Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Mining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board codifies vested-mining rights near Mead Valley despite public objections
Summary
The Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution codifying a May 20 finding that vested-mining rights exist for a Mead Valley parcel; county staff and the applicant said additional environmental approvals and a reclamation plan are required before any mining can begin.
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday adopted a resolution that formalizes an earlier determination that vested-mining rights exist for a site near the Mott Reserve in Mead Valley.
The action codifies a May 20 finding that the property owner holds vested rights established in 1949 by "zoning ordinance number 348," a point an applicant attorney emphasized during public comment. The board approved the resolution 5-0.
Why it matters: Residents and a local group, the Rural Association of Mead Valley, urged the board to reject the finding, saying the mine had not been active for decades and raising traffic, dust and neighborhood-safety concerns. County planning staff and the applicant's representatives said the administrative action only formalizes an earlier legal finding and does not authorize physical operations.
What speakers said: Debbie Walsh, representing the Rural Association of Mead Valley, told the board she opposed vesting because mining activity had reportedly not appeared on county GIS maps since 1996 and the rail spur adjacent to the site had been removed. "We just wanna let everybody know we don't want it. It doesn't belong," Walsh said during public comment.
An attorney for the applicant said the vested right dates to 1949 and that opponents must present affirmative evidence of abandonment to defeat a vested-rights claim. The attorney listed historical drilling campaigns, road maintenance, consultations with the county and a state Mines and Geology Board site visit, and noted the state classified the area as mineral resource zone MRZ-2 and that designation was incorporated into the county general plan.
County planning director John Hildebrand told the board the resolution "codifies that determination and provides necessary findings in support of that determination." Hildebrand also noted the vesting determination does not authorize grading or mining; an applicant still must submit a reclamation plan and complete CEQA review and additional public hearings before any ground-disturbing work could begin.
Board action: The board approved item 3.37 "as recommended" by staff with a 5-0 vote. The staff recommended resolution codifies the May 20 decision.
Details and caveats: Planning staff emphasized that adoption of the resolution is a procedural step and that the owner must complete environmental analysis, community outreach and any required reclamation plan before operations could proceed. Residents raised issues about truck traffic, dust and safe evacuation and asked the county to consider road configurations such as cul-de-sacs and mapped equestrian trails.
What's next: Adoption of the resolution allows the applicant to pursue the next steps in the county process, including submission of a reclamation plan, CEQA review and any required permitting and public hearings.
