Laserfiche WebLink
is 40 pages long and makes many general plan ameodments impacting <br /> Measure D . .. <br />various land uses. The initiati,~e's text alone addresses the subject of quarries. The ballot <br />arguments and Coun~ counsel analysis presented ~0 fl~e voters are silent on the subject. <br />In the text, q;~arries are treated in one finding and two policy statements. Tl~.e initiative <br />finds that quarries "are massive, ugly and environmentally harmfel uses of land." The <br />specific policies relating to quarries are as follows: "Policy 144: Except to the extent <br />required by State law, no new quarry or other open-pit mine may be approved by the <br />County ouiside the Urban Crtowth Boundary, unless approved by the voters of Alameda <br />County. Excavation not adjacent to an existing qum-ry si~e and on,the same or an <br />adjoining parcel shall be regarded as a new quarry. [~] Policy 144A: The quarry <br />currently planned by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission in the Sunol area <br />should not be established. If despite Policy 144 the quarry goes into operation, the <br />County shall permit no related indu~U iai or manufacturing uses, notwithstanding any <br />other provision of the Initiati.ve." <br /> The initiative also contains a general provision concerning its scope: "Section 22. <br /> ~ [~](a) This ordinance does not affect existing parcels, development, <br /> smactures, and uses that are legal at the time i~ becomes effective. However, snructures <br /> may not be enlarged, or altered and uses expanded or changed inconsistent with this <br /> ordinance, excepl as authorized by State law. [~(b) Except to the extent there is a legal <br /> right to development, the resUictions and requirements imposed by tkis ordinance shall <br /> apply to development or proposed development which has not received all necessary <br /> discretionary County and other approvals and permits prior to the effective date of the <br /> ordinance." (Underlining and bold in original.) <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> Our task when interpreting an initiative is to effectuate the elec~orate's inten~. <br /> (ltobert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 901.) That task is made diflicult <br /> l~ere by Measure D's ambiguous and conflicting text, and the lack of any harlot materials <br /> evidencing in.tent on the subject of q~,arfies. <br /> <br /> <br />