According to the May 23 letter by Richard Main to Bradley, the legal notice for the Pinnacle development in Adams Canyon is incomplete, while other information - specifically the initiative’s summary - is not impartial as required by law.City Clerk Steven Salas’ noted his decision to allow supporters of Adams Canyon Agricultural Preservation (ACAP) to gather additional signatures after they handed in documentation on May 15 was based on the mixed messages from the county on decision-making authority and signature deadline, which had been extended to May 28.Salas said it was made clear to ACAP supporters on May 15 that they could keep collecting signatures to tighten SOAR-based Measure I - passed by voters in 2000 - until May 28, but they opted to file the initiative with the city clerk’s office. The next morning ACAP supporters called and asked if the petitions could be returned; after the initiative failed by 68 votes, ACAP gathered more signatures, which were turned in May 28.A May 29 letter to Salas - cover copied to the City Council, City Attorney Phil Romney and county election officials - from attorney Edward J. Casey of Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish, representing Pinnacle, outlined objections and case law that would invalidate the verification of ACAP signatures gathered after documents were submitted on May 15.Salas said he believes that the letter from Pinnacle’s law firm “factored in” the decision by county officials to reject ACAPs added signatures, although “the county had said they would accept the signatures and count them,” towards those previously submitted.A June 3 letter from Eugene Browning of the county clerk’s office to Salas noted that, although the additional signatures submitted by ACAP would qualify the measure for the November ballot, the new documents are considered “supplemental” by law and cannot be accepted.“We’re still evaluating our options,” said Jim Procter of ACAP. “We need to do some fact-finding before we decide how we’re going to proceed. It’s become a real David versus Goliath,” with the involvement of Pinnacle’s attorneys.
ACAP signatures rejected, Pinnacle attorneys’write, Anderson’s measure disqualified
June 12, 2002
Santa Paula News
Santa Paula’s land-use battle just got more complicated with the rejection of added signatures for an ag-preservation measure after attorneys for an opposing measure, which seeks to develop Adams Canyon, challenged a supplemental signature drive allowed by the City Clerk. And, a local developer whose own signature drive for a measure to develop a 32.5 acre parcel on the west side of Santa Paula was notified that due to an incomplete legal notice, his measure - although exceeding signature requirements - will not make the ballot.
By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesSanta Paula’s land-use battle just got more complicated with the rejection of added signatures for an ag-preservation measure after attorneys for an opposing measure, which seeks to develop Adams Canyon, challenged a supplemental signature drive allowed by the City Clerk. And, a local developer whose own signature drive for a measure to develop a 32.5 acre parcel on the west side of Santa Paula was notified that due to an incomplete legal notice, his measure - although exceeding signature requirements - will not make the ballot.The legal notice for the initiative for The Pinnacle Group of Arizona to develop Adams Canyon is also being challenged by an opponent, while Scott Anderson, the owner of the parcel whose bid for ballot placement was rejected due to legal notice deficiencies, will ask the City Council to place his initiative on the ballot.“This is very upsetting after the efforts of many friends that helped gather signatures from over 10 percent of registered voters,” said Anderson, who believes his legal notice should have been checked for inaccuracies when it was submitted to the City Clerk’s office.Registered voters who signed Anderson’s petition discussed the proposed development at the corner of Foothill and Peck roads in detail, a “strong indication that this measure should be on the ballot. . .the citizens passed SOAR to provide options that they could review and cast a vote for or against. Technical flaws have been pointed out on all three petitions,” which could result in “no choices for the community. Clearly, the intent to provide choices for the Santa Paula community is understood by the council members.”Meanwhile, the legal notice regarding the initiative backed by The Pinnacle Group is also being questioned by the same person who drew attention to the missing information in Anderson’s legal notice with a letter to Bruce Bradley in the County Clerk-Elections Division.
