Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 022196 Agenda Item: A-1 Meeting Date: 03/12/96 ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING February 21, 1996 MINUTES The Mayor called the meeting to order at 12:37 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Johnson and Luna, Mayor Highland Absent: Councilmembers Bewley and Carden Also Present: Lee Price, City Clerk Staff Present: Andy Takata, City Manager; Steve DeCamp, City Planner; Art Montandon, City Attorney and Gary Kaiser, Assistant Planner Special Guests: John G. Parrish, Ph.D., Executive Officer, Dwayne Homdahl, Chairman and State Mining and Geology Board, Senior Legal Counsel from the State Department of Conservation Mining and Geology Board PURPOSE OF MEETING: The City Council met to conduct a public workshop relative to the requirements of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 and the extent to which such requirements affect continuing operations at the Millhollin Quarry located in the 11600 block of Santa Lucia Road in Atascadero. MEETING HIGHLIGHTS: Dr. Parrish introduced himself and other representatives from the State Mining and Geology Board. He reported that they had met with City staff and a sub- committee of the City Council in the morning and had visited the quarry. He explained that they had come to provide technical expertise and information in an effort to clarify lead agency authority and assist with conflict resolution. Dr. Parrish summarized the intent of SMARA and emphasized that permitting and conditions of operation are delegated to local jurisdictions. In addition, he noted that the Board acts as a back-stop for local government by overseeing the functions of the Department of Mining and Geology and by responding to concerns of SMARA lead agencies. SPCC 02/21/96 Page 1 Councilman Luna inquired if SMARA has any provisions concerning water run-off and the monitoring of same. Dr. Parrish replied that there are regulations that address this issue and pointed out that the lead agency is authorized to contact the mine operator to require that situations be resolved. Councilman Luna voiced concerns regarding run-off from the Millhollin Quarry into Graves Creek and directed staff to contact Mr. Millhollin on this matter. Joan Grey-Fuson reported on recent case law (Hansen Brothers Enterprises v. Board of Supervisors of Nevada County) relative to vested rights and emphasized that the Courts are looking for objective evidence illustrating specific intent as to the area planned for mining. Councilman Johnson asked if the "map" submitted by Mr. Millhollin would be considered valid in light of Hansen Brothers. Ms. Grey- Fuson replied that the map is objective and does appear to show intent. Dr. Parrish commented that the burden of objective proof is on the mine owner and added that, under SMARA, if there is substantial alteration from a written plan, the lead agency or the Mining and Geology Board shall require an amended reclamation plan. Dr. Parrish explained that County staff submitted for certification its ordinance to the Board of Supervisors (the lead agency at the time) in December of 1980, but it was not certified until September of 1981 . He stated that the Millhollin Quarry reclamation plan was approved without a Board-certified ordinance in March of 1980. Ms. Grey-Fuson added that it appears the County ofSanLuis adopted its SMARA ordinance without the required public hearing. Public Comments: Fred Strong, representing Glenn and Darlene Millhollin, argued that there is strong correlation with the Hansen Brothers case and requested that the City Council consider the intent of the written plan. He explained that the plan was based upon the State Law in existence at the time and was prepared without any guidelines. It covers two parcels totaling 42 acres, he said, and noted that the language "on-going and continuous" appears on the face of the plan. He added that the sketch illustrating the mining area is not to scale and explained that the plan reflects that. Overall, the intent of the plan is clear, he concluded. Doug Marter, 10890 Santa Lucia Road, asserted that he objects to people complaining about the mine, when in fact the mine existed years before they moved to the area. He said the noise and traffic are minimal and stressed that water run-off from the mine is cleaner than what runs off most people's homes. Jim Hartzell of Templeton reported that he owns and operates three mines in the County and complained that he has been waiting for eight years to get approval from the County Planning Department on one of his reclamation plans. Dr. Parrish advised him to contact that the Mining and Geology Board, who will either contact the County to ensure responsiveness, or go over their heads and review/approve the reclamation plan for the operation. Dr. Parrish added that eight years is not responsive. John Negranti of Cayucos reported that he, too, is a mine owner in the SPCC 02/21/96 Page 2 unincorporated area of the County and gets no support from County administration. He asked for clarification who is the lead agency. Dr. Parrish replied that the local jurisdiction, in this case the County, is the lead agency. Mr. Negranti reported that the County has charged him for inspections that have not been made. Dr. Parrish indicated that this matter was not under the Board's jurisdiction and suggested that Mr. Negranti contact the County. Marcia Torgerson, 6200 Llano Road, verbalized concerns that the neighbors have relative to the reclamation plan. She commented that one of the two parcels was sub-divided in the 80's and one of those new parcels was eventually sold thereby altering the plan filed by Mr. Millhollin. Ms. Torgerson asked if the City, as lead agency, can require that the mine owner survey the sight and require an amended reclamation plan. And if so, she continued, could the mine still operate in the interim. Dr. Parrish commented that the reclamation plan was adequate at the time it was filed with the County. He emphasized, however, that the plan is inadequate by today's standards and reiterated that it appears the adoption process is challengeable. He clarified that impacts such as noise, dust, traffic, etc. are local issues and are not addressed by SMARA. The City, as lead agency, he continued, must make an annual inspection to 1) see that the mining operation is within its original intended boundaries and 2) adjust up or down financial assurances. He confirmed that the City can require a sight survey as partofthe annual inspection noting that it is imperative to know what the boundaries are in order to do the inspection. He added that a valid, understandable map ofthearea is required by SMARA. Dr. Parrish also reported that the City can close the mine if there is refusal to file an amended reclamation plan, if the mine violates the plan or extracts materials beyond the boundaries. He stated further that SMARA provisions mandate a revised amendment plan if there is substantial change and clarified that it is the lead agency that defines "substantial changes". He also mentioned that if there is disagreement by either party, it may be appealed to the Mining and Geology Board. Marcia Torgerson asked if SMARA addresses changes over the years to the surrounding area and pointed out that when the mine began operating many years ago, there were few homes nearby. She noted that the area has changed significantly with numerous homes surrounding the mine and wondered if this fact has any bearing on expanded mining activity. Joan Grey-Fuson commented that Hansen Brothers indicates that there is a vested right to increase with market demand. Dr. Parrish added that local zoning law becomes important in these kinds of situations and noted that local governing bodies must make decisions about residential development near commercial mining operations. Daphne Fahsing, 5105 Llano Road, asked for an explanation about what the City should have done when the neighbors first complained about the mine over two years ago. Dr. Parrish commented that the City, as lead agency, has been responsive and has tried to establish interim methods even though they may not have always worked. He explained that the City has reviewed a number of policies and has taken continuous action. He added that this workshop marks the beginning of resolution. SPCC 02/21/96 Page 3 Councilman Johnson inquired if view shed is addressed by SMARA. Dr. Parrish explained that the Act does not, however, this factor is considered at the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) stage. He noted that the lead agency does have the ability to address the issue of view shed during the permitting process and when considering development adjacent to or near an operative mine. Jim Brenton, 11465 Santa Lucia Road, asked for further explanation of what the lead agency's role is in establishing boundaries and related financial assurances. Dr. Parrish stated that the lead agency is responsible for interpreting, based upon a survey and/or study, determine the financial assurances _required to reclaim the land. Mr. Brenton asked if an amended reclamation plan meeting today's standards would be required if mining activity extends beyond the established boundaries. Dr. Parrish reported that expansion beyond the vested limits would not only require an amendment to the reclamation plan, but would also require a permit. Councilman Luna asked staff what a survey of the sight would cost. Gary Kaiser indicated that it has been estimated at $1,200. Don Messer, 7555 Cristobal, spoke in favor of allowing the mine to continue its present operations because it provides a vital resource for the entire County. He noted that Paradise Valley resident Roger Vierra (who-could not be present) also supports Mr. Millhollin's right to maintain the quarry. In addition, Mr. Messer read a Tetter from Kent Williams of Atascadero who supports continued operations. Jim Rabourn, 11705 Santa Lucia Road, remarked that mining has exceeded the intent of the reclamation plan and that the City has allowed residential growth in the area. It would intolerable, he said, if the mine is allowed further expansion. ---Closed to the public--- The Council expressed appreciation to the members of the Mining and Geology Board. Mayor Highland reported that the matter would be on the City Council agenda March 12" at which time the Council expects to take action. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 2:10 P.M. MINUTES CORDED AN PREPARED BY: LEE PRICE,; C.M.0 CITY CLERK ,> SPCC 02/21/96 Page 4