Proposed Replacement Growth Law Is Called Illegal : Moorpark: Building industry spokesman says ordinance is not needed. Voter-approved limits are slated to expire next year.

A proposed ordinance that would limit growth in Moorpark violates state law and is unnecessary in any case, a building industry representative contends.

*

The draft ordinance would replace Measure F, the city’s existing slow-growth law passed by Moorpark voters in 1986 in response to rapid development in the city.

But builders argue that there is no justification for a new ordinance, pointing out that the present rate of development is not straining city services or its water supply.

“State law requires that an ordinance limiting residential construction can only be adopted if the city can adopt certain findings of necessity,” Dee Zinke, executive director of the Building Industry Assn., said at a special City Council meeting Wednesday night. “In light of current economic realities, we doubt seriously that the city could factually support (that).”

City Council members conceded that, because of the recession, no major developments have been proposed in Moorpark in recent years. But they argued that Measure F is due to expire next year, and that an ordinance should be in place to prevent unbridled development when the economy does turn around.

Zinke’s statements Wednesday concerned some council members.

“The statement reads like a cause of action for a lawsuit,” Councilman Scott Montgomery said. “The vast majority of residents want some sort of managed-growth ordinance here, but we’ve had two lawsuits on Measure F and lost both of them.

“We don’t want to find that another legal challenge would blow the doors off of protection, leaving things wide open for development.”

To settle the suits filed after Measure F was passed in 1986, the city agreed to exempt one housing development from the permit limits and increase the number of building permits issued each year from 250 to 270.

The draft ordinance would return to the 250 limit.

In addition, it would not allow developers to accumulate permits over time to build at a later date. More than 1,300 allotments for permits were issued in recent years for homes that have not been built yet, city officials said. The new ordinance would wipe those allotments out, forcing builders to reapply.

“We’re at the mercy of the marketplace,” Zinke said. “Nowadays we build in phases. If we can’t accumulate allocations with the hope of using them at a later date, many projects won’t move forward. We’re already constrained at one end with the economy. Don’t make it even tougher at the other end.”

One of two speakers in support of the ordinance was Bob Crockford, who co-authored Measure F.

“Despite the odds, Measure F won because we were growing out of control,” he said. “This ordinance would continue to control growth and protect the quality of life in Moorpark.”

The City Council decided to hold additional public meetings on the draft ordinance and asked the city attorney to analyze its defensibility. The council will again take public comments on the ordinance at its May 4 meeting.