Shopping Development Outside San Luis Obispo

Court nullifies Dalidio initiative of ’06

Judge says Measure J ‘is not a proper subject for an initiative’ and conflicts with state law; plaintiffs are elated, but property owner has little comment

By Bob Cuddy

A Superior Court judge has invalidated Measure J, the contentious ballot initiative approved by voters county-wide in November 2006 that would have led to a shopping center complex on the Dalidio Ranch southwest of San Luis Obispo.

In his ruling vacating the ballot measure, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Roger Picquet wrote: “Measure J is not a proper subject for an initiative.”

The county is “hereby restrained from taking action to implement Measure J or to process any applications to implement” it, he wrote.

Measure J was an attempt by rancher-developer Ernie Dalidio and his supporters to get public support to develop his 131 acres of farmland west of Highway 101 and south of Madonna Road. County voters approved it Nov. 7, 2006, with 65 percent of the vote.

The Dalidio Ranch plan included 530,000 square feet for retail, a business park, a hotel, 60 units of housing and other developments.

Major retailers such as Target and Lowe’s Home Improvement were touted as potential anchors.

Two local activist groups challenged the initiative in a lawsuit, arguing in a 27-page petition that Measure J conflicts with the county’s land-use laws and state law, and that it exceeds the limits of what citizens can do through an initiative. Picquet heard arguments in the case Nov. 2.

The announcement of the decision began creating shock waves among Dalidio Ranch supporters and critics in San Luis Obispo on Thursday evening.

The future of the Dalidio Ranch has been a major devel-

opment and political issue for years.

Michael Morris, attorney for Dalidio, said the decision is long and complicated.

However, he conceded “he (Picquet) has invalidated Measure J.” He said he needed to study the decision in detail, talk with his clients and then “decide what, if anything, to do about it.”

Dalidio’s corporation, San Luis Obispo Marketplace Associates, was named as a “real party in interest,”meaning it is not a defendant but is affected by the outcome.

The County Counsel’s Office was not available for comment. The county was the defendant in the lawsuit and could appeal the ruling.

Legal issues in his decision were, according to Picquet, “complex and cover almost the entire spectrum of law with regard to land use and zoning matters in the state.”

“The ability of the people of San Luis Obispo County to use the initiative to enact legislation is an extremely important constitutional right,” Picquet wrote. “Nonetheless, it is not unlimited.”

His decision said Measure J is not within the purview of a local initiative mainly because it conflicts with state law, specifically the State Aeronautics Act. That law requires local airport land-use commissions to establish plans for safety around airfields.

Measure J, he noted, lumps “policy, land use, construction types and conditions of approval … all in a single integrated document.”

Measure J had created a unique zone for the Dalidio project. The county’s 12 other zones in its land-use laws were created to address general characteristics such as urban, rural, rural-residential or agricultural, among others.

The Dalidio zone, unlike the others, didn’t merely specify what could be built on the land and under what circumstances; it specified what will be built.

The decision also was significant for what it did not address —specifically, building and financing an overpass from Prado Road over Highway 101 to Dalidio Drive.

Under Measure J, Dalidio agreed to pay $4 million and donate land worth $4 million. But estimates for an overpass, should one be built, run as high as $60 million.

Jan Marx, a member of Citizens for Planning Responsibly, one of the opposition groups that were plaintiffs in the suit, said she thought the decision was “good and fair.”

She noted that the developers “have the same property rights as they had before” but “they cannot make special legislation for themselves that violates state law.”

“We are elated. It is a huge success,” said Rosemary Wilvert, a member of Citizens for Planning Responsibly. “We are rejoicing for the county.”

“It is incredibly exciting,” said Morgan Rafferty, executive director of the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County, the other plaintiff.

Staff writer AnnMarie Cornejo contributed to this report.