonymous profile)
June 27, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is very obvious to me that most of the coments here are full of Jealousy, and ignorance. With the tree growth on both sides of the 101, you cant even see the project. Dont be hatters, and dont critisize a person you dont even know.
One thing I will say, he is not handsome.
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, I am real jealous. Gaaaag.... So you have seen the prime alternative?
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi Bimboteskie,
If you cant see anything from 101, what does it matter to you. It appeares the builder is being very enviromentally concious, along with downsizing from 233 legal lots to 74??? He has had his money tied up for 10 years? If there are 233 legal lots, I would have started selling lots the day I aquired the property. Give the funny looking range rover driving man a break. Look at it from his view. Most developers I know would have immediately started selling off lots, especially when the market was hot.
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
June 29, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
True and the more clients and more lawsuits and more reviews, the longer it would take for action which would be just fine with me. I am not so much concerned about the looks of a few mansions from the freeway as I am access to the ocean. Take Malibu area for example. What you have is the UBER rich taking the law into their own hands (kind of like the bacarra) and saying you can't do this and that to get to beach regardless of what costal commission and previous agreements say. This guy is not gonna go broke regardless of how many he gets to put or not put in. If these people worked with local govt, and worked out some of these issues, I think they would be more successful in getting their programs thru. Kind of like getting your building LEED certified gets your plans thru in 3 weeks rather than the usual ABR time. Fess Parker did some good things for the SB water front in making it a really nice place and you don't have security guards doing the intimidation hop when you walk by. What you have going on along the Gaviota Coast, is Bradd Pitt, Craig McCaw, The Bacarra, and now this project, basically making the coast forever inaccessible because of $$. What is the mandate of the Costal Commission? Is it relevant any more? Not to beat a dead horse, but the Gaviota coast is taking shape and once a project of this magnitude is approved, it is over, done, end of story. Hopefully we won’t be saying “We Are @#$%@ED!” like Bill Paxton in the movie Alien 2. Also, making fun of the range rover dude's looks is so mean. LOL!
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi Bimboteskie,
correct me if I am wrong. It sounds like a simple task to carve out a spot for beach access for the surfers and public. Is that all it would take???
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Orange County developer
Orange County developer
Orange County developer
Orange County developer
Orange County developer
Just cause you can't see cancer, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Orange County developer
Orange County developer
Orange County developer
Georgy (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW,
I vacation in SB every year. I must need a cancer checkup. I am not from there, so I must have cancer. Good one Georgy. Is SB closed?? Did it susceed from the USA, or California?? Kind of brutal, calling someone a cancer. Do you know Matt?
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL! Cancer? I doubt nothing is going to happen out there, but yes a legitimate beach access, a reasonable amount of parking, and not shutting it down when someone feels like it. No nazi beach guard security kooks. Honestly if you put a good sized county park out there instead of just mansions on the cliff, I think it would shore up some support. And make people work for it. Not parking on the sand, make it a nice invigorating walk! Will everyone ever be happy? Doubt it. I think what happened out near Sandpiper with the county and the open space was a decent trade off. No I don't think there needs to be a carousel, but if you buy the precious land on the beach, and you think you are just going to do what you want without any scrutiny, probably not so any more.
So you vacation in SB every year? What do you like to do when you are here? Go to the beach? Or go to your friend’s private mansion on the beach?
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think we can have a polite exchange here, folks. Of course Matt Osgood is not the bogeyman. However, he is far from a benign fellow. He is a greedy, Orange County developer and this project will destroy the Gaviota coast. His recent proposed changes, so called Alternative 1 "prime" in which he cleverly moves some 14 houses inland to escape , he hopes, jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission is just putting lipstick on a pig. I sort of feel sorry for him in some ways in that he has no idea how long and how hard the local citizens will fight this project. If he were smart and less greedy he would come to the table and make some serious concessions, especially in regards to the 16 or so huge mansions south of 101 that he wants. Meanwhile his lawyers and agents like Mark Lloyd are the only ones making any money on this project. I hope his financial backers wake up soon and realize they are not going to get any return on their investment this decade if ever.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lipstick on a pig. NICE! If you want some interesting reading about some of this guys "work", do the old google search on Matt Osgood developer. There are some real gems written about him.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
June 30, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It Sounds like Georgy is a Matt Osgood Hater. Hit and run huh Georgy. America is a melting pot. Good people all over this country. I did not know you were the sole owner of Santa Barbara. No reply????
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
July 1, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about this, swap the coast and beach to the public for rights to build out of view inland. Gate it up, making a nice little 2nd, 3rd & 4th homes for Range Rovers, Hummers and OC hosewives. Call it Cota de Caza Norte, SB county would retain the rights for all oil drilling, TV series and action figures and get 20% of the onsite plastic surgicenter/ spa. Revenue would maintain the beach park. We get the surf and keep them on the other side of 101.
lordleadbetter (anonymous profile)
July 1, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I cant beleive anyone would prefer the developer to sell the 233 legal lots, and have 233 seperate legal matters to settle. That seems like a nightmare???? Kooler heads will prevail on this one. Isnt there a supreme court precident already in place??? I thought I heard Tom Figg say that. Did anyone else hear that?
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
July 1, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Renneggizer, you ever heard of a filibuster? I mean the guy already pulled a bunch of BS up there and got a stop work order. I say @#$% him and the Orange County Developing horse he rode in on. I was reading about the Hollister Ranch last night, and how that was defeated as a national seashore. I think it is time for Arnie to sack up, and make the area from Coal Oil Point to Jalama a national Seashore. I wonder if they would remove the Bacarra? Like pulling a weed?
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
July 2, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Correct me if I am wrong, and I have asked this quite a few times, didnt the california supreme court rule that there are 233 legal lots??? I thought I heard Tom Figg say that. How do you stop a company from selling the legal lots, when the supreme court has already ruled on it?? I know in Arizona, there would not be a court avenue to go to.
rennergizer (anonymous profile)
July 2, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment