(Orange County Super. Ct. No. 00CC03205)

1. Appellants El Toro Reuse Planning Authority ("ETRPA") and Jeffrey C. Metzger ("Metzger") seek an order staying the effective date of portions of two resolutions adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors ("the Board") on October 23, 2001. The first resolution approves an Airport System Master Plan (ASMP) for Orange County. The ASMP includes a detailed and extensive blueprint for construction of a new international airport at the site of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station ("El Toro") in four phases over the next twenty years. The second resolution directs the County to implement the ASMP through Phase 2 of the El Toro airport project, which calls for construction of a proposed airport that will serve 18.8 million annual passengers by 2010. These resolutions become effective thirty days from their approval by the Board of Supervisors, or on November 22, 2001.
2. This appeal concerns the validity of an initiative known as "Measure F." Measure F provides that no legislative decision by the County’s Board of Supervisors to approve or expand an airport, hazardous waste landfill or large jail located in or near a residential area shall be effective unless ratified by the County’s electorate. This ratification requirement by its explicit terms applies to the Board’s adoption or amendment of an airport system master plan. However, because the Superior Court in this case issued a ruling invalidating Measure F, the Board has not submitted its approval of the ASMP to the County’s electorate for ratification.
3. If this Court reverses the trial court’s judgment, Respondents may contend that the Board’s approval of the ASMP is already final, and therefore need not be ratified by the electorate pursuant to Measure F. They may also argue that the County made its decision to build the El Toro airport in October, 2001 when the Board approved the ASMP and directed County staff to implement it, and that consequently any remaining steps necessary to construct the airport are administrative, rather than legislative, and thus beyond the reach of that initiative. Should these arguments prevail, the right to vote on the ASMP guaranteed by Measure F will have been eviscerated by the Superior Court’s judgment, even if that judgment has been reversed on appeal. The relief sought by this Petition is thus necessary to preserve the status quo and to assure the effectiveness of a judgment by this Court reversing the Superior Court’s ruling.
4. Granting the relief requested by this Petition will not prejudice Respondents. Appellants do not seek an order that would forbid the County from doing anything or compel it to do anything. Consequently, nothing in the order would disrupt the process of planning for the El Toro airport. Instead, the relief Appellants seek would merely stay the legal "effective date" of the Board’s decisions to approve and implement the ASMP and thus ensure that those decisions will be subject to Measure F if the initiative is upheld in this appeal.
5. This appeal is scheduled for oral argument in December, 2001. If this Court issues an opinion reversing the Superior Court’s judgment in December, 2001 or the first several months of 2002, the County will have ample time to put its proposed El Toro airport project on the ballot in November, 2002, as Measure F requires, and thus secure a prompt vote of the electorate on this important issue. If, in the interim, the County decides to forge ahead with the El Toro airport project, it will do so on notice that the airport will be subject to a vote of the electorate if Measure F is upheld.
6. Measure F was enacted by the electorate of the County of Orange ("County") on March 7, 2000, by a 67.3% vote. Section Three of Measure F specifies that "[n]o act by the County of Orange to approve any new or expanded jail, hazardous waste landfill, or civilian airport project shall be valid and effective unless also subsequently ratified by a two-thirds vote of the voters voting at a County General Election." Section Six of Measure F defines the specific legislative actions subject to this ratification requirement, which specifically include the adoption or amendment of an airport system master plan.
7. Immediately after passage of Measure F, Respondents Citizens for Jobs and the Economy et al. filed an action seeking to invalidate the initiative. The County refused to defend Measure F and instead filed a cross-complaint against Metzger, its proponent, in which it sought to invalidate the spending limitations contained in Section Four of the measure.
8. The case was ultimately assigned to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge S. James Otero. Judge Otero granted a motion to intervene filed by Appellant ETRPA, a joint powers authority composed of eight cities in the vicinity of El Toro. The Court also granted Metzger’s motion to intervene with regard to Petitioners’ complaint.
9. At the same time it filed its cross-complaint against Measure F’s proponent, the County sought a complete stay of Section Four. The trial court denied that relief as overbroad, but left the County free to seek a more limited stay. The County then sought and obtained such a stay, which permitted it to continue to spend funds in connection with certain litigation (which Appellants did not oppose) and in connection with certain El Toro-related contracts entered into before the enactment of Measure F.
10. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted Petitioners’ and the County’s motions, concluding that "the entirety of Measure F is invalid" and declaring it "void and unenforceable." A judgment was entered invalidating Measure F, and ETRPA and Metzger jointly filed a timely notice of appeal.
11. Appellants previously filed a petition for writ of supersedeas seeking much broader relief, which this Court denied. In opposing that writ, Respondents Citizens for Jobs and the Economy et al. assured this Court that "the voters will have ample opportunity to express their views on the [El Toro Airport] project ultimately selected by the County if Measure F were to be reinstated by this Court on appeal." Similarly, Respondent County of Orange told this Court that "[s]hould the Superior Court’s judgment be reversed, the airport project Appellants oppose would still be subject to Measure F."
12. Respondents have thus promised this Court that the voters will have the opportunity to vote on the proposed El Toro airport if Measure F is upheld. These promises will be meaningless unless the Court grants the present petition and prevents the Board’s decisions to approve and implement the ASMP from becoming effective before this appeal has been resolved.
13. The facts supporting issuance of the order sought by this Petition are more fully stated in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 923, which is incorporated herein by reference.
14. The record supporting this Petition consists of the Declaration of Paul D. Eckles in Support of Petition for Relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 923 and accompanying exhibits, as well as the ASMP itself, which because of its bulk is being separately lodged with the Court. The Eckles declaration, the accompanying exhibits and the ASMP are incorporated herein by reference.

 

 

WHEREFORE, Appellants pray as follows:

1. That the Court issue an order staying the effective date until the conclusion of this litigation of that portion of Resolution No. 01-361 which approves the ASMP and that portion of Resolution No. 01-362 which directs the County to implement it; and
2. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

LITIGATION