Residents Protest Proposal to Build Supermarket Near Ventura College

VENTURA —  A standing-room-only crowd filled the City Council chambers Monday night to request that the Lucky supermarket chain be forced to conduct a full environmental study of a large new store proposed near Ventura College.

“It’s the wrong project for the site,” said Neil Moyer, the principal speaker for residents opposed to the project. “It’s too big. And as a supermarket, it’s unnecessary.”

Moyer said the project also could be damaging because it is next to a barranca that drains into Ventura Harbor.

“It poses a grave threat to efforts to restore the Arundell Barranca to a viable habitat,” said Moyer, who is also president of the Ventura County Environmental Coalition.

At the meeting, Lucky Stores Inc. circulated a sheet stating that numerous studies have already been conducted of the site, including those analyzing traffic and noise effects.

Before the meeting, Councilwoman Rosa Lee Measures said she had been hearing the same message for weeks.

“I feel the residents in the immediate area and beyond have certainly come out clearly with their concerns, real concerns, with the traffic issue,” Measures said. “I’ve spoken to a number of citizens who oppose the project, and they have some very valid concerns.”

Lucky Stores Inc. wants to build a 52,298-square-foot supermarket on Telegraph Road across from Ventura College. The supermarket would be the second largest in Ventura and open 24 hours a day.

Residents have not only cited environmental problems at several meetings, but also insisted that the new store is unnecessary since three major supermarkets are within a five-minute drive.

To quantify their discontent, residents gathered more than 1,800 signatures in recent weeks. They presented their list to the City Council last Wednesday.

In turn, Lucky officials hired a professional signature-gathering firm.

After bad publicity and increased public outcry over the professional petition campaign, Lucky last week requested a 30-day continuance.

“Through our conversations with community leaders and residents, and because of increased community interest in the project, the applicant concludes that additional time is needed to listen to the community and develop sound responses to questions and concerns,” wrote project manager Sandra Giblin.

On Monday night, dozens of people turned out to oppose the project.

“The Phoenix died here and it came back,” said Port Commissioner Jean Getchell, referring to repeated efforts to develop the same site. “My primary concern is that no additional pollution find its way into the Ventura Harbor and Keys.”

A majority of council members had previously agreed that the Lucky project is either too big or in the wrong place.

But the council was not in a position to kill the project Monday because the hearing was held solely to determine whether measures designed to minimize environmental problems were sufficient--or whether more study was needed.

They disagreed on how to tell Lucky that the project is not suited for the site.

“I’d have to vote for an EIR,” said Councilman Jim Monahan, who welcomes a Lucky to Ventura at another site such as the Buenaventura Mall. “But I hate to see them spend the money for that when I know that when it comes back I can’t support the project.”

Councilman Jim Friedman said in an interview that he thinks the project should be killed. But he believes the best way to do that quickly is to approve the more cursory environmental study and vote on the project as soon as possible.

“What good does it do to prolong the inevitable?” Friedman asked before the hearing. “What would happen if a full-blown EIR were done? We’d be dealing with the same thing a year from now.”

But Councilman Steve Bennett said he believes that if the council forces Lucky’s to do an EIR, that would be enough to snuff out the project.

“If we tell them to do an EIR, I can’t imagine that they will do it,” Bennett said. “We’re going to tell them do an EIR, and we don’t think much of their project.”