Foes of Hidden Creek Ranch Begin Ballot Drive

Convinced they can no longer block construction of Hidden Creek Ranch with a local SOAR growth-control initiative, opponents of the 3,221-house development launched a referendum drive Thursday in hopes of killing the already-approved project.

The Committee to Qualify Hidden Creek Ranch Referendum--whose members are also backers of the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiative--filed papers at City Hall to begin petitioning for a public vote on Hidden Creek Ranch, one of the largest development projects in recent county history.

The committee has until Sept. 18 to collect signatures from 10%--or about 1,500--of the city’s registered voters. It plans to start gathering signatures Saturday.

Some Moorpark leaders reacted angrily to news that their decision on Hidden Creek--the result of eight years of meetings and negotiations with Messenger Investment Co.--was being challenged.

“A referendum on Hidden Creek is classic environmental liberalism,” said Councilman Chris Evans, a supporter of the project. “If the people want to vote on it, great--go ahead.”

SOAR leader Richard Francis argued that Moorpark residents had been led to believe they would have a shot at voting on Hidden Creek Ranch.

“I would think some of the members of the council would applaud the fact that this will go before the voters,” Francis said.

Councilman John Wozniak, who voted to allow Hidden Creek Ranch after earlier suggesting it should go before voters, said it was the group’s choice to pursue a referendum.

“It’s been their prerogative to do that,” Wozniak said. “If they felt like doing it four years ago, they could have done that. . . . I think now, though, that people have a better understanding of what Messenger does or doesn’t do for the city.”

Gary Austin, Messenger Investment Co.’s vice president of planning and entitlements, said the builder was surprised by the referendum tactic, though it knew SOAR backers were looking to stop the project at any cost. He said he hoped voters would consider the project’s benefits amid the campaign rhetoric.

“Frankly, we had no idea this was their plan,” Austin said. “I hope people read the fine print before they sign the petition, because they’re being asked to negate a project that’s going to provide 2,000 acres of open space and keep growth to 200 houses a year.”

SOAR backers are hoping to pass seven growth-control initiatives later this year.

A countywide SOAR measure would prevent development on unincorporated farmland and open space without voters’ approval, while city measures in Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, Oxnard, Santa Paula and Moorpark would prevent development beyond designated boundaries unless voters signed off on it first.

The Moorpark measure, which has yet to qualify for a special election, includes language that seeks to stop any development that failed to obtain final approval before the beginning of this year.

Hidden Creek opponents had to resort to a referendum to block the project because the development was approved before voters had a chance to consider the local SOAR initiative.

“All anybody’s ever asked for with respect to Hidden Creek is the right to vote on the project,” Francis said. “We thought we had that with SOAR, because SOAR could be read as a referendum on Hidden Creek, aside from its other wonderful attributes. But because of my own errors and [Moorpark’s] legal foot-dragging, we had to do an actual referendum.”

SOAR backers had initially gathered enough signatures to place their Moorpark initiative before voters in the November general election.

But the Moorpark initiative, like other SOAR initiatives around the county, became the subject of a lawsuit by the Ventura County Libertarian Party, which challenged the validity of the signatures used to place it before voters.

Conceding SOAR represented the will of the people, elected leaders from the county and the five other cities decided to independently place the measures on the ballot to avoid the legal threat. Moorpark, however, refused to do so, and a judge threw the local SOAR initiative off the fall ballot, forcing SOAR to gather signatures for a special election that would cost taxpayers an extra $20,000 in expenses.

SOAR backers collected the signatures--even faster than the first time--but the names have yet to be verified by county elections officials.

Francis said SOAR backers considered the Hidden Creek Ranch referendum a separate issue from the group’s growth-control efforts, but were making no secret of their full involvement in both campaigns.

“SOAR is a countywide perspective and vision that has a local component,” Francis said. “This is purely a local issue. We are not trying to distance ourselves from this. As you can imagine, some of the same people and resources are involved.”

Steve Sill of the Moorpark Chamber of Commerce, a supporter of Hidden Creek Ranch, said the push to overturn approval of the project was brought about by anti-development extremists.

“We’ve got some real wild no-growthers and they will stop at nothing to drive the process to a halt,” said Sill, the chamber’s vice president of economic development. “We need this project.”

The voters of Moorpark, he said, elected the City Council to make important decisions on projects such as Hidden Creek Ranch.

“You can’t run to a referendum,” Sill said. “We’ve got an election coming up. If the people don’t like the way the City Council votes, run them out of town.”

The referendum is not about allowing people an opportunity to vote on the project, but rather a tactic to gain visibility for the City Council campaigns of referendum proponents Roseann Mikos and Clint Harper, Evans contended.

“I think most of the council members have to stop and say, ‘We’ve done our job,’ ” he said. “This is not a fight of the council against the people, though that’s the way they will try to position themselves. This is simply an attempt to get them elected.”

Moorpark residents should consider, Evans said, that Hidden Creek Ranch would get 4,000 trucks off New Los Angeles Avenue by providing money for a California 118 bypass to reroute traffic out of the city’s core.

New residents from the housing project would also mean new customers to help revive High Street, the town’s former downtown that city officials are trying to revitalize, Evans added.

But Hidden Creek Ranch opponents argue Moorpark is already having problems providing basic city services due to a shortage of revenues, and attempting to compensate for a new influx of people with one-shot fees from a development agreement will not resolve the situation.

For resident Maurice Lacour, who lives in the Campus Park Drive area south of the development site, the chance to vote on the project would be welcome.

“I think it would be nice to have the opportunity to override their decision,” said Lacour. The council had some good reasons for the project, he said, “but I think it’s just too big.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

MOORPARK EXPANSION PROJECT

Orange County-based Messenger Investment Co. plans to build 3,221 homeson a 4,300-acre parcel that would be annexed to Moorpark, increasing the city’s population by nearly 10,000 people. Opponents have launched a referendum drive to overturn City Council’s approval of the project.

Sources: Moorpark Planning Department