Ventura Council to Hold Hearing on CSU Site Issue

The turbulent debate over plans for a California State University campus in Ventura County is scheduled to whirl through an informal public hearing at the Ventura City Council meeting on Monday.

Council members have said individually that they dislike the proposed Sudden Ranch site on 350 acres south of Foothill Road in east Ventura for fear of traffic congestion around the property.

But they have not endorsed either alternate site being considered by the CSU trustees--the 320-acre Duntley-Chaffee site abutting the California Youth Authority’s juvenile prison in Camarillo, or the 308-acre Donlon site, south of Wooley Road between Rose and Rice avenues, east of Oxnard.

Council members said discussion at Monday’s hearing--which will include comments from the public and debate among themselves--will help them narrow the choice.

But they also said they realize that the hearing might bring comment from political action groups, particularly in light of the upcoming election with three council seats at stake.

One such group, the Voters Coalition of Ventura, has already advocated building the university on the Duntley-Chaffee site because it fears that the Sudden Ranch site in Ventura would clog surrounding streets with traffic.

Coalition spokesman Steve Bennett cited reports by Ventura city staff that criticize the draft environmental impact report for underestimating the increase in traffic that a state university campus would cause.

The draft report also does not consider the full burden on Ventura of 9,000 new houses that the report says will be needed for university students and staff, Bennett said.

“If the university is located at the Sudden Ranch site, most of those would have to be provided by Ventura,” Bennett said.

“You’re talking about the demand of 4,500 homes. But if you locate the university at the Duntley-Chaffee site, which is almost equidistant between the residential areas of Ventura, Camarillo and Oxnard, you’d spread those homes between the communities and the unincorporated area.”

In that case, Ventura would have to support only 1,500 of the 9,000 needed housing units, he said.

The draft report also estimates that Ventura would have to supply 490 acre-feet of water per year to the university buildings, but does not say how much water the new housing would require, Bennett said.

Bennett acknowledged that Ventura would miss out on tax revenues if the university is built outside the city.

But he said the city could still enjoy the cultural benefits because both alternative sites are within short driving distance.

The Alliance for Ventura’s Future has also endorsed the Duntley-Chaffee site for the same reasons, Bennett said.

He is also president of that group.

The debate over the three sites could run long and hot, Mayor Richard Francis said.

“We expected this one to be an evening killer,” Francis said, so city officials have scheduled a relatively sparse agenda for the regular council meeting.

“It’s my hope that the council will receive the EIR and inform the trustees that none of the sites are without impact, that the choice is theirs and we’ll support whatever they do,” he said.

“Bearing that in mind, if they choose Ventura, there are going to be some enormous capital costs we’re not going to fund ourselves,” Francis said.

Francis has drafted, but not sent, a letter criticizing the environmental impact report.

The letter is intended for David Leveille, director of institutional relations for the Cal State University system.

In his letter, Francis said the environmental impact report asks too much of Ventura in terms of road modifications and the city’s Comprehensive Plan, while not taking enough responsibility to pay for the improvements.

The environmental impact report also underestimates the amount of traffic that the university would generate at the Sudden Ranch site and proposes measures to ease the traffic impact which may not be feasible, Francis’ letter says.

“In large part, this is not an environmental document decision, it’s a political decision,” City Manager John Baker said.

“A lot of it still comes down to if ‘you want or don’t want.’ ”

Baker said he expects many neighbors of the Sudden Ranch site will attend Monday’s meeting to express the “not-in-my-back-yard” philosophy.

Francis and Councilman James Monahan said they will recommend that the council ask the university trustees to again consider the Taylor Ranch for a university.

“I don’t think any of the other sites are suitable,” Monahan said. “If I had to pick, the best of the worst . . . it would be the Duntley site. That probably will have the least hassles from the surrounding communities, but it’s in a flood plain.”

Monahan said he hopes that the coming election will crystallize the public’s opinion on the CSU site.

“The people who support the Taylor Ranch as a site may get voted into office,” he said. “I have a feeling there’s a large majority of people who would support that site, who would support candidates that would like to see it in the Taylor Ranch site. I think the other site in Ventura, there’s a lot of opposition from the neighbors. With the Taylor Ranch, we had no opposition from the neighbors.”

But the trustees have already rejected that west Ventura site, Leveille said.

Its owners won’t sell the land, he said, and they have threatened a lengthy court battle if the university tries to take the land through eminent domain.

In addition, the Ventura City Council last fall rejected the idea of a university on the Taylor Ranch because it would generate too much traffic and force heavy growth upon the west end of town.

Leveille said he has recently received three letters from Ventura County residents reflecting different opinions about the location of a new campus.

“I don’t think anybody expected the length of time that it has taken,” Leveille said of the five-year search.

“I think that there have been various levels of frustration, not just on the university’s part. I think the same could be said from people who were supportive of having a university in the community.”

But, he added, “I think one of the surprises to me personally has been the expression on the part of some people that the idea of a university is detrimental to a community and detracts from the quality of life.”

Leveille said the university board of trustees will consider the endorsements of various sites by the cities in Ventura County before making a final decision at its Sept. 10-11 meeting.

Vice Chancellor John M. Smart said, “I think the attitude of governmental agencies, city as well as county, has always been very important to the trustees, and the extent to which the city (of Ventura) makes any kinds of statements will be weighed in the equation.”