Huge Housing Project Is Focal Point of Election

MOORPARK —  The issue of growth--how many homes will be built, how quickly they are built and where they are built--is the first to pop up in the campaign to fill the vacant City Council seat here.

In what is also likely to be the first election skirmish on the issue, candidates and many residents say they will be out in force tonight at a Planning Commission meeting concerning the so-called Hidden Creek Ranch development, proposed by the Messenger Investment Co. of Irvine.

The sheer size of the proposed development has made it the focal point for debate.

“I haven’t heard any other issues out there right now,” said eight-year Moorpark resident Tim Kelly. “Growth is the issue. It should be the issue.”

With plans to build 3,221 homes on about 4,300 acres of oak and scrub-brush-covered land on the northeast side of town, the project could bring more than 10,000 residents to this city of 28,000 people. If approved, it is expected to cost more than $1 billion and take about 12 years to complete.

Although land for the project is located just outside the city limits, it falls within the city’s sphere of influence, and any development of the area must meet with the city’s approval.

Debate on the Messenger project and a handful of other smaller developments is happening as candidates are gearing up for the March 26 special election to fill the City Council seat vacated by Scott Montgomery, who pleaded guilty late last year to felony and misdemeanor conflict-of-interest charges.

One candidate, Gary Lowenberg, a 39-year-old sales manager for a bus company, has been studying the Messenger project as part of his masters program in public administration at Cal Lutheran University.

And residents such as Kelly are ensuring that the campaign focuses at least in part on growth.

He and a group of other area homeowners formed Citizens Who Care, after Measure F, the city’s 7-year-old growth control ordinance, was allowed to expire at the end of last year.

“We want to be a watchdog for these projects,” he said.

Local environmentalists are also saying that the seven City Council candidates are going to have to state their positions on growth, letting voters know where they stand.

“You bet this is going to be an issue,” said Roseann Mikos of the Moorpark Chapter of the Environmental Coalition. “It’s a big issue. It has to be.”

*

Most of the City Council candidates agree, and are planning to attend the meeting.

“I hope candidates come out and state their positions clearly,” said candidate Bill La Perch, a 72-year-old rancher and businessman who used to be a city planning commissioner.

Staking out one side of the debate, La Perch called the Messenger proposal “a litany of disaster” for the city. Instead of letting the City Council make the final decision on whether the project is approved, he wants a city referendum on the project.

Lowenberg has also said in election papers that he opposes the Messenger project.

Candidate Joe Catrambone, a 64-year-old retired marketing executive, agreed. While he said he was not dead set against the project, Catrambone said he thinks the project is too big for just the council to decide.

But candidate Chris Evans, a 38-year-old local business owner, said he felt a decision on the project could be worked out and that “reasonable heads should prevail” on the issue.

“Growth is the defining issue in the campaign,” Evans said. “There is no doubt about that. And there are quite a few candidates out there who are adamantly opposed to growth. But I don’t think growth is a bad thing. Uncontrolled growth is a bad thing, but this project might have some merit.”

Mike Carlin, a 51-year-old retired Marine who now works as a program manager, was the only candidate to say that while he considers the development important, that other issues, such as traffic in the city, are more pressing.

Messenger Investment Co. Vice President Gary Austin recognizes that with the election, his project will likely become the target of political debate.

“It’s inevitable for a project this size,” Austin said. “But we’re looking forward to having the chance to talk about the specifics of what we’re proposing.”

Plans for the development call for the construction of between 200 and 300 homes a year over a 12-year period.

“That’s a lot, but what that gets you is orderly development,” Austin said. “If the project isn’t eventually approved, it is likely that there will be development there anyway, but that development will be piecemeal.”

In addition, Austin said a planned community, such as the one his company is proposing, allows the city to extract commitments from the developer to build new roads and improve old ones, to build schools, and add to the city’s system of parks.

*

The company plans to set aside about 1,800 acres for open space that will be incorporated into neighboring Happy Camp Canyon Regional Park. With the addition of a public golf course, several small parks and buffer zones around the clustered homes, Austin said there will be an additional 7,000 acres of open space.

For the project to go through, the City Council and Planning Commission must deem the environmental review complete, and approve the specific plan for the project. Then, because the property is just outside city limits, the development company and the city will have to go before the Local Agency Formation Commission to win approval to annex the land to the city.

While not embracing the Messenger project, candidates Mike Wesner, a 47-year-old legal consultant and former planning commissioner, and Eloise Brown, a 74-year-old former City Council member, both said that it has merit and should be carefully considered.

“I want to hear what they are saying,” Brown said. “I like the idea of getting another high school, a fire station on the east side of town and I like the idea of a commercial area on the east side of town.”

Wesner said he wants to make sure that any new development, including the Messenger proposal, conforms to the city’s guidelines for future growth.

“When some people say ‘controlled growth’ they mean ‘no growth,’ ” he said. “Let’s look at the merits of this project and see if there’s a way that we could balance the needs of the city and the needs of the developer.”