Special Council session approves ballot placement

July 16, 2002
Santa Paula News

The second special City Council meeting turned the tide for a disputed land-use issue which had its initial court hearing the same morning a new council vote removed barriers to ballot placement.

Councilman John Procter and Vice Mayor Laura Flores Espinosa changed their votes to place the measure on the ballot that, if approved by voters, would bring the 5,413 acre Adams Canyon within city growth boundaries.

By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesThe second special City Council meeting turned the tide for a disputed land-use issue which had its initial court hearing the same morning a new council vote removed barriers to ballot placement.Councilman John Procter and Vice Mayor Laura Flores Espinosa changed their votes to place the measure on the ballot that, if approved by voters, would bring the 5,413 acre Adams Canyon within city growth boundaries.The Pinnacle Group of Arizona crafted the measure that could open the way for the construction of 2,250 homes, golf courses, resorts and a shopping center in the canyon north of the city.Espinosa and Procter were pitted against Mayor Ray Luna and Councilman Rick Cook in the July 1 vote; Councilman Don Johnson abstained due to a conflict of interest. Procter and Espinosa both cited a last minute and lengthy report by city legal counsel that said required study before a final decision.Pinnacle attorney’s rejected the claims of opponents, Espinosa and Procter that technical problems - including misleading language, legal notice deficiencies and inaccurate maps - plague the measure.On July 6th, the council had a special Saturday morning session where several citizens urged Procter and Espinosa to change their votes; one said the public is tired of council antics in general.
“If it takes a lawsuit to get this on the ballot they (Pinnacle Group) have a perfect right to sue you,” said Earline Randall. “. . .I say go ahead and do it, then you’re responsible for spending more money,” to add to the “frivolous” expenditures of the past.“The opportunity is there for growth,” said Gloria Garcia. “. . .I believe we can all work together,” if the measure is not placed on the ballot, “I believe my opportunity to vote is being taken away from me. I want to vote on this issue,” and allow others to do the same.“This is an opportunity for us to move forward,” said Richard Garcia, who urged the council to approve putting the measure on the November ballot.Not so fast, said Ken Chapman, an opponent of the measure, who said a legal hearing just might be what the issue warrants. “When you wind up in court to find out the legality of who did what,” a judge can make a quick determination on the measure’s ballot worthiness.Chapman again spoke at the July 9 special meeting, updating councilmembers on the Pinnacle court hearing that same morning.Ultimately, the council approved placing the measure on the ballot after a 30-minute closed session.“After legal counsel and legal analysis, it appeared that the point of challenge to the illegalities of the current initiative regarding content and format (of the measure) would be after placement on the ballot,” Espinosa later said.



Site Search

E-Subscribe

Subscribe

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

webmaster