MOORPARK MAY ADD GROWTH PLANS; CITY INITIATIVES COULD COMPETE WITH SOAR MEASURE ON BALLOT.

Byline: Sylvia L. Oliande Daily News Staff Writer

Voters in Moorpark might have more than one slow-growth initiative to choose from on the November ballot, as well as two measures to help buy open space and pay for potential lawsuits that might come out of the initiatives.

An ad hoc committee of the City Council has proposed its own version of the Moorpark Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources initiative that is similar but has key differences.

The committee drew up the Green Belt Preservation and Urban Growth Boundary measure to improve upon the SOAR initiative.

``The first one was bad for Moorpark,'' Councilman Chris Evans, a committee member, said Thursday. ``They crafted an initiative which, if it passes, would subject Moorpark to lawsuits that we can't afford.''

But Roseann Mikos, a leader of the effort to get SOAR on the ballot, said the Green Belt measure is weaker than the SOAR initiative and does not logically protect the city from over-urbanization.

She said she doesn't object to the city putting its own measure on the ballot, as long as it doesn't interfere with SOAR getting to the voters.

``The right thing to do is let these measures go head to head,'' she said. ``I'm sure the council is going to have the good sense to do that if they want to put their own on.''

The tax measures call for a flat $80 per household fee to raise money to buy open space, and a $40 fee to pay legal fees if the city is sued over SOAR or its own measure.

The main differences in the two growth measures is that the boundary beyond which developers need voter approval to build is larger in the ad hoc committee's measure.

Within the line is the Hidden Creek Ranch project, to reflect the planning area included in the 1992 General Plan update, while the SOAR measure draws the line firmly at the city's current borders.

``It's a logical place to draw the boundary,'' Mikos said.

The exclusion of the project would leave the city vulnerable to lawsuits from the project's developer, Messenger Investment Co., Evans said.

The committee's measure also differs from the SOAR initiative in that it limits its regulations to 10 years, instead of SOAR's 20 years. It also would go into effect on July 1, 1999, rather than immediately after the vote is ratified.

Finally, the city's proposal suggests changing the acreage allowed to be taken out of the protected zone in a calendar year from 40 acres to 160 acres.

After taking public testimony, mostly in opposition, the council put off further discussion until it has time to review the document - which council members said they received hours before the 7 p.m. meeting.

The issue will go back to the council on June 24, the day before the county-imposed deadline to submit measures for the November 3 ballot.

Mayor Pat Hunter said he would only support putting the city measure on the ballot if there were a guarantee that the SOAR measure would be there as well. He said he plans to ask the council to put the SOAR measure on the ballot in case a legal challenge over the collection of signatures is successful.