Moorpark’s Future Lies in 3 Growth Measures

The fate of three Moorpark measures on the Nov. 4 ballot is expected to indicate whether residents are satisfied with the City Council’s expansion policies, say those on both sides of the growth issue in the growing Ventura County city.

Most agree that the November race for three seats on the City Council will also reflect whether voters perceive growth to be a positive force creating needed housing, jobs and city improvements, or the cause of unwanted traffic and other congestion problems. Moorpark is the fastest-growing city in the county.

Meanwhile, the threat of growth controls in Moorpark has created a stampede among developers who so far this year have banked enough city permits to increase the population here by 50%, making it unclear what effect passage of the three measures could have on building for the next several years.

A record 2,374 building permits have been issued since January in this city of 16,000, more than four times the number issued in each of the last three years, city records show. If built, those homes could push Moorpark’s population to nearly 24,000.

Patterned After Others

Measure F, the most restrictive of the measures, which would limit new permits to 250 a year, is patterned after similar measures passed in Thousand Oaks and Camarillo. The measure would allow the city’s population to increase by about 1,000 a year through the end of 1995.

Under that measure, the City Council would issue the allowed number of building permits after rating development proposals on aspects such as architecture, the amount of open space provided and the capacity of local water, sewer and roads to accommodate the proposed housing tracts.

Exempt from the measure would be “affordable” housing projects, as well as developments of four units or less.

Proponents of the measure, put on the ballot with signatures gathered by the Committee for Managed Growth, a citizens group, say the growth ceiling will slow increases in traffic congestion and school population. The group hopes that the measure will prevent the kind of urban density that chased many of the city’s newer residents out of Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley.

The committee said Measure F is necessary because City Council has failed to put adequate curbs on growth.

Warns of Worsening

“Without the measure, the problems we have are going to become even more severe than they are now,” said committee president Bob Crockford. “If there was such a law, we would charge the City Council with attempted rape of a very nice little town.”

City Council members deny charges that the city has grown too fast, and say that development has brought needed improvements to Moorpark, which was incorporated three years ago.

“The economy has been good and builders want to build,” said Councilwoman Leta Yancy-Sutton, who is running for reelection in November. “ . . . We have had balanced growth.” Also running for reelection is Councilman Albert Prieto, and one seat was left vacant by former Mayor James Weak, who fell ill last spring.

The council responded to Measure F by placing on the ballot Measure H, a referendum that would allow an average of 411 new building permits, up to a population of about 34,000 by the year 2000. The method of determining how the building permits are to be allocated would be created by City Council after the election.

City Council members say Measure F would allow Moorpark to grow within the city’s General Plan guidelines, which call for the population to reach 23,000 in 1990 and 29,600 in 1995.

No Immediate Effect

But it is unlikely that either measure would have an immediate effect on growth in Moorpark because of the large number of development permits that have already been issued this year, said City Manager Steven Kueny. Even if the more restrictive growth initiative, Measure F, were passed, builders now have enough permits to increase the city’s population well beyond its 1990 limits, he said.

Building plans that are already or soon to be under city review could, if built, would house another 5,000 to 10,000 residents and push the city’s population past its year 2000 limit, city records show.

The population limits are, however, only guidelines, Kueny said. “There are no penalties to the city if we exceed them,” he said.

Voters in Moorpark will also decide, in Measure G, the fate of a development agreement between the city and Urban West Communities, a Santa Monica-based development company. The initiative measure, also the product of the Committee for Managed Growth, asks voters to review the City Council’s approval of Urban West’s development agreement.

So far, Urban West has spent about $17,000, more than the combined campaign expenditures of all 11 City Council candidates, to persuade residents to support the council’s approval of a development agreement for the 2,500-unit Mountain Meadows housing tract. In that agreement, the company has agreed to provide about $7 million in improvements to roads, schools and parks.

Committee Efforts Told

According to campaign reports filed this week, the Committee for Managed Growth has so far raised and spent about $3,000 for campaign materials to persuade voters to vote for Measure F and to rescind the council’s agreement with Urban West as outlined in Measure G.

Passage of Measure G would guarantee Urban West an annual building-permit allotment of 325 and exempt the project from any growth measures approved by voters, including Measure F. About 600 homes in the development have already been occupied, said company spokesman Thomas Zanic.

The firm has not taken a position on either Measure F or the council’s Measure H, but Zanic conceded that “if F passes and G loses, it would be a very difficult situation for us.” He said the firm expects strong resident support, especially from voters now living in the development who purchased their homes expecting completion of the 850-acre planned community.

Included in the firm’s development agreement are plans to construct a bridge over the Arroyo Simi to connect Tierra Rejada Road to Los Angeles Avenue and a $1.4-million donation to the city for park improvements.

Opponents of the Measure G say the firm should not be exempted from growth-control restrictions. They say the proposed improvements would benefit primarily the residents living in that development without reducing traffic congestion and other problems affecting other residents.