Victory: Court Nullifies Measure J!

When the Dalidio Ranch ballot initiative was proposed in 2006, a number of government agencies, public officials and citizens groups pointed out serious problems with the measure.

County and city planners warned that it would allow the developers to circumvent the normal planning and review process, including the California Environmental Quality Act. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments said the initiative is written to free the developers of the responsibility for its traffic impact and contained no viable plan for funding the Prado Road interchange.

Caltrans estimated the project would create as many as 38,000 new car trips per day in an already congested area, leading to traffic failure and severe safety problems. The County Coalition for Local Control, which campaigned for "No on Measure J," clearly documented how the measure was in conflict with a number of state planning and zoning laws.

In the impartial analysis that appeared in the voter guide, the late, well-respected County Counsel James Lindholm Jr. cited a specific conflict with the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission. He also stated, "If the measure passes, it may be legally challenged on the grounds that it is beyond the power of the electorate to enact." That turned out to be a prophetic statement.

It is unfortunate that a majority of the Board of Supervisors did not heed the warnings of county counsel and many others and voted to place this initiative on the ballot in the first place. Given all the clear warnings about legality that had been raised, it shouldn’t be too surprising that the court invalidated Measure J. San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Roger Picquet’s ruling was proper and well-founded. He overturned Measure J for exactly the reasons that Lindholm predicted.

The judge cited inconsistency with the State Aeronautics Law as one fatal flaw in Measure J, although he did not limit it to that. His ruling rightly points out the overriding statewide interest in upholding the authority of state agencies, which were formed to protect public safety, health, and welfare. The Airport Land Use Commission, for instance, has jurisdiction over a project’s density and type of development within the area governed by its Airport Land Use Plan.

It’s important to note that Dalidio’s right to do a project on his property is still intact. The two groups that filed the legal challenge to the initiative, Citizens for Planning Responsibly and Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County, did so because their members were concerned by the fact that the initiative would allow a development to proceed without going through the normal, professional planning process.

This public process afforded by planning and zoning law allows for the analysis and disclosure of impact so that informed decisions can be made. These reviews are safeguards to protect the rights of all citizens over the interests of any one individual. The lawsuit was not filed to stop the development but to ensure that it complies with the same requirements that any other developments in the county must meet.

In short, the ruling was not based on a technical reading of the law, but instead cited clear examples of why Measure J was an inappropriate use of a ballot initiative. The ruling could be appealed by the county that was the defendant in the lawsuit, but in light of the well-reasoned decision of Judge Picquet, it seems highly likely that his ruling will stand. That’s why we disagree with The Tribune’s recommendation for an appeal. We feel that would only be a further waste of time and taxpayer money.

Morgan Rafferty is the executive director of Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County. Rosemary Wilvert is the president of Citizens for Planning Responsibly.

More Information

• Read Judge Picquet's Ruling (PDF Document)
• Read this Viewpoint article as originally published in The Tribune
  
• Read The Tribune's editorial on appealing Judge Picquet's ruling
  
• Read an article in The Tribune by Bob Cuddy about the ruling