Mining and Proposed Huge Residential Development in Claremont

By Opanyi K. Nasiali

Opanyi opposes mining but understands that State Law may overrule local control and thus a "just say no" position is no position at all. He understands that the zoning of the wash as "open space" effectively would prevent any new huge residential development and he would use this tool on Council

Mining in Claremont

If the City of Claremont had full authority to decide whether to allow gravel mining within its borders, my position would be a simple "no," because extensive gravel mining adjacent to residences is incompatible. It is also incompatible with our open space and environmental values in Claremont.

But it is not that simple. The State of California designates natural resource mining areas, and maintains oversight authority for these operations. Recently the state legislature, with the support of the Sierra Club, enacted a bill diluting local control over mining operations.

Nevertheless, through its oversight authority, the State allows local jurisdictions to take the "lead agency" role so long as the locals adopt an ordinance which cannot outlaw resource mining. That is where we are in Claremont today. Our City Council recently adopted a mining ordinance that has been approved by the State Mining and Geology Board. The ordinance allows mining operations in designated areas subject to approval of a conditional use permit. This process involves the public in reviewing any request for mining within our city. The ordinance also requires the operator to provide financial assurances for and implementation of land reclamation. The fact that the city is the lead agency, not the State, means that we can regulate any proposed mining operation.

Notwithstanding these facts, I am open to suggestions from CASM and other interested residents, if there are alternative actions we could pursue.

If elected to the Council, and if we must allow mining, I will ensure that we fully implement the proper regulations and requirements contained in our mining ordinance. I will insist on mitigation measures that minimize the impacts of mining operations on our citizens in the vicinity of affected areas, and on the affected land. Following are some of the mitigations that I would insist on:

• Require that the mining operations are set back at the maximum distance possible from existing residences.

• Control equipment operation as to time, manner and on-site location.

• Control truck movements to and from the mining area to minimize noise intrusion into nearby residences.

• Require regular watering to minimize fugitive dust in the air.

• Limit hours of operation to avoid early morning and late evening operations, and prohibit operations on weekends.

• Ensure land reclamation, after mining is completed, in a manner that makes it compatible with existing residences. I would further require that mining should be initiated first near existing uses so that reclamation can be implemented sooner pursuant to our mining ordinance requirements.

Proposed Huge Residential Development in NE Claremont

The proposal to develop 560 acres of open space in Claremont with residential housing "a little bit more upscale" than adjacent neighborhoods (described in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on Friday, February 9) is an unwelcome idea in Claremont.

Claremont has the tools to stop this proposal, if it is a serious one, and must use them.

The property has been in use for decades as a spreading area for ground water recharge.

The newly-adopted General Plan as well as the Zoning Ordinance designate this area as "Open Space". This designation reflects the values and preferences of the community along with the recognition--a recognition that extends back a century--of the importance of stewardship of a reliable local water source.

No developer can have a reasonable expectation that the City would approve any other zoning for the property. Likewise, the present owners derive substantial economic benefit from the property as a water resource.

My experience over the years in my career involving land use and development tells me that no sale of the property for prospective residential development would realistically occur since no rational developer would invest millions of dollars for a property knowing its traditional use as open space and its designation as open space in a very recent General Plan.

As we say in Swahili, "That dog won't hunt".