HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 10/23/1996 *PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
rfit do ve
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL fmm 20
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1996
CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4T" FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM
�-0O
P.M.
George Ray George Harold r David
Luna Johnson Highland Carden Bewley
This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the requirements of Government code
Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has ejqvessed its intent to
discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the briet general description
of each item, the action that may be taken shall include: A referral to staff with specificrequests
for information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning the,poli r or mission of the
item; discontinuance of consideration; authorization to enter into negotiations and execute
agreements pertaining to the item;adoption or approval;and,disapproval.
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business
referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk (Roo 208) and in the
Information Office (Room 103), available for public inspection during City Hall business hours.
The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, pleas contact the City
Manager's Office, (805) 461-5010, or the City Clerk's Office, (805) 461-5074. Notification at
least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in
assuring;that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibifty to the meeting or
service.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
BUSINESS ITEM:
1. MILLHOLLIN QUARRY - Consideration of Reclamation Plan Amendment and
Operations Agreement
A. Negative Declaration - Adopt as adequate under the requi ements of CEQA
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
B. Ordinance No. 316 - Approving an Operations Agreement to ensure the
success of an approved Reclamation and Closure Plan amendment (CUP
#96003) for the Millhollin Quarry
(Staff recommendation: Motion to waive reading in full a)id introduce on first
reading, by title only)
C. Conditional Use Permit #96003 -Reclamation and Closure Plan for the
Quarry, as amended during this hearing
(Staff recommendation: Approve, based on Findings & Conditions)
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL /
CITY OF ATASCADERO Agenda I em: L �)
Through: Andrew J. Takata, City Manager Date: Oct. 23, 1996
Via: /j.�,. - Steven L. DeCamp, Acting Community Development Director
From: (SAM Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner File No: SMARA
SUBJECT:
Millhollin Quarry -- Consideration of Reclamation P an Amendment.
and Operations Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Council should consider public testimony and th n:
1. Adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project
(Attachment C) as adequate under the requirements of
California' s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the
Findings contained in Attachment D;
2. Introduce Ordinance 316 (Attachment E) , which could
Oi.
authorize the City's participation in the Oper ons
Agreement as amended during this hearing, based on the
Findings contained therein; and
3. Approve Conditional Use Permit' #96003, being a Reclamation
and Closure Plan for the Quarry as amended during this
hearing, based on the Findings and Conditions contained in
Attachments F & G, respectively.
- I
DISCUSSION-
On March 12, 1996 the Council held a public hearing whereby it
was mutually agreed that a revised Reclamation Plan should be
prepared for the Millhollin Quarry that would ensurl both closure
of the Quarry, and reclamation of the Quarry site, 4n accordance
with General Plan policies. It was further agreed that the
revised Plan and supporting environmental documentation would be
prepared "in-house" using technical information already available
to the extent possible.
On August 21, 1996 a draft document entitled Millhol lin Quarry:
Reclamation and Closure Plan Operations Agreement end
Environmental Assessment was released and made available for
public review. The 45-day public review periods ma dated by
California' s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act (SMARA) ran concurrently throug the State
Clearinghouse and Department of Conservation, respectively.
y
1
000001
With the mandated review periods now closed, four (4) letters
have been received -- two from state agencies and two from the
public. One of the letters received from the state is from the
Governor' s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) . This letter
confirms compliance with CEQA's state review mandates and conveys
that, with the exception of the Department of Conservation, none
of the reviewing state agencies had any comments with respect to
the adequacy of the Plan or preliminary environmental
determination. The other letter received from the state is from
the Department of Conservation (DOC) . This letter recommends
specific revisions to the draft Plan and confirms SMARA
compliance upon making those revisions.
The two letters received from the public were from Fred Strong
and the Santa Lucia Neighbor's Association (SLNA) , the latter
being a much-appreciated group effort on the part of residents in
the vicinity of the Quarry. The letters from the DOC, Fred
Strong and the SLNA are attached hereto along with staff' s
response to each of the individual points raised (Attachment A) .
. It is staff' s recommendation that all revisions recommended by
the DOC be made. Staff also recommends several revisions in
response to the other letters received. All recommended
revisions to the Plan/Agreement are presented in Attachment B.
Once the Council agrees as to the specific revisions necessary,
action can be taken to approve the Plan and Agreement subject to
those specific revisions. Such revisions would then be
incorporated verbatim into a Final Reclamation and Closure Plan,.
Operations Agreement and Environmental Assessment document for
distribution, filing and reference. This approach avoids the
unnecessary costs and delays that could have been associated with
premature production of a "final" document only to revise it and
reproduce it a third time.
CONCLUSION:
The Reclamation and Closure Plan, together with the Operations
Agreement, accomplishes the project goals of establishing a
reasonable closure date for the Quarry and ensuring the Quarry
site is reclaimed to a condition consistent with General Plan
policy.
Staff stated previously that ultimate resolution of concerns and
issues surrounding the Quarry would and should be the product of
reasonableness, fairness and compromise on the part of all
involved. The draft Plan and Agreement is the result of years
worth of effort and negotiations. Non-optimizing by nature, the
revised Plan and Agreement now before the Council represents the
best possible solution given the circumstances and together they
address all of the concerns and competing interests in a manner
that is indeed both fair and reasonable.
2
000002
Attachments:
Attachment A - Letters and Responses
Attachment B - Recommended Revisions to Draft ''Plan/Agreement
Attachment C - Draft Negative Declaration
Attachment D - Environmental Findings
Attachment E - Draft Ordinance 316
Attachment F - Findings for CUP Approval
Attachment G —Condition(s) of CUP Approval
Separate Cover: Draft Reclamation and Closure Plan
Operations Agreement and Environmental
Assessment, City of Atascadero, August 1996.
c:\data\wp\mine\recplan.sr
3
060003
_ --- ATTACHMENT A
siAfFnFCAIIFORNIA - THFRFSOIIRCFSAGENCY LETTERS & RESPONSES
MILLHOLLIN QUARRY
DEPARTMENT OF CONST=HVATION
Office of Mine Reclamation
Reclamation Unit
8G', K Street, MS 09-06 v®V
Sacramento, CA 95814-3529
(916) 323-8567 PHONE
(916) 322-4862 FAX
r
September 18, 1996 -
Mr. Gary Kaiser
Planning Division
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
Dear Mr. Kaiser:
MILLHOLLIN QUARRY RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE PLAN, OPERATIONS
AGREEMENT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Department of Conservation's Office of Mine Reclamation has reviewed
the Millhollin Quarry Reclamation and Closure Plan, Operations Agreement, and
Environmental Assessment. Supporting information for the reclamation and closure
plan is found in 1993 Report of Results, Mined Land Reclamation and Compliance,
City of Atascadero, California. The reclamation and closure plan is an amendment to
the 1980 reclamation plan for the quarry. The amendment allows the extraction of
approximately 20,000 cubic yards of material per year for a three to four-year period.
I fie quarry will be reclaimed to grazing land. Subsequent uses of this property,
including possible development of a subdivision, are beyond the scope of this
reclamation plan.
The reclamation plan and Report of Results satisfy the majority of
requirements of the Surface dining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) (PuL' c
Resources Code Section 2710 et seq.) and the State Mining and Geology Board
regulations for surface mining and reclamation practice (California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Chapter 8, Article 1, Section 3500 et seq.; Article 9,
Section 3700 et seq.). The following comments prepared by Mary Ann Showers are
offered for your consideration.
1. Grazing is proposed for the quarry end use. The reclamation plan, however,
does not provide measurable performance standards to ensure that this end
• use will be achieved [SMARA Section 2772(c)(8)]. We recommend that a
specific animal carrying capacity (AUM) be proposed for the quarry.
06;0004
Mr. Gary Kaiser
September 18, 1996
Page 2
Alternatively, the reclamation plan can propose a specific forage yield per acre
to demonstrate that reclamation has been completed. The carrying capacity
and /or forage yield should be demonstrable over a specified time period
(monitoring period). The time period should mutually agreeable to both the
applicant and the City of Atascadero.
2. The reclamation pian proposes to resoil the site and hydroseed it with a
standard erosion control mix containing blando brome, rye grass, zorro fescue,
and legumes. The proposed revegetation performance standard is 40 percent
cover. We question the appropriateness of a cover of 40 percent in providing
adequate forage for grazing animals and sufficient erosion control. Due to the
�, Z•
high CPPfI anplicatiOP. rags nrpn�ceri ata nroY.ifllatol 13(1 nr�i�nrlc� .,nr OC .0 tiein
.g.. ;.. , N r approximately n n i t rl Nva a..v��.. ry
recommend that a cover standard of at least 80 percent be used. Bare areas
should not exceed a specified size, such as 10 feet X 10 feet, without
remediation. The higher cover standard will provide increased forage and be
more effective in controlling erosion on the site.
3. We recommend that the site not be grazed until the plant cover is achieved
and the plants have set seed. Deferred grazing will ensure an adequate seed
•3 bed for subsequent seasons.
Please send a copy of the approved reclamation plan, response to our
comments, and permit issued by you as lead agency under SMARA to the Office of
Mine Reclamation at 801 K Street, MS 09-06, Sacramento, CA 95814-3529. The
approved documents will be placed in the project files pursuant to the Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act.
If you have any questions on these comments or require any assistance with
other mine reclamation issues, please contact me at (916) 323-8565.
Sincerely,
r�
James Pompy, Manag r
Reclamation Unit
cc: Tim Kustic, Reporting and Compliance Unit
John Parrish, State Mining and Geology Board
Keren Yowell, OGER
000005
I i
Response to Letter 1 -- Department of Conservation (DOCS
1.1 Grazing is proposed as an end use for the Quarry site more
as a means of describing the physical "unused" condition of
the property after mining than to indicate a viable and
long-term agricultural activity will be established.
Nevertheless, the DOC is correct and the Plan should be
revised to preclude the possibility of overgrazing. No more
than one ( 1) cattle unit (caw/calf combination) should be
allowed to graze on the quarry site, meaning the 20-acre
parcel on which most of the mining and reclamation
activities will occur. If the area accessible for grazing
includes adjoining parcels the total number of cattle could
be proportionately higher.
See recommended revision to page 12, first paragraph.
1.2 The proposed performance standard indicating revegetation
would be deemed successful when a coverage of forty percent
(40%) is achieved is a mistake. That would suggest that
sixty percent (60%) of the site could remain barren and thus
unsightly and highly susceptible to erosion. The standard
should indeed be changed to ensure that revegetation is not
deemed successful until a coverage of eighty percent ( 80%)
is achieved, commensurate with that which exists on
adjoining slopes undisturbed by mining and reclamation
activities, and that no expanses of barren ground over 100
square feet in size are present.
See recommended revisions to page 17, third paragraph.
1.3 As stated above, there is no pressing desire to commence
active grazing on the site after mining. The DOC is
nevertheless correct and the Plan should indeed be revised
to preclude premature grazing on the site.
The third paragraph on Page 17 of the Plan (same paragraph
referenced in the preceding response) states that
"revegetation must prove successful without human
intervention. . .for at least two (2) years before financial
assurances for revegetation are released. " This paragraph
should go on to preclude active grazing (as opposed to
passive foraging by wildlife) within that two (2 ) year
period.
See recommended revisions i ns to page 17, third paragraph.
i
0010006
■
F. Strong & Associates
L"and'Ilse Consulting Division
P.n. Po,Y 3621
Paso Robles, CA 93447-3621
phone/FAX (805) 238-5400
August 22, 1996
Immediate concerns regarding August 1996 Reclamation';and Closure Plan,
Operations Agreement and Environmental Assessment for the Mffiollin.Mine
Reclamation and Cloqure Plan
p. 12 "Proposed Use of Site Upon Reclamation"
We would like to see some language added here that might say,
Also, nothing in this pian shall preclude nor act' as a bar to
2. 1 any terms or conditions contained in the Operations
Agreement.
Page 17, "Revegitation Monitoring": please clarify this section. 40
Z. Z percent coverage of final reclamation phase???
. Page 18. Why are water wells included?
Attachment B "Environmental Assessment
Page 53: 1. (d) no.
We would like to see the paragraph of explanation reworded to say
something like: Although not unique, the site has been in the
process of being altered by mining operations for many
Z years. The project presents a practical plan'trec«aim the site
for other bbeneficial uses with diminished- potential for
H. IYA NN.ifN�iv! if it a...�rn {�eft.n �n a �r ...ie roi vnieooieeub uuii�u�G bu b1be Jibe alb" tt SUi�r'ldt%iding area.
Mining is recognized by the State of California as a "beneficial use"
and not as "destruction" of property. This type of negative
connotation borders on being an editorial comment ' regarding the
previous and present owners of this economically and societally
beneficial property use.
Page 60. The section on "Population Characteristics" justifies a more
5- definitive statement in the plan itself regarding potential residential
use of the property in the future [see page 12 comment].
00000'7
Response to Letter 2 -- Fred Strong
2.1 This letter has been considered by Mr. MillhoIlin' s
attorney, John Belsher, and by the City Attorney and neither
feel such additional language is necessary. The addition of
such language would only introduce unnecessary confusion and
redundancy as such legal arrangements are covered in the
Operations Agreement.
2.2 The commentor is correct. The forty percent (40%)
performance standard for revegetation coverage was indeed
written in error as was omission of a "cap" as to the size
of barren areas remaining.
See revisions to page 17, third paragraph.
2.3 Water wells (and other conceivable surface openings
obviously not relevant in this particular case) are included
because they were included in the prototype reclamation plan
provided by the State Mining and Geology Board for the
City' s use in this case. Staff was intent on preparing as
complete a Plan as possible and therefore decided to leave
that language alone for fear that the Plan and./or associated
financial assurances worksheets would be deemed incomplete
without it. Although it is perhaps unnecessary, the
inclusion of such language does not seem to create any
problems and should remain.
2.4 See response 2. 1 above. All of these comments received
within the public review period become a part 'of the record
automatically. This particular comment does not affect the
project' s potential environmental effects nor does it change
the environmental determination that no significant effects
will result from project approval. The comment is noted and
well-taken but does not warrant any revisions.
2.5 See response to 2.1 and 2.4 above. No revisions are
recommended in response to this comment.
2.6 Paragraph (i) on page 33 obligates the property owner to
plant "a minimum of fifty (50) native Oak trees. . .in
locations approved by planning staff. " Given that staff is
recommending approval of the phased landscape '?,plan shown on
page 23, plantings per that plan would be approved. What
the aforementioned paragraph (i) means, then, is that any
other planting arrangement would require staff; approval.
Thus, the location of the trees to be planted 'is required
yet changeable.
060003
i
SANTA LUCIA NEIGHBORS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
P. O. Box 20
Atascadero, CA 93423
September 27 , 19964, ".;
Atascadero City Council
RE : Millhollin Mine
C-'v �ti.✓
Gentlemen:
0 V14
After reviewing the draft of the MillholliV Reclamation Plan,
Operations Agreement and Environmental Assessment, I spent time
with both Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner, and Art Montandon, City
Attorney. I went over, at length, the questions and concerns
that I and my neighbors have concerning these documents . Many of
our questions were explained to our satisfaction, and those
concerns will not be mentioned in this letter.
The Santa Lucia Neighbors, Association, Inc. has since met to
review these documents and discuss my meetings with Gary and Art .
This letter will address the concerns we still have . Instead of
all of us writing to you with our concerns, we decided to send
you one letter which includes our joint concerns . If any one of
us felt strongly about something not voted on to be included in
this letter, then they will contact you themselves .
RECLAMATION PLAN
PAGE 6
"The Quarry property, . . . " (3rd. paragraph)
These documents include a grading plan which actually
affects 3 legal parcels, not just 2 . This Reclamation Plan
is an expansion of the previous one. Mr. Millhollin is
3 . � proposing that the mining operation will now include a 3rd.
parcel that he owns adjacent to the original 2 . We feel
these documents should reflect all three parcel numbers .
(The parcel numbers are also mentioned on page 40 and should
be corrected there also. ) -
PAGE
lso. ) -PAGE 10
"An inspection will occur within one (1) year of Plan
approval and then annually (at least) thereafter. " (2nd.
paragraph)
Who will be making these inspections? The City? Mr.
Millhollin? The County? This should be clarified. We feel
3 it should be an independent entity chosen by the City but
paid for by the Owner.
0 00.10
September 27, 1996
Atascadero City Council
Page 2
PAGE 11
"Topographic surveys of the Quarry will be done annually, in
conjunction with annual inspections, . . . " (3rd. , paragraph)
3.3 As on page 10, we feel the Reclamation Plan should clarify
who is being required to do the surveys .
PAGE 12
"Since the owner of the Quarry property is the operator of
the Quarry, . . . ff (3rd. paragraph)
On page 33 of the Operations Agreement it says, "Should
Property Owner request replacement of the County as an
operator on the Property, . . ." We feel these two documents
should agree on who is the operator of this mine . Since Mr.
3•� Millhollin is asking for the option of changing who he sells
rock to, we feel that the Owner should be the Operator,
especially if he will be possibly selling to 'more than one
customer. Any of those customers will not be operating the
mine for the benefit of other customers . Therefore, there
needs to be one constant operator, and that should be the
owner.
"Topsoil will be salvaged throughout Plan implementation and
redistributed over the site prior to revegetation. " 4th.
paragraph)
Since this topsoil will be stored on the hillsides of this
property, the topsoil not only needs to be salvaged, but it
needs to be protected from erosion. There should be
3, s included in this Plan a requirement of erosion control, such
as sedimentation fences, for this topsoil . If this is not
done, a large percentage of the topsoil will end up at the
bottom of the hill, far from where it is ultimately to be
returned.
PAGE 18
Paragraph 3 talks about erosion control measures required by
the City Engineer. This only addresses sediment that might
�. � leave the property and end up in a neighbors yard, the
street or creek. This does not address the topsoil erosion
control that was not addressed on page 12 .
PAGE 21 & PAGE 23
ATTACHMENT B & D (Maps)
The elevation lines on the grading maps included with these
documents are not consistent with other information
provided. At the right (south) end of the grading, the
3-7 lines should be curved so as to blend with the existing
topography.
060011
i
September 27, 1996
Atascadero City Council
Page 3
OPERATIONS AGREEMENT
G
PAGE 28
"THIS OPERATIONS AGREEMENT. . ." (1st . paragraph)
This is not an operations agreement . Under Recitals,
Section A, it explains that this is a development agreement .
Why not call it that. We feel that the City Council needs
to be fully aware of what they will be agreeing to and
signing. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and
walks like a duck, then let' s call it a duck. In the years
3'$ to come, if you sign this document titled "Operations
Agreement" , future Councils will think you "gave away the
store" without realizing what you were signing. If Mr.
Belsher and Mr. Millhollin feel that calling this document
an "Operations Agreement" softens its content, they are very
wrong. Let' s call it what it is, a development agreement .
Then, if after reviewing its contents, you want to sign it,
fine .
"Certain risks and uncertainties associated with the long-
term nature of the reclamation of the Property. . . "
(Recitals, Section D. )
Mr. Millhollin has paid his financial assurances to reclaim
the property after the mine is closed. There should be no
3.9 risks or uncertainties . However, we think they are
referring to development of the property. If so, then the 3
times the word "reclamation" is used in this paragraph,
should be changed to "development . "
PAGE 29
"The City acknowledges that Property Owner would not
consider or engage in the Reclamation without assurances
that future development opportunities which the Reclamation
is designed to enable will be available. " (Recitals, Section
F. , last sentence)
Starting on this page, this document asks for many
guarantees from the City to the Owner concerning future
development of the site. Frankly, there are many different
3,ko opinions throughout our neighborhood concerning this issue .
Generally speaking, we don' t want you to "give away the
store" but we also realize the value of enticements, to a
point .
0010012
September 27, 1996
Atascadero City Council
Page 4
PAGE 30
"All other provisions, particularly those relating to
Property Owner's development rights, shall remain in
force. . . twenty-five years from said effective date. . . "
(Section 3 b. )
We interpret this to say that if the mining takes from 6-15
years (which is being requested on page 7 of the Reclamation
Plan) , the Owner wants an additional 10 years of guaranteed
development rights . We think that 5 years would be more
appropriate, as that is the standard development map life in
Atascadero. But, whatever number you agree on, it should be
3•t� added on to the date of closure, not the proposed maximum
date of closure. For example, if the mine closes in 6
years, as is expected, then if you add the 10 years of
guaranteed development rights on to that, the Owner will get
guaranteed development rights for 16 years from this date .
But, if you sign this document as is, you are guaranteeing
current development rights to him for 25 years from this
date. There' s a big difference .
"The City and Property Owner may terminate this Operations
Agreement pursuant to Section 20 hereof prior to expiration
of the Term. " (Section 3 c. )
This section needs to be made more clear. Section 20 is on
3•�Z page 38, but is unclear to us how it relates to termination
of this document .
,PAGE 31
This whole page begins the portion of this document that
involves the numerous development guarantees requested by
3A S the Owner. Please be sure you understand this section fully
before agreeing to sign it .
PAGE 33
"Should Property Owner request replacement of the County as
an operator on the Property, . . . " (Section 9 g )
3• '� Refer to our comments of Page 12 concerning who is the
Operator.
"The site will be reclaimed as grazing land. ., . " (Section 9
i . )
Since Mr. Millhollin is requesting so many development
guarantees, we feel this statement should read, "The site
will be reclaimed consistent with the development
3.15' agreement . . . " or something similar. If Mr. Millhollin
doesn' t want that statement included because he feels it
commits him to developing the site, let us paint out to you
that on page 35 it states, " . . .but that Property Owner is
000013
September 27, 1996
Atascadero City Council
Page 5
not under any obligation to commence construction of any
development within any time period or at all . . . " . That
statement protects him from feeling forced to develop.
PAGE 38
"In the event this Operations Agreement is terminated,
except by default of the Property Owner, all rights to
continue mining by the Property Owner, consistent with the
1980 Reclamation Plan. . .shall remain in force. . . " (Section
19 d. )
Our position on this issue is that once the State Mining
Department approves this amended Reclamation Plan, the 1980
Reclamation Plan is null and void. If this "Operations
3•� � Agreement" is terminated, it would have no bearing on the
status of the State-approved amended Reclamation Plan.
Again, once this amended Reclamation Plan is approved, the
1980 Reclamation Plan is terminated.
PAGE 39
"Section 24. Reservation of Rights. "
�'7 Please refer to our comments of page 38 .
PAGE 43 & PAGE 44
"EXHIBIT D"
These 2 pages are actually the real Operations Agreement .
We would like to see the hours of operation changed to read
,ca 8 : 00 a.m. to 4 : 00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Operating on
Saturday increases the dangers for children who are present
on that day.
"AMOUNT OF MATERIAL REMOVED"
"The operator shall provide City with truck counts and
purchase orders or invoices as proof of compliance, when
requested. " (2nd. paragraph)
For the last few years, the County has been providing the
City with purchase orders, I believe approximately, on a
weekly basis . This system has worked well and we feel
should be continued. Please change the "when requested" to
"weekly."
000014
September 27, 1996
Atascadero City Council
Page 6
MENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PAGE 45 & PAGE 46
The term "the project" is used 15 times on these pages .
However, there is no explanation what "the project"
3.Z0 specifically is . We would like to see that clarified so
there is no confusion or misinterpretation in the future.
PAGE 56 (last paracrraph)
Regarding native re-vegetation. We feel that the site
should be re-vegetated with native grasses etc. A standard
3.2- 1 erosion control mix has many non-native seeds that could
ultimately prove to be invasive to the neighboring native
land.
PAGE 61
13 .c. Regarding road use, we do feel that the Millhollin
Mine should enter into an agreement with the City to pay
into a road fund, so much per truck or ton, for the
excessive wear and tear of our roads and bridges. This
2-7— would be similar to the fees other mines within our County
pay to the County for excessive wear and tear on County
roads . For years, this mine barely operated and, therefore,
there was not much truck traffic. Now that the mine is
operating regularly, it should pay its fair `:share as other
mines do.
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS
Regarding reclaiming the site after the mine closes :
There does not seem to be any time limit required by any of
these documents . The Reclamation Plan does say on Page 17
that ". . . the Operations Agreement obligates the mine
3
operator to plant at least fifty (50) native Oak trees prior•z 3 to mine closure. " But there is no mention of when the site
is to be re-vegetated. We suggest that the 50 trees be
planted first (prior to mine closure) and then the hydro-
seeding within 60 days of the tree planting.
Also, if the term "grazing land" is to remain in these
documents, how soon after seeding will cattle be allowed to
L be released on the property? There needs to be a time limit
� .Z; t imposed so that the grass seeds that are dispersed have a
chance to root and grow before cattle are allowed on the
property.
As you can see be the above comments, we are basically
comfortable with the Reclamation Plan which was written by the
City but we hope you will consider our suggestions concerning
that document . The "Operations Agreement" is another matter.
000015
September 27, 1996
Atascadero City Council
Page 7
Actually, the Reclamation Plan is more important to us in that it
is the protection we wanted from uncontrolled, unlimited mining
in our neighborhood. However, the Operations Agreement as
written, will have a substantial effect on the City as a whole
for many years to come. This document is basically legalese
which most of us don' t completely understand. We can only hope
that you have requested and received the best legal advice
possible to ensure that whatever decision you make will be the
best for the City.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please call me
at 466-7980 . We look forward to see this item as a public
hearing on your October 1996 agenda.
Sincerely,
Marcia McClure Torgerson
Vice President
/m
CC: Andy Takata, City Manager
Art Montandon, City Attorney
Gary Kaiser, Associate Planner
James Pompy, Dept . of Conservation, Mine Reclamation Div.
Kate Neiswender, Esq.
000016
Letter 3 -- Santa Lucia Neighbor's Associatipn, Inc
3.1 First, staff does not view the proposed reclamation plan
amendment as "an expansion of the previous one. " The
purpose of the amendment, after all, is to put an end to the
use and establish a tangible cap as to the amount of
material ultimately removed. Although this has been the
subject of debate in the past, it is a moot point at this
juncture, as the conditional use permit approval previously
lacking, thus making it a nonconforming use, is now before
the Council for approval. The commentor is correct that
grading and revegetation activities would spill onto a third
parcel (Lot 21, 14/MB/63) and that should indeed be
corrected.
See recommended revisions on pages 6, 12 & 40
3.2 The last paragraph on page 32 confirms the Ci&v will conduct
the annual inspections, as required by SMARA, 'as does the
second complete paragraph on page 34. The same paragraph on
page 34 clarifies that the property owner will not be
charged a fee for the inspections. With the materials the
property owner is obligated to provide to facilitate the
inspections, costs of conducting the inspections would be
negligible. See response 3.3 below.
3.3 The last paragraph on page 32 obligates the property owner
to "prepare and submit" annual cross sections ;,that show the
current condition of the site and the condition of the site
twelve months prior. The third paragraph on page 11 further
requires that these annual topographic surveys be performed
by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor.
Thus, a competent private professional will prepare the
surveys at the property owner' s expense.
3.4 Although the third paragraph on page 12 could indeed be
revised to clarify that the property owner is "presently"
the operator of the Quarry, it does not appear, necessary as
that paragraph merely confirms that both parties have been
properly notified of the pending reclamation plan amendment.
The City cannot legally prohibit the property owner from
selling or leasing his property during the effective life of
the Agreement and it remains unclear as to what public
purpose would be served in doing so even if they could. By
making all obligations and duties the responsibility of the
property owner rather than the operator, the Agreement would
run with the land and be enforceable through that single
entity regardless of who might be using the Quarry at any
given time.
3.5 It is doubtful that a "large percentage" of stockpiled
topsoil could be lost due to erosion, but the commentor is
correct. The Plan should be revised such that sedimentation
fencing or other approved means of protecting stockpiled
topsoil from erosion is required. Covering the piles with
tarps, planting the stockpiles and/or moving them to lower,
flatter areas could also accomplish this.
See recommended revisions to page 15.
3.6 See response 3.5 above.
3.7 The commentor is correct that Attachments B & D (Phased
Grading and Landscape Plans, respectively) are inconsistent
with one another with respect to the rounding of contours
along the extreme southeastern portion of the affected
ridgeline. If fact the Grading Plan was recently revised
(more recently than the Landscape Plan) for precisely that
reason and is correct. Since the Grading Plan is the one
that will be used to determine grading compliance, this
discrepancy does not appear to be a problem.
3.8 The Agreement was drafted by John Belsher, esq. , funded by
Glenn Millhollin and proof-read by the City Attorney. When
first presented to the City it was entitled a "development
agreement" and referenced as such throughout. The wording
was changed to "operations agreement" in response to staff ' s
request because staff wanted to make sure that no future
development of the site after reclamation would be
guaranteed or presupposed.
The commentor is correct that the Government Codes
referenced in the Agreement are those which provide for
development agreements -- the Operations Agreement is a
Development Agreement. Although the reclamation of mined
lands can be (and in this case has been) construed as
"development, " staff still prefers the word "operations. "
Changing the word "operations" to "development" throughout
the document would require a substantial amount of editing,
because the word is used so often, and would accomplish
nothing from a legal standpoint. See response 3.9 below.
3.9 The commentor is correct in that financial assurances have
been posted which are adequate to guarantee site
reclamation. Having done that, the property owner should
indeed wish to avoid the risk and uncertainty that perhaps
the property will be "downzoned, " affected by a moratorium
or otherwise further restricted with respect to future use.
The language in the Agreement is standard language commonly
included in development agreements. In the case of this
rather unique project, however, "development" means
"reclamation" but not vice versa. The comment is noted but
no revisions are recommended in response to it.
060018
3.10 Comment noted. The only significant "enticement" or
"guarantee" by the City is a commitment not to "downzone"
the property or impose some sort of moratorium during the
life of the Agreement that would further restrict
development of the property after reclamation.
3.11 Mr. Millhollin has agreed to such a change, where
development rights conveyed by the Agreement would extend no
more than ten ( 10) years from the date the Quarry closes and
site reclamation is deemed complete.
See recommended revisions to Page 30.
3.12 The commentor is correct; the reference to Section 20 is a
typo and should reference Section 19.
See recommended revisions to Page 30.
3.13 Comment noted. See response 3. 10 above.
3.14 Staff still fails to foresee how the County or anyone else
becoming the operator could be problematic. This section of
the Agreement simply reiterates that the terms of the
Agreement will run with the land and remain effective for
the life of the Agreement regardless of the operator unless
modifications are specifically approved by the City Council.
• 3.15 Comment noted. The property owner would not be "guaranteed"
much at all with respect to future development and would
indeed be obligated to reclaim the site consistent with the
Agreement.
3.16 SMARA requires that the state review new and amended
reclamation plans and financial assurances prior to their
approval by the lead agency and that the leadjagency
consider any comments received from the state prior to
approval. SMARA then requires that lead agencies provide
the state with copies of all approved plans/as-surances along
with explanations as to the disposition of comments provided
by the state prior to approval. The City is the lead agency
not the state and it will be the
City, not the state that
approves the plan.
The commentor is correct on the second point in that newly-
approved reclamation plans/conditional use permits would
typically supersede and moot any reclamation plan/
conditional use permit previously approved. One of the
items negotiated and reflected in the Agreement could allow
resurrection of the 1980 Reclamation Plan if the Operations
Agreement is terminated other than by default )?v the
Property owner. This indeed is not a typical case.
3. 17 See response 3. 16 above.
000019
3.18 Staff fails to see how quarry operations on Saturday would
"increase the dangers for children who are present on that
day" as there is presently no prohibitions whatsoever on
Saturday operations, nor Sunday operations, nor are there
presently limits on the hours the Quarry may operate on any
given day of the week. By establishing such limitations and
restrictions, the Plan/Agreement would in fact decrease the
potential dangers for children and everyone else.
According to the traffic study recently prepared as part of
the 3F Meadows EIR, traffic in the area peaks from 7: 15 am
to 8:15 am and again from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm and that these
peak hours represent 8.4% and 10% of total daily traffic
volumes, respectively. Restricting Quarry hours to between
7: 00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Saturday, would avoid
truck traffic during the highest peak hour of traffic while
still allowing a normal eight-hour workday, with an hour
lunch break and a short break in the morning and in the
afternoon.
Mr. Millhollin has agreed to a prohibition on Sunday Quarry
operations in exchange for being allowed to offer a normal
eight-hour workday on the days when the Quarry is in
operation. Staff feels this is fair and the Agreement
should be revised accordingly.
See recommended revisions to Page 43.
3.19 Purchase orders have not been provided regularly, but truck
counts specifying the number of trucks used per day, the
size of each truck, the driver of each truck and the number
of truck trips made that day have been. It is not uncommon
for the Quarry to be idle for a week or more, but requiring
the provision of such tallies on a monthly basis would be
reasonable as would requiring the information every other
month or every six months, etcetera.
The existing language is suffice to ensure that such records
will indeed be kept and made available to the City upon
request. Staff agreed to the existing language thinking
that "when requested" would allow the City to require this
information in conjunction with annual inspections AND if
excessive usage was ever suspected. Staff continues to feel
the existing language is adequate.
3.20 The first paragraph on Page 5 states "the first two parts of
this document constitute the project" and goes on to state
"the project consists of a Reclamation and Closure Plan and
an Operations Agreement. " Throughout the document, then,
all references to "the project" refer to both the Plan and
Agreement while references to one or the other are made
using the words "Plan" or "Agreement. "
0000 :0
The third paragraph on Page 5 confirms the Environmental
Assessment covers the whole "project, " meaning both the Plan
and Agreement.
3.21 The commentor is correct that exclusive use of native
species for revegetation would indeed be preferred (in spite
of the fact that reduced level of erosion control would
result) . The proposed mix was selected, in part, because of
its non-invasiveness with the hopes that native plant
species surrounding the reclaimed area will eventually take
over.
As stated above, the Plan and Agreement can be modified in
the future with the consent of both the City and property
owner. If additional monies are made available to supplant
the proposed revegetation plan in this regard,; both parties
would likely agree to such a change. Staff does not
recommend such a change at this point, having ,'tried long and
hard to negotiate for it in the past, as it is not worth the
risk that Mr. Millhollin would withdraw from the project as
a result of the considerable higher costs involved.
3.22 Comment noted. The City has spent a substantial amount of
time and money through the years attempting to resolve this
matter. Most recently, the Council directed staff to
develop the Plan and Environmental Assessment "in-house" and
agreed to waive the conditional use permit fens. Given the
history, collecting some nominal fee to offset road
maintenance costs would make little sense and 'could appear
punitive. Although Mr. Millhollin could agree to such a
fee, there does not appear to be a nexus to require it as
project approval would actually reduce potential wear and
tear on City streets in the long run.
The appropriateness of such a fee warrants consideration by
decision-makers but does not affect the environmental
determination that no significant adverse effects on
transportation systems or circulation patterns would result
from project approval.
3.23 The commentor is correct that the timing of Oak tree
plantings should be specified.
See recommended revisions to page 17.
The timing of grading and revegetation activities is
mentioned in the document and is directly tied to the rate
at which material is exported from the site. Because this
rate will be a function of future demand for the material, a
precise calendar timeline is impossible at this time. On
page 7, the Plan states that "at the latest, mining and
reclamation activities would be completed. . .fifteen ( 15)
years from the date of Plan approval" and "in all
likelihood, mining and reclamation activities would be
00001
�I
complete. . .approximately six (6) years from Plan approval"
(assuming an average annual export rate of 20,000 cubic
yards per year) . According to the phasing plan described on
pages 13 & 14, and the language in the third paragraph on
page 18, topsoil would be applied to slopes and the slopes
would be revegetated immediately upon the final grades being
reached.
3.24 The Department of Conservation had the same comment.
See recommended revision to the third paragraph on Page 17.
00002`2
ATTACHMENT B
RECOMMENDED REVISIONS
MILLHOLLIN QUARRY
i
Recommended Revisions to Draft Plan/Agreement
COVER
Add the word "Final" before the word "Reclamation" and change
date to October 1996.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ensure page numbers referenced are correct after all revisions
deemed appropriate by the Council are made.
RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE PLAN
Re-write the third paragraph on Page 6 as follows: ''
Maps contained in Attachment A show the location of the
Quarry property. The Quarry property, which is comprised of
tws—+2} three (3) legal parcels, can also be identified by
Assessor' s Parcel Number (055-451-006, & 055-451-030 & 055-
451-031) and Legal Description (Parcel 6 of PM 28-30 & Lots
• 20 & 21 of Tract 1422) .
Re-write the first paragraph on Page 12 as follows:
Proposed Use of Site Upon Reclamation
Upon closure of the Quarry and the completion of final site
reclamation, the site will either be left vacant or will be
used as grazing land. If used as grazing land, no more than
one cow/calf combination shall be allowed on the +/- 20-acre
parcel on which the majority of mining and reclamation
activities occur. If the area accessible for 'grazing
includes adjoining parcels, the total number of allowed
cattle may be proportionately higher. Although the
Operations Aareement establishes some ground rules for
possible future residential development, the only "end use"
being proposed at this time is grazing.
0000ti3
Re-write the second paragraph on Page 12 as follows:
Considering that the twe-(2) three (3) parcels which
comprise the Quarry site are zoned for single family
residential use, it is possible that applications could be
made for the construction of twe-(2) three (3) homes on the
site, one on each parcel. Moreover, considering that the
twe--(2) three (3) parcels which comprise the Quarry site are
larger than that required for new residential lots, it is
possible that application could be made for a residential
subdivision. Any of these possible future residential uses,
however, would be subject to entirely separate review and
approval.
Re-write third paragraph on Page 15 as follows:
Recently, topsoil and mulched vegetation has been stockpiled
along the upper northeast-facing portion of the ridge. As
described above, topsoil from areas newly disturbed will
continue to be stockpiled on-site. In Phases 1 & 2,
stockpiling will continue to occur along the perimeter of
the Quarry while topsoil stockpiles during Phase 3 will
occur on the flatter "saddle" area along the ridge created
during Phase 2. Stockpiles will shall be allewed
-r-evegetated by hand broadcasting of the seed mix described
below naturally to control erosion and the leaching of soil
nutrients. If this approach to controlling erosion of
stockpiled material is determined unsuccessful by the City,
the property owner shall install sediment fences to the
approval of the City. The property owner shall install said
sediment fencing, and/or any other erosion control devices
deemed necessary by the City, within two (2) weeks of being
directed to do so.
Re-write the first paragraph on Page 17 as follows:
Supplemental to the revegetation herein proposed, the
Operations Agreement obligates the mine operator to plant at
least fifty (50) native Oak trees prior to mine closure.
These trees shall also be planted in the late fall, after
the placement of topsoil yet prior to hydroseeding.
00002-4
Re-write the third paragraph on Page 17 as follows:
0 Revegetation Monitoring
As mining and reclamation activities near completion, the
first Phase of revegetation will have existed and been
monitored for at least (2) years. Revegetation must prove
successful without human intervention (application of
irrigation, fertilizer, etc. ) for at least (2) years before
financial assurances for revegetation are released.
Revegetation will not be considered successful until a
minimum feEty-peEeent(4A-%- eighty percent (80%) coverage is
achieved. Revegetation will also not be considered
successful if any barren areas at or exceeding 100 square
feet exist. In addition, there shall be no grazing allowed
until all revegetation has been deemed successful, as
described herein.
OPERATIONS AGREEMENT
Re-write forth paragraph on Page 30 as follows:
(b) The provisions of this Agreement relatingl' to operation
of the Quarry, including those conditions listed in Exhibit
D hereto, shall remain in effect from the effective date of
this Agreement until reclamation is complete to the
satisfaction of the City. All other provisions,
particularly those relating to Property Owner' s development
rights, shall remain in force and effect until resident
units are eenstEuetedat a density equal to that-allew d
under the-DevelepmeRt Regulatiens in eiEistenee-ear-the
" feetiy date-ef this Agreement, er twenty-five years fro
said effeetive-date, whiehevems eaFl_eEy ten (10) years
from mine closure and site reclamation is deemed complete by
the City, subject to earlier termination as hereinafter
provided.
Re-write fifth paragraph on Page 30 as follows:
(c) The City and Property Owner may terminate this
Operations Agreement pursuant to Section -20 19 hereof prior
to expiration of the Term.
000025
Re-write both paragraphs on Page 40 as follows:
Millhollin Quarry Legal Description:
The property is Parcel 6 of Parcel Map recorded in 28/PM/30
and Lots 20 & 21 of Tract Map (Tract 1422) recorded in
14/MB/63 in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California.
Assessor' s Parcel Numbers:
APN 055-451-006,-& APN 055-451-030 & APN 055-451-031
Re-write first paragraph on Page 43 as follows:
HOURS OF OPERATION
The quarry shall only be operated 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Saturday. -Truelecs
whieh haul gravel, whetleE empty=eE net, shall taveEse
Santa- ueia lead—enly between tic—heuEs of 8:00 to St v
pam . The operator shall coordinate with the Atascadero
Unified School District and attempt to minimize the presence
of trucks along Santa Lucia Road when school children are
likely to be present awaiting bus pick-up and/or following
bus drop-off; an effort shall be made by the operator to
adjust workers' lunch breaks to avoid truck traffic
altogether during and immediately following the noontime
drop-off of younger school children along said road.
In addition to the substantive changes recommended above, the
following incidental typos should be corrected:
* Page 13, second paragraph from bottom: First sentence
should read 1.3 acres, not 1.3 areas.
* Page 16, first paragraph: Delete open parenthesis at
the end of second sentence.
* Page 17, second paragraph: Correct double negative by
changing "non-prime" to "prime. "
* Page 45, third paragraph: First sentence should use
the word "environmental" instead of "environment. "
* Page 60, first paragraph: The word "noone" in second
sentence should be spelled "no one. "
000U:�+6
ATTACHMENT C
ItR DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF ATASCADERO M I LLHOLL I N QUARRY
014 to
, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
rirry n� JT.�Ct`d7�FT?!7
va�a a va araaav yra��wa�v
I+ NI VIROMMEINTAL COORDINATOR
NEIGATIVE DECLARATION
CON?i,.UN171Y DE•+ni 0P.-AEN ^.?i. 6500:�1?ii.� XIE. AL-)ZC.3DER O. C.-k 93422 (805)461-5035
APPLICANT: Mr. Glenn Millhollin
8758 E. Barstow
Clovis, California 93611
PROJECT TITLE: CUP #96003 & Ordinance 316
PROJECT LOCATION: 11600 Santa Lucia Road
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Reclamation and Closure Plan combined with Operations Agreement
to establish a reasonable closure date for the Quarry and ensure
the Quarry site is reclaimed in accordance with';, General Plan
FINDINGS: policy. See attached materials (Plan, Agreement & Environmental
Assessment) .
1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project wild not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of lor_g-tern ea,iron:nental goals.
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but ce:nulatively considerable.
"'lin nt ill nt - .hc- moi �.?:a*•ce r
.�n
TT�� .. _ .^,fie.. .. .... ..........., .,.� ....__ .., __..,......
DE 1 L'♦4Y11NATL ION!
Based on the above hidings, and the :`ormal-jon contained in the—Initial study(made a part her.-Of by refer-
ence and on file in the Community Development DeparLanent), it has been deterrnin ed that the above project
will not have an ad,. impact on tie environment.
cro„o., i norT art; n; ter,.
Community Devetopment Department
Date Posted: August 21, 1996
Date Adopted:
i
CDD 11-89
i
ATTACHMENT D — Environmental Findings
Negative Declaration prepared for Conditional Use Permit #96003
Joint Reclamation and Closure Plan/Operations Agreement
Millzollin Quarry -- 11600 Santa Lucia Road
October 23, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
1. The proposed project includes (and for practical purposes
constitutes) mitigation measures, enforceable monitoring
responsibilities and implementation/compliance assurances
agreed to by the mine owner/operator (applicant) and
incorporated into the project prior to the release of the
proposed Negative Declaration for public review.
2. Said mitigation measures, monitoring responsibilities and
implementation/compliance assurances are sufficient to avoid
significant effects on the environment, or mitigate them to
the point where clearly no significant effects would occur.
3. There is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole
supporting a fair argument that the project may have
significant adverse effects on the environment.
4. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is indeed
the appropriate environmental documentation for the project
and, as prepared, it is both complete and adequate pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
00001:8
ATTACHMENT E
DRAFT ORDINANCE
MILLHOLLIN QUARRY
ORDINANCE NO. 316
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF''' ATASCADERO
APPROVING AN OPERATIONS AGREEMENT TO ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF AN
APPROVED RECLAMATION AND CLOSURE PLAN AMENDMENT (CUP #96003) FOR
THE MILLHOLLIN QUARRY
The City Council of the City of Atascadero, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Operations Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A
and hereby incorporated herein is hereby found consistent with
the General Plan and approved.
SECTION 2. The Mayor, and in the Mayor's absence the City
Manager, is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement on behalf
of the City for properties described in the Agreement.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be
published once within fifteen (15) days after its passage in the
Atascadero News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed,
published, and circulated in the City in accordance with Section
36933 of the Government Code; shall certify the adopting and
posting of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and this
certification together with proof of posting to be 'entered into
the Book of Ordinances of the City.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full
force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its passage.
On motion by and seconded by
, the foregoing Ordinance is approved
by the following role call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DATE ADOPTED:
By:
George P. Highland, Mayor
ATTEST: City of Atascadero
- � LEE PRICE, City Clerk
00U012:9
Ordinance No. 316
Page 2 of 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ARTHER R. MONTANDON, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:
STEVEN L. DeCAMP, Acting Director
Community Development Department
000030
ATTACHMENT F - Findings for Approval
Conditional Use Permit #96003
Joint Reclamation and Closure Plan/Operations Agreement
Millhollin Quarry -- 11600 Santa Lucia Road
October 23, 1996
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project,
considered and adopted based on the Findings contained on
the preceding page (Attachment ?) . The Negative Declaration
is adequate as project approval would not have significant
adverse effects on the environment.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
3. The proposed project satisfies applicable provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance
(Ordinance 242) , Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) .
4. The establishment, and subsequent operation and conduct of
the use will not, because of circumstances and conditions
applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, or welfare of the general public or persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity of the use.
5. The proposed project is not inconsistent with the character
of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly
development.
6 . The proposed project will not generate a volume of traffic
beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to
the project, either existing or to be improved in
conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic
volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result
from full development in accordance with the Land Use
Element.
7. The proposed project is consistent with the City' s
Appearance Review Guidelines.
000032
ATTACHMENT G - Condition(s) of Approval
Conditional Use Permit #96003
Joint Reclamation and Closure Plan/Operations Agreement
Millhollin Quarry -- 11600 Santa Lucia Road
October 23, 1996
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Conditional Use Permit #96003 effectuates an amendment to
the Reclamation Plan approved for the Quarry by the County
of San Luis Obispo in 1980. The approval is granted upon
the single and critical condition that each and every term,
provision, stipulation, duty, role and responsibility of the
following document is adhered to with respect to both site
reclamation and interim mining and in good faith respected:
Millhollin Quarry• Final Reclamation and 'Closure Plan,
Operations Agreement and Environmental Assessment, City
of Atascadero, October 1996.
Any substantial modification of, or deviation from, the
project as hereby approved shall require Reconsideration of
this approval by the City Council at a noticed public
hearing.
000033