Developer May Seek Approval for New City : Moorpark: Company warns that if land it wants to build on is not annexed, it will ask for the formation of a municipality.

A development company that owns 4,000 acres northeast of Moorpark has warned city officials that if Moorpark does not annex the property, the company will seek approval to form a new city on the site.

City officials say that although there are many legal obstacles to formation of a new city, they are taking the warning seriously.

The new city could have a population of more than 27,000, higher than the current population of Moorpark, said Gary Austin, a spokesman for the Irvine-based Messenger Investment Co., which owns the property.

“I feel that for the last 2 1/2 years we’ve had a shotgun to our head and that we just found out about it tonight,” Councilman Scott Montgomery said, referring to the length of time that Messenger has owned the mostly vacant hillside property.

Montgomery and other council members said they have held private conversations with Austin and other representatives of Messenger about the company’s plans for the property. But a public hearing Wednesday was the first time they saw detailed proposals.

Austin unveiled two alternative development plans for the Hidden Creek property. Under the alternative preferred by Messenger, the company would build 4,800 housing units on part of the site that would become part of the city of Moorpark. Austin estimated that the project would house about 14,500 people, increasing Moorpark’s population by more than half.

This proposal would also include donating the northernmost 1,800 acres of the site to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The land is adjacent to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park.

Messenger’s second alternative would be to seek approval from Ventura County officials to establish a new city on the site. To help make the city economically viable, the company would build 9,700 housing units that could support a population of about 27,200, Austin said. No land would be donated to the conservancy.

Austin admitted after his presentation that forming a new city “would be an extremely difficult program to go through.” He added that there is a third alternative for the Hidden Creek property, which he did not discuss before the council. Messenger could develop the site but leave it under county control, like the Santa Rosa Valley community north of Thousand Oaks, he said.

Councilman Roy E. Talley Jr. said on Thursday that Austin’s suggestion that Messenger could try to form a new city “looks like a threat.”

“But besides being a threat they do want to develop their property,” he said, adding that a property owner has the right to explore different avenues for development.

“If this was a 1,000-acre-or-less proposal, they wouldn’t have a chance” of establishing another city, Talley said. “The size of it gives it a lot more clout.”

Talley and two other council members said they thought Austin’s presentation clarified the reasons for Moorpark to annex Hidden Creek.

“The issue is control,” Montgomery said.

“The very thing that he described there potentially could happen,” Mayor Paul W. Lawrason Jr. said on Thursday, referring to the possibility that a new city could be created.

One of the first steps toward cityhood for the site would be for Ventura County officials to approve some development on the property.

“There might be some interest on the part of the county to do that,” Lawrason said, adding that the revenues from such a development would help relieve the county’s current budget crisis.

Lawrason said annexation of Hidden Creek should be considered.

“If that were annexed to the city, we’d have total control in terms of zoning and densities,” he said, adding that he thinks city officials could persuade Messenger to reduce the proposed number of homes from 4,800 to about 3,500.

If the county approved a development with a density high enough for it to be considered an urban area, officials from the county and the Local Agency Formation Commission could consider establishing a new city. Ventura County planning guidelines call for all urban development to be within city boundaries, said Robert L. Braitman, LAFCO executive officer.

Once the site was developed, LAFCO and county officials may not want to establish a new city immediately adjacent to an existing one, Braitman said.

The county’s General Plan calls for keeping rural areas between cities, he said.

Moorpark officials said they think that they have reason to fear that the county would approve an urban development at Hidden Creek, whether or not the property eventually became a city.

“One of the concerns is that the county would be more receptive to developing this” because of its present budget crisis, Talley said. “The revenue generated from that area would really help the county budget.”

The City Council is expected to decide by the end of February whether to annex Hidden Creek and several other, smaller properties. The last scheduled public hearing on the city’s proposed expansion is today at 10 a.m.

Proposed Moorpark Addition The Irvine-based Messenger Investment Co. owns a 4,000-acre parcel northeast of Moorpark. Company officials have outlined two alternative development proposals for the hillside property. 1) A development of 4,800 housing units that would be annexed to Moorpark, increasing the city’s population by an estimated 14,500 people. Messenger would donate 1,800 acres to Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. 2) A new city with 9,700 housing units and a population of 27,200. The developer said he will pursue this alternative only if Moorpark refuses to annex the property. Source: Moorpark Planning Department