Francis was unaware that the City Council would be dark on August 15. “They may need to call a special meeting...there’s a whole lot of hypotheticals. Timing is very tight,” and if Judge Hintz reversed himself and the measure did miss the November ballot, the city “would have to run the cost of a special election.” By the same token, if the judge reversed his July 5 decision upholding Herrera’s rejection of the petition, the council could adopt it for the ballot if they met August 15, he noted.The original target of We CARE had been the proposed Fagan Canyon development of up to 2,147 homes, two elementary schools, and 25,000 square feet of retail and support services in the canyon just north of city limits. Traffic and the mix of affordable housing into the proposal by Centex Homes were the main concerns of We CARE, but Fagan Canyon was not singled out in the petitions.Herrera rejected the petitions when it was found that, although the language of the proposed measure was offered to signers, specific changes to the General Plan and Housing Implement Plan that the measure would create were not included on the petitions. In his July 5 ruling, Judge Hintz wrote that those who signed the petition were not fully informed of what “they are being asked to sign and what they are being asked to support.”We CARE started the petition drive before the proposed project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report was released and before the City Council started discussions on the proposed development.
Group’s court-rejected land-use measure heading back to judge
July 22, 2005
Santa Paula News
The group seeking to place a measure on the November ballot limiting future growth to 81 contiguous acres in five-year increments until 2025 unless voters approve larger commercial and residential projects is headed back to court.
By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesThe group seeking to place a measure on the November ballot limiting future growth to 81 contiguous acres in five-year increments until 2025 unless voters approve larger commercial and residential projects is headed back to court. We CARE lost the first round of their fight to place the initiative on the November ballot on July 5, when a Superior Court judge upheld City Clerk Josie Herrera’s decision to reject the petition due to incompleteness. We CARE had also named the City Council in the lawsuit.Judge Steven Hintz issued a written ruling noting that his decision was based on previous similar cases. The new court date based on a motion for a new trial is set for August 15 at 8:30 a.m. The hearing before Judge Hintz will be held in Courtroom 42.We CARE attorney Richard Francis, who crafted the county’s SOAR land-use measures, filed a motion on July 19 for the case to be retried. “When one thinks a judge makes a mistake, it’s an appropriate procedure to call it to his attention before one files an appeal,” said Francis. “I had some issues I wanted to raise” before moving on to the next legal step.“It’s unlikely to affect the ballot,” due to the county’s tight deadlines, although an attempt would be made to place the measure for November if Judge Hintz reversed his earlier ruling.
