Laserfiche WebLink
Geology, wkich rejectedthe appeal. (Pub. Resources Code, § 27?5, subd, (a).) SOS also <br />filed a petition for a writ of mandate to set aside $M~-32, alleging CEQA violations and <br />inconsistency w½th the County general plm'l. ($a~e Our SunoI v. County qf Alameda <br />(May 21, 1997, A072054 [nonpub. opn.].) In May 1997, we affn-med jud~mant denying <br />SOS's petition. (Ibid.) <br /> Meanwhile, San Francisco was engaged in its own pl~,~ning process for its Sunol <br /> Valley properties. San Francisco's planning process, begun in 1992, culminated in <br /> certification of a final En>. for the city's Alameda watershed management plan in August <br /> 2000. San, Francisco's mayor signed a lease with Mission Valley Rock for the SlY[P-32 <br /> quaro' property in November 2000, with an effective date of December 23, 2000. <br /> Measure D was adopted in November 2000, after the County's approval of SMP- <br /> 32 but before the start of excavation. Measure D went into effect on December 22, 2000. <br /> While no excavation had occurred before passage of Measure D, Mission Valley Rock <br /> had installed irrigation and landscaping, and incurred permitting, leasing, and bond <br /> expen.ses in excess of $2 million. <br /> <br /> B. Measure D provisions. <br /> Measure D amends the 1994 East County area plan, which is a component of thc <br />County's general plan governing land uses in eastern Alameda County. (Sec Shea Homes <br />Limited Parmership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal. App.4th 1246, 1251-1253 <br />[discussing Measure D in upholding initiative against challenge by home developers].) <br />The stated purposes of the initiative are "to preserve and enhance agriculture a~d <br />agricultural lands, and to protect the natural, qualilies, the wildlife habitats, the watersheds <br />and the beautiful open spaces of Alameda County from excessive, badly located and <br />harmful development." The text of the initiative submitted to the voters explains that <br />Measure D "establishes a County Urban Crrowth Boundary which will focus urban-type <br />development in and near exJ.sting cities where it will be efficiently served by public <br />facilities, thereby avoiding high costs to taxpayers and users as well as to the <br /> <br />eDvlfonmen .' <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />