Teasley Bows Out of Council Votes on Hidden Creek

Councilwoman Debbie Teasley said Monday she will abstain from all future council votes on the massive Hidden Creek Ranch development to avoid a potential conflict of interest.

She cited a new opinion from lawyers at the state Fair Political Practices Commission--made public by the commission Monday--for the decision. Since the issue was raised seven months ago, she has recused herself from council decisions on the proposed 3,221-home development.

In a letter to Teasley dated Friday, commission general counsel Steven G. Churchwell wrote that her job as local district manager for the real estate company Coldwell Banker could conflict with her duty as a council member to vote on the proposed development.

Although it advises Teasley that the decision on abstaining is hers, the letter strongly suggests such a step is necessary to avoid a conflict.

“As a real estate business, Coldwell Banker will want to take advantage of the opportunity to increase its profit” by participating in business that would be generated by the project, Churchwell wrote. “Thus, it is substantially likely that Coldwell Banker will receive business as a result of the development of Hidden Creek.”

Teasley said she had been hoping for a “clear-cut yes” from the commission to participate in decisions on Hidden Creek Ranch. Having received no such assurance, “I won’t participate on Hidden Creek,” she said.

“As long as they’re feeling that . . . there’s a potential conflict of interest, I would prefer to abstain.”

The lack of a fifth voter on Hidden Creek creates the possibility of a council deadlock over the largest development ever proposed in the city, a project that could double Moorpark’s size and increase its population by one-third. Although council members have not publicly staked out their positions, they have not always agreed in discussions on the project.

The project will next go before the council Wednesday for a final public hearing, with a decision on approval yet to be scheduled. The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. at Moorpark City Hall, 799 Moorpark Ave.

“I think it’s our collective responsibility to work for a decision and not to let a deadlock occur,” said Councilman Bernardo Perez. Denial or passage of the project would require a 3-1 vote.

Opponents of the Hidden Creek project--whose complaints about a possible conflict prompted Teasley to seek the commission’s advice--praised her for bowing out of the issue.

“I think it’s a wise decision,” said Roseann Mikos, president of the Environmental Coalition’s Moorpark chapter.

Others disagreed. Moorpark land-use consultant Joe Ahearn, for example, said the commission’s advice was unfair because all businesses, not just those related to real estate, stand to benefit financially from Hidden Creek Ranch.

“I think the Fair Political Practices Committee is way off base,” Ahearn said. “If you have a business that caters to the consumer, that deals with the consumers and is located in Moorpark, then any increase in population will have a positive effect on your customer base.”

The commission, he said, is “definitely singling out a particular profession.”

In his letter, however, Churchwell cited state laws that define a financial conflict. Public officials have a conflict “if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally,” he wrote. And only real estate businesses are likely to benefit as much as Coldwell Banker, he wrote.

The letter is the second Teasley has received from the commission. Commission staff members said the first letter addressed only hypothetical questions posed by the councilwoman, and therefore offered only hypothetical answers. The latest letter was drafted after she asked for clarification.

Commission spokesman Gary Huckaby said many real estate professionals find themselves in similar positions when they join elected boards.

“It’s a very difficult thing for anyone in the housing and real estate industry . . . to avoid conflict-of-interest situations,” he said.

As an example, Huckaby pointed to a 1996 case involving Palm Springs Mayor Will Kleindienst, who asked whether he could vote on matters related to expansion of the city’s airport. Kleindienst’s wife owned an escrow company in the city.

“It turned out he couldn’t because it could affect employment at the airport and housing, and therefore income to his wife, and that would have a material financial [effect] on his wealth,” Huckaby said.

Teasley has no plans to contest the letter.

“They have responded back and I have every intention of continuing this path which I have chosen, which is not to participate,” she said.