CAJALCO ROAD PROPERTY

(Hubbs/Harlow Quarry Area)

Request for Determination of Vested Rights

December 16, 2021

Submitted by:

Robertson's Ready Mix

200 South Main Street, Suite 200
Corona, CA 92882

Submitted to:

Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency

4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, CA 92502-1409

Prepared by:

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP

Kerry Shapiro, Esq.
Daniel Quinley, Esq.
Two Embarcadero Center, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 398-8080

69711165v1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1
I. EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................... 3
II. SUMMARY OF PRIOR VESTING DETERMINATIONS, LEGAL PRINCIPLES,
AND HISTORICAL RECORD SUPPORTING THIS RFD ................................................. 6
A. The County’s Multiple Vesting Determinations at the HH VRA ............................. 6
B. Key Legal Principles for Vested Rights Determinations ............................................ 6
1. The County’s Authority to Determine Vested Rights ................................... 7
2. The Establishment Date for Vested Rights ...................................................... 7
3. The Diminishing Asset Doctrine....................................................................... 8
4. Objective Manifestations of Intent and Appropriated Mining Site ............. 8
5. Objective Manifestations of Intent Consider the Whole Operation
Including Ancillary Uses Such as Prospecting, Stockpiling, and
Haul Roads .......................................................................................................... 8
6. Relevance of Activities Prior to the Establishment Date (Look
Back)...................................................................................................................... 8
7. The County’s Prior Actions Confirming Vested Rights Limit the
Scope of Issues to Consider in the Current RFD. ........................................... 9
C. The Scope of the Requested Determination ................................................................. 9
D. Evidence Supporting the Requested Determination ................................................ 10
1. Pre-Establishment Date Mining Activities and
Exploration/Surveying Within the HH VRA Between 1925 and
1948 Confirm the Entire HH VRA Was Exclusively Dedicated to
Mining ................................................................................................................ 10
a. Surface Mining Activities: 1925-1948 ................................................ 11
b. Activities Demonstrating Intent to Mine the Entire HH
VRA: 1925-1948 .................................................................................... 13
2. Post-Establishment Date, Pre-SMARA (1949-1976) Surface Mining
Activities Within the HH VRA Without Permits Corroborate the
Vested Right....................................................................................................... 15
3. Post-SMARA to Present (1976-2021) Surface Mining Activities
Within the HH VRA Demonstrate Ongoing Operations and
Continuing Intent to Appropriate the Site for Mining ................................ 17

69711165v1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)

Page

4. Pre-1949 Mineral Activities on the HH VRA that Supported

Adjacent Operations Within the Larger Temescal Mining District
Further Confirm the HH VRA Was Fully Appropriated for Mining ........ 19
a. Prior to Peacock’s Purchase of the HH VRA in 1925, it was
Part of a Single, Large Property Holding Within the
Temescal Mining District .................................................................... 19
b. 1880s – 1925: Regional Mining Operations Within the
Temescal Mining District That Occurred Directly On the
Future HH VRA ................................................................................... 21
c. 1880s – 1925: Regional Mining Operations Within the
Temescal Mining District Proximate to, But Supported by,
Activities in the Future HH VRA ...................................................... 22
d. A Network of Mining Haul Roads Through the HH VRA
Connected the Temescal Mining District as a Regional
Mining Resources................................................................................. 24
E. The Historical Evidence Supports Findings of Vested Rights Across the
Entire 792-Acre HH VRA .............................................................................................. 25
III. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO ESTABLISH VESTED RIGHTS ............................................ 26
A. Constitutional Principles Protect Vested Rights........................................................ 26
B. A Constitutionally-Protected Vested Right Is Established When An
Ordinance is Enacted Restricting a Lawful, Pre-existing Use ................................. 27
C. California Law, including SMARA Section 2776, Recognizes Vested
Rights ............................................................................................................................... 28
D. Enactment of a Local Land Use Regulation Requiring a Use Permit May
Create an Establishment Date Before January 1, 1976. ............................................. 29
E. Key Substantive Factors Affecting the Establishment and Scope of Vested
Rights as Articulated by Hansen Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of
Supervisors of Nevada County and Other Authorities ................................................. 30
1. Background ........................................................................................................ 30
2. Key Substantive Issues that Must be Addressed in Assessing a
Vested Right....................................................................................................... 31
a. The “Diminishing Asset” Doctrine Determines the
Geographic Scope of a Vested Right ................................................. 31
b. Where "Objective Manifestations of Intent" to Mine
Previously Un-Mined Areas of a Parcel or Tract Are

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)

Page

Demonstrated, the Entire Parcel or Tract is "Appropriated

for Mining" ............................................................................................ 32
c. "Objective Manifestations of Intent" to Mine Previously
Un-Mined Areas Can Include Incidental or Auxiliary Uses
Such as Haul Roads or Other Elements of the Whole
Operation .............................................................................................. 34
d. A Vested Rights Determination can "Look Back" at the
Entire History of Mining at the Site Prior to the
Establishment Date to Determine the Scope of Vested
Rights ..................................................................................................... 35
e. The Overall Business Operation Must be Considered When
Assessing the Scope of Mining Activities Encompassed by
a Vested Right ...................................................................................... 36
f. A Vested Mining Operation Must Not Undergo a
“Substantial Change” .......................................................................... 38
g. A Vested Right Is Only Abandoned if there is Both an
Intent to Abandon and an Overt Act of Abandonment ................. 39
h. Vested Rights Are Property Rights that "Run With the
Land"...................................................................................................... 41
i. The Establishment and Scope of Vested Rights May be
Based on the Activities of Contractors and Lessees ........................ 41
F. Procedural Due Process Requirements to Establish a Vested Right....................... 42
G. Vested Rights Under the Riverside County Code ..................................................... 42
H. Factors RRM Must Establish in Support of Its Vested Right ................................... 43
IV. THE HISTORY OF COUNTY DECISIONS CONFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF
RRM’S VESTED RIGHTS ........................................................................................................ 43
A. Context: Multiple Mining Operations Occurred on the HH VRA Prior to
the 1949 Establishment Date ........................................................................................ 44
B. 1949 Enactment of Ordinance No. 348, the First County Ordinance
Requiring Land Use Permits for Mining Operations, and Modifications
Thereto through the Present. ........................................................................................ 45
C. M-404 (1959).................................................................................................................... 46
D. CU-1146 (1970) ............................................................................................................... 47
E. RP-118 (1982) .................................................................................................................. 47

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)

Page

F. The HH VRA Continued to be Developed as a Mining Property by Hubbs

and Related Corporate Entities (1983-2012) ............................................................... 49
G. The Hubbs Lawsuit and Settlement (2003-2004) ....................................................... 50
H. First Amended Judgment and Rec Plan Amendment RCL118-S1 (2013) .............. 50
I. Second Amended Judgment and Rec Plan Amendment RCL 118-S2 (2017) ........ 51
J. Rec Plan Amendment RCL118-S4 (2020) .................................................................... 52
V. THE HISTORY OF MINING OPERATIONS ON AND AROUND THE HH VRA ............. 54
A. Historical Context: The HH VRA is Located Within An Area Historically
Known for Abundant Mineral Resources Since the Late 1800s .............................. 54
1. The Temescal Valley Contains a Unique Concentration of Mineral
Resources That Gave Rise to the Temescal Mining District,
Including the HH VRA .................................................................................... 55
2. Following Resolution in 1888 of a Boundary (and Mineral Rights)
Dispute Involving the U.S. Government, Development of the
Temescal Mining District’s Mineral Resources Began in Earnest .............. 56
a. The History of the Sobrante Mineral Dispute .................................. 57
b. Resolution of the Sobrante Dispute Spurred Development
in the Temescal Mining District ......................................................... 58
B. Pre-1924: Surface Mining Activities On or Utilizing the HH VRA ......................... 58
1. Development of the Cajalco Tin Mine and Use of the HH VRA to
Support Tin Mining Activities (1853-1923) ................................................... 58
a. Initial Tin Mining Activities Until 1892 ............................................ 59
b. The First Resurrection of the Cajalco Tin Mine: 1917-1923 ............ 60
c. Timeline of Activities at Cajalco Tin Mine (1853-1923) .................. 61
2. The Corona Rock Boom and Other Mineral Development in the
Temescal Mining District Prior to 1925.......................................................... 62
a. Temescal Mining District Rock Quarries Within or
Associated with the HH VRA ............................................................ 62
b. Temescal Mining District Mineral Development and Clay
Operations Within or Associated with the HH VRA...................... 64
c. Timeline of Additional Surface Mining Activities Within
the Temescal Mining District Within or Associated with
the HH VRA Prior to 1925 .................................................................. 66

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)

Page

C. In 1925 the HH VRA Divested from the Larger Sobrante Landholding,

Triggering Increased Development of Mineral Resources Directly on the
Site .................................................................................................................................... 68
1. Ownership of the HH VRA as a Distinct Tract Began in 1925 ................... 69
2. Increasing Development of Mineral Resources and Surface Mining
Activities Within the HH VRA From 1925 Until 1948 ................................. 70
a. Materials for Railroad Construction and Maintenance .................. 70
b. Materials for Water Supply and Road Infrastructure ..................... 71
c. Mining Clay for Ceramics Products .................................................. 76
d. Tin Mining Activities Adjacent to and Directly on the HH
VRA Continued After the HH VRA Became a Distinct
Mining Property in 1925, Including in Support of the U.S.
War Effort.............................................................................................. 77
3. Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Within HH VRA (1924-1948) ........ 80
D. From 1925 to 1948, Surface Mining Activities on the HH VRA Continued
to Support and Interrelate with Adjacent Operations .............................................. 83
1. Porphyry and Other Rock Quarries ............................................................... 83
2. Silica Sand Production ..................................................................................... 85
3. Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Adjacent to and Interrelated
with the HH VRA (1924-1948) ........................................................................ 86
E. Exploration and Surveying Activities Before 1949 .................................................... 87
1. A 1938 Study Identified 200 Million Tons of HH VRA Reserves
Suitable for Water Infrastructure .................................................................... 88
2. In 1947, Harlow Commissioned an Comprehensive Record of
Survey, which was Recorded in 1948, to Clarify Her Access to
Mineral Resources Across the Entire HH VRA ............................................ 89
F. Composite Table of All Surface Mining Activities Directly on the HH
VRA Prior to 1949 .......................................................................................................... 90
G. Mining Activities Continued Within the Entire HH VRA Between 1949
and 1976 Absent Mining Permits................................................................................. 93
1. Owners and Operators Clearly Understood the (Lack of) Need for
Use Permits for Surface Mining Activities .................................................... 94
2. Harlow Consolidates Her Ownership ........................................................... 95

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)

Page

3. Post-Vesting Mining Operations Expand Across the HH VRA ................. 96

a. Rock Quarrying Operations Within the HH VRA After
January 1, 1949 ..................................................................................... 96
b. Clay Mining Operations Within the HH VRA After
January 1, 1949 ..................................................................................... 98
4. Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Within The HH VRA 1949-
1976 ................................................................................................................... 101
H. Post-1976 Developments at the HH VRA ................................................................. 104
1. Rec Plan RP118 (Hubbs) – 1982..................................................................... 104
2. Continued Mineral Development of the HH VRA from 1983 to the
Present .............................................................................................................. 104
VI. SUMMARIZING THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF RRM’S VESTED
RIGHT ........................................................................................................................................ 106
A. For Nearly A Century (1859-1948), Mineral Development Occurred On
and Across the HH VRA Prior to the the Establishment Date .............................. 107
1. Surface Mining Activities Operated in the Larger Context of the
Temescal Mining District Prior to Divestment of the HH VRA by
the Sobrante Owners in 1925 ......................................................................... 107
2. Surface Mining Activity Directly on the HH VRA Increased
Following Peacock’s Acquisition of the HH VRA in 1925 ........................ 108
3. Kuhry and Harlow Acquired the HH VRA in 1931 and Started to
Realize and Develop the HH VRA’s Full Mineral Resource
Potential............................................................................................................ 109
B. In 1949, When Riverside County Enacted Ordinance 348 Requiring a
Permit to Mine, Vested Rights to Mine Were Established Across the
Entire HH VRA ............................................................................................................ 110
C. After January 1, 1949, Until Enactment of SMARA in 1976, RRM’s
Predecessors Continued Mineral Development Across the Entire HH
VRA Without a Permit ................................................................................................ 110
D. Riverside County has Recognized RRM's Vested Rights Within the S-4
Area Multiple Times When Approving Reclamation Plan Amendments ........... 111
VII. REQUESTED COUNTY VESTED RIGHT DETERMINATIONS....................................... 112
A. The County Has Previously Confirmed That RRM Has Established
Vested Rights ................................................................................................................ 113

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)

Page

1. Requested Determination on Establishment of Vested Rights ................. 113

B. The Geographic Scope of RRM's Vested Rights ...................................................... 113
1. The Evidence Demonstrates Pervasive Surface Mining Activities
Across the Entire HH VRA Prior to the Establishment Date .................... 114
a. Virtually all reaches of the HH VRA had been subject to
surface mining operations prior to the Establishment Date: ....... 114
b. Numerous portions of the HH VRA were also subject to
ancillary mining activities prior to the Establishment Date: ....... 114
c. Numerous surface mining activities occurred within the
HH VRA, but Outside of the S-4 VRA, absent any land use
permits subsequent to the Establishment Date ............................. 115
2. The Evidence Demonstrates Intent to “Appropriate” the Entire
HH VRA As a Mine Site or for Mining Purposes Prior to the
Establishment Date ......................................................................................... 116
3. Requested County Determinations on Geographic Scope of the
Vested Rights of the HH VRA....................................................................... 116
a. Requested Determination: RRM’s Vested Right Includes
All Lands Mined or Hosting Ancillary Surface Mining
Activities in the HH VRA As of January 1949. .............................. 117
b. Requested Determination: RRM’s Vested Right Includes
the Entire 792-Acre HH VRA Because Those Areas Where
No Mining Had Occurred as of January 1, 1949, Were Fully
Appropriated for Surface Mining at That Time by RRM’S
Predecessors........................................................................................ 117
c. Requested Determination: RRM’s Vested Right Includes
the Entire 792.22 Acres of the HH VRA Based on the Scope
of Actual Surface Mining Disturbances in Combination
With the Intent to Fully Appropriate the Site for Surface
Mining ................................................................................................. 119
C. Requested County Determinations on the Scope and Type of Vested
Mining Activities and Operations ............................................................................. 120
1. The County Already Has Determined that the Scope of RRM's
Current Operations Do Not Constitute a Substantial Change in
Surface Mining Operations Relative to Pre-Establishment Date
Operations........................................................................................................ 121

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)

Page

D. Requested County Determinations on Non-Abandonment of the Vested

Mining Rights Attached to the HH VRA .................................................................. 121
VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 122
AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHENTICITY .................................................................................................... 123

viii
 FIGURES
Figure 1: Historic Map of Temescal Mining District………………………………………20
Figure 2: Disturbed Clay Resource………………………………………………………….100
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph/LiDAR Comparison – Clay Disturbances East…………...101
Figure 4: Aerial Photograph/LiDAR Comparison – Clay Disturbances West………….101

TABLES
Table 1: Timeline of Surface Mining Activities At and Associated With the Cajalco Tin
Mine from 1853 Until 1923……………………………………………………………………61
Table 2: Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Within the Temescal Mining District
Within or Associated with the HH VRA Prior to 1925…………………………………….66
Table 3: Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Within the HH VRA From 1925 Until the
1948.…………………………………………………………………...…………………………80
Table 4: Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Adjacent to and Interrelated With the
HH VRA From 1924 Through 1948……………………………………………………………86
Table 5: All Surface Mining Activities Conducted within the Boundaries of the HH VRA
Prior to the County's Adoption of Ordinance No. 348 in 1949...………………………….90
Table 6: Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Conducted Absent Any Surface Mining
Permits Within the HH VRA From 1949 Until 1976……………..………………………..102

APPENDICES

1. Appendix A: Title History of the HH VRA

2. Appendix B: Maps and Graphics
3. Appendix C: Historical Record
4. Appendix D: Geotechnical and LiDAR Analysis

ix
69711165v1
 DEFINED TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

DEFINED TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

NAME OR ABBREVIATION TERM OR DEFINITION
“1948 ROS” Record of Survey of the HH VRA and neighboring
mineral properties, commissioned by Harlow in 1947
and filed with the County in 1948.
“1984 Study” Harlow Hills Development: Quarry Rock and Talc
Resource Study Phase I Report (October 29, 1984).
“3M” Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, operator of a
quarry north of the HH VRA
“APN” Assessor’s Parcel Number
“ATSF” Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad
“BKS” Related corporate entities Brion Corporation, S.T. &
Koo International Corp.; and Sun-On Enterprises
“Calvert” Calvert v. County of Yuba (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 613
“County” Riverside County
“CU-1146” Condition Use Permit 1146, authorizing construction
and operation of an asphalt plant, approved by the
County in 1970.
“Exh.” Exhibit attached to RFD in Appendices A-D.
“First Amended Judgment” First Amendment to Stipulated (2004) Settlement
Agreement and Judgment Thereon, approved by the
Superior Court for Riverside County on August 28,
2013.
“Gladding” Gladding McBean and Company, a clay-mining and
ceramics manufacturing company.
“HH VRA” The Hubbs Harlow Vested Rights Area, a 792.22-acre
property located in Sections 10 and 15, T.4.S, R.6.W,
Riverside County, California and subject to this RFD.
“Hubbs Construction” Paul J. Hubbs Construction Co.
“Hubbs” Paul J. Hubbs and Lucile Hubbs, the individuals.

“Kincheloe Property” Mineral property near to the HH VRA that Harlow

sought, but failed, to purchase
“Liston” Liston Brick Company, a ceramics manufacturer with
a plant located near the HH VRA and who mined
portions of the HH VRA.

x
69711165v1
 “Livingston” Livingston Rock and Gravel Co.
“M-404” Permit M-3, No. 404, approved by the County in 1959.
“MWD” Metropolitan Water District
“Pacific Clay” Pacific Clay Products, a ceramics manufacturer who
mined clay from the HH VRA.
“Paramount” Paramount Rock Company, Inc. v. County of San Diego
(1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 217.
“Porphyry” Temescal dacite porphyry, an igneous rock formation,
correlated with significant quarrying activities based
on the rock’s strength and suitability for use in water
infrastructure projects.
“RFD” Request for Determination of Vested Rights
“RP 118” Reclamation Plan RP-118, approved by the County in
1982.
“RRM” Robertson’s Ready Mix, Ltd., operator of the HH
VRA, with Corona Cajalco Road Development
(“CCRD”) and Cajaclo Road Quarry (“CRQ”),
property owners of the HH VRA
“S-1” Reclamation Plan RCL-118S1, approved by the County
in 2013.
“S-2” Reclamation Plan RCL-118S2, approved by the County
in 2016
“S-4 VRA” 132-acre portion subject to prior vesting confirmations
by the County, as defined by the boundaries of
Reclamation Plan RCL-118S4.
“S-4” Reclamation Plan RCL-118S4, approved by the County
in 2020.
“Schultz Parcel” APN 281-220-001, a piece of property wholly
surrounded by the S-4 VRA, but which is not a part of
RRM’s RFD.
“Second Amended Second Amendment to Stipulated (2004) Settlement
Judgment” Agreement and Judgment Thereon, approved by the
Superior Court for Riverside County on July 26, 2016.
“SERA” State Emergency Relief Administration
“SMARA” Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975,
California Public Resources Code sections 2710-2796
“Sobrante” The Rancho El Sobrante de San Jacinto, a Mexican
Land Grant patented by the United States in 1867.
“Stringfellow” Stringfellow Quarry Company

xi
69711165v1
 “Tourmaline” Tin-bearing igneous rock primarily located within
Corona quartz monzonite bedrock, correlated with
occurrences of tin and tin oxides and subject of
extensive surface mining beginning in 1857.
“USGS” United States Geological Survey
“WPA” Works Progress Administration

xii
69711165v1
 INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Riverside County Ordinance 555.20, Sections 5.46.010 et seq. of the

Riverside County Code, and Section 2776 of the California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act ("SMARA") (collectively “Vested Rights Regulations”), Robertson’s
Ready Mix (“RRM”) hereby submits its Request for Determination of Vested Rights
("RFD"), seeking a determination by Riverside County (“County”) that RRM’s
previously confirmed vested right (to mine aggregate and conduct related surface
mining operations, across approximately 132 acres of RRM’s property) be confirmed to
include the remaining area of RRM’s contiguous mining property, which encompasses
approximately 792.22 total acres of land, colloquially known as the Hubbs Harlow
Quarry (“HH VRA”), inclusive of the previously confirmed 132 acre vested right area.
The geographic range of vested rights sought to be confirmed within the HH VRA is
depicted in Figure B-1.2 (“2021 HH VRA”).1

The HH VRA is located approximately one mile east of Interstate 15, adjacent to
Cajalco Road within the County and encompasses approximately 792.22 acres,
identified by the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (“APN”) in Table A-1.1, and depicted in
Figure B-2.7 (“2021 Ownership”). Through this RFD, RRM requests that the County
determine the following:

1. RRM’s previously established vested mining rights, previously confirmed by

the County on multiple occasions with respect to the 132 acres within the
RCL118S-4 area (“S-4 VRA”), apply to and encompass the entire 792.22 acres of
land within the HH VRA, as depicted in Figure B-1.2.

2. RRM’s previously established vested mining rights within the S-4 VRA to utilize
equipment as reasonable and necessary to blast, excavate, crush, wash, sort,
stockpile, load, transport and otherwise manage commercial rock products
operations be confirmed for the entire HH VRA.

3. RRM may continue surface mining operations, currently ongoing within the S-4
VRA, within the HH VRA on the basis of RRM’s confirmed vested rights and a
valid, approved, reclamation plan.

1As described in Appendix A, RRM leases the HH VRA from two entities: Corona Cajalco
Road Development LP and Corona Quarries LLC. This RFD refers to all three entities,
collectively, as “RRM.”

1
69711165v1
This application is based on the following:

 The County’s prior official determinations and findings regarding the

existence of RRM’s vested rights encompassing the S-4 VRA, (hereinafter
referred to as the S-4 VRA” and depicted in Figures B-1.2);

 Findings made by the Superior Court for the County of Riverside

corroborating and confirming the County's vested rights findings in various
legal proceedings;

 Numerous deeds and other evidence of title, records of survey, and related
documents recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County (“Official
Records”) affecting the HH VRA and surrounding property;

 Records, maps, photos, archival personal oral histories, articles, and other
documents from the State of California's mining journals, geologic surveys,
and special reports;

 Numerous archival newspaper articles , beginning as early as the 1880s and

extending across many decades, covering a large array of mining activity
within the HH VRA, along with surrounding properties which together
formed the "Temescal Mining District,"2 a large area of mineral resources
generally under a common ownership, and one of the most significant
regional mining areas in southern California during the first half of the 20th
Century; and

 Extensive on-site field reconnaissance of surface disturbances from mining

activities and corroborating Light Detection and Ranging (“LiDAR”)
mapping which together evince extensive past mining activities on the HH
VRA consistent with the descriptions of mining activities in the historical
mining journal and newspaper articles.

2The area is referred to as either the “Temescal Tin District” or “Temescal Mining District.”
Tin was what brought interest to the region in the mid-1800s. However, this RFD uses the
“Temescal Mining District” based on the number of mineral resources actually developed in
the region beginning in the late-1800s and the evolution in nomenclature away from tin.

2
69711165v1
 I. EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

RRM is requesting a County determination through this RFD that that its entire 792-
acre HH VRA is subject to vested rights.

The Legal Basis for RRM's Vested Right

1. In California, surface mining activities that occur before enactment of a law

requiring a permit to mine, become grandfathered or "vested" as legal
nonconforming uses, and are allowed to continue operating without a permit after
the vesting date.

2. Because mining is considered a "consumptive" use, a legal rule called the

"Diminishing Asset Doctrine" allows areas of the property that were not mined or
disturbed before the vesting date to also vest, if it is shown that, at the time of
vesting, there was an intent to eventually mine the entire property, or that the
entire property was considered "appropriated" as a mining site.

3. Here, the County enacted Ordinance No. 348 requiring mining permits for the first
time in 1949, so RRM must show evidence of surface mining activities, including
activities evidencing an intent to mine the entire HH VRA as of 1949.

The County's Process to Determine RRM's Vested Right

1. Per County Ordinance 555.20, Section 17, the process to confirm a vested right
requires: (1) the applicant to submit historical evidence proving the existence and
scope of the vested right, and (2) a public hearing by the lead agency to consider
and take testimony on the historical evidence, and render a decision.

2. A vested right hearing and determination focuses only on sufficiency of evidence

supporting the vested right, not the merits or impacts of the current operation. It is
not a discretionary CEQA process.

3. Through this RFD, RRM has submitted historical evidence supporting the existence
and scope of a vested right across the entire HH VRA. The next steps will be for the
County to determine the RFD application is complete, review the evidence, and
schedule and hold a public hearing. The RFD's Table of Contents is attached.

3
69711165v1
RRM's Existing Vested Right and What RRM Must Still Prove

1. The first half of RRM's burden of proof – to prove a vested right was established on
the HH VRA in 1949, and continues to exist today – has already been settled.
Multiple County actions over many decades have already determined a vested
right was established and exists today on at least 132 of the 792 acres in the HH
VRA. These prior County actions include:

a. Issuance in 1970 (post-vesting date) of permit CU 1146 for processing facilities,

that identified large areas that could continue to be mined without needing a
permit;
b. Approval in 1982 of a Reclamation Plan (RP 118), with no related mining permit,
that directly recognized vested rights within the portion of the HH VRA
covered by RP 118; and
c. Approval of three recent amendments to RP 118, in 2013, 2017 and 2020, which
confirmed vested rights on 132 of the 792 acres of the HH VRA, and also
confirmed the scope of operations and equipment currently at the site.

2. Given these prior determinations, the issue now before the County in this RFD is
limited to determining the geographic scope of existing vested rights within the HH
VRA.

The RFD Provides Evidence that Vested Rights Apply to the Entire HH VRA

RRM has met it burden to prove vested rights across the entire HH VRA through
extensive historic evidence of: (i) pre-vesting mining operations across a majority of the
HH VRA, (ii) extensive mining activities that supported operations on adjacent mine
sites held, pre-vesting, under common ownership with the HH VRA; (iii) pre-vesting
exploration and surveying activities demonstrating intent to mine or to otherwise
appropriate the entire HH VRA as a mine site; and (iv) post-vesting date mining
throughout the HH VRA absent any permits that otherwise would have been required
without a vested right. The evidence in the RFD will demonstrate the following:

1. RRM is but the latest in a succession of HH VRA owners dating back over 100 years
to the late 1880s, all of whom supported development of the mineral resources
across the entire HH VRA, and maintained the HH VRA as an active mine site;

2. From the 1880s to 1924, the HH VRA was part of a large commonly-owned, mineral
rich regional land holding, that not only supported multiple mine operations
within its boundaries, but it also functioned as a component of, and provided

4
69711165v1
 ancillary support for, mining activities such as the Cajalco Tin Mine, all within the
renowned Temescal Mining District,

3. From 1925 through vesting in 1949, after ownership of the HH VRA separated from
the larger regional land holding in 1925 into roughly its current shape, the HH VRA
owners put great effort into expanded mining operations, and exploring and
inventorying the overall mineral resource, with the idea to exploit its full mineral
resource potential, including:

a. Establishment of the Blarney Stone Quarry, and multiple smaller quarries

and borrow pits, to furnish raw materials for many large infrastructure
projects, including Cajalco Road, Cajalco Dam, and Prado Dam;

b. Development of clay mining to supply the region’s widely-recognized

ceramics industry;

c. Efforts to reopen the Cajalco Tin Mine, including to support the U.S. World
War II effort;

d. In the 1930s, the HH VRA owner authorized mineral resource studies to

verify rock products at the HH VRA were suitable for dam, canal, and
breakwater construction, including projects such as the Prado Dam, and
determined there were approximately 200 million tons of such mineral
reserves on the HH VRA;

e. In 1948, just before vesting, the HH VRA owner prepared an ambitious

Record of Survey of the entire HH VRA site and adjoining mining property,
to define and fully exploit the mineral resources at the site, spurred by failed
efforts to acquire nearby mineral lands, and rapidly expanding mining
operations.

4. All told, prior to vesting in 1949, there were 24 documented distinct mining sites,
and numerous mine haul roads throughout the HH VRA. Post-vesting, an
additional 23 mine sites were documented within the HH VRA, none of which had
permits otherwise required after 1949. Overall, almost two-thirds of the entire HH
VRA has already been disturbed or impacted by mine operations or support
activities (haul roads, etc.).

In sum, the evidence supports extending the geographic scope of vested rights across
the entire HH VRA, based on the extent of actual mining, and intent to fully
appropriate the site for mining.

5
69711165v1
 II. SUMMARY OF PRIOR VESTING DETERMINATIONS, LEGAL PRINCIPLES, AND
HISTORICAL RECORD SUPPORTING THIS RFD

A. The County’s Multiple Vesting Determinations at the HH VRA

The HH VRA has been subject to at least five (5) formal County actions that have
confirmed vested rights in connection with the various surface mining operations that
have been undertaken in the 132-acre S-4 VRA, located in the southwest corner of the
overall HH VRA. The S-4 VRA has been colloquially known as either the “Hubbs
Quarry” or sometimes the “Harlow Quarry” and the County has already issued
multiple determinations confirming that this portion of the HH VRA has vested
mining rights. The most recent County action occurred in 2020, in connection with the
County's approval of the "S-4" reclamation plan amendment encompassing the S-4
VRA, as discussed below in Section IV.J. The County’s previous actions that
confirmed vested rights include the following:

 Conditional Use Permit No. CU-1146 (“CUP 1146”) (1970);3

 Reclamation Plan No. RCL-118 ("RP 118" or“ 1982 Rec Plan”) (1982);4

 Reclamation Plan Amendment No. RCL-118-S1 (“S-1”) (2013);5

 Reclamation Plan Amendment No. RCL-118-S2 (“S-2”) (2016);6 and

 Reclamation Plan Amendment No. RCL-118-S4 ("S-4") (2020).7

In addition to these previous County actions confirming vested rights, RRM’s vested
rights have been further corroborated by two Riverside County Superior Court orders
entering judgments regarding reclamation obligations within the S-4 VRA.8

B. Key Legal Principles for Vested Rights Determinations

The historical evidence presented herein identifies a rich and varied history of surface
mining activities throughout the HH VRA across many decades leading up to the time

3 Exhibit (“Exh.”) C-1.2 (CU-1146)

4 Exh. C-1.3 (RP 118)
5 Exh. C-1.4 (S1)
6 Exh. C-1.5 (S2)
7 Exh. C-1.6 (S4)
8 See Exh. C-1.7- C-1.9 (2004 Judgment, First Amended Judgment, Second Amended Judgment).

6
69711165v1
of vesting. In weighing this evidence, the County should be guided by a number of
well-established legal principles for determining the existence and scope of vested
rights, including the following: 9

1. The County’s Authority to Determine Vested Rights

Section 2776 of SMARA provides that " 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 the provisions of 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.” Section 2776 further defines the criteria for a vested right as follows:
"A personal shall be deemed to have such vested rights if, prior to January 1, 1976,
[they have] in good faith and in reliance upon a permit or other authorization, if the
permit or other authorization was required, diligently commenced surface mining
operations and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary
therefor." These provisions are mirrored in County Ordinance 555.20, Section 17.

Based on this, a SMARA-based vested right can be established by means of surface

mining operations conducted as a legal “non-conforming” use on or prior to the date of
the enactment of the ordinance.

2. The Establishment Date for Vested Rights

The date that a regulation is enacted that renders a prior lawful use unlawful, thereby
creating a non-conforming use or vested right is referred to as the "Establishment
Date." SMARA was enacted in 1976, thereby creating an Establishment Date of 1976 for
many vested rights across the state. However, some local agencies enacted ordinances
prior to SMARA that required mining permits at an earlier time, thereby creating
earlier Establishment Dates. Riverside County adopted Ordinance No. 348 in 1948,
effective January 1, 1949 requiring mining permits, thereby created an Establishment
Date of 1949. The County has previously confirmed, on multiple occasions, that the
Establishment Date is 1949, based on the Ordinance No. 348 (see discussion of S-1, S-2,
and S-4, at Section III, infra). Thus the County will need to evaluate historical evidence
of mining prior and up to January 1, 1949 to evaluate the scope of the vested right on
the HH VRA.

9 These Legal Standards are discussed in greater detail below, in Section II of this RFD.

7
69711165v1
 3. The Diminishing Asset Doctrine

The general rule in California is that a legal, non-conforming use may continue in its
current footprint, but may not be expanded. The "Diminishing Asset" Doctrine is an
exception to that rule, recognizing that mining is a consumptive use, and that mining
operators cannot mine the entire site at once, and thus have the right to expand
operations to mine additional areas after the operation becomes vested.

4. Objective Manifestations of Intent and Appropriated Mining Site

In order to determine how much of the site that was unmined prior to the
Establishment Date can be mined pursuant to the “Diminishing Asset Doctrine”
subsequent to the Establishment Date, a mine operator must demonstrate through
“objective manifestations of intent” the full extent of the previously un-mined area that
was intended to be mined at the time that the operation became vested. Moreover, if it
can be shown that the entire tract or parcel was used for mining and mining related
purposes, regardless of whether some areas remain unused or open space, the vested
right will extend to the entirety of the property which is deemed "appropriated for
mining."

5. Objective Manifestations of Intent Consider the Whole Operation

Including Ancillary Uses Such as Prospecting, Stockpiling, and Haul
Roads

In evaluating the existence of objective manifestations of intent, a vested right to mine

and conduct related activities may be applied to all lands previously used in incidental
or ancillary ways connected with mining operations, and specifically where the land
previously was used for prospecting, stockpiling, and haul roads in support of other
mining activities. Similarly, a vested right in the surface mining context includes all
activities that were part of the historical overall business operation at the site prior to it
becoming a non-conforming use.

6. Relevance of Activities Prior to the Establishment Date (Look Back)

In evaluating the nature and scope of surface mining activities on a parcel prior to the
Establishment Date, California courts have held that such evaluation is not limited
only to the activities occurring at, or immediately before, the Establishment Date.
Rather, the evaluation is required to encompass (or “look back” at) the full scope of
relevant mining activities that occurred at the site prior to the Establishment Date.

8
69711165v1
 7. The County’s Prior Actions Confirming Vested Rights Limit the Scope
of Issues to Consider in the Current RFD.

The above principles provide essential guidance for determining the existence and
scope of a vested right. Other principles and doctrines also must be evaluated in most
instances, including assessment of whether the current vested operation constitutes a
substantial change to the use vested at the Establishment Date, or whether the vested
right has been abandoned over time. However, because of the unique circumstances
related to the HH VRA, namely that a significant portion of the area (the S-4 VRA) has
been determined to be vested on no less than five occasions, as recently as 2020, and for
the same use that is being considered for the HH VRA, those principles warrant little if
any consideration in this RFD.

C. The Scope of the Requested Determination

This RFD requests the County confirm that already-established vested mining rights
on a portion of the HH VRA (i.e., the S-4 VRA) apply to the remainder of the 792.22-
acre HH VRA. To confirm the full scope of the existing vested rights, the historical
evidence presented herein will demonstrate the following occurred prior to the 1949
Establishment Date for vested rights within the County:

1. Extensive surface mining activities involving multiple operations beginning

after the HH VRA was created in 1925, and continuing through 1948.

2. Surface mining activities across the HH VRA supporting various mining

operations within the Temescal Mining District (discussed below in Section
II.G, infra) located directly adjacent to, surrounding, and connected through the
792.22-acre HH VRA, undertaken when the HH VRA and such adjacent lands
were within common ownership by RRM's predecessors up until 1925,
demonstrating a regional-scale network of operations, including mining tin,
silica, clay, aggregate, as well as copper prospecting and mineral exploration.
These combined surface mining activities demonstrate not only extensive
surface mining throughout the HH VRA, but also a clear intent that the entire
HH VRA, which functioned as part of a larger mining district rich in mineral
resources that were of strategic importance and high economic value
throughout the region, was fully appropriated for mining uses as of 1949.

3. Multiple efforts prior to 1949 to explore, survey, and inventory the entire HH
VRA for potential mining opportunities documented on multiple occasions,
establishing objective manifestations of intent by RRM's predecessors to
eventually mine the entire HH VRA.

9
69711165v1
D. Evidence Supporting the Requested Determination

1. Pre-Establishment Date Mining Activities and Exploration/Surveying

Within the HH VRA Between 1925 and 1948 Confirm the Entire HH
VRA Was Exclusively Dedicated to Mining

In its early history (approximately 1853-1925) the HH VRA fit within a mosaic of
commonly-owned mining properties located south of Corona, in an area historically
known as the Temescal Mining District (discussed in detail in Section V.A, infra),
which was a hub for tin, clay, rock, sand, and gravel operations . Beginning in the
1920s, through the lead-up to World War II, both the State of California and the United
States government, considered the area to be of strategic mineral importance and a
potential domestic source of glass, tin, and aluminum, and a key source of stone for
southern California’s multiple water improvement and flood protection projects.10

This increasing notoriety (see Sections V.A and B, infra) made the Temescal Mining
District an attractive prospect for land developers, which led E.E. Peacock, a Corona-
based land developer, in 1925 to acquire land that essentially became the present-day,
HH VRA, as depicted in Figure B-2.3 (“1925 Ownership”).11 Peacock’s ownership
consisted of the majority of Section 15 and the south half of Section 10.12 Before his
death in the early 1930s, Peacock would give away essentially value-less pieces of the
HH VRA, subject to mineral reservations, with sales of an encyclopedia.13 Peacock’s

See Exh. C-2.13 at pp. 86, 505-520 (describing the economic and strategic minerals of the
10

Temescal Mining District); see also Exh. C-2.13 at p. 281

11Vested rights are property rights that “run with the land” across multiple ownership
transfers. See HH VRA title summary attached to this RFD as Appendix A.
12Note that neighboring portions of the property, including a small portion the SW ¼ of Sec. 15
directly adjacent to the S-4 VRA, are not a part of this RFD. These parcels were acquired by
third parties in the early 1900s and owned by Corona Silica Company from February 1925, and
used for silica sand mining and processing. The parcels were acquired by RRM’s predecessor
Leilamae Harlow in 1971, and sold upon disposition of her estate in 1979 to Gerhart L. Schultz
et al. in 1979. This property now exists as APN 281-220-001 (“Schultz Parcel”), identified as
“Not a Part,” in the graphics supporting this RFD. Consequently, references herein to the HH
VRA as encompassing all of Section 15 do not include the Schultz Parcel
13These parcels were of limited value and essentially undevelopable because (1) their size, of
approximately 50 feet by 30 feet meant nothing could be built on them; (2) the parcels were
landlocked and sprinkled sporadically throughout the HH VRA; and (3) most importantly,
Peacock consistently and universally reserved all minerals and related mining rights essential
for surface mining activities, from every single parcel he conveyed as part of an encyclopedia

10
69711165v1
mineral reservations maintained the mining character of the HH VRA and allowed
RRM’s predecessors to consistently dedicate the HH VRA to mining purposes.

Following Peacock’s death in the early 1930s, F.M. Kuhry, an individual to whom
Peacock was indebted, acquired the HH VRA, and then entered into a joint tenancy
with Leilamae Harlow, with whom he would devote and develop the HH VRA for
surface mining over the next twenty years, as described in Sections II.D and V, infra.14

Peacock’s purchase of the HH VRA transformed the activities on the property from
primarily supporting operations on adjoining (but commonly owned) lands (through
haul roads, smaller excavations, etc.) to rapidly expanded mining operations on the
HH VRA as a now distinct mining property.

a. Surface Mining Activities: 1925-1948

Surface mining activities from 1925 until the time of vesting on January 1, 1949
included the following:

i. Around 1927, a rock quarry was established along the west side of
the HH VRA,15 as depicted in Figures B-3.2 (depicting the quarry
within the overall HH VRA) and B-4.2 (depicting the quarry in a
close-up aerial photograph), which provided building and paving
stone to southern California markets and railroad ballast to the
Atchison, Topeka , & Santa Fe (“ATSF”) Railroad. In 1927 alone,
the quarry produced enough material to supply approximately
5,000 yards of railroad track.16

ii. In 1931, Pacific Clay Products established the Cajalco Clay Pit
within the HH VRA, partially in and outside of the S-4 Area, as
depicted in Figures B-3.2 (depicting the pit within the overall HH

sale, declaring his intent to reserve “the oil and mineral rights.” See, Exh. A-11. This mineral
reservation is universal across all deeds conveyed by Peacock between 1925 and 1923.
14 See Appendix A, see also Exhibit A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, and A-16.
15This rock quarry produced primarily Temescal porphyry, a rock type known for strength
and in high demand for infrastructure projects through southern California. See Exh. C-2.12
(Paul H. Dudley, “Geology of the Perris Block,” REPORT OF THE STATE MINERALOGIST, Vol. 31
(1935)) at p. 497
16See Exh. C-3.42 (“Santa Fe Finishes Rip-Rap Quarrying”, CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT, May
11, 1927); see also Exh. C-2.4 at p. 1028 (describing early quarrying of rock within HH VRA for
ATSF railroad, “probably for track ballast.”).

11
69711165v1
 VRA) and B-4.9 (depicting the pit in a close-up aerial photograph);
one of several regional clay pits that supplied ceramic factories in
Corona and the Elsinore-Alberhill area.17

iii. During the 1930s, clay beds within the HH VRA were prospected
and sampled to determine the viability of developing a domestic
aluminum resource based on high-levels of bauxite and aluminum
in the region’s clay beds, as depicted in Figures B-3.2 (depicting
clay activity within the overall HH VRA) and B-4.10 (depicting
activity related to the clay and other strategic minerals in a close-
up aerial photograph).18

iv. Beginning in approximately 1932, the HH VRA contributed

material (e.g., porphyry, gravel, etc.) to multiple Depression-era
public works projects, including the construction of Cajalco Road
and Cajalco Dam, through multiple small-scale aggregate pits
providing local rock, sand, and gravel. These borrow pits,
depicted in Figures B-3.2 (depicting these borrow pits within the
overall HH VRA) and B-4.14 (depicting these borrow pits in a
close-up aerial photograph), were located within the HH VRA,
but, importantly, outside of the S-4 Area, and were established by
the work relief programs responsible for the infrastructure projects
(e.g., Works Progress Administration).19

17Exh. C-2.3 (C.H. Gray, “Geology of the Corona South Triangle,” Bulletin No. 178, California
Division of Mines (1961)) at p. 110; Exh. C-2.4 (C.H. Gray et al., “Mines and Mineral Resources
of Riverside County, California,” California Division of Mines and Geology, preliminary
manuscript (1961)) at p. 78; see also Exh. C-2.1 (Waldemar Feen Dietrich, “The Clay Resources
and Ceramic Industry of California,” Bulletin No. 99, California State Mining Bureau (1928)),
pp. 162, 183.
18See Exh. C-2.22 (“Californian Clays Require Special Treatment to Meet Metallurgical
Demands”) (describing occurrence of bauxite within the confines of the Sobrante, in Section 26,
south of the HH VRA); see also Exh. C-2.12; C-2.13 (evaluating strategic minerals, including
high-aluminum content clay).
See Exh. C-2.4 (describing rock, sand and gravel borrow pits); see also Exh. C-3.60 (“Success in
19

Bond Election Means Much to Corona,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (September 30, 1931) at
pp. 1, 4 (describing material needs for construction of Cajalco Dam).

12
69711165v1
 v. In 1938, Kuhry and Harlow leased a portion of the HH VRA to
Henry F. Charles,20 who subleased the property to Blarney Stone
Inc., a company partially-owned by the Pantages theatre-magnate
family, who significantly expanded the existing porphyry quarry
previously used to supply railroad track ballast into the Blarney
Stone Quarry (later known as the Hubbs Harlow Quarry),21 as
depicted in Figures B-3.2 (depicting Blarney Stone within the
overall HH VRA) and B-4.11 (depicting Blarney Stone in a close-
up aerial photograph).

vi. Between 1938 and 1941, the Blarney Stone Quarry and other areas
outside the S-4 VRA were mined to provide Temescal porphyry
and alluvial gravel for construction of the Prado Dam, as depicted
in Figures B-3.2 (depicting these operations within the HH VRA),
B-4.13, and B-4.14 (both depicting the operations in close-up aerial
photographs).22

b. Activities Demonstrating Intent to Mine the Entire HH VRA:

1925-1948

Beyond just the mine operations, the HH VRA owners also engaged in activities such
as exploration and surveying that manifested their intent to mine or otherwise
appropriate the entire HH VRA for mining purposes, including the following:

20 Leilamae Harlow, one of the most important figures regarding development of the HH VRA,
first acquired the property in 1932, with F.M. Kuhry. Harlow would own the property for 40
years and was instrumental in developing it as a mining property, as described in detail in
Sections IV.C, and IV.F, infra.
21The Blarney Stone Quarry is alternatively known as the Hubbs Harlow Quarry. See Exh. C-
2.5.
22Exh. C-3.70 (“Paving Stone Company Opens Plant Near City,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT
(Nov. 28, 1938); Exh. C-3.75 (“Blarneystone Rock Goes to Prado Dam,” CORONA DAILY
INDEPENDENT (December 14, 1939)); Exh. C-3.77 (“Stones Picked Up On Prado Dam” CORONA
DAILY INDEPENDENT (May 15, 1940)); Exh. C-3.85 (“Story of the Carl Bliss Batch Plant,”
CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (December 20, 1939); see also Exh. C-2.20 (“Historic American
Engineering Record No. 178, Prado Dam,” pp. 58-67 (describing materials used in construction
of Prado Dam); see also Exh. D-1.1 (describing an “elongate area extend[ing] along hillsides
flanking an east-west orientated drainage” with “disturbances associated with … gravel and
aggregate mining.”) and Exh. D 1.1; see also Figure B-6.5.

13
69711165v1
 i. Concurrent with the development of the Blarney Stone Quarry
(beginning in about 1938), operators of the HH VRA sought to
determine the scope and suitability of resources for use in dam
and canal construction, to ensure that the quarry could sell
materials to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and resulted in a
determination that there were approximately 200 million tons of
such reserves suitable for use in water infrastructure (e,g,., dam,
canals, and breakwaters, etc.).23 This effort demonstrates that both
Harlow and operators of the HH VRA understood the extent of
rock, sand and gravel reserves available within the HH VRA.

ii. In 1948, right before the Establishment Date, a record of survey

was prepared that confirms the owners of the HH VRA had fully
appropriated the property for mining. As context, in 1946, HH
VRA owners Kuhry and Harlow entered into a purchase
agreement with James and Jakie Kincheloe, for land west of the
HH VRA, as depicted in Figures B-5.10 (“Kincheloe Property”).24
The Kincheloe Property was known to contain both clay and silica
sand deposits, similar to the minerals already being commercially
mined along the western edge of the HH VRA (primarily by the
Owens-Illinois Glass Co., located between the HH VRA and
Kincheloe Property).25 Kuhry and Harlow never acquired the
property, were sued in 1946 for their failure to do so, and settled
the case in 1947 in a manner that left them without mineral
property to develop other than the HH VRA. In response, Harlow
commissioned the record of survey in 1947, completed and
recorded in 1948 (“1948 ROS”), which identified the clear
boundaries of the HH VRA, and its neighboring mineral
development properties (including, the Owens-Illinois Glass Co.
silica sand operation, with which Kuhry and Harlow would have
sought to compete had they acquired the Kincheloe Property). The
1948 ROS effectively provided Kuhry and Harlow clarity to

23Exh. C-3.69 (“Dodge Party Views Rock Quarries,” Los Angeles Daily News (September 28,
1938); see also Exh. C-2.4 (describing analysis of HH VRA materials conducted by U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Laboratory in 1939).
Exh. C 4.3; see also Exh. C-2.3 at p. 101 (describing Coronita Ranch Sand Deposit associated
24

with Kincheloe Property); p. 103 (describing Jones (Hoag Ranch) Sand Deposit associated with
Kincheloe Property); Exh. C-2.4, at p. 118 (describing Jones (Hoag Ranch) Clay Deposit).
25 Exh. C. 4.3.

14
69711165v1
 understand their mineral assets and thus is important in
understanding their intent to fully appropriate the HH VRA by
defining the boundaries within which surface mining operations
and ancillary surface mining activities could be conducted.26

As presented above, prior to 1949, there were at least 39 distinct surface mining
activities across the 792 acre HH VRA, including 24 documented distinct mining sites,
as well as extensive exploration, mineral inventorying, and surveying that occurred
across the HH VRA.27 Collectively, this evidence supports the determination of an
intent to appropriate the entire HH VRA as a mine site. This evidence is discussed in
greater detail in the main body of this RFD, at Section V.C, infra, and as depicted on
Figures B-3.1 (depicting surface mining activities within the HH VRA before 1925), B-
3.2 (depicting surface mining activities within the HH VRA 1925-1949), and B-3.3
(depicting a composite of all surface mining activities until 1949).

Although this evidence alone is sufficient to establish a vested right to the entire HH
VRA, additional pre-1949 evidence presented below at Section V.D, further supports
this determination, by demonstrating how surface mining activities on the HH VRA
supported and were interconnected with an even larger scope of surface mining
operations occurring on adjacent properties within the Temescal Mining District.

2. Post-Establishment Date, Pre-SMARA (1949-1976) Surface Mining

Activities Within the HH VRA Without Permits Corroborate the Vested
Right

Surface mining activities continued apace post Establishment Date, absent the now-
required use permits, demonstrating Harlow’s continued exercise of the vested rights
at the HH VRA, and include:

a. Beginning in the 1950s, Harlow allowed several local mining

operators, ceramics manufacturers, and independent trucking
companies to access and conduct mine operations within the HH
VRA, all without use permits.28

b. Two such operators – Stringfellow Quarry Company

(“Stringfellow”) and Livingston Rock and Gravel Co.
(“Livingston”) – merged to form Corona Quarries Inc., which

26 Figure B-5.10, B-5.11

27 Exh. D-1.1; see also “Declaration of Sage Thurmond) ¶ 7.
28 See Exh. C-3.117 (“Rock Truck Complaints,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (August 7, 1958)).

15
69711165v1
 would operate surface mining operations within the HH VRA for
nearly a decade, again without use permits, including continued
development of the Hubbs Harlow Quarry, as depicted in Figures
B-3.8 (depicting operations within the overall HH VRA), B-4.15, B-
4.17, and B-4.18 (all depicting the operations in close-up aerial
photos).29

c. During the 1950s and 1960s, multiple additional clay pits and
exploratory cuts were developed and operated without County
mining permits within the HH VRA, primarily in areas north of
the stone quarry, as depicted in Figures B-3.8 (depicting clay
mining activities within the overall HH VRA), B-4.15, B-4.16, B-
4.17, B-4.18, and B-4.29 (all depicting clay mining activities in
close-up aerial photos). These clay operations were developed and
mined without County-issued permits, primarily by ceramics
producers whose factories were located on the west side of
Temescal Wash, including the Liston Brick Co., and Gladding, as
depicted in Figures B-7.3.1 and 7.3.2 (depicting the multiple
mining operations in the area as of 1959). The clay pits were
located within the HH VRA, and primarily outside the S-4 Area.30
These surface mining operations were occurring post-
Establishment Date, absent use permits, and outside the S-4 VRA
are compelling evidence that the scope of the vested right
extended beyond the S-4 VRA and into the remainder of the HH
VRA.

d. In the mid-1960s, Paul Hubbs, then a junior partner in Corona

Quarries, Inc., took full control of that company and eventually
transformed it into Paul Hubbs Construction Co. (“Hubbs
Construction”), which operated surface mining operations within
the HH VRA from 1968, while the property was owned by
Harlow.31 In 1970s, Hubbs submitted the application for CUP 1146,
which as referenced above, authorized construction and operation

29 Exh. C-3.120 (“Trucker Sues Corona Firm,” Corona Daily Independent (April 15, 1965)).
30 Exch. C-2.3 at pp. ; see also Figure B-6.
Exh. C-3.130 (“Certificate of Discontinuance of Use and/or Abandonment of Fictitious
31

Name,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (September 19, 1968)).

16
69711165v1
 of an asphalt plant within the HH VRA, while defining a much
larger, unpermitted mining area subject to a vested right.

Following Harlow’s death in December 1972, and the protracted

resolution of her estate, described in Appendix A, Paul J. Hubbs
and Lucille Hubbs (“Hubbs”) purchased the HH VRA on
December 28, 1979 and continued ongoing surface mining
operations throughout the HH VRA.32

3. Post-SMARA to Present (1976-2021) Surface Mining Activities Within

the HH VRA Demonstrate Ongoing Operations and Continuing Intent
to Appropriate the Site for Mining

Following California’s enactment of SMARA in 1976, surface mining activities

continued within the HH VRA under the vested rights established in 1949. Soon
thereafter, Riverside County recognized the existence of these vested rights with the
approval of Reclamation Plan 118, in 1982.33 The County went on to make several other
vested rights determinations in relation to the S-4 VRA. From 1976 to the present, the
following surface mining activities and vested rights confirmations occurred:

a. Hubbs Construction, first as lessee, and later as owner continued

quarry and clay pit operations within the HH VRA, as depicted in
Figures B-7.4.1 and B-7.4.2 (photographs of heavily disturbed clay
and quarry areas). Following Harlow’s death in 1972, Hubbs,
proprietor of Harlow’s lessee Hubbs Construction, acquired the
HH VRA in 1979.34 Hubbs would operate the property until the
early 2000s,35 at which point he sold it to Temescal Cliffs, LLC.
Temescal Cliffs promptly went bankrupt and during bankruptcy,
current owner (and RRM’s lessor) Cajalco Road Quarry (“CRQ”)
acquired it in 2011. The surface mining activities described below

32 See Appendix A.
33Under SMARA, vested surface mining operations do not require a use permit, but do require
a reclamation plan.
34While Harlow died in 1972, disposition of her estate took several years. There were thus
several successive owners of the HH VRA upon her death; however, Hubbs continuously
operated the longstanding mining activities (i.e., quarry) within the HH VRA during this
period, until he acquired full ownership in 1979. A full discussion regarding the ownership
succession can be found in Appendix A.
35in 1983, Hubbs conveyed a portion of the HH VRA, which was reacquired by an RRM-
affiliate in 2007. The full details of this title history are provided in Appendix A.

17
69711165v1
 continued after the Hubbs’ acquisition of the property, and were
continuous through successive owners, including RRM.

b. In 1982, the County approved RP 118 for operations within the S-4
VRA portion of the HH VRA. The approved language in the 1982
Rec Plan states: "Based on existing rules and regulations, the
operations have a vested right of operations since 1976."36

c. In 2003, the County sued Hubbs alleging violations of RP 118

resulting in a 2004 settlement to remediate certain site conditions
while also reflecting intent to continue surface mining at the site.37
This settlement also caused the sale of the HH VRA described
above.

d. Following RRM acquisition of the Hubbs quarry site in 2011, RRM

and the County discussed remediation of the mining areas within
the S-4 VRA to resolve dangerous site conditions unresolved from
the 2004 settlement, resulting in an amended settlement in 2013,
later adopted and ratified by the Superior Court in a judgment and
order thereon, which confirmed vested rights within the S-4 VRA,
based on the prior County actions confirming vested rights,
including approvals of CUP 1146 and RP 118. The terms of the
court order were further memorialized by the County when it
approved S-1, which included express findings of vested rights
within the S-1 reclamation boundary, consistent with the Court’s
judgment and order.38

e. A second amended settlement was adopted by the Superior Court

through another judgment and order issued in 2016, and further
reflected in the County's S-2 amendment of RP 118 approved in
2017, which again included additional vested right findings
related to the geographic and operational scope of vested rights
with the S-4 VRA.39

36 Exh. C-1.3
37 Exh. C-1.7
38 Exh. C-1.8
39 Exh. C-1.9

18
69711165v1
 f. In 2020, the County approved S-4 as a third amendment to RP 118,
again adopting additional vested rights findings in connection
with the S-4 VRA, and clarifying the need for a public review
process at such time as RRM sought to further confirm the scope
of the HH VRA outside the boundaries of the S-4 VRA. 40

4. Pre-1949 Mineral Activities on the HH VRA that Supported Adjacent

Operations Within the Larger Temescal Mining District Further
Confirm the HH VRA Was Fully Appropriated for Mining

As noted above, prior to the 1949 Establishment Date, the HH VRA not only
accommodated multiple surface mining operations directly within its boundaries, but
it also functioned as a component of, and provided ancillary support for, mining
activities within the much larger Temescal Mining District, much of which was under
common ownership. This section discusses how these regional mining activities
reinforce the vested right within the HH VRA.

a. Prior to Peacock’s Purchase of the HH VRA in 1925, it was Part

of a Single, Large Property Holding Within the Temescal Mining
District

The HH VRA was originally part of the enormous Mexican land grant, known as the
Rancho El Sobrante de San Jacinto (“Sobrante”), which encompassed a significant
portion of the mineral rich Temescal Valley and its surrounding hills, in the range of
about 64,000 acres.41 From 1867 until the 1920s, the entire Sobrante was owned as a
single piece of property by RRM’s predecessors. Large areas within the Sobrante were
dedicated to various uses, including land development, agriculture, and mining.42 Not
surprisingly, the HH VRA is located within the area dedicated to mineral resource

40 Exh. C-1.6
41The United States Patent was issued for “11 leagues,” an area of approximately 64,000 acres.
See Exh. A-1; see also Exh. 4.1.
42See, e.g., Exh. C-3.6 (“Corona, The Crown of the Valley,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (July
5, 1907) (detailing the “mineral resources” of the Temescal Mining District as “practically
untouched” and describing known cement rock, silica sand, and porphyry resources); Exh. C-
3.8 (Sunset: The Magazine of the Pacific and of All The Far West, Vol. 26 (Jan.-June 1911) (“The
[Sobrante] includes … immense mineral resources, quarries, and mines”); Exh. C-3.9 (“Sale of
43,000 Acres in Riverside County,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (Jan. 26, 1911) (“The
mountainous portion of the [Sobrante] is rich in mineral resources and also includes stone
quarries of great value and immense gravel deposits”).

19
69711165v1
development.43 An early map, reproduced below, produced by the Sobrante owners
identifies the HH VRA as within the Temescal Mining District, and overlaying known
mineral resources of porphyry and granite (note: see Figure B.5.5.1 for the location of
the HH VRA relative to this map and Figure 5.5.2 for an understanding of the regional
mineral operations within the Temescal Mining District).44

Figure 1 – Map of Temescal Mining (Tin) District: 1890

Common ownership of such a regional-scale mineral resources area facilitated

development of mineral resource operations across broader areas that are today
separated into multiple, distinct legal parcels or tracts owned by different entities, but
historically operated as a single “site,” owned by a single entity. The HH VRA thus
functioned, at that time, in a manner that often supported mining activities occurring
on what are now neighboring mining sties.45 These support activities included
establishing mining haul roads (which constitute surface mining activities) as a
transportation conduit between areas on either side of the HH VRA.

43As described in detail below, the specific mineral resources RRM’s predecessors developed
included (i) porphyry rock; (ii) multiple varieties of fire clay (including high-aluminum content
clay); (iii) granite; (iv) tourmaline and associated tin oxides; (v) copper prospects; and (Vi)
other high quality rock varieties. See Exh. C 3.6; see also Exh. 2.21 (describing geology of
Temescal Tin District); Exh. 2.8 (describing geology and mineral resources of Temescal Mining
District).
44 Exh. 2.21.2.

20
69711165v1
Viewed in that context, it is not surprising that the 132-acre S-4 VRA is only one of
many vested mining properties or operations surrounding and within the HH VRA,
originally within the historic Temescal Mining District, as depicted in Figure B-5.7.46
Thus, confirming RRM’s vested rights across the HH VRA can be viewed more like
filling in a gap between present-day vested areas, all of which were part of the historic
Temescal Mining District, and all of which the County has previously confirmed as
vested mining sites. A summary of the pre-Establishment Date activities occurring
across the larger Temescal Mining District are described below.

b. 1880s – 1925: Regional Mining Operations Within the Temescal

Mining District That Occurred Directly On the Future HH VRA

Surface mining operations that occurred directly within the HH VRA that supported
larger operations within the Temescal Mining District included:

i. Tin Mining and Prospecting: As discussed n Section V.B.1,

infra, beginning in the 1880s, extensive tin mining
operations occurred just to the northeast of the HH VRA.
However, some exploration, prospecting, and hand mining
also occurred in the northeast corner of the HH VRA, as
depicted in Figure B-3.4 (depicting the HH VRA’s
interaction with regional mining operations), and Figures
B-3.1, 3.3, and 4.6.1, 4.6.2, and 4.6.1 (depicting the
disturbances within the HH VRA) and Figures B-6.1 and
6.2 (depicting LiDAR images and aerial photographs of the
disturbances). These efforts resulted in surface mining
disturbances for tin (found in the tin-bearing tourmaline
surface veins and outcroppings). These surface disturbances
were in conjunction with exploration and developed across
approximately fifty veins within the Temescal Mining
District.47

ii. Borrow Pits: Between 1917 and 1923, multiple borrow pits,
located within the HH VRA, but outside the S-4 Area, were
established to provide material necessary to maintain and
improve the interior haul road connecting the adjacent
Cajalco Tin Mine to destinations across and on the other

46 See discussion in Section V.D.1, infra.

47 Exh. C-2.6, at p. 506.

21
69711165v1
 side of the HH VRA, as depicted in Figures B-3.1 and B-
4.5.48

iii. Clay Pit Mining: In the early 1900s, clay pit mining to the
west and south of the HH VRA, including within the
southwestern corner of the Sobrante, as depicted in Figure
B-3.4, provided a source of fire clays to the region’s
multiple ceramics manufacturers.49 These pits used a mine
haul road through the HH VRA to reach the ATSF Railroad
tracks, until that Railroad completed a spur line in the late
1920s.50 Like the tin mine haul road, this clay mine haul
road used the HH VRA as an access point to move mined
materials to market.

iv. Porphyry Rock Quarry: Beginning around 1911, a porphyry

rock quarry was established within the HH VRA, along the
east side of Temescal Wash (on the western edge of the HH
VRA), as depicted in Figure B-3.1. This quarry would be
expanded by 50% in the late 1920s under Peacock’s
ownership to provide railroad track ballast, described in
Section D.1.a, supra.

c. 1880s – 1925: Regional Mining Operations Within the Temescal

Mining District Proximate to, But Supported by, Activities in the
Future HH VRA

Surface mining activities on the HH VRA that supported regional mining operations
on adjacent or surrounding lands, all under common ownership of the Sobrante
owners, and all within the Temescal Mining District, included:

i. Adjacent Tin Mining Supported by HH VRA Haul Road:

The Temescal Mining District accommodated the only tin
mine with any significant production in the United States,
known as the Cajalco Tin Mine, which was primarily
located immediately adjacent to, and northeast of, the HH

48 Exhs. C-3.18, 3.23, 3.27 (describing restoration work of tin mine haul road).
49 Exh. C-3.15 (“Santa Fe Considering Temecula Canyon Road”)
50Exh. C-3.36 (“Corona Santa Fe Asks to Lease Proposed Railway,” Corona Courier (May 14,
1926) (describing proposed construction of 14.6 mile railroad along Temescal Wash connecting
Alberhill with ATSF’s then end-of-the-line at Porphyry/Cajalco Canyon)

22
69711165v1
 VRA (although, as discussed above, a portion of the mined
area extended onto the northeast corner of the HH VRA).
Surface excavations, exploration, smelting, and production
occurred during periods of high tin demand, including
1891-1892 and 1917-1923. In 1927, work around the Cajalco
Tin Mine was restarted, with significant restoration work of
the existing infrastructure. Work was halted in 1929 because
of the Great Depression.51 From approximately 1940
through 1946, work at the Cajalco Tine Mine restarted yet
again to assist the United States war effort, with an area of
six square miles centered around Cajalco Hill surveyed,
examined, and excavated to determine the viability of
developing domestic tin production, as depicted in Figures
B-3.4, B-3.5, B-5.7, and B-5.8.52

A critical mining haul road was constructed across the HH

VRA to transport refined ore and produced tin bars (which
were displayed in exhibitions as far afield as San Francisco
and Paris) to the ATSF siding located at the mouth of
Cajalco Canyon, near the northwest corner of the HH VRA
(i.e., on the other side of the HH VRA from the tin mine).53

ii. Regional Mining Agreement: In the 1910s, to further exploit

their land and mineral resources, the Sobrante owners
entered into an agreement with a group of investors,
including preeminent banker and former Corona mayor,
E.J. Genereaux (‘SJL Agreement”), further demonstrating
early intent to dedicate its land within the Temescal Mining
District, including the HH VRA, to mining activity

51Exh. C-2.16 (briefly describing the periods of tin mine production and restoration); Exh. C-
2.14 (stating that, as of 1941, work at the tin mine was halted in 1929); see also Exh. C-3.45
(“Community Chatter,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (Feb. 7, 1928) (stating that “day and
night shifts are being operated at the tin mine,” just prior to onset of Great Depression).
52Exh. C-2.16 (describing work done at tin mine to assist war effort); see also Exh. C-2.13, pp.
290-291 (describing Cajalco Tin Mine’s strategic value).
53See Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 554-558 (finding that haul roads constitute “surface mining
activities,” and relying on cases finding that haul roads and access roads must be considered in
determining whether a property has been appropriated for mining)

23
69711165v1
 (including advertising that same land for mineral
development).54

iii. Adjacent Silica Operations: Adjacent to the western edge of

the HH VRA lay the P.J. Weisel (later, the Owens-Illinois)
silica sand surface mining operation, which beginning in
the early 1920s, established silica sand mining along
Temescal Wash, bordering the HH VRA. As production
(and pits) expanded, the P.J. Weisel Facility became the
single largest producer of glass-grade silica sand in
California. In 1945, P.J. Weisel sold the operation to the
Owens-Illinois Glass Co., which continued to expand
production and facilities on the site, including construction
of linkages between the sand silica operation and the HH
VRA, as depicted in Figures B-3.6 and B-4.8, 4.14, and B-
4.20, which show the interaction between the silica sand
plant and the HH VRA.

Figure B-3.6 depicts the overall regional mining

encompassing the silica sand facilities, connected via the
Tin Mine Haul Road through the HH VRA to the tin mine,
which provided the sand silica operation with materials
(primarily decomposed rock and tin oxides) from the tin
mine for use in manufacturing silica glass products
(particularly during World War II), and allowed the Weisel
operation access to haul roads accessing the ATSF Railroad,
thereby increasing the output of silica sand to market.55

d. A Network of Mining Haul Roads Through the HH VRA Connected

the Temescal Mining District as a Regional Mining Resources

i. The network of private mining haul roads in the Temescal

Mining District, including multiple haul roads across the
HH VRA, identified in Figures B-3.7 and 3.8, provided
access to the Corona-Elsinore Highway, as well as the ATSF
Railroad, thus allowing the mining operations to supply

54Exh. C-3.18 (describing the agreement, and multiple mining operations anticipated
throughout the property and stating Genereux “had spent half a day in the [Temescal] mineral
district and stated … he was able to trace the tin ore outcroppings” for five miles).
55 The development of these facilities is discussed in detail in Section V.D.2, infra.

24
69711165v1
 both (1) local manufacturing operations along the Temescal
Wash (on the western edge of the HH VRA]), such as the
P.J. Weisel, Liston Brick Co., and Gladding, McBean and
Company (“Gladding”) ceramics plants, and (2) export
throughout southern California. These haul roads helped
establish the HH VRA and the adjacent operations as a
central mining area, one that Peacock, and later Harlow,
would utilize to develop the HH VRA into a singular
mining property.

E. The Historical Evidence Supports Findings of Vested Rights Across the Entire
792-Acre HH VRA

Based on the cumulated evidence above, and applying the legal standards discussed in
Section II, infra, there is a preponderance of evidence to support the following
conclusions and findings:

1. Prior to vesting in 1949, there were 24 documented distinct mining sites,

and numerous mine haul roads throughout the HH VRA, for a total of at
least 39 distinct surface mining activities that occurred within the HH
VRA, as depicted in Figure B-3.3.56 The activities included surface mining
activities associated with tin mining, clay mining, and rock, sand, and
gravel mining.

2. There were also dozens of pre-1925 regional surface mining operations

that originated from the Sobrante owners' broader, regional mining
development, as depicted in Figure B-3.6.

3. Following vesting and up to enactment of SMARA in 1976, an additional

23 mine sites were documented within the HH VRA, none of which had
permits otherwise required after 1949, including surface mining activities
associated with rock, sand, and gravel, as well as clay, mining, as
depicted in Figure B-3.8.57

4. Overall, almost two-thirds of the entire HH VRA has already been

disturbed or impacted by mine operations or support activities (haul
roads, etc.) Approximately 486 acres (61.3%) of the 792.22 acre HH VRA

56 Declaration of Sage Thurmond ¶ 7.

57 Id.

25
69711165v1
 has been disturbed by surface mining operations and ancillary surface
mining activities.58

5. The extensive geographic scope of the surface mining activities, both

before and after vesting in 1949, demonstrate an objective manifestation
of intent to mine the entire 792.22 acres.

6. Beyond the actual surface mining activities across the majority of the HH
VRA at one time or another, there is extensive evidence of an intent that
the entire HH VRA was fully appropriated for mining activities, based on
(i) its location within the Temescal Mining District overlying known
mineral reserves (particularly of porphyry rock), (ii) Peacock’s
reservation of all minerals starting in 1925; (iii) the evaluation of mineral
reserves through the property as early as 1938, and (iv) efforts of RRM’s
predecessors to accurately map the full extent of mineral property across
the entire HH VRA, including Harlow's 1948 ROS.

Thus, under all applicable legal standards, there are vested rights to mine the entire
792.22 acres of the HH VRA.

III. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO ESTABLISH VESTED RIGHTS

This Section details the legal principles that underlay RRM’s Request for
Determination. The County’s evaluation of the facts and substantive issues underlying
RRM’s Request is governed by constitutional principles, as implemented and
interpreted by SMARA (including Section 2776), and several key cases. The County’s
Ordinance 555.20 incorporates the principles of SMARA Section 2776, and also sets
forth the process to consider RRM's RFD.

A. Constitutional Principles Protect Vested Rights

The vested rights doctrine is based in constitutional principles, namely, the recognition
of a constitutionally-protected real property right as applied to existing or established
uses of land.59 This protection typically requires a zoning ordinance or other land-use
regulation to operate prospectively. In contrast, a zoning ordinance or other land-use
regulation that operates retrospectively may impinge on constitutional rights by

58 Exh. D-2.
59 See U.S. Constitution, 5th Amend.

26
69711165v1
 “effect[ing] an unreasonable, oppressive, or unwarranted interference with an
existing use, or a planned use for which a substantial investment in
development costs has been made . . . may be invalid as applied to that property
unless compensation is paid.”60

This principle causes virtually all state and local zoning ordinances to be drafted and
operate only in a prospective manner, and utilize “grandfathering” provisions that
exempt lawful, pre-existing uses from late-enacted restrictive zoning ordinances, in
order to avoid the potential to effectuate a “taking.” Furthermore, where there is any
ambiguity as to whether a zoning ordinance exempts pre-existing uses, courts will
adopt any reasonable interpretation of such ordinance in favor a of such an exemption
to avoid a “taking.”61

B. A Constitutionally-Protected Vested Right Is Established When An

Ordinance is Enacted Restricting a Lawful, Pre-existing Use
As a matter of law, a vested right is the right to continue an established,
nonconforming use upon the enactment of a statute or regulation that would otherwise
render that use impermissible:

“[a] nonconforming use is a lawful use existing on the effective date of a new
zoning restriction and continuing since that time in nonconformance to the new
restriction . . . As such, it constitutes an automatic exemption from the terms of a
comprehensive zoning ordinances and does not have to be applied for.”62

This is true even where an ordinance requires a permit, rather than an outright ban on
the use. Moreover California courts have repeatedly held that principles of estoppel
protect vested rights.63 Estoppel is an equitable or “fairness” principle that bars a party
from making an allegation or a denial that contradicts what it previously stated as the
truth, where another party has relied on that prior statement. In the context of land use
regulation, estoppel may be asserted against a governmental agency where a party has
relied on a representation or promise from the agency to its detriment. Thus, “[t]he

60Hansen Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Nevada County (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533
(”Hansen”), citing Beverly Oil Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1953) 40 Cal.2d 552, 559.
61 See, e.g., Edmunds v. County Los Angeles (1953) 40 Cal.2d 642, 651.
62 Longtin, California Land Use, 2d Ed., § 3.80[4].
63 McCaslin v. City of Monterey Park (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 339.

27
69711165v1
foundation of a vested rights doctrine is estoppel which protects a party that
detrimentally relies on the promises of government.”64

Though RRM does not formally assert estoppel herein as a basis for the County to
confirm its vested right, principles of estoppel – essentially equitable or fairness
principles – are relevant in the context of the County’s repeated historical
determinations and representations relating to RRM’s vested rights. These
representations are discussed in Section III, infra. It is important for the County to keep
these principles in mind when reviewing the historical record of operations within and
adjacent to the HH VRA, as well as the County’s actions relating to RRM’s existing
vested rights.

C. California Law, including SMARA Section 2776, Recognizes Vested Rights

In 1975, California enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
(“SMARA”),65 which took effect on January 1, 1976. SMARA generally requires that a
mine operator obtain a permit to conduct surface mining operations, and defines a
“permit” as “any authorization from, or approval by, a leady agency, the absence of
which would preclude surface mining operations.” Surface mining operations is
defined as “any part of the process involved in the mining of minerals on mined lands .
. .”.66

The Legislature specifically recognized the principle of protecting preexisting mining

uses when it noted that “[i]t is not the intent of the Legislature by the enactment of
[SMARA] to take private property for public use without the payment of just
compensation in violation of the Constitutions of the United States and California.” 67
Accordingly, under Section 2776 of SMARA, mining operations with a vested right are
not required to obtain a permit:

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 the provisions of this chapter as long

64 Monterey Sand Co. v. California Coastal Comm’n (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 169, 177.
65 Public Resources Code § 2710 et seq.
66 Public Resources Code § 2732.5.
67 Public Resources Code § 2713.

28
69711165v1
 as the vested right continues and as long as no substantial changes
are made in the operation except in accordance with this chapter.68

SMARA defines the criteria for a vested right as follow:

A personal shall be deemed to have such vested rights if, prior to

January 1, 1976, [they have] in good faith and in reliance upon a
permit or other authorization, if the permit or other authorization
was required, diligently commenced surface mining operations
and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials
necessary therefor.69

Based on this, a SMARA-based vested right can be established in one of two ways:

1. By means of surface mining operations conducted as a “conforming” use under

local regulation, (i.e. a legal use that operated under a valid permit) when
SMARA became effective on January 1, 1976; or

2. By means of surface mining operations conducted as a legal “non-conforming”

use on or prior to January 1, 1976 (i.e., a legal use that became exempt from the
requirement of a permit under a local ordinance enacted prior to SMARA).

As will be discussed throughout this Request for Determination, RRM asserts a vested
right primarily under the second category, i.e., based upon a legal, non-conforming use
established prior to January 1, 1976.

D. Enactment of a Local Land Use Regulation Requiring a Use Permit May

Create an Establishment Date Before January 1, 1976.
The date by which a non-conforming use can be established as a vested right (known
as the “Establishment Date”) can be prior to 1976 (although never later than 1976),
where there is some form of local land use regulation (i.e., a zoning ordinance)
requiring a permit to conduct mining operations. Where there is such an ordinance, the
Establishment Date for the vested right is the date where the restrictive ordinance is
enacted.70

California law is clear that even where an ordinance does not specifically identify the
criteria necessary to establish vested rights, “[t]he rights of users of property as those

68 Public Resources Code § 2776.

69 Public Resources Code § 2776
70 Longtin, California Land Use, 2d Ed., § 3.80[4].

29
69711165v1
rights [exist] at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance are well recognized and
have always been protected.”71 Thus, the Establishment Date of vested rights can occur
before 1976 in those jurisdictions where a permit to mine was required by local
regulation. As discussed below, the seminal California Supreme Court case on vested
rights in the mining context, Hansen Bros., involved an Establishment Date over 20
years prior to the enactment of SMARA.

E. Key Substantive Factors Affecting the Establishment and Scope of Vested

Rights as Articulated by Hansen Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors
of Nevada County and Other Authorities
In Hansen Bros., the California Supreme Court interpreted both the necessary elements
of a vested mining right, as well as the provisions of SMARA Section 2776. The 1996
Hansen Bros. decision is the leading California case on the substantive elements of
vested surface mining operations and provides the underlying basis for many of the
factors for determining both the “establishment” and “scope” of a vested right. A
discussion of key principles established in this case is thus instructive in analyzing the
factual record in RRM’s RFD.

1. Background

Hansen Brothers owned the Bear’s Elbow Mine, an aggregate business on a 67-acre
tract of land. Historically, most of the aggregate were mined from replenishing
supplies from a riverbed (because this was the most economical source), but a smaller
portion was quarried from a hillside a few hundred feet away. The Hansen Brothers’
production of aggregate had been continuous since 1954, from both the riverbed and
the quarry.72 During the 50 preceding years, including 8 years before the Hansen
Brothers acquired the operation, approximately 209,000 cubic yards had been mined
from the quarry out of a total reserve of approximately 5 million cubic yard, an
extraction of about 4%.73

In an attempt to comply with SMARA, the Hansen Brothers submitted a reclamation

plan for the mine, claiming a vested right to mine and quarry based on the 50 year
history of surface mining operations prior to the enactment of SMARA. Nevada
County determined that the Hansen Brothers’ vested rights had terminated because of
infrequent and sporadic quarrying from the hillside, which it found to be distinct from
the mining of aggregate in the riverbed. The County also found that “expanding”

71 Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 40 Cal.2d 642, 651.

72 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 543-546.
73 Id. at 546.

30
69711165v1
mining to the hillside quarry would be an impermissible expansion of whatever vested
rights remained.74 Although the Superior Court and Court of Appeal did not recognize
the Hansen Brothers’ vested rights to mine, the Supreme Court disagreed and
reversed, holding that vested rights did exist.

2. Key Substantive Issues that Must be Addressed in Assessing a Vested

Right
Hansen Bros. covers the following key legal principles:

a. The “Diminishing Asset” Doctrine Determines the Geographic

Scope of a Vested Right
The general rule in California is that, a legal, non-conforming use may continue in its
current footprint, but may not expand that footprint, following the adoption of a
statute or regulation without the need to obtain a permit.75

Hansen Bros., however, clarified the application in California of the “diminishing asset”
doctrine, as an exception to this general rule with respect to vested rights for mining
operations, because mining operations are a consumptive (i.e., diminishing) use, and
the expansion of a mining operation to previously unmined lands is necessary in order
to continue the business. The “diminishing asset doctrine” acknowledges that an
owner cannot mine an entire property at once (whereas a property owner with a
building could, in fact, build it all at once), and thus has the right to expand its
operation to mine additional areas after the operation becomes non-conforming.76

Hansen Bros. also recognized that the diminishing asset doctrine’s “applicable rule”
was previously articulated in McCaslin v. City of Monterey Park:77

The very nature and use of an extractive business contemplates

the continuance of such use of the entire parcel of land as a
whole, without limitation or restriction to the immediate area
excavated at the time the ordinance was passed. A mineral
extractive operation is susceptible of use and has value only in the

74 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 547-551.

75 See Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 40 Cal.2d 642, 651.
76 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 553.
77 (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 339.

31
69711165v1
 place where the resources are found, and once the minerals are
extracted it cannot again be used for that purpose.78

The Hansen Court noted that under McCaslin “‘[a]n entire tract [of land] is generally
regarded as within the exemption of an existing nonconforming use, although the
entire tract is not so used at the time of the passage or effective date of the zoning
law.’”79 The McCaslin Court properly noted that the entirety of a property (i.e., “tract”)
is devoted to mining and thus generally within the scope of a vested right, regardless
of whether it was actively mined at the time the operation became a non-conforming
use. Indeed, citing a line of prior cases, the McCaslin Court noted that “‘Quarry
property is generally a one use property. The rock must be quarried at the site where
it exists or not at all.’”80 This language suggests that in considering a vested right in the
mining context, the appropriate scale is to consider the entirety of land, i.e., the “quarry
property,” to assess the scope of the vested right.

The Hansen Court clarified that “[a] vested right to quarry or excavate the entire area of
a parcel on which the nonconforming use is recognized requires more than the use of a
part of the property for that purpose when the zoning law becomes effective . . . there
must be evidence that the owner or operator at the time the use became
nonconforming had exhibited an intent to extend the use to the entire property owned
at that time.”81

b. Where "Objective Manifestations of Intent" to Mine Previously

Un-Mined Areas of a Parcel or Tract Are Demonstrated, the
Entire Parcel or Tract is "Appropriated for Mining"
The Hansen Court clarified that application of the “diminishing asset doctrine” thus
requires the operator to demonstrate “objective manifestation of intent” to mine a
previously un-mined area at the time that the operation became vested:

When a mining or quarrying operation is a lawful nonconforming

use, progression of mining or quarrying activity into other areas of
the property is not necessarily a prohibited expansion or change of
location of the non-conforming use. When there is objective
evidence of the owner’s intent to expand a mining operation,

78 Id. at 349 (emphasis added).

79 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 554, citing McCaslin, 163 Cal.App.2d at 349 (emphasis added).
80 McCaslin, 163 Cal.App.2d at 349.
81 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 555-56.

32
69711165v1
 and that intent existed at the time of the zoning change, the use
may expand into the contemplated area.82

However, the Hansen Court also relied on an Illinois case holding that the entirety of
the land need not be excavated for the vested right to apply to its entirety”

The right to expand mining or quarrying operations on the

property is limited by the extent that the particular material is
being excavated when the zoning law became effective. Thus, in
County of Du Page v. Elmurst-Chicago Stone Co., supra, 165 N.E.2d
310, while the court applied the ‘diminishing asset’ doctrine to a
parcel of land from which aggregate was mined, it described the
rule as permitting use of all the land “which contains the
particular asset and which constitutes an integral part of the
operation,” (id. at p. 313) and held that the owner was using all of
its 40-acre tract which contained gravel and aggregate,
notwithstanding the fact that the entire tract was not yet under
excavation. (Ibid.)83

Indeed, under Hansen and the cases discussed therein, an objective manifestation of
intent to mine previously un-mined lands may also be shown by demonstrating that
those lands had been “appropriated” to mining or were part of the overall mining
operation, i.e., serving ancillary uses, etc.84 The Hansen Court noted that the
“determining factor” in addressing the scope of a vested right under the diminishing
asset doctrine is

whether the nature of the initial nonconforming use, in light of the

character and adaptability to such use of the entire parcel,
manifestly implies that the entire [mine] property was
appropriated to [mining and quarrying] use prior to the adoption
of the restrictive zoning ordinance.85

82 Id. at 553 (emphasis added).

83 Id. at 557 (emphasis added).
84 Id. at 556-558.
85Id. at 557, cited Stephan & Sons v. Municipality of Anchorage (Alaska 1984) 685 P.2d 98, citing 6
R. Powel, the Law of Real Property ¶ 871[3][iii] at 79C-178-179 (Rohan rev. ed. 1979 (emphasis
added).

33
69711165v1
Thus, the “use” of the property at the time the use became non-conforming is the key
inquiry. If the entire property is used for mining and mining related purposes,
regardless of whether some areas remain “open space,” the vested right will extend to
the entirety of the property, as clarified by the Hansen Court:

[i]n determining the use to which the land was being put at the
time the use became nonconforming, the overall business
operation must be considered. ‘[O]ne entitled to a nonconforming
use has a right to . . . engage in uses normally incidental and
auxiliary to the nonconforming use . . . . Furthermore, open areas
in connection with an improvement existing at the time of
adoption of zoning regulations are exempt from such regulations
as a nonconforming use if such open areas were in use or partially
used in connection with the use existing when the regulations
were adopted.86

An Illinois Supreme Court case discussed by Hansen perhaps best summarizes the logic
of this approach:

We think that in cases of a diminishing asset the enterprise is

‘using’ all that land which contains the particular asset and which
constitutes an integral part of the operation, notwithstanding the
fact that a particular portion may not yet be under actual
excavation. It is in the very nature of such business that reserve
areas be maintained which are left vacant or devoted to incidental
uses until they are needed. Obviously, it cannot operate over an
entire tract at once.87

c. "Objective Manifestations of Intent" to Mine Previously Un-

Mined Areas Can Include Incidental or Auxiliary Uses Such as
Haul Roads or Other Elements of the Whole Operation

As examples of when non-mined lands were included within the scope of vested rights
under the diminishing asset doctrine, the Hansen Court surveyed various cases from
other jurisdictions regarding what might constitute an “objective manifestation” of

86 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th 566.

Id. at 555, citing County of Du Page v. Elmhurst-Chicago Stone Co. (1960) 18 Ill.2d 479, 165,
87

N.E.2d 310, 313.

34
69711165v1
intent to mine a previously unmined area. The Court’s survey identified several criteria
or factors they considered, including whether the un-mined lands were used
incidentally or in an auxiliary fashion for surface mining operations.88

In Hansen Bros., the court found that mining and related activities may be conducted on
all lands previously used in connection with mining operations, 89 and the court
specifically noted that use of the land for haul roads is a mining use that gives rise to a
vested right. There is considerable law holding that the existence of haul roads
demonstrate that a property was appropriated for mining activities. 90

Thus, the “diminishing asset” doctrine requires that an operator demonstrate an

objective manifestation of intent at the time the operation becomes vested to mine
areas that previously were un-mined. An “objective manifestation” may be
demonstrated by specific evidence, or where a tract of land has been “appropriated” to
mining uses. As detailed in Section IV, the HH VRA was entirely “appropriated” to
mining uses.

d. A Vested Rights Determination can "Look Back" at the Entire

History of Mining at the Site Prior to the Establishment Date to
Determine the Scope of Vested Rights
In evaluating the nature and scope of surface mining activities on a tract prior to the
Establishment Date, California courts have held that such evaluation is not limited
only to the activities occurring at, or immediately before, the Establishment Date.
Rather, the evaluation can encompass (or “look back” at) the full scope of relevant
mining activities that occurred at the site prior to the Establishment Date. In Hansen
Bros. the court held that the entire, historic operation must be considered in
determining the scope of a vested right.91 Indeed, the Hansen Bros. Court made clear
that in the surface mining context, the overall pre-SMARA history of surface mining

88 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th 565-566

89 Id. at 554-558.
90County of DuPage v. Elmhurst-Chicago Stone Co., supra, 18 Ill.2d 470, 164 N.E.2d at 313 (plot of
land found to be devoted to excavation based on numerous switch tracks, even though
material had not yet been removed from entirety of land); Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise
(App. Div. 1961) 51 N.Y.2d 278, 434 N.Y.S2d 150, 414 N.E.2d 651, 655 (service roads throughout
the property, coupled with other features, “manifest[ed] an intent to appropriate the entire
parcel to the particular business of quarrying”); Gibbons & Reed Co. v. North Salt Lake City (1967)
19 Utah 2d 329, 431 P.2d 559 (land was integral part of gravel operation based, in part, on
existence of multiple haul roads connecting it with other mining property).
91 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 573.

35
69711165v1
operations (which in other administrative proceedings before the SMGB included
activities that occurred more than 70 years prior to SMARA) must be considered in
evaluating the vested right, not just a "snapshot" of time at or just prior to 1976. The
rule is grounded in the principle that vested rights "run with the land" meaning that
successive owners succeed not only to a purchased business, but to the rights and
privileges that apply to that business under the vested rights doctrine. Thus the buyer
of a property is entitled not just to the seller's vested right, but also to the benefit of the
mining history prior to the date the mining use became nonconforming.

The factual history in the Hansen Bros. case is instructive. In that case, the Hansen Bros.
purchased their mine in 1954 from predecessors who operated it starting in 1946. The
Court held that the Hanson Bros. were correct in asserting the relevance to the vested
right of the Bear's Elbow Mine, established by their predecessors a decade before they
acquired the operations.92

This rule also takes into account that mining economics are cyclical, and from time to
time economics can either encourage or discourage mining activities. Thus in other
vested rights determination proceedings before the SMGB, it has been held that even if
there were no mining or processing activities on or near the Establishment Date, all
surface mining activities conducted prior to that time are relevant to assessing the
scope of what was vested in 1948. Accordingly, in RRM's case, all of the activities at the
HH VRA from the 1880s through December 31, 1948 would be relevant to assessing the
scope of vested rights established in 1948.

Another case, Paramount Rock Company, Inc. v. County of San Diego (1960) 180
Cal.App.2d 217 (“Paramount”) addressed the required “look back,” based on the types
of historic operations encompassed by a vested right.93 In the context of Hansen Bros., a
vested right includes evaluating all uses and activities that had occurred on site before
the Establishment Date.94

e. The Overall Business Operation Must be Considered When

Assessing the Scope of Mining Activities Encompassed by a
Vested Right
In determining that the Hansen Brothers’ vested right included the right to conduct
both riverbed mining for sand and gravel, and hillside rock quarrying, the Hansen
Court stated directly that the overall business itself must be considered, and that all

92 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 561.

93 Paramount Rock, 180 Cal.App.2d at 217.
94 Id.

36
69711165v1
“ancillary” and “auxiliary” uses falling within that overall business are included
within the scope of the vested right:

In determining the use to which the land was being put at the time
the use became non-conforming, the overall business operation
must be considered. ‘[O]ne entitled to a nonconforming use has a
right to . . . engage in uses normally incidental and auxiliary to the
nonconforming use but, one who engages in a nonconforming
use has the right to engage in uses normally incidental and
auxiliary to the nonconforming use.’95

Based on the principle, the Hansen Brothers' Court ruled that it was error by the
Planning Commission to treat one form of mining activity (i.e., a stream bed surface
mining operation) as separate from another form of mining activity (i.e., surface
mining operations in a hard rock quarry), even though, as the Court plainly noted,
“[t]he mining and quarrying methods also differ.”96 Instead, the Supreme Court stated
that the “nonconforming use of the property has always been the operation of an
aggregate production business, of which mining for the components is an aspect.” 97
The Supreme Court went on to conclude that the “mining uses of the Hansen Brothers’
property are incidental aspects of the aggregate production business.”98

Extending this logic, the Court clarified that a vested right includes the right to all the
uses to which the land was being put at the time the use became nonconforming. 99 The
Court stated:

We have found no authority for refusing to recognize a vested

right to continue a component of a business that itself has a vested
right to continue using the land on which it is located for
operation of the business. An aggregate business does not differ
from other land uses simply because mining for some or all of the
materials that comprise aggregate is a component of the business.
Unless an independent aspect of the business has been
discontinued, the use may not be broken down into component

95 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 565 (emphasis added).

96 Id. at 567.
97 Id. at 565.
98 Id. at 566.
99 Id. at 565-566.

37
69711165v1
 parts and vested rights for less than the entire business
operation.100

The Court thus clearly established that a vested right in the surface mining context
includes all activities that were part of the business operation prior to it becoming a
non-conforming use. The Court held that:

We also conclude that the nonconforming use which Hansen

Brothers may claim a right to continue is the aggregate production
business that was being operated on the property its predecessors
owned in 1954 when the Nevada County zoning ordinance was
adopted. That business, and the nonconforming use, include all
aspects of the operation that were integral parts of the business at
that time, including mining replenishable materials from the
riverbed and banks and quarrying rock from the hillside; crushing,
combining, and storing the mined materials which compose
aggregate; and selling or trucking the aggregate from the
property.101

The Hansen Bros. Court clarified that a vested aggregate operation will include, as a
matter of right, all ancillary aspects of the business conducted as of the time it become
a nonconforming use, including (1) mining, (2) processing, (3) stockpiling/storing, (4)
trucking, and (5) selling. As discussed in Section III.C. below, the prior County
determinations of vested rights relating to the S-4 VRA, in the S-1, S-2, and S-4
approvals, confirm the scope of vested mining operations, which RRM requests be
extend to the entire HH VRA.

f. A Vested Mining Operation Must Not Undergo a “Substantial

Change”
Section 2776 of SMARA allows a vested mining operation to continue without a permit
“as long as no substantial changes are made in the operation.” “Substantial change” is
not defined or addressed in the statute or the implementing regulations. However,
Hansen does provide guidance on the issue.

In assessing the vested right of the Hansen Brothers, the Court addressed whether the
“proposal for future quarrying would be an impermissible intensification of its

100 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 566.

101 Id. at 543 (emphasis added).

38
69711165v1
nonconforming use.”102 It is clear from the Court’s discussion that determining whether
a mining operation has undergone “impermissible intensification” is really an
assessment of whether the operation has undergone a “substantial change,” in a
manner that would exceed the scope of its vested right. The Hansen Court, after
reviewing a variety of cases, set forth two factors that may be assessed:

1. Does the operation involve a substantially new use, which exceeds the scope of
the original vested right?

2. Has the operation intensified, i.e., increased its volume of production such that
the “character or purpose” of the vested right has been changed?

As discussed in Section VI, this RFD seeks only to confirm the application of the
existing vested right for the S-4 VRA, recognized and confirmed no less than five
previous times by the County, to the entire 792.22 acres of the HH VRA. This RFD does
not request the County to (1) make a new determination regarding the scope of use; (2);
to change the previously made determinations relating to the current scope of use of
the existing vested rights; or (3) authorize a change the intensity of the existing vested
right.

g. A Vested Right Is Only Abandoned if there is Both an Intent to

Abandon and an Overt Act of Abandonment
In Hansen, the Supreme Court overruled the Planning Commission’s finding that any
use of the property had been discontinued. Discontinuance – in the sense of
abandonment – requires both an intent to abandon, as well as an overt act or failure to
act which demonstrates that the owner no longer wishes to continue the
nonconforming use. This principle manifests in two primary ways regarding mining
operations: (i) all (or portions) of a mining operation may cease for a period of time;
and (ii) acts, such as obtaining a permit, do not waive or abandon a vested right unless
there is an overt act and intent.

i. The Entirety (or Portions) of a Mining Operation May

Cease Without Abandoning or Waiving Existing Vested
Rights

With respect to mining operations, it is recognized that there may be periods of

inactivity within an mining operation. Such inactivity may affect either the entirety of
an operation, or portions of an operation, based on factors such as market conditions,
or the existence of adequate existing stockpiles to meet needs until such stockpiles are

102 Id. at 571.

39
69711165v1
depleted. Thus, it is clear that land subject to a vested right for surface mining may
undergo periods of inactivity, even long periods, without impacting thevalidity of the
vested rights. .103

For example, in Hansen, the Court determined that because the riverbed gravel mining
operation and the hillside rock quarrying operation were merely different aspects of an
integrated “single use,” the cessation of use in one aspect did not cause an
abandonment of either aspect of the business. The California Supreme Court agreed
that the quarry operations had been discontinued, but stated that the overall business
operation must be considered as a whole. The Court noted that prior to the enactment
of the ordinance which made the use nonconforming, rock was taken from the hillside
to produce aggregate, along with sand and gravel from the riverbed. Thus, the Court
viewed the operations as interdependent. “Unless an independent aspect of the
business has been discontinued, the use may not be broken down into component
parts and vested rights recognized for less than the entire business operation.”104 The
Hansen Court viewed the non-conforming use as the production of sale and
aggregate.105 Importantly, the Court held that because aggregate mining and sale is
seasonal and depends on a fluctuating market, sales from existing stockpiles can be
sufficient to sustain a vested right in the absence of active mining.106

The ruling in Hansen demonstrates both that whole of an operation must be considered
when evaluating vested rights, and the dormancy of a portion of the operation does
not waive or demonstrate an intent to abandon vested rights, as well as the reality that
market conditions may cause a mine to cease operations for a period of time but that
such a cessation does not waive or demonstrate an intent to abandon vested rights.

ii. Obtaining a Use Permit Does Not Affect a Vested Right

Additionally, the law holds that a vested right is not waived by a subsequently-
acquired permit.107 In fact, the law indicates that when a party with a vested right
obtains a CUP after establishing a vested right, that CUP becomes “inextricably
intertwined” with the vested right and the party’s vested right may be expanded to
include the CUP within its scope. In fact, waiver or abandonment of a vested right can
only occur if the vested right is known. Simply put, it is impossible to abandon or

103 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 568-71.

104 Id. at 566.
105 Id. at 569.
106 Id. at 571, n. 30.
107 (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d at 47, 49-50.

40
69711165v1
waive a vested right if there is no awareness of a vested right, even if a party has
sought or obtained a use permit.108

Here, the County has already determined that two use permits (M-404 in 1959 and CU-
1146 in 1971), did not impact RRM’s vested rights, as discussed below. Because this
RFD seeks only to confirm that RRM’s existing vested rights encompass the entire
792.22-acre HH VRA, there is no issue relating to the previously issued permits.

h. Vested Rights Are Property Rights that "Run With the Land"
In Hansen, the California Supreme Court affirmed unequivocally that a vested right to
mine is a property right this is attached to and "runs" with the land, and thus is
transferred to another party that acquires interests in that land. “Transfer of title does
not affect the right to continue a lawful nonconforming use which runs with the
land.”109 As a clear matter of law, a vested right is freely transferrable without affecting
the underlying right. This principle aligns with the Constitutional protections afforded
to vested rights as fundamental property interests, as discussed above.

Moreover, as a policy matter, promoting the transferability of vested rights is

particularly appropriate because SMARA has a strong policy to encourage “the
production and conservation of minerals …”.110 If vested rights somehow, could not be
freely transferred, established mining operations would be bound to the original
owner, lest they lose their vested rights upon sale or transfer.

i. The Establishment and Scope of Vested Rights May be Based on

the Activities of Contractors and Lessees
The law is clear that a vested right may be established, and its scope defined, based on
the activities of a lessee or contractor. In McCaslin v. City of Monterey Park, the appellate
court determined that a vested right for the mining of decomposed granite had been
established based in part on the mining activities of lessees prior to the enactment of
the restrictive ordinance.111 In Hansen, moreover, the Court focused on the overall
business operation prior to vesting to assess what activities fell within the scope of the
vested right. The Court stated, “[i]n determining the use to which the land was being
put at the time the use became nonconforming, the overall business operation must be

108 Bickel v. City of Piedmont (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1040, 1053.

109 Id. at 593, n. 1, citing City of Los Angeles v. Gage (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 442.
110 Public Resources Code § 2712.
111 163 Cal.App.2d at 342.

41
69711165v1
considered.”112 Thus, where a mining business utilizes contractors and lessees as part
of its operation prior to vesting, the activities of those contractors and lessees properly
form part of the basis of the vested right.

F. Procedural Due Process Requirements to Establish a Vested Right

In October 2000, William Calvert and the Yuba Goldfields Access Coalition filed a
lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court, Calvert v. County of Yuba, Sacramento Superior
Court Case No. 00-CS-01434, challenging Yuba County’s vested rights determinations
for six mining operators, which had been confirmed by Yuba County in May 2000. In
that lawsuit, the Superior Court found that due process required the County to hold a
public hearing when determining due process.

In 2006, the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that the determination of vested
rights to conduct surface mining operations in a “diminishing asset” context presented
an adjudicative determination that implicates the potential for significant or substantial
deprivations of property, thus triggering procedural due process protections: “We
conclude that the government determination of … vested rights claim[s] implicates
property deprivations significant or substantial enough to trigger procedural due
process protections for landowners . . . adjacent to [the] proposed vested rights mining
operation.”113 In reaching this conclusion, the Calvert court echoed the core precepts set
forth in Hansen, including that the diminishing asset doctrine allows a mining
operation to expand across a property where an objective manifestation of intent to do
so is demonstrated.114

This legal requirement that a public hearing must be conducted for vested rights
determinations in a diminishing asset context, has informed the procedures established
by the County’s vested rights regulations under Ordinance 555-20.

G. Vested Rights Under the Riverside County Code

In 2019, the County passed Ordinance 555.20 (“Vested Rights Regulations”), which
establishes a framework to obtain a vested rights determination. Under the Vested
Rights Regulations, a claimant must provide a written application with sufficient
“information pertinent to establishing the existence and scope of the Vested Right.”115

112 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 565.

113 . Calvert, 145 Cal.App.4th at 629.
114 Calvert, 145 Cal.App.4th at 623-24.
115 Ordinance 555-20, § 17

42
69711165v1
This regulation echoes the case law discussed above and requires a claimant to submit
relevant information sufficient to establish the geographic scope of a vested right.

H. Factors RRM Must Establish in Support of Its Vested Right

Based on the forgoing, RRM must demonstrate the following in support of this Request

(1) That RRM’s established vested right to conduct various surface mining
operations, as previously confirmed and recognized by the County when it
approved CUP 1146, and S-1, S-2, and S-4 encompasses not just the 132-acre S-4
VRA, but the entire 792.22-acre HH VRA.

(2) That the scope of vested rights on the 792.22-acre HH VRA is based on:

a. Evidence of “diligently commenced” surface mining operations

within and utilizing the HH VRA, begun prior to the
Establishment Date (January 1, 1949);

b. Evidence of an “objective manifestation of intent” to mine areas

of the HH VRA that were not previously mined, when the
operation became a legal, non-conforming uses;

c. Evidence that the un-mined lands were “appropriated” to mining,

and thus the entire portion of the HH VRA where vested rights are
claimed could be mined, i.e., a showing that the nature of the
initial nonconforming mining use, in light of the character and
adaptability of that use to the entire property, implies that the
entire property was appropriate to mining; and

d. Evidence that the “overall nature of the mining operations”

within the HH VRA demonstrates that the entire geographic scope
of the HH VRA was part of a vested mining operation. Note, that
in assessing the entire mining operation, it may not be broken
down into component or distinct parts.

IV. THE HISTORY OF COUNTY DECISIONS CONFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF RRM’S

VESTED RIGHTS

Prior to the 1949 Establishment Date for vested mining rights in the County (i.e., the
date before which surface mining could be conducted in the County absent the need
for a use permit and after which a use permit was required for surface mining), the HH
VRA was the site for numerous surface mining activities. The scope of these activities,

43
69711165v1
summarized in Sections I.D and I.G, supra, and Section III.A, infra, and described in
detail in Sections IV.B and IV.C, infra, formed the basis for the County’s multiple prior
recognitions of RRM’s vested rights and will ultimately factor into the determination of
the full scope of the vested right that was established in 1949.

Following the Establishment Date, the County recognized the existence of RRM’s
vested rights when it undertook various actions and approvals related to the HH VRA,
as described in Sections III.C et seq., infra.

A. Context: Multiple Mining Operations Occurred on the HH VRA Prior to the

1949 Establishment Date .
Prior to the 1949 Establishment, RRM’s predecessors-in-interest mined (or allowed to
be mined) the HH VRA. Distinct surface mining activities and operations included: (i)
quarrying operations to supply track ballast and other material to the ATSF railroad,
(ii) quarrying operations by the Pantages Construction Co. to supply high-quality
blarney stone to multiple public works projects; (iii) borrow pits for rock, sand, and
gravel to aid construction of the public Cajalco Road; and (iv) exploration for
exploitable strategic metals (primarily tin and aluminum). A full list of surface mining
activities within the boundaries of the HH VRA are summarized in Table 6, located in
Section VI, infra.

In addition the above, the HH VRA was also integral to broader, regional mining
development. Mining began with sporadic and opportunistic hand-mining operations
as early as 1853 – with the discovery of tin around Cajalco Hill, immediately northeast
of the HH VRA and identified in Figure B-3.4. Concentrated mineral development in
the region began in earnest after 1888, as Sobrante owners began developing mining
operations within the mineral-rich Temescal Mining District, including (1) the first
commercial tin production in the United States; (2) multiple stone and aggregate
quarry operations that provided the raw materials to pave the streets of Los Angeles
and constructed multiple dams to supply water to the region; (3) southern California’s
primary silica and sand producers; and (4) multiple ceramics and brick manufacturers.
These extensive developments (also summarized in Table 6, infra) took place for over
60 years throughout and utilizing the HH VRA, prior to the 1949 Establishment Date
when the County enacted Ordinance No. 348 (as discussed in subsection B,
immediately below).116 The above enumerated "pre-vesting" surface mining activities

Prior to May 9, 1893, the HH VRA was located in San Bernardino County. On May 9, 1893,
116

Riverside County was created assumed jurisdiction of the HH VRA.

44
69711165v1
thus constitute the baseline scope of activities to appropriately factor into the
evaluation of the geographic scope of vested rights within the HH VRA.

B. 1949 Enactment of Ordinance No. 348, the First County Ordinance Requiring
Land Use Permits for Mining Operations, and Modifications Thereto through
the Present.

In 1949, County enacted the first comprehensive land use regulation requiring County-
approvals to conduct mining operations. Ordinance No. 348 was enacted at the first
“official land use plan for … the County of Riverside” and rezoned the county.
Specifically, Ordinance No. 348 zoned “[a]ll unincorporated territory of the County
which is not included under the terms of th[e] ordinance … as M-3 Zone,” including
the HH VRA. as depicted in Figure B-5.2. As a M-3 Zone, Ordinance No. 348 required
a “permit” for mining activities, including (1) commercial borrow pits; rock crushers or
quarries; and rock, sand, or gravel pits. Thus, from 1949 onwards, the surface mining
operations within the HH VRA existed as a legal, non-conforming use.

Ordinance No. 348 clearly and expressly applied to “new” mining operations, i.e.,
occurring after the effective date of the ordinance, existing operations were exempt
from its requirements. This reading is consistent with the basic legal proposition that
ordinances generally will not have retroactive effect, or will otherwise risk a “taking.”
The law is well established that “[i]n the absence of clear and unequivocal language
manifesting an intention that an ordinance shall have retroactive operation, such
operation will not be presumed.”117 In the case of Ordinance 348, there is no “clear and
unequivocal language” that directs or even suggests that it should apply to preexisting
uses, but rather strong language indicating the opposite.118

Although Ordinance 348 did not identify criteria necessary to establish a vested right
under it, the law does not require express recognition of vested rights in an
ordinance.119 In this regard, “‘[t]he rights of users of property as those rights [exist] at
the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance are well recognized and have always
been protected.’’120 In fact, in this context, the prevailing law in California is that a
legal, nonconforming use may be continued without obtaining a conditional use
permit, even if the new ordinance directs that the non-conforming use is required to

117 Biscay v. City of Burlingame (1932) 127 Cal.App. 213, 220.

118 Ord. No. 348, § 18.6.
119 See Avco Community Developers v. South Coast Regional Comm., 17 Cal.3d 785, 791-93 (1976).
120 Hansen, 12 Cal.

45
69711165v1
obtain a conditional use permit.121 Indeed, it is long been settled that “when a sand and
gravel pit has been in operation prior to the passage of a zoning ordinance and
continuously thereafter, a nonconforming use existed and operation of the pit cannot
be enjoined.”122

The County has periodically amended Ordinance No. 348, thereby modifying the
zoning of the HH VRA. For example, in 1976, the majority of the site was zoned as W-
2, “Controlled Development Area,” which also required either a vested right or a
conditional use permit to conduct surface mining activities, as depicted in Figure B-5.3.
Currently, the HH-VRA is zoned as a combination of (i) mineral resources (M-R); (ii)
mineral resources and related manufacturing (M-R-A-); (iii) natural asset (N-A), as
depicted in Figure B-5.4. Like prior zoning designations, the present day zoning
requires either a vested right or a conditional use permit to conduct surface mining
activities.

Thus, at the time Ordinance 348 was enacted, Leilamae Harlow established a vested
right to continue mining operations within the entire 792.22 acres of the HH VRA, a
property that was fully appropriated for mining purposes for decades prior to the
vesting date. Once established, these vested mining rights perpetuated and allowed
surface mining activities to continue within the HH VRA.

C. M-404 (1959)

In 1959, Livingston Rock and Gravel Co. (“Livingston”), one of the entities conducting
surface mining activities within the HH VRA while the property was under Harlow’s
ownership, applied for and obtained permit M-3, No. 404 (“M-404”), authorizing the
operation and maintenance of a rock crusher on the property.123 Notwithstanding the
issuance of the M-404 permit (which further demonstrated the intent to continue
surface mining activities within the HH VRA), significant surface mining continued
outside the M-404 permit boundaries at that time.124

While the M-404 Permit, unlike later County Approvals, is not an explicit confirmation
of the scope vested rights within the HH VRA, the continued activities of operators
within the HH VRA, outside of the M-404 permit boundaries, demonstrates that the

121Longtin, California Land Use § 3.80[4] (2d ed. 1994), citing McCaslin v. City of Monterey Park
(1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 339, see also Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1281.
122 McCaslin, 163 Cal.App.2d at 357.
123 Exh. C-1.1.
124 Id.; see also Figure B-3.8.

46
69711165v1
HH VRA owners were exercising a vested right contemporaneous with the M-404
permit.

D. CU-1146 (1970)

In 1970, Hubbs Construction, a former junior partner in the previous site operators
Corona Quarries, Inc. applied for and obtained a conditional use permit to operate a
rock crushing and asphalt plant (“CU-1146”).125 As the County has previously
determined in confirming the vested right for the S-4 area, CU-1146 does not contain
any language indicating that the permit was intended to authorize surface mining or
other excavation activities – it was solely related to the construction and operation of
the crushing and asphalt plan.126 Furthermore, neither the permit application nor the
permit approval contains any language or other information that indicates the permit
would affect the existing vested rights (e.g., no statements or conditions limiting
mining operations and no expiration date providing for the termination of
operations).127

Importantly, although CU-1146 was not a mining permit (i.e., it did not authorize
surface mining activities) CU-1146 included a site plan, that identified a large area of
current or active mining, , much larger in fact than the active mining area identified in
the M-404 site plan. The expanded scope in active mining area between 1959 and 1970,
without any permit authorizing surface mining by the County, is consistent with the
exercise of a vested right to continue surface mining operations.

E. RP-118 (1982)

In 1976, the California Legislature enacted SMARA, which required all surface mining
operations have both (i) an entitlement to conduct mining activities (permit or vested
right) and (ii) a reclamation plan with associated financial assurances.128 Hubbs and
Hubbs Construction had a vested right to mine the site, satisfying the first SMARA
requirement, and obtained a reclamation plan in 1982 (“RP 118”) to satisfy the second.
RP 118 expressly recognizes portions of the HH VRA vested right within the context of
the overall mining development in the Temescal Mining District, stating

“The Mining operations being evaluated in this report have been in

operation since at least the mid 1950’s. The whole region along Temescal

125 Exh. C-1.2 (CU-1146, May 13, 1970)

126 Id.
127 Id.
128 Public Resources Code § 27770(a)

47
69711165v1
 Creek has been mined for nonmetallic mineral commodities since the
turn of the century. These Commodities include sand and gravel, clay
and rock . . .” (emphasis added).129

Although the authors of RP 118 did not identify 1949 as the Establishment Date (but
instead relied on 1976, the year SMARA was enacted), RP 118 nevertheless specifically
references the existence of a vested right:

“Based on existing rules and regulations, the operators have a vested right of
operations since 1976.”130

RP 118 goes on to state that, as currently configured, the active mining area had a
“projected operational lifetime” of approximately 20 years, but that “the rock resource
adjacent to the quarry could extend the operational lifetime of the quarry. . .”.131 RP 118
requires reclamation of the entire mined area because “areas mined prior to 1976 are
integrally tied to current operations.”132

RP 118 and the language therein (i) provides confirmation regarding the existence of a
vested right in a County approved-and-issued document and (ii) contains no reference
to the scope of land vested beyond the boundaries of the reclamation plan, consistent
with the custom and practice to limit the boundaries of the reclamation plan to the
areas currently mined, or contemplated for mining within the near future.133 RP 118,
like M-404 and CU-1146, explicitly recognizes the vested rights existing on the S-4 VRA
portion of the HH VRA and implicitly acknowledges that the property subject to a
vested rights goes beyond the boundaries of both the existing quarry and the
reclamation plan, by acknowledging that mining expansion outside of the quarry
boundaries would require only that “the mining plan [part of RP 118] … be amended”
and not requiring that any expansion be subject to additional permitting.

129 Exh. C-1.3 at p. 1.

130 Exh. C-1.3 at p. 4.
131 Exh. C-1.3 at pp 1, 4.
132 Id.
See, e.g., Ordinance 555.20, Section 17.C: ""This Reclamation Plan may cover some or all of
133

the areas to which that Vested Right applies, but, at a minimum, it must cover: all of the area to
which a Vested Right has been found to apply on which active mining operations have been
conducted after January 1, 1976, as well as the entirety of any area to which a Vested Right has
been found to apply that is planned or reasonably anticipated to contain surface mining
operations in the near future."

48
69711165v1
This acknowledgement, particularly in the context of potential future quarry
expansion, indicates that the County understood that the HH VRA site, beyond the
quarry boundaries, would be able to operate under a vested right.

F. The HH VRA Continued to be Developed as a Mining Property by Hubbs

and Related Corporate Entities (1983-2012)

On or around December 20, 1983, Hubbs conveyed the portion of the HH VRA
property located east and north of the Hubbs Harlow Quarry to Brion Corporation.134
From 1983 until 2004, Brion Corporation, and a series of related entities (collectively,
“BKS”) owned the property.135 In 2004, BKS conveyed the Brion Parcel to Cajalco
Associates; who in turn conveyed the property in 2007 to Corona Twin Creeks, LLC.136
Corona Twin Creeks, an affiliate of RRM, spent considerable time and effort to develop
a phased mining plan for the property.137 Those development plans were put on hold
following the 2008 financial crash, and Corona Twin Creeks, LLC merged with the
Corona Cajalco Road Development LP (“CCRD”), the current owners, on or around
September 17, 2009.138 CCRD, in conjunction with its affiliate Cajalco Road Quarry
(“CRQ”) lease the HH VRA to RRM. 139

During this same period, Hubbs retained the then-active Hubbs Harlow Quarry (the
“Hubbs Parcel”), operating pursuant to a County-confirmed vested right and the
County-approved RP 118.140 Hubbs owned the parcel until 2006, as which point he
conveyed (likely for reasons described in section IV.G, infra,) the Hubbs Parcel to
Temescal Cliffs, LLC.141 Temescal Cliffs, LLC sought to develop the site; however, the
company promptly failed and entered bankruptcy, during which time CRQ purchased
the Hubbs Parcel in 2011.142 Following CRQ’s purchase of the Hubbs Parcel, it lease, in

134 See Exh. A-23. The full ownership succession is discussed in Appendix A.
135 Exh. A-24, A-25, A-26.
136 Exh. A-27, A-28.
137 Exh. A-34, Declaration of Christine Goeyvaerts, ¶¶ 3-7.
138 Exh. A-32.
139 Exh. A-33
Note that some of the area then being an active mining area as a result fell under ownership
140

and control of Brion instead of Hubbs which may be due to an error in plotting the separation
boundaries, possibly because of the exceptionally complicated legal description.
141 Exh. A-31.
142 Exh. A-32; see also Exh. A-34, Declaration of Christine Goeyvaerts ¶ 3-7,

49
69711165v1
conjunction with its affiliate CCRD, the entire HH VRA to RRM.143 Thus, from 2011,
CCRD and CRQ worked dligently to continue developing of the HH VRA’s reserves,
as a single, dedicated mining property owned and controlled by RRM.

G. The Hubbs Lawsuit and Settlement (2003-2004)

In 2003, the County filed a lawsuit against Hubbs alleging violations of RP 118,
SMARA, and County land use regulation. The parties reached a settlement in 2004 and
stipulated to resolve the County’s allegations.144 The 2004 Settlement required certain
actions to remediate the site, but also expressly reflected Hubbs’ intent to continue
surface mining operations at the site. Thereafter, the court entered an order accepting
the settlement terms as the order of the court, to resolve the allegations in the Hubbs
lawsuit and address then-current hazardous conditions at the site resulting from
surface mining operations of that prior operator.

Prior to compliance with that settlement, Hubbs sold the Cajalco Property to Temescal
Cliffs LLC. Shortly after the sale, Temescal Cliffs LLC entered into bankruptcy.145 The
property was thereafter acquired by RRM in October 2011.146

H. First Amended Judgment and Rec Plan Amendment RCL118-S1 (2013)

Following RRM acquisition of the Cajalco Property in 2011, RRM and the County
began discussions regarding appropriate remediation of the mining areas within the S-
4 VRA to eliminate significant threats to public health and safety, including unstable
slopes and unstable sheer vertical faces.147 These discussions yielded an amendment to
the 2004 settlement, later adopted by the Superior Court as the Amendment to
Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Judgment Thereon (“First Amended
Judgment”), which required RRM to submit a revised reclamation plan known as RCL
118S1 (“S1”), revised financial assurances, and conduct surface mining activities within
the scope of the approved reclamation plan.148

The First Amended Judgment specifically determined that “no use permit or other
apprval is required to conduct such activities within the RCL118S1 boundary …

143 Exh. A-33.

144 Exh. C-1.7
145 Exh. A-34, Declaration of Christine Goeyvaerts, ¶¶ 3-7.
146 Exh. A-32.
147 Exh. C-1.9 at ¶¶ D-J.
148 Exh. C-1.9 at ¶ L.

50
69711165v1
because they are substantially within the scope of historic vested mining operaitons on
the Real Property.”149

The need for and purpose of S1 was to address the then-immediate and significant
threats to health and safety, including unstable slopes and sheer vertical faces over 300
feet in height. In approving S1 in 2013, the County adopted findings regarding the
scope of vested rights to conduct surface mining activities at the site, including that
“surface mining activities within the Amendment RCL00181S1 are consistent with the
existing vested right confirmed in multiple, historical documents.”150

I. Second Amended Judgment and Rec Plan Amendment RCL 118-S2 (2017)

On July 14, 2016, the County and RRM entered into the Second Amendment to
Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Judgment Thereon (“Second Amended
Judgment”) to further the intent and goals of the 2013 settlement and the First
Amended Judgment.151 The Second Amended Judgment was entered as an order of the
court on July 26, 2016. To implement the intent and goals of the Second Amended
Judgment, RRM submitted, and on February 9, 2017, the County approved RCL118S2
(“S2”), which included an adjustment of reclamation plan boundaries.152

The purposes of the Second Amended Judgment and S2 were to ensure compliance
with S1 and provided for a re-aligned and upgraded access road and changes to mine
operation for safety reasons (e.g., reducing trespass, relocating explosive magazine
bunkers, and providing appropriate site grading).153

The Second Amended Judgment and S2 again included detailed findings confirming
the existence of vested rights within the S-4 VRA, established in 1949.154

Furthermore, the terms of the Second Amended Judgment stated that none of the
upgraded or modernized equipment or facilities used by RRM changed the original

149 Exh. C-1.8 at 4:26-28.

150 Exh. C-1.4.
151 Exh. C-1.9.
152 Exh. C-1.9.
153 Exh. C-1.9 at ¶¶ R, 1-14.
154 Exh. C-1.9.

51
69711165v1
vested mining use, and that many of the modernizations and upgrades increased
efficiency and environmental conservation of the surface mining operation.155

With respect to the scope of operations confirmed under the vested right, S-2 included
the following Finding 13:

"In approving RCL No. 118S1, the County specifically referenced or

identified various surface mining activities to be undertaken during
mining and reclamation, including crushing, screening, trucking,
mining, and related activities historically ongoing at the site which
further the existing quarry operations, including a processing plant,
screens and conveyors. As determined in the 2013 findings
supporting RCL No. 118S1, and as concluded by the Superior Court
in the 2016 Second Amendment to Stipulated Settlement
Agreement and Judgment thereon, and confirmed herein, such
surface mining activities are within the scope of the previously-
determined vested right. Furthermore, an owner of vested surface
mining operations is allowed to "modernize his operations; change,
add to, or increase the size of his equipment (though determined to
be structures), even though this increases his input and intensifies
the use; provided that by such action, he does not change the
original protected nonconforming use." [Citations] . . . Accordingly,
none of the recently upgraded or modernized equipment or
facilities change the original vested mining use, and in fact many of
the modernizations and upgrades increase efficiency and
environmental conservation of the applicant's surface mining
operation."156

J. Rec Plan Amendment RCL118-S4 (2020)

On November 16, 2020, the County approved RCL 118, Substantial Conformance No. 4
(RLC00118S4) ("S4"), based on the application submitted by RRM in 2019, for a third
amendment to RP 118.157 The purposes of S4 included (1) adjusting final reclamation
contours and apply existing reclamation standards to the full scope of the previously-
confirmed vested mining areas, within the existing, already approved 132-acre S2
reclamation boundary; (2) incorporating beneficial reclamation of disturbed areas of

155 Exh. C-1.9.

156 Exh. C-1.5
157 Exh. C-1.6

52
69711165v1
the site not presently required to be reclaimed; (3) achieving full compliance with two
prior settlement agreements and Sirst and Second Amended Judgments.158

As stated by the County in its findings approving S-4:

5. With the approval of RCL No. 118S2 in February 2017, the

County approved a fourth mining-related entitlement that
confirmed the areas previously recognized as subject to the vested
right include at a minimum the areas located within the CUP No.
1146 and RP No. 118 boundaries. . . . Moreover, equipment
upgrades or facility changes do not constitute such an expansion or
extension, because an owner of vested surface mining operations is
allowed to "modernize his operations," as discussed in the RCL No.
118S2 findings.

6. Because surface mining activities within the RCL00118S4

area are consistent with the existing vested right confirmed in
multiple, historical documents, the County need not make any
further determination of the scope of such vested right prior to
approval of Amended RCL00118S4.

7. The applicant has stated that is reserves the right to seek

future confirmation of its vested right to mine outside the
boundaries of RCL No. 118S4. Should the applicant, in the future,
seek to mine outside the boundaries of RCL No. 118S4, it would
need to demonstrate the scope of its vested right pursuant to the
vested right determination process required by and consistent with
the appropriate lead agency surface mining ordinance, such as the
County's surface mining ordinance (Ordinance No. 555) . . ."159

The instant RFD essentially begins where Finding #7 of the County's S-4 approval
leaves off. In the parlance of that finding, the "applicant" (RRM) is now "seeking to
mine outside the boundaries of RCL No. 111S4" and therefore has compiled the
historical information in this RFD in order to "demonstrate the scope of its vested
right" pursuant to the County's vested right determination process.

158 Exh. C-1.6

159 Exh. C-1.5.

53
69711165v1
 V. THE HISTORY OF MINING OPERATIONS ON AND AROUND THE HH VRA

As discussed in Section II (Executive Summary), supra, properly determining the full

scope of vested rights within the HH VRA requires an understanding of (1) the
geological and historical context of the mineral region in which the HH VRA is located;
(2) how the HH VRA fit within the larger regional mining area and operations that
developed between the 1880s up through the time of vesting in 1949; and (3) the scope
of surface mining activities occurring directly on the HH VRA from its creation as a
distinct 800+-acre parcel in 1925.

A. Historical Context: The HH VRA is Located Within An Area Historically

Known for Abundant Mineral Resources Since the Late 1800s

The HH VRA is located in an area known historically as the “Temescal Tin District” or
“Temescal Mining District,”160 (an area of long-standing historical mining activity in
Riverside County. The Temescal Mining District was located south and southeast of
Corona and primarily occupying the Temescal Valley and its eastern hills. Within the
Temescal Mining District, the HH VRA was located within the western portion of the
historic Sobrante land grant, an enormous land grant covering nearly 11 square miles,
including and essentially surrounding the HH VRA to the north, east, and south.161 The
regional location of the Temescal Mining District and the HH VRA is shown in Figure
B-5.1, while details of the Temescal Mining District, Sobrante, and more particularly,
the HH VRA, are shown in Figures B-2.1—2.7, 3.1-3.10, and 5.10. As discussed in
Section III.A, it is important to understand how the interrelated nature of the Temescal
Mining District with the HH VRA established the scope of the property’s vested rights.
As discussed in detail in Sections IV.B and IV.D, infra, the HH VRA comprised a small
portion of the Temescal Mining District, one of the more significant, mineral-rich areas
in southern California. The District encompasses a variety of valuable minerals
including: precious metals, industrial minerals, clays, stone, gravel, sand, and
aggregates, and has, for many decades, served as a regional hub that provided the raw
materials that helped fuel southern California’s growth during the twentieth century.
The District continues to supply these building materials and remains a critical,
regional hub for mineral supplies.

As described in footnote 1 on page 2 of this RFD, the area is referred to as either the
160

“Temescal Tin District” or “Temescal Mining District.” Tin was what brought interest to the
region in the mid-1800s. However, this RFD uses the “Temescal Mining District” based on the
number of mineral resources actually developed in the region beginning in the late-1800s.
161 Exh. C 2.21.

54
69711165v1
The HH VRA, as well as other portions of the historic Temescal Mining District,
provide no better example of the comprehensive, multi-mineral mining development
that defined this area of Riverside County, south and southeast of Corona, through the
Establishment Date. The scope of these regional mining operations is displayed in
Figure B-5.7.

1. The Temescal Valley Contains a Unique Concentration of Mineral

Resources That Gave Rise to the Temescal Mining District, Including
the HH VRA

The Temescal Valley,162 stretches approximately fifteen miles southeast of Corona and
rests along the convergence of several major geologic features, including the Perris
Block to the east and the Elsinore clays and Bedford formation to the south and west.163
This geologic meeting point results in a concentrated area of mineral diversity, that
consequently gave rise to the trove of mineral productivity known as the Temescal
Mining District.164

The Temescal Mining District has four primary mineral bodies that historically
supported – and continue to support – surface mining operations:

(i) a ridge of unique igneous rock known as the Temescal dacite-porphyry

(“porphyry”),165 which gave rise to no less than 4 distinct quarrying
operations;166

(ii) the Temescal quartz monzonite formation, which hosts the tin-bearing,
tourmaline veins (“tourmaline”),167 and gave rise to the tin mining operations
adjacent to and partially overlapping onto the HH VRA;

162 Sometimes referred to as “Temeseal” (see Exh. C-2.4)

163 Exh. C-2.3; see also Exh. 2.3.1; C.2.6, C-2.11, and C-2.12
Exh. C-2.3; see also Exh. 2.21 (compiling mining engineer reports discussing geology and
164

mineral wealth of the Temescal Mining District).

Porphyry is an igneous rock useful as a stone for building water infrastructure; see also
165

Defined Terms
This rock body has been identified by several different names, including porphyry,
166

Temescal porphyry, and colloquially as “blarney stone,” which lent its name the large quarry
within the HH VRA.
Tourmaline is Tin-bearing igneous rock primarily located within Corona quartz monzonite
167

bedrock, correlated with occurrences of tin and tin oxides; see also Defined Terms.

55
69711165v1
 (iii) an overlay of up to 600 feet of clay deposits, including red fire clay and pink
mottled clays, which gave rise to the numerous clay mining operations, many of
which occurred throughout the HH VRA; and

(iv) more (geologically) recent alluvial deposits of gravel, silica, and sand ,
which gave rise to the aggregate operations within the S-4 VRA, and many
others in the area, as well as the silica sand and glass manufacturing operations
located immediately west of the HH VRA.168

This layered geology has resulted in the proliferation, since the nineteenth century, of
multiple mining operations within the Temescal Mining District, including granite,
hard rock, aggregate, sand, glass silica, and clay, as well as tin mines.169

2. Following Resolution in 1888 of a Boundary (and Mineral Rights)

Dispute Involving the U.S. Government, Development of the Temescal
Mining District’s Mineral Resources Began in Earnest
Dating back to the mid-nineteenth century, the geology of the Temescal Mining District
(and its attendant mineral abundance) was well known. In a journal from 1860,
William H. Brewer, a member of the field party evaluating California’s mineral
resources commissioned by California’s first state geologist Joshia Whitney, described
the Temescal Mining District as:

The Temescal hills are range some two thousand feet high,
lying east of the Santa Ana Mountains, and are celebrated
now as being the locality of fabulous mines and quantities of
tin. People are “crazy” about tin ore, every man has from one
to fifty claims, while poor devils with ragged clothes and
short pipes talk as they smoke of being wealthy owners of
one hundred or two hundred claims, each in time to rival
Cornwall or Banca. It was to these mines and the formation
around that we came here.170

168Exh. C 2.1, at p. 162. (The clay deposits were laid down when Temescal Valley “was an arm
of the sea opening northward into the valley of western San Bernardino County and extending
southerly to Temecula.”)
169 Exh. C 2.1 at p. 5.
William Henry Brewer, UP AND DOWN CALIFORNIA: THE JOURNAL OF WILLIAM H. BREWER
170

1860-1864 (4th Edition, 2003), p. 34

56
69711165v1
Brewer’s allusion to “mining claims,” indicates that the Temescal Mining District
contained at least some public land owned by the United States. However; a significant
portion of future mineral development would occur on the privately-held Sobrante
estate. Indeed, the nature of the Sobrante (and how to dispose of its mineral resources)
was a source of significant friction between the United States and the Sobrante owners,
until a dispute over the borders of the Sobrante was resolved.

a. The History of the Sobrante Mineral Dispute

The Sobrante was bequeathed to Ms. Maria del Rosario Estudillo de Aguirre by the
Mexican government and confirmed by a patent issued by the United States Land
Office on October 26, 1867.171 Even before the United States issued that patent, the
mineral nature of the Sobrante – and efforts to develop the mineral resources – was
known, based on the purchase by a mineral speculator, Major Hancock, of the mineral
rights of the Sobrante from Ms. Aguirre.172 Hancock then sought out Edward Conway
an employee of the Surveyor General’s office, to run the proposed mineral business.173
In 1864, several years after Hancock approached Conway about developing the
Sobrante mineral interests, but before the United States would issue the patent,
Conway purchased the entire Sobrante estate (mineral and surface) from Ms.
Aguirre.174

Conway’s involvement with development in the Sobrante prior to the issuance of the
patent caused significant controversy – leading to two lawsuits before the Supreme
Court of the United States.175 The second lawsuit – United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. –
saw the United States attempt to overturn the patent and obtain ownership for itself of
the mineral reserves within the Sobrante (and subsequently develop the same). To
accomplish this, the United States alleged that the Sobrante patent had been procured
by fraud.176 The crux of the United States’ argument relied Conway’s – the Sobrante’s
owner – previous relationship with the Surveyor General during the original survey of
the Sobrante. The United States argued that Conway had an impermissible conflict-of-

171 Exh 4.1, United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. (1888) 125 U.S. 273, 274-275; 287; see also Exh. A-1.
172 Id. at 290.
173 Id.
174 Id. at 290-291.
175The first piece of litigation, United States v. D’Aguirre, dealt with the scope of the land grant,
resulting in a determination that the Sobrante was the remainder of another land grant. See
U.S. v. D’Aguirre, 68 U.S. 311 (1863).
176 Exh. C -4.1 at 290.

57
69711165v1
interest and unduly enriched himself, because he was able to ensure the Sobrante
patent included known mineral rich areas.177 In 1888, the Supreme Court rejected this
argument ruled against the United States, thus awarding the owners of the Sobrante
full ownership of the land and mineral rights.178

b. Resolution of the Sobrante Dispute Spurred Development

in the Temescal Mining District

With the dispute over the Sobrante’s mineral development rights –including the HH
VRA– resolved, mineral development began in earnest. As early as 1887, just before
resolution of the Supreme Court lawsuit, local newspapers touted the “substantial
resources” of the Temescal Mining District, including the Sobrante. An article in the
South Riverside Bee described South Riverside – later renamed Corona – as a town
“which has sprung up as if by magic,” which already had a “a splendid granite
quarry,” “an immense lime deposit,” and “superior quality of clays and minerals
found” in the surrounding hills, and predicted that many new mineral production and
processing companies would soon develop in the area.179 These mineral developments
area – within the HH VRA and the Temescal Mining District generally – are discussed
below.

B. Pre-1924: Surface Mining Activities On or Utilizing the HH VRA

Between 1866 and 1924, multiple surface mining operations developed within the
boundaries of the Temescal Mining District, including the portion of the Sobrante that
included the future HH VRA. These surface mining activities included the Cajalco Tin
Mine, multiple stone quarries, and silica-sand exploration activities.

1. Development of the Cajalco Tin Mine and Use of the HH VRA to

Support Tin Mining Activities (1853-1923)

The Temescal Mining District was the site of a “tin rush” in the middle of the 19th
century. The discovery of tin bearing ore in the Temescal Mining District was the
genesis of many mining operations – tin was what brought people to the region.

177 Id.
178 Id.
Exh. C-3.1 (“South Riverside: A Town Which Has Sprung Up as If By Magic,” SOUTH
179

RIVERSIDE BEE (September 24, 1887))

58
69711165v1
 a. Initial Tin Mining Activities Until 1892

Between 1853 and when the United States issued the Sobrante patent in October 1867,
hundreds of claims were staked and exploration and hand-prospecting occurred
throughout the Temescal Mining District.180 Beginning in 1867, the owners of the
Sobrante began to develop a commercial operation at the Cajalco Tin Mine, centered
around Cajalco Hill, adjacent to and just to the northeast of HH VRA, as depicted in
Figures B-3.4 and B-4.1. These initial surface mining activities included surface mining
exploration and the excavation of tourmaline (tin-bearing ore) veins located on the
surface (as opposed to underground tourmaline veins), construction of test smelting
operations, and the dissemination and exposition of tin ore samples, including display
at the Mechanics’ Institute Fair in San Francisco in 1868 and the Paris Exposition in
1878.181 Despite these initial surface mining activities, the dispute between the Sobrante
owners and the U.S. government idled mineral development between 1883 and 1888,
during the pendency of the litigation.

Once the lawsuit was resolved, the Sobrante owners resumed mineral development
efforts and the Cajalco Tin Mine produced marketable tin for two years, in 1891 and
1892. This tin was excavated primarily from surface-level tourmaline veins, as well as
two working shafts that had been sunk 180 feet on an underground vein lode
approximately 300 feet long.182 In addition to ore excavation, ore milling operations
were also on-site, as well as additional tin prospecting activities by tunnels and open
cuts.183

During this period of tin mining, and relevant to the HH VRA, the produced tin was
hauled from the mine site (located adjacent and to the northeast of the HH VRA) to
Corona via a haul road that ran southwest, through HH VRA, to the Temescal Wash
and the Elsinore-Corona Road (located adjacent and to the west of the HH VRA).184

Work at the Cajalco Tin Mine was idled in 1892 based on the decrease in the price of tin
and the overall cost of mining, milling, and transporting ore, entirely by road, from the
Cajalco Tin Mine to market.185 As discussed below, however, tin mining in this area

The Cajalco Digs: Exploring an Early California Mining Camp,

180

www.archaeologicalassociates.com/aa3.html (last accessed August 28, 2021)).

181 Id.
182 Exh. C-2.7 at p. 112.
183 Id.
184 Exh. C-2.15 at pp. 533-534; see also Figures B-3.4 and B-6.1.
185 Exh. C-2.11 at pp. 151-152.

59
69711165v1
was restarted several times, to support the U.S. war efforts during both World War I
and World War II, including a period in the 1940s, just prior to the Establishment Date.
The details of this additional tin mining as discussed at Sections IV.B.1.b and IV.C.2.d
infra.

b. The First Resurrection of the Cajalco Tin Mine: 1917-1923

During the early twentieth century, the price of tin did not justify resuming operations
at the Cajalco Tin Mine. However, the fortunes of the mine were revived during World
War I, which created an increased demand – and price – for tin. The owners of the
Sobrante entered into an agreement with Corona Mayor E.J. Genereux, in an effort to
reinvigorate the tin mine.186

Contemporaneous accounts of the agreement are clear that the deal allowed Genereux
to not only restart development of the Cajalco Tin Mine, but also develop and other
mineral properties within the Temescal Mining District:

"It [the agreement] means the re-opening of the old mine, which has already
begun, and in the development of large deposits of copper, silver and tin ore …
[and] Captain John Haswell, a prominent mining engineer . . . reported
favorably upon the properties . . . that its potential possibilities are the greatest
of any new mining properties in the state of California.".187

During this period, Genereux’s team undertook significant improvements around the
tin mine. The existing mine shaft was pumped dry, and deepened to 500 feet, surface
prospecting and exploration was completed for tin and copper veins across an
approximate 5-mile portion of the Sobrante, and a smelter was erected to allow for on-
site processing.188 Shortly thereafter, during the summer of 1918, Genereux attempted
to obtain a contract with the United States government to produce tin for the war
effort; however, the war ended before any war production actually occurred.189 The
lack of a government contract did not deter Genereux’s efforts to continue developing
the mine operation, and by 1923, exploration and development of the tin mine
remained ongoing, including a ten-week survey of the mine and approximately 5

186Exh. C-3.19 (“Temescal Tin Mine May Be Reopened,” Los Angeles Times (May 9, 1917)); see
also Exh. A-6.
Exh. C-3.20 (“Deal for Temescal Tin Mine and Other Property Closed,” CORONA DAILY
187

INDEPENDENT (August 25, 1917)).

188 Exh. C-2.13 at pp. 509-511.
189 Exh. C-3.24 (“United States Interested in Tin,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (July 12, 1918)).

60
69711165v1
square miles of surrounding Temescal Mining District property (including the HH
VRA) by a Denver-based mining engineer. 190 By 1923, the economic jolt provided by
World War I had faded, and market conditions no longer justified continued work at
the Cajalco Tin Mine.191

Like the initial work related to the Cajalco Tin Mine, the activities related to the
resurrection of the Cajalco Tin Mine relied on the HH VRA for (1) access to and from
the site (i.e. using the interior haul road); (2) supplies of rock, sand, and gravel from
borrow pits within the HH VRA to repair and maintain that interior haul road; and
continued; (3) areas to explore and prospect tin-bearing tourmaline veins, including
those veins within the northeast corner of the HH VRA.

c. Timeline of Activities at Cajalco Tin Mine (1853-1923)

Table 1, below, provides a timeline of surface mining activities that occurred at the
Cajalco Tin Mine and activities within the HH VRA associated with that mine during
the time period both it, and the HH VRA, were part of the single, Sobrante Property.

Table 1: Timeline of Surface Mining Activities At and Associated With the Cajalco Tin
Mine from 1853 Until 1923

Note: Appendix B, Table B-1. provides a list of all surface mining activities
referenced in the Tables and text throughout the RFD. Table B-1.1 identifies the
surface mining activities by “Map I.D.” and provides cross-references to Appendix B
(Maps and Graphics).

Map I.D. Year Surface Mining Activities Relevance

M-1 1853 Tin-bearing tourmaline veins discovered in Discovery of tin spurred

Temescal Mining District, leading to a “tin interest in Temescal Mining
rush,” including exploration, prospecting, and District
mining of surface-level trourmaline outcrops
and veins.

Exh. C-3.32 (“L.A. Mine Officials Confer with Corona Business Men,” CORONA COURIER
190

(October 5, 1923)).
191 Id.

61
69711165v1
 Map I.D. Year Surface Mining Activities Relevance

R-2, M- pre 1890, Construction and use of “Tin Mine Haul Road,” Sobrante owners construct
4, M-5 1891-1892 nunning northeast to southwest through HH haul road which, haul road
VRA, used to access to the tin mine and move ran through the HH VRA to
produced tin to market via the Corona-Elsinore move produced tin east of
Highway and ATSF Railroad. the HH VRA to market west
of the HH VRA. The HH
Tourmaline surface excavation and proudction VRA provided access points
of tin. to ATSF railroad and
Corona-Elsinore Highway.
Tourmaline surface excavation; construction of
ancillary facilities in support of tin mining Surface mining disturbances
operations; and production of tin.

M-11, 1917-1923 Establishment of borrow pits to restore and The Sobrante owners
R-12, maintain tin mine haul road; use of tin mine established borrow pits
M-13, haul road. within he HH VRA to aid
M-14, construction and
M-15 Refurbishment of the Cajalco Tin Mine, maintenance of the interior
including surface facilities. haul road.

Tourmaline vein excavation and exploration. The Sobrante owners

refurbished the Cajalco Tin
Mine and restarted surface
mining exploration and
excavation.

2. The Corona Rock Boom and Other Mineral Development in the

Temescal Mining District Prior to 1925

As discussed above in Section IV.B.1.a, supra, if the discovery of tin-bearing

tourmaline in the mid-19th century was the genesis of the Temescal Mining District, by
the turn of the 20th-century, it was overtaken in importance by the stone and clay
resources of the Temescal Mining District.

a. Temescal Mining District Rock Quarries Within or Associated

with the HH VRA

Beginning in 1888, the area of the Temescal Mining District southeast of Corona,
primarily along the eastern side of the Temescal Wash and along the Temescal Hills,

62
69711165v1
saw the establishment of multiple quarry operations.192This period of quarry
establishment was contemporaneously dubbed the “Corona Rock Boom,” and saw
significant stone and aggregate production that supported the rapid growth of
southern California in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.193 By 1904, the Temescal
Mining District was supplying more than 100 railcars per week/month of paving
blocks and other stone products to Los Angeles for use in building and street
construction.194 The Corona Independent published an article extolling the District’s
resources in 1907, writing with glowing with optimism that,

“The mineral resources of the section are practically

untouched as yet – merely prospected. There is no doubt in
the minds of those best fitted to judge that they will
ultimately prove a[s] sources of great wealth… .”195

The article goes on to further describe a survey by the United States Geological Survey
(“USGS”) that catalogued other resources, including nearly 330 acres of cement rock;
tin-bearing tourmaline; gold and other metals; glass sand; and porphyry.196

During this period rock quarrying operations were so important to Corona’s economy
that civic leaders within the chamber of commerce urged the city to buy one of the few
remaining rock quarries up for sale lest “taxpayers . . . pay fancy prices for crushed
rock for road building purposes.”197

The Corona Rock Boom saw numerous quarries established within the Temescal
Mining District, including at least one within the HH VRA, to extract porphyry. As
discussed in Section IV.A.1, supra, porphyry from the Temescal Mining District was
renowned as being “the best of its kind in California,” and useful as a strong and

Exh. C-2.3; Exh. C-2.4; see also Exh. C-3.10 (“Corona’s Progress,” CORONA COURIER (Aug. 3,
192

1911)); Exh. C-3.11 (“Our Crushed Rock Industry,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (March 30,
1911)); C-3.13 (“The Fourth Big Rock Plant to Operate Soon,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT
(Oct. 19, 1911)).
193 Id.
194 Exh. C-3.3 (“Local Notes,” CORONA COURIER (April 16, 1904)).
Exh. C-3.5 (“Corona Product in Great Demand,” CORONA INDEPENDENT (July 5, 1907)’ Exh.
195

C-3.6 (“Corona, The Crown of the Valley,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (July 5, 1907)).
196 Id.
Exh. C-3.7 (“Much Interest Manifested in Organization: Corona Comes Up To Standard by
197

Replacing Old Board of Trade Name Buy Chamber of Commerece – New Interest is
Awakened,” CORONA INDEPENDENT (December 15, 1910))..

63
69711165v1
versatile building material for building construction, surfacing streets, and
constructing flood control and water delivery infrastructure projects.198 The main ore
body of porphyry occurs just to the west of the tin-bearing tourmaline formation
associated with the Cajalco Tin Mine at the western edge of the Temescal Mining
District where the Temescal Hills meet the Temescal Wash.199 The Sobrante owners,
understanding the value of the ore body underlying their property, established
multiple quarries within the Temescal Mining District, including the Temescal Rock
Quarry, located north of the HH VRA, as well an unnamed quarry located within the
HH VRA, as depicted in Figures B-3.1 and B-3.4. The unnamed quarry within the HH
VRA would later be expanded as the Blarney Stone, and later Hubbs Harlow Quarry.
Thus, the Corona Rock Boom, and associated quarrying activity, was the first time that
the quarrying operations occurred within the HH VRA, as part of a broader mineral
development push by the Sobrante owners (and RRM’s predecessors-in-interest).

b. Temescal Mining District Mineral Development and Clay

Operations Within or Associated with the HH VRA

By 1911, with the streets of Los Angeles paved, the Corona Rock Boom subsided
slightly, but mineral development in the Temescal Mining District continued. In
January 1911, the Sobrante owners entered into an agreement to develop
approximately 43,000 acres of land, including significant holdings within the Temescal
Mining District.200 A contemporaneous newspaper article, describe the venture as
including “11,000 acres of rougher land, hill lands, and mountains . . . rich in mineral
resources and includ[ing] stone quarries of great value and immense gravel
deposits.”201 The Sobrante owners promoted further mineral development in multiple
publications, including an advertisement in Sunset Magazine that extolled the
opportunity to invest in the Temescal Mining District’s “immense mineral resources,
quarries and mines.”202 Additional advertisements regarding mineral property
development included one in a 1925 edition of the Santa Fe railroad’s magazine, which
described the Temescal Mining District as ripe for investment:

Exh. C-3.5 (“Corona Product in Great Demand,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (July 5,
198

1907))..
199 See Exh. 2.21, Exh. 2.21.2.
See Exh. A-4; Exh. C-3.9 (“Sale of 43,000 Acres in Riverside County,” Corona Daily
200

Independent (Jan. 27, 1911)).

201 Id.
202 Exh. C-3.8 (“El Sobrante Land Company,” SUNSET MAGAZINE (1911)).

64
69711165v1
 “With the Corona and Santa Fe Railroad soon to be a reality,
opening up a vast new country to development, and the
richest tin mine in the world. . . vast deposits of silica are
developed rapidly. Various companies are shipping large
quantities of superior clays. The finest rock quarry in
California is shipping between 1,500 and 2,000 cars of
crushed rock every month.”203

Beyond advertising, additional mineral development in the Temescal Mining District

was further aided by the completion of a spur line between Elsinore/Alberhill (a
renowned clay mining area) and Corona, which significantly reduced the time and
freight costs to move mineral materials from the Temescal Mining District to Los
Angeles.204 The completion of this spur line increased connectivity to several clay
operations located south of the HH VRA, including the El Sobrante Pit, as depicted in
Figure 3.6. The 160-acres EL Sobrante Pit was located in Section 26, north of the
Harrington Pit, in a section of the Temescal Mining District that borders the
Alberhill/Elsinore area and supported at least 5 additional operations.205 The El
Sobrante Pit served as a source of mottled pink clay, used primarily to manufacture
facing brick and roof tiles, beginning in the early 1920s through the 1960s.206 The
products from this area, prior to the completion of the rail spur line described above,
had been transported on roads, including an interior haul road through the HH VRA,
as depicted in Figures B-3.4 and B-4.2, to reach Corona and markets further afield.

Finally, the Temescal Mining District was known to contain reserves of high-quality
silica sand as early as 1902.207 Extraction of this commodity began in earnest during the
early 1920s. Between 1920 and 1923, the area along the western edge of the HH VRA
(and areas adjacent to it), were explored and evaluated for the potential to support a
commercial silica sand mining operation.208 By 1924, a small processing plant had been
constructed adjacent to the HH VRA.209 Initially, silica and sand processing were

203 Exh. C-3.114 (“Corona,” The Santa Fe Magazine (December 1925)).

204 Exh. C 2.1, at p. 163.
205 Exh. C-2.1 at pp. 162 , 181, 329; see also Exh. 2.3.
206 Exh. C-2.1 at pp. 163.
207 Exh. C-3.31 (“Silica Industry Will Be Started in Corona,” Corona Courier (Dec. 19, 1924)).
208 Id.
209 Exh. C-2.9; Exh. C-2.10.

65
69711165v1
inefficient, and did not expand until the property was purchased by P.J. Weisel in the
late 1920s, as described in Section IV.D.2, below.

The above-described mineral development of, the larger Sobrante property was
integral to the establishment of the HH VRA as a distinct property. The area that
would become the HH VRA was an integral link between multiple mining operations
within the Sobrante and access to the ATSF railroad (allowing mined materials to be
transported to market).

c. Timeline of Additional Surface Mining Activities Within the

Temescal Mining District Within or Associated with the HH
VRA Prior to 1925

Table 2, below, provides a timeline of surface mining activities discussed above and
other mineral development activities that occurred within the Temescal Mining District
either within or associated with the HH VRA during the time period the area,
including the HH VRA, was part of the single, Sobrante Property.

Table 2: Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Within the Temescal Mining District
Within or Associated with the HH VRA Prior to 1925

Note: Appendix B, Table B-1.1. provides a list of all surface mining activities
referenced in the Tables and text throughout the RFD. Table B-1.1 identifies the
surface mining activities by “Map I.D.” and provides cross-references to Appendix B
(Maps and Graphics).

Map I.D. Year Surface Mining Activities Relevance

M-3 1888 Porphyry quarrying Quarry north of the HH VRA established by

begins at Temescal Rock Sobrante owners, along same porphyry
Quarry occurrence as the HH VRA, demonstrates
intent to develop all resources in Temescal
Mining District.

M-6 1911 Small porphyry Multiple quarries, including one on the HH

quarries (rip-rap and VRA, were established to meet demand of
aggregate) established Los Angeles cinstryctuin
along eastern bank of needs,demonstrating intent of Sobrante
Temescal Wash by owners to utilize HH VRA in conjunction
Sobrante owners, with neighboring quarry operations to
including one within produce mineral materials as needed.
HH VRA

66
69711165v1
 Map I.D. Year Surface Mining Activities Relevance

M-7 1911 Clay prospecting and Clay mineral resources evaluated for
quarrying throughout development throughout the Temescal
the Temescal Mining Mining District, including within the HH
District, including VRA, demonstrating intent of Sobrante
within the northern owners to fully develop all mineral resources
portion of the HH VRA with Temescal Mining District.

R-8 1911 Road construction in Road allowed multiple mineral

Temescal (Hoag’s) developments to access the Corona market,
Canyon connecting thus facilitating development throughout the
Temescal Mining Temescal Mining District. The location of the
Distirct with broader road next to the HH VRA also established the
regional markets and property as a central locationfor hauling
other regional surface mineral materials.
mining operations

R-9 1911 Railroad construction, Railraod construction, termining at the

connecting the Temescal mouth of Cajalco Canyon, at the northwest
Mining District with corner of the HH VRA, became primary
primary rail lines and method of loading and export for multiple
broader regional minerals (tin and porphyry) produced in the
market. Temescal Mining District. The location of the
railroad siding to the northwest of the HH
VRA also established the property as a
central location for hauling mineral materials.

R-10 1911- Construction and use of Sobrante owners construct and use clay haul
1926 clay haul road running road, running from clay pits on the border of
south to northwest the Temescal Mining District and Alberhill
through the HH VRA Clay District (including Harrington Clay Pit),
to the ATSF railroad and Corona-Elsinore
Highway, through the HH VRA.

M-11 1917 Increased quarrying Sobrante owners’ continued investment in

activities and regional mining operations demonstrates
improvements within intent to fully develop the Temescal Mining
Temescal Mining District as a regional mining hub.
District

67
69711165v1
 Map I.D. Year Surface Mining Activities Relevance

E-16 1920- Surveying and Exploration, sampling, and testing of silica

1923 exploration for sand resources within the Temescal mining
developable silica sand district, generally located within and just to
deposits. the wester of the HH VRA (and specifically
areas along east and west banks of Temescal
Wash) to determine viability of establishing
silica sand mining and processing operation,
demonstrating intent to fully develop all
mineral resources in the Temescal Mining
District.

M-17 1923 Activities to modernize Sobrante owners’ continued investment in

equipment at Temescal regional mining operations demonstrates
(“Blue Diamond”) intent to fully develop the Temescal Mining
Quarry and expanded District as a regional mining hub.
surface mining activities

M-18 1923 Corona Sand and Silica Exploration area include areas both on, and
Co. constructs a directly west, of HH VRA, demonstrating
production plant and intent to fully develop all mineral resources
begins pit excavations in the Temescal Mining District.
along the east and west
sides Temescal Wash

C. In 1925 the HH VRA Divested from the Larger Sobrante Landholding,

Triggering Increased Development of Mineral Resources Directly on the Site

As described above, prior to the creation of the HH VRA as a distinct mining property
in 1925, there were significant surface mining activities within the Temescal Mining
District, including within the HH VRA and adjacent land within the Sobrante property.

However, during the 1920s San Jacinto Ltd. divested itself of significant portions of the
Sobrante, which led to the creation of the 800+ acre HH VRA tract that approximates
the HH VRA as it appears today, as depicted in Figures B-2.2 and B-2.3. Yet, the
fracturing of what had been a large cohesive property holding (and mineral
development area) into smaller, more distinct property configurations, including the
HH VRA, did not slow mineral development in the region. As discussed below,
mineral development would accelerate during the 1930s to provide raw materials for
multiple large-scale infrastructure projects in the region.

68
69711165v1
 1. Ownership of the HH VRA as a Distinct Tract Began in 1925

As discussed in Section I.I, supra, and Appendix A, attached understanding the

ownership of the HH VRA is necessary to understand the trajectory of mineral
development on the property.

As discussed above, the HH VRA, in roughly its current form, was first owned by local
real estate speculator E.E. Peacock. Peacock’s ownership is depicted in Figure B-2.3,
and consisted of the majority of Section 15 and the south half of Section 10. 210 Before his
death in the early 1930s, Peacock would give away essentially value-less pieces of the
HH VRA with sales of an encyclopedia. These parcels were of limited value and
essentially undevelopable because (1) their size, of approximately 50 feet by 30 feet
meant nothing could be built on them; (2) the landlocked nature of the parcels,
sprinkled sporadically throughout the HH VRA; and (3) most importantly, Peacock’s
consistent, universal reservation of all minerals and related mining rights from every
single parcel conveyed as part of an encyclopedia sale.211 These reservations
maintained the mining character of the HH VRA and allowed RRM’s predecessors-in-
interest to consistently dedicate the HH VRA to mining purposes.

Following Peacock’s death in the early 1930s, F.M. Kuhry, an individual to whom
Peacock was indebted, acquired the HH VRA. Shortly after his acquisition, Kuhry
entered into a joint tenancy with Leilamae Harlow, with whom he would devote and
develop the HH VRA for surface mining over the next twenty years, as described in
Section I.G, supra, and Section IV.C, infra. By 1954, Harlow obtained sole ownership of
the HH VRA from Kuhry, and continued mining operations throughout the HH VRA,
as described in Sections IV.F and IV.G, infra.

Following Harlow’s death Hubbs, proprietor of Harlow’s lessee Hubbs Construction,

acquired the HH VRA in 1979.212 Hubbs would retain possession of the primary quarry

210Note that neighboring portions of the property, including a small portion the SW ¼ of Sec.
15, while not a part of this RFD, were acquired by third parties in 1909, before being acquired
by Corona Silica Company in February 1925, and later acquired after 1971 by Leila Mae
Harlow, whose estate sold it to Gerhart L. Schultz et al. in 1979 and which portion now exists
as APN 281-220-001 (“Schultz Parcel”). Therefore references herein to the HH VRA do not
include the Schultz Parcel.
211 See Exh. A-11.
While Harlow died in 1972, disposition of her estate took several years. There were thus
212

several successive owners of the HH VRA upon her death; however, Hubbs continuously
operated the longstanding mining activities (i.e., quarry) within the HH VRA during this
period, until he acquired full ownership in 1979.

69
69711165v1
until the early 2000s, at which point RRM purchased it. Surface mining activities
continued after the Hubbs’ acquisition of the property, and were continuous through
successive owners, including RRM.213

A map of these interests is depicted in Figures B-2.1 – B-2.7.

2. Increasing Development of Mineral Resources and Surface Mining

Activities Within the HH VRA From 1925 Until 1948

After Peacock took possession of the HH VRA, surface mining activity within the HH
VRA increased, driven, primarily, by a series of infrastructure projects, including road,
rail, dam, and water pipeline construction, as described in detail in Sections IV.C.2.a –
IV.C.2.e, infra.

As described in Section IV.B, supra, previous surface mining activity in the HH VRA
was related to smaller scale excavations of tin-bearing tourmaline veins, as well as the
stone quarry operations, clay, and the development and use of interior haul roads
connecting the nearby mineral developments (e.g. tin mine, clay pits) in the interior of
the Sobrante to the Corona-Elsinore Highway and ATSF railroad. From the 1920s
onwards, surface mining activity would shift to include large-scale use of the HH VRA
to produce multiple materials, including aggregate and road base, stone and riprap,
and clay.

a. Materials for Railroad Construction and Maintenance

During the late 1920s, the ATSF railroad extended its spur line from Corona, which
previously ended in Temescal Canyon just northwest of the HH VRA, located at the
mouth of Cajalco Canyon, all the way to the Alberhill-Elsinore region.214 This
construction required significant amounts of ballast rock, of which ballast necessary to
complete approximately 5000 yards of track were produced from the small quarry
located along the western edge of the HH VRA, south of Cajalco Canyon and east of
Temescal Wash, as depicted in Figure B-4.2, which show the early porphyry quarrying
activities along the ATSF railroad within the HH VRA.215

The construction of the spur line, in addition to requiring material quarried from the
HH VRA, established a direct rail link between the Alberhill-Elsinore clay pits to

213 Exh. A-34, Declaration of Christine Goeyvaerts, ¶¶ 3-7.

214 Exh. 3.36 (“Santa Fe Asks to Lease Proposed Railway,” CORONA COURIER (May 14, 1926)).
Exh. 3.42 (“Santa Fe Finishes Rip-Rap Quarrying,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (April 29,
215

1927)).

70
69711165v1
ceramic production facilities located in El Cerrito (on the west side of Temescal Wash),
Corona, and Los Angeles. This new rail link eliminated the need to use the previous
haulage trail, which ran from the clay pits south of the property, through the HH VRA,
to the ATSF spur line station, thus freeing up a significant portion of the HH VRA for
extensive quarrying and mineral production .

The stone used in construction of the ATSF spur line was the first documented, large-
scale production of stone from the HH VRA.

b. Materials for Water Supply and Road Infrastructure

i. Mineral Development Supported Construction of Cajalco

Road, Cajalco Dam, and Prado Dam, Among Other Public
Works Projects

As described in Section IV.C.1, supra, Kuhry and Harlow acquired the HH VRA from
Peacock in 1932. During their tenure as owners, the HH VRA was a prominent
operation in providing material for several significant infrastructure projects, including
construction of the Cajalco Road, construction of the Cajalco Dam, and construction of
the Prado Dam.

In October 1931, voters in southern California approved a $220,000,000 bond issue “to
finance construction of a huge water supply tube from the Colorado river to . . . Los
Angeles.”216 The bond financed the construction of the Cajalco Dam and Reservoir
(modern-day Lake Matthews), to be located “almost south and a trifle east” of the
Cajalco Tin Mine, as well as two distribution lines, including the Metropolitan Water
District (“MWD”) “Lower Feeder Line,” that runs along the northern edge of the HH
VRA.217 Before the final vote for the bond had been tallied, local Corona papers were

Exh. C-3.54 (““Corona Prosperity Assured By Bond Election Affirmative Vote Tuesday, ”
216

CORONA COURIER (Oct. 2, 1931)); see also Exh. C-3.53 (“Success in Bond Election Means Much to
Corona” and “Reservoir’s Dam Near to Corona to Cost Nine Million,” CORONA DAILY
INDEPENDENT (Sept. 30, 1931)).
217Id. (“The largest dam of this great reservoir will be south and east of the old tin mine. …
From near this dam, one line of the aqueduct will run west and south to Orange county
[sic]…”).

71
69711165v1
already describing the benefits of construction for the region– including the supply of
necessary construction materials from the area’s mining operations.218

The approval of the Cajalco Dam project also spurred another construction project –
construction of Cajalco Road – which would eventually bisect the HH VRA. Following
news regarding success of the bond issue, then chairman of the Riverside County
Board of Supervisors T.C. Jameson, began work with the County’s surveyors to
establish a route from the site of the dam through Cajalco Canyon to Temescal Canyon
and the ATSF tracks.219 That route was acknowledged to be a superior route, allowing
“[t]ons of building materials for the huge concrete dam . . . [to be] hauled through the
hilly section for several miles” and give an outlet “directly to the Santa Fe tracks.”220

By 1933, Riverside County employed “relief labor”221 “to widen and improve the road
leading to the dam site from Temescal canyon . . . to get the Cajalco highway . . . in
condition for the heavy traffic it will have to bear when actual construction is started
on the giant reservoir.”222

Construction of Cajalco Road was complete by 1935, after three years of construction
done entirely by hand labor, and using materials and desert-mix surfacing provided
from local mining operations, including the HH VRA.223

ii. Demand From The Public Works Projects Increased

Mineral Production Significantly in the HH VRA

These two large-scale construction projects, occurring both within and adjacent to the
HH VRA, necessitated an increase in surface mining activities across the HH VRA
Between 1931 and 1938, several borrow pits for construct materials were opened,

Id. (“They point out that Corona will be one of the busiest cities on the entire route and that
218

much business will be given to this community, both as headquarters for the workmen and the
purchase of much of the material.”).
219 Exh. 3.54.
220 Id.
Labor provided by relief organizations such the Works Progress Administration (“WPA”)
221

and the State Emergency Relief Administration (“SERA”) see Exh. C-3.56 (“Arlington Road to
Cajalco Dam Being Surface, Temescal Canyon Link is Being Widened by Relief Crew,”
CORONA COURIER (Oct. 13, 1933)); Exh. C-.57 (“County Roads get Fed. Maintenance,” Corona
Courier (March 9, 1934)).
222 Id.
Exh. C-3.62 (“Cajalco Highway Open to Travel” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (Sept. 9,
223

1935)).

72
69711165v1
identified as disturbances in Figures B-3.2, B-3.5,B-4.5, and B.6.4. located outside the
boundaries of the S-4 VRA. These borrow pits were similar in nature to the pits opened
and mined along the west side of the property during construction of the ATSF spur
line. These disturbances are consistent with surface mining disturbances to provide
gravel and other mined material associated with road construction.

iii. The Blarney Stone Quarry

In addition to the borrow pits located around the HH VRA, this period also saw the
opening and mining of the Blarney Stone Quarry, located in the southwestern portion
of the HH VRA. This quarry expanded upon earlier, unnamed quarries within the HH
VRA to provide a ready and reliable supply of , opened and operated by the Pantages
Construction Company, used the HH VRA to produce railroad ballast, stone, rip rap,
and gravel beginning in about 1938.224

One contemporary newspaper article, written by an automotive editor who toured

several quarries, described the stone produced from the HH VRA as,

This particular blarney stone is known as a fine linseed grain

granite, similar to the texture of the original blarney stone
which has been used in Europe for thousands of years in the
building of moats and old castles, and has proved especially
sound for rock structures under water.

We were told that as far as the engineers have been able to

discover this is the only deposit of blarney stone on the North
American continent. It will be of great help in the big
construction problems facing the engineers. This blarney
stone quarry contains 200,000,000 tons of rock. It is on the
Santa Fe railroad, as is also Prado dam, so that the rock will
be delivered to the center of the dam by specially constructed
cars.225

224See Exh. C-2.18 (note, this report mentions operations on the HH VRA dating back to 1935.
These operations indeed existed, but were not operated by the Pantages Construction
Company, which began operations in 1938, but do correspond to known porphyry quarries);
see also Exh. C-2.5; see also Exh. C-3.70 (“Paving Stone Company Opens Plant Near City,”
CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (Nov. 28, 1938)).
Exh. C-3.69 (“Dodge Party Views Rock Quarries,” LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS (Sept. 28,
225

1938)).

73
69711165v1
The study the newspaper relied upon was commissioned by Harlow and undertaken
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Field District Laboratory, who had
sample porphyry from various locations within the HH VRA, evaluated the reserves
present throughout the entire property, and evaluated the porphyry for suitability in
water infrastructure (e.g., dams, spillways, levees, breakwaters, etc.) projects
undertaken by the Corps.226 Ultimately, the Corps determined that there was a massive
(200 million tons) quantity of highly suitable, dense porphyry within the HH VRA.

Other contemporary accounts touted the unique nature of rock within the HH VRA.
For example, an account described the stone as “in demand … as railroad ballast, as it
possesses that “cushion” quality so much desired by track maintenance men” and as
the closest and best source of railroad “cushion” rock west of Albuquerque, New
Mexico.”227

Much like the article in the Los Angeles Daily News, the Corona Daily Independent
noted the anticipated scope and longevity of production within the HH VRA, stating
“The very latest stone quarry machinery is being installed at the new Corona quarry,
and indicate that founders of the enterprise not only have their eyes on the immediate
future, but are considering steady production for years to come.”228

In addition to the large “blarney stone” produced from the quarry, the Prado Dam also
utilized other materials from the HH VRA, specifically gravel and aggregate necessary
to produce concrete. Carl Bliss – an associate of the Pantages Construction Company –
operated a batch plant necessary to produce concrete for the Prado Dam. In August
1938, prior to Pantages Construction opening the Blarney Stone quarry, Carl Bliss was
unable to find gravel suitable to produce the 200,000 cubic yards of concrete necessary
to construct the Prado Dam.229 As describe by the Corona Daily Independent,

On a blistering August day in 1938, two men sat astride their

horse on a mountainside over-looking Prado dam site. They
had searched for two weeks, looking for enough gravel or
small aggregate to build the bulk of some 200,000 cubic yards

226 See Exh. C-2.4; see also Exh. 3.70.

Exh. C-3.70; see also Exh. C-3.75 (“Blarneystone Rock Goes to Prado Dam,” CORONA DAILY
227

INDEPENDENT (Dec. 14, 1939) (describing the delivery of rock from the Blarney Stone Quarry to
the Prado dam using surface streets, beginning at the Corona-Elsinore Highway).
228 Id.
Exh. C-3.76 (“Story of the Carl Bliss Batch Plant, ” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (Dec. 20,
229

1939)).

74
69711165v1
 of concrete for Prado Dam. But they might as well have
looked for gold, for their search was equally fruitless.

The next day, instead of searching for gravel by horse, Bliss looked for gravel by plane,
and found “an ancient wash looming up underneath the plane. The wash looked
gravelly.”230 After landing, Bliss and a team of mean dug approximately 21 test pits in
the wash and found a bed of gravel 80 feet deep, 300 feet wide, and about one mile
long – the gravel feature identified in Figures B-3.2 and B-4., northeast of the Blarney
Stone Quarry and south of Cajalco Road.

iv. A Dispute Over Production from the Blarney Stone

Quarry

The HH VRA produced a significant amount of stone and aggregate materials;

however, this productivity resulted in a dispute between Kuhry and Harlow, as the
owner-lessors, and the Pantages Construction Co. as lessee-operators.

In 1938, Kuhry and Harlow entered in a lease with Henry F. Charles, which was later
amended to allow a lease assignment to Blarney Stone, Inc., so long as Charles held the
majority of that company’s shares.231 In January 1939, Kuhry and Harlow attempted to
terminate the lease, on the belief that Charles did not actually own the majority of
shares in Blarney Stone, Inc., as required by the lease amendment.232 By August 1940,
Harlow and Kuhry issued a demand for Blarney Stone, Inc. to vacate the leased
premises.233 Following Blarney Stone, Inc.’s failure to do so, Kuhry and Harlow filed a
lawsuit in Riverside County Superior Court.234 In that lawsuit, Kuhry and Harlow
alleged that Blarney Stone Inc.’s failure to surrender their leased premised result in
significant financial hardship, based on multiple offers of other operators to mine
property within the HH VRA.235 The litigation was resolved, and Harlow and Kuhry

230 Id.
231 Exh. C-4.2.
232 Id.
233 Id.
234 Id.
235Id.; see also Exh. C-3.70 (describing competition for the production of the HH VRA as being
“in demand … as it possess that ‘cushion quality’ desired by railroad maintenance men and
the attractive nature of the Blarney Stone Quarry to ATSF that “would give the company a
desireable product located on their own line and accessible to their needs in the greater
southwest” at a time when the next “closest source of ‘cushion’ rock” was in Albuquerque,
New Mexico).

75
69711165v1
continued to fully develop the HH VRA and devote the entire property to mining
development.

c. Mining Clay for Ceramics Products

The Temescal Valley – comprising both the Alberhill District and the Temescal Mining
District – was historically one of the three most important clay-producing areas in
California.236 By 1930, the entire Valley, from Elsinore in the south to Corona in the
north, was producing upwards of 100,000 tons of clay, of over thirty (30) distinct
varieties, used primarily in the manufacture of ceramic products, including sanitary
tile, roofing tiles, and consumer goods.237 Production was centered on five primary
producers, as well as “numberless pits, scattered throughout the valley, attest[ing to]
the activity of the property owners, and the potential resource of the Canyon for the
future.”238 While clay production in Temescal Valley is traditionally associated with the
Alberhill area, approximately 5 miles northwest of Lake Elsinore, clay beds actually
stretch the entirety of the Valley’s 15-mile length.239 Of note, two Pacific Clay Products
(“Pacific Clay”)240 operated two clay pits within the bounds of the Sobrante. One, the
El Sobrante Pit discussed in Section IV.B.2.b, supra, is at the end of the haulage road
that runs directly through the HH VRA, as depicted in Figure B-5.5.1. The second pit,
the “Cajalco Pit” is within the boundaries of the HH VRA, and partially outside the S-4
VRA.241

Pacific Clay The Cajalco Pit is located “east of Temescal Wash …south of Cajalco Road,
along the east side of the railroad.”242 Some accounts state that the Cajalco Pit is located
in northeast quarter of Section 16, on property owned by the P.J. Weisel family
(discussed in greater detail below). However, this location attribution is incorrect, for
several reasons. First, there is only a single small property located “east of Temescal

236 Exh. 2.1, at p. 162.

237 Id.
“The Clays of Orange and Riverside Counties Southern California: A Geologic Thesis,” J.
238

Clark Sutherland (California Institute of Technology 1930) at p. 34.

239 See Exh. C-2.16; see also Exh. 2.1, at p. 162.
240Pacific Clay Properties operated numerous other pits in addition to the two mentioned here;
however, those pits were not operated on land within the control of RRM’ predecessors-in-
interest and therefore have no bearing on RRM’s vested rights.
241 Exh. C-2.8 at p. 568.
242 Exh. C-2.3 at p. 110; see also Exh. C-2.4.

76
69711165v1
Wash …south of Cajalco Road, along the east side of the railroad,” as displayed in
Figure 3.1, which did not support clay mining operations.

That small parcel does not contain any surface disturbances or clay workings. Rather, a
review of historic aerial imagery from 1931 through 1938 demonstrates that the Cajalco
Pit is located within the Harlow Hubbs VRA, as displayed in Figures 3.1 and 4.9.

The Cajalco Pit consists of “residual red mottled clay,” “bright brick-red clays about 30
[feet] thick,” and “mottled grayish green clays and gray clays …[o]verlain by coarse,
weak, sandstone of Paleocene Silverado formation, 0 to 5 [feet] thick which is capped
by 10 to 20 [feet] of angular cobble and boulder conglomerate.”243 Pacific Clay worked
the Cajalco Pit into an “irregular quarry, about 100 [feet] long, [and] 10 to 30 [feet]
high.”244 This area would be extensively worked in beginning in 1948, and eventually
expand across the HH VRA and the borders the Hubbs Harlow Quarry, as described in
Sections IV.C.3 and IV.F.3.b, below.

In addition to the Cajalco Pit, there is also evidence of small clay prospecting
operations on in the northwestern part of the HH VRA. These operations were related
to a series of exploration activities during the 1930s to determine the existence and
viability of any high-aluminum-content clay resources (including bauxite) in the
Temescal Mining District and Alberhill-Elsinore Clay District. 245 These exploration
operations were part of the overall strategic mineral evaluation of the region, in an
effort to bolster and understand strategic mineral supplies for the United States leading
up to World War II.

d. Tin Mining Activities Adjacent to and Directly on the HH VRA

Continued After the HH VRA Became a Distinct Mining
Property in 1925, Including in Support of the U.S. War Effort

As described in Section IV.B.2, supra, activities related to and supporting the Cajalco
Tin Mine occurred within and adjacent to the HH VRA dating back to the 19th century.
Following the creation of the HH VRA in 1925, activities related to the Cajalco Tin
Mine continued within the HH VRA.

In 1927, mining work at the tin mine commenced for the third time. During this
production period, surface outcroppings were mined and stripped and the existing
mine shafts were extended to 540 feet, and an additional 4 levels were added to fully

243 Id.
244 Id.
245 See Exh. C-2.11; Exh. C-2.13; Exh. 2-.22,

77
69711165v1
exploit the vein; prospecting and mining occurred in numerous other veins with shafts
sunk on the No. 2, No. 4, No. 5, and No. 9 mines of depths of 75-100 feet.246 A testing
plant with a 10-ton capacity was also on-site.247 Exploration and small scale excavation
of tourmaline veins continued throughout the property, including areas in the
northeast of HH VRA. As described in a summary of this work produced in 1945:

The veins near the Cajalco mine were prospected . . . and

many drifts were driven in search of new ore shoots. Many
veins in the district were stripped and thousands of samples
were taken; wherever high assays were obtained, shafts or
adits were dug. …Investigations of the deposits in the last
decade have consisted primarily of surface sampling.248

Despite these improvements and sampling efforts, the third attempt was cut short by
the Great Depression. Yet, the development of a tin resource was not a lost cause.
Much like the earlier tin revival during World War I, the later tin revival caused by
World War II spurred a fourth round of development at the mine.

Starting in approximately 1942, the United States Geological Survey conducted

extensive work across the 3,500 acres of land within the Temescal Mining District,
including portions of the HH VRA, to survey and prospect for tin.249 The results of that
survey were published in 1945, and demonstrated the extent of possible veins, stripped
veins, and exploration work.250 Beginning in 1940, the USGS team investigated the
Temescal Tin District. This investigation included: (i) mapping approximately six
square miles within the vicinity of the Cajalco mine on a scale of 400 feet to the inch, in
conjunction with existing topographic maps prepared by the USGS and MWD; (ii)
unexcavated veins were mapped in detail on the surface and accessible underground
locations; (iii) excavated trenches and veins were mapped and sampled; and (iv)
previous mine works were repaired and examined.251 Based on the mapping, sampling
and assay results, approximately 1,400 tons of tin-bearing rock were mined and milled

246 Exh. C-2.10 at p. 498

247 Id.
248 Exh. C-2.16; see also Exh. D-1, Exh. D-2; and Figures B-6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
249 Id.
Exh. C-3.38 (“Rush Test Mill at Tin Mine To Be Ready in Six Weeks,” CORONA DAILY
250

INDEPENDENT (March 1, 1943)).

251 Id.

78
69711165v1
to determine the economic potential of wartime tin production.252 By 1943, the Phelps
Dodge Corporation,253 acting on behalf of the United States government, set up a test
mill at the Cajalco Mine, with the aim of milling approximately 100 tons of ore every
day.254

In particular, the USGS surveyors examined several tourmaline veins located in Section
10, including several prospected and stripped veins.255 These veins are located in a
formation of tin bearing ores that reach onto the northeastern corner of the HH VRA,
as depicted in Figure B-3.6 and in Figures B-4.6.2, 4.6.3 (reproduced below), B-6.1, 6.2,
and 6.3. The assays taken from these veins contained some of the highest percentage
tin area (up to nearly 2%, against an average of 0.5%).256

By 1945, wartime work at the Cajalco Tin Mine idled again.

252 Exh. C-2.16; see also Exh. D-2 and Figures B-6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
253Phelps Dodge had long been interested in the tin mine, having purchased the dubious
claims staked in region prior to 1888, when the Supreme Court ruled that the area was
properly private land owned by the Sobrante owners. (RRM’s predecessor-in-interest) rather
than federal land open to mining claims.
254 Exh. C-3.38.
255 Id. at p. 22
256 Id.

79
69711165v1
 3. Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Within HH VRA (1924-1948)

Table 3, below, provides a timeline of surface mining activities within the HH VRA
discussed above from the time of the HH VRA’s creation in 1925 until the
establishment date in 1949.

Table 3: Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Within the HH VRA From 1925 Until
the 1948

Note: Appendix B, Table B-1.1. provides a list of all surface mining activities
referenced in the Tables and text throughout the RFD. Table B-1.1 identifies the
surface mining activities by “Map I.D.” and provides cross-references to Appendix B
(Maps and Graphics).

Map Key Year Surface Mining Activities Relevance

M-19 1926-1927 Expansion of porphyry quarrying After Peacock took ownership of

within the HH VRA to provide the HH VRA, surface mining
material for railroad expansion increased (including a 50%
expansion of the existing
porphyry quarry). This
demonstrates the intent of the HH
VRA owners to continue utilizing
the property for surface mining.

M-20 1927-1929 Third wave of surface Surface mining activities within

improvements, excavation, and and associated with the HH VRA,
exploration at Cajalco Tin Mine and located in the northeastern corner
associated surface tourmaline veins of the property. The tin mine
and tourmaline blowouts rejuvenation continued to utilize
the tin mine haul road through the
HH VRA.

E-23 1930 Exploration related to economic and Exploration and surveying of the
strategic mineral development HH VRA, inclduing areas outside
describes occurrences of dumortierite of the S-4 VRA, to determine if
commercial or strategic minerals
were present demonstrates intent
to develop all possible mineral
resources within the HH VRA

80
69711165v1
 Map Key Year Surface Mining Activities Relevance

M-25 1931-1938 Excavation begins at the Cajalco Surface mining of clay resources
Clay Pit, located south of Cajalco within the HH VRA and partially
Road along with the western edge outside the S-4 VRA.
of the HH VRA.

E-24 1931 Exploration and sampling for high Surface mining activities within
aluminum clays and bauxite, the HH VRA and outside the S-4
primarily north of Cajalco Road as VRA demonstrating continued
part of strategic mineral intent to fully develop all possible
evaluation. mineral resources within the HH
VRA.

M-27 1931 Mining disturbances consistent with Surface mining activities within
clay prospecting and sampling. the HH VRA and outside the S-4
VRA demonstrating a continued
intent to mine the entirety of the
property.

R-26 1931 Rock, sand, and gravel borrow pits Surface mining activities within
opened to supply materials to the HH VRA and outside the S-4
improvements to tin mine haul road VRA demonstrating an intent to
and Cajalco Canyon trails utilize all mineral resources within
the HH VRA.

M-28 1931 Aerial photographs show extent of Surface mining activities within
tin mine exploration and excavation the HH VRA and outside the S-4
VRA demonstrating an intent to
mine the entirety of the property.

E-30 1930-1935 Multiple geologic survey and studies Exploration work of the geologic
and economic analyses completed and mineral characteristics of the
and published HH VRA to determine mining
feasibility.

R-32 1933-1935 Multiple borrow puts opened up to Surface mining activities within
construct and surface Cajalco Road the HH VRA and outside the S-4
VRA demonstrating an intent to
mine the entirety of the property.

81
69711165v1
 Map Key Year Surface Mining Activities Relevance

M-33 1938 Red clay resource quarried for Surface mining activities within
approximately 100 feet east of the HH VRA and outside the S-4
Temescal Wash and ATSF railroad VRA demonstrating an intent to
mine the entirety of the property.

E-34 1938 Clay prospecting and sampling in Surface mining activities within
Section 10 to determine presence of the HH VRA and outside the S-4
bauxite and or other high-aluminum VRA demonstrating an intent to
clays mine the entirety of the property.

M-36 1938-1940 Increased production of porphyry Surface mining of rock resources

from HH VRA and the Blarney Stone within the HH VRA to meet
Quarry, primarily associated with regional demand.
contract to supply 450,000 tons of
materials to Prado Dam construction

M-37 1943 P.J. Weisel Sand and Silica Surface mining activities within
excavation includes excavation of the HH VRA, in conjunction with
sandstone cliffs along east side of regional mining operations, and
Temescal Wash outside the S-4 VRA demonstrate
an intent to mine the HH VRA to
meet demand for multiple mineral
materials. .

E-38 1940-1945 Survey of six square miles around Evaluation of mineral materials
Cajalco Hill (site of Cajalco Tin Mine, useful to the U.S. war effort,
located northeast of HH VRA), to including evaluation of mineral
map, sample, and evaluate suitability resources in the northeast corner
of tin resources to supply U.S. war of HH VRA, outside the S-4 VRA
effort

M-40 1948 Liston Brick Co. begins small side- Surface mining activities within
cut clay exploration and mining the HH VRA and outside the S-4
operations north of the Blarney Stone VRA demonstrate an intent to
quarry mine the entirety of the property
based on mineral demand.

82
69711165v1
 Map Key Year Surface Mining Activities Relevance

M-41 1938-1948 Surface mining alluvial gravel Surface mining activities within
resource south of Cajalco Road to the HH VRA and outside the S-4
supply aggregate for Prado Dam, VRA demonstrate an intent to
including for use in concrete mine the entirety of the property
based on mineral demand.
1948 aerial photograph shows extent
of access and excavation of these
alluvial gravel resources, south of
Cajalco Road

D. From 1925 to 1948, Surface Mining Activities on the HH VRA Continued to

Support and Interrelate with Adjacent Operations

The increasing development of surface mining activities within the HH VRA between
1924 and 1948 did not occur in isolation from – and at times was interrelated with –
surface mining operations on nearby and adjacent mine sites within the Temescal
Mining District, which, by 1927, was labelled a “significant” mineral development
area.257 In a newspaper article dated October 24, 1927, J.L. Davis, the secretary of the
Corona Chamber of Commerce, declared that the region was “Rich in Mineral Wealth”
and that there was an “[e]ven greater return from the mines than products of citrus
orchards,” amounting to approximately $7 million in 1926.258 That same article
described the multitude of operations, including: mining and processing upwards of
fifty (50) different clay varieties and the continued quarrying of porphyry in the
Temescal Mining District.259 Some of these proximate mining operations intersected
with mining operations within the HH VRA and are described below.

1. Porphyry and Other Rock Quarries

While, as described in Section V.B, supra, the HH VRA may have been the “only
source of blarney stone [high-quality porphyry]” on the North American continent, it
was not the only quarry extracting porphyry from the Temescal Mining District. 260 The

Exh. C-3.44 (“County Rich in Mineral Wealth Says J.L. Davis,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT
257

(October 24, 1927)).

Exh. C-3.44 (“County Rich in Mineral Wealth Says J.L. Davis,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT
258

(October 24, 1927)).

259 Exh. C-3.44.
260 See Exh. C-2.9; Exh. C-210.

83
69711165v1
surface mining operations that other quarries along the know porphyry resource, also
thrived during the infrastructure boom of the 1930s and 1940s. Quarries that had
fueled the paving of southern California in the early 20th century now satisfied the
growing demand for materials necessary to construct water infrastructure and
housing.

The Temescal Rock Quarry, which had started operations in 1888 as part of the
Sobrante property, as described in Section V.B, supra, was idle in the mid-1920s after a
fire destroyed on-site facilities.261 The idling of this site cause a shift in large-scale stone
quarrying operations to the Blarney Stone Quarry, located within the HH VRA.262

It was not until after the Blarney Stone Quarry produced significant, high-quality
porphyry for use in the Prado Dam between 1938 and 1940 that interest in the
resuming porphyry production from other Temescal Mining District properties. In fact,
in 1941, the Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company (“3M”) purchased
approximately 1,200 acres associated with the historical Temescal Rock Quarry and
located directly north of the HH VRA.263 3M restarted operations at the quarry and
built a roofing granule manufacturing plant; operations at the vested site have
continued through to the present day, as depicted in Figure B-5.7.

Similarly situated to the Temescal Rock Quarry, was the Philips Quarry, located
northwest of the HH VRA, and established in the early 1900. By the middle of the
1930s, the Philips Quarry was being operated by the Sidebottom Construction Co and
furnished “rubble, riprap and track ballast” to the ATSF railroad, especially to repair
tracks after the Colorado River flooding of 1938 and protect new state highways from
future flooding.264 The Sidebottom site was composed of two small quarries, and
produced suitable, if not expensive, rock for riprap and levees.265

Like the Blarney Stone Quarry located in the HH VRA, both the Temescal Rock Quarry
and the Sidebottom Quarry demonstrate a pattern and practice of Sobrante owners to
initiate mineral development before selling off distinct operations. More importantly
for understanding the development of the HH VRA immediately prior to the

261 Exh. C-2.10.

262See Exh. C-3.58 (“Nearby Rock Plants in Steady Operation,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT
(June 25, 1934)).
Exh. C-3.80 (“Purchase Option Filed on Quarry,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (March 31,
263

1940)).
264 Exh. C-2.4.
265 Exh. C-2.4.

84
69711165v1
Establishment Date; however, was the impact on porphyry supply caused by the idling
of the Temescal Rock Quarry, as well as the lower production quality from the
Sidebottom Quarry. Absent sufficient production from these two operations, the HH
VRA – including the Blarney Stone Quarry – became a significant production site for
porphyry.

2. Silica Sand Production

Immediately neighboring the HH VRA to the west is a silica-sand operation, that

operated from the 1920s until approximately the 1980s. As described in Section V-A,
supra, the existence of high-quality silica sand reserves was known as early in the 20th
century.266 However, it was not until the early 1920s that mining operations began in
earnest.267 By 1924, the Corona Sand and Silica Company had constructed a small
processing plant. Initially, silica and sand processing were inefficient, and was not
successful. However, by 1926, a partner in the Corona Sand and Silica Company – one
P.J. Weisel – successfully sued to acquire property straddling the western edge of the
Sobrante and the HH VRA.268 Between 1926 and 1945, Weisel expanded the silica sand
operation into the “oldest [and principal] continuously operated source of silica sand
in southern California,” significantly, including (i) construction of multiple factories,
(ii) mining along both the east and west sides of Temescal wash; and (iii) construction
of a dedicated railroad siding to supplement existing railroad sidings located within
the HH VRA.269 In 1945, P.J. Weisel leased his holdings to the Owens-Illinois Glass
Company, which expanded operations, including the opening of a pit on the west side
of Highway 71 and construction of a larger factory.270

266 C-3.11 (“Our Crushed Rock Industry,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (March 30, 1911)).
267 C-3.31 (“Silica Industry Will Be Started in Corona,” CORONA COURIER (Dec. 19, 1924)).
268 See C-3.37 (“Sheriff’s Sale on Execution Notice,” CORONA COURIER (Oct. 15, 1926)).
Exh. C-2.4 at p. 97; see also Exh. C-3.41 (“Improvements at Silica Plant to Increase Output,”
269

CORONA COURIER (April 29, 1927)); Exh. C-3.61 (“Heavy Sands Shipments,” CORONA DAILY
INDEPENDENT (Aug. 20, 1935)); Exh. C-3.67 (“As I See It,” CORONA COURIER (Jan. 7, 1938)); Exh.
C-3.68 (“Ainsworth Describes Workings of P.J. Weisel Silica Plant,” CORONA DAILY
INDEPENDENT (May 30, 1938); Exh. C-3.87 (“P.J. Weisel Industrial Sands Division,” CORONA
DAILY INDEPENDENT (Dec. 24, 1943); Exh. C-3.88 (“Silica Sand Output At New Calif. High,”
CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (April 30, 1945)).
270 Id.

85
69711165v1
In addition to these operations immediately adjacent to the HH VRA, the silica sand
mining operation was connected to the HH VRA, particularly along the western edge
of the HH VRA, and utilized HH VRA resources (particularly sandstone) in the

3. Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Adjacent to and Interrelated

with the HH VRA (1924-1948)

Table 4, below, provides a timeline of surface mining activities adjacent to and

interrelated with mining operations located within the HH VRA, as discussed above
from the time of the HH VRA’s creation in 1925 until the establishment date in 1949.

Table 4: Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Adjacent to and Interrelated With the
HH VRA From 1924 Through 1948

Note: Appendix B, Table B-1.1. provides a list of all surface mining activities
referenced in the Tables and text throughout the RFD. Table B-1.1 identifies the
surface mining activities by “Map I.D.” and provides cross-references to Appendix B
(Maps and Graphics).

Map I.D Year Surface Mining Activities Relevance

M-21 1927- Expansion of P.J. Weisel silica Silica sand mining occurred along
1928 sand excavation and the western edge of the HH VRA
production facilities and the Weisel operation utilized
access roads in the HH VRA to
transport produced materials to the
ATSF railroad

M-28 1931 Aerial photographs show As of 1931, the area of influence of

extent of tin mine exploration the Cajalco Tin Mine included the
and excavation northeastern corner of the HH VRA,
and utilized the Tin Mine Haul Road
through the HH VRA

M-29 1931 Aerial photographs show Silica sand mining occurred along
extent of silica sand plant the western edge of the HH VRA
excavations and the Weisel operation utilized
access roads in the HH VRA to
transport produced materials to the
ATSF railroad

R-31 1935 Rail siding expansions Silica sand mining occurred along
constructed both along P.J. the western edge of the HH VRA

86
69711165v1
 Weisel spur line and Temescal and the Weisel operation utilized
Wash Siding to accommodate access roads in the HH VRA to
increased production transport produced materials to the
ATSF railroad

M-35 1938- P.J. Weisel uses ATSF rail Silica sand mining occurred along
1945 siding on Temescal Wash and the western edge of the HH VRA
on Weisel spur line to export and the Weisel operation utilized
materials access roads in the HH VRA to
transport produced materials to the
ATSF railroad

M-39 1947 Owens-Illinois Glass Co. leases Silica sand mining occurred along
the P.J. Weisel silica sand the western edge of the HH VRA
operation, expands silica and the silica sand operation tion
tailings, and constructs a new utilized access roads in the HH VRA
production plant to transport produced materials to
the ATSF railroad. Additionally, the
operation mined certain portions of
the HH VRA. Finally, Harlow
sought to compete with the silica
sand and attempt to purchase
neighboring silica sand resources,
demonstrating intent to fully exploit
known mineral resources.

M-42 1948- Aerial photograph shows Continued expansion of quarry

1949 extent of 3M (“Temescal Rock”) along porphyry ore body indicates
Quarry continued intent to fully exploit
known mineral resources within
Temescal Mining District, including
mining of same ore body found
within HH VRA

E. Exploration and Surveying Activities Before 1949

During the pre-1949 period, multiple studies were also conducted to evaluate both the
geologic and economic potential of Temescal Mining District. In 1924, a brief
reconnaissance of the region determined that “the rock types were sufficiently
complex” that additional study and mapping would be of both scientific interest and

87
69711165v1
“prove very practical to aid mining interests.”271 These studies continued in 1927 and
1928 with significant field and laboratory work, before being presented at the
Geological Society of America in 1931, and published by the State of California in 1935
in order to provide “[a] broad knowledge of the general geological features, a division
of the rock types and a knowledge of their sequence,” as a matter “of great importance
to successful mineral exploration and mining development” to assist “those interested
in mining.”272 These geological studies were part of a concentrated effort by California
and the United States government to effectively map and exploit the mineral rich
Temescal Mining District.273

1. A 1938 Study Identified 200 Million Tons of HH VRA Reserves Suitable for
Water Infrastructure

These initial surveys and studies provided a baseline for understanding the mineral
potential of the Temescal Mining District and the HH VRA. In 1938, Harlow would
allow a study the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to fully
evaluate the quality and quantity of mineral materials available within the HH VRA.
The study was commissioned before the HH VRA could supply any 450,000 tons of
material to the Prado Dam it would be able to under the Carl Bliss contract.274 The
results of the study were two-fold, finding that (1) the rock was of sufficient quality for
nearly all water infrastructure projects and, most importantly (2), the HH VRA had
over 200 million tons of reserves.275 The sheer amount of reserves identified as this
time provide a clear indication that Harlow saw the entire HH VRA as fully
appropriate for mining until the reserves would be exhausted.

271 Exh. C-2.12, at p. 488.

272 Exh. C-2.12 pp. 488-489.
273See Exh. C-2.12 (evaluating strategic minerals); Exh. C-2.13 at pp. 86, 505-520 (describing the
economic and strategic minerals of the Temescal Mining District); see also Exh. C-2.13 at p. 281
(“The possibility of war interfering with the importation of much needed raw materials which
are not now produced domestically in sufficient quantity has brought up again the subject of
strategic minerals. At the request of the Geologic Branch, Mr. Charles White Merrill, engineer
of the U.S. Bureau of Mines as well as of the U.S. Army reserve, has prepared and generously
contributed for our publication the following timely paper – “Strategic Minerals in California”
– explaining what conditions the country would be facing and how California can help in the
case of another international disturbance”);pp. 290-291 (discussing strategic minerals in
Temescal Canyon).
274Exh. C-3.75 (“Blarneystone Rock Goes to Prado Dam,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (Dec.
14, 1939)).
275 Exh. C-2.5; see also Exh. C-3.69.

88
69711165v1
 2. In 1947, Harlow Commissioned an Comprehensive Record of Survey, which
was Recorded in 1948, to Clarify Her Access to Mineral Resources Across
the Entire HH VRA

Additionally, prior to January 1, 1949, the Kuhry and Harlow, as owners of the HH
VRA (and RRM’s predecessors-in-interest) undertook actions clearly demonstrating
their intent to appropriate and develop the HH VRA as a single, distinct mining
property. First, Kuhry and Harlow leased a portion of the HH VRA specifically for
quarry development (the Blarney Stone Quarry, described in Section V.C, supra). In
addition to this lease, Kuhry and Harlow also sought out other, neighboring mineral
properties, including a property (the “Kincheloe Property”) known to contain both
clay and silica sand deposits (similar to the minerals along the western edge of the HH
VRA and those actively being mined by the Owens-Illinois Glass Co., which lay in-
between the HH VRA and the Kincheloe Property, as depicted in Figure B-5.10).276

In 1946, Kuhry and Harlow entered into a purchase agreement for Kincheloe Property,
located west of the HH VRA. Despite this agreement, the Kuhry and Harlow never
acquired the property (and, in 1946, were sued for their failure to do so). That lawsuit
was settled in 1947 in a manner that left Kuhry and Harlow without new mineral
property to develop.

As a result of the failure to purchase the Kincheloe Property and its mineral assets,
Harlow commissioned a record of survey in 1947, which was completed and recorded
in 1948 (“1948 ROS”). The 1948 ROS was designed to specifically identify the clear
boundaries of the HH VRA, as well as the clear boundaries of neighboring mineral
development properties (including, the Owens-Illinois Glass Co. silica sand operation,
which Kurhy and Harlow had sought to compete against with their purchase of the
Kincheloe Property). The 1948 ROS provided Kuhry and Harlow the clarity necessary
to understand the property (and minerals) that they could mine following their failure
to acquire additional mineral development property within the Temescal Mining
District. Thus, the 1948 ROS is critical in understanding that Kuhry and Harlow, just
two years before the Establishment Date, sought to fully reconnoiter the HH VRA and
understand the boundaries within which they could conduct (or allow to be
conducted) surface mining operations.

See Exh. C-4.3 (agreement and lawsuit relating to Kincheloe Property); see also Exh. C-2.4
276

(describing local mineral deposits, including Coronita Silica Sand Deposit, located on
Kincheloe Property).

89
69711165v1
F. Composite Table of All Surface Mining Activities Directly on the HH VRA
Prior to 1949

The following is a composite of all surface mining activities within the HH VRA until
1949.

Table 5: All Surface Mining Activities Conducted within the Boundaries of the HH
VRA Prior to the County's Adoption of Ordinance No. 348 in 1949

Note: Appendix B, Table B-1.1. provides a list of all surface mining activities
referenced in the Tables and text throughout the RFD. Table B-1.1 identifies the
surface mining activities by “Map I.D.” and provides cross-references to Appendix B
(Maps and Graphics).

Map I.D. Year Surface Mining Activity Relevance

Surface Mining Activities Prior to Creation of HH VRA Tract (Pre-1925)

R-2 1868- Construction and use of Sobrante owners construct interior haul
1890 “Tin Mine Haul Road,” road, running from Cajalco Tin Mine to
running northeast to ATSF Raiload/Corona-Elsinore Highway,
southwest through the HH through the HH VRA. The haul road is
VRA used to transport tin ore and produced tin
from active mine to market.

R-10 Pre- Construction and use of Sobrante owners construct and use clay
1911 clay haul road running haul road, running from clay pits on the
south to northwest through border of the Temescal Mining District and
the HH VRA Alberhill Clay District, to the ATSF
railroads and Corona-Elsinore Highway,
through the HH VRA.

M-6 1911 Small porphyry quarries Multiple quarries, including one on the HH
(rip-rap and aggregate) VRA, were established to meet demand of
established along eastern Los Angeles cinstryctuin
bank of Temescal Wash by needs,demonstrating intent of Sobrante
Sobrante owners, including owners to utilize HH VRA in conjunction
one within HH VRA with neighboring quarry operations to
produce mineral materials as needed.

90
69711165v1
 Map I.D. Year Surface Mining Activity Relevance

R-12 1917- Establishment of borrow pits The Sobrante owners established borrow pits
1918 to restore and maintain tin within he HH VRA to aid construction and
mine haul road; use of tin mine maintenance of the interior haul road.
haul road.
The Sobrante owners refurbished the Cajalco
Tin Mine and restarted surface mining
exploration and excavation.

M-13 1918- Refurbishment of the Cajalco The Sobrante owners established borrow pits
1923 within he HH VRA to aid construction and
M-14 Tin Mine, including surface maintenance of the interior haul road.
facilities.
M-15 The Sobrante owners refurbished the Cajalco
Tourmaline vein excavation Tin Mine and restarted surface mining
and exploration. exploration and excavation.

E-16 1920- Surveying and exploration Exploration, sampling, and testing of silica
1923 for developable silica sand sand resources within the Temescal mining
deposits. district, generally located within and just to
the wester of the HH VRA (and specifically
areas along east and west banks of
Temescal Wash) to determine viability of
establishing silica sand mining and
processing operation, demonstrating intent
to fully develop all mineral resources in the
Temescal Mining District.

Surface Mining Activities After the Creation of HH VRA as Distinct Mining Property (1925-
1948)

M-19 1926- Expansion of porphyry After Peacock took ownership of the HH

1927 quarrying within the HH VRA, surface mining increased (including a
VRA to provide material for 50% expansion of the existing porphyry
railroad expansion quarry). This demonstrates the intent of the
HH VRA owners to continue utilizing the
property for surface mining.

91
69711165v1
 Map I.D. Year Surface Mining Activity Relevance

M-20 1927-  Third wave of surface Surface mining activities within and
1929 improvements, associated with the HH VRA, located in the
excavation, and northeastern corner of the property. The tin
exploration at Cajalco Tin mine rejuvenation continued to utilize the
Mine and associated tin mine haul road through the HH VRA.
surface tourmaline veins
and tourmaline blowouts

E-23 1930 Exploration related to Exploration and surveying of the HH VRA,

economic and strategic inclduing areas outside of the S-4 VRA, to
mineral development determine if commercial or strategic
describes occurrences of minerals were present demonstrates intent
dumortierite to develop all possible mineral resources
within the HH VRA

E-24 1931- Exploration and sampling Surface mining activities within the HH
1938 for high aluminum clays VRA and outside the S-4 VRA
and bauxite, primarily demonstrating continued intent to fully
north of Cajalco Road as develop all possible mineral resources
part of strategic mineral within the HH VRA.
evaluation.

M-25 1931- Excavation begins at the Surface mining of clay resources within the
1938 Cajalco Clay Pit, located HH VRA and partially outside the S-4 VRA.
south of Cajalco Road along
with the western edge of
the HH VRA.

R-26 1931 Rock, sand, and gravel Surface mining activities within the HH
borrow pits opened to VRA and outside the S-4 VRA
supply materials to demonstrating an intent to utilize all
improvements to tin mine mineral resources within the HH VRA.
haul road and Cajalco
Canyon trails

E-30; see 1935 Multiple geologic survey Exploration work of the geologic and
also and studies and economic mineral characteristics of the HH VRA to
Figure B- analyses completed and determine mining feasibility.
5.6 published

92
69711165v1
 Map I.D. Year Surface Mining Activity Relevance

M-33 1938 Red clay resource quarried Surface mining activities within the HH
for approximately 100 feet VRA and outside the S-4 VRA
east of Temescal Wash and demonstrating an intent to mine the
ATSF railroad entirety of the property.

M-36 1938- Increased production of Surface mining of rock resources within the
1941 porphyry from HH VRA HH VRA to meet regional demand.
and the Blarney Stone
Quarry, primarily
associated with contract to
supply 450,000 tons of
materials to Prado Dam
construction

E-38 1940- Survey of six square miles Evaluation of mineral materials useful to
1945 around Cajalco Hill (site of the U.S. war effort, including evaluation of
Cajalco Tin Mine, located mineral resources in the northeast corner of
northeast of HH VRA), to HH VRA, outside the S-4 VRA
map, sample, and evaluate
suitability of tin resources
to supply U.S. war effort

Figures 1946- Owners of the HH VRA Survey of HH VRA property boundaries in

B-5.8 and 1947 commissioned record of conjunction with potential mineral land
B-5.9 survey to assist in acquisition demonstrates owners of HH
determining scope of VRA intended to devote entire property to
mineral assets of HH VRA mining purposes
and surrounding properties

M-40 1948 Liston Brick Co. begins Surface mining activities within the HH
small side-cut clay VRA and outside the S-4 VRA demonstrate
exploration and mining an intent to mine the entirety of the
operations north of the property based on mineral demand.
Blarney Stone quarry

G. Mining Activities Continued Within the Entire HH VRA Between 1949 and
1976 Absent Mining Permits

As discussed in Section IV.B, supra, Riverside County passed Ordinance No. 348,
effective January 1, 1949, which thereafter required a use permit for any non-

93
69711165v1
conforming land use, including mining operations, thereby creating the Establishment
Date of 1949. But permits were not required for operations that existed prior to the
Ordinance’s enactment. Yet, despite this new requirement, only two use permits (M-
404 and CU-1146, discussed in Sections III.C and III.D, supra) were issued for the
myriad mining operations that occurred within and adjacent to the HH VRA.

Instead, surface mining activities continued almost uninterrupted, except in very

specific instances where the owners understood that the proposed use would require a
permit from the County. For example, Hubbs obtained CU-1146 in order to operate an
asphalt plant; but did not obtain any permits to mine materials to supply that asphalt
plant.277 As described in detail below, between 1949 and the enactment of SMARA in
1976, the HH VRA hosted multiple surface mining activities across the entirety of the
property, without any permits, thereby indicating the valid exercise of a vested right
across the entire 792.22-acre HH VRA.

1. Owners and Operators Clearly Understood the (Lack of) Need for Use
Permits for Surface Mining Activities

The lack of any such use permits is indicative that all surface mining activities were
conducted under vested mining rights. Based on the historical record, it is apparent
that both Harlow and the mining operators who operated on her property and
elsewhere in the County took the need for a use permit seriously. For example,
Livingston obtained a use permit for at least one quarry, located in the Norco area, in
1954;278 but did not obtain a similar use permit to continue ongoing operations at the
Harlow Quarry. In fact, in 1959, when Livingston obtained Permit No. 404, which
related only to the operation of a rock crushing plant and compliance with air quality
standards.279 And by 1959, there were significant, additional mining activities occurring
elsewhere through the HH VRA, as described in detail in Section V.F.3, infra.

Perhaps more telling, Leilamae Harlow sought to obtain two use permits after 1949,
but neither related to surface mining activities: one (which was issued) to undertake
repairs and painting work on her ranch house, located along the south edge of Cajalco

277 Exh. C-1.2.

Exh. C-3.95 (“County Approves Quarry at Norco,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (April 14,
278

1954)).
279 Exh. C-1.1.

94
69711165v1
Road within the HH VRA; and a second to attempt to utilize areas of the HH VRA that
had been excavated as a cut-and-cover dump.280

This second permit application, requested in 1955, is telling as to how Harlow viewed
the allowable uses of her property under Ordinance No. 348. Harlow’s permit request
did not ask permission to remove mined or excavated material – it only sought
permission to place refuse in excavated spaces.281 Put simply – Harlow understood the
HH VRA had a valid existing right for mining – but not for garbage dumping.

The opposition to Harlow’s permit request is equally telling. Opponents to the project
included neighboring property users – including P.J. Weisel, owner of the sand mine
immediately adjacent to the HH VRA. The opponents’ concerns were not about the
excavation of the property, but about the impact that foreign material and garbage
would potentially have on water quality.282 Opponents to Harlow’s project, understood
that there was no valid challenge to her vested mining rights to excavate and mine the
property.

Both the City of Corona and Riverside County denied Harlow’s application for a
permit to use the HH VRA as a cut-and-cover dump for Los Angeles.283 Despite this
denial, mining operations on the site continued unaffected, again demonstrating that
the mining operations were conducted pursuant to vested mining rights.

2. Harlow Consolidates Her Ownership

Between 1949 and 1964, Leilamae Harlow took steps to consolidate her interests and
ownership of the HH VRA. In 1952, four years after vesting, Leilamae Harlow took
sole ownership of the Cajalco Property.284 As discussed in Section V.C.2.e, supra,
Harlow commissioned the 1948 ROS, which she undertook for the purpose of clearly
delineating the boundaries of her property vis-à-vis neighboring mining operations,
particularly the Weisel/Owens-Illinois Glass Company. This effort to establish defined
property boundaries demonstrates both Harlow’s intent to understand the boundaries

280 Exh. C-3,93; see also Exh. C-3.99.

Exh. C-3.99 (“Planners Deny permit for Garbage Dump Near Corona,” CORONA DAILY
281

INDEPENDENT (Aug. 10, 1944)).

282 Exh. C-3.98 (“Mail Bag,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (July 8, 1955)).
283Exh. C-3.97 (“No Dump Ground in Temescal, Says Counsel,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT
(July 6, 1955);Exh. C-3.101 (“Thumbs Down on Proposed Garbage Dump,” CORONA DAILY
INDEPENDENT (Oct. 18, 1955)).
284 See Appendix A; see also Exh. A-16.

95
69711165v1
of her property that could be mined, as well as the interrelationship between the HH
VRA and neighboring properties, especially because those neighboring mining
operations would utilize portions of the HH VRA during the 1950s and 1960s.

3. Post-Vesting Mining Operations Expand Across the HH VRA

Under Harlow’s ownership, multiple mining operators used the HH VRA, including
Livingstone, Stringfellow, Corona Rock Quarries Inc., Paul J. Hubbs Construction Co.,
Owens-Illinois Glass Co., Gladding, and the Liston Brick Co.

a. Rock Quarrying Operations Within the HH VRA After January

1, 1949

During the 1950s, quarrying operations continued apace at the Hubbs Harlow
(formerly Blarney Stone) Quarry. For example, in 1958 (a year before Permit 404 was
issued), independent trucking contractors hauled porphyry from the Harlow Quarry to
“a causeway project in the beach area” for at least six months.285

More importantly, during this period, the HH VRA provided significant amounts of
porphyry to multiple flood control projects, including the Orange County Santa Ana
River Levee (250,000 tons in 1958) and Long Beach Flood Control (at least 500,000 tons
in 1958). Production during this period was approximately 6,000 tons a day (or just
over 2 million tons a year).286

On January 8, 1959, Livingston filed an Application for M-3 Permit, to allow the use of
a “rock crusher” in conjunction with ongoing quarry operations.287 Permit No. 404 was
approved the Board of Supervisors in February 1959. Nothing in the permit application
or the permit itself expressed any intent or belief that the existing vested rights of the
HH VRA would be affected by the permit.288 This understanding is consistent with law
that such a use permit would not affect existing vested rights, but was “merely a
recognition and protection of [the]…original right.”289

In 1961, Livingston and Stringfellow incorporated Corona Quarries, Inc. to operate

mining operations on the HH VRA, primarily (although not exclusively) within the S-4
VRA. Corona Quarries, Inc. produced significant quantities of stone during the early

285 Exh. C-3.105 (“Rock Truck Complaints,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (August 7, 1958)).
286 Exh. C-2.4 at 1031.
287 Exh. C-1.1.
288 Exh. C-1.1.
289 See Ricciardi v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 569, 576.

96
69711165v1
1960s; however, the cooperative venture would not last. In April 1965, Stringfellow
sued Corona Quarries over unpaid fees for trucking services rendered between May 1,
1962 and December 31, 1963.290 During this period, Stringfellow provided dump trucks
to haul produced rock for $1.80 a ton and hauled approximately 308,932.28 tons of
rock, worth approximately $555,899 under the contract terms. Stringfellow alleged that
the firm was due $123,572.91 in unpaid fees.291

Shortly after the lawsuit, Paul J. Hubbs Construction took over day-to-day operations
at the Cajalco Property. In 1968, Hubbs discontinued use of the Corona Quarries, Inc.
name and operated the Cajalco Property under the “Paul Hubbs Construction”
moniker.292 The Corona Quarries, Inc. corporate entity was dissolved in 1986. 293

Under management of the Hubbs Construction Co., production on the Cajalco

Property continued to supply stone for multiple projects. A report on the Los Angeles
Harbor Deepening Project notes that the Cajalco Property provided stone to ocean
projects in 1965 and 1970, and was one of the few properties in Temescal Canyon still
producing stone.

As part of continued operations at the Cajalco Property, in 1970 Hubbs obtained CU-
1146, which authorized the construction and operation of a rock crushing and
screening plant, as well as an asphalt manufacturing plant. As discussed in Section
III.D, supra, the County’s findings regarding CU-1146 explicitly confirmed the existing
of vested rights with the HH VRA.

Other small-scale rock quarrying operations occurred across the HH VRA, including
the continued use and enlargement of borrow pits just north of Cajalco Road, the
continued mining of the gravel pits along the south side of Cajalco Road; and the
expansion of borrow pits and test pits along tin mine road, identified in Table 6, infra,
and depicted in Figures B-3.8. and B-4.15, 4.16, and 4.18.

290 Exh. C-3.109 (“Trucker Sues Corona firm,” Corona Daily Independent (April 16, 1965)).
291 Exh. C-3.109.
Exh. C-3.113. (“Certificate of Discontinuance of Use and/or Abandonment of Fictitious
292

Name #15788,” CORONA DAILY INDEPENDENT (September 19, 1968)).

See California Secretary of State, C0414498 (indicating Corona Quarries, Inc. Dissolved as of
293

May 29, 1986)

97
69711165v1
 b. Clay Mining Operations Within the HH VRA After January 1,
1949

In addition to rock quarrying operations discussed in the immediately preceding

section, the HH VRA also hosted significant clay mining operations, located primarily
north and northeast of the S-4 VRA, as well as some smaller operations north of the tin
mine haul road. These post-vesting clay mining operations constituted an apparent
continuation of the Cajalco Pit developed by Pacific Clay Products in the 1930s, as well
as new clay mining in two areas of the HH VRA, as depicted in Figure B-3.8 and B-
4.15, 4.16, 4.18, and 4.19.

In 1948, the Liston Brick Company (“Liston”) constructed a ceramics manufacturing

plant on the west side of Temescal Wash, immediately to the west, and adjacent to the
HH VRA, as depicted in Figures Figure B-3.8 and B-4.15, 4.16, 4.18, and 4.19. In their
manufacturing process, Liston utilized multiple sources of raw clay, including several
areas within the HH VRA. Beginning in 1954, Liston utilized a portion of the HH VRA
for clay mining, as depicted in Figure B-3.8 and B-4.15, 4.16, 4.18, and 4.19. This mining
area – the Harlow Clay Pit (as opposed to the Hubbs Harlow Quarry)– clay and
residual claystone from the Silverado Formation.294 As of 1963, the quarry was a side-
hill cut approximately 150 feet long and 100 feet wide.295 As demonstrated in aerial
photography, clay mining exploration operations extended both east from the Cajalco
Pit and north from the Harlow Pit, with multiple side-hill cuts.296 Liston also used other
areas on the site for soil and gravel amendments to the ceramics manufacturing
process, particularly the gravel feature south of Cajalco Road within the eastern
portion of the HH VRA and the borrow pit north of Cajalco Road, within the central
portion of the HH VRA, and depicted in Figure B-3.8 and B-4.15, 4.16, 4.18, and 4.19.

In addition to Liston, Gladding also undertook clay mining operations on the HH

VRA. During the early 1950s, Gladding was “engaged in an intensive exploration
program” to develop clay resources to supply the ceramics plant located on the west
side of Temescal Wash.297 This exploration program included core drilling in clay
formations in the north eastern quarter of Section 16 and the northwestern quarter of
Section 15 and southwestern quarter of Section 10. This pit produced a large deposit of

294 Exh. C-2.4.

295 Exh. C-2.4
296 See Figures B-6.6 and B-6.7.
297 Exh. C-2.4 at p. 72.

98
69711165v1
red-burning clay from the Silverado formation, as well as residual and sedimentary
clays.298

Evidence of these multiple clay mining operations is evident to this day, with multiple
well-defined trench excavations, consistent with bulldozer excavations and clay
mining, evident in aerial photography and LiDAR imaging, and confirmed by site
visits and analysis and displayed below.299

Figure 2: Disturbed Clay Resource (see also Figure B-7.4.2)

298 Exh. C-2.3 at p. 110

See Exh. D-1.1 (describing multiple surface scrapes and clay trenches); see also Figure B-6.6
299

and B-67 (depicting LiDAR and aerial photograph comparisons of clay mining disturbances);
Figure B-7.4.2 (displaying known, heavily disturbed clay bed).

99
69711165v1
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph/LiDAR Comparison – Clay Disturbances East (see also
Figure B-6.6)

Figure 4: Aerial Photograph/LiDAR Comparison – Clay Disturbances West (see also

Figure B-6.7)

100
69711165v1
 4. Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Within The HH VRA 1949-1976

Table 6, below, provides a timeline of surface mining activities that occurred within
the HH VRA after the Establishment Date, which demonstrate the exercise of vested
mining rights across the entire HH VRA.

Table 6: Timeline of Surface Mining Activities Conducted Absent Any Surface Mining
Permits Within the HH VRA From 1949 Until 1976

Note: Appendix B, Table B-1.1. provides a list of all surface mining activities
referenced in the Tables and text throughout the RFD. Table B-1.1 identifies the
surface mining activities by “Map I.D.” and provides cross-references to Appendix B
(Maps and Graphics).
Map I.D. Date Surface Mining Relevance
Activities

M-43 1948- Liston Brick Co. mines Continued mining of clay resources, begun
1960s multiple locations, before 1949 and significantly expanded in the
including the Harlow 1950s, all within HH VRA but without permits is
Clay Pit and other consistent with the exercise of a vested right.
unnamed pits, within
HH VRA for (i) miocene
diatomaceous shale; (ii)
quaternary alluvium;
(iii) local soil and sand
sandstone; and (iv)
metasedimentary rocks

M-44 1954 Gladding McBean Surface mining activities for clay resources
discovers significant red within the HH VRA without permits is consistent
clay resource adjacent to with the exercise of a vested right.
and on HH VRA and
begins excavations and
production

101
69711165v1
 Map I.D. Date Surface Mining Relevance
Activities

M-45 1953- Rock from the HH VRA Mining within the HH VRA was conducted
1959 is provided for multiple without permits is consistent with exercise of
flood control projects vested rights.

Production is provided on a per-project basis,

with 250,000 tons produced in 1958 for the Santa
Ana River Levee, and 500,000 tons produced in
1958 for other flood control channels. Quarrying
capacity is given at 6,000 tons per day (over 2
million tons per year).

M-46 1959 Aerial photograph Continued mining within the HH VRA without
shows extent of surface permits is consistent with the exercise of vested
mining activities of rights.
Hubbs Harlow Quarry

M-47 1963 Aerial photograph Continued mining within the HH VRA without
shows continued permits is consistent with the exercise of vested
expansion of Hubbs rights.
Harlow Quarry

M-48 1967 Riverside County Board County action removes Tin Mine Haul Road
of Supervisors approve from private ownership nearly two decades after
construction of “Eagle vesting.
Valley Road” as a
county road to replace
the formerly private tin
mine road

M-49 1972 Aerial photograph Continued mining within the HH VRA (and
shows the extent of adjacent properties) without permits is consistent
Owens-Illinois Glass Co. with the exercise of vested rights
silica plant operations,
including connectivity
via conveyer and roads
with HH VRA

102
69711165v1
 Map I.D. Date Surface Mining Relevance
Activities

M-50 pre- Survey and analysis of 1984 investigation and analysis of known,
1976; known historic mining historic mining features within the HH VRA,
1985 sites within the HH including multiple heavily disturbed clay pits, all
VRA outside the S-4 VRA boundary. Existence of
heavy surface mining disturbances indicate
existence of vested right.

M-51 1962 Surface disturbance Surface disturbance was visible in aerial imagery
consistent with clay dated 1962, in area of property associated with
scraping and clay mining during tenancy of Corona Quarries,
exploration Inc. and construction of MWD lower-feeder line.
Site investigation and LiDAR analysis
determined disturbance may be associated with
either clay exploration or construction of MWD
lower-feeder line. Surface mining activities in
this portion of the HH VRA without a permit
demonstrates exercise of vested right.

M-52 1962- Surface disturbance Surface disturbance was visible in aerial imagery
1967 consistent with clay dated 1967 in area of property associated with
scraping and clay mining during tenancy of Corona Quarries,
exploration Inc. Site investigation and LiDAR analsysis
determined ground disturbance and several
roads consistent with clay mining/exploration,
including a trench-like feature. Surface mining
activities in this portion of the HH VRA without
a permit demonstrates exercise of vested right.

M-53 1970s- Road cut or dozer scrap, Surface disturbance consistent with mining
1980s consistent with efforts to exploration work; clearly visible in LiDAR
expose shallow bedrock analysis.

M-54 2019 Aerial photograph Surface mining activity is consistent with

shows extent of modern exercise of vested right, post-SMARA, within
mining activity, as of approved Reclamation Plan Boundaries
2019.

103
69711165v1
H. Post-1976 Developments at the HH VRA

Leilamae Harlow died in 1972, but her estate was not settled until 1976. Her death did
not interrupt surface mining operations at the HH VRA, which were undertaken by
Hubbs. Nor did the short ownership of the HH VRA by Occidental College from 1976
until 1979 (who had acquired the property in a trustee’s foreclosure sale to collect on a
debt secured by a deed of trust Harlow entered into in 1966) interrupt those
operations. Rather, as described in Appendix A, by 1979, Hubbs had consolidated his
leasehold interest in the HH VRA with title to the full HH VRA.300

1. Rec Plan RP118 (Hubbs) – 1982

In 1982, following the enactment of SMARA in 1976 and in compliance therewith,

Hubbs submitted and obtained approval of Reclamation Plan 118 (“RP 118”), ensuring
that quarrying operations at the Harlow Quarry were in compliance with the
requirements of SMARA.301

RCL-118 recognized that historic mining operations occurred on the Cajalco property
“since at least the mid-1950s” and also expressly recognized that “[t]he whole region
along Temescal Creek has been mined for nonmetallic mineral commodities since the
turn of the century . . . include[ing] sand and gravel, clay, and rock.”302

As discussed in Section III.E, supra, RCL-118 acknowledged two ongoing mining

operations: (1) the Harlow Quarry (formerly the Blarney Stone Quarry), an “open pit
rock quarry” encompassing approximately 20 acres of benches and quarry walls and
(2) an “open pit clay mining operation that was “operated intermittently in the past”
with “current plans … for similar operations in the future.303 RCL-118 also recognized
that the anticipated operational life of the project could be extended if the operator
decided to expand the footprint of the operation.304

2. Continued Mineral Development of the HH VRA from 1983 to the

Present

In 2003, the County filed a lawsuit against Hubbs alleging violations of RP 118,
SMARA, and County land use regulation. The parties reached a settlement in 2004 and

300 See Appendix A; see also Exh. A-21.

301 Exh. C-1.3
302 Exh. C-1.3
303 Exh. C-1.3.
304 Exh. C-1.3.

104
69711165v1
stipulated to resolve the County’s allegations. The 2004 Settlement required certain
actions to remediate the site, but also expressly reflected Hubbs’ intent to continue
surface mining operations at the site. Thereafter, the court entered an order accepting
the settlement terms as the order of the court, to resolve the allegations in the Hubbs
lawsuit and address then-current hazardous conditions at the site resulting from
surface mining operations of that prior operator.

Prior to compliance with that settlement, Hubbs sold the Hubbs Harlow Quarry
portion of the HH VRA to Temescal Cliffs LLC. Shortly after the sale, Temescal Cliffs
LLC entered into bankruptcy.305 The property was thereafter acquired by RRM in
October 2011.306 Following RRM acquisition of the Cajalco Property in 2011, RRM and
the County began discussions regarding appropriate remediation of the mining areas
within the S-4 VRA to eliminate significant threats to public health and safety,
including unstable slopes and unstable sheer vertical faces.307 This discussions yielded
an amendment to the 2004 settlement, later adopted by the court as the Amendment to
Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Judgment Thereon (“First Amended
Judgment”), which required RRM to submit a revised reclamation plan known as RCL
118S1 (“S1”), revised financial assurances, and conduct surface mining activities within
the scope of the approved reclamation plan.308

The need for and purpose of S1 was to address the then-immediate and significant
threats to health and safety, including unstable slopes and sheer vertical faces over 300
feet in height. In approving S1 in 2013, the County adopted findings regarding the
scope of vested rights to conduct surface mining activities at the site, including that
“surface mining activities within the Amendment RCL00181S1 are consistent with the
existing vested right confirmed in multiple, historical documents.”309

On July 14, 2016, the County and RRM entered into the Second Amendment to
Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Judgment Thereon (“Second Amended
Judgment”) to further the intent and goals of the 2013 settlement and the First
Amended Judgment.310 The Second Amended Judgment was entered as an order of the
court on July 26, 2016. To implement the intent and goals of the SEcond Amended

305 Exh. A-34, Declaration of Christine Goeyvaerts, ¶¶ 3-7.

306 Exh. A-32.
307 Exh. C-.1.9.at ¶¶ D-J.
308 Exh. C-1.9 at ¶ L.
309 Exh. C-1.4.
310 Exh. C-1.9

105
69711165v1
Judgment, RRM submitted, and on February 9, 2017, the County approved RCL118S3
(“S2”), which included an adjustment of reclamation plan boundaries.311

The purposes of the Second Amended Judgment and S2 were to ensure compliance
with S1 and provided for a re-aligned and upgraded access road and changes to mine
operation for safety reasons (e.g., reducing trespass, relocating explosive magazine
bunkers, and providing appropriate site grading).312

The Second Amended Judgment and S2 again included detailed findings confirming
the existence of vested rights within the S-4 VRA, established in 1949.313

Furthermore, the terms of the Second Amended Judgment stated that none of the
upgraded or modernized equipment or facilities used by RRM changed the original
vested mining use, and that many of the modernizations and upgrades increased
efficiency and environmental conservation of the surface mining operation.314
Importantly, the Second Amended Judgment further stated that all other non-mining
activities would either be on areas within the footprint of historic vested operations, or
were necessary to satisfy various public agency requirements or facility upgrades.315

On November 16, 2020, the County approved RCL 118, Substantial Conformance No. 4
(RLC00118S4) ("S-4"), based on the application submitted by RRM in 2019, for a third
amendment to RP 118.316 The purposes of S4 included (1) adjusting final reclamation
contours and apply existing reclamation standards to the full scope of the previously-
confirmed vested mining areas, within the existing, already approved 132-acre S2
reclamation boundary; (2) incorporating beneficial reclamation of disturbed areas of
the site not presently required to be reclaimed; (3) achieving full compliance with two
prior settlement agreements and First and Second Amended Judgments.317

VI. SUMMARIZING THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF RRM’S VESTED RIGHT

Taken as a whole, the historical development of the mineral resources on and near the
HH VRA in the many decades leading up to 1949 supports the establishment of a

311 Exh. C-1.9.

312 Exh. C-1.9 at ¶¶ R, 1-14.
313 Exh. C-1.9.
314 Exh. C-1.9.
315 Exh. C-1.9.
316 Exh. C-1.6.
317 Exh. C-1.6.

106
69711165v1
vested right across the entire HH VRA. The owners and operators of the HH VRA
understood this and, after the Establishment Date, continued mining operations on the
HH VRA absent land use permits. Following the enactment of SMARA, which now
required reclamation plans, including for vested sites, the County adopted a series of
reclamation plan approvals for the site, each of which recognized vested rights on the
HH VRA based on this development history. Sections IV and V, supra, describe this
history in detail, which is summarized below to provide a concise basis to support the
vested rights determination requested in Section VI, infra.

A. For Nearly A Century (1859-1948), Mineral Development Occurred On and

Across the HH VRA Prior to the the Establishment Date

From the late 1880s through the Establishment Date of January 1, 1949 (effective date of
Ordinance No. 348), the HH VRA was subject to numerous surface mining activities, as
well as operations of varying scope and scale. Yet always the HH VRA was under one
common ownership, with a singular purpose to realize the mineral development
potential of the HH VRA. Starting with the Sobrante owners, then Peacock, Kuhry,
Harlow, and Hubbs Construction; they all consistently dedicated the HH VRA to the
development of the extensive mineral resources throughout the site. The activities of
numerous lessees and operators, who continuously operated on the HH VRA, reflected
that mining purpose.

1. Surface Mining Activities Operated in the Larger Context of the

Temescal Mining District Prior to Divestment of the HH VRA by the
Sobrante Owners in 1925

From the 1880s to 1925, the HH VRA was part of the large Sobrante, under the control
of the Sobrante owners, and generally supported regional mining operations within
the Temescal Mining District. Surface mining activities during this period, under the
oversight of the Sobrante owners, included:

 Prospecting and excavation of tin-bearing tourmaline veins;

 Intermittent working of the Cajalco Tin Mine, beginning in about 1890, based on
fluctuations in the demand and price for tin (i.e., production would occur only
when either price or demand for tin were high);

 Development and maintenance of an internal haul road leading through the HH

VRA and connecting the Cajalco Tin Mine to areas west of the HH VRA and
providing the surface mining operations at the Cajalco Tin Mine access to the
Corona-Elsinore High and ATSF railroad, utilizing the HH VRA, as discussed in

107
69711165v1
 detail in Sections V.B and V.F, supra, and portrayed in Figures B-3.6 and 3.7; B-
4.1, 4.4, and 4.13, and Exhibit C-2.21.2;

 Establishment of a clay pit south of the HH VRA, also connected to the Corona-
Elsinore Highway by an internal haul road running south to north through the
HH VRA, as discussed in detail in Section V.B, and portrayed in Figures B-3.6
and 3.7 and B-4.2.

 Establishment of multiple rock quarries along the western edge of the Sobrante,
including at least one quarry within the HH VRA, as portrayed in Figures B-3.3
and B-4.2, as well as other quarries north of the HH VRA, as portrayed in Figure
B-3.6.

 The legacy of the many surface mining operations in the Temescal Mining
District continues to this day, with at least 6, ongoing vested mining operations,
as depicted in Figure B-5.6. The operations in Figure B-5.6 are only those that
are still ongoing’ other surface mining operations continued as vested sites, but
have since ceased operation (such as Liston, Gladding McBean, and Owens-
Illinois). Those

2. Surface Mining Activity Directly on the HH VRA Increased Following

Peacock’s Acquisition of the HH VRA in 1925

During the 1920s, the Sobrante owners began divesting themselves of their land
holdings, and by 1925, the HH VRA in roughly its current form was acquired by
Peacock. Although Peacock conveyed away a number of small, heavily-encumbered
portions of the HH VRA surface estate, colloquially referred to as “encyclopedia lots,”
he reserved and maintained the mineral rights in all of these small lots (now owned by
RRM), effectively ensuring that mining activities could continue across the whole of
the HH VRA and dedicating the property entirely to mining. Under Peacock’s
ownership, surface mining activities increased within the HH VRA, primarily through
the following:

 Increased development of the quarry along the western edge of the HH VRA to
provide railroad ballast during construction of ATSF’s spur line from Corona to
Alberhill-Elsinore, as discussed in detail in Section V.C, and portrayed in
Figures B-3.2 and B-4.2 and 4.3.

108
69711165v1
 3. Kuhry and Harlow Acquired the HH VRA in 1931 and Started to
Realize and Develop the HH VRA’s Full Mineral Resource Potential

As ownership progressed in 1932 from Peacock to Kuhry and Harlow (and from 1952,
to just Harlow) significant effort was put not just into current developing and mining,
but also into exploring/inventorying the overall mineral resource, with the idea to
exploit its full mineral resource potential. Kuhry and Harlow oversaw significant
surface mining activities within the HH VRA, and undertook actions that
demonstrated an objective intent to appropriate and fully mine the entire HH VRA.
These actions included:

 Leasing portions of the HH VRA to Pantages;

 Trying to expand their holdings by obtaining neighboring mineral properties

(which ultimately failed and led to litigation);

 Undertaking the 1948 ROS of the entire HH VRA to understand where the HH
VRA could be mined;

 Allowing establishment of multiple, small-scale quarries and borrow pits (often

operated by Pantages in conjunction with mining at the Blarney Stone Quarry)
to furnish the raw materials multiple large infrastructure projects, including
construction of Cajalco Road, Cajalco Dam, and Prado Dam, as discussed in
detail in Section V.C.2, supra, and depicted in Figures B-3.2 and B-4.5, 4.12, 4.14,
and 4.15;

 Authorizing clay mining that was used to supply the region’s renowned
ceramics industry, as discussed in detail in Section V.C.2, supra, and depicted in
Figures B-3.2 and B-4.10, 4.11 and 4.14;

 Coordinating with experts to analyze the property for quality and quantity,
which ultimately determined the reserves of high quality “blarney stone”
(porphyry) within the HH VRA to be at least 200 million tons and suitable for
large-scale, water infrastructure projects;318

 Concurrent with these efforts to maximize development of the building and

industrial materials on the HH VRA, during the outbreak of World War II in the
1940s, there was renewed interest in operating the tin mine, resulting in large-
scale exploration operations, encompassing approximately six square miles,
centered in the area immediate around Cajalco Hill and the Cajalco Tin Mine,

318 Exh. C-2.4; see also Exh. C-3.69.

109
69711165v1
 including areas in the northeast of the HH VRA, as discussed in detail in
Section V.C, supra, and portrayed in Figures B-3.2 and 3.3, as well as B-4.6.1,
4.6.2. 4.6.3, and 4.13, and B-5.8.

In short, during the years leading up to the 1949 Establishment Date, not only was
there significant surface mining activity on the HH VRA, but there also substantial
undertakings to maximize the entire site as a mineral resource, including exploration,
and surveying activities, as portrayed in Figures B-5.6, 5.10, and 5.11. These operations
included multiple aggregate and gravel borrow pits, several clay pits and prospects,
multiple prospecting and exploration activities, and the Blarney Stone Quarry, as
detailed in Table 3, infra, and depicted in Figure B-3.2.

B. In 1949, When Riverside County Enacted Ordinance 348 Requiring a Permit to

Mine, Vested Rights to Mine Were Established Across the Entire HH VRA

As discussed in Section IV, supra, the County has previously recognized the
Establishment Date of 1949, and that vested rights were established within the S-4 VRA
portion of the HH VRA. RRM asserts that vested rights were in fact established in 1949
for the entire HH VRA, not just the S-4 portion of it, based upon:

 Evidence or pervasive mining activity throughout the entire HH VRA, as

described above; and

 Evidence that Harlow (and other predecessors) considered the entire HH VRA
to be fully appropriate for mining uses and intended to mine the entirety of the
HH VRA, consistent with the principles of the Diminishing Asset Doctrine, as
discussed in the Legal Discusion in Section III.E.2, supra.

C. After January 1, 1949, Until Enactment of SMARA in 1976, RRM’s

Predecessors Continued Mineral Development Across the Entire HH VRA
Without a Permit

Following the 1949 Establishment Date, RRM’s predecessors continued mining

operations within the already confirmed S-4 VRA, and also across the broader HH
VRA. The continued, post-1949 surface mining activities within the HH VRA without a
use permit (as discussed in Section V.F supra, and depicted in Figure B-3.8) would not
have been legally possible absent the valid exercise of vested rights, which confirms
the intent that the HH VRA was to be fully appropriated as a mining site, and that
vested rights had been established across the entire 792.22 acres of the HH VRA.

110
69711165v1
  Harlow clearly understood that the HH VRA was vested and did not require
mining permits, as she sought to obtain two use permits after 1949, but neither
related to surface mining activities.319 One of the requested permits, sought in
1955, was for permission to place refuse in excavated spaces. Harlow’s permit
request did not ask permission to remove mined or excavated material. Put
simply – Harlow understood the HH VRA had a valid existing right for mining,
but not for garbage dumping. Both the City of Corona and Riverside County
denied Harlow’s application for a permit to use the HH VRA as a cut-and-cover
dump for Los Angeles. Despite this denial, mining operations on the HH VRA
continued unaffected.

D. Riverside County has Recognized RRM's Vested Rights Within the S-4 Area
Multiple Times When Approving Reclamation Plan Amendments

As discussed above in Section IV, supra, the County has confirmed that vested rights
were established in 1949 within the S-4 VRA portion of the HH VRA. There have been
multiple County actions confirming these vested rights, including:

 CU 1146 issued by the County in 1970 approving a permit for processing plants,
but also including, without permitting, a site plan identifying a much larger
mine site area within a larger portion of the S-4 VRA;320

 RP 118, approved by the County in 1982, approving a reclamation plan for a

portion of the S-4 VRA, which expressly recognized vested rights within
portions of the S-4 VRA;321

 S-1, approved by the County in 2013, which amended RP 118 and adopted
findings confirming vested rights within the S-1 area;322

 S-2, approved by the County in 2017, which revised the reclamation plan area,
and in the process further confirmed the scope of vested rights for what is now
identified as the S-4 VRA;323 and

See Exh. C-3.93 (describing Harlow obtaining a plastering permit); Exh. C-3.96 (describing
319

Harlow seeking a permit to operate a dump but not seeking a permit to continue surface
mining operations).
320 Exh. C-1.2.
321 Exh. C-1.3.
322 Exh. C-1.4.
323 Exh. C-1.5.

111
69711165v1
  S-4, approved by the County in 2020, which again re-confirmed the S-4 vested
right area as part of a further amendment to RP 118.324

The bases for each of these approvals and processes for approving them, are described
above, in Section IV.

The County's findings for S-4, adopted in 2020, expressly set forth the bases for why
and how the County was able to confirm the vested rights within the S-4 Area of the
HH VRA, and also why the current process, including a public hearing, is required to
confirm the full scope of the remaining vested areas within the HH VRA:

"6. Because surface mining activities within the RCL00118S4

area are consistent with the existing vested right confirmed in
multiple, historical documents, the County need not make any
further determination of the scope of such vested right prior to
approval of Amended RCL00118S4.

7. The applicant has stated that is reserves the right to seek

future confirmation of its vested right to mine outside the
boundaries of RCL No. 118S4. Should the applicant, in the future,
seek to mine outside the boundaries of RCL No. 118S4, it would
need to demonstrate the scope of its vested right pursuant to the
vested right determination process required by and consistent with
the appropriate lead agency surface mining ordinance, such as the
County's surface mining ordinance (Ordinance No. 555) , SMARA,
and related cases (e.g., Hansen Brothers v. Bd. of Supervisors (1996) 12
Cal.4th 533, and Calvert v. County of Yuba (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 613
("Calvert"), or obtain a permit."325

Based on S-4 Finding #7, because RRM now seeks to confirm vested rights in areas
outside of the S-4 VRA (i.e., the full HH VRA), not subject to prior County
determinations, the current RFD process is now required, consisted with the ruling in
Calvert.

VII. REQUESTED COUNTY VESTED RIGHT DETERMINATIONS

Section V, supra, presented detailed historical evidence of how RRM’s predecessors-in-

interest conducted an overall mining business within the HH VRA and fully

324 Exh. C-1.6.

325 Exh. C-1.6.

112
69711165v1
appropriated the HH VRA for mining prior to the Establishment Date. The evidence
was summarized in Section VI. This business took the form of either direct mining
operations, or leasing and/or contracting others to conduct mining operations in
response to changing market conditions. Section VII herein applies the facts and
evidence presented in Sections V and VI to the relevant legal standards, discussed in
Section III, supra, and describes how RRM’s already-confirmed vested right
encompasses the entire HH VRA.

A. The County Has Previously Confirmed That RRM Has Established Vested
Rights

RRM’s vested rights under Section 2776 (and County Ordinance 555.20) are based on a
non-conforming use established at the time that the first legal requirement was enacted
(Ordinance 348) that required a permit to conduct surface mining activities. This "non-
conformity" was first established in 1949, while the HH VRA was under the ownership
and control of Leilamae Harlow. As discussed above in Section IV, the County has
already recognized several times that a portion of the HH VRA is vested. Under the
well-established principle that vested rights are property rights that attach to and run
with the land,326 RRM, as the successor-in-interest to Leilamae Harlow, has succeeded
to the vested rights derived from the surface mining operations established under
Harlow's ownership, or at times prior to her ownership.327 Given the County's multiple
confirmations of vested rights in the S-4 Area portion of the HH VRA, the County's
interpretation of Ordinance 348 is well-established, and its application of Ordinance
No. 348 to the S-4 Area now settled.

1. Requested Determination on Establishment of Vested Rights

RRM requests that the County determine that the establishment of vested rights in
connection with the HH VRA, subject to a determination of geographic scope (see
discussion in Section VI.B, infra) is now settled based upon the prior County vesting
determinations in CU-1146, RP 188, S-1, S-2, and S-4, as well as the First Amended
Judgment, and the Second Amended Judgment.

B. The Geographic Scope of RRM's Vested Rights

Section VI.A, supra, discussed how the County's prior five formal actions between
1970 through 2020 have settled the issue that vested rights have been established on

326 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 573.

Transfer of title does not affect the right to continue a lawful nonconforming use which runs
327

with the land. Hansen Bros., 12 Cal. 4th at 540, n.1.

113
69711165v1
the S-4 VRA portion of the HH VRA. Having previously recognized the existence of
the HH VRA vested rights, the primary issue to be resolved through this RFD is RRM's
request that the County recognize that existing vested rights apply to the entire 792.22
acres of the HH VRA. RRM believes it has more than satisfied its evidentiary burden to
demonstrate this scope, and that the entire HH VRA is subject to the existing vested
rights, based upon the following:

1. The Evidence Demonstrates Pervasive Surface Mining Activities

Across the Entire HH VRA Prior to the Establishment Date

a. Virtually all reaches of the HH VRA had been subject to surface

mining operations prior to the Establishment Date:

RRM’s vested rights attach to all land within the HH VRA that hosted surface mining
operations prior to January 1949, based on the fact that most areas within the HH VRA
were mined for a variety of minerals, including rock, sand, gravel, and clay and that
such mining activity actually occurred across the HH VRA, as discussed in Section V,
supra, and portrayed in Figure B-3.3 (depicting all surface mining activities within the
HH VRA prior to 1949).

The areas actually disturbed by surface mining directly confirm such areas should be
vested.328 In addition, the pervasive scope of the activities, reaching virtually all areas
of the HH VRA demonstrate the intent to appropriate the entire HH VRA for mineral
use.329

b. Numerous portions of the HH VRA were also subject to

ancillary mining activities prior to the Establishment Date:

In addition to mining operations on the HH VRA, RRM’s vested rights include all lands
that were subject to surface mining activities on the HH VRA that were ancillary to, or
otherwise supported surface mining operations on sites adjacent to or near the HH
VRA, including lands traversed by haul roads connecting operations on either side of
the HH VRA, lands explored for mineral exploitation, and lands used for stockpiling,
processing, and other ancillary mining activities prior to January 1949.330

328 See, e.g., Paramount, 180 Cal.App.2d at 217.

329 See, e.g., Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 554-558.
330See Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 565-566; see also Exh. D-1 (describing 61% of HH VRA subject to
either surface mining disturbances or ancillary surface mining activities).

114
69711165v1
 c. Numerous surface mining activities occurred within the HH
VRA, but Outside of the S-4 VRA, absent any land use permits
subsequent to the Establishment Date

The operations activities that occurred throughout the HH VRA prior to the
Establishment Date, discussed in subsections (a) and (b), supra, set the baseline of
evidence for a determination of the scope of vested rights across the HH VRA. In
addition, extensive surface mining activities within the HH VRA that continued after
the Establishment Date but without land use permits, corroborates that both RRM's
predecessors and the County were fully aware that mining activities within the HH
VRA were not subject to the permitting requirements of the then-newly enacted
Ordinance No. 348. Despite the extensive surface mining activities ongoing in the post-
1949 years (see Figure B-3.8), there is no evidence in the County records of any notices
of violation or other notifications by the County against or to Leilamae Harlow as
owner, or other mining operator working within the HH VRA that mining activities
ongoing at that time were subject to permit requirements or were otherwise
unauthorized.331

In contrast, the historical record further demonstrates that Harlow was acutely aware
of the County permitting requirements post-1949 for certain activities other than
mining on her property within the HH VRA. As discussed in Section V.F.1, there were
two instances – while mining operations were ongoing – that Harlow sought County
approvals. One, issued in 1951 was for the renovation – including plastering and
painting – of her residence. The other, sought in 1955, was for the development of a
cut-and-cover landfill, which would have allowed Harlow to use mined areas as a
landfill for trash from throughout southern California.332 In applying for the permit,
Harlow sought conditional approval only for placement of trash, not for the
authorization to mine or excavate the HH VRA.333 Despite seeking these two use
authorizations, Harlow never sought authorization for the multiple mining operations
conducted within the HH VRA during this period, demonstrating Harlow’s own
understanding that the HH VRA had vested rights.

Taken as a whole, this evidence demonstrates Harlow and the County understood the
HH VRA, including areas outside of the S-4 VRA, was vested.

331 Exh. B-8; see also Declaration of Sage Thurmond, ¶ 4.

332 Exh. C-3.96 (describing proposed project).
See Exh. C-3.96, C-3.97, C-3.98, C-3.99, C-3.100, C-3.101 (all describing permitting process
333

specific to placement of trash, and not excavation or mining prior to such placement).

115
69711165v1
 2. The Evidence Demonstrates Intent to “Appropriate” the Entire HH
VRA As a Mine Site or for Mining Purposes Prior to the Establishment
Date

Beyond the physical mine operations, the HH VRA owners also undertook exploration
and surveying activities that manifested their intent to mine or otherwise
“appropriate” the entire HH VRA for mining purposes.334

For example, concurrent with the development of the Blarney Stone Quarry (starting in
about 1938), Kuhry and Harlow authorized efforts to determine the extent of mineral
resources suitable for dam and canal construction, (concurrent with analysis required
to verify stone produced from the VRA met U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’
requirements for use in the Prado Dam and was suitable for sale to that project), and
determined there were approximately 200 million tons of such reserves for use in
water infrastructure (e.g., dams, canals, breakwaters, and shore protection rip rap,
etc.).335

In 1947 (just prior to the Establishment Date), following a failed attempt to acquire
mineral properties near to (and hopefully to compete with) the Owens-Illinois Silica
Plant, just west of the HH VRA, Harlow then commissioned her ambitious, extensive,
and expensive 1948 ROS to identify the complete boundaries of the HH VRA and
surrounding mineral properties (primarily those under control of the Owens-Illinois
Silica Plan) in order to clarify the extent of Harlow’s mineral assets.

These and other efforts to explore and inventory the full extent of mineral resources
within the entire HH VRA, in combination with decades of mining activities through
the HH VRA, leave little doubt the entire property was fully appropriated as a mining
site.

3. Requested County Determinations on Geographic Scope of the Vested

Rights of the HH VRA

Based upon the evidence presented above and herein, RRM request the County to
make several determinations regarding the geographic scope of the vested rights
applicable to the HH VRA.

334 See discussion in Section III.E.2, supra, regarding appropriation of a property for mining.
335 Exh. C-2.5; see also Exh. C-3.69.

116
69711165v1
 a. Requested Determination: RRM’s Vested Right Includes All
Lands Mined or Hosting Ancillary Surface Mining Activities in
the HH VRA As of January 1949.

The record supports a determination that all lands within the HH VRA that had been
subject to mining up through the Establishment Date fall within the scope of the vested
right. As discussed in Section III, Hansen directs that the totality of a mining operation
should be considered when assessing the scope of a vested right.336 This would include
all 792.22 acres within the HH VRA. The record evidence supports the determination
approximately 486 acres of the HH VRA was subject to mining operations or ancillary
surface mining activities as of the establishment date.337

b. Requested Determination: RRM’s Vested Right Includes the

Entire 792-Acre HH VRA Because Those Areas Where No
Mining Had Occurred as of January 1, 1949, Were Fully
Appropriated for Surface Mining at That Time by RRM’S
Predecessors

In addition to all areas of the HH VRA that were subject to actual surface mining
operations or ancillary surface mining activities, the record supports a determination
that vested mining rights also apply to all other remaining areas of the HH VRA, based
on principles in California law related to the Diminishing Asset Doctrine, including
evidence of (i) objective manifestations of intent to mine the entire HH VRA, and/or (2)
intent that the entire HH VRA was appropriated for mining purposes.338

As detailed in Section III, supra, all lands for which an operator can show a clear intent
to mine, based on objective manifestations, are properly included within that
operator’s vested right. Under the Diminishing Asset Doctrine, RRM’s vested rights
extend to those areas not mined as of January 1, 1949, but which had been “clearly
intended” to be mined.339

A vested right includes the right to expand into previously un-mined areas under the
Diminishing Asset Doctrine where (1) “there is objective evidence of the owner’s intent
to expand” and (2) “that intent existed at the time of the zoning change.”340 Under this

336 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 565-566.

337 Exh. D-1, ¶ 8.
338 See discussion in Section III.E.2, supra.
339 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 556, citing Town of Wolfeboro (Planning Bd.) v. Smith (1989) 131 N.H. 449.
340 Hansen, 12 Cal. 4th at 553.

117
69711165v1
test, clear evidence of an intent to expand – for example, documentation pre-dating or
from the time the vested right is established – is sufficient to establish the right to mine
such areas under the Hansen criteria.

As discussed above in subsection (a), the pervasive surface mining operations and
ancillary activities throughout the HH VRA are such that there are little, if any, distinct
areas of the HH VRA lacking any historic evidence of mining activities, or ancillary
support activities such as haul roads, etc.341 As such, the evidence of “clear intent” to
mine the remainder of the HH VRA is self-evident. Regardless, the history of the HH
VRA clearly demonstrates that the entire property was intended to be appropriated for
mining purposes. Several key facts support this:342

(1) The presence of multiple, valuable mineral commodities within the

bounds of the HH VRA was understood by a succession of HH VRA
owners, from the Sobrante owners to Harlow, all of whom and preserved
the right to access and mine such mineral commodities;343

(2) Haul roads, referenced above, beyond just the acreage they occupied,
evidence intent that the land was part of an integrated, regional mining
operation and had clearly been “appropriated” for mining;344

341 See Exh. D-1, at ¶ 8.

These facts are consistent with California law, holding that a vested right is established
342

when,
“‘[T]he nature of the initial nonconforming use, in light of the character and adaptability to
such use of the entire parcel, manifestly implies that the entire [mine] property was
appropriated to [mining and quarrying] use prior to the adoption of the restrictive zoning
ordinance.” See Hansen, 12 Cal. 4th at 557, citing Stephan & Sons v. Municipality of Anchorage
(Alaska 1984) 685 P.2d 98, citing 6 R. Powell, The Law of Real Property, ¶ 871[3][iii], at 79C-178
to – 179 (Rohan rev. ed. 1979) (emphasis added).
343 See Exh. A-1 (deeds reserving mineral rights); see also Figures B-5.8 and B-5.9.
344 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th 565-566; see also County of DuPage v. Elmhurst-Chicago Stone Co., supra, 18
Ill.2d 470, 164 N.E.2d at 313 (plot of land found to be devoted to excavation based on
numerous switch tracks, even though material had not yet been removed from entirety of
land); Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise (App. Div. 1961) 51 N.Y.2d 278, 434 N.Y.S2d 150, 414
N.E.2d 651, 655 (service roads throughout the property, coupled with other features,
“manifest[ed] an intent to appropriate the entire parcel to the particular business of
quarrying”); Gibbons & Reed Co. v. North Salt Lake City (1967) 19 Utah 2d 329, 431 P.2d 559 (land
was integral part of gravel operation based, in part, on existence of multiple haul roads
connecting it with other mining property).

118
69711165v1
 (3) A significant portion of pre-1949 mining involved mining for materials in
response to the demand at the time (e.g., clay to produce ceramics or
porphyry to provide rock for water infrastructure, etc.) and thus fully
exploit the multiple valuable mineral materials within the HH VRA. The
record is extensive in the scope of these operations, and the use of
multiple clay, gravel, and other aggregate pits on an “as-demanded”
basis by multiple, local mining operators; and

(5) Between 1938 and 1949, Harlow (1) leased the property to mining
operators and allowing mining both within and outside of the S-4 Area;
(2) coordinated studies that determined there were approximately 200
million tons of reserves on the HH VRA for use in water infrastructure
(e.g., dam, canals, breakwaters, and shore protection, etc; and (3) engaged
in litigation with mine operator lessees based on the belief that the
operators were interfering with Harlow’s interest in fully mining the HH
VRA; and (4) undertook a costly and detailed survey of her property
boundaries, in relation to potentially acquiring neighboring mineral
properties.345

The HH VRA, including those areas that were not mined as of January 1, 1949, were
thus appropriated for mining, because the areas either supported ancillary or auxiliary
mining uses (i.e., the haul roads) or were open space that had yet to be mined simply
because it is impossible for a mining operation to excavate all of its land at the same
time.346

c. Requested Determination: RRM’s Vested Right Includes the

Entire 792.22 Acres of the HH VRA Based on the Scope of Actual
Surface Mining Disturbances in Combination With the Intent to
Fully Appropriate the Site for Surface Mining

The Requested Determinations "a." and "b" above, in combination, support a

determination that the entire HH VRA is vested, because the entire HH VRA,
including areas actually subject to surface mining disturbances, and areas explored,
sampled and otherwise subject to various ancillary activities, is fully appropriated for
mining.

See discussion in Section VI.B.2, supra; see also Exh. C-2.4 at pp. 1029, 1031 (describing report
345

and production rates); Exh. C-3.69 (reporting 200 million ton estimate)
See Hansen, 12 Cal. 4th at 555, 565 (citing in part County of Du Page v. Elmhurst-Chicago Stone
346

Co.(1960) 18 Ill.2d 379, 165 N.E. 2d 310, 313.

119
69711165v1
C. Requested County Determinations on the Scope and Type of Vested Mining
Activities and Operations

Based upon the prior vested right determinations made by the County with respect to
the scope of operations currently undertaken in the S-4 VRA, and in particular the
findings previously adopted by the County in connection with S-1, S-2, and S-4, RRM
requests the County to determine that RRM should be allowed to continue its surface
mining operations in a manner and scale consistent with its current vested operations
within the S-4 Area.

In particular, RRM requests the County re-confirm the applicability of S-2, Finding 13,
as being applicable with respect to the operations within the scope of the current
vesting determination:

"Finding 13. In approving RCL No. 118S1, the County specifically

referenced or identified various surface mining activities to be
undertaken during mining and reclamation, including crushing,
screening, trucking, mining, and related activities historically
ongoing at the site which further the existing quarry operations,
including a processing plant, screens and conveyors. As
determined in the 2013 findings supporting RCL No. 118S1, and as
concluded by the Superior Court in the 2016 Second Amendment to
Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Judgment thereon, and
confirmed herein, such surface mining activities are within the
scope of the previously-determined vested right. Furthermore, an
owner of vested surface mining operations is allowed to
"modernize his operations; change, add to, or increase the size of
his equipment (though determined to be structures), even though
this increases his input and intensifies the use; provided that by
such action, he does not change the original protected
nonconforming use." [Citations] . . . Accordingly, none of the
recently upgraded or modernized equipment or facilities change
the original vested mining use, and in fact many of the
modernizations and upgrades increase efficiency and
environmental conservation of the applicant's surface mining
operation.”347

347 Exh. C-1.5; see also C-1.6.

120
69711165v1
 1. The County Already Has Determined that the Scope of RRM's Current
Operations Do Not Constitute a Substantial Change in Surface Mining
Operations Relative to Pre-Establishment Date Operations.

As discussed in Section III, SMARA provides that a vested operation will not be
required to obtain a permit unless “substantial changes” in the operation are made.
The assessment of whether a vested operation has undergone a “substantial change”
must be made on a case-by-case basis, given that each mining operation is unique. The
Hansen Bros. Court stated, “in determining whether the nonconforming use [i.e., vested
right] was the same before and after the passage of a zoning ordinance, each case must
stand on its own facts.”348

Based on ruling in Hansen, as discussed in Section II, there are two principle questions
that are relevant to assessing whether RRM’s operation constitutes a substantial change
from the existing, recognized vested right established in 1949:

 Does RRM’s mining operation involve a “substantially different” use

relative to the pre-1949 mining operations?

 Has RRM’s mining operation “impermissibly intensified” relative to the

pre-1949 mining operations?

The County already undertook such an evaluation in connection with the findings
made in support of the S-1, S-2, and S-4 approvals, and in partciular Finding 13 in
support of S-2, referenced above.349 This RFD seeks only to have the County reconfirm
its prior determination that the current operation is not a substantial change relative to
operations prior to the Establishment Date.

D. Requested County Determinations on Non-Abandonment of the Vested

Mining Rights Attached to the HH VRA

A vested right can be determined to be abandoned or waived based on discontinuance,

non-use, or other similar concepts.350 However, once established, a vested right
becomes a property right subject to Constitutional protections.351 As such, the standard
to abandon such a right is high, and requires both an intent to abandon, as well as an
overt act or failure to act which demonstrates that the owner no longer wish to

348 Hansen, 12 Cal. 4th at 552, citing Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 40 Cal.2d at 651.
349 Exh. C-1.5.
350 Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 568-71
351 See U.S. Constitution, 5th Amend.

121
69711165v1
continue the nonconforming use.352 Moreover, although an applicant has the initial
burden of proof to establish a vested right, once that burden is met, the burden then
shifts to the party asserting abandonment to prove, by clear and convincing evidence
(an extraordinarily high standard), that such an abandonment took place.353

Here, with respect to the HH VRA, the County has already determined as recently as
2020 that RRM’s vested rights continue, and thus by implication, that no abandonment
of the vested right has occurred. As such, RRM requests that the County reconfirm its
prior determination that the vested rights continue and that there has been no
abandonment of the vested right.

VIII. CONCLUSION

There is an exhaustive factual record that demonstrates a vested right was established
in the Sobrante Area by RRM’s predecessors-in-interest by 1949, because there were
large-scale, interconnected mining operations conducted prior to that date that
continued following the 1949 Ordinance, as well as up to and after the effective date of
SMARA in 1976. These vested rights were never abandoned, and RRM acquired these
vested rights when it took over the site in 2013. RRM has maintained the vested right
for mining and is entitled to have it confirmed here before this Board.

352 See Hansen, 12 Cal.4th at 568-71

See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1990) 11 Cal.4th 1, 31; Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Fsr
353

Brokerage (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 666, 678.

122
69711165v1
 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHENTICITY

I, Kerry Shapiro, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all the courts of

the State of California. I am a partner with the law firm of Jeffer, Mangels,
Butler & Mitchell LLP, counsel of record for Robertson’s Ready Mix in
connection with preparation of the Request for Determination submitted
herewith.

2. I hereby attest that to the best of my knowledge all of the information

submitted in this Request for Determination is true and accurate, except
as to those stated on information and belief and, as to those, I am
informed and believe them to be true.

Executed this 15th day of December, 2021, at San Francisco, California

__________________________________
Kerry Shapiro

123
69711165v1