8. Petitioner AIRPORT WORKING GROUP OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC. ("AWG"), is a nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) located in Newport Beach, California. AWG’s purpose is to seek, educate the public concerning, and help to implement long-term solutions to Orange County’s aviation demands, including by supporting the construction of a civilian airport at MCAS El Toro.

9. Petitioner ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY ("OCRAA") is a Joint Powers Authority comprising fourteen (14) cities in Orange County, California, that support a commercial aviation reuse for the former MCAS, El Toro, and oppose the expansion of John Wayne Airport as an alternative to the El Toro airport. The goal of OCRAA is to disseminate accurate information regarding the proposed commercial aviation reuse of El Toro. The Orange County cities that are presently members of OCRAA include: Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Garden Grove, La Habra, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Placentia, Seal Beach, Stanton, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda.

10. Petitioner CITY OF GARDEN GROVE is a municipal corporation, organized and existing as a general law city located in the County of Orange under the laws of the State of California.

11. Petitioner CITIZENS FOR JOBS AND THE ECONOMY ("CJE") is a nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(4) located in Costa Mesa, California. CJE supports a commercial aviation reuse of MCAS El Toro.

12. Respondent and Defendant (hereinafter "Respondent") BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ("BOARD OF SUPERVISORS") is the governing body of the County of Orange vested with various legislative, administrative, and executive duties, functions and responsibilities under state and federal law. At all relevant times herein, the Board of Supervisors has been designated by the United States Department of Defense to be, and has been functioning as, the Local Redevelopment Authority ("LRA") for the conversion and reuse of MCAS El Toro. At all relevant times herein since 1996, the Board of Supervisors has likewise been designated by the California State Legislature to be, and has been functioning as, the single local reuse entity for MCAS El Toro. Among the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Supervisors is the obligation to comply with all state and federal laws regarding the limitations and restrictions imposed upon the exercise of the local initiative power, as well as the obligation to refrain from enforcing or implementing any local laws that conflict with superseding federal and state laws, including the Constitution and statutes of the United States and the State of California.

13. Respondent COUNTY OF ORANGE ("COUNTY") is a political subdivision of the State of California, organized and existing as of the date of this Petition and Complaint as a general law county under the laws of the State of California. On March 5, 2002, the voters of Orange County adopted a proposed County Charter for the County of Orange, but on information and belief, said proposed charter has not as of the date of this Petition and Complaint been officially certified or filed with the Secretary of State for the State of California, and the proposed charter has therefore not yet taken effect.

14. Petitioners are unaware of the true names and capacities of Respondents DOES I-X, inclusive, and they are therefore sued by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Petitioners allege on information and belief that each such fictitiously named Respondent is responsible or liable in some manner for the events and happenings referred to herein, and Petitioners will seek leave to amend this Petition to allege their true names and capacities after the same have been ascertained.

//
 

15. Jurisdiction for this action is proper in Orange County because Respondents reside in and are located in the County of Orange, and because Measure W was adopted in and, but for the intervention of the Court, would be implemented and enforced in the County of Orange. Nevertheless, because this action is brought by a city and local agency against the county in which the city and local agency are situated, Code of Civil Procedure section 394 mandates that this action be transferred to a county that is not a party hereto, or that the Judicial Council assign a disinterested judge from a neutral county to hear this action and all proceedings in connection therewith.

16. This action is related to a previous action entitled Citizens for Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange, OCSC Case No. 00CC03205, which was assigned for all purposes to the Honorable S. James Otero of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Petition and Complaint in Citizens for Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange challenged the validity of a prior initiative measure purporting to govern the reuse of MCAS El Toro as a civilian airport and involved many of the same parties, facts, and legal issues as the present Petition and Complaint. Judge Otero’s summary judgment ruling invalidating that previous initiative measure was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in 4th Civ. Case No. D037543 under the name Citizens for Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1311.

17. In September 1993, the U.S. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended the closure of MCAS El Toro. The federal government’s decision to close El Toro and to transfer the land with its existing improvements to the County of Orange provided the County with both the opportunity and the obligation to plan for the conversion and civilian reuse of the facility, which was scheduled for closure to be completed in mid-1999.

18. The military base conversion and reuse process is governed by a complex set of federal and state laws and regulations. Under both federal and state laws, however, a single local governmental entity is given the authority for developing and implementing a plan for the civilian reuse of a former military base. Specifically, the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (10 U.S.C. § 2687 et seq.) provides for the designation of a single state or local governmental entity, denominated the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA), to receive the property located at a closed military installation and to prepare a required Community Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of the installation. Both the choice of the LRA and the contents of the Community Reuse Plan must be approved by the Secretary of Defense in order for the former military base property to be transferred to the state or local entity. (10 U.S.C. § 2687 (P.L. No. 101- 510, § 2905(b)(4)(A) & (b)(7)(F)(i) and § 2910).)

19. In order to implement the federal law and to facilitate the transfer and reuse of former military base property and improvements in the most expeditious manner, the California Legislature in 1994 enacted two companion bills: AB 3759 (Stats. 1994, c. 1165) (also known as the "Military Base Reuse Authority Act") and AB 3755 (Stats. 1994, c. 1261). AB 3759 authorized local governments located within the boundaries of a military base designated for closure to establish a joint authority (denominated a "military base reuse authority") to prepare, adopt, finance, and implement a plan for the future use and development of the territory occupied by the military base. The reuse authority was to be governed by a board consisting of one member from each county and city located within the territory of the military base, and the board was authorized by the Legislature to acquire and dispose of real property and facilities within the base; to plan, finance, and construct new facilities within that territory; and to levy assessments, special taxes, or development fees, and to issue bonds to finance those facilities in accordance with specified state statutes. (See Gov. Code, §§ 67800-67870.) AB 3755 set forth a procedure for establishing a single "local base reuse entity" for each military base closure in the state; formally appointed certain entities to serve as the local reuse entities for their respective bases; and directed that all state agencies recognize those entities as the single base reuse planning authority for those bases and likewise encourage their recognition by the federal government as the entities responsible for base reuse planning and property transfers pursuant to federal law. (Gov. Code, §§ 65050-65053.)

20. In March 1994, the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority ("ETRPA") was established and was designated by the state Legislature in AB 3755 to be the single local base reuse entity for MCAS El Toro, with the state-assigned responsibility to receive title to the federal property and to prepare, adopt, and maintain the official local plan for the reuse of the base in compliance with federal requirements. (See Stats. 1994, c. 1261, § 6; Gov. Code, §§ 67840, 67842.) ETRPA was initially comprised of representatives from the County of Orange and the Cities of Irvine and Lake Forest.

21. In November 1994, Orange County’s voters adopted an initiative known as Measure A. Expressly finding that the "highest and best" civilian use for the El Toro airbase was as a commercial airport, Measure A amended the Orange County General Plan to require that a portion of the unincorporated lands within MCAS El Toro "shall be used for a publicly or privately owned and operated airport serving a substantial portion of the County’s passenger and cargo air transportation needs." (Measure A, § 1.I.) The remaining territory within the boundaries of the former air base were designated for uses compatible with a civilian airport, as determined by the Board of Supervisors. (Id., § 2, Policy PF-2.)

22. Measure A was vigorously opposed by some residents in the communities immediately adjacent to El Toro, who did not want an airport "in their backyard." After losing the election, the cities of Irvine and Lake Forest not only challenged the validity of Measure A in court — unsuccessfully — but refused to participate in the planning process to convert El Toro to a civilian airport. As a result, the Board of Supervisors voted in December 1994 to withdraw from ETRPA and to establish a new reuse planning organizational structure and process for El Toro that was not dependent upon receiving the cooperation of Irvine and Lake Forest through ETRPA.

23. In recognition of these developments, the Department of Defense formally designated the Orange County Board of Supervisors to be the Local Redevelopment Authority under the federal base closure process. Shortly thereafter, the state Legislature followed suit by amending Government Code section 65050(d) to rescind ETRPA’s designation and to substitute the Orange County Board of Supervisors, as the LRA recognized by the Department of Defense, to be the state-authorized single local reuse entity for MCAS El Toro. (Stats. 1996, c. 546 (AB 37).)

24. The El Toro airport opponents, however, persisted in their efforts to torpedo the reuse planning process. In March 1996, they placed another initiative on the Orange County ballot, Measure S, that would have repealed Measure A, would have abolished the Citizens Advisory Commission, and would have required that any planned commercial airport use at MCAS El Toro first be ratified by a majority of the County’s voters. Measure S was soundly defeated at the polls.

25. With the Board of Supervisors’ responsibility to plan and carry out the reuse of El Toro now firmly established under federal and state laws, and with the voters having once more stated their view that the base should be developed into a civilian airport, the Board proceeded with the planning process for the airport. In December 1996, the Board, sitting in its capacity as the federally-designated Local Redevelopment Authority, adopted and submitted to the Department of Defense a Community Reuse Plan calling for the development of a new commercial airport, a 1,000- acre habitat preserve, and aviation-compatible institutional, educational, and commercial/office uses on the El Toro property.

26. Concurrent with the approval of the Community Reuse Plan in 1996, the Board directed the County staff to negotiate with the Department of Defense for the transfer of the real and personal property at MCAS El Toro to the County and to initiate a series of second-tier planning activities for the selected reuse alternative, including development of an Airport System Master Plan, a Base Transition Plan, an FAA-mandated Airport Layout Plan, various environmental studies and documentation, such as a second-tier EIR and a federal EIS, as well as the drafting and negotiating of leases with the federal government for the interim civilian use of El Toro facilities. On October 23, 2001, after years of planning and coordination with the Navy and the Federal Aviation Administration, the Board of Supervisors approved and submitted to the federal government the Airport System Master Plan and the related detailed plans and environmental documentation (EIR 573) for the proposed uses and facilities at MCAS El Toro upon its transfer to the County for conversion and reuse as a commercial airport.

27. In the meantime, the South County opponents of the proposed civilian airport at El Toro continued in their efforts to derail the project. In 1999, they qualified for the March 7, 2000, ballot an initiative known as Measure F, which would have required that "no 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." As one of Measure F’s proponents later admitted, the inclusion of jails and hazardous waste landfills in the initiative was simply a ploy to attract votes from individuals living in different areas of the County who did not otherwise oppose an airport at El Toro, but who would not want one of these other unpopular projects to be built in their own "backyards." The ploy worked, as Measure F passed by a substantial margin. Measure F was not implemented, however, because it was immediately challenged in court, and in Citizens for Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange, supra, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s writ of mandate and injunction against enforcement of the initiative, holding that Measure F was unlawful and invalid in at least "three major respects." (94 Cal.App.4th at p. 1324.)

28. With the invalidation of Measure F, the El Toro airport opponents went back to the drawing board once more in a desperate effort to come up with a means of preventing the Board of Supervisors and the federal government from proceeding with the transfer and conversion of MCAS El Toro into a civilian airport. This time they came up with the idea for Measure W, proposing to replace the Board of Supervisors’ plan for a civilian airport at El Toro with their proposal for a vast park on the former military base property. Over the course of more than a year, the City of Irvine and ETRPA spent over $40 million in taxpayer funds to flood County voters’ mailboxes with slick brochures and promotions for the so-called "Great Park," a grandiose plan for creating "America’s greatest park" in the middle of Orange County, a park that would rival and exceed New York’s Central Park, San Diego’s Balboa Park, Los Angeles’ Griffith Park, and Golden Gate Park and the Presidio in San Francisco. Designed to appeal to every conceivable taste and desire, the Great Park would supposedly include science and history museums, a veterans memorial and cemetery, picnic areas, a nature preserve, a "world-class" central library, performing arts facilities and a magnificent art and cultural center, a zoo, observatory, soccer fields, baseball fields, and a great 100-acre lake and fountain in the center of the park that would provide water sports of all kinds.

29. In June 2001, the Great Park proposal was incorporated into a proposed initiative measure filed with the Orange County Registrar of Voters entitled "The Orange County Central Park and Nature Preserve Initiative," subsequently denominated as Measure W. As stated in its "Summary," Measure W:

36. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 above.

37. Respondents Board of Supervisors and County of Orange have a clear, mandatory, and ministerial duty not to enforce or implement an initiative measure that is beyond the power of the electorate to adopt and that is substantively unconstitutional and invalid under federal and state law.

38. As residents, taxpayers, and qualified electors of Orange County, and as organizations specifically interested in and representing the interests of residents and taxpayers of Orange County who support the development and reuse of MCAS El Toro as a commercial airport, Petitioners have a direct and beneficial interest in the action herein and in the faithful implementation and execution of the laws of the State of California and of the United States by their elected representatives.

39. Measure W is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable, and beyond the power of the local electorate to enact by initiative, for at least the following reasons:

41. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 40 above.

42. Because Measure W is invalid and unenforceable, Petitioners are entitled to temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Respondents Board of Supervisors and County of Orange from implementing or enforcing Measure W. In the absence of this Court’s injunction, Respondents will violate the federal and state constitutions and statutes as described above by enforcing and implementing Measure W despite its illegality and invalidity. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law in that no damages or other legal remedy can adequately compensate them for the irreparable harm they will suffer from the unconstitutional and unlawful implementation and enforcement of Measure W.

43. Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42 above.

44. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioners and Respondents concerning the validity of Measure W and Respondents’ rights and duties with respect thereto. As set forth more fully above, Petitioners contend that Measure W is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable for a number of reasons, and that Respondents have the obligation and duty under the laws of the United States and the State of California to refuse to implement and enforce Measure W. Petitioners are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Respondents contend in all respects to the contrary and that they are obliged to implement and enforce the initiative. A judicial determination and declaration as to the legality and validity of Measure W is therefore necessary and appropriate in order to determine the respective rights and duties of the parties.

//
 
 

WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for judgment as follows:

1. On the First Cause of Action, that this Court issue its alternative and peremptory writs of mandate commanding Respondents Orange County Board of Supervisors and County of Orange not to implement or enforce Measure W;

2. On the Second Cause of Action, that this Court issue temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions restraining Respondents Orange County Board of Supervisors and County of Orange from implementing or enforcing Measure W;

3. On the Third Cause of Action, that this Court issue its judgment declaring that Measure W is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable in its entirety;

4. On each and every cause of action, that this Court grant Petitioners their costs, including out-of-pocket expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

Michael J. Strumwasser

Fredric D. Woocher

I, FREDRIC D. WOOCHER, declare:

I am the attorney for Petitioners and Plaintiffs Tom Naughton; Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc.; Orange County Regional Airport Authority; City of Garden Grove; and Citizens for Jobs and the Economy in this action. I make this verification for the reason that Petitioners and Plaintiffs are absent from the County in which I have my office. I have read the foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF. I am informed and believe that the contents thereof are true, and on that ground I allege that the matters stated therein are true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this th day of March, 2002, at Santa Monica, California.