City Rejects Project on Farmland Near Freeway

Despite the promise of free land for public use, the City Council has sided with opponents and voted unanimously against a proposal to develop 330 acres of farmland along the Ventura Freeway.

About 50 people attended the council meeting Wednesday night, with many speaking out against the Camarillo Park and Village project, saying it would erode the area’s semi-rural character.

“Ag land is here once, and God isn’t going to make any more,” said Bill Torrance, president of the Ventura County League of Homeowners.

“Large developments bring high crime, crowded schools,” said the 80-year-old Camarillo resident. “If this goes before the planning department, I guarantee you I’ll have at least 5,000 signatures against it . . . because we want to save the ag land for our children and our children’s children.”

HiJi Brothers and EJM Development Co. had proposed building a 1,000-home subdivision, a school, hotel, restaurants and a shopping center. The project site is sandwiched between the Ventura Freeway and Pleasant Valley Road, and stretches from the Imation plant on the west to the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park on the east.

As part of their proposal, the developers offered to turn over a 37-acre tract to the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District and 10 acres to the local school district.

Although council members agreed that the project did offer some benefits, they also noted the increasing sentiment in Ventura County to preserve agricultural land.

“It seemed to me that the basic question was: Did we think the ‘bribes’ offered to the park district and to the school district were big enough to justify conversion of 330 acres of farmland?” Councilman Bill Liebmann said after Wednesday’s meeting.

But Dennis Hardgrave, a representative for the developers, said it was unfair to characterize the land offer to the park and school districts as a bribe. He said in order to build on farmland the developer must demonstrate that the project will benefit the public.

*

“We’re disappointed with the City Council’s decision,” Hardgrave said. “The misperception by some of [the school and park benefits] as a carrot is a contradiction and is unfortunate.”

Attempting to rally support before approaching the City Council, the developers offered to donate 33 1/2 acres of soccer fields to the park district. They were also willing to turn over 3 1/2 acres for a 14,000-square-foot gymnasium, community center and roller-hockey facility.

“This is triple what we’d normally get from any other project this size,” said John Williamson, park district general manager. He was referring to a law that requires developers to donate land or money to park agencies based on the number of planned housing lots.

“I think it was an honest effort to try to provide the community with much needed facilities,” Williamson said. “My concern is that if they do end up developing it five years from now, will there still be that amount of land offered or will they go back to the smaller amount?”

Additionally, the property owners offered 10 acres and funding for a new school that would have served the estimated 400 students from the new subdivision as well as surrounding areas.

*

Representatives from regional soccer and baseball associations and the Camarillo YMCA spoke in favor of the project, focusing on the urgency of much needed facilities.

“The park district does not have money to acquire land and meet the needs of the city’s kids,” said Mark Malloy, a pony league coach.

But Liebmann, who is on a countywide task force exploring ways to preserve farmland, said the proposed project is not in keeping with the movement toward more compact development and less urban sprawl.

“This proposal runs contrary to that philosophy,” Liebmann said. “Taking large chunks and converting it from ag land to public-use open space really doesn’t address any housing needs.”

Although he noted the need for more park facilities, Councilman Kevin Kildee said he also understands that there is a growing push among many county residents to preserve farmland.

“My question is the timing,” Kildee said of the development project. “Is this the right time? I really don’t think it is.”