Schools Lose Bid to Sell Orchard Site : Oxnard: County planners reject district’s request in hopes of preventing development on farmland.

Hoping to ward off development on a potentially vulnerable chunk of farmland, the Ventura County Planning Commission on Thursday rejected the Oxnard high school district’s request to sell a 27-acre lemon orchard.

The commission voted 4 to 1 against the district’s proposal to sell a citrus grove directly behind the new Oxnard High School site on Gonzales Road near Victoria Avenue.

Only Commissioner Johnie Carlisle Jr., who is from Oxnard, supported the district’s request.

Oxnard Union High School District officials said they will appeal immediately to the county Board of Supervisors.

But they have to act fast.

School officials bought the orchard as part of an 80-acre lot where they are building a school to replace the existing Oxnard High campus on 5th Street.

Although the district needed only 53 acres for the school, it got an agreement that the landowner would buy back the remaining 27 acres for its original $2.1-million selling price.

*

But the agreement has two conditions: The district must get county approval for declaring the orchard as a separate lot, and it must sell the property back to developer Maland Enterprises by Dec. 31.

If school officials are unable to resell the grove, Supt. Bill Studt said, they will have to use school funds to repay loans used for buying the land.

“The only source of repayment for that $2.1 million would be from the general funds of the school district,” Studt said. “And those general funds are what is used to support children’s education.”

County planning rules, however, forbid lots smaller than 40 acres in agricultural areas. Smaller lots tend not to be commercially viable for farming, said county planners, putting pressure on landowners to develop the property.

Commissioner Laura Bartels criticized the district’s agreement with developer Maland Enterprises as “a real sweetheart deal for the farmer.”

A handful of longtime Oxnard residents, including a former Oxnard mayor and high school district trustee, blamed school officials for getting the district into a bind.

*

School officials were well aware of county planning rules when they bought the land, former Mayor Jane Tolmach said.

“To agree to provide the landowners with something not in their powers is gambling with our money,” Tolmach said.

Oxnard resident Bradley Smith said, “They have made a bed of roses and thorns for themselves and I unfortunately feel they should lie in it.”

Some residents and planning commissioners urged the district to use the citrus grove to launch an agricultural-education program.

“If they think they have a lemon, try hard to make a lemonade,” said Letha Marshall of the community group Oxnard Beautiful.

But district officials said they have an agricultural program at Camarillo High, which is open to the district’s students.

The officials said they bought the 80-acre property because they could not find a 50-acre lot near the existing Oxnard High School.

Besides, Studt said, the district was under pressure to complete a land deal quickly so it could qualify for $28 million in state funding to build the school.

The district skirted county rules banning development on farmland through state laws that enable school districts to condemn land needed for new schools.

School officials agreed with the property’s owners, Maland Enterprises and Somis developer Ag Land Services, to buy the property for $79,000 per acre, or a total of $6.3 million.

Under the agreement, the district would recoup $2.1 million by reselling the orchard to Maland. And it could be refunded the remaining $4.2 million for the 53-acre school site if surrounding farmland becomes the site of new houses. The developers agreed to pay the district on a pro rata basis according to the number of new houses built.

Now, school officials say, the county may be punishing them for building in an agricultural area.

But George Lauterbach, a consultant for the school district, urged the planning commission to forget the past and look to the future.

The school is “a fait accompli ,” he said. “The question comes down to: In 1995, who will own this 26 acres? Will it be the farmer who sold it the school district or will it be the school district?”