Insinuations that Herrera was acting outside her role as the elected city clerk or being influenced by others is untrue, as Herrera was “legally obligated” to ensure that the petition met code. Berger invited citizens to read land use Measure I - a land use measure dating back several years - where the required language was properly incorporated.“This is not a city council decision,” Berger added. “I know for a fact that the council” or City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz did not influence Herrera’s decision. “I gave her objective legal advice” on the issue. “I believe she made the correct decision, a ministerial decision.”City Councilman John Procter asked Berger to respond to allegations that his review of the petition should have alerted We CARE that it was incomplete. Berger reviewed the title and summary “upon request, and that’s what I did. My client is the city of Santa Paula. I do not have the legal duty to represent” any other group or to reword petitions.“In addition to that,” We CARE submitted the proposed language of the measure. “At the time something is submitted, we do not know what actually will be circulated for signature gathering purposes.”It was only after the county certified the signatures and returned the petitions to the city that Berger said that the issue of completeness “came up.”
Francis asks council to decide Fagan Canyon petition, City Clerk’s rejection outlined
June 24, 2005
Santa Paula City Council
The City Council listened, but offered little comment Monday when attorney Richard Francis asked that they adopt as an ordinance or allow the We CARE measure be placed on the November ballot.
By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesThe City Council listened, but offered little comment Monday when attorney Richard Francis asked that they adopt as an ordinance or allow the We CARE measure be placed on the November ballot. In turn, City Attorney Karl Berger outlined the reasons that the petitions for the proposed measure were found to be incorrect by City Clerk Josie Herrera.We CARE’s restrictive land-use measure was crafted by critics of the proposed development of 2,147 residences in Fagan Canyon by Centex Homes. The measure, which garnered enough signatures to be placed on the ballot but was rejected by Herrera due to technical oversights, does not mention Fagan Canyon specifically, but rather limits new residential and commercial growth to 81 acres every five years unless voters approve larger developments. The measure would sunset in December 2025.“I think you only have two choices,” to adopt the measure as an ordinance or order it to a November vote, said Francis, who authored the county’s SOAR initiatives. Francis added that he wanted to “make clear” that he does not have an opinion on the proposed development, but that the “law is clear, the local government is not empowered to not place” a duly completed petition on the ballot.After numerous critics and supporters of the proposed measure addressed the council, City Attorney Karl Berger offered comments. Berger noted that the county’s approval of the petition was based only on the validity of the signatures of registered voters, and that content was the issue that led to Herrera’s rejection based on Election Code.Herrera had 30 days to review the petition after county certification, during which time the technical error - not showing where the measure’s language would be inserted into the General Plan and Land Use Element - was discovered. The petition “Must comply with all mandates” said Berger.
