Huge Development in Peril Under Moorpark SOAR

For most Ventura County cities, the debate surrounding the Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiatives is largely an abstract look at putting the clamps on future growth.

For Moorpark, however, the city SOAR initiative has a much more tangible effect: It would most likely kill the Hidden Creek Ranch project, a 3,221-home development that promises to increase the city’s population by one-third and is already well into the permit pipeline.

Next week, Moorpark leaders plan to discuss an array of ballot measures. They can support a watered-down alternative to the SOAR initiative that would still allow for Hidden Creek Ranch. Or they can place SOAR before voters, helping the citizens’ group sidestep a lawsuit seeking to derail the initiative drive.

City officials can also ask voters to help pick up the tab for buying open space or defending against possible lawsuits that the growth control measures bring.

SOAR leaders are not holding their breath for a favorable decision. As early as today, they plan to take out papers to begin a second signature drive and force a special election in Moorpark later this year.

And they refuse to give ground on Hidden Creek Ranch, a project proposed by Irvine-based Messenger Investment Co. that would be the largest in the city’s history.

“We will launch the effort for a second petition drive in Moorpark as an important backup,” SOAR leader Steve Bennett said. “We’ll launch that even before they vote, because it takes time to get everything ready. That Messenger project is too important of an issue to wait.”

*

SOAR is attempting to pass measures this fall preventing Oxnard, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Santa Paula and Moorpark from expanding beyond a set of designated borders without approval from voters. The group also wrote a countywide initiative that would take the power to rezone farmland and open space away from county politicians, putting it directly in the hands of voters.

Moorpark Councilman Chris Evans said he advocates a growth-control ordinance that would give voters power over expanding city limits--but not one that would get the city sued.

That is what he believes will occur if SOAR succeeds in passing a measure prohibiting Hidden Creek Ranch from being part of the city.

“The Moorpark [SOAR] initiative is completely inappropriate, and it’s going to tie the city up in lawsuits for years to come,” said Evans, who crafted the city’s alternative measure along with Councilwoman Debbie Teasley. “The bottom line is, their measure is not about saving open space, it’s about killing Messenger.”

Moorpark leaders held a lengthy discussion Wednesday on SOAR and three related ballot measures the council is considering. Council members agreed to continue the discussion Wednesday because they and the public have not had time to review the latest version of the city-sponsored growth-control measures, presented at the last minute by city staff members.

In addition to a SOAR alternative measure allowing Hidden Creek Ranch and locking up city boundaries for 10 years instead of SOAR’s 20 years, council members are set to consider two new tax measures.

One would charge homeowners $80 to help purchase open space, while another would charge $40 to help amass a legal defense fund for lawsuits that could arise from SOAR or the city measures.

Mayor Pat Hunter, who had not given his opinion on the city’s alternative measure, said during the meeting that he would be willing to support it--as long as the SOAR measure was also on the ballot. He said he wanted to give the public both choices.

Hunter also said he would be willing to back the tax measure for open space but not the legal defense fund.

“For one, I don’t think there’s any possibility that will win,” he said, pointing out that Moorpark residents recently turned down a tax for park maintenance.

Farmer Steve Shehyn, who bought a 20-acre avocado farm in Grimes Canyon just north of Moorpark nine years ago, told the council he opposed both the SOAR and city measures, saying it would restrict his right to build.

“As far as I’m concerned, I’m mad as hell,” Shehyn said. “I’m just fit to be tied over this.”

With SOAR, Moorpark leaders face a complex decision.

SOAR has already gathered enough signatures to place its city measure on the ballot. But two Ventura lawyers representing the Libertarian Party have sued to stop Moorpark, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Santa Paula and the county from certifying the SOAR signatures.

*

The attorneys, Robert Chatenever and William Weilbacher Jr., contend the signatures should be thrown out because the petitions on which they were gathered contained a flaw: Instead of asking voters to write where they now live, they asked for “Residence Address (as registered).” That, the attorneys argue, prevents county elections officials from being able to determine whether the people still live where they were registered to vote.

They will be seeking a temporary injunction Thursday preventing the cities and the county from certifying the signatures until their case is heard.

SOAR backers, meanwhile, are asking Moorpark and all the affected cities to follow the lead of the county Board of Supervisors and simply place SOAR on the ballot independent of the signatures.

That would resolve SOAR’s problems by ensuring its measures go before voters. But it would not save the cities from legal liability, because cities must still make a decision on the signatures now that they have been submitted.

Evans said he is not inclined to bail out SOAR.

“I’m appalled, frankly, that the supervisors went for that,” he said. “I think [Supervisor] Judy Mikels should be commended for not giving in to that. If they need help to go on the ballot, then they don’t belong there.”

*

Bustillo is a Times staff writer and Hong is a correspondent.