Laserfiche WebLink
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: <br />BACKGROUND <br /> <br />In November 2000 the voters of Alameda County adopted an initiative, known as Measure D. <br />The initiative amended the County's General Plan in a number of respects, established urban <br />growth boundaries (UGB), and requires that proposed developments beyond the UGB be <br />approved by the voters. <br /> <br />In relevant part, Measure D requires that no new quarry be approved by the County unless the <br />voters so approve, provides that the quarry which is at the heart of this lawsuit "should not be <br />established", and that the Measure applies to all developments that have not received all <br />necessary "County and other approvals" prior to the effective date of the Measure. <br /> <br />The County has approved a number of surface mining permits for quarrying operations in the <br />Sunol area. In 1992, the County approved a permit to expand an existing project by 240 <br />acres. Residents of Sunol (Save Our Sunol or SOS) challenged that permit unsuccessfully <br />through the courts. In 2000, the City and County of San Francisco, which owns significant <br />property in the Sunol area, including areas that are quarried, leased the 240 acres to Mission <br />Valley Rock for quarrying purposes. <br /> <br />Measure D went into effect before excavation activities on the site began but years after the <br />County approved the surface mining permit for the area in question. SOS filed suit against the <br />County, San Francisco and Mission Valley Rock to enjoin operation of the quarry. SOS's <br />challenge was rejected by the trial court. The residents then appealed and in a recently <br />published decision, copy attached, the court of appeal also rejected the challenge filed by SOS. <br /> <br />At the end of 2004, SOS intends to file a petition with the California Supreme Court asking <br />that court to grant review of the appellate court decision. Review of that decision is not <br />automatic; it is discretionary on the Supreme Court's part. Most cases are not granted review. <br /> <br />Council has asked that this matter be placed on its January 4, 2005 agenda to determine <br />whether the City of Pleasanton should submit a letter to the California Supreme Court in <br />support of the efforts of SOS to have the Court grant review. <br /> <br />SR:05:021 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />