Moorpark Could Double in Population Under New Rules

By PHIL SNEIDERMAN

May 1, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

Moorpark, the county’s fastest growing city in the 1980s, could nearly double in population over the next two decades under revised long-term planning guidelines tentatively approved by the City Council.

Council members said the city’s General Plan revisions, adopted in a late-night session that ended early Thursday, would allow developers to build an additional 4,800 residences within expanded city limits. These added to another 2,000 housing units already approved but not yet built could bring the city’s population to nearly 50,000 within 20 years.

Leaders of the city, which now has a population of about 26,000, said the revised General Plan would allow Moorpark to grow at a responsible pace.

But some residents fear that the changes would destroy the community’s rural, small-town character.

“It’s a sad day for Moorpark,” said Bill La Perch, a horse-ranch owner who moved to town 10 years ago after a building boom made his former Tarzana neighborhood unsuitable for horses.

La Perch said his ranch is next to a parcel where 700 residences could be built under the new development rules adopted by the council.

“In the next decade, I guess the people who live in the 700 houses are going to say, ‘We’ve moved to Moorpark, but we don’t like horses (nearby),’ ” La Perch said. “Then I’ll lose the horse ranch.”

Mayor Paul W. Lawrason Jr. disagreed.

“I think the changes we talked about last night are not going to seriously affect the character of the city,” he said. “I think we’ll still retain the rural and friendly character, with lots of open space and green areas surrounding the city. That’s one of the reasons many people moved to the city.”

The changes came at the end of a exhaustive review of Moorpark’s General Plan--the city’s blueprint for future development. At the lengthy meeting that ended at 2 a.m., council members reached a consensus on new land-use rules sought by the backers of five proposed housing projects.

The revisions dictate the number of housing units that each developer could build on proposed sites. Council members are scheduled to take a final vote on the changes on May 13.

The revisions call for four of the proposed projects to be built within the present city limits, while the fifth and largest--Messenger Investment Co.’s Hidden Creek Ranch--would require the city to annex the 4,000-acre site. That would boost the size of Moorpark from 12 square miles to about 18. The city now has about 7,500 housing units.

Council members gave the developers of the five new projects two building limits to encourage them to provide extra public improvements.

For instance, the council ruled that Messenger Investment would be entitled to build up to 2,400 housing units on its land northeast of the city. But if the firm provides extra public benefits such as parks, major road improvements or affordable housing, it could qualify for up to 3,221 housing units. Messenger Investment officials had been seeking approval to build 4,800 units.

But Gary Austin, a Messenger Investment vice president, said he was pleased that the council had set guidelines for the site.

“We’re going to have to roll up our sleeves and analyze the heck out of the project to see where we are,” he said. “But at least there has been a step taken where we can go forward with the preparation of a specific plan.” Austin said that if the annexation and other approvals are obtained without delay, construction of housing at Hidden Creek Ranch could begin in three to four years.

The council set the following building limits for the other four projects, all in the north central part of the city: 475 units for the JBR Development project, or up to 712 with amenities; 415 units for the Levy Co. project, 523 with amenities; 154 units for the Schleve project, 231 with amenities, and 80 for the Moorpark Unified School District site, 120 with amenities.

Jim Hartley, former planning commissioner, said he supports the four projects within the city but strongly opposes the Messenger Investment development. He said it would drastically change the size and character of the city.

“I don’t recall any positive testimony about that huge project coming from anyone who wouldn’t profit from it,” he said. “I’m terribly disappointed with that decision. Our quality of life will be gone.”

But Councilman Scott Montgomery said the council acted properly by setting guidelines that would allow modest growth and ensure the city’s economic viability.

“I never approached this process believing that our decision would please everyone,” he said. “We are five people who have lived in the city for a number of years. All of us are concerned about our community. We just did the best we could.”

Proposed Housing Developments 1. Levy Company 2. Moorpark Unified School District 3. Schieve 4. JBR Development 5. Messenger Investment