Application to Build Stadium Is Withdrawn

VENTURA — After months of controversy that divided city leaders, developer John Hofer announced Thursday that he has withdrawn his application to build a minor league baseball stadium on the celery fields behind the Ventura Auto Mall--at least for now.

The announcement by Hofer coincided with a city staff report recommending that the city decertify an environmental impact report that was crucial for construction of the stadium--in part because of uncertainty about the possible impact of constructing a giant levee along the Santa Clara River.

The city report also recommended the City Council withdraw plans for extending Olivas Park Drive from Victoria Avenue to Johnson Drive, but left the door open for smaller road improvements in the Auto Mall area to help the city’s car dealers.

Despite the timing of Hofer’s decision and the city’s revised position on the environmental impact report, both Hofer and the city emphasized that the reason for withdrawal of plans for the baseball stadium was the city’s stance on how much taxpayer money could be used on the project.

In a report to City Manager Donna Landeros, Community Services Director Everett Millais noted Landeros had recommended to the City Council that city funding for the stadium project be limited to $10.5 million and that the funding issue be put to a public vote, with Hofer Enterprises to pay the election costs.

“Due to these criteria, the application for a stadium and multiple [auto] dealerships has been withdrawn by the developer,” Millais wrote.

A Hofer Enterprises press release Thursday evening gave a similar explanation:

“The City Council’s action on October 21, 1996, on the stadium, adopting critical deal points, requires significant further study. To comply with these deal points will require a new design and project approach.”

But the press release also emphasized that Hofer remains hopeful that additional study will allow Hofer Enterprises to pursue the stadium project in the future.

“While we are withdrawing our application, we are hopeful that our study over the next several months will result in the ability to pursue the stadium project,” the release said. “We will remain in contact with the representatives of the California League of Professional Baseball and other related activities.

“However, the current circumstances require us to terminate the project at this time and reevaluate the project to determine whether or not we will move forward.”

Withdrawal of the stadium proposal dashed the dreams of some council members who hoped to see Class A minor league baseball in Ventura soon.

But those who could be reached for comment emphasized that the most important thing is putting in street improvements near the Auto Center that were approved long ago, but then held up by the stadium negotiations.

“I’m disappointed about the stadium,” Mayor Jack Tingstrom said. “But the most important thing is to protect the auto center. If anything is going to put that in jeopardy, it has to be rethought.”

*

The auto mall is one of Ventura’s most important sources of sales-tax revenue, generating about $1.5 million each year.

Councilman Ray Di Guilio, who has avidly championed the idea of a baseball stadium in Ventura, also expressed disappointment.

“Hofer has made a business decision, and his business decision is to get out of the baseball stadium business as of today,” Di Guilio said. “I don’t personally believe that the concept is completely dead, but it is not viable at this time, under the conditions that he has been handed.”

Millais’ report to Landeros, who refused to comment on events Thursday, was scheduled to be the subject of a news conference by city officials today.

On Monday, the City Council is scheduled to consider reevaluating the Olivas Park Drive extension, and decertifying the environmental impact report, which was passed earlier this fall.

The city’s proposed reversal on the environmental impact study came after strong protests from many groups, including a formal appeal by both the city of Oxnard and California Trout Inc., a nonprofit environmental organization.

In discussing reasons for recommending that the city reverse course on the subject, Millais said:

“Pending and foreseeable development along the upstream portion of the Santa Clara River has made hydrological impacts related to the proposed levee difficult to evaluate. . . .

“Comments filed by several public agencies, some of them responsible for permitting portions of the project, raised significant issues and have each raised questions regarding the potential impacts of a new levee. . . .

“The Soar Initiative, adopted by the electorate in November 1995, now restricts developments on a significant amount of property in the project area. . . . “

As the stadium project dragged on over recent months, all improvements in the car mall area had ground to a halt--including smaller road improvements on Perkin Avenue, Sikorsky Street and Olivas Drive which had already been approved.

“All of those roads have been planned for along time,” Tingstrom said. “They have nothing to do with the stadium. We just want to make sure roads can be put in the way they were planned years ago.”

While most city officials and Hofer cited the money impasse as the primary reason for the withdrawal of the stadium plan, others said Thursday that problems with the city’s environmental impact report ultimately caused the whole process to break down.

*

Attacked as a “stealth EIR,” that had been drafted without proper input from all concerned parties, the environmental impact statement had helped rally citizen groups against the project.

Councilman Jim Friedman said the environmental writing has been on the wall for months.

“The environmental concerns for what it would take to make this thing happen were just so huge that they decided to pull the application and reevaluate,” Friedman said, referring to Hofer.

“The city needs to do a full-blown EIR for the entire Centerplex project, or take Centerplex out of the EIR and just do the auto mall improvements separately,” Friedman said. “We can get things done a lot quicker by just removing Centerplex from the project.”

Councilman Gary Tuttle predicted the entire stadium debate will be forgotten, and the city can move ahead with items he said that really matter.

“It was the wrong thing to do,” Tuttle said. “The levee where they wanted to build it was too expensive, and environmentally incorrect. Now we can move forward with what is really important--access from the 101 to the auto center, which is all we really needed to begin with.”