Moorpark Council Backs Off From Growth Measure; Lawsuit Feared

Threatened with a lawsuit from builders, the Moorpark City Council on Monday decided against placing on the Nov. 6 ballot a controversial measure that would have forced elections on many growth issues.

The proposed measure was blocked by its own co-author, Councilman Scott Montgomery. He withdrew his support at Monday night’s council meeting after members of the building industry threatened to sue the city.

Montgomery said he was unwilling to expose the city to a legal challenge after City Attorney Cheryl Kane told the council that a lawsuit could cost as much as $250,000 to fight in court.

“Moving ahead with the ordinance will guarantee the council will be sued,” Montgomery told his fellow council members, who decided to send the measure back to a committee. By not voting Monday, the council failed to meet the deadline for placing the measure on the ballot.

The proposed law, called “a comprehensive planning ordinance,” would haved triggered an election each time new development involved zoning changes that would push traffic volume over specific limits.

For instance, voters would have to approve any change at a 25-unit apartment house, say from medium- to high-density to allow more units, that would push the number of car trips generated by the building above 203 per day.

Such changes now require only approval by the City Council.

The proposal grew out of complaints about traffic in Moorpark, a city of nearly 27,000 people.

Paul Tryon, executive director of the Building Industry Assn., which represents 350 builders and developers in Ventura County, questioned the measure’s legality.

“I think it has reasonable merit for a legal challenge,” he said.

Robert Holmes, legislative advocate for the Building Industry Assn., said the proposed measure would violate state law that grants cities power to set land-use policies--powers they cannot pass on to the voters.

In a July 11 letter to the City Council, the builders group attacked the proposed ordinance, saying, “Voters will be forced to make important decisions based on 60-second sound bites.”

“We’re going to ask the public to make these critical decisions,” Tryon said in an interview. “What does it turn into? Maybe a guy gets his project approved because he’s good at politics.”

Councilman Clint Harper, co-author of the measure with Montgomery, called the builders association’s attacks a smoke screen intended to keep voters from having a say in critical decisions which affect them.

Harper said Moorpark voters are well-informed about growth issues, especially the ones affecting their neighborhoods.

Harper said he was dismayed by Montgomery’s change of heart, but said he intends to draft an identical ballot initiative and seek enough signatures to place it on a future ballot.

“The reason that the ordinance is being attacked by the building industry is that if were implemented it would be effective,” Harper said. “They see this ordinance as a threat.”

He said the building industry, “is not concerned the public won’t understand. They’re concerned the public will understand it and will agree with the concept.”

Three years ago, when voters passed a growth-control ordinance called Measure F, the association sued to block it. The suit was settled when Moorpark agreed to increase the annual limit on building permits from 250 to 270.

“I think the city won,” Harper said. “Measure F is still in place.”

But the measure also raised objections among members of the City Council, including Councilman Paul Lawrason and Councilwoman Eloise Brown.

“We’ve got a pile of litigation on our hands now that we can’t seem to get out from under,” Lawrason said.