Retrial requested: Rejected land-use measure has Monday court date

August 10, 2005
Santa Paula News

“An incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision” by a Ventura Superior Court judge is the basis of the request for a new trial according to documents filed by the attorney representing the group seeking to place a measure on the November ballot.

By Peggy KellySanta Paula Times“An incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision” by a Ventura Superior Court judge is the basis of the request for a new trial according to documents filed by the attorney representing the group seeking to place a measure on the November ballot.City Clerk Josie Herrera rejected the We CARE petition as incomplete kicking off the legal battle.This will be the second time the measure 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.On July 5 We CARE lost the first round of their fight to place the initiative on the November ballot when the judge upheld 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 established case law.The new court date based on a motion for a new trial is set for August 15 at 8:30 a.m. 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.
Although Francis said he had hoped to appear on Aug. 5 the court date was pushed back to Aug. 15.Francis is basing his request for a new trial on Judge Hintz’s “...incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision” that upheld Herrera’s rejection of the We CARE petition.City Attorney Karl Berger filed a response noting that We CARE cannot meet the burden of proof to justify a new trial. He said that the court’s application of a previous case was correct and that Francis’ attempt to compare the signature gathering process to the preparation of a ballot pamphlet is improper. He added that the “full text” requirement set forth in the elections code requires We CARE to provide more information than just the text of the measure to be adopted.We CARE had failed to include just where the measure’s language would be inserted into the city’s General Plan and Housing Element.The original target of We CARE had been the proposed Fagan Canyon development of up to 2,147 homes, two elementary schools, 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.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 prior to City Council discussions on the proposed development.



Site Search

E-Subscribe

Subscribe

E-SUBSCRIBE
Call 805 525 1890 to receive the entire paper early. $50.00 for one year.

webmaster