Moorpark’s Ambience on Ballot

All across Moorpark, people are talking about North Park Village, the largest housing development proposed since the city incorporated 23 years ago.

Signs for and against the project are everywhere, stretching across downtown storefronts, decorating the neat lawns of residences.

Voters will get a chance Tuesday to decide whether North Park should go forward, and many see it as a referendum on the future of the east Ventura County city.

If North Park were approved, the city would expand its boundaries by annexing county land to accommodate the development, as required by local growth-control laws. Opponents fear that by authorizing a major residential project in the hills north of Moorpark College, this bedroom community of 36,000 would lose its small-town character.

North Park -- with 1,500 upscale homes and 180 affordable units -- would add 6,000 residents. It would also add 70,000 square feet of retail and commercial space.

“It’s just not a good project for Moorpark,” said Kerry Wilson, who has lived across the street from the community college for a decade and has closely followed the planning for North Park. “More people means more traffic, no matter how you cut it. And there won’t be very much sales tax revenue from that little amount of retail. Those people will get right on the freeway and shop” in neighboring Simi Valley.

Supporters contend that the developers have gone out of their way to please the community, and that the development would bring with it many amenities that the whole city could enjoy.

In addition to the new homes, Newport Beach-based Village Development plans to build a 52-acre lake and swimming lagoon, a 2,121-acre nature preserve and about 30 acres of improved parks.

The developer also has pledged to build on less than a quarter of the 3,586-acre property, as well as to donate $75 million in cash and land to the school district, pay $50 million to the city in fees and contribute more than $25 million for traffic improvements, including a new offramp on the 118 Freeway.

For each home sold, the developer also has promised to put a minimum of $30,000, or 2% of the sales price -- whichever amount is greater -- into a city trust fund.

“There are so many amenities that for some people it seems too good to be true,” said Kim John Kilkenny, North Park’s project manager. “But we have the documents that show that this is what we’ve agreed to.”

In 1999, voters by a 2-1 ratio rejected the proposed 3,221-home Hidden Creek Ranch project on the same site.

Councilman Clint Harper, a 29-year resident of the city, was a staunch opponent of Hidden Creek Ranch.

So when Village Development came forward with its plans, officials asked Harper what might make a project more palatable. They balked at first when he suggested building around a public lake but later changed their minds.

Harper now is a vocal supporter of North Park, which he says would create a permanent buffer from neighboring Simi Valley and provide more community amenities than any project he has ever seen in the county.

“This is the next Westlake Village, but it’s going to be far better than Westlake because it’s going to have far more public benefits for the city surrounding it,” Harper said.

Lisa Leal, who lives less than a mile from the college and has been a Moorpark resident for 19 years, said she opposed Hidden Creek Ranch but says North Park would help the city. She said the dedicated open space sold her on the project.

“I ask people, ‘If you’re a true nature lover, how could you not support this project?’ ... I’ve never seen a [developer] work so hard to get a city’s approval,” Leal said. “Sure there will be problems with traffic, but the final result will be worth it.”

But critics said truckloads of money can’t compensate for an estimated 23,000 additional daily vehicle trips and other problems resulting from transforming mostly grazing land into clusters of gated communities. Some detractors have gone so far as to deface or remove hundreds of signs touting the development in the weeks leading up to the vote.

County Firefighter Ron Sandor, a Moorpark resident since 1987, is skeptical that the development would live up to all it promises. He said the city should finish building within its borders before expanding.

“I moved to Moorpark for its small-town, rural charm ... but I’m not opposed to development and growth if it’s managed properly,” Sandor said. “Taking open space and bulldozing [hundreds] of acres and putting housing on it isn’t something I’m very interested in.”

Mayor Patrick Hunter, who along with Councilwoman Roseann Mikos leads one of two groups formally opposed to North Park, said the project would come at too great a cost for the city.

The developers, for instance, don’t own the land they would need to build the freeway offramp. To get it for them, the city might have to use its power of eminent domain, taking land from one private owner to give it to another. Hunter objects to this. He also argues that Moorpark would never receive a fair amount of revenue from North Park because the city agreed in 1998 to receive a smaller portion of property tax if it annexed county land to build homes.

But supporters counter that the money the developer has promised to put in the city trust fund would more than compensate for lower property tax receipts. Kilkenny said his company had spent four years and held scores of meetings to ensure that the project would meet the needs of the entire city.