Laserfiche WebLink
12/02/2004 10:45 510~SGlgGG VOLKER LAW OFFICES PAGE 0S/12 <br /> <br /> discretionary approvals had yet.to be obtained- SOS maintains that (i) San Francisco's <br /> lease of quarry land was not effective until the day aider the initiative became law; <br />' (2) Mission Valley Rock had not received an encroachment permit from the California <br /> D~partment of Transportation (Cal~'ans) for the planned installation of a gravel conveyor <br /> belt under Highway 680; (3) Mission Valley Rock had not entered, into a streambed <br /> alteration agreement with the California Deparirnent offish and Oame; and (4) Mission <br /> Valley Rock had not obtained from federal and state author/ties an incident,~l t~ke permi~ <br /> for end,~ugered species. <br /> SOS overlooks the important fa~t that Measure D's Policy 144 tums upon County <br /> approval: "no new quarry.., may be approved by the County... unless approved by the <br /> voters of Alameda County." Assuming Measure D applies generally to development that <br /> has not received all discretionary approvals and permits prior to the effective date of the <br /> initiative, Policy 144 limits its provision to a subset of those developments--to qU~TieS <br /> not approved by the County. Approvals by San Francisco, Caltrans, the California <br /> Department offish and Game, and federal and state authorities protecting endangered <br /> species are immaterial to application of Policy 144 that mandates voter endorsement only <br /> i,f the County has not previously approved the quarry. <br /> <br /> B. Measure D does not prohib# estabI~shment of the Sunol Valley <br /> quarry. <br /> We are mindful of the voter's statement, in Measure D's Policy 144A, that the <br /> contested quarry "should not be established." However, that statement of preference <br /> must be reconciled with Policy 144's specific provision limiting Measure D's application <br /> to quarries not previously approved by the County. SOS does not argue otherwise, and <br /> seems to recognize that Policy 144A should not be read as a directive prohibiting <br /> establishment of the Sunol Valley quarry. Legislative acts, such as the amendment of a <br /> general plan, axe subject to the initiative process bm administrative or executive acts, <br /> such as the granting or denial ora conditional use permit, are not. (DeVita v. County of <br /> Na£a (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 776; San D~ego Bldg. Contractors Assn. v. City Council <br /> (1974) 13 Cal.3d 205,212, fla. 5.) We must construe an enactment to preserve its <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />