Naples - Take Action
County Supervisors Hearing December 9, 2008
Naples Action Alert
Board of Supervisors hearing
December 9, 2008
Background:
After the Board of Supervisors approved the Naples development on October 21, the Coastal Commission rejected the County's submittals as incomplete and inadequate. The County is preparing a series of revised approvals to address these inadequacies, most significantly to more completely separate the coastal and inland portions to allow some of the inland portions to go to construction and sale sooner.
Actions:
- 1. Email or phone the supervisors
- 2. Attend the hearing on 12/9
Talking Points:
Late distribution of information. Continue the hearing until January. The County waited until the last minute to release information about these project changes. The public has not have time to review these changes. This is too big and complex of a project to rush through - give us time to understand these changes!
Keep the project as a package. The original MOU keeps the inland and coastal portions together - the Board separated them in October. There should be no development at Naples until the Coastal Commission makes its final decision.
Give a complete and accurate description of the project. The Board does not even know what they approved, as shown by the Coastal Commission letter and the need to bring this back to the Board of Supervisors. The public is in the dark. There needs to be a complete Project Description provided and adequate time for people to review and make comments. The revisions only complicate things further, and don't provide the information or level of detail the Coastal Commission requested.
Specifically, the proposed revisions:
- were released to the public less than two days before written comments were due
- are full of errors that make the project even more difficult to understand
- don't describe the water treatment facilities and other infrastructure serving the coastal development
- don't explain how development on the coastal Dos Pueblos Ranch lots fits into the ‘staged' development scheme
- still don't disclose grading quantities for the inland lots, which accounts for 94% of the total grading
- still include coastal permits that are too general and lump all infrastructure together
- don't include coastal permits for mergers and existing unpermitted roads as required
- undermine all project conditions by giving the MOU priority over the conditions
- weaken a key condition protecting water quality on the Dos Pueblos Ranch coastal lots
- undercut conditions that made sure the inland development wouldn't be stranded without infrastructure
- allow appealable permits and the local coastal plan amendment to go together to the Coastal Commission, when the Commission must review the amendment first
For more information, review the letter submitted on 12/5 to the Supervisors from the Naples Coalition, Surfrider Foundation and EDC by clicking here.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Although the Supervisors approved the Project, the fight goes on. Please stay posted and we'll keep you advised.
Supporters can help by writing letters to the editor in all news outlets and blogs decrying the failure of County leadership to save Naples. Naples supporters should make sure that candidates for the 3rd District pledge to make Naples a high priority in their term, and commit to work for a solution acceptable to the community
Please see the Naples Calendar section for a list of important upcoming hearings. And the Naples main page for updated information and to learn more about how to get involoved in these hearings.
For more detailed information about issues, please visit the Naples Issues and Talking Points page.
Sign up to receive focused action alerts and talking points.
Click here for background information about the Naples project or visit www.SaveNaples.org
Project documents, including the EIR and staff reports, are available at http://sbcountyplanning.org/projects/03DVP-00041/index.cfm
Naples Calition President's response to Santa Maria Times article on Naples:
The Naples Coalition has worked for years to promote an alternative approach to the Naples development that preserves the rural character of the Gaviota Coast, better protects the coastal resources and public access at Naples, and meets the developer's bottom line. We developed an alternative development configuration that avoided development of the bluff lots, and encouraged the County to adopt a robust transfer of development rights (TDR) program to pay the developer to retire Naples development. County staff has deferred to the developer's wishes throughout the process, and when the developer vetoed our alternative and insisted on a weak, wholly voluntary TDR program, county staff quickly embraced the developer's views.
The Board of Supervisors had an opportunity to show some leadership and ingenuity in working to find that better solution, but instead lined up behind the developer. Supervisor Firestone clearly missed the boat on what the community was asking for at Naples, and didn't even try to understand either project details or the community's proposals. He asked not a single question through the 10 hours of public hearings.
Supervisor Gray suffered from a similar lack of initiative, accusing opponents from being "disconnected" from the Board's options. Since she only heard from the developer, she know only his choice - all or nothing.
The Supervisors materially prejudiced the County's role in protecting Naples when they approved a 20 year development agreement, tying the County's hands and insulating the developer from any form of changed conditions or additional requirements. The Supervisors decided in closed session to release the developer from obligations to process the project as a package, leading to disjointed, piecemealed development and allowing the developer to evade mitigations and promised public benefits, including agricultural conservation easements and public trails. The Supervisors sided with the developer in an effort to strong-arm the Coastal Commission into approving Osgood's project, materially jeopardizing the County's jurisdiction and threatening Naples with 50 inland lots on prime agricultural lands plus 67 grid lots on the bluff, plus no end to the developer's lawsuits.
It is evident that the Supervisors were either fundamentally ignorant of the consequences of their actions, or simply sought to aid and abet the developer in bringing an Orange County-style subdivision to the Gaviota Coast. In either case, the actions of the three Supervisors that voted for the Naples development was an unprecedented giveaway of our precious Gaviota Coast that should be condemned.
Phil McKenna
President
Naples Coalition