Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-13 City Council Item No. 7CITY OF OF LADE LSI110RE DREAM EXTREME. REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROBERT A. BRADY CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 13, 2012 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 AND VESTED RIGHT TO MINE — RECLAMATION PLAN FOR AN 85.76 ACRE MINING SITE, GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE 1 -15 FREEWAY BETWEEN NICHOLS ROAD AND LAKE STREET. THE PROJECT SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY WITHIN THE 3,457 ACRE BOUNDARIES OF RECLAMATION PLAN 112. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE JANUARY 17, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 FOR THE SITE AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE OWNER HAS A LEGAL VESTED RIGHT FOR QUARRYING ON THE SITE PURSUANT TO SMARA AND LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 14.04. RECLAMATION WILL INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, RESTORATION AND REVEGETATION OF ANY DISTURBED LAND ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT SITE. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008 -08 WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Background On October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission considered a vested rights determination and the subject Reclamation Plan for an 85.76 -acre site known as the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine (the "Project'). At that time, the Commission did not think it was appropriate to act on the Project until the applicant updated the environmental information and clearly identified the distinction between the mining and reclamation operations. Subsequently, the Planning Commission voted 4 -0 to continue the project to a future non - specific date, and recommended the following actions be taken regarding the project: AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 Page 1 Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 Appeal (MCA) March 13, 2012 Page 2 of 6 • Update the Biology and Traffic Reports, and provide a Geotechnical Report; • Clarify within the report specific issues that deal with the Reclamation Plan; and • Provide a description of the Mining Operations. The Project was re- noticed and heard again at the January 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting where the applicant provided information addressing the recommended actions identified by the Commission on October 18th. Following public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted to confirm the vested mining right and approve the Project by a vote of 4 -1 (see Attachment No. 8). Subsequent to the Planning Commission's approval, the City received two separate appeals. Discussion The first appeal was received from Mrs. Sharon Gallina and Mrs. Paula Tehrani on January 31, 2012. The appellants are appealing the Project based on their belief that the owner of the site does not have a vested right to mine the property (Attachment No. 9). The second appeal, also received on January 31, 2012 is from Planning Commissioner Michael O'Neal who believes (i) the biology and traffic studies are outdated; (ii) there has been illegal grading across ephemeral streams on the site without compliance with federal and state environmental laws; and (iii) that the Project inappropriately defers environmental mitigation (Attachment No. 10). MCA responded to the O'Neal appeal in a letter dated March 8, 2012 (Attachment No. 13). The following summarizes the issues raised on appeal: • Vested Mining Rights The Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Project Site is a small portion of the 3,457 Pacific Clay overall mining operation which has been ongoing since the early 1900s. In 1978, Pacific Clay processed and obtained approval of a Reclamation Plan 112 for its vested surface mining operation. Recognizing that mining of such a large site would take place over time and that once minerals were extracted from one area, the operator would move to a new location within the site to pursue its mineral interest, the Reclamation Plan 112 expressed Pacific Clay's intent to mine the entire property. The Reclamation Plan is identified as RP 112 and included the 85.76 acre Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Project Site. The boundaries of RP 112 and the proposed Reclamation Plan 2008 -01 are depicted on the Reclamation Plan Boundary Map (Attachment No. 11). The existing property owner acquired the Project Site in October 1994 for mining purposes consistent with RP 112. The mineral resources identified in RP 112 and applicable geologic studies /maps are those resources to be mined by MCA. The intent to mine these materials has been continuous. The question of vested rights was addressed by the property owner's Page 2 Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 Appeal (MCA) March 13, 2012 Page 3 of 6 representative in 2007 as outlined in the October 7, 2007 letter from James E. Good attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment No. 8). While RP 112 was recently amended to retract the boundaries to those properties currently owned by Pacific Clay, the vested mining right runs with the land to the benefit of subsequent property owners. The proposed Reclamation Plan 2008 -01 (Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine) for the Project Site has been submitted by the current property owner pursuant to SMARA and the City's Surface Mining regulations contained in Chapter 14.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Based on the evidence presented, the Planning Commission confirmed that Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine has a vested right to mine on the Project Site and is not required to secure a mining permit. At the Planning Commission hearing and in the Gallina/Tehrani appeal, the assertion was made that prior vested mining rights on the Project Site were forfeited by Surface Mining Permit (SMP) #00173 and /or the 1995 amendment to SMP #108. Neither of these mining permits applies to the Project Site. SMP #00173 was obtained by the Project applicant from the County of Riverside for its mining operations adjacent to the Project Site and outside of the boundaries of the original RP 112. The 1995 amendment to SMP #108 was approved by the County of Riverside in connection with the addition of a kiln to the mining operations on a portion of the properties within the RP 112 boundaries (see Attachment No. 11). • Biology Study In order to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at its October 18, 2011 hearing regarding the age of the Biological Constraints Analysis that was prepared for the proposed Reclamation Plan; a biological update was prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission at its January 17, 2012 hearing. The biological update, dated December 27, 2011, presented the results of a December 23, 2011 site visit by Juan Hernandez, Senior Biological /Regulatory Specialist for Lilburn Corporation. Mr. Hernandez identified potential habitat favorable for the listed California gnatcatcher and Munz's onion which will require the applicant to survey for these species prior to site impacts in compliance with the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. Additionally, Page 12 of the proposed Reclamation Plan includes provisions that require pre - grading nesting bird surveys where earth moving is to occur during the nesting season and pre - grading burrowing owl surveys. In its approval of the subject Reclamation Plan, the Planning Commission concluded that the information contained within the biological update was sufficient to address its previously stated concerns. • Traffic Study A traffic study has been requested in one of the appeals for the Page 3 Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 Appeal (MCA) March 13, 2012 Page 4 of 6 MCA Reclamation Plan project. A focused traffic analysis was submitted to staff on January 9, 2012. This supplement to the traffic study provided in the environmental document in 2007 indicates an acceptable level of service at the 1 -15 /Lake Street interchange. This updated traffic analysis used current data provided by the Alberhill Ridge /Alberhill Villages SP analysis along with the anticipated mining impacts. • Illegal Grading Staff investigated the project site for signs of grading. After review of historic photos and a site inspection of the project site, staff found evidence of dirt paths and dirt roadways. Some of these dirt roadways crossed dry drainage courses however, none of the work appeared to be recent. Historic photo's show that most of the dirt roadways existed in 1994 with a new dirt roadway graded between 10/2004 and 12/2004. This 2004 dirt roadway appeared on one of the hills on site and not in a drainage course. • MSHCP Requirements It has been determined by the City of Lake Elsinore and the Riverside Conservation Authority that the Project Site maintains a vested right to mine and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the MSHCP. However, the proposed Project is still required to comply with all applicable federal, State and local laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the applicable provisions of the federal Endangered Species Acts, the California Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the federal Clean Water Act, and the California Fish and Game Code. • Deferred Mitigation As discussed above, the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine has a vested right to mine on the Project Site and is not required to secure a mining permit. Therefore the environmental analysis contained within the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Reclamation Plan. The Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the proposed Project (Reclamation Plan) would not have potentially significant impacts upon biological resources and therefore no mitigation is required. Inasmuch as there are no biological resource - related mitigation measures, there is no deferred mitigation proposed. However, it is recognized that the vested mining operations and the subsequent reclamation of the mining site are required to comply with all applicable federal, State and local laws and regulations. Compliance with these laws and regulations may require future surveys of the Project Site for the presence /absence of protected wildlife and vegetation and /or jurisdictional waters. Since different parts of the Project Site will be affected by mining and /or reclamation over the life of the proposed Project, any focused biological surveys completed at the present time may not accurately reflect future site conditions. Therefore it is appropriate that those focused biological Page 4 Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 Appeal (MCA) March 13, 2012 Page 5 of 6 presence /absence surveys be completed as such time that they will accurately reflect site conditions in existence when site disturbance will occur. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations is mandatory even if not specifically set forth in the conditions of approval. However, in order to clarify the fact that the vested mining operations and future site reclamation are required to comply with applicable state and federal environmental laws and regulations, Condition of Approval 13a has been amended by Staff to acknowledge that mandatory compliance. Examples of potentially- required biological surveys and typical mitigation measures have been referenced and included as an attachment to the conditions of approval for informational purposes. Environmental Determination Based upon an Initial Study conducted on the Reclamation Plan, Staff determined that the Project may have potentially significant impacts on the environment. However, after completing all technical studies and providing the additional information requested by the Planning Commission, it was determined that, with appropriate mitigation, all potentially significant effects could be mitigated to below a level of significance. Therefore, it was determined that the appropriate environmental document for the Project is a mitigated negative declaration. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 has been prepared pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.1 and Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA') Guidelines (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15072 and 15073, proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 and related Draft Initial Study was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on May 6, 2010 for a 30 -day public review period and a Notice of Availability of an Initial Study /Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted with the County Clerk of Riverside County on May 7, 2010. The Project Site, given its vested mining right, is exempt from the provisions of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The Project does not conflict with the environmental plans or policies of other jurisdictions. Fiscal Impact Ultimately, the proposed Project will have a positive fiscal impact to the community and the City. It is anticipated that the development of the Project will provide necessary construction jobs. The Reclamation Plan has been prepared pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 14.04. With the implementation of mitigation contained in the Reclamation Plan, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and conditions of approval, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Page 5 Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 Appeal (MCA) March 13, 2012 Page 6 of 6 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to adopt Resolution No. 2012 -02 approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08; adopt Resolution No. 2012 -03 approving MSHCP Consistency, and adopt Resolution No. 2012 -04 confirming the vested mining right and approving Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01. This recommendation is based on the findings, exhibits and conditions of approval attached to this Staff Report. Prepared by: Kirt A. Coury V� Project Planner Reviewed by: Warren Morelion, AICP \rN� Planning Manager Approved by: Robert A. Brady City Manager Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Notice of Public hearing 3. Conditions of Approval 4. Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 5. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 7. Financial Assurance Cost Estimate 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 17, 2012 including letters, attachments, minutes and the October 18, 2011 meeting report 9. Gallina/Tehrani Appeal letter dated January 31, 2012 and attachments received February 2, 2012 10. O'Neal Appeal letter dated January 30 2012 11. Reclamation Plan Boundary Map 12. March 7, 2012 letter from Mayor Montanez, City of Corona 13. March 8, 2012 MCA Response to O'Neal Appeal Page 6 ALBERHILL SOUTHWEST SHALE MINE RECLAMATION PLAN APN'S: 390 - 210 -014 & 019 Page 7 Page 8 CITY OF i^ c� LADE LSINOIZE —� DREAM EXTREME, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, will hold a public hearing on March 13, 2012, at the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California, 92530, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider the following item: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 AND VESTED RIGHT TO MINE — RECLAMATION PLAN FOR AN 85.76 ACRE MINING SITE, GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE 1 -15 FREEWAY BETWEEN NICHOLS ROAD AND LAKE STREET. THE PROJECT SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY WITHIN THE 3,457 ACRE BOUNDARIES OF RECLAMATION PLAN 112. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE JANUARY 17, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 FOR THE SITE AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE OWNER HAS A LEGAL VESTED RIGHT FOR QUARRYING ON THE SITE PURSUANT TO SMARA AND LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 14.04. RECLAMATION WILL INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, RESTORATION AND REVEGETATION OF ANY DISTURBED LAND ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT SITE. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008 -08 WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are hereby invited to attend this public hearing to present written information, express opinions or otherwise present evidence in the above matter. If you wish to legally challenge any action taken by the City on the above matter, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City prior to or at the public hearing. FURTHER INFORMATION on this item may be obtained by contacting Kirt Coury in the Planning Division at (951) 674 -3124, ext. 274. All agenda materials are available for review at City Hall. / /ss // Virginia J. Bloom, City Clerk Posted at City Hall on February 29, 2012 Published in the Press Enterprise on March 2, 2012 Page 9 RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008 -08 FOR ALBERHILL SOUTHWEST SHALE MINE MINE OPERATIONS SUMMARY Area to be Mined - 52 acres of 86 -acre property site Length of Operations —15 years Days of Operations — Monday through Friday; no operations on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays Hours of Operations — 7 am to 7 pm; 5 pm in winter. No operations after dark. Employees — 4 to 8 Process Plant — Portable crushers and screens, shale impactor, construction trailer office, scale and portable water tank. Equipment —1 or 2 dozers, haul trucks, and loaders. One grader and water truck. Production — Clay up to 46,000 tons per year; rock up to 115,000 tons per year Trucks Trips — 60 round trips per day; 6 round trips in peak hours CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MINE OPERATIONS PREPARED BY CITY STAFF The following 61 of the 76 Conditions of Approval must be complied with by the Operator during mine operations: 1, 5 — 12; 13A, F, G, H, J; 14 -19; 21 -25; 28, 30, 32 -34; 36- 41; 43- 51; 53 -67; and 70 -7-675. Note that most of the conditions are required for both mine operations and reclamation. (Amended by Planning Commission on October 18, 2011.) GENERAL The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the Residential Design Review projects attached hereto. Page 10 PLANNING DIVISION 5. The proposed project shall comply with the zoning and development standards identified in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and corresponding amendments thereto. 6. Truck Maintenance. All trucks exiting the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine project site shall be washed and rattled to prevent materials from spilling onto adjacent roads and streets. 7. The Applicant shall submit a temporary wall and fence plan for screening purposes subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or Designee. 8. The Applicant shall place a weatherproof 3'x3' sign at the entrance to the project site identifying the approved days and hours of operation and a statement that complaints regarding the operations of the mining project be lodged with the City of Lake Elsinore Code Enforcement Division, which can be reached at (951) 674 -3124. 9. Air and Water Pollution. All operations shall be conducted in compliance with the rules, regulations, and requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the State Water Quality Control Board. Applicant shall provide to the Community Development Director or Designee a copy of any and all permits secured on behalf of the Applicant from either South Coast Air Quality Management District and /or the State Water Quality Control Board. 10. Noise Suppression. A. All equipment and premises employed in conjunction with any of the uses identified in the Reclamation Plan shall be constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.78. B. Those standards for noise suppression, set forth in Chapter 17.78 of the LEMC, which apply to construction activities shall apply to activities undertaken pursuant to the Reclamation Plan. C. The project shall not exceed the maximum permissible sound levels by receiving land use set forth in Chapter 17.78 Section .060 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. During those times not restricted in Section 17.78.060 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the project shall not exceed an exterior noise standard of 60 dB Ldn at the outer project boundary adjacent to residential and other sensitive land uses. D. The Applicant shall submit a "Noise Control Plan" identifying anticipated operating noise levels at the outer project boundaries. The Noise Control Plan shall ensure adequate operating noise control measures through the provision of mufflers and the physical separation of machinery and 2 Page 11 maintenance areas from adjacent residential uses and other sensitive land uses. The Noise Control Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or Designee. 11. Hours of Operation. The Applicant shall limit mining and reclamation operations to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No mining or reclamation operations shall occur on Legal Holidays. Hauling of mining material shall be limited between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. (Amended by Planning Commission on October 18, 2011.) 12. Light. All exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. 13. Biology /Habitat A. Nesting- Biological Surveys. The Applicant shall comply with all federal. State and local laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the applicable provisions of the federal Endangered Species Acts. the California Endangered Species Act. the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the federal Clean Water Act, and the California Fish and Game Code. The In compliance with these laws and regulations the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist conduct pre - grading nesting bird surveys in any areas where earth - moving is to occur within the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), and in areas an appropriate buffer area (500 feet) where there is sufficient habitat to promote nesting. Additionally pre- the survey requirements for these and other potentially- required surveys conditions of approval. (Amended by Staff at City Council on March 13, 2012.) F. Contractor Education. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Superintendent shall be familiar with the Reclamation Plan, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the Conditions of approval and shall ensure that all contractors are in compliance with the requirements of those documents at all times. G. Access Control. The Applicant shall delineate the service access routes to keep the contractors within these routes as well as prevent them from entering sensitive or recently reclaimed areas. H. Water Quality. No debris, soil, silt, sand, rubbish, cement or concrete or washings thereof, oil or petroleum products or washings thereof, shall be allowed to enter into or be placed in a manner where it may be washed via 3 Page 12 rainfall or run -off into local creeks. Further, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of NPDES by implementing a SWPPP that incorporates BMPs and a Spill Prevention, Control and Counter- measure Plan (SPCC) throughout the operation of all reclamation activities. J. Mining. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 14.04 with regard to inspection of the surface mining operation. 14. The Applicant shall comply with all mitigation and recommendations identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which accompany Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08. ENGINEERING DIVISION 15. The Applicant shall provide detention and desiltation basin sized to detain the increase in the 100 year storm flow between the developed and undeveloped site conditions. 16. The slope on the north and east sides of the project shall be improved with long -term erosion control planting. 17. Sight distance for ingress /egress at all driveways shall meet CalTrans standard for site distance. 18. Parking shall not be allowed on Public Roads or Lake Street. 19. Provide for on -site loading and unloading of inventory. 21. All temporary access private roadway improvements shall be installed prior to the export of on -site material. 22. The Applicant shall pay any required plan review and site inspection fees. 23. Applicant shall acquire off -site easements as needed. 24. Prior to the export of on -site material, the Applicant shall install a city standard public street light -at the project entrance subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 25. Prior to the export of on -site material, the Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan showing all traffic control systems for the project to be approved by the City Engineer or his /her Designee. All traffic control systems shall be installed prior to export of onsite material. 4 Page 13 28. Slopes of Excavations. No production from an open pit quarry shall be permitted which creates a post mining slope steeper than two foot (2') horizontal to one foot (1') vertical, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Provided, however, that a steeper slope may be permitted during mining operations where soil content or material is such that a vertical -cut excavation is safe in the opinion of the Division of Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California and such opinion shall be memorialized in writing and submitted to the City for approval by the City Engineer. 30. The applicant shall provide a haul route plan subiect to the review and approval of the Public Works Director or designee. Prior to the export of on -site material, the Applicant shall provide the City a photographic baseline record of the condition of all proposed public City haul roads. In the event of damage to such roads, Applicant shall pay full cost of restoring public roads to the baseline condition. A bond may be required to ensure payment of damages to the public right -of -way, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Amended by Planning Commission on October 18, 2011.) 32. All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected, conveyed and released consistent with historic flows and patterns as described in the approved Reclamation Plan. 33. Applicant shall satisfy all requirements of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 15.64 regarding flood hazard regulations. 34. Applicant shall satisfy all requirements of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 15.68 regarding flood plain management. 36. Private storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked to prevent illegal dumping in the drain system consistent with the standards established by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 37. Historic flow patterns & rates shall be preserved. 10 -year storm runoff shall be contained within the curb and the 100 -year storm runoff shall be contained with the street right -of -way. When either of these criteria is exceeded, drainage facilities shall be installed. 38. In the event historic storm flows are exceeded or reduced, the Applicant shall submit a drainage acceptance letter from adjacent downstream property owner(s) for out - letting the proposed storm water run -off on private property prior to discharge of storm water run -off. 39. Applicant shall install BMP's using the best available technology to mitigate any urban pollutants from entering the watershed. The operator shall prevent trackouf onto public highways. If trackout occurs, the operator shall take preventative and remedial measures immediately. Page 14 40. The Applicant shall comply with State Law and provide a SWPPP for construction and post construction which describes BMP's that will be implemented for the development and including maintenance responsibilities. The owner operator can comply by submitting a "Notice of Intent" (NO[), develop and implement a Stom1 Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) a monitoring program and reporting plan for the surface mine site. 41. Education guidelines and BMP's shall be provided to employees of the development in the use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers as well as other environmental awareness education materials on best construction and operation practices that contribute to protection of stormwater quality and meet the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 43. At the time the county adopts, as part of any ordinance, regulations specific to the N.P.D.E.S., this project (or subdivision) shall comply with them. 44. All on -site Roads and Driveways. BMPS, established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, shall be implemented and all roads and driveways shall be kept wet while being used or shall be treated with oil, asphaltic concrete or concrete, or other palliative to prevent the emission of dust. 45. Access Roads. All private access roads leading off any paved public street onto the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine project site shall be paved to a minimum width of twenty four feet (24') with asphaltic concrete or an equivalent material approved by the City Engineer or Designee, not less than three inches in thickness with adequate compacted base material for not less than the first one hundred feet (100') of said access road. 46. Intersection site distance shall meet the design criteria of the CALTRANS Design Manual (particular attention should be taken for intersections on the inside of curves). A special limited use easement must be recorded to limit the slope, type of landscaping and wall placement to preserve adequate site distance. 47. Intersecting streets on the inside radius of a curve will only be permitted when adequate sight distance is verified by a registered civil engineer. 48. Existing access easements over property must be addressed to the satisfaction of the affected owners prior to export of on -site material. 49. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal and recycling, the Applicant shall be required to contract with CR &R, Inc., for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 6 Page 15 50. All applicable fees for inspection with respect to the mining operation shall be paid directly to the City of Lake Elsinore. Copies of these documents shall be provided to the Engineering Division for the City of Lake Elsinore to be kept in the project files. 51. Safety Berm. A four (4) foot, minimum vertical height, safety berm, shall be installed at the top of all cuttfill slopes at least three (3) feet in width. 53. Signage A. Signs shall be installed at the top of all manufactured slopes (cut or fill), at intervals not greater than 100 linear feet. B. Each sign shall read "DANGER" "OPEN PIT MINE" "STEEP SLOPE ". Signs shall be at least 18" X 18" square with contrasting background to lettering. (i.e.: white background and black lettering). C. Perimeter signs around the approved Reclamation Plan or Surface Mine boundaries shall be installed with contrasting lettering /background warning of "DANGER" "KEEP OUT' and "MINERAL RESOURCE ZONE" or "SURFACE MINING OPERATION'. 54. Trash & Debris Removal. The parcel(s) where the mine is located shall be kept free of trash (including old tires) and other debris. There shall be no importing of recyclable materials or construction debris without a specific permit for that activity. 55. Contractor Equipment Storage. All non - mining equipment must be stored in a designated area permitted for "Contractor Storage." A "Contractor Storage" permit must be obtained from the Planning Department prior to storage of any non - mining equipment. 56. Vehicle Storage. There shall be no storage of passenger vehicles, campers, travel trailers or other personal property that is not related directly to the mining of minerals at this site. 57. Temporary/Portable Office. Temporary/portable office trailers are permitted provided they are installed after a building permit is obtained. Other structures for night watchman security must be installed or constructed by building permit. 58. Importing Concrete & AC. There shall be no importing and /or storage of used concrete, asphalt or other inert construction materials for recycling without the specific approval of the Planning Division. 59. Importing /Storing of Vegetation. There shall be no importing and /or storage of any cut vegetation without speck approval of the Planning Division (Environmental). 7 Page 16 61. Property Line Setbacks. There shall be a graded setback from all property lines of not less than 4050 feet from all cuttfill slopes per the approved Reclamation Plan. (Amended by Planning Commission on October 18, 2011.) 62. In all other areas within the boundaries of the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine, the provisions of Lake Elsinore Grading Ordinance shall be followed unless modified by these conditions. 63. Building /Grading Permits. The provisions of the City of Lake Elsinore Grading Ordinance shall be enforced for all construction within the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine project site boundaries unless specifically regulated by another approved condition of the Reclamation Plan. 64. Annual Report Information. The Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Division with the annual report the following information: A. Indicate mine proximity to the permit boundaries by topography; B. Indicate maximum depth of excavated areas; C. Provide quantity in cubic yards and tons of materials mined during the reporting period; D. Certify all excavated areas are within the limits of the vested Surface Mining Permit and RP 112 issued by the County of Riverside, and the Reclamation Plan approved by the City of Lake Elsinore; E. Provide data indicating any reclaimed land during the reporting period; F. A certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer shall inspect all excavated slopes within the permitted boundaries (active or inactive) for slope stability. The Applicant shall provide to the City Engineer a copy of the inspection report. G. NOTE: At least every three years of operation, the Applicant shall provide to Engineering, aerial topography showing incremental and total changes to excavations. This will include cross - sectional maps showing berms, slope angles and benches of all excavations. 65. Public Improvements that require grading, filling, over excavation and recompaction, and base or paving which requires a grading permit, are subject to the included Engineering Division's conditions of approval. Furthermore, all Reclamation Plan grading shall conform to the approved Reclamation Plan. 66. NPDES /SWPPP. The Applicant shall provide to the Engineering Division evidence of compliance with the following: "Effective March 10, 2003 owner operators of Page 17 grading or construction projects are required to comply with the N.P.D.E.S. (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain coverage under the general industrial permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. 67. The applicant shall be subject to a minimum of one annual storm water compliance inspection by City staff. 70. Slope Stability Analysis. A slope stability report shall be submitted in the annual report to the City Engineer. 71. Drainage Design Q100. Any public drainage facilities shall be designed in accordance with Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District's standards, and shall at a minimum, accommodate 100 -year storm flows. Additionally, Engineering Division conditional approval of this application includes an expectation that the Reclamation Plan reviewed and approved complies with any WQMP (Water Quality Management Plan) required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for urban development pollutants. 72. Minimum Drainage Grade. Minimum drainage grade shall be 1% except on portland cement concrete where 0.5% shall be the minimum. 73. Slope Setbacks. All excavated or graded slopes shall have setbacks from buildings and property lines per the standards contained in the Reclamation Plan. 74. Private Roads. Construction of a private road shall conform to the approved Reclamation Plan. 75. Update Financial Assurance. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 14.04.140 regarding Financial assurances. e clone aRg and b of a ll e...... . (Deleted by Planning Commission on October 18, 2011.) RECLAMATION PLAN SUMMARY Area to be Reclaimed - 52 acres of 86 -acre property site Length of Reclamation — 2 years 0 Page 18 Reclamation Activities — Approx. one month for removal of equipment, grading and sloping, construction of erosion control measures, and revegetation. Monitoring and remediation of revegetation for two years or until site developed. Days of Operations — Monday through Friday; no reclamation activities on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays Hours of Operations — 7 am to 7 pm; 5 pm in winter. No operations after dark. Employees — 4 Production — Not Applicable Trucks Trips — Not applicable; equipment transport and employees only CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR RECLAMATION PLAN PREPARED BY CITY STAFF The following 6261 of 76 Conditions of Approval must be complied with by the Operator for reclamation of the site: 1-4; 6; 9 -20 13A -F, 14 -20 22; 26 -29; 31-44; 49 -57; and 59 -7675. Note that most of the conditions are required for both mine operations and reclamation. (Amended by Planning Commission on October 18, 2011.) GENERAL 1. The applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees, and Agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its Officials, Officers, Employees or Agents to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning the Residential Design Review projects attached hereto. PLANNING DIVISION 2. Approval of the Reclamation Plan will lapse and be void unless reclamation activity is initiated within one (1) year after the completion of mining activity as provided in the Reclamation Plan. The Applicant may request from the Planning Commission an extension of time on the Reclamation Plan so long as the request is submitted to the Planning Department at least one (1) month prior to the expiration of the originally approved Reclamation Plan. The Planning Commission shall consider the extension request at a public hearing. No extension of time shall exceed a period of one (1) year. 3. All conditions of approval shall be reproduced in Appendix C of the Reclamation Plan within fifteen (15) days after approval by the Planning Commission. The Applicant shall sign and complete an "Acknowledgement of Conditions" form within 115] Page 19 30 days of approval of the Reclamation Plan by the Planning Commission and shall return the executed original to the Planning Division for inclusion in the case records. 4. All site improvements approved with this request shall be constructed as indicated on the approved Reclamation Plan. Revisions to approved plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission except as otherwise noted in these conditions. 6. Truck Maintenance. All trucks exiting the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine project site shall be washed and rattled to prevent materials from spilling onto adjacent roads and streets. Air and Water Pollution. All operations shall be conducted in compliance with the rules, regulations, and requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the State Water Quality Control Board. Applicant shall provide to the Community Development Director or Designee a copy of any and all permits secured on behalf of the Applicant from either South Coast Air Quality Management District and /or the State Water Quality Control Board. 10. Noise Suppression. A. All equipment and premises employed in conjunction with any of the uses identified in the Reclamation Plan shall be constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 17.78. B. Those standards for noise suppression, set forth in Chapter 17.78 of the LEMC, which apply to construction activities shall apply to activities undertaken pursuant to the Reclamation Plan. C. The project shall not exceed the maximum permissible sound levels by receiving land use set forth in Chapter 17.78 Section .060 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. During those times not restricted in Section 17.78.060 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the project shall not exceed an exterior noise standard of 60 dB Ldn at the outer project boundary adjacent to residential and other sensitive land uses. D. The Applicant shall submit a "Noise Control Plan" identifying anticipated operating noise levels at the outer project boundaries. The Noise Control Plan shall ensure adequate operating noise control measures through the provision of mufflers and the physical separation of machinery and maintenance areas from adjacent residential uses and other sensitive land uses. The Noise Control Plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or Designee. 11. Hours of Operation. The Applicant shall limit mining and reclamation operations to 11 Page 20 the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No mining or reclamation operations shall occur on Legal Holidays. Hauling of mining material shall be limited between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. (Amended by Planning Commission on October 18, 2011.) 12. Light. All exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and directed on -site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumination above the horizontal plane of the fixture. 13. Biology /Habitat A. Nesting Biological Surveys. The Applicant shall comply with all federal. State and local laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the applicable provisions of the federal Endangered Species Acts, the California Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the federal Clean Water Act, and the California Fish and Game Code. The compliance with these laws and regulations, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist conduct pre - grading nesting bird surveys in any areas where earth - moving is to occur within the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), and in areas an appropriate buffer area (500 feet) where there is sufficient habitat to promote nesting. Additionally pre- the survey requirements for these and other potentially- required surveys and typical mitigation measures are shown in Attachment A to these conditions of approval. (Amended by Staff at City Council on March 13, 2012.) B. Revegetation. The Applicant shall hydro -seed the re- created slopes with a native erosion control seed mix as well as include native trees and shrubs from container plantings. Further, the Applicant shall plant a native wildflower mix on the lower elevations within the pad areas. C. Irrigation. Once hydro- seeding has occurred, the Applicant shall be responsible for supplying sufficient irrigation to adequately germinate and establish the applied seed, particularly during the first winter and spring following planting. The container stock shall be irrigated as long as necessary to establish the root systems in the native soils, possibly as long as one to two years. Areas where inadequate seed establishment has taken place shall be re- sprayed or re- seeded within 30 days of identifying the inadequacy. D. Plant Replacement. The Applicant shall be responsible for replacing any dead or terminally diseased plants until the final success criteria have been met. The replacement plants shall be of the same species, size, and spacing as those plant species being replaced. 12 Page 21 E. Non - Native Plants. The Applicant shall initially remove all non - native invasive species on the reclamation site. No area shall be allowed to have more than twenty percent (20 %) of the ground cover provided by non- native plants. If inspections reveal that non - native plants are becoming established on the reclamation site, removal shall immediately be initiated. F. Contractor Education. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Superintendent shall be familiar with the Reclamation Plan, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the Conditions of approval and shall ensure that all contractors are in compliance with the requirements of those documents at all times. G. Access Control. The Applicant shall delineate the service access routes to keep the contractors within these routes as well as prevent them from entering sensitive or recently reclaimed areas. H. Water Quality. No debris, soil, silt, sand, rubbish, cement or concrete or washings thereof, oil or petroleum products or washings thereof, shall be allowed to enter into or be placed in a manner where it may be washed via rainfall or run -off into local creeks. Further, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of NPDES by implementing a SWPPP that incorporates BMPs and a Spill Prevention, Control and Counter - measure Plan (SPCC) throughout the operation of all reclamation activities. I. Clean Up. All clean -up operations shall be conducted within one year of the termination of mining. Scrap material, refuse, unwanted equipment, and surplus materials shall be removed and disposed of at an appropriate landfill site. 14. The Applicant shall comply with all mitigation and recommendations identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which accompany Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08. ENGINEERING DIVISION 15. The Applicant shall provide detention and desiltation basin sized to detain the increase in the 100 year storm flow between the developed and undeveloped site conditions. 16. The slope on the north and east sides of the project shall be improved with long -term erosion control planting. 17. Sight distance for ingress /egress at all driveways shall meet CalTrans standard for site distance. 13 Page 22 18. Parking shall not be allowed on Public Roads or Lake Street. 19. Provide for on -site loading and unloading of inventory. 20. Public Works requirements identified in the approved Reclamation Plan shall be complied with as a condition of the Reclamation Plan. 22. The Applicant shall pay any required plan review and site inspection fees. 26. Approval of the Reclamation Plan shall constitute conceptual grading plan approval. 27. All soils, geology and seismic reports are contained in the Reclamation Plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Division prior to the export of on -site material. 28. Slopes of Excavations. No production from an open pit quarry shall be permitted which creates a post mining slope steeper than two foot (2') horizontal to one foot (1) vertical, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Provided, however, that a steeper slope may be permitted during mining operations where soil content or material is such that a vertical -cut excavation is safe in the opinion of the Division of Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California and such opinion shall be memorialized in writing and submitted to the City for approval by the City Engineer. 29. All grading for reclamation purposes shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. All slopes steeper than 2 to 1 shall be approved by the City Engineer for stability and proper erosion control prior to the export of on -site material. All manufactured slopes greater than 30 feet in height shall comply with City Standards requiring a six foot (6') bench for every 30 vertical feet of slope. Said slopes shall be re- landscaped in accordance with the Reclamation Plan Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. 31. Individual lot drainage shall be conveyed to a detention /treatment facility as depicted in the Reclamation Plan. 32. All natural drainage traversing the site shall be conveyed through the site, or shall be collected, conveyed and released consistent with historic flows and patterns as described in the approved Reclamation Plan. 33. Applicant shall satisfy all requirements of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 15.64 regarding flood hazard regulations. 34. Applicant shall satisfy all requirements of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 15.68 regarding flood plain management. 14 Page 23 35. Applicant shall submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports for review and approval by City Engineer. Applicant shall mitigate any flooding and /or erosion caused by reclamation of the site and diversion of drainage consistent with standards established by the Riverside County Flood Control District. 36. Private storm drain inlet facilities shall be appropriately marked to prevent illegal dumping in the drain system consistent with the standards established by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 37. Historic flow patterns & rates shall be preserved. 10 -year storm runoff shall be contained within the curb and the 100 -year storm runoff shall be contained with the street right -of -way. When either of these criteria is exceeded, drainage facilities shall be installed. 38. In the event historic storm flows are exceeded or reduced, the Applicant shall submit a drainage acceptance letter from adjacent downstream property owner(s) for out - letting the proposed storm water run -off on private property prior to discharge of storm water run -off. 39. Applicant shall install BMP's using the best available technology to mitigate any urban pollutants from entering the watershed. The operator shall prevent trackout onto public highways. If trackout occurs, the operator shall take preventative and remedial measures immediately. 40. The Applicant shall comply with State Law and provide a SWPPP for construction and post construction which describes BMP's that will be implemented for the development and including maintenance responsibilities. The owner operator can comply by submitting a "Notice of Intent' (NOI), develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) a monitoring program and reporting plan for the surface mine site. 41. Education guidelines and BMP's shall be provided to employees of the development in the use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers as well as other environmental awareness education materials on best construction and operation practices that contribute to protection of stormwater quality and meet the goals of the BMP in Supplement "A" in the Riverside County NPDES Drainage Area Management Plan. 42. Applicant shall construct the storm water detention facility per the Reclamation Plan and utilize BMP's that will reduce storm water erosion the temporary Reclamation Plan areas. 43. At the time the county adopts, as part of any ordinance, regulations specific to the N.P.D.E.S., this project (or subdivision) shall comply with them. 44. All on-site Roads and Driveways. BMPS, established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, shall be implemented and all roads and driveways shall 15 Page 24 be kept wet while being used or shall be treated with oil, asphaltic concrete or concrete, or other palliative to prevent the emission of dust. 49. In accordance with the City's Franchise Agreement for waste disposal and recycling, the Applicant shall be required to contract with CR &R, Inc., for removal and disposal of all waste material, debris, vegetation and other rubbish generated during cleaning, demolition, clear and grubbing or all other phases of construction. 50. All applicable fees for inspection with respect to the mining operation shall be paid directly to the City of Lake Elsinore. Copies of these documents shall be provided to the Engineering Division for the City of Lake Elsinore to be kept in the project files. 51. Safety Berm. A four (4) foot, minimum vertical height, safety berm, shall be installed at the top of all cut/fill slopes at least three (3) feet in width. 52. Benches & Slopes A. During the Reclamation operation, benches and slopes shall be installed according to the approved Reclamation Plan. B. Working slopes below benches shall not be steeper than 1 H:1 V. Finished slopes shall not exceed 2H:1V, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 53. Signage A. Signs shall be installed at the top of all manufactured slopes (cut or fill), at intervals not greater than 100 linear feet. B. Each sign shall read "DANGER" "OPEN PIT MINE" "STEEP SLOPE ". Signs shall be at least 18" X 18" square with contrasting background to lettering. (i.e.: white background and black lettering). C. Perimeter signs around the approved Reclamation Plan or Surface Mine boundaries shall be installed with contrasting lettering /background warning of "DANGER" "KEEP OUT" and "MINERAL RESOURCE ZONE" or "SURFACE MINING OPERATION ". 54. Trash & Debris Removal. The parcel(s) where the mine is located shall be kept free of trash (including old tires) and other debris. There shall be no importing of recyclable materials or construction debris without a speck permit for that activity. 55. Contractor Equipment Storage. All non - mining equipment must be stored in a designated area permitted for "Contractor Storage." A "Contractor Storage" permit must be obtained from the Planning Department prior to storage of any non - mining equipment. 16 Page 25 56. Vehicle Storage. There shall be no storage of passenger vehicles, campers, travel trailers or other personal property that is not related directly to the mining of minerals at this site. 57. Temporary/Portable Office. Temporary/portable office trailers are permitted provided they are installed after a building permit is obtained. Other structures for night watchman security must be installed or constructed by building permit. 59. Importing /Storing of Vegetation. There shall be no importing and /or storage of any cut vegetation without specific approval of the Planning Division (Environmental). 60. Annual Financial Assurance Review. A. Each year after the 1st year of land disturbed under the Reclamation Plan, the Applicant shall review the financial assurance on file with the City of Lake Elsinore. B. The Applicant shall submit a written report to the Engineering Division indicating any changes to disturbed land or other conditions that could increase or decrease the amount of financial assurance. This report shall also indicate the financial assurance has been reviewed and include a new cost estimate if needed as described below. C. After the financial assurance review, if the total dollar amount indicates an increase or decrease of more or less than five (5) percent of the financial assurances on file, the Applicant shall submit a new cost estimate to the Engineering Division taking into consideration all information addressed in the California Resources Code section 2773.1 (a) (3) using the forms provided by the California Department of Conservation's internet web site. D. At least every five (5) years after the initial land is disturbed, the Applicant must submit a new cost estimate taking into consideration all information addressed in the California Resources Code section 2773.1 (a) (3) using the forms provided by the California Department of Conservation's internet web site. 61. Property Line Setbacks. There shall be a graded setback from all property lines of not less than 4950 feet from all cut/fill slopes per the approved Reclamation Plan. (Amended by Planning Commission on October 18, 2011) 62. In all other areas within the boundaries of the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine, the provisions of Lake Elsinore Grading Ordinance shall be followed unless modified by these conditions. 17 Page 26 63. Building /Grading Permits. The provisions of the City of Lake Elsinore Grading Ordinance shall be enforced for all construction within the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine project site boundaries unless specifically regulated by another approved condition of the Reclamation Plan. 64. Annual Report Information. The Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Division with the annual report the following information: A. Indicate mine proximity to the permit boundaries by topography; B. Indicate maximum depth of excavated areas; C. Provide quantity in cubic yards and tons of materials mined during the reporting period; D. Certify all excavated areas are within the limits of the vested Surface Mining Permit and RP 112 issued by the County of Riverside, and the Reclamation Plan approved by the City of Lake Elsinore; E. Provide data indicating any reclaimed land during the reporting period; A certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer shall inspect all excavated slopes within the permitted boundaries (active or inactive) for slope stability. The Applicant shall provide to the City Engineer a copy of the inspection report. G. NOTE: At least every three years of operation, the Applicant shall provide to Engineering, aerial topography showing incremental and total changes to excavations. This will include cross - sectional maps showing berms, slope angles and benches of all excavations. 65. Public Improvements that require grading, filling, over excavation and recompaction, and base or paving which requires a grading permit, are subject to the included Engineering Division's conditions of approval. Furthermore, all Reclamation Plan grading shall conform to the approved Reclamation Plan. 66. NPDES /SWPPP. The Applicant shall provide to the Engineering Division evidence of compliance with the following: "Effective March 10, 2003 owner operators of grading or construction projects are required to comply with the N.P.D.E.S. (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirement to obtain coverage under the general industrial permit from the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The permit requirement applies to grading and construction sites of one acre or larger. 67. The applicant shall be subject to a minimum of one annual storm water compliance inspection by City staff. CB3 Page 27 68. Geotechnical /Soils Reports. All grading shall be in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnicaVsoils reports as approved by the City Engineer and as integrated into the Reclamation Plan. 69. Max Slope Ratio. Graded slopes shall be limited to 2H:1V unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 70. Slope Stability Analysis. A slope stability report shall be submitted in the annual report to the City Engineer. 71. Drainage Design Q100. Any public drainage facilities shall be designed in accordance with Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District's standards, and shall at a minimum, accommodate 100 -year storm flows. Additionally, Engineering Division conditional approval of this application includes an expectation that the Reclamation Plan reviewed and approved complies with any WQMP (Water Quality Management Plan) required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for urban development pollutants. 72. Minimum Drainage Grade. Minimum drainage grade shall be 1% except on portland cement concrete where 0.5% shall be the minimum. 73. Slope Setbacks. All excavated or graded slopes shall have setbacks from buildings and property lines per the standards contained in the Reclamation Plan. 74. Private Roads. Construction of a private road shall conform to the approved Reclamation Plan. 75. Update Financial Assurance. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Section 14.04.140 regarding Financial assurances. _ - -- - Lake Els ERg D with aeF tepegraphy show i RGFemental and tetal GhaRges to ex-Gavat Thus well i RGlude GrGss sectional maps Show beFms, slope aRgles and beRGhes of all exGavat ( Deleted . Octob 19 Page 28 Attachment A EXAMPLES OF BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND TYPICAL MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS NESTING BIRD SURVEYS Survey Requirements In order to avoid violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code ground- disturbance activities including the removal of trees and vegetation shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) of potentially occurring native and migratory bird species. If site - preparation activities are proposed during the nesting /breeding season (February 1 to August 31), a pre - activity field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the issuance of grading permits, to determine if active nests of species protected by the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the construction zone. Typical Mitigation Requirements If active nests are not located within the project area and appropriate buffer (500 feet) of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive or protected bird nests (non - listed), or within 100 feet of sensitive or protected songbird nests), earth - moving activities may be conducted during the nesting /breeding season. However, if active nests are located during the pre - activity field survey, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place within at least 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive or protected (under MBTA or California Fish and Game Code) bird nests (non - listed), or within 100 feet of sensitive or protected songbird nests until the nest is no longer active. BURROWING OWL SURVEYS Survey Requirements A pre- construction survey for resident burrowing owls will be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to commencement of grading and A -1 Page 29 construction activities within those portions of the project site containing suitable burrowing owl habitat. If ground disturbing activities in these areas are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the area shall be resurveyed for owls. The pre- construction survey and any relocation activity will be conducted in accordance with the CDFG Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 1995. Typical Mitigation Requirements If active nests are identified on site during the pre- construction survey, they shall be avoided or the owls actively or passively relocated. To adequately avoid active nests, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place within at least 100 meters (approximately 330 feet) of an active nest during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), and 165 feet during the non - breeding season (September 1 through January 31). If burrowing owls occupy the site and cannot be avoided, passive relocation shall be used to exclude owls from their burrows. Relocation shall be conducted outside the breeding season or once the young are able to leave the nest and fly. Passive relocation is the exclusion of owls from their burrows (outside the breeding season or once the young are able to leave the nest and fly) by installing one -way doors in burrow entrances. These one -way doors allow the owl to exit the burrow, but not enter it. These doors shall be left in place 48 hours to ensure owls have left the burrow. Alternative natural or artificial burrows that are beyond 50 meters from the impacted area shall be provided in a ratio of 1:1 in adjacent suitable habitat that is contiguous with the foraging habitat of the affected owls. The project area shall be monitored daily for one week to confirm owl use of burrows before excavating burrows in the impact area. Burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible pipe shall be inserted into the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any animals inside the burrow. CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER SURVEYS Survey Requirements No new clearing, grubbing, grading or other ground- disturbance activities shall occur on the project site until the following requirements have been met for the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califorrnica califomica): Focused presence /absence surveys shall be conducted within the footprint where new clearing, grubbing, grading or other ground- disturbance activities (including surface mining) is proposed and within pursuant to U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) protocol survey requirements. Said surveys shall also include A -2 Page 30 all land within 500 feet of the ground- disturbance footprint and shall consist of either 1) a minimum of six surveys conducted no less than one week apart between March 15 and June 30 or 2) a minimum of nine surveys conducted no less than two weeks apart during the remainder of the year. Surveys must be conducted by a biologist who holds the appropriate Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. If surveys document absence of CAGN no additional avoidance or minimization measures are required. Surveys in which the species is not detected are considered valid for one year. New protocol surveys shall be conducted on any previously surveyed areas where clearing, grubbing, grading or other ground - disturbance activities are not commenced within one year and whenever new areas are proposed for ground- disturbance activities. Typical Mitigation Requirements If surveys document the presence of California gnatcatcher (CAGN), impacts to CAGN would be mitigated below the level of significance when occupied coastal sage scrub is fenced and direct impacts are avoided and construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat occurs only between September 1 and February 15 to avoid indirect impacts to nesting CAGN. If avoidance is not feasible a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10 Incidental Take Permit shall be initiated by the project applicant with the USFWS and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize adverse project effects to CAGN, as identified by the USFWS shall be implemented. Potential impacts will be reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of one or more of the following measures, which individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance: ■ Avoidance; ■ Minimization of Impacts; ■ Acquisition and set aside of similar CAGN habitat either on -site at a ratio ranging from 3 acres of set aside land for each 1 acre of disturbed land (3:1 ratio) to a ratio of 5:1 ■ The purchase of off -site compensation land. NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT AND CRITERIA AREA SPECIES Survey Requirements Prior to any new clearing, grubbing, grading or other ground- disturbance activities (including surface mining), protocol -level botanical surveys within areas that contain habitat suitable to support special status plant species, such as A -3 Page 31 narrow endemic and criteria area plants, shall be conducted during the blooming season . These surveys will occur prior to ground- disturbance activities to determine the presence or absence of special status plant species of concern in areas where ground- disturbance activity is planned. Special status plant species of concern include, but are not limited to, Munz's onion, San Diego ambrosia, Slender- Horned Spineflower, Many- stemmed dudleya, Spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, San Miguel savory, Hammitt's clay- cress, Wright's trichocoronia, Thread - leaved brodiaea, Davidson's saltscale, Parish's brittlescale, Smooth Tarplant, Round - leaved filaree, Coulter's goldfileds and Little Mousetail. Ground - disturbance activities can occur within the surveyed area if the surveys show the absence of special status plants. Typical Mitigation Requirements The applicant will flag and avoid all ground- disturbance activities in areas where these surveys show special status plants to be present. The applicant will also report geo- referenced plant locations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (Wildlife Agencies). The applicant will implement avoidance measures including, but not limited to, the following: ■ Flags shall be placed to mark the boundaries of areas where special status plants are present near all areas where ground- disturbance activities are planned. ■ The flagged areas shall be avoided and the applicant shall not drive vehicles, go by foot, or place equipment or materials in any area with special status plants. If the applicant cannot avoid ground- disturbance activities in areas where there are special status plants present, then in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game ( "Wildlife Agencies "), the applicant will develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts on special status plant species to a less than significant level. Mitigation will include a tiered approach as summarized below and any other measures determined in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. 1. Preservation of 90% of the plant populations found within suitable habitat within the project area. Established, high quality populations known to occur within the project footprint will be avoided by construction and conserved 100 %. 2. Depending on species and the likely success of replanting it, as determined through consultation with the Wildlife Agencies, as appropriate, plants will be relocated to a suitable replacement site. This will be accomplished by transplantation and seed /bulb collection within the project site. The applicant will relocate plants and /or seeds to adjacent areas that contain site specific requirements necessary for successful cultivation of the plant species. The applicant will identify appropriate A -4 Page 32 replacement sites in consultation with the Wildlife Service. The applicant will prepare a quantitative evaluation based on survey results to determine the ratio of replacement conservation needed. The applicant will prepare a Revegetation Monitoring Plan that will be submitted to and approved by the Wildlife Agencies prior to initiating revegetation. The plan will outline transplanting activities, locations, monitoring requirements, and criteria to measure transplanting success. 3. The applicant will establish conservation easements on replacement site(s) to protect the populations in perpetuity. JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATIONS Survey Requirements Prior to any ground- disturbance activities, an updated jurisdictional delineation of the subject property documenting all drainages including ephemeral drainages shall be completed. Typical Mitigation Requirements Potential impacts to any "Waters of the U.S." and "Waters of the State" will be reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of one or more of the following measures, which individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance: 1. Avoidance of on -site jurisdictional features; 2. Enhancement of avoided on -site drainages; 3. Restoration of on -site riparian habitat following ground- disturbance activities; or 4. On -site or off -site mitigation of residual impacts to jurisdictional areas at a 1 to 1 ratio, or such other ratio as negotiated between the applicant, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) during the Section 404/401/1602 permitting process. A -5 Page 33 CITY OF LADE LSIN0RE DREAM EXTREME- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: WARREN MORELION, AICP PLANNING MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 17, 2012 SUBJECT: RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 AND VESTED RIGHT TO MINE — RECLAMATION PLAN NO 2008 -01 AND VESTED RIGHT TO MINE - RECLAMATION PLAN FOR AN 85.76 -ACRE MINING SITE, GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE 1 -15 FREEWAY BETWEEN NICHOLS ROAD AND LAKE STREET. THE PROJECT SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY WITHIN THE 3,457 ACRE BOUNDARIES OF RECLAMATION PLAN 112. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN 2008 -01 FOR THE SITE AND WHETHER THE OWNER HAS A LEGAL VESTED RIGHT FOR QUARRYING ON THE SITE PURSUANT TO SMARA AND LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 14.04. RECLAMATION WILL INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, THE RESTORATION AND REVEGETATION OF ANY DISTURBED LAND ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT SITE. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008- 08 WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. APPLICANT YOSHI SUZUKI, MARUHACHI CERAMICS OF AMERICA, INC, & OWNER: (MCA) 1985 SAMSON AVENUE, CORONA, CA 92879 Background On October 18, 2011, the Planning Commission considered a vested rights determination and the subject Reclamation Plan for an 85.76 -acre site known as the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine (the 'Project'). At such time, the Commission did not think it was appropriate to act on the project until the applicant updated the Page 34 RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 JANUARY 17, 2012 PAGE 2 OF 6 environmental information and clearly identified the distinction between the mining and reclamation operations. Subsequently, the Planning Commission voted 4 -0 to continue the project to a future non - specific date. The Planning Commission recommended the following actions be taken regarding the project at the hearing. • Update the Biology and Traffic Reports, and provide a Geotechnical Report, • Clarify within the report specific issues that deal with the Reclamation Plan; • Provide a description of the Mining Operations Vested Rights Discussion /Analysis Pacific Clay owns approximately 3,457 acres of land adjacent to the 1 -15 freeway, some of which was formerly located within the the County's boundaries. Pacific Clay has operated a major brick production and aggregate mining operation at its Pacific Clay mine since the early 1900s. In 1975, the California Legislature adopted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 2710 et seq.: "SMARA "). SMARA is designed to protect the extraction of minerals as an essential element to the continued economic well -being of the state. In enacting SMARA, the Legislature expressly intended to create and maintain an effective and comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy for the regulation of surface mining operations. To achieve this end, SMARA generally requires surface mining operations to obtain a surface mining permit and approved reclamation plan from the lead agency and to provide financial assurances to implement the planned reclamation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, SMARA exempts certain projects from the surface mining permit requirement. According to SMARA, if a project has a vested mining right, the project does not need to obtain a surface mining permit and can continue its mining operations consistent with prior procedures. The project is not relieved, however, of the requirement to prepare a reclamation plan and, thereafter, to establish financial assurances. Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine is part of Pacific Clay's 3,457 acres of land and represents a small portion of the overall mining operation which has been ongoing since the early 1900s. In 1978, Pacific Clay processed and obtained approval by the County of Riverside of a Reclamation Plan 112. As lead agency for mining activities, the County's approval of Reclamation Plan 112 also acknowledged vested surface mining operation. Recognizing that mining of such a large site would take place over time and that once minerals were extracted from one area, the operator would move to a new location within the site . to pursue its mineral interest, the Reclamation Plan 112 expressed Pacific Clay's intent to mine the entire property. Reclamation Plan 112 Page 35 RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 JANUARY 17, 2012 PAGE 3 OF 6 included the 85.76 acre Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Project Site within its original boundaries. The existing property owner acquired the project site for mining purposes consistent with Reclamation Plan 112. The mineral resources identified in Reclamation Plan 112 and applicable geologic studies /maps are those resources to be mined by MCA. The intent to mine these materials has been ongoing since the early 1900s. Reclamation Plan 112 was recently amended to retract the boundaries of that Plan to those properties currently owned by Pacific Clay and the proposed Reclamation Plan 2008 -01 for the project site has been submitted by the current property owner. The change in Reclamation Plan boundaries does not affect vested rights. Vested mining rights run with the land to the benefit of subsequent property owners. The question of vested rights was addressed by the property owner's representative in 2007 as outlined in the attached Ocyober 7, 2007 letter from James E. Good. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission confirm that Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine has a vested right to mine on the Project Site and is not required to secure a mining permit. Reclamation Plan Discussion /Analysis The Project Site is now within the City's corporate boundaries and is physically separated from Pacific Clay's mining operations. The lead agency for the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine is the City of Lake Elsinore. As such, the attached Reclamation Plan has been submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. The proposed Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Reclamation Plan has been prepared pursuant to SMARA and the City's Surface Mining regulations contained in Chapter 14.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The State Office of Mining and Reclamation (OMR) requires a reclamation plan for all mining operations. A reclamation plan is a document that outlines the combined process of land treatment that minimizes water degradation, air pollution, damage to aquatic or wildlife habitat, flooding, erosion and other adverse effects from surface mining operations. The reclamation process involves backfilling, grading, resoiling, revegetation, soil compaction, stabilization, and other measures. The goal of a reclamation plan is to restore mined lands to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternate land uses compatible with the City's zoning and the General Plan. The scope of rehabilitation set forth in the Reclamation Plan is dependent upon the extent of disturbance that is caused by the surface mining operations. It is for this reason that the Reclamation Plan contains significant discussion of the mining operations. Despite the discussion of mining operations in the Reclamation Plan, it is important to note that the project is the Reclamation Plan only and not the mining operation which has a vested right to operate per RP 112 . Page 36 RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 JANUARY 17, 2012 PAGE 4 OF 6 Over the last few months, staff has had several conversations, meetings and correspondence with the applicant and property owner regarding the Planning Commission's concerns. The outcome of the conversations and meetings are further discussed below. • Update_._ d Reports To address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the biological and traffic reports, updated letters were provided by Lilburn Corporation (dated December 27, 2011) and Kunzman Associates, Inc. (dated January 9, 2012), respectively. The biological update found habitat possibly favorable for the listed California gnatcatcher and Munz's onion will require the applicant to survey for these species prior to site impacts in compliance with the Federal and State endangered species acts, as the site has revegetated since the 2004 fire. Conditions have been added to the project to address these requirements. The traffic letter summarizes the current condition at the Lake and 1 -15 Freeway ramps. The letter identifies that the operational mining planned onsite will not significantly impact the surrounding transportation system in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, because the proposed Alberhill Southwest Shell Mine project will be a temporary 15 -year operation, no permanent traffic improvements are recommended. The letters are included as Attachments 12 and 13. A Geotechnical Report is not required as part of the project. Condition of Approval No. 31 addresses geotechnical and slope concerns. The condition reads as follows: 31. All grading for reclamation purposes shall be done under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. All slopes steeper than 2 to 1 shall be approved by the City Engineer for stability and proper erosion control prior to the export of on -site material. All manufactured slopes greater than 30 feet in height shall comply with City Standards requiring a six foot (6) bench for every 30 vertical feet of slope. Said s lopes shall be re- landscaped in accordance with the Reclamation Plan Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. • Clarification of Reclamation Plan Issues: The Reclamation Plan is the project presented for the Planning Commission's consideration. For purposes of CEQA, the reclamation activities are the project impacts being evaluated. In order to fully evaluate the adequacy of the proposed reclamation, the Reclamation Plan includes a description of the proposed mining activities. This description is largely background information. In order to clarify the mining and reclamation activities, the applicant has Page 37 RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 JANUARY 17, 2012 PAGE 5 OF 6 provided a spreadsheet summary identifying the mining and reclamation impacts associated with the project (Attachment 11). In summary, 52 of the 86 acre site will be mined and reclaimed. Reclamation activity is expected to last approximately two years. Approximately one month for removal of equipment, grading /sloping, construction of erosion control measure, and revegation. It is anticipated that reclamation activity will occur Monday through Friday from 7:OOam to 7:OOpm (5:OOpm in the winter) with no activity on Saturday, Sunday or Holidays. Reclamation activity will be administered by four employees. No truck trips are expected except for equipment transport and employees. Proposed conditions of approval in connection with the Reclamation Plan and reclamation activities are attached to the proposed Resolution approving the RP 2008 -01. • Description of Mining Operations If the Planning Commission confirms that the project site has a vested right to mine, no mining permit is required and the owner has the right to engage in the proposed mining activities. The City's regulatory authority with respect to vested mining activities is generally limited to nuisance and similar police power concerns. In addition, the mining activities are subject to compliance with all applicable federal and state air quality, water quality and similar regulatory measures. As previously noted, the applicant has provided a spreadsheet summary identifying the mining and reclamation impacts associated with the project (Attachment 11). The description of the mining operations is provided in the first column of the document. In an effort to avoid any future concerns, the property owner /operator has consented to a number of conditions of approval relative to the mining operations. These conditions are aimed at insuring the mining operations are consistent with good mining practices and applicable City, state and federal requirements. The Reclamation Plan has been prepared pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 14.04. With the implementation of mitigation contained in the Reclamation Plan, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and conditions of approval, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2012 - approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08; adopt Resolution No. 2012 -_ approving MSHCP Consistency, and adopt Resolution No. 2012 - confirming the vested mining right and approving Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01. This recommendation is based on the findings, exhibits and conditions of approval attached to this Staff Report. Page 38 RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 JANUARY 17, 2012 PAGE 6 OF 6 Prepared By: Kirt A. Coury, Project Planner Approved By: Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Notice of Public hearing 3. October 10, 2007 Letter re Vested Rights 4. Planning Commission Resolutions 5. Conditions of Approval 6. Acknowledgement of Draft Conditions 7. Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 8. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 9. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 10. Financial Assurance Cost Estimate 11. Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 for Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Summary of Mining and Reclamation Impacts 12. Biological Letter dated December 27, 2011 (Lilburn Corporation) 13. Traffic Letter dated January 9, 2012 (Kunzman Associates, Inc.) Page 39 CITY OF LADE LSINOR E DREAM EXTREME- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, will hold a public hearing on January 17, 2012, at the Lake Elsinore Cultural Center, 183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California, 92530, at 6:00 p.m. to consider the following item: Reclamation Plan for an 85.76 -acre mining site, generally located along the east side of the 1 -15 Freeway between Nichols Road and Lake Street. The project site was previously within the 3,457 acre boundaries of Reclamation Plan 112. The Planning Commission will consider the approval of the proposed Reclamation Plan 2008 -01 for the site and whether the owner has a legal vested right for quarrying on the site pursuant to SMARA and Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 14.04. Reclamation will include, but is not limited to, the restoration and revegetation of any disturbed land associated with the project site. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 was prepared for the project according to the California Environmental Quality Act. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are hereby invited to attend this public hearing to present written information, express opinions or otherwise present evidence in the above matter. If you wish to legally challenge any action taken by the City on the above matter, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City prior to or at the public hearing. FURTHER INFORMATION on this item may be obtained by contacting Kirt Coury in the Planning Division at (951) 674 -3124, ext. 274. All agenda materials are available for review at City Hall. Hss // Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Posted at City Hall on January 5, 2012 Published in the Press Enterprise on January 7, 2012 Page 40 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS • FOUNDED 1910 FOR THE FIRM AS 550 EAST HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 300 James E. Good SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92408-4205 c -mail: JimGnOd@wahamvva w, (909) 890 -4499- • FACSIMILE (909) 890 -2511 www.greshamsavage.com October 10, 2007 VIA E -MAIL (barbaraPcega com) AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Barbara Zeid Leibold, Esq. City Attorney, City of Lake Elsinore Leibold McClendon & Mann 23422 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 105 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Re: Maruhachi Ceramics of America, Inc.'s Vested Right to Mine. Dear Barbara: Steve Miles has referred your October 4, 2007 letter to me as MCA's "mining attorney" to address your "vested right" question. MCA (via its wholly owned subsidiary, Delilah Properties, Inc.) will be Processing for approval by the City a reclamation plan for mining clay materials within the 83 acres to which you refer. The application will be as a vested rights surface mining operation under SMARA (Public Resources Code) Section 2776. The vested right is derived as follows: 1. MCA's predecessor in interest on the 83 acres, Pacific Clay Products, processed and had approved by the County of Riverside in 1978 a reclamation plan for its vested right surface mining operation as of the effective date of SMARA of January 1, 1976. As you know, SMARA requires that a permit to mine be obtained from the lead agency unless the operation is otherwise vested as provided in Section 2776, in which case only a reclamation plan requires approval. This, in effect, recognizes a constitutionally protected property right. The reclamation plan is identified as RP -112 and covers approximately 3,000 acres, including what is now the 83 acre MCA property as successor in interest. 2. The RP -112 geological map for the Pacific Clay property shows the following within the MCA parcel: P3E9- OM -21363ll Page 41 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION James E. Good Barbara Zeid Leibold October 10, 2007 Page 2 "Bedford Canyon formation. Slate, argillite, quartzite, silicious dolomitic limestone and conglomerate. Bcc: Residual claystone derived by weathering of Bedford Canyon formation.* before deposition of SiIverado formation ". This is the clay material that MCA intends to mine for their long term business use plans. 3. Accordingly, it was the intent of Pacific Clay when the reclamation plan was approved by the County to eventually mine the clay deposit on the MCA parcel. 4. Vested rights are real property rights that run with the land, and are automatically transferred to each subsequent owner of the property. In a footnote in Hansen Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Board ot Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal 4" 533, the California Supreme Court noted with respect to vested mining rights: "The use of land, and not its ownership, at the time the use becomes nonconforming determines the right to continue the use.- Transfer of title does not affect the right to continue a lawful non- conforming use which runs with the land." [Citations]. (Footnote 1). 5- Hansen also reiterated the following principles: • In determining the scope of the vested use, a lead agency or court must consider the operation as a whole (i.e. Pacific Clay's), and cannot segment portions of the operation that were not yet mined. Id., at 565 -68. • Although the general land use rule is that, in the case of a non- conforming use (as under SMARA since January 1, 1976), under the "diminishing asset doctrine ", it is recognized that mining takes place over time and that once minerals are extracted from an area, the operator retains the right to move to a new location to pursue the mineral interest. Id., at 573. In its 1978 reclamation plan, Pacific Clay objectively manifested its intent to mine the entire property, including the MCA parcel, an intent to which MCA has succeeded. Please advise if you would like additional information or clarification. Of course, none of the foregoing diminishes the City's authority to review and approve a reclamation plan for the MCA parcel under SMARA and the City's mining ordinance. I look forward to working with you as the reclamation plan application progresses. P S-M- -213624.1 Page 42 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION James E. Good Barbara Zeid Leibold October 10, 2007 Page 3 JEG:ld cc (via e- mail): Yoshi Suzuki, MCA Steve Miles Hardy Strozier P399 WQ -- 31]634.1 Very truly yours, James . Good GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, A Professional Corporation Page 43 f RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008 -08 WHEREAS, Maruhachi Ceramics of America, Inc. (MCA), has submitted an application for Reclamation Plan 2008 -01, generally located on the east side of the 1 -15 Freeway between Nichols Road and Lake Street and commonly identifiable as APNs 390 - 210 -014, and -019 (the "Project'); and WHEREAS, the standards and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines apply only to discretionary projects, which are defined in CEQA Section 21065 as an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and which includes the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies; and WHEREAS, the Project is a discretionary project within the meaning of Section 21065 of CEQA because it involves extensive reclamation activities which may cause both a direct and indirect physical change in the environment and no reclamation activities may begin on the Project site until the Planning Commission approves the Reclamation Plan for the Project; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted on the Project and revealed that the Project may have potentially significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15070 - 15075, it was further determined that all potentially significant environmental impacts could be mitigated to a statistical level of insignificance and that it was appropriate to prepare Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006 -01 to address the environmental impacts of the project; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Project has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on October 18, 2011 and January 17, 2012. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered the Project and has found it acceptable. The Planning Commission finds and determines the Project is consistent with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and determines that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 is adequate and prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Page 44 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 02 PAGE 2 OF 3 SECTION 2. That in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08: 1. Revisions in the Project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The applicant has made revisions to the project and has agreed to specific conditions which mitigate the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project to a level of `less than significant. 2. There is no substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record before the agency, that the Project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to the evidence received in light of the whole record, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment considering the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the conditions of approval. 3. The Reclamation Plan has been reviewed pursuant to CEQA and the City's environmental review guidelines, and all significant adverse impacts from reclamation of the surface mining operations are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigated Negative Declaration 2008 -08, the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the corresponding conditions of approval mitigate all environmental effects to a statistical level of insignificance. SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17 day of January 2012, by the following vote: �' � " 6AW�� Shelly Jord airperson City of Lake Elsinore ATTEST: Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Page 45 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 02 PAGE 3OF3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Warren Morelion, Planning Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2012 -02 as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 17 day of January 2012, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: CHAIRPERSON JORDAN, COMMISSIONER BLAKE, COMMISSIONER GONZALES, COMMISSIONER MORSCH NOES: VICE CHAIRPERSON O'NEAL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Page 46 RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT IDENTIFIED AS RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 IS EXEMPT FROM THE MULTI - SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP) WHEREAS, Maruhachi Ceramics of America, Inc. (MCA), has submitted an application for Reclamation Plan 2008 -01, generally located on the east side of the 1 -15 Freeway between Nichols Road and Lake Street and commonly identifiable as APNs 390 - 210 -014, and -019 (the "Project'); and WHEREAS, the Project site is owned by MCA, Inc. and is within the Murdock Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area. It has been determined by the City of Lake Elsinore and the Riverside Conservation Authority that the project site maintains a vested right to mine and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.), Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 and the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared to mitigate environmental impacts resulting from the Project to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, public notice of the Project has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on October 18, 2011 and January 17, 2012. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission acknowledges the vested right to mine the identified site and therefore exempts the Project from the requirements of the MSHCP. Because the Project is exempt from the MSCHP, the Planning Commission takes no further MSHCP action with regard to this Project. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17 day of January 2012, by the following vote: Shelly Jord airperson City of Lake Elsinore Page 47 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 03 PAGE 2 OF 3 ATTEST: Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Page 48 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 03 PAGE 3 OF 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Warren Morelion, Planning Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2012 -03 as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 17` day of January 2012, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: CHAIRPERSON JORDAN, COMMISSIONER BLAKE, COMMISSIONER GONZALES, COMMISSIONER MORSCH NOES: VICE CHAIRPERSON O'NEAL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE �1 Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Page 49 RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING A VESTED MINING RIGHT AND APPROVING RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 WHEREAS, in 1975, the California Legislature adopted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 2710 et seq.: " SMARA to protect the extraction of minerals as an essential element to the continued economic well -being of the state; and WHEREAS, SMARA generally requires surface mining operations to obtain a surface mining permit and approved reclamation plan from the lead agency and to provide financial assurances to implement the planned reclamation, but exempts certain projects from the surface mining permit requirement based upon a vested mining right; and WHEREAS, Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine is part of a 3,457 acre mining site on which mining operations have been ongoing since the early 1900s and was included within the boundaries of Reclamation Plan 112 approved by the County of Riverside in 1978; and WHEREAS, by approval of Reclamation Plan 112, the County of Riverside acknowledged the vested mining use and the mining operator's intent to mine the entire 3,457 acre property, recognizing that mining of such a large site would take place over time and that once minerals were extracted from one area, the operator would move to a new location within the site to pursue its mineral interests; and WHEREAS, vested mining rights run with the land and inure to the benefit of subsequent landowners; and WHEREAS, Maruhachi Ceramics of America, Inc. (MCA), the successor in interest and current owner /operator of the property, acquired the property with the intent to mine consistent with RP 112 which previously covered the property and has submitted an application for Reclamation Plan 2008 -01, generally located on the east side of the 1 -15 Freeway between Nichols Road and Lake Street and commonly identifiable as APNs 390 - 210 -014, and -019 (the "Project'); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 14.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore has been delegated with the responsibility of considering and approving, conditionally approving, or denying Reclamation Plans: and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.: "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.), Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 and the corresponding Mitigation Page 50 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 04 PAGE 2OF6 Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared to mitigate any potentially significant environmental effects of the Project to a statistical level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, public notice of the proposed vested rights determination and the Project has been given, and the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties at a public hearing held with respect to this item on October 18, 2011 and January 17, 2012. NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission has considered and reviewed the Project and based upon the staff report and testimony offered at the public hearing confirms and determines a vested right to mine for the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission has considered and reviewed the Project and based upon the staff report and testimony offered at the public hearing finds it acceptable. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project is consistent with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and the provisions of the state Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 2710 et seq.: "SMARA "). SECTION 3.. That in accordance with Chapter 14.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the approval of Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01: 1. The granting of the permit or approval of the plan will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or injurious to the property in such zone or vicinity. Approval of the Reclamation Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare or safety or injurious to neighboring properties given that the Reclamation Plan was designed to minimize exposure of the mining and reclamation activities to the public. The Project design encourages concentration of mining and reclamation activities within the inner -most boundaries of the Project site and requires set backs consistent with the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The Project has been conditioned to comply with the Lake Elsinore Noise Ordinance and is subject to all enforcement provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. In addition, the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been analyzed and have been mitigated to a statistical level of insignificance pursuant to Mitigated Negative Declaration 2008 -08 and the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. The Reclamation Plan complies with SMARA § 2772 and § 2773, and any other applicable provisions. Page 51 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 04 PAGE 3OF6 Reclamation Plan 2008 -01 contains all of the required elements outlined in SMARA § 2772. The Reclamation Plan identifies the name and address of the surface mining operator, the quantity and type of minerals to be extracted, proposed initiation and termination dates, maximum anticipated depth of surface mining operation, maps describing the topographic details of the Project, a time schedule for mining operations, a description of proposed use or potential uses after reclamation, a description of reclamation, and an assessment of the effect of implementation of the plan. Additionally, Reclamation Plan 2006 -01 complies with the standards set forth in SMARA § 2773 because the Reclamation Plan was drafted and tailored specifically to the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine property. 3. The Reclamation Plan complies with applicable requirements of State regulations (14 C.C.R. § §3500 -3505, and §§ 3700 - 3713). Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 was reviewed pursuant to the State Mining and Geology Board reclamation regulations. Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 3502 identifies six elements which shall be discussed in a Reclamation Plan. Those six elements include: the environmental setting of the site, the public health and safety, the designed steepness and proposed treatment of mined lands' final s lopes, areas mined to produce additional material for backfilling and grading, disposition of old equipment, and temporary stream or watershed diversion. Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 extensively discusses each of these elements. The Reclamation Plan is designed to minimize impacts to the surrounding community and environment. The Reclamation Plan satisfies all of the provisions of the City's Surface Mining and Reclamation Chapter (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 14.04), which is the City's implementation of SMARA. 4. The Reclamation Plan and potential use of reclaimed land pursuant to the plan are consistent with the Chapter 14.04 and the City's General Plan all other applicable provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. According to the Lake Elsinore General Plan Land Use Element, the City is experiencing significant growth opportunities in terms of new development and redevelopment. A majority of the City's acreage is under construction, approved for construction, or is planned for development. The Land Use Element encourages future urbanization while preserving the environmental characteristics which contribute to a quality of life that attracts residents to the community. Approval of Reclamation Plan 2008 -01 assists the City's development goals and intent of the Land Use Element by encouraging the extractive industry and enabling production of necessary raw materials to sustain future development within the City and surrounding areas. Page 52 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 04 PAGE 4 OF 6 The Reclamation Plan is also consistent with the terms of the Open Space Element of the General Plan. The primary focus of the Open Space Element is to encourage conservation, protection and proper management of natural resources within the City. The purpose of the Reclamation Plan is to reclaim, rehabilitate, and revegetate areas that have been disturbed by mining activities. Finally, the Project has been reviewed pursuant to the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 14.04 and is consistent with the standards set forth therein. 5. The Reclamation Plan has been reviewed pursuant to CEQA and the City's environmental review guidelines, and all significant adverse impacts from reclamation of the surface mining operations are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Pursuant to the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 and the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the Project. Implementation of the mitigation contained in those documents will reduce any potentially significant environmental effects of the Project to a statistical level of insignificance. 6. The land and /or resources such as water bodies to be reclaimed will be restored to a condition that is compatible with, and blends in with, the surrounding natural environment, topography, and other resources, or that suitable off -site development will compensate for related disturbance to resource values. The Project lies within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and is subject to the zoning requirements set forth therein. The grading plan and anticipated schedule of revegetation set forth in the Reclamation Plan are consistent with the underlying zoning designations and encourage maximum use of the property. Any disturbance to the land or other natural resources caused by mining activities will be rehabilitated pursuant to the terms of the Reclamation Plan. The City Engineering Division has conditioned the Project to maintain finished slopes of 2H:1 V, which is consistent with engineering industry standards. Such slopes can safely abut commercial uses and are less likely to fail when compared to steeper slopes. In addition, the vegetation palette includes native plants which will encourage the establishment and proliferation of other native species. 7. The Reclamation Plan will restore the mined lands to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land uses consistent with the General Plan and applicable resource plan. Reclamation Plan 2008 -01 is designed to comply with the City's Surface Mining and Reclamation policies set forth in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 14.04 Page 53 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 04 PAGE 5 OF 6 and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 3. Reclamation of the mined lands will result in four developable pads along the 1 -15 Freeway extending north and east, which is commercially zoned under the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 3. 8. A written response to the State Department of Conservation has been prepared, describing the disposition of major issues raised by that Department. Where the City's position is at a variance with the recommendations and objections raised by the State Department of Conservation, said response shall address, in detail, why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. On January 30, 2009, the City of Lake Elsinore Planning Department received comments from the Department of Conservation regarding the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Reclamation Plan. Comments identified in that letter have been incorporated into the Final Reclamation Plan and will be forwarded to the Department of Conservation. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17 day of January 2012, by the following vote: Au Shelly Jord airperson City of Lake Elsinore 7i - Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Page 54 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012- 04 PAGE 6 OF 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Warren Morelion, Planning Manager of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2012 -04 as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 17 day of January 2012, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: CHAIRPERSON JORDAN, COMMISSIONER BLAKE, COMMISSIONER GONZALES, COMMISSIONER MORSCH NOES: VICE CHAIRPERSON O'NEAL ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE U� Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Page 55 Co $w � z" 2 «dw 2 40 z 0 kg$ C <� �w B Q LLI _ -jO� aLLj2 z U) � 0k� _ 2 2 . \ m� Z § 0 Uwe w I- $ / A /a ®f§ 7\ S 2 2 ui - E ., Co : U) $0 . #)9 =a §o A /a ®f§ 7\ co \\\ /\ ) ]/ )* k \ § f§ \# I )/ )/ o § «] 7 � _ o CO ] I ƒ D «a t $� 3 )A ]ƒ N CV ' C L CL � \ \ ƒa =8\]| § k k '( /$I%0 E * k ��k� �� \\ } ® /\ 2 � 3 7 a { o f =C.9coi wk §2(D r0E2Sp _® �m t! :_ ]e�«ef)& E0 0 ) - /■\ �- }� \\ s ® J�a)8E 6o / ) kf( *k � \ CL . . § kC) u 4 /j § - -, _ $ _ ))) §6 t[ 0 a) a ® k� �- CL , \ �_) _ \ c ( -< -k� /(/ + = \ ) \ ) ■ t [ _\ §e 1 �k0 m \\ \\� \\ § ( E\ CL 0 - �/q @ 7 e ¥ co « 3 & R E J = & ƒ / = @ _ E = Pag 56 z c c c c c c c rn '[n rn p 'N rn 'N F p 'N m 'N m 'N 01 'N ' % w g m mm m m m m m V £ 'E y w w U J J 3 J J 3 J J J C U C CD N N O a1 N T 2 2 N E m E mmQ� V c -E T la O N O t � N cA a O a) O_ M N t6 V O 0) O) N X N X C C N a) T i C Q > a 7 oL V, Cl) O O rL- ._. r 3 ° m c rn °m w N 3 c ° 3 c d o O a�4°3 >�c U rn cLL ° C7 ° m� mo c� m m (p:D V m >m� «_° Q a� U 4'a mm MWL �N ai 3 ; Q os Q Q m E°`p EaaM U U2 O U 2 U m $v �o ¢> 3 Oco ci m U ca CO c N c N a) N O` N O C C C °` O N d N a) d N cc a) Co > ca (6 C W N C N C d C D O tm O O D C � C G N N E OWN N-2 'n " OWN w•2 N 2 c j L6 C •� a7 N J J a) N c N N J N N O. a) w (p d -U d •Q p N C 0 -p O O =p m O U C C ° U N C c N N Q Ol T > c w •� 0) T c w N co a) c 0 C C, w �6 0 O) C� (N E N E N W 0 N N N N d C p' 'l6 Q O U' 6 W E U Kn �o �a LL WE WEw a) > rn O. AS' c �Q of L c0 m O) a (p d m y >a E vi Q U E N N ri V O C Q ui $ rna o �.- N W s m M y 'X c N 'x c J >- V co O V O N N LL J O) N O N O a Y R J U "r N O U Z ' :G Q N .�., l6 . (0 m M — N � Ca Cl) a) O cu J at$ 0) N 3 ,. W c%j ° 3 3 �� ui £ 10a m C% �(7 n�a cpa c� �t4� ' V �� N w (0 # w c a`�Y m aQ N # c cu C c 'rn m at m a U U) 5. m o° a° c a . O� ° > 8 oa—' o —'58 dv.0 as U2 ¢ a. CL c oUUU Uco U 2 U 2 G;0(o N w� o J U Q 1 o a) CO a o w2 c O '> CO ° C7 w co o N m e o J 7 O W e 2; F a) c O C N IL 09 m N ya �a aE .3 E Z ° >N Q Q ��m l a) I N yE N c X- W �� W oQ y�c U C > 9Xas Ut Ix a) W J° Iw > C7QW H a� Wao _j Qm a) I.e c Ko a) U' � pa N Omc O d m Ja �� x C 6 I"' > cy Q. T J cm N c6 F O n J N K ° C O C O m N N O Ca N ��c Wa m �aa) 'v wcu �J � N ¢ a N Q N m� U W � C7 � 2 1 0 x O. 3 N Page 57 Pag \� § /) cu co C13 LU E ° \7 z / 0 '0 z a ; 77\] cc Q- E 0owc o _) °0 k[Cc G &wE, k 00237 z ( () 00 k/ tE %)= 7 = ; )�/ )�\ (E (E }/ kDE Cl) ea}\}, § \�D \ \°CD e &eSc2c Q,Fme ¢ %] /2f 0C ) CL a a§ ee» =tea ° kG] §$# 4 } {kA }tea 0 A .o�]ek 0 cLE0m o (a o Q2 /d$dI 0 a2rn2 \ )) 0 s), , �) )o t §j Pag LILBURN ,Strategic Plaruzing & Environmental Services CORPORATION December 27, 2011 Subject: Biological Update for the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine, Reclamation Plan 2008 -01 and MND No. 2008 -08, APNs 390-210-014,390-210-019. On December 23, 2011, Juan Hernandez, a Senior Biologist/Regulatory Specialist for Lilburn Corporation, conducted a site visit at the 83.1 acre Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine, located east of Interstate 15, between Lake Street and Nichols Road, in the City of Lake Elsinore, California, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN's) 390 - 210 -014, and 390 - 210 -019. The purpose of the site visit was to update and assess the current biological conditions and compare the results with the MSHCP Consistency and Biological Constraints Analysis prepared by The Planning Associates in July 4, 2007. 2007 Biological Report Findings 1. No direct evidence or direct observation of sensitive species listed under the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ( MSHCP) for Riverside County or federal /state listed Endangered Species; 2. No direct evidence or direct observation of burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); 3. No wetlands or vernal pools; 4. The site is dominated by non - native grasslands, with 27% cover of Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS); 5. The property is located within Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) Habitat Conservation Plan; 6. Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris) has a low affinity to exist onsite; and, 7. The property does contain California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction, which is proposed to be avoided. Biological Observations December 2011 After walking the interior of the property and doing a visual assessment to review the conclusions made in the 2007 report, the following observations were made: 1. The 2007 report states that the RSS was approximately 27% cover, and dominated by on- native grasses. This was due to a 2004 fire which burned through the area. Presently, the RSS has been growing back and from direct observation, appears to be more than 27% cover. The site is still dominated by non - native grasses, but the RSS which is present, 1905 Business Center Drive • San Bernardino . CA 92408.909- 890 -1818 . Fax 909 -890 -18W 59 including the non - native grasslands, has grown back sufficiently to provide potential habitat for sensitive species such as the California gnatcatcher (Pollioptila californica), a federal Threatened species. Furthermore, the California Natural Diversity Data Base ( CNDDB) has a California gnatcatcher occurrence recorded approximately 2,000 feet from the site to the northeast. 2. CNDDB also has two occurrences of Munz's onion (Allium munzii); a federal Endangered and state Threatened species, within 1.5 miles of the site. The property may have habitat suitable for this species; 3. The property may have suitable habitat for Stephens kangaroo rat (SKR), a federal Endangered and state Threatened species (Note: SKR mitigation fees are required to be paid); and 4. Scattered riparian vegetation was observed in the main drainages crossing the property. Smaller drainages within the areas of proposed impact were also observed. These drainages may fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFG, ACOE, and RWQCB. Updated Recommendations December 2011 Based on the above observations and on the available reference materials from past studies, the following recommendations are made: 1. The site is within the SKR HCP area and therefore is required to pay the SKR mitigation fee of $500 per acre (Reclamation Plan page 12); 2. Conduct burrowing owl protocol surveys and mitigate if necessary (Reclamation Plan page 13); 3. Prepare an updated jurisdictional delineation of the property documenting all drainages including ephemeral drainages prior to new disturbances (Reclamation Plan page 9). The updated jurisdictional delineation will define drainages for avoidance or, if avoidance is not practical, for permitting impacts to those drainages. 4. Due to the presence of RSS and a California gnatcatcher occurrence 2,000 feet to the northeast of the property, protocol California gnatcatcher studies should be conducted during the appropriate times of year (March through July) prior to new disturbances (compliance with existing federal and State endangered species acts); and 5. Due to the Munz's onion occurrences less than 1.5 miles from the property, MSHCP Narrow Endemic and Criteria Area plant surveys should be conducted prior to new disturbances (compliance with existing federal and State endangered species acts). If you have any further questions regarding this biological update for the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine, please do not hesitate to contact Juan J. Hernandez at (909) 890 -1818. ;:4:1117.4+' :- OVSr. 35 YEARS OF EXCELLENT SERVICE January 9, 2012 Mr. Marty Derus LILBURN CORPORATION 1905 Business Center Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408 Dear Mr. Derus: INTRODUCTION The firm of Kunzman Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide this supplemental focused traffic analysis for the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine project in the City of Lake Elsinore. This focused traffic analysis supplements the Focused Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Proposed Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Project provided by Linscott Law & Greenspan (April 13, 2007). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southerly terminus of Walker Canyon Road on the northeast side of the 1 -15 Freeway in the City of Lake Elsinore. The proposed project consists of a 15 -year reclamation plan for an 86 acre mine site in the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan area. The daily operation will consist of approximately 60 two -way truck trips dispersed evenly over a 10 hour period between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The site access for the mining operation will be provided at the southeasterly terminus of Walker Canyon Road via the Lake Street /1 -15 Freeway interchange. EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE The 2007 analysis indicates that the intersection of Lake Street at the 1 -15 Freeway NB Ramps currently operates at an unacceptable Level of Service F during the morning peak hour. However, the Alberhill Ranch Development Conditions of Approval Evaluation prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan (March 1, 2011) states that the installation of a traffic signal at this location is not justified since the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road creates platooning gaps along northbound Lake Street that allows westbound left turn traffic on the off -ramp to access southbound Lake Street within an acceptable time range. This determination was based on actual observations conducted during the morning peak period, which revealed that the actual average vehicle delay for westbound movements on the off -ramp to access Lake Street for the morning peak hour is within acceptable Level of Service C. Since area development has not materialized as forecasted, due to economic conditions, the Alberhill Ranch Development Conditions of Approval states that the Lake Street and the 1 -15 Freeway NB /SB lilt Tov & CouNT v ROAD, Su= 34 ORANGE CALIFORNIA 92868 (714) 973 -8383 W W W.TRNFFIC- ENGINEER.COM Page 62 Mr. Marty Derus LILBURN CORPORATION January 9, 2012 Ramps traffic signal improvements shall be completed by the 4640th certificate of occupancy or at a later date as determined by the City Engineer and approved by the California Department of Transportation. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The traffic generated by the project has been based upon the daily truck operation. The heavy vehicle adjustment factor is based on the Highway Capacity Manual assuming 2 passenger car equivalents for heavy vehicles. As shown in Table 1, the proposed development is projected to generate approximately 240 daily vehicle trips in Passenger Car Equivalents, 24 Passenger Car Equivalents of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 24 Passenger Car Equivalents of which will occur during the evening peak hour. STUDY AREA REQUIREMENTS The Traffic Study Requirements for the City of Lake Elsinore are consistent with the County of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines that require that the area to be studied shall include any intersection at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. CONCLUSIONS Based on this focused traffic analysis and the previous 2007 analysis, the proposed project will not significantly impact the surrounding transportation system in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, because the proposed Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine project will be a temporary 15 year operation, no permanent traffic improvements are recommended. It has been a pleasure to service your needs on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 973 -8383. Sincerely, KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES. INC. QA ju A Carl Ballard Principal Associate #5035 � QFESS /p,� W No. T 005 i. \� OFCA1. KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. William Kunzman, P.E. G` Principal W W W.7RAFFIC- ENIGINEER.COM 2 Page 63 Table 1 Project Traffic Generation' Land Use Peak Hour Daily Morning I Evening Inbound Outbound I Total I Inbound I Outbound I Total Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine 6 61 121 61 61 12 120 Passenger Car Equivalent Factor 2 21 21 21 21 2 2 Total 12 121 241 121 121 24 240 ' 120 daily truck trips assumed to be spread out equally over a 10 hour period from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM per the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine (February 23, 2007). Page 64 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jordan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairperson O'Neal led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Jordan Vice Chairperson O'Neal Commissioner Blake Commissioner Gonzales Commissioner Morsch Absent: None Also present: City Manager Brady, Planning Manager Morelion, Public Works Director Seumalo, City Attorney Leibold, Planning Consultant Coury, Planning Associate Resendiz, and Office Specialist Herrington. PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES Sharon Gallina, resident in Alberhill Ranch, stated that Castle and Cooke gave up their vested right to mine to put a kiln on the property. She noted that she has documentation from the County of Riverside that confirms it. She requested that the Planning Commission review the documents, and she reiterated that they don't have vesting on Reclamation Plan No. 112. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S) 1. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes Recommendation: Approve the following Minute(s) a. January 3, 2012 Motion by Commissioner Morsch, seconded by Commissioner Gonzales, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of January 3, 2012.; Motion passed by 5 -0 vote. Page 65 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 2 of 7 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM(S) 2. Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 and Vested Right to Mine - Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 and Vested Right to Mine - Reclamation Plan for an 85.76 -acre mining site, generally located along the east side of the 1 -15 Freeway between Nichols Road and Lake Street. The project site was previously within the 3,457 acre boundaries of Reclamation Plan 112. The Planning Commission will consider the approval of the proposed Reclamation Plan 2008 -01 for the site and whether the owner has a legal vested right for quarrying on the site pursuant to SMARA and Lake Elsinore are Municipal Code Chapter 14.04. Reclamation will include, but is not limited to, the restoration and revegetation of any disturbed land associated with the project site. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008- 08 was prepared for the project according to the California Environmental Quality Act. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2012- approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08; adopt Resolution No. 2012 -_ approving MSHCP Consistency, and adopt Resolution No. 2012 - confirming the vested mining right and approving Reclamation Plan N67 This recommendation is based on the findings, exhibits and conditions of approval attached to this staff report. Vice Chairperson O'Neal requested that this item be postponed because the Commission did not receive documentation from staff regarding whether or not MCA has a vested right to mine the property. City Attorney Leibold stated that following a 2007 court case, the issue of vested rights is required to be the subject of a Public Hearing. She stated that a discussion of vested rights was included in the staff report and discussed at the October 18, 2011 Planning Commission meeting and is also included in the current staff report. She further stated that the applicant has additional information and correspondence that he would like to present to the Commission at tonight's meeting and encouraged the Commission to hold the public hearing pursuant to the Public Notice. She noted that the public hearing was properly noticed by publication, posting and mailing and that there were people in the audience that wanted to speak on the item. She stated that if, after hearing all of the testimony, any Commissioner believes he or she doesn't have sufficient evidence and would like to continue the item or deny the item, he or she can make that recommendation. Vice Chairperson O'Neal stated that he believes that the meeting is out of order. City Attorney Leibold stated that the meeting is not out of order. She explained to the Commission the protocol regarding Notices of Public Hearing and the procedure that could be followed to continue the confirmation of vested mining rights and the Reclamation Plan. Commissioner Morsch explained that the City has noticed a Public Hearing for the item and the Planning Commission has an obligation to hold the hearing. He also stated that the City has done its duty and obligation to Page 66 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 3 of 7 have the hearing and believes that the Commission should go forward with the Public Hearing and make a decision once the information is presented. Chairperson Jordan stated that she agreed with Commissioner Morsch to proceed with the hearing. Planning Consultant Coury presented the staff report. Sharon Gallina of Alberhill Ranch stated that MCA is not vested and they purchased parcel numbers 390 - 210 -014 and 019 at the end of 1995 after Pacific Clay gave up their vested rights for Reclamation Plan (RP) 112. She also stated that MCA purchased the land from Long Beach Equities and Long Beach Equities wasn't going to mine that land. She stated that SMP 173 properties were purchased in 1986, not vested land per the County records. James Good, Attorney for MCA, stated that when he went before the Commission in October 2011, he indicated that the vesting right to mine was never abandoned; and is again stating that the vesting was established by Pacific Clay as of January 1, 1976, the effective date of SMARA. RP 112 is evidence of the extent of the vesting right and the vesting right included mining of clay in the MCA area. He explained that MCA purchased the property about 20 years ago as a mining property and always had the intent to mine the property. There is no evidence that RP 112 was ever released from the property and there is no evidence that the vesting right to mine was ever abandonded. He also stated that MCA understands that they have to present a reclamation plan that is acceptable to all agencies and they feel they have done that. There was documentation and evidence at that time the County of Riverside recognized and noted that the vesting right to mine was never an issue and there was never any evidence that they gave it up. He reiterated that the vesting mining rights run with the land. Pauline Tehrani stated that she has a copy of a document from the County of Riverside who was the lead agency for RP 112 when it was vested in 1976. She stated that the document is dated April 1995, which states that Pacific Clay gave up their vested rights for RP 112 because they wanted to put a kiln on the site. Vice Chairperson O'Neal requested copies of this document be provided to the Commission. Ms. Tehrani stated that she would forward a copy of the document to the City. Chairperson Jordan asked Ms. Tehrani with what mechanism did they give up their vesting right. Ms. Tehrani stated that they gave up their vesting rights by putting in a kiln. Commissioner Morsch asked if there is specific language in the document that states that they gave up their vesting rights. Ms. Tehrani read a statement from the document to the Commission regarding the kiln and requested that the Commission postpone the item until they can speak to the County of Riverside regarding the issue. Mr. Good addressed the Commission regarding the kiln and stated that it has nothing to do with MCA's property. Commissioner O'Neal confirmed with Mr. Good that his contention is that the reclamation portion is important and not the Page 67 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 4 of 7 surface mining. Mr. Good stated this was correct. Chairperson Jordan asked for clarification regarding a recorded document to relinquish vested rights. City Attorney Leibold stated that the abandonment of the intent to mine does not necessarily have to manifest itself in a recorded document but there has to be a clear intent to abandon. She also stated that the SMP property and the kiln are not located on the MCA property. She also noted that RP 112 was processed in 1978 in response to SMARA requirements that established mining operations prepare reclamation plans. Commissioner Blake stated that he had concerns regarding noise levels, dust control, drainage and clean water run off. He also wanted to make sure that any staff in the future would be educated regarding requirement guidelines for mining and reclamation. He also stated he doesn't want the area to become a dump site. City Attorney Leibold addressed his concerns by referencing the proposed conditions of approval and stated that based on the records the City has reviewed, the materials that Mr. Good has presented, and the City's discussion in 2007 with the County, there was an acknowledgment of a vested right to mine for the site. Public Works Director Seumalo addressed Commissioner Blake's issues regarding drainage and the clean water run off program. Vice Chairperson O'Neal asked Director Seumalo if he or Planning Consultant Coury have visited the site recently. Director Seumalo stated that he was there in late December 2011. Planning Consultant Coury stated that he was at the site in September 2011. Commissioner Gonzales asked where the clay would be processed. Martin Derus, Lilburn Corporation, stated that it is crushed and dried on the site. Commissioner Gonzales stated that he researched vested rights on the Internet but wasn't sure about the non - conforming use. City Attorney Leibold explained non conforming use to the Commission. Commissioner Morsch stated that he didn't think that putting in a kiln automatically triggers a relinquishment of vesting right. He also asked Director Seumalo how often the inspections would be done as part of the reclamation plan and if the City gets reimbursed from the operator for the cost of the inspections. Director Seumalo stated that the City does at least one inspection per year and indicated that staff also does at least two informal on -site inspections per year. He stated that per SMARA and the City Ordinance, the mining operators are required to pay a deposit for staff and consultant time. Commissioner Morsch asked Mr. Derus if the applicant is going to extend a water line to the water tanks so that they can fill the water trucks or are the water trucks going to be filled where the water line ends at the site. Mr. Daris stated that they would be filled where the water line is currently located and fill a portable tank on site. Commissioner Morsch asked Mr. Derus to explain how the water will be drained on Pad 3 and how they are protecting the open areas. Mr. Derus described the location of the drainage and stated that there is an erosion plan in the reclamation plan which describes how they would utilize different types of Page 68 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 5 of 7 erosion control measures depending on the situation. Commissioner Gonzales stated that the road into the project area is dirt and asked if they intend on paving the road. Mr. Derus stated that the road is paved up to the property and they are required to pave 100 feet into the property. Commissioner Morsch stated that he was impressed with the Reclamation Plan and indicated that most of his issues have been addressed but he had a few concerns. He also stated that staff did an excellent job. He asked that a Geotechnical Report be part of the Reclamation Plan, he also had mitigation issues regarding endangered species. Planning Manager Morelion asked Mr. Derus to address his concerns. Mr. Derus explained the mitigation measures. Commissioner Morsch verified with Mr. Derus that there are standard mitigation measures that are in place that they would follow if they discovered endangered species on the site prior to their mining operation. Mr. Derus stated that consultation goes through Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game. Vice Chairman O'Neal asked if this has been done. Mr. Derus stated that they have not. Vice Chairperson O'Neal asked Mr. Derus if the corporation has a 404 or 1601 permit. Mr. Derus stated no. Vice Chairperson O'Neal asked why they are grading without permits and stated that the Planning Commission needs all of the evidence on record to make a non - reversible judgment to dispel any notion of making decisions on insufficient evidence. He further stated that when this item was presented to the Commission in October, 2011, they specifically asked for biological studies which were not included in the Agenda packets, and noted that only the deferral of mitigation was included. He stated that he believes that there are endangered species and plants in the area which haven't been identified and in order to do any mitigation, they have to be identified. Chairperson Jordan stated that it is her understanding that what is before the Commission is a reclamation plan, not their mining activities. City Attorney Leibold stated that the first decision the Commission needs to make is confirming the area of land owned by MCA has a vested right to mine and if they have a vested right to mine then they need to make a determination regarding approval of the reclamation plan. Chairperson Jordan stated that the biological report findings, the traffic analysis, and the reclamation plan are sufficient and she doesn't have any issues with the mining. She requested clarification regarding the two sets of conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Blake clarified that the first set of conditions are for the mining operation and the second set are for the reclamation plan. Commissioner Morsch requested to change the wording on Condition No. 70 to read "a slope stability report shall be submitted in the annual report to the City Engineer" and to include "both surficial and geological characteristics ". Motion by Commissioner Morsch, seconded by Commissioner Blake to approve Resolution No. 2012 -02; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Page 69 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Lake Elsinore, California, approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08; Motion passed 4 -1. Motion by Commissioner Morsch, seconded by Chairperson Jordan to approve Resolution No. 2012 -03; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, adopting findings that the project identified as Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 is exempt from the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP); Motion passed 4 -1. Motion by Chairperson Jordan, seconded by Commissioner Morsch to approve Resolution No. 2012 -04; A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, confirming a vested mining right and approving Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 with the modification to Condition No. 70 as mentioned; Motion passed 4 -1. BUSINESS ITEMS 3) Uniform Sign Program Amendment No. 2011 -01 - Amendment No. 2 to the originally approved Uniform Sign Program (USP 2007 -10) for the existing Plaza at Lakeview Professional Office and Medical Complex located at 31569 & 31571 Canyon Estates Drive Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2012 approving Uniform Sign Program Amendment No. 2011 -01, based the findings, exhibits, and proposed conditions of approval. Planning Associate Resendiz presented the Staff Report The applicant, Derek Hauser addressed the Commission The Commission had no comments. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Morsch suggested that the City scan Specific Plans on line. Planning Associate Resendiz stated that staff is currently working on scanning all projects on line, in addition to Specific Plans. Commissioner Morsch applauded staff for the good job at the State Board Mining meeting. STAFF COMMENTS Page 70 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012 Page 7 of 7 Planning Manager Morelion indicated to Vice Chairperson O'Neal that he would follow up with Information Technology Supervisor Soto regarding status of iPads. He also stated that during the retrofit at the Cultural Center, the Planning Commission meetings would be moved to the Senior Activities Center located at 420 E. Lakeshore Drive, and the Commission would be notified as to the dates. CITY ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Jordan adjourned the meeting at 7:24 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore will be held on Tuesday, February 7, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. at the Cultural Center located at 183 N. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, California. 0 " C Shelly Jordan Chairperson Attest: Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Page 71 CITY OF LADE TO: FROM PREPARED BY: DATE: LSIIYORE DREAM EXTREME. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WARREN MORELION, AICP PLANNING MANAGER KIRT A. COURY PROJECT PLANNER OCTOBER 18, 2011 SUBJECT: RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 — RECLAMATION PLAN FOR AN 85.76 ACRE MINING SITE (ALBERHILL SOUTHWEST SHALE MINE), GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE 1 -15 FREEWAY BETWEEN NICHOLS ROAD AND LAKE STREET. RECLAMATION WILL INCLUDE BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO RESTORATION AND REVEGETATION OF ANY DISTURBED LAND ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT SITE. APPLICANT YOSHI SUZUKI, MARUHACHI CERAMICS OF AMERICA, INC, & OWNER: (MCA) 1985 SAMSON AVENUE, CORONA, CA 92879 Proiect Request/Location The request before the Planning Commission is for review and approval of a Reclamation Plan for an 85.76 -acre site known as the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine (the 'Project'). The Reclamation Plan outlines how mined lands will be reclaimed, rehabilitated, and revegetated. The Reclamation Plan has been reviewed pursuant to state law, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC) Chapter 14.04, and Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan Amendment No. 3. The 85.76 acre site which forms the basis for the Reclamation Plan is generally located on the east side of the 1 -15 freeway, between Nichols Road and Lake Street, and which is more particularly described in Attachment 1 attached hereto (the "Project Site "). Page 72 RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 2OF5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PROJECT BACKGROUND Pacific Clay owns approximately 3,457 acres of land adjacent to the 1 -15 freeway, some of which lies within the City's boundaries and a portion of which lies within the County's boundaries. Pacific Clay has operated a major brick production operation at its Pacific Clay mine since the early 1900s. In 1975, the California Legislature adopted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 2710 et seq.: " SMARA"). SMARA is designed to protect the extraction of minerals as an essential element to the continued economic well -being of the state. In enacting SMARA, the Legislature expressly intended to create and maintain an effective and comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy for the regulation of surface mining operations. To achieve this end, SMARA generally requires surface mining operations to obtain a surface mining permit and approved reclamation plan from the lead agency and to provide financial assurances to implement the planned reclamation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, SMARA exempts certain projects from the surface mining permit requirement. According to SMARA, if a project has a vested mining right, the project does not need to obtain a surface mining permit and can continue its mining operations consistent with prior procedures. The project is not relieved, however, of the Page 73 Undeveloped and vacant areas neighbor the Project Site to the north, east and south. The 1 -15 Freeway borders the western perimeter of the Project Site. Further north of the project site is an existing single family residence. RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 3 OF 5 requirement to prepare a reclamation plan and, thereafter, to establish financial assurances. Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine is part of Pacific Clay's 3,457 acres of land and represents a small portion of the overall mining operation which has been ongoing since the early 1900s. In 1978, Pacific Clay processed and obtained approval of a Reclamation Plan 112 for its vested surface mining operation. Recognizing that mining of such a large site would take place over time and that once minerals were extracted from one area, the operator would move to a new location within the site to pursue its mineral interest, the Reclamation Plan 112 expressed Pacific Clay's intent to mine the entire property. The Reclamation Plan is identified as RP 112 and included the 85.76 acre Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Project Site. After the passage of SMARA, Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine sought and secured a Surface Mining Permit (SMP #00173) from the County of Riverside for its mining operations. While RP 112 was recently amended to retract the boundaries to those properties currently owned by Pacific Clay, the vested mining right runs with the land to the benefit of subsequent property owners. Consequently, the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine has a vested right to mine on the Project Site and is not required to secure a mining permit. The proposed Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Reclamation Plan has been prepared pursuant to SMARA and the City's Surface Mining regulations contained in Chapter 14.04 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. The Project Site is now within the City's corporate boundaries and is physically separated from Pacific Clay's mining operations. The lead agency for the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine is the City of Lake Elsinore. As such, the attached Reclamation Plan has been submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Zoning for the Project Site is governed by the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The uses outlined in the Reclamation Plan are consistent with the provisions of the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan and associated amendments, including Specific Plan Amendment No. 3. The Reclamation Plan is designed to reclaim, rehabilitate, and revegetate the mined land. Mitigation measures have been included in the Reclamation Plan, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and conditions of approval to minimize potentially significant impacts of the Project on the surrounding community and environment. The Reclamation Plan satisfies the City's Surface Mining and Reclamation policies set forth in Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 14.04. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A reclamation plan is a document that outlines the combined process of land treatment that minimizes water degradation, air pollution, damage to aquatic or wildlife habitat, flooding, erosion and other adverse effects from surface mining operations. The goal of a reclamation plan is to restore mined lands to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternate land uses compatible with zoning and the general plan. The Page 74 RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 4 OF 5 reclamation process involves backfilling, grading, resoiling, revegetation, soil compaction, stabilization, and other measures. The scope of rehabilitation set forth in the Reclamation Plan is dependent upon the extent of disturbance that is caused by the surface mining operations. It is for this reason that the Reclamation Plan contains significant discussion of the mining operations. Despite the discussion of mining operations in the Reclamation Plan, the purpose of the Reclamation Plan is to establish the methodology and strategy for rehabilitating and revitalizing the impacted areas. MCA produces customized clay roofing tiles for residential to high -end commercial developments. The company will begin mining the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine site for clay material to supply the company's production facility in the City of Corona. The proposed project is the reclamation of the mine site operation. Reclamation will occur concurrently as phases of the site are mined and the final reclamation of the site will be stable, revegatated pads and slopes available for future uses consistent wit the City's General Plan and the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The site will be excavated in three phases and when reclaimed, will form a series of four developable pads along the 1 -15 freeway extending north and east from the 1 -15 into higher elevations of the site. The project excavation will occur over a period estimated at 15 years. Certain reclamation activities will be on -going throughout the operational life of the mine. Once each phase has been mined, final reclamation and restoration will occur with final site reclamation during an additional two -year period. Final reclamation after completion of mining will include final contouring, cleanup, and erosion control. Any future development on the reclaimed site will be subject to appropriate separate permitting and environmental review prior to development. ANALYSIS The Reclamation Plan has been prepared pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code Chapter 14.04. The Reclamation Plan proposes design treatments to buffer proposed mining and restoration activities. Setback standards set forth in the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code and conditions of approval will be used to further separate the proposed reclamation uses from neighboring uses. With the implementation of mitigation contained in the Reclamation Plan, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and conditions of approval, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Based upon an Initial Study conducted on the Reclamation Plan, Staff determined that the Project may have potentially significant impacts on the environment. However, after completing all technical studies, it was determined that, with appropriate mitigation, all potentially significant effects could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, it Page 75 RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2008 -01 OCTOBER 18, 2011 PAGE 5OF5 was determined that the appropriate environmental document for the Project is a mitigated negative declaration. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 has been prepared pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.1 and Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guidelines (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 was submitted to the County Clerk of Riverside County on May 7, 2010 for a 30 -day public review period. The Project Site, given its vested mining right, is exempt from the provisions of the Western Riverside County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The Project does not conflict with the environmental plans or policies of other jurisdictions. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2011 -_ approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08; adopt Resolution No. 2011 - approving MSHCP Consistency, and adopt Resolution No. 2011 - confirming the vested mining right and approving Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01. This recommendation is based on the findings, exhibits and conditions of approval attached to this Staff Report. Please note that pursuant to Lake Elsinore Municipal Code section 14.04.070, action taken by the Planning Commission on the Reclamation Plan is final unless appealed to the City Council. Any person wishing to file an appeal on the Planning Commission's decision must do so within fifteen (15) days of the Planning Commission's decision. Prepared By: Kirt A. Coury, Project Planner Approved By: Warren Morelion, AICP Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Planning Commission Resolutions 3. Conditions of Approval 4. Acknowledgement of Draft Conditions 5. Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 6. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08 7. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 8. Financial Assurance Cost Estimate Page 76 Page 7 of 5 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jordan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Morsch led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Jordan Vice Chairperson O'Neal Commissioner Gonzales Commissioner Morsch Absent: None Also present: City Manager Brady, Planning Manager Morelion, Public Works Director Seumalo, City Attorney Leibold, Planning Consultant Coury, Office Specialist Herrington. PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON AGENDIZED ITEMS — 3 MINUTES Brian Dahl addressed the Planning Commissioners regarding conversations he had with Planning Manager Morelion and his concerns about the General Plan as it relates to the implementation of zoning on his property located at 17037 Lakeshore Drive. Planning Manager Morelion, City Attorney Leibold, and the Commission addressed his questions and concerns regarding his property. Chairperson Jordan asked what the schedule is for the adoption of the General Plan. Planning Manager Morelion stated that they are hoping that it will be completed by the end of the year. Mr. Dahl asked to be contacted once they have an answer. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM(S) 1. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes Recommendation: Approve the following Minute(s): • September 20, 2011 • October 4, 2011 Page 77 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Motion by Commissioner Morsch, seconded by Vice Chairperson O'Neal, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2011, and October 4, 2011; Motion passed by 4 -0 vote. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS) Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 — Reclamation Plan for an 85.76 acre mining (Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine), generally located along the east side of the 1 -15 Freeway between Nichols Road and Lake Street. Reclamation will include but is not limited to restoration and re- vegetation of any disturbed land associated with the project site. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2011- approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008 -08; adopt Resolution No. 2011- approving MSHCP Consistency, and adopt Resolution No. 2011 confirming the vested mining right and approving Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01. Planning Consultant Coury presented the staff report and distributed to the Planning Commissioners a signed "Acknowledgment of Draft Conditions" form. He noted that changes were made to Condition No. 11 regarding hours of operation, and also changes to Condition No. 30 regarding haul route. Planning Consultant Coury also distributed to the Commission a mitigation measures document. The applicant, Yoshi Suzuki of Maruhachi Ceramics of American (MCA), Inc. addressed the Commission. Jim Good, Attorney for MCA, addressed the Commission regarding vested rights and the Reclamation Plan. He noted that the project is well conditioned and well mitigated. He requested approval of the project. Sharon Galina, resident of Alberhill Ranch, asked about vesting rights and inquired who will be mitigating the environmental impact. City Attorney Leibold explained vesting rights and the environmental impact. Paulie Tehrani, resident of Alberhill Ranch, stated that the project has been brought to the State's attention and indicated that they are looking into it. Ms. Tehrani discussed a number of environmental issues relating to the vesting rights and requested that these issues be addressed. City Attorney Leibold stated that the Department of Mining and Reclamation have reviewed the reclamation plan twice and their comments have been incorporated; she further asked that City staff and the mining operator are working closely with the State, and Office of Mine Reclamation has reviewed the plan and has no problems at this point. She also stated that the vesting mining right runs with the land, not with the Page 78 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2011 Page 3 of 5 reclamation plan so there has been no interruption with the vesting rights. Mr. Good stated that the reclamation plan doesn't technically have anything to do with the actual state of vesting of the mine. Vice Chairperson O'Neal stated that he is not in favor of the project because it is not properly mitigated. He stated that the biology report was done in 2007, and a more recent report needs to be done. In addition stated that he had a letter from Dr. Jack Turner who did the biology report which indicated that biological surveys are generally given a one year shelf life. He also stated that MCA surveys are four or more years out of date and cannot represent the current biological site conditions. Additionally, Vice Chairperson O'Neal stated that no geological reports were included with staffs presentation, and no information has been received by the Army Corp of Engineers. Chairperson Jordan asked if there are any requirements regarding updating biology reports. She noted that four years old does seem outdated. City Attorney Leibold stated that CEQA doesn't establish a hard fast rule for the life of a biological study, it depends on the circumstances. She informed the Commission that it is a determination they have to make. Martin Derus, Lilburn Corporation (Environmental Consultant for MCA) stated that he prepared the Mine Reclamation Plan and assisted with preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He stated that the conditions of approval address the issues that Vice Chairperson O'Neal mentioned and he discussed those conditions. He explained that the mining operation is a clay operation and explained the process of the operation. Chairperson Jordan asked about on -site drainage. Mr. Derus stated that there are four on -site drainages. Commissioner Morsch asked how the clay would be excavated and exported. Mr. Derus explained the process. Commissioner Morsch stated that the Biology Report and Traffic Study are outdated and need to be updated and noted the 2006 fires affected the vegetation in the area. Commissioner Morsch asked Director of Public Works Seumalo to check into the haul route as stated in Condition No. 30. Director Seumalo stated that he would review the Ordinance and follow up with Commissioner Morsch. Commissioner Morsch stated that Condition No. 64G and 76 have the same verbiage and requested that those Conditions be revised. He also noted that there is a conflict between the verbiage on page 7 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Condition No. 61. Director Seumalo stated that he would amend the conditions. Commissioner Morsch asked Director Seumalo to explain how the numbers were derived on the Financial Assurance. Director Seumalo stated the cost estimate is based on the proposed use for mining to the proposed reclamation final elevation conditions of today's prices. Vice Chairperson O'Neal stated that this cost seemed low. Commissioner Morsch suggested a Page 79 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2011 Page 4 of 5 continuance until the applicant can provide updated environmental information to the Commission. Mr. Good explained the cash bond under SMARA. Commissioner Gonzales also suggested a continuance for the applicant to provide an updated traffic study and other updated environmental information. Chairperson Jordan asked if the broadcast seeding will be hand thrown or done by a machine, and if it is by a machine, is it included in the financial analysis. Director Seumalo stated that hydro seed will be used and is included in the financial analysis. Chairperson Jordan stated that APN numbers 014 and 019 were included in the Resolution and do not belong on that particular Resolution. Planning Consultant Coury stated that the Resolution would be revised to exclude those APNs. Chairperson Jordan stated that the Biology Report and the Traffic Report need to be revised to reflect today's conditions. Mr. Good stated that the report is old because it took a long time for the project to go to the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman O'Neal stated that the Reclamation Plan and the Negative Declaration are dated 2010 and asked if the reports were submitted to the City in 2007. Planning Consultant Coury stated that May 2010 represents the final document which includes the review and comments. Commissioner Mendoza stated that if the report is going to be amended by the applicant, there should be a clear distinction between a percentage of machine shakers for the actual mining operation and the reclamation emissions. He also stated that the reclamation plan should be reviewed with the Climate Action Plan and General Plan. Mr. Good stated that this is not an application for a mining permit and legally, the mining is not technically up for review. Commissioner Morsch is requesting clarification of the reclamation process, emissions, traffic impact, and the financial assurance relating to the reclamation plan. Motion was made by Vice Chairperson O'Neal, seconded by Commissioner Morsch, to continue Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01, until such time the applicant 1) updates the biology report, traffic study, and provides a geotechnical report; 2) clarifies within the report specific issues that deal with the reclamation plan; and, 3) provides a description of the mining operations; Motion passed 4 -0. City Attorney Leibold stated that staff will re- notice a new hearing at such time as the updated environmental work is complete. BUSINESS ITEMS None. Page 80 City of Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2011 Page 5 of 5 STAFF COMMENTS Planning Manager Morelion stated that staff looked into the "What -Ah- Deli" signage per Vice Chairperson O'Neal's request and staff is working with the property owner to remove the temporary signs and post permanent signs. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Gonzales asked about non - permitted signs that are nailed to trees on Main Street. Planning Manager Morelion stated that staff will look into this and will follow up with him. Commissioner Morsch stated that he is a member of the Citizen's Corp and attended the Shakeout Expo for Disaster Preparedness located at Lakepoint Park and said it was very informative and there was a good turnout. Vice Chairperson O'Neal stated that he spoke to City Manager Brady and Planning Manager Morelion about the Planning Commissioners going to I Pads and having paperless agendas and appreciated their consideration. He noted that if funding is a problem, he offered to pay for his own I Pad. CITY ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS None. STAFF COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Jordan adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 2, 2011, will be cancelled, due to the lack of Public Hearing items. Shelly kor Chairperson Attest: V� Warren Morelion Planning Manager Page 81 CITY OF CE'V LAKE 69 LS I lYO t DR R DREAM EXTEMEJAN 3 . 1 20 City Clerk's office CITY CLERKS 130 S. Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA (951) 674 -3124, Ext. 269 For Official Use Only Jlite Received: 31 -,�o Received By: Paid: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FORM Policy 100 -8: The purpose of this Policy is to provide a standardized procedure for consideration of appeals from Planning Commission decisions. Within 15 calendar days of a Planning Commission decision, any person may appeal a decision to the City Council by filing this form and submitting a $200 fee. A copy of this policy is attached with further important Information. 1FZOQ h ec s itu m {anyyereck VAab i }u� 1 ��.,YP . Try t� l939cK Name: Date: t� rt X31 2012 Mailing Address: yn>iy Ash S- Cee> city: 1_aKe E6n0re State: CA _ Zip Code: ga5 _C Phone No.: q 5l 1 (oQ9 - 271'7 Fax No.: a E -Mail: M Ica SuWect of Appeal Information SubjectofAppeal: & L, 420C)8-ai ana vested Ri(k� �h Project No. (s): hp o P1,9.1 4k2608 - n i q Oes {mod tS 14 L)j- `' t mine � \1 eSAeCN� 1 -I-n f r) t n e Project Applicant: M<5 Cer� �tVlPnic �—nc. �cK� a Project Location: CAen foil1.1 Iocaicd befiweeo �) ic� 6 s Rd ancA 1_Ae- SL Date of Planning Commission Action: 7zr�Uar4 1`l 2012 rn - n h)Eyn _o (c). 0 tl1 I, the undersigned, hereby appeal the above action o a rove enial by the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission, for the following reasons: (Please cite specific action being appealed.) Attach additional pagesasneeded. �II Jana under 112 t S not Oes�e: inel, �C'p� �- 1 RP112 is not a yCs�e8 mining r DCQ(O A - nn it) 1gg5 f O es --P8 6c - ,hs t�t°CL G oen U0 bd t' if_ Inca oDPr Aos_ 811 � (.Pre c��.naec� I 1 to ins )I 9 5mi��ion ' / fc � I�-nv Glan+ U n Signature: l/ CTV Or � LADE JLSIR OIZE O� DEPOSIT /FEE RECEIPT CITY CLERKS OFFICE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 P 951.674.3124 F 951.471 -1418 Name V (O PI 11 aj ( f f`(q Phone( ) 6 15 l _ t e0j.23 lZ Date - V'4 '4 1' 7-01 _ Address City /State /Zip ,•ti • Copies ($2.50 first page,.25 for each additional page) No. of pages Notary Services Postage Misc. Revenue Acct. No. Other (CP) $ 9 ' loo (OR) $ - - -- -- - - (FM) $ (MR) $ $ �dov' Due to City Policy - fees must be collected for copies given to the Public. The a mount of$_ -------- _ is due to the City of Lake Elsinore for the items you requested and were given on Please send check or money order to: CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 ATTN: CITY CLERKS OFFICE You may make your check payable to the City of Lake Elsinore. today's date _ to remit fund to the above not received by your account will be given to forwarded to an outside Collection Agency. REGARDS, CITY CLERKS OFFICE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE l%6e 15 (fifteen) days from ted. address. If payment is r Finance Department and �a j_& $ 1 Or{ Page 83 r s Page 84 �PpeaI - f - tack me�� s i CA1.IF0RNIAmiP.i WV%JVN'I OFCONSURY,CRON OFFICE OF MINE RECLAMATION REi ,2007 L = _.T; 'SIR�ACE MINING ANDSECLAMATION ACT VED AND ASSOCIATED REGULATIONS FEB 0 $ 2012 CONTENTS: CITY CLERKS OFFICE M 3EA ,E Mjh' ,N'C AND RF:f'! AMATION ACT (IF 147 PAGE Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 9. Section 2710 et seq. KiD Ic ra L A Lasus i MIS 12efm itiaus .......... ............................... _........................................ ............................... _...... ..............................4 District -Csm initte as .............................................................................................................. ..............................5 State PoJicylnc.tU R clamai nunLMuied I auds ................................................................ ..............................6 13eclamat.wn_o.f: 4in dLands_w.icLths C:onductoL4urfa= imining-O)p- maians ............................ Arcas.o.1'S1ate_wL(L-nr -J3 wsmaL. Significance ............ ............................... Liical_ Randsions ................................ ............................... -- —..................... '- ... -- ................... .................... 20 9N- NEA €.RrT( I;Ft>tt'it2RJ NNilREP4kG3tIM Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 2 Section ........................................................................................................................ .............................23 Si'!'r lNSPI' {'T'!(3N6 C(TNl3[1f °€'T'!3 [3V'T'€!R, €}F:PAR'F'R•31�.NT fSF Cf3�ySrRF�A "!' @t3N Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 2 Section ......................................................................................................................... .............................26 Public Contract Code, Division 2, Part 2, Chapter 2 Section 10295. 5 ......................................... ............................... ' ......................................... .............................26 Public Contract Code, Division 2, Part 3, Chapter 1, Article 42 Section 20676..... .................................................................................................................................... . ........ 26 S'[A'J'E NIJNIN(: AND (M 1 06V Rf)A €8Tl liF:f'T,ALIBA " €'TE)�lij {.!i€ A" €'!OAS California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8. Subchapter I At icle_L Surface Mining and Reclamation Practice. ..................... — ............. - .............. ............ 28 ALlkJc - Areas Designated to be of Regional Significance .................... .............................................. 33 Alich 1. Designation Appeal Procedures ...... — ....... ............ .................................... .............................42 ArSicle_5_ Reclamation Plan Appeals ........................................................................ .............. ...............45 A ALrL -fz Mineral Resource Management Policies....._ ........................................... ................._...........49 Alikic..Z Financial Assurance Appeal Procedures ................................................... .............................49 Aw 'cJs:_8. Fee Schedule.... .......................... ......... ........... ................................ .......................... 53 Ai3icle2 Reclamation Standards ........................................................................... .............................59 Atticlt J.J- Financial Assurance Mechanisms ......................................... ................................................. 66 ArticL _ll..5 Forfeiture of Financial Assurance ............................................................ ..... . ........................71 Ailicic -12. Administrative Penalty Petition Procedures... .............................. ........ .................. ............. 73 Atliclej -i_ Selection of Professional Service Firms .................................................... .............................81 Article J_4- Appeals of Orders to Comply with the Surface Mining And Reclamation Act of 1975........83 Page 85 a a -r I0r1 � enst � G n IGF -1 submitted to the lead agency until the time the lead agency's ordinances are revised in accordance with state policy. (c) In any jurisdiction in which the lead agency does not have a certified ordinance, no person shall initiate a surface mining operation unless a reclamation plan has been submitted to, and approved by, the board. Any reclamation plan, approved by a lead agency under the lead agency's ordinance which was not in accordance with state policy at the time of approval, shall be subject to amendment by the board or under the ordinance certified by the board as being in accordance -with state policy. (d) Reclamation plans approved by the board pursuant to this section shall not be subject to modification by tire lead agency at a future date but may be amended by the board. Reclamation plans approved by the board shall be remanded to the lead agency upon certification of the lead agency's ordinance, and the lead agency shall approve the reclamation plan as approved by the board, except that a subsequent amendment as may be agreed upon between the operator and the lead agency may be made according to this chapter. No additional public hearing shall be required prior to the lead agency's approval. Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing die board to issue a permit for the conduct of mining operations. § 2775. (a) Am applicant whose request for a permit to conduct surface mining operations in an area of statewide or regional significance has been denied by a lead agency, or any person who is aggrieved by the granting of a permit to conduct surface mining operations in an area of statewide or regional significance, may, within 15 days of exhausting his rights to appeal in accordance with the procedures of the lead agency, appeal to the board. (b) The board may, by regulation, establish procedures for declining to hear appeals that it determines raise no substantial issues. (c) Appeals that the board does not decline to hear shall be scheduled and heard at a public hearing held within the jurisdiction of the lead agency which processed the original application within 30 days of the filing of the appeal, or such longer period as may be mutually agreed upon by the board and the person tiling the appeal. In any such action, the board shall not exercise its independent judgment on the evidence but shall only determine whether the decision of the lead agency is supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record. If the board determines the decision of the lead agency is not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole wcord it shall remand the appeal to the lead agency and the lead agency shall schedule a public hearing to reconsider its action. § 2776. No person who has obtained a vested right to conduct surface mining operations prior to January 1, 1976, shall be required to secure a permit pursuant to this chapter as long as the vested right continues and as long as no substantial changes are made in the operation except in accordance with this chapter. A person shall be deemed to have vested rights if, prior to January 1, 1976, he or she has, in good faith and in reliance upon a permit or other authorization, if the pennit or other authorization was required, diligently commenced surface mining operations and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. Expenses incurred in obtaining the enactment of an ordinance in relation to a particular operation or the issuance of a permit shall not be deemed liabilities for work or materials. "the reclamation plan required to be filed under' subdivision (b) of Section 2770, shall apply to operations conducted after January 1, 1976, or to be conducted. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring the filing of reclamation plan for, or the reclamation of, mined lands on which surface mining operations were conducted prior to January 1, 1976. §2777. Amendments to an approved reclamation plan may be submitted detailing proposed changes from the original plan:: Substantial deviations from the original plan shall not be undertaken unfit such amendment has bee f will gnd approved by the lead agency. r1tU2i's'i aQP�ao4d K�IIZ:beco�r�in� "Sf��' § 2778. (a) Reclamation plans, reports, applications, and other documents submitted pursuant to this chapter are public records, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the lead agency that the release of that information, or part thereof, would reveal production, reserves, or fate of depletion entitled to protection as proprietary information. The lead agency shall identify such proprietary information as a separate part of the application. Proprietary information shall be made available only to the director and to persons authorized in writing by the operator and by the owner. (b) A copy of all reclamation plans, reports, applications, and other documents submitted pursuant to 79 rr? t?i he 9 its -�or al�,��nfTt� Mcl� t �i ht this chapter shall be furnished to the director by lead agencies on request. § 2779: Whets ever -one operatorsueeeeds to the: interest of another in any incompleted surface mining operation assignment, transfer, conveyance, exchange, or other means, the successor shall be bound by the provisions of the approved reclamation plan and the provisions of this chapter. Article 6. Areas of Statewide or Regional Significance § 2790. After receipt of mineral information from the State Geologist pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 2761, the board may by regulation adopted after a public hearing designate specific geographic areas of the state as areas of statewide or regional significance and specify the boundaries thereof. Such designation shall be included as a part of the state policy and shall indicate the reason for which the particular area designated is of significance to the state or region, the adverse effects that might result from premature development of incompatible land uses, the advantages that might be achieved from extraction of the minerals of the area, and the specific goals and policies to protect against the premature incompatible development of the area. § 2791. The board shall seek the recommendations of concerned federal, state, and local agencies, educational institutions, civic and public interest organizations, and private organizations and individuals in the identification of areas of statewide and regional significance. § 2792. Neither the designation of an area of regional or statewide significance nor the adoption of any regulations for such an area shall in any way limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized pursuant to Part 2 (commencing with Section 1 1000) of Division 4 of the Business and Professions Code, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 [commencing with Section 664101 of Title 7 of the Government Code), or by a building permit or other authorization to commence development, upon which such Pelson relies and has changed his position to his substantial detriment, and, which permit or authorization was issued prior to the CIGyy �r�d�tc�S �av� t� ves�ec� ri l I�igS. SY1C A �U «hwe ld�� A :l e:- - lA :pri designation of such area pursuant to Section 2790. If a 11475 developer has by his actions taken in reliance upon prior regulations obtained vested or other legal rights that in law would have prevented a local public agency from changing such regulations in a way adverse to his interests, nothing in this chapter authorizes any governmental agency to abridge those rights. § 2793. The board may, by regulation adopted after a public hearing, terminate, partially or wholly, the designation of any area of statewide or regional significance on a finding that the direct involvement of tine board is no longer required. Article 7. Fiscal Provisions § 2795. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the first two million dollars ($2,000,000) of moneys fiom mining activities on federal lands disbursed by the United States each fiscal year to this state pursuant to Section 35 of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, as amended (30 U.S.C. Sec. 191), shall be deposited in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Account in the General Fund, which account is hereby created, and may be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes of this chapter. (b) Proposed expenditures from the account shall be included in a separate item in the Budget Bill for each fiscal year for consideration by the Legislature. Each appropriation from the account shall be subject to all of the limitations contained in the Budget Act and to all other fiscal procedures prescribed by law with respect to the expenditure of state funds. § 2796.5 (a) The director, with the consultation of appropriate state and local agencies, may remediate or complete reclamation of abandoned mined lands that meet all of the following requirements: (1) No operator having both the responsibility and the financial ability to remediate or reclaim the mined lands can be found within the state. (2) No reclamation plan is in effect for the mined lands. (3) No financial assurances exist for the mined lands. (4) The mined lands are abandoned, as that term is used in paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) of Section 2770. (b) In deciding whether to act pursuant to subdivision (a), the director shall consider whether the action would accomplish one of the following: (1) The protection of the public health and safety or 20 Page 87 s r10 TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Planning Department November 14, 1994 Pacific Clay Products, Inc. P.O. Box 1149 Corona, CA 91718- 1149- Attention: John Kirk RE: Proposed Plant Modification - 'Alberhill Surface Mining Permit No. 108 /ReclainatiosPlan No. ._112 Dear Mr. Kirk: Alan J. Lawrence Director of Planning In a recent meeting with you myself and Aleta Laurence, Planning Director, :we discussed a proposal by Pacific CIay to construct a low profile tunnel kiln, drier and associated facilities at your existing Alberhill plant site. This proposal would involve an approximate 50 percent: increase =in your plant capacity. As discussed, the Alberhil is covered by Reclamation change to your operation County Ordinance ".No 5. (SMARA). Another alter Mining Permit No. 108,•,v SMP'108 to include the p. would be the preferred all located .on. that portion tathbr,,ahan apply fora new pert property with vested rights and reconsidered to be a substantial W to Riverside e Mining and Reclamation Act be to revise the existing Surface site, by expanding the limits of ``meeting, we indicated that this >to include the entire property. Subsequent to our meeting, another alternative was-suggested by your consultant. This would involve a zone change from Mineral Resources and Related Manufacturing (MRA) to Heavy Manufacturing (MR) for the plant site area only. This alternative would also involve a plot plan approval for your plant modifications. This approach would probably take longer than a revised permit and would involve a General Plan amendment. 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor-Riverside, Califomia 92501•(909) 275 -3200 P. O. Box 1409-Riverside, Califomia 92502: 1409•FAX (909) 275 -3157 PACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS, INC. REVISION TO SURFACE MINING PERMIT xn.. -- R `• i #108 1 Permit 160) EXHIBIT "C A Project Description M DA Submitted to: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501 Contact: Steve Kupferman MARCH 21, 1995 Prepared for. PACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS, INC P.O. Box 1149 Corona, CA 91718-1149 (909) 735 -6020 Contact: John W. Kirk Prepared by: W.O. #9413217 Task 1570 J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers v Planners a Landscape Architects cr Surveyors 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 300 Riverside, California 92502 Contact: Daniel J. Kipper, L.S. (909) 686 -0844 Page 89 P ACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS, 1 C- TABLE, OF CONTENTS Surface Mining Permit TABLE O CONTENTS Page i INTRODUCTION ........ .......................... ................ 3 SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS 4 ................ .......... ....................... . NEW FACILITY DESCRIPTION ..........._... _ .............. . . .................... ............................... .......... . 5 MINING .... ....... ..... :......................... . RECLAMATION PaRe._ EXHIBITS fi i. Existing Gonda:ons ...... ............................... ........... _ ....... .............................._ G 11. Revegetaticn ........._........_ ............. _................._._.........- 1 III. Erosion Control - Hycroseeding ........... __....._.......... . ..........._.._._....__... ...................... IV, Year Two, Reseeding ....... .._......... .._.- Exhibit 4 —Site Photo, SIvSP 108 .. ........._ ..................... .......... .............................. ......... .._.......... 11 \!I. Estimate of Reclema +.ion Costs Exhibit "A" Sheets 1 & 2. Site Plan i1 STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY Following APPENDIX "A" -- Legal Descrij)tiof and Plat of the Area to be Annexed to SMP 108 APPENDIX "B" — Grant Deed APPENDIX "C" ?'rar,sportafion Department Correspondence APPENDIX "D" - fur Quality Documenta Page 90 PaRe._ EXHIBITS z Exhibit i 1- ocation Map ............... ............................. Exhibit 2 -. Vicinity Ntap .... ......_. _ .... .. . . . ........ 2 Exhibit 3 USGS Quad ......................_ _ . _ 8 Exhibit 4 —Site Photo, SIvSP 108 .. ........._ ..................... .......... .............................. ......... .._.......... 11 Exhibit 5 -- Site Photo, Anr•::xation Area .... ........ ... Exhibit "A" Sheets 1 & 2. Site Plan Exhibit "B` Reclamation Pian APPENDIX "A" -- Legal Descrij)tiof and Plat of the Area to be Annexed to SMP 108 APPENDIX "B" — Grant Deed APPENDIX "C" ?'rar,sportafion Department Correspondence APPENDIX "D" - fur Quality Documenta Page 90 PACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS, INC. Revision. to Surface Mining Permit #108 PROJECT DESCR%P2I0N INTRODUCTiOt4 D acitic C lay Products, lnc. ( "PCPI desires to upgrade the existing 'kilns' at their Aiberhii! Facuity by adding a state of- Me - art fasi fire kiln, and retiring an Older less efficient kiln (one of three). 'file new On writ be housed ill a separate new metal building i, ;;!nediaieiy ad accnt to the exiting structures. The existing kilns have been in operation since 1925. The addition of the new kiln will result in the following benefits: 7 A :':ci redliCt101i ir. NO> :emissions, improving a!( quality A net reduction i:'1 fuel cot isumption An increase of cempetitiv - manufacturng capability (reduclion of costs') The proposed revi Sion fo SMP 108, annexing the plant lire: i f!'.e pc(l7?;t area lnv0!VBS Only the installation of the new kiln and retirement of an older kiln. No additional mining or new mining is proposed. PCP currently mines clay and produces clay products (brick, pavers, etc.) at Alberhil! Within approximately 1,400 acres lying in the tine urimcorporated County of Riverside. The property is comprised of two project numbers, being Surface Mining Permii 108 ('SMP 108 ) and Reclanlaliori Pian - 112 1_),2 °) :— RP 112, approved June 27, 1980 covers approximately 1,080 acres of land acquired by PCP from the Los Angeles Brick Company. ? ne mining operation is `vested" (riot requiring a permit) in that it was active prior to the enactment of thc- Surface Miiininr3 and Reclamation Act of 1975 iY} The existing and aropf`sed K,!!s i e within RP 112. SMP 108 comprises 320 acres and i s completely surrounded by RP 112. Although this property i E' -- was also actively mined prior to SMRA, an application for a Surlace Mining Permit was filed with c the County of Riverside and approved. September 6, 1979. PCP acquired the land within SMP 108 from Gtadding, McBean and Company in 1979. The purpose of annexing the areas within RP 112 containing the kilns into SMP 108 is to place y�°` the proposed new kiln within the boundaries of a'County issued permit, thereby providing a Q� ,�t vehicle by which the proposed new kiln can be reviewed and approved- The decision to pursue �/ this course of action was made after, at the request of PCP, staff of the Riverside County Planning Department made the following determinations: The addition of the new kiln would be a `significant change" in the operation at Alberhifl; RP 112, although approved by the County of Riverside, is not a permit pursuant to Ordinance 555. Rather, RP 112 operates as a legal pre- existing use. Therefore, a Land Use Permit (of some kind) for the new kiln was required; e 1 � �, e Page I Page 91 PACMC CLAY PRODUCTS, INC. Revision to Surface Mining Permit #108 PROJECT DESCRIPTION I he land Use deshgnano:'i for ille prope unser T `C" "E' Cernios lAmmun i ty Plan C- rt:e_. a.' � restricted land use, (and therefore Lard Use app'icaiions) lo surface mining and related uses. With the above determinations being made, PCP had a choice of filing an application for a new Surface Miring Permit, or revising an existing permit by adding the property containing the kilns. Therefore, it was determined that combining the area containing the kilns with an existing permit (SMP 108) was the most efficient method of obtaining County approvals. 1 'j k e n r LG Page 2 Page 92 PACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS, INC. Revision to Surface Mining Permit 108 SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The project is located within the Pacific Clay Products, Inc. ( "PCP ") Alberhill Facility, (see Vicinity Map, Exhibit 1). The plant and production areas proposed to be annexed into SMP 108 currently resides within the limits Reclamation Plan 112, (RP 112 "). RP 112 and SMP 108 cover the century old clay mining and production area which was one of the first of its type in the Temescal Canyon. The area proposed for annexation currently is comprised of: • Clay stockpiles • Grinding and screening operation • Extrusion, pressing and drying • Kilns (3) • Finished product storage • Administrative offices, maintenance facilities, electrical, gas and water utilities, and stand -by propane fuel facilities The existing buildings are constructed of metal (kilns, maintenance, laboratory) and brick or block. The administrative office is a modular unit. The production potential of the existing facility is approximately 60,000 tons of ceramic product per year. Actual production is strictly dependent on market demand. Mining at the Alberhill Facility has been almost continuous for the past 100 years, and PCP estimates that at least 50 years of reserves remain. Within the boundaries of SMP 108, resources have been exhausted in only approximately 4.5 acres of land, which is currently being used as a stockpile area. The balance of SMP 108, as well as a major portion of RP 112 remains active. Due to the diversity of the quality and classification of the mineral resource onsite, market demands dictate where and when extraction will occur. PCP utilizes the onsite minerals for their own products, and sells minerals to a wide range of other users, including the County of Riverside. Because of the need to be prepared to produce minerals from any portion of the site at any time, and the fact that the majority of the permitted area still contains mineral reserves, only interim erosion control measures have been implemented within SMP 108. Revegetation, where it has occurred, is the result of natural propagation of adjacent plants, and is considered a temporary condition until the underlying minerals have been removed. No revisions to the mining or reclamation plans for the originally permitted area within SMP 108 are proposed. Access to the site is provided by Interstate 15 at the Lake Street off ramp. The main entrance lies on Temescal Canyon Road, approximately 1 /2 mile north of Lake Street. Lake Street is designated as an Arterial Highway within the City of Lake Elsinore by the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. Temescal Canyon Road is designated as a Secondary Highway by the circulation element of the Riverside County General Plan. No additional roadway right -of way or improvements are proposed or required for this project. Page 3 Page 93 PACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS, INC. Revision to Surface Mining Permit 108 SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS The Pacific Clay Alberhill facility is served by the following utilities: Water: Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Electricity: Southern California Edison Company Gas: Southern California Gas Company Telephone: General Telephone of Southern California Sewer is provide by a private septic system. Propane tanks are also on site as a source of fuel for the kilns. The area proposed for annexation into SMP 108, together with the property surrounding SMP 108 on the north, west, south and southeast lies with RP 112, which has been mined for clay over nearly the past 100 years. To the northeast lies CU 2870, an amuse menUentertainment center which is not currently in use. The land to the east (east of Lake Street) lies within the City of Lake Elsinore, and is shown by the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan as commercial and residential. The current use of this property however, is also mining. The plant and area proposed for annexation into SMP 108 are partially visible from Interstate 15. The proposed new kiln will be adjacent to the existing structures, having approximately the same height as the existing structures. Insofar as there are no other changes or improvements proposed, the existing views of the project will be unaffected. The structure containing the new kiln will be erected in a location north of and adjacent to the exiting kilns. The building site is currently a paved storage and operating area. An existing covered work area and restroom building will be removed as part of the project. The restroom will be replaced with a new facility just east of the southeast corner of the new kiln. Grading for the new structure will be limited to removal of the existing pavement, footings and underground structures, compaction (if required) and excavation of new footings_ Match up of existing grades will occur approximately 10 feet from the new building. No other grading, paving or drainage improvements are proposed or required. The use of the remainder of the area proposed for annexation into SMP 108 will be unchanged from its current use. New Facility Description Pacific Clay Products, Inc. is proposing to add a state -of- the -art fast fire kiln to the Alberhill Plant and retire an older, less efficient tunnel kiln. The new, low- profile tunnel kiln will be contained in a metal building to be erected north of, and adjacent to, the existing kilns (see Exhibit °A"). After grinding, screening and extrusion of materials in the existing plant, conveyors will take products into the new facility to be dried and fired. Finished product is then graded and stored east of the new plant until sold. Addition of the new kiln to Alberhill will bring the following benefits: Reduced fuel consumption. Page 4 Page 94 PACIFIC CLAY PROD UCTS, INC. SITE AND AR Eft Revision to Surface Mining Permit 108 CHARACTERISTICS Reduced NOx -n;issions, insuring continued compliance v✓ith air quality regulations. increased efficiency of operation, assuring a competitive manufacturing capability. Based on tests a nd CCmpu faL'dns providod Dy the manufacturer. and used for ; SSUanCe of a Permit to Construct by the South Coast Air Qualify Management District (SCAQMD) (Appendix "D "), the new kiln is predicted to use 45% less natural gas per ton of ceramic product, compared to the existing kuns. Addltionai!y, NOr, emissions will be reduced by 60% (Actual fuel consumption, currently at 2,400 BTU's per pound of product, will be reduced to 900 BTU's per product pound.) Production potential df the new kiln is approximately 60,000 tons o ceramic product per year. Mining The proposed revision of SMP 108 by annexation of the existing and proposed kilns into the area covered by the permit proposes no additional mining or new mining in either the original permitted area or annexed area. Mining of the originalty permitted area will continue as set out in the original mining and reclamation plan_ 1Minin was �or C in and shale NO A we i e Min%_, 9�rEya Reclamation .- . rNew tntensipicatron• Reciarr,alion of the originally permitted area will be accempiisned in accordance with the approved reclamation plan for SMP 108. Recian ation of ti.e 60.5 acres of land proposed for annexation into the permitted area will be accomplished as discussed below. Due to the gentle topography of the new area and the pro pity to interstate 15 and the Lake Street Interchange, several subsequent uses of the property are feasible. Commercial and industrial uses seem most practical, although residential development or even open space is conceivable. Prior to any secondary use, the appropriate General Plan and zoning designations must be established and development application approved pursuant to State law and local ordinances. Wilt) the potential of a wide variety of subsequent uses available to the site in its present condition, the reclamation program will focus on preparing and stabilizing fne land. Introduction or reintroduction of sensitive biological species in the reclamation program will be discouraged. Reclamation of the proposed site will consist of the following activities: Removal of stored finished product, by sales or transfer to another PCP facility; Removal or disbursement of raw materials stockipiies, by sale, transfer to another PCP facility or spreading and compacting within the project site; Removal of temporary buildings, if any; Removal of plant equipment and machinery, including kilns, conveyors, structures, propane tanks, loofings and fixtures. Except for footings, everything rernoved wli be salvaged and sold or transferred to another PCP iacifity. Page 5 Page 95 PACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS, INC. Revision to Surface Mining Permit 108 SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS • Smooth grading of the site and planting as shown on Exhibit "B ", and • Areas with existing vegetation will be protected. It is estimated that the site will remain a viable processing facility until the mineral reserve within the adjacent mining areas is depleted, (approximately 50 years or more. 2o45-0- o,. Reclamation will commence at the termination of use of the plant facilities, and will be completed within two years. As the site is relatively flat and void of significant drainage courses, very little post reclamation maintenance is anticipated. Finish grading, planting and monitoring shall be accomplished as follows_ All disturbed areas as indicated on "Exhibit B ", Reclamation Plan, shall be revegetated by means of broadcast seed as described below. A minimum of 70% cover shall be achieved within a two year period of time. Existing Conditions A. Clear and Grub - All non - native (exotic) and invasive plant species, including all vegetative parts, shall be removed and legally disposed of off site. All undisturbed adjacent areas shall be protected in place. B. Grading - The site shall be generally graded to minimum of 1% sheet flow without concentrated flows (swales). Should unknown factors require concentrated flows and or sheet drainage beyond 5 %, revegetation measures shall follow "Erosion Control- Hydroseeding" as indicated below. C. Soil Compaction - After all grading operations have been completed, a soil compaction test shall be performed, (as determined by a registered California Geotechnical Engineer and as soil types require). Compaction shall not exceed 85 %. Should soil compaction exceed 85 %, the top 9" shall be cross - ripped and recompacted not to exceed 85 %. D. Soil Fertility - Existing soils shall have representative agronomic suitability tests performed by a County of Riverside approved soil laboratory. Any soil chemical or structure modifications shall be accomplished in accordance with the agronomist recommendations. It. Revegetation A. Soil Compaction /Fine Grading - Final gradients and soil compaction shall be as described above. Fine grading shall provide sheet flow free of local depressions and soil clumps /extraneous materials larger than 4" to 6 ". Page 6 Page 96 PACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS, INC. Revision to Surface Mining Permit 108 SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS "Tract -walk" perpendicular to finish grade by means of bulldozer or similar equipment to establish seed basins. B. Soil Amendments - Soil amendments shall include the following minimum elements unless otherwise indicated by the agronomic soil report. Uniformly broadcast and thoroughly incorporate the following to a 4" minimum depth. 12 -12 -12 commercial fertilizer at 400 lbs. /Ac. Soil Sulfur at 360 lbs. /Ac. C. Seeding - Uniformly broadcast the following seed mix over all disturbed areas. Species % Purity / %Germination Lbs. /AC Vuipia Myupous 90 80 8 Encelia Farinosa 40 60 8 Chrysothamnus Nauseosus 10 50 2 Lotus Scopadus 90 60 6 Mimulus Puniceus 2 55 3 Lupinus Spp, 98 75 1 Seeding operations shall occur from October 15 - January 1, only. Ill. Erosion Control - Hydroseeding A. Occurrence - Should concentrated flows and or gradients above 5% occur, the above seed mix shall be incorporated into the following hydroseed slurry mix: 1500 lbs. /Ac - Wood Cellulose Fiber 200 lbs. /Ac - 12 -12 -12 Commercial Fertilizer 50 lbs. /Ac Type M- Binder Install an approved erosion control blanket when concentrated flows exceed 57sec. IV. Year Two, Reseeding In the event that vegetative coverage does not achieve the designed performance, a 2nd year seed program shall be implemented, as follows: A. Exiting Conditions - Care shall be taken to protect existing established vegetation. Gulls and rills deeper than T shall be hand filled, compacted and fine graded. B. Soil Amendments -Broadcast apply and hand cultivate to 1" depth 12 -12 -12 commercial fertilizer at a rate of 200 lbs. /Ac. Page T Page 97 PACIFIC CLAYPRODUCTS, INC. Revision to Surface Mining Permit 108 SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS C. Seeding - Uniformly broadcast the original seed mix following the same specification in areas with no cover larger than 100 sq. ft. Barren areas less than 100 sq. ft. shall exclude Vulpia Myupous from the seed specification. V. Monitoring Maintenance A. An agency approved consulting biologist, horticulturist, or licensed landscape architect shall perform quarterly site evaluations and provide appropriate reports and recommendations regarding: Excessive local erosion Visual percent of coverage and recommended re- seeding rates. Invasive weed control Vector control Vandalism control Monitoring and maintenance of the revegetated area shall continue for a minimum of 1 year after seeding. The site is currently fenced and secured. Existing fencing shall remain in place. After reclamation no physical hazards will remain, such as steep slopes, loose stockpiles, pits or ponds. Assurance for reclamation of the annexation area will be provided by a surety bond, acceptable to the County of Riverside. The amount of the posted instrument is based on an estimate of labor and material costs to accomplish the reclamation program set out above, provided under separate cover_ {' PACIFIC CLAYPRODUCTS. INC. Revision to Surface Mining Permit I08 SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS PACIFIC CLAY PRODUCTS Estimate of Cost for Reclamation of 60.5 Acres Proposed for Annexation to SMP 108 TASK A REMOVAL OF EXISTING FEATURES This task includes the sate or transfer of finished product, transfer of disbursement of raw materials, removal of temporary buildings, removal and transfer of equipment and fixtures, removal and disposal of 5000 ton of footings Cost A -1 Sale or Transfer of Finished Product By Pacific Clay Products 0 A -2 Disbursement of Raw Material Quantity Rate Hours Amount CAT 988 Loader Operator 1 $140 8 $1,120 Water Truck Operator 1 60 8 480 Foreman and Truck 1 60 8 480 Subtotal $2,080 A -3 Removal of Temporary Buildings By Pacific Clay Products 0 (Cost offset by salvage value) A -4 Removal or Transfer of Plant Equipment and Fixtures By Pacific Clay Products 0 (Offset by salvage value) A -5 Removal and Disposal of Footings Page 99 Quantity Rate Hours Amount CAT D -8 Dozer & Operator 1 150 16 $ 2,400 CAT 988 Loader & Operator 2 140 100 28,000 Foreman & Truck 1 60 100 6,000 20 Ton Truck & Operator 4 140 100 56,000 (500 Loads) @ 5 /day /truck - -- Subtotal $92,400 — Page 9 Page 99 PACIFIC CI AYPRODUCTS, INC. Revision to Surface Mining Permit 108 SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS TASK B SITE PREPARATION This task includes removal of non - native and invasive plants, grading the site smooth, scarifying compacted areas and soil testing. Quantity Rate Hours Amount CAT 12F Grader /Operator 1 85 24 $2040 JD -760 Scraper /Operator 1 85 24 2040 Foreman & Truck 1 60 24 1440 Testing L.S. 500 Subtotal $6,020 TASK C REVEGETATiON This task involves installation of soil amendments, broadcast seeding over approximately 48 acres. Seeding and fertilizer broadcast - 1200 /acre TASK D MONITORING $57,500 Monitoring shall be accomplished by a licensed landscape architect on a quantity basis for one year. Licensed Landscape Architect 4 Hours @ 80 /hr. x 4 $1,280 Total Estimated Reclamation Cost $159,280 Contingency at 10% 15,928 TOTAL COST $175,208 Page l0 Page 100 PACIFIC CLAYPRODUCTS, INC. Revision to Surface Mining Permit I08 SITE AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS Statement of Responsibility I certify that the above information in this Mining and Reclamation Plan application is correct to the best of my knowledge and that all of the owners of possessory interest in the property in question have been notified of the proposed uses or potential uses of the land after reclamation. I also certify that I personally accept responsibility for reclaiming the mined lands in accordance with the approved reclamation plan and within the time limits of said plan. �IJ�J %� Executed on ..3 -31. ig Si 9� gn ure of Applicant or Representative Hc� lrJ A-� Print Name Page I I Page 101 \V a COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND . AGENCY `]ft•ansportation Department MEMORANDUM TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND SYSTEMS January 3, 1995 JAN 91995 4080 Lemon Street, 801 Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 275 -6740 P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502 -1090 - FAX (909) 275 -6721 Page 102 MEMO TO FILE RE: SMP 108, Pacific Clay Products, Inc 4 F h u pO "+ <n aE David E. Barnhart Director of Transportation DIVISION J.F.D. if DAUIDSON ASSOCIATES. ING MAIL RECEIVED The Transportation Planning staff has not required a traffic study for the above referenced project. we have determined that the project qualifies for an exemption from the traffic study requirement to prepare a full traffic impact analysis. Instead the applicant will provide classification traffic counts on an annual basis, for a period of three years for the locations listed in this letter. The first set of counts are required 90 days from Board of Supervisors approval and once a year on that same date for the subsequent counts. We agree with the attached letter dated December 21, 1994 from Daniel Kipper which indicates that the project is to modernize an existing facility. The project is to decommission an old model brick kiln and replace it with a fast fire -kiln that is more efficient and brings the operation into conformance with AQMD requirements. The applicant will provide classification counts at the following locations: • Temescal Canyon Road at the project entrance • Temescal Canyon Road 1 /4 south of the project entrance • AM /PM turning movements at Temescal Canyon Road and Lake Street • Lake Street north of Alberhill Creek If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ruthanne Taylor Berger, Senior Transportation Planner, at (909) 275 -2076. I —' �' �� Edwin D. Studor Transportation Planning Manager RTB:mw Attachment cc: Lee Johnson Eric Crissman Steve Kupferman Daniel Kipper, J.F. Davidson Associates Agenda Item No. 2 — Western Aggregates, LLC. Vested Rights Limitations Considerations February 11, 2010 Page 12 of 20 construction, an increase in production to meet that demand would not be construed as an enlargement or intensification of the use." (12 Cal-4th 533.) • Substantial change The Hansen Case provides some guidance in understanding what is meant by substantial change. Substantial change can be viewed as changes whereas "an increase in intensity which serves to change the character or purpose of the nonconforming use will be considered to have changed the use.' (12 Cal.4 at 573.) • Impermissible Intensification The Hanson case also provides some guidance as to what is meant by "impermissible intensification" as outlined below: o "[IJn determining whether the nonconforming use was the same before and after the passage of a zoning ordinance, each case must stand on its own facts." (12 CalAth at 552). • Hansen: "the natural and reasonable expansion of a quarry business to meet increased demand is not an impermissible enlargement or change in the use of the property." (Hansen approved of courts in other jurisdictions finding no impermissible intensification in response to "increased demand ", i.e., not based on population growth only, but instead, general increases in demand). • The overall business operation must be considered in assessing the scope of a vested right. o No impermissible intensification exists, even though truck trips would increase from 1 -2 per day up to 120 per day (i.e., a 60- to 120 -fold increase) (12 Cal. 4th at 551). n "An increase in business volume alone is not an expansion of a nonconforming use(.J" (12 CalAth at 573) The two general options before the SMGB are summarized below: Option No. 1 - Determination as to whether the SMGB should impose any absolute limitations or restrictions on annual production In making this determination, the SMGB must decide whether a vested right has undergone "substantial change," or "impermissible intensification." Five points are made by Western: Evcutive Officer's (port MSC— �5+cktc Min Inc; and Geoto'o 80ard ear, nc 3lh -00 Agenda Item No. 2 — Western Aggregates, LLC. Vested Rights Limitations Considerations February 11, 2010 Page 15 of 20 "at least 90 percent of its [Sacramento] aggregate needs are still served by local deposits ", the report also states that °Most of the exported aggregate went to the Sacramento area (about 42% of the total production of the Yuba River production district)." However, CGS specifically found that Yuba County production was tied to housing starts in the four- County region (Yuba, Nevada, Placer, and Sacramento). Teichert's own production has not been limited to serving just Yuba and Sutter Counties, nor limited to increases based on population growth alone in these counties. Teichert makes other claims, albeit, not relevant to the consideration before the SMGB in its considerations of annual production. CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE SMGB The SMGB must determine whether it can and /or should impose a limitation or restriction of annual production to Western's vested rights. Should a limitation or restriction of annual production to Western's vested rights be imposed, such limitation or restriction needs to be defined. As previously noted, several considerations exist which suggest that the SMGB should not impose any limitation or restrictions of annual production on Western's vested rights. In addition, the Hansen case states: "Nothing in sections 2774 and 2776 requires that all questions of intensified use be addressed in conjunction with approval of a SMARA reclamation plan, however. Afl that need be established is that the applicant had obtained a vested right to conduct surface mining operations prior to January 1, 1976, `575 and the proposed mining is not a substantial change in the operation. Impermissible intensification of a nonconforming use is more appropriately addressed at such time as increased production actually occurs. The issue is no different, and the county's remedies are the same, as would exist independent of the SMARA application were Hansen Brothers' business to increase. When it appears that a nonconforming use is being expanded, the county may order the operator to restrict the operation to its former level, and seek an injunction if the owner does not obey. ( City of Fontana v. Atkinson, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d 499, 508 -509; see, e.g., Town of Los Altos Hills v. Adobe Creek Properties, Inc. (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 488 (108 Cal.Rptr. 2711; see also the modified opinion in F. O. Bither v. Baker Rock Crushing Co., supra, 438 17.2d 988, mod. 249 Or. 652 [440 P.2d 368].) (Hanson Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.34th 533, 575.)" "If the county elects to abandon the effort to address the intensification of use question in advance of actual mining as part of the SMARA reclamation plan approval process, the county is not without remedies if mining activity at the 0 Ekecutive Officer's (port City of Lake Elsinore Attn: City Council Michael O'Neal, Vice Chai 1 ,/30/2012 Re: Appeal of MCA Mining Reclamation Plan 2008 -0I /1 19/ a It is not my habit to appeal decisions made by the planning commission because I am the I in a 4-1 vote. I am concerned about potential litigation which I perceive will haPpen, particularly in light of Sierra Club, Inland Coast Keepers and others interest in Mining activities in Lake Elsinore. As was made quite clear last October, the planning commission asked MCA for an up to date biological study. The one which was presented in the mitigated negative declaration was 5 years old. I, as well as other commissioners expressed concern that the biology had changed significantly since 2007, after the fires, to include (which they admit) endangered and protected plants and animals. Additionally since I had walked the area I had seen evidence of illegal grading across state and federal ephemeral streams. I say illegal because MCA admits to not having the required 404 Clean Water Act or 1601 Fish and Game permits to re -grade their access roads across these streams. (See attached.) On January 17, 2012 instead of doing the required study, the lead agency along with MCA, presented a mining reclamation plan with a deferred mitigation plan, i.e. future biology studies, future federal and state permits, with no updated biological study in our packets and pretended that this was good enough for the planning commission to make a Final decision on the plan. (Please note the mining or reclamation end use is vague, there is no real plan that I could see. In other words, `after we have stripped this place clean, we'll grade it flat. We won't invest anything in this community ".) This approval begs the most salient question, how can you defer what you don't know to exist? If we find there are significant endangered Species on the reclamation plan site, the planning commission should have the Page 105 opportunity to modify the plan to preserve the species. This decision was taken out of the planning commission's hands by this deferral to the future. Also what happens if in ignorance and haste MCA destroys areas that may be effective mitigation sites? In response to a question by Commissioner Morsch, the consultant for MCA erroneously suggested that most plans approved by Fish and Game are oflsite mitigation or fees. This is simply not true, at the Von's center with both gnat catcher and Munz's onion, just like this MCA property, onsite habitat preservation was required. Secondly the plan defers mitigation to some other time. Whv? Legally there seems to be a number of CLQA issues starting with 15126.4 (a) 0) (B.) Standards and specifics for the deferral of mitigation are discussed in case law: Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine 2004 119 cal app 4" 1261, 1275; Joaquin Raptor Rescue v. County of Merced 2007 149cal app 4' 645,671; Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange 2005 131 cal app4th 777,794. 1. There is no "option" associated with reclamation plans. 2. It is more than practical to identify specific mitigation now (in conjunction with habitat and listed species mitigation). Deferral can only be acceptable, legally, if mitigation is not practical at this time. Preserve the habitat where the animals and plants reside on the MCA site. 3. It is very practical to define specifics now - with springtime surveys in a few months, and it is equally practical to establish necessary information for the planning commission, to draft all specific alternative mitigation measures which will modify the applicant's reclamation site plan. Being vested doesn't mean because the MSHCP doesn't apply, that MCA can run slipshod over environmental issues I believe MCA and the lead agency must be more diligent and not overlook the planning commission with improper data to arrive at final plan decisions In my recent book I chronicled the cougar which runs through these areas, as well as the endangered plant, Munz's onion. (Small, white flower, appears in dried stream beds, late spring, summer.) I have not seen the gnatcatcher but if I remember right Councilman McGee has seen it in Alberhill. Page 106 These plants and animals are just as important as is shale and clay. Both mining and endangered plants and animals can co-exsist. I believe we must view the entire area as the history of Lake Elsinore and it seems a shame to destroy one to get the other. With any civil right comes civic responsibility, you can't have one without the other. We have a duty to impose responsible conditions prior to the approval of all reclamation plans. _ A traffic study needs to done for the interchange and Crawford Canyon road and on Walker Canyon road. There will be after all twenty years of truck traffic destroying a public street Also there needs to be bonds accounts set up for traffic signals, wear and tear on our roads. Everyone else who mines and reclaims pays their fair share. MCA needs to be held accountable with same kind of conditions as the other miners and developers. Finally I specifically stated at the 01/17/2012 meeting that this reclamation plan was out of order based on the legal opinion that planning commissions need all the information about the legalities and pertinent up to date studies with respect to reclamation and vested rights. I was told I was wrong. That legal opinion is wrong and potentially actionable. Page 107 l 4 �� L J S- � J5 ja r7 d J f w I f o yy r r �. Y � +a .:. a-i °dJ ,, OFFICE OF: Mayor Phone: 951- 736 -2370 I i 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, California 92882 Fax: 951 - 736 -2493 1 City Hall Online All The Time — httpa /www.discovercorona,com 1 March 7, 2012 Mayor Tisdale and City Council City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Re: Support for MCA Tile's Request for Mining at Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Dear Mayor Tisdale and Members of the City Council: At the March 13, 2012 Council meeting, there is an application for public hearing of an appeal of the Planning Commission Approval of Reclamation Plan No. 2008 -01 and the owner's vested right to mine. I am pleased to offer this letter of support for MCA Tile and ask that you uphold the Planning Commission's approval of this project. MCA Tile has been a longtime business in the City of Corona and an exemplary part of our community. As a company, MCA Tile has a long standing commitment to the environment and produces LEED certified products as well as offers energy saving credits for consumers that purchase their tiles. Mr. Yoshi Suzuki, President of MCA Tile, has been a crucial partner in Corona's Sister City relationship with the City of Gotsu, Japan. For many years, Mr. Suzuki and MCA Tile has sponsored a student exchange program between our communities, allowing our youth to travel to Japan for a life - changing experience in Gotsu and vice versa. This exchange and the many friendships it has built would not have been possible without the support of Mr. Suzuki and demonstrates the type of commitment to the community MCA Tile has. Thank you for your consideration of this letter of support for MCA Tile and I sincerely hope you support their business efforts in Lake Elsinore by granting their right to mine at the Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine. Mayor Montanez Page 109 LILBURN Strategic Planning & Environmental Services CORPORATION March 8, 2012 City of Lake Elsinore Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RE: MCA's Response to Appeal of Alberhill Southwest Shale Mine Reclamation Plan Approval at Planning Commission on January 17, 2012 by Michael O'Neal Dear Members of the City Council On behalf Mr. Yoshi Suzuki of Maruhachi Ceramics of America (MCA), Lilbum Corporation is providing the following responses to Mr. Michael O'Neal's appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Proposed Project on January 17, 2012. The Alberbill Southwest Shale Mine Reclamation Plan, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Confirmation of MCA's Vested Mining Right were approved by the Planning Commission on a 4 -1 vote: Commissioner O'Neal voted no and has subsequently filed an appeal dated January 30, 2012 to the City Council. The issue of the site's vested mining right has been confirmed by the City to be valid and is discussed by the City's Planning Staff in their staff report to the City Council and for the Planning Commission on January 17, 2012. The City staff, City attorney, and MCA's attorney, Mr. Jun Good, will also be providing information on the vested rights at the March 13, 2012 City Council appeal hearing in response to Mr. O'Neal's and Ms. Sharon Gallina and Ms. P. Tehran's appeals. This response letter from MCA focuses on the following issues raised by Mr. O'Neal's appeal letter. As stated in the Planning Staff Report to the City Council for the March 13, 2012 hearing and in their report dated January 17, 2012 presented to the Planning Commission, that with the confirmation of vested rights by the Planning Commission, no mining permit is required and the City's regulatory authority is in the approval of the Reclamation Plan. In addition, due to its vested right to mine, the Proposed Project is exempt from the Multi- Species Habitat Management Plan. The Applicant is required to comply with all federal, state, and local rules, regulations, and ordinances including but not limited to those related to air quality, water quality, erosion, runoff, slope stability, noise, cultural resources, and biological (such as endangered species acts and Department of Fish & Game's stream alteration 1602 agreement). These compliance requirements are included in the Conditions of Approval approved by the Planning Commission. 1905 Business Center Drive • San Bernardino • CA 92408.909- 890 -1818 • Fax 909 - 890 -1809 City of Lake Elsinore Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 8, 2012 Page 2 With respect to specific continents in Mr. O'Neal's appeal: Biology eporting MCA provided the Planning Commission with an updated biological letter report specifying that the Applicant is required to conduct specific studies prior to disturbing the site and to implement measures to avoid, reduce, and/or compensate for any potential impacts. Condition of Approval No. 13 requires the operator to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations including the federal and California endangered species acts, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the federal Clean Water Act, and the California Fish and Game Code. Staff has included Attachment A to this condition that lists examples of the surveys required including nesting birds, burrowing owl, California gnatcatcher, narrow endemic plants, and streambed delineations; and the measures and possible onsite and offsite compensation that may be required of the operator should surveys observe specific species onsite. Because the site is vested, the Applicant is responsible for compliance with rules and regulations. Illegal Grading MCA is required to comply with the 404 Clean Water Act and the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement regulations should jurisdictional waters onsite be impacted (also see Attachment 1 of the Conditions of Approval for possible compensation). The Applicant has not graded new roads across the drainage areas onsite. The site has a number of historically graded dirt roads onsite as evidenced by historical aerials dated prior to the Applicant's purchase of the site in 1994 and more recent aerials. These are being presented by the City's Director of Public Works, Mr. Ken Semeulo, and demonstrate that no new or illegal grading has been undertaken by the Applicant. Reclaimed End Use The proposed Reclamation Plan clearly discusses the reclamation process and the planned final end use of the site. The site lies within the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan. The site is designated as "Freeway Business" with an "extractive overlay" which relates to the vested mining rights of the site. The Reclamation Plan strived to meet this planned designated land use through a four- phased plan that will ultimately create four stable, revegetated pads suitable for future development consistent with the Freeway Business designation per the Specific Plan. This will provide the Applicant, who is the land owner, with development opportunities consistent with the City's Specific Plan that will benefit the City through additional revenue and employment. The Reclamation Plan requires concurrent reclamation of phases as they are completed and final reclamation at the completion of mining. Reclamation includes stabilization of slopes, erosion control, revegetation, and monitoring of the erosion control and revegetation success. Future development of the site will require a separate entitlement process at that time. • Traffic The Applicant presented a supplemental focused traffic analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates for the Project at the January 17, 2012 Planning Commission hearing. The letter concluded that the Proposed Project will not significantly impact the surrounding transportation system in the vicinity of the Project. A recent analysis conducted in March 2011 LILBURN CP#4PVyt1rION City of Lake Elsinore Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 8, 2012 Page 3 by Linscott law & Greenspan for the Alberhill Ranch Development Conditions of Approval Evaluation found that installation of a signal at the Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road is not justified as traffic conditions are within acceptable Level of Service C. Future improvements of this intersection shall be completed by the 4640' certificate of occupation or at a later date as determined by the City Engineer and Caltrans. These findings were reviewed and found acceptable by the City Public Works director. In addition, the Applicant will be required by Condition of Approval No. 30 to restore any public roads used for hauling to the baseline condition. This may require bonding to ensure payment. Based on the above information, on the findings of City Staff presented at the Planning Commission hearings and the City Council's appeal hearing, and on the 4-1 Planning Commission vote for approval, the appeals to the approval of MCA's proposed Alberhill Ranch Shale Mine Reclamation Plan are unfounded and MCA respectively asks the City Council to deny the appeals. Thank you. Sincerely, Martin R. Denis President Lilbum Corporation On behalf of Mr. Yoshi Suzuki of MCA L�ILLBURN