Herrera’s letter to We CARE founder John Wisda noted that, although the petition includes proposed language that would be inserted into the General Plan, it fails to contain “text showing where in the General Plan the language would be inserted,” what parts of the Land Use Element would be changed, or what the current text of same reads. “Neither the General Plan nor the Land Use Element of the General Plan are attached or incorporated into the proposed initiative,” and it does not provide the full information required by the Elections Code to be supplied to signature voters, Herrera wrote.Wisda said Friday that he does not know what We CARE’s next action would be, but that the rejection of the petition - which qualified with more than 2,200 signatures of registered voters - is “a reflection on the city council.” Through the signatures gathered in support of the initiative, the people have already voted and the “council can enact an ordinance” adopting the measure and reflecting the will of the people. “It’s up to the council now,” Wisda added.The rejection of the We CARE initiative petition is the second time in more than a decade that a petition was refused due to a technical error. In the 1990s the petition by proponents of converting a mobile home park for tenant land ownership garnered enough signatures for ballot placement, but was refused when the text of the measure did not appear on each signature page. The mobile home park measure’s supporters again gathered enough valid signatures and ultimately qualified the measure on the ballot, but the ownership proposal never materialized.
Land use initiative petition rejected by City Clerk due to technical error
June 17, 2005
Santa Paula News
The petition filed and qualified per voters’ signatures has been kicked back to the opponents of the proposed development of Fagan Canyon due to a technical oversight.
By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesThe petition filed and qualified per voters’ signatures has been kicked back to the opponents of the proposed development of Fagan Canyon due to a technical oversight. According to a letter by City Clerk Josie Herrera, the We CARE petition did not comply with all Election Code guidelines spelled out by law.The measure was created due to the concern of residents that the proposed Fagan Canyon development of up to 2,147 homes would bring traffic impacts and not offer balanced housing. The measure - which would sunset in 20 years - did not single out Fagan Canyon.The measure - which We CARE had targeted for the November election - noted on the petitions that the initiative would not allow the city to increase residential or commercial density or intensity of use “beyond that presently described in the above referenced Land Use Element, as amended” unless voter approval is garnered. The measure limited development to 81 contiguous acres over a five-year period.