Fate of Old School Fuels Bitter Clash in Moorpark

With its bucolic, hilltop view and quiet, largely abandoned corridors, Moorpark’s old high school seems an unlikely source of turmoil.

Yet, as this old farming community struggles with a relatively new, suburban identity, a bitter debate continues to escalate over the use of the largely defunct school and promises to reappear in court as well as in the November school board election.

The Moorpark Unified School District, one of the fastest growing in the state, wants to develop the 26-acre former site of Memorial High School as a source of revenue for new schools.

But nearly every aspect of the district’s plans for the old school site--a proposed joint venture with a private developer who would build apartments and a business park--has been resisted by the City Council, which says the project is too dense and would generate too much traffic.

The high school dispute has come to symbolize other battles in the 6-year-old city of 25,000 residents: a desire to limit growth and preserve a rural atmosphere, public distrust of the school district’s use of its resources and an alleged power grab by Mayor Eloise Brown, a strong-willed widow whom critics accuse of turning a largely ceremonial position into a full-time job.

Possible Precedent

Although Brown and other city officials claimed a recent legal victory over the school district, the dispute is far from resolved and could evolve into a precedent-setting court battle, according to the district’s lawyers and supporters.

A hearing has been scheduled Oct. 31 in Ventura County Superior Court for a judge to reconsider his ruling that the district must sell a portion of the old high school site to the city, which is under community pressure to create a park in the area. In his Sept. 1 ruling, Judge Bruce A. Thompson held that the city of Moorpark was not only entitled to buy the land for a park but could do so at a discounted price.

If Thompson fails again to rule in the school district’s favor, an appeal is likely, and the case could be prolonged even further, the district’s lawyers have said.

The case has drawn statewide interest because it centers on a school district’s ability to raise the funds needed for new schools, especially at a time when California has run out of money for such facilities and there is a $5-billion backlog of funding requests, said James Murdoch, a lobbyist for the Sacramento-based nonprofit group CASH--Coalition for Adequate School Housing.

‘Jeopardize’ Funding Source

A ruling in the city’s favor “would seriously jeopardize one of the remaining revenue sources available to districts throughout the state,” coalition lawyers wrote in a letter to Thompson on behalf of the Moorpark district. Moorpark schools Supt. Thomas Duffy, who is leading the effort to redevelop the old high school site, is a former coalition chairman.

Enrollment has more than doubled since the Moorpark school district was unified, from 1,914 students in 1980-81 to 4,561 in 1988-89, according to state figures. The district has applications pending for a new middle school, a new alternative high school, two new elementary schools, three additions to the new high school and two additions at two existing elementary schools.

The old school had about 600 students when it closed as the city’s main high school last year after the district opened a larger facility. It continues to be used as an alternative high school.

The legal case between the district and the city could be precedent-setting because it involves a complicated and rarely disputed provision of the state Education Code called the Naylor Act, which is intended to preserve recreational space when school properties are declared surplus. The act entitles cities and other public entities to buy as much as 30% of surplus school land for as little as 25% of market value.

Lawyers for the school district and its consultant Joel Kirschenstein said the Naylor Act’s application has never been legally challenged, and the battle between Moorpark’s school board and City Council seems unique.

“Typically, there aren’t these fights,” agreed Duwayne Brooks, a director of school facilities and planning for the state Education Department. “There are some negotiations that go on, but the extent of this fight hasn’t come up.”

Possible Conflict

Among the many issues involved is whether the property in question is subject to the Naylor Act or exempt because the district is growing. Another complicating factor is an apparently conflicting law that requires school districts to sell existing school facilities at full market value to meet the cost of replacing them.

But chief among the disputed issues is whether the school district’s notice of its plans to redevelop the old high school site was the same as a binding offer to sell.

Brown maintains that it was.

“They made a determination that it was surplus property--that was Judge Thompson’s point,” she said in an interview. “They had all the time in the world to make their determination and, once made, that’s it.”

But Duffy and school board President Carla Robertson say the district was negotiating in good faith with the city, trying to strike a compromise that would serve the district’s needs for building funds and the city’s desire for a new park, when the city suddenly sued after rejecting three different proposals.

“It’s been a very adversarial situation,” Robertson said, adding that the city has not wanted to negotiate.

Brown Criticized

Robertson, who is not seeking reelection, believes that the battle over the school site is part of an attempt by Brown and her allies to discredit the school board and consolidate power.

“I think Eloise wants control of everything,” Robertson said. “She’s been heard stating she doesn’t want anything going on in the city that she doesn’t know about.”

Brown, meanwhile, said the school district has failed to justify its need for building funds and has resisted the council’s attempts to obtain financial information. She noted that the district’s development proposal would require not only zoning variances but an amendment to the city’s general plan.

“Industrial and commercial are not acceptable on that site,” Brown said. “Because it is being proposed by the school district does not make it any more acceptable.”

Apartments, Business Park

Calmark Development Corp. of Los Angeles, the developer chosen by the district, has proposed building 352 apartments and a 70,500-square-foot business park that would include light industry, as well as a 7.7-acre public park to make up for the loss of school grounds.

Pam Castro, a candidate in the Nov. 7 school board election who led an effort last year to recall Robertson and three other board members, said she doesn’t understand why the old high school site at 280 Casey Road can’t be maintained as a school, either as a second, smaller high school, a middle school or an elementary school, especially if the district is strapped for money.

Castro, a 1970 graduate of Memorial High School, said the debate over its use was a key element of last year’s recall movement and probably would be raised this year in her school board campaign.

“It doesn’t make sense to demolish and sell a school that is entirely paid for free and clear and get into debt to turn around and build the same classroom space elsewhere,” she said.