FULLERTON : Road-Widening Foes Are Rejected Again
For the second time this year, a petition by a group trying to stop the widening of Bastanchury Road was invalidated by the City Council.
By a vote this week of 4 to 1, the City Council agreed with the city attorney that the petition filed by Save Our Bastanchury is not legal, because it would usurp the council’s authority to improve a public road. Councilman Chris Norby was the only dissenter.
For the record:
12:00 a.m. Nov. 21, 1990 For the Record
Los Angeles Times Wednesday November 21, 1990 Orange County Edition Metro Part B Page 3 Column 5 Metro Desk 2 inches; 43 words Type of Material: Correction
Save Our Bastanchury--A report on Nov. 9 that the Save Our Bastanchury group in Fullerton had sued the city over a ballot measure was incorrect. In fact, the City Council has voted to sue the group over the wording of the ballot measure, which would let voters decide whether Bastanchury Road should be widened.
The petition called for a special election to allow voters to decide whether Bastanchury should be widened. The group has filed suit in Orange County Superior Court seeking to force an election.
Fullerton Mayor A.B. (Buck) Catlin said the city “must be able to protect its integrity in the repair of the city’s streets. The city attorney did not think the petition was the proper subject for an initiative.”
Save Our Bastanchury filed a similar petition with 7,700 signatures in July, but an error in the petition’s wording disqualified it. In August, the group recirculated the corrected petition and collected more than 11,000 signatures. The county registrar of voters found that 5,324 of those were valid.
The group contends that the $3.8-million widening and improvement projects that the city plans for Bastanchury Road would increase traffic noise to unacceptable levels. The city plans to widen the road from four to six lanes for one mile.
Mary B. Homme, leader of the group, said she is not surprised by the council’s action but is upset that the council did not allow her to speak.
“It seemed unjustified, the way the council behaved,” she said. “I think it’s tragic that we now have to let the courts decide, and not the voters.”
City Atty. R.K. Fox said he anticipates that the courts will decide the matter in four to six months.
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
