Simi Rejects Shops, Homes on School Site

After an emotional four-hour public hearing, the Simi Valley City Council voted 4 to 0 early Tuesday to quash the school district’s plan to build a retail center and housing on 36 acres across from the Civic Center.

The unified school district, working with two private developers, was counting on the project to generate $39 million over the next 10 years for school maintenance and repairs at a time when state dollars for education are becoming more scarce.

But council members, agreeing with many residents who spoke at the meeting, said another large retail center was a poor idea because many existing Simi Valley strip malls have vacancies. Neighbors also complained that the center would create traffic and noise problems and would be a financial risk for the school district.

“It’s dead in the water now,” school board member Judy Barry said of the project Tuesday. “It’s very disappointing.”

After the council meeting ended about 1 a.m., school officials “stood in the parking lot for a while and cried in our beers,” Barry said. “We were discussing what to do next.”

The district and its partners, Tustin-based CSA Real Estate Development and Los Angeles-based Lederer Development, sought to develop the land bounded by Tapo Canyon Road, Avenida Simi, Fairbanks Avenue and Alamo Street. The district bought the property in the 1960s for a future high school, but officials now say it is not needed for that purpose. It is now being leased for farming.

Because the site is so close to the Civic Center, Barry said, city officials “wanted us to come up with something wonderful. But we were just not sure what they wanted.”

Mayor Greg Stratton said the district’s proposal--three acres of single-family houses, seven acres of rental housing for senior citizens and teachers, and a 26-acre retail shopping center--was not what city officials and many residents had in mind.

“I think there was a general consensus that the proposed shopping center represented too intense development at that site,” he said.

Councilwoman Sandi Webb did not vote because she lives near the site and said the potential effect on her property value made it a conflict of interest.

The district sought preliminary approval from the city Monday because much of the land would have needed a zoning change from residential to commercial.

James A. Gillespie, a sales manager who lives near the site, said he was pleased that the council rejected the plan. He said school board members may have been misled by promises of a quick windfall.

“I think the developers came to them and made this proposal, and it looked like an easy way for them to generate revenue,” Gillespie said. “But, unfortunately, none of the board members did their homework from a business standpoint.

“The neighborhood sat down and did their homework and found out that it was not financially viable and was a poor risk for the school district and would not enhance the neighborhood.”

Marshall B. Krupp, president of CSA Real Estate Development, disputed this view at the council meeting. He said there was little risk to the district because lenders will not provide construction money unless a developer has commitments from tenants for at least 70% of the center.

Krupp declined to comment Tuesday afternoon on the council’s decision but said he plans to meet soon with school officials to consider other development options.

District officials said they will probably not build houses on the land or sell the parcel because the state, which lent the money to buy the land, would seize any profits from a sale.

Some city officials and residents who opposed the retail project said they would prefer to see the district move its administrative offices to the surplus high school site and develop the property that holds the present headquarters.