Laserfiche WebLink
12/82/2884 10:45 5104961366 VOLKER LAW OFFICES PAGE O~/1B <br /> <br /> FACTS~ <br /> Respondent City and coUnty of San Francisco (San Francisco) owns most of <br />Almmcda County's ] ,350-acre Sunol Valley, which gan Francisco purchased in the 1930s <br />as a water resource. San Francisco has leased some of its Suuol Valley lands for gravel <br />quarrying since the 1960s, and about 500 acres are actively being mined. The project at <br />issue here is mother gravel surface mine upon San Yrancisco property located within <br />Sunol Valley. Respondent Mission Valley Rock Company (Mission Valley Rock) has <br />leased ].and fi~om San Francisco and proposes to excavate 43 million tons of gravel and <br />sand f~om a 162-acre-portion of the site, to a depth of 200 feet. The quarry is scheduled <br />to operate until around 2045, after which the gravel pit will be reclaimed as a water <br />reservoir. Appellant Save Our Sunol, Inc. (SOS) is a community preservation group that <br />opposes the qu.ar~ project. <br /> <br /> · A. Development of the Sunol Valley quarry. <br /> Mission VaJley Rock has mined in Sunol Valley since at least 1986. The County <br /> approved mining of approximately 145 acres in 1986, under surface mining permit and <br /> reclamation plan (SM1~) 24, and approved expansion of that quarry by another 69 acres in. <br /> 1990, under SMP-29. The current controversy concerns Mission Valley Rock's 1992 <br /> apptication to expand the SlY[P-29 quarry project to encompass about 240 acres, under <br /> SMP-32. <br /> The CoUnty conducted a two-yea~ environmental review of this proposed, q~tarry <br /> pursuant to the California. Environmental Quality ACt (CEQA), and issued a final <br /> Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in December 1994, approving the SlX~-32 quarry <br /> project. (Pub. Resources COde, § 21000 et seq.) Subject to certain cond.itiot~, the <br /> County Board of Supervisors approved commencement of the Suuol Valley quarry. <br /> Appellant SOS appealed the County's decision to the California Board of Mining and <br /> <br /> The statement of facts is based upon the parties' separate statements of undisputed <br />facts and supporting evidence submitted on motions for summary judgment. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />