Laserfiche WebLink
12/02/2004 10:45 5104S61366 VOLKER LAW OFFICES PAGE 18/13 <br /> <br />constitutional Yaliclity, and we presume that the enactors understood the constitutional <br />limils on their power and intended the enactment to respect those limits. (Kraus v. <br />Trinity MaTmgement Services, Inc. (2000)' 23 Cal.4th 1 ]6, 129.) Aecordi~.gly, we emmet <br />read Measure D's Policy 144A as an adminisu'ative act to revoke Mission Valley Rock's <br />mining permit, which would be beyond the powers of initiative. <br /> Nor do we read another clause of Policy 144A as a revocation of that portion of <br /> Mission Valley Rock's permit authorizing the use of a conveyor belt to transport gravel <br /> from the Sunol Valley quarry permitted under $MP-32 to the existing $MP-24 q~srry site <br /> for processing. Policy 144A provides, in relevant part: "If despite Policy 1 ~,4 the quarry <br /> goes into operation, the County shall permit no related induslxial or manufacturing uses, <br /> notwdthstanding any other provision of the initiative." This language, like the language <br /> of Policy 144, is prospective. It therefore has no application to the gravel conveyor belt <br /> that was permitted by the CounW before the initi~tive's enactment. <br /> We need pot address the many alternative arguments against application of <br /> Measure D. The dispositive point is that Measure D is prospective and therefore does not <br /> apply to the Sunol Valley quarry that was approved by the County through issuance of a <br /> surface mining permit before the initiative's enactment. <br /> <br />DISPOSITION <br /> <br />The judgment is affu'med. <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br /> <br />