Tustin Annexation Bids Taken Off Ballot

A judge ordered two Tustin annexation measures removed from the Nov. 3 election ballot Wednesday, a decision that legally checkmates any further action on the controversial proposals before next summer.

Orange County Superior Court Judge William F. McDonald ruled that the city failed to provide proper notice of a public hearing and misled residents who might have petitioned to block the annexation bid.

“I think you should go back to square one and start over again and do it right,” McDonald told Tustin City Atty. James G. Rourke.

About 2,700 registered voters live in the two areas bordering the northern city limits of Tustin.

Joseph L. Herzig, leader of a group of homeowners who unsuccessfully opposed annexation before the City Council and then filed the court case, said he was pleased with McDonald’s decision. Herzig said most homeowners in his area believe that the city would be less likely than the county to preserve the residential nature of the areas.

“They (the county) left us alone, which is what we like,” Herzig said. “The city would develop.”

Rourke said any decision to appeal McDonald’s ruling would have to be put to a vote of the City Council, which meets next Wednesday. The county already has printed ballots, including the annexation proposals, he said, estimating the cost to date at about $5,000.

Herzig’s group, the North Tustin Homeowners Corp., gathered petitions opposing the annexation proposal before it was approved by the city. In its lawsuit, the anti-annexation group claimed to have collected signatures from more than 50% of the affected residents.

Residents said that was enough under state law to kill a vote on the annexation. But city officials disregarded many of the petitions because, they contended, the petitions were dated too early to apply to the final annexation plan. When the city voted to place the issue on the November ballot despite evidence of overwhelming opposition, residents decided that the council had no right to call such an election and filed the lawsuit to halt it.

In court Wednesday, Judge McDonald said opponents had indeed been misled by city notices about the proper time to file their petitions.

One lawyer representing Tustin acknowledged that the city had “goofed up.” But Rourke urged McDonald to allow the election to take place anyway, arguing that if a majority did vote against the annexation, the issue would be settled.

The City Council voted to place the measure on the ballot on June 22, despite a decision by the Orange County registrar of voters that petitions opposing the annexation contained valid signatures of 1,310 residents, or 58% of the registered voters, according to the lawsuit.

During that meeting, council members were roasted by a large crowd that was mostly hostile to annexation. Some residents characterized the move as a high-handed attempt to seize new ground for Tustin. But council members voted 3 to 2 to proceed with annexation.

Unless Wednesday’s court ruling is overturned on appeal, Rourke said that under state law, no new annexation bids may take place within one year of the council action.

Herzig said his group would seek a court order requiring the city to pay the legal costs of the lawsuit, which he estimated at $15,000.

Rourke criticized the group for trying to block an election.

“They seem very desperate to keep the will of the voters in those (proposed annexation) areas from being expressed in the privacy of the voting booth,” he said.