Trustees Veto Taylor Ranch as University Site : Education: The panel disagrees with a citizens committee recommendation, but ‘a lot of persuasion’ could keep the property in the running.

In a sharp split with a Ventura County citizens advisory committee, California State University trustees on Wednesday said Taylor Ranch should be scratched off a list of potential university sites.

The trustees also questioned another of the four sites chosen by the 35-member citizens committee during six months of meetings, wondering whether property next to the California Youth Authority near Camarillo is suitable for a university.

In addition, trustees said property owned by the McGrath family across from McGrath State Beach and property owned by the Lusk Co. and McLaughlin family across from Ventura Harbor deserve more consideration from the committee.

The decision against Taylor Ranch on Wednesday was a setback for supporters of a plan to locate a campus on the hillside bluff property west of Ventura. They had seen enthusiasm for the once-preferred site rekindled Sept. 28 when the citizens panel recommended that it be among the four finalists.

The five trustees, who met as a subcommittee of the full board of trustees in Oxnard on Wednesday, had been expected to endorse the four sites chosen by the citizens advisory committee. Instead, the trustees asked the citizens committee to reconvene Nov. 16 to consider and comment on the trustees’ action Wednesday.

“If the advisory committee feels very strongly that the Taylor Ranch must be left in, we will listen to that,” said Anthony M. Vitti, university system trustee and chairman of the board’s committee on site selection in Ventura County. “But it will take a lot of persuasion to keep it in the running.”

The trustees said they didn’t like the site because its owners have promised a long court battle if the university tries to take the land by eminent domain.

The full board of trustees is scheduled to meet Nov. 27 and 28 in Long Beach to make the final decision on which four sites will be studied in detail in an environmental impact report, which is expected to cost about $500,000 and should be completed next summer.

Trustees let stand the committee’s recommendation that 300 acres owned by six interests, including the Donlon family, be among the final four sites. The property is south of Wooley Road and east of Rose Avenue near Oxnard.

They also endorsed the committee’s recommendation of unincorporated property near east Ventura straddling Foothill Road. That site, between Wells Road to the east and Kimball Road to the west, could be evaluated as two separate sites, one north and one south of Foothill Road, the trustees said. The property is owned by several interests, including the Pinkerton family. The advisory committee was instructed to recommend whether both sites should be studied in the environmental impact report.

Trustees said new information on the Lusk and McGrath properties warranted the advisory committee’s attention. Owners of the Lusk property, who in previous years had tied the sale of the land to development rights, said Wednesday that the property is available for sale with no strings attached.

And representatives of the McGrath family said the university system could look at a parcel of more than 200 acres north of Gonzales Road rather than consider an entire 1,000-acre parcel on which there is extensive oil drilling operations. There is far less drilling on the north parcel and no problems related to oil field waste dumping, said Charles Conway, an attorney and member of the McGrath family.

The advisory committee had chosen the McGrath and Lusk properties as alternative sites to their first four choices.

The trustees questioned the advisory committee’s recommendation on land held by the Duntley family trust next to the California Youth Authority near Camarillo, where young criminals are housed.

Trustees asked the citizens committee to consider whether it would be suitable to place a university next to a prison where the population includes convicted murderers and rapists, even though the majority of inmates at the facility have been convicted of robbery or burglary.

Wednesday’s meeting was the most recent development in a four-year quest by the university system to find land for a campus to serve up to 15,000 students in Ventura County.

The university system had chosen the Taylor Ranch as its preferred site but dropped those plans in June after owners Ailene Claeyssens and Cynthia Wood said they would not sell, community opposition developed, and the Ventura City Council split over whether it would welcome the university in its city.

If the university system builds on Taylor Ranch, Ventura would have to annex the land or agree to provide water and sewage services.

The committee, composed of county and city representatives, environmentalists and university supporters, was formed to ensure community support for the ultimate site chosen.

Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ventura), who appeared briefly at Wednesday’s meeting, urged the trustees not to give up on his native county.

“I don’t want my county to continue with the distinction of being the largest county without a four-year university,” Lagomarsino said. After a visit to Ventura’s satellite campus of Cal State Northridge, Lagomarsino said he saw firsthand the need for a campus in the county.

“They are bursting at the seams over there,” he said of the satellite campus on Allesandro Drive in Ventura. “There are hundreds of people on waiting lists for classes.”

Taking his turn at the podium, Ventura Mayor Richard Francis urged the trustees not to give up on Taylor Ranch.

For the sake of “consistency and credibility,” Francis said, the board should keep Taylor Ranch on the drawing board.