Fresno contests CEMEX gravel-mine extension. County supervisors will decide Tuesday

For almost 110 years, quarry operations along the banks of the San Joaquin River northeast of Fresno have harvested sand and gravel for the construction industry.

The latest conditional permit issued by the county of Fresno for quarry operator CEMEX is set to expire later this month, but the company won county Planning Commission approval in June for a four-year extension through July 2027. The city of Fresno is challenging that decision, appealing the planning commission vote to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors.

County supervisors will consider the city’s appeal at their meeting Tuesday. The meeting begins at 9:30 a.m. in the board chambers on the third floor of the county Hall of Records at Tulare and M streets in downtown Fresno.

CEMEX’s Rockfield aggregate quarry encompasses about 354 acres tucked between Friant Road and the San Joaquin River just south of Lost Lake Park; its associated Rockfield processing plant is a short distance to the south along Friant Road.

The county planning commission based its approval of the extension on a decades-old environmental analysis of operations at the facilities. But critics, including city of Fresno Planning Director Jennifer Clark, contend that the 1986 environmental impact report on which the approval was based is outdated because the conditions it assessed are nearly 40 years old.

They also contend that the environmental report on which the county relied for approval appears to relate to what is known as the Beck Ranch, which is no longer being quarried and no longer owned by CEMEX, rather than the current operational area of the quarry.

CEMEX and county planners say that no additional environmental study is needed for the permit extension because the company is not making any material changes to its operations – yet.

Patrick G. Mitchell, a Sacramento-area attorney representing CEMEX, said earlier this year that state environmental law “requires an analysis of any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” In this instance, however, “CEMEX proposes to extend operations for an additional four years, but all aspects of existing operations will remain the same during the four year extension,” Mitchell wrote in March.

“Accordingly, the extension project creates no additional environmental impacts as compared to the baseline (existing operations).” he added.

Complicating the issue is that CEMEX is also in the process of preparing a new environmental impact report for a proposal to broaden its quarrying operations by drilling and blasting as deep as 600 feet into hard rock to keep extracting material for another 100 years. That plan was initially submitted to county planners in late 2019.

The city’s appeal is limited only to the four-year extension of alluvial mining – collecting sand and gravel from deposits in the old riverbed. But that extension and the pending proposal for deep-rock mining are closely intertwined, as noted in documents presented to county planning commissioners last month:

“We need time to allow the environmental work to be completed for the (deep-rock mining) application,” CEMEX relayed to planning staffers, “and we have existing resource of aggregate in the ground that they need to finish mining.”

The county’s staff had recommended a one-year extension of the current conditional-use permit instead of the four years sought by CEMEX. One year wouldn’t be enough time for the deep-rock environmental analysis. “An EIR is a complex document, and it can take significantly longer than a year to complete, depending on the number of comments” submitted for a draft analysis,” according to county documents. “Further, if there is litigation, it could add additional years to resolve the issues.”

CEMEX told county planners that four years was “more realistic” but that the company “would prefer seven years.”

But CEMEX also added that it had already been working on its modification plans for a year before submitting its application to the county in late 2019.

City, residents express their objections

Clark, in letters to the county’s planning staff earlier this year, said the city’s position is that the 1986 environmental analysis that has been the basis for several previous extensions of the mine’s life are outdated and do not reflect current conditions, particularly traffic along Friant Road, which CEMEX trucks use to haul material from the quarry site to the nearby processing plant.

“The 1986 EIR used a cumulative year of 2006 for traffic volumes and identified an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 9,770 on Friant Road, south of Willow Avenue,” Clark wrote. “Count data collected by the city of Fresno in 2021 shows an ADT volume of approximately 64,600 along Friant Road north of Audubon Drive. The ADT south of Champlain Drive was approximately 22,000 in 2019.”

Additionally, “pedestrian and bicycle volumes along the Friant Road corridor have increased due to Woodward Park and the trail facilities in the area,” Clark said. “The increased volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists increases the probability of serious and/or fatal collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists.”

Several northeast Fresno residents also weighed in with their concerns over the extension in letters presented to the county Planning Commission.

Traffic was also a concern for Robert Hills in his letter to the county prior to the planning commission hearing. “CEMEX does not plan to add any more trucks” to the 225 daily now allowed under a traffic study “done almost two decades ago.”

“However, since then, the planning commission has allowed urban sprawl in this area,” he added. “The traffic has probably doubled or tripled by now.”

Gary and Venus Warner, who live in the River View Ranch neighborhood across Friant Road from the quarry, said that since moving into their home late 2019 they “have witnessed the incredible amount of irreversible damage to the area CEMEX has done in less than four years.”

“We understand that the resources from mining are valuable to development, but there are other places that these resources can be obtained,” the couple wrote, “and after 100 years of mining this area of the San Joaquin River it is probably time for CEMEX to explore other locations even if it is not as profitable to them.”

Another resident, Laura Silberman, wrote to Supervisor Nathan Magsig, whose District 5 includes both the quarry and processing plant sites, urging him “to reconsider the CEMEX mine permit” because the company and county are relying on an old and “flawed” environmental report.

“Please prioritize the health of our San Joaquin River, the (San Joaquin River) Parkway, and the multitude of Fresnans who use it,” she added. “Fresno does not need more noise and development along the river.”

Labor, contractors backs permit extension

Not everyone objects to the permit extension. In letters to the county, labor unions and construction industry advocates wrote, with remarkably similar language, in support of the extension.

“The Rockfield Quarry supports local jobs and provides a much-needed local source of aggregate,” the Teamsters Union Local 431, the Laborers International Union Local 294, and the Northern California chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors, wrote in unison in separate letters. “Without local sources of aggregate, local construction projects will need to import aggregate from mine sites located much farther away in other counties.”

“Therefore, extending the conditional use permit will actually reduce traffic on our roads and reduce air pollution by avoiding the need to import aggregate from other counties,” the three organizations all stated.

Each concluded that “to keep jobs local and avoid increased environmental impacts,” the county should approve the extension.

J. Ryan DeYoung, president of homebuilding company DeYoung Properties, said county supervisors need to balance environmental concerns with economic ones.

“I urge you to consider the the economic, environmental and logistical challenges associated with abruptly disrupting CEMEX’s operations” if the permit is not extended beyond July 28, DeYoung wrote in a July 14 letter to supervisors. “Any potential decision should be balanced, considering not only the critical environmental factors but also the sustainability of Fresno’s construction industry and our city’s broader overall health.”

The CEMEX operating permit, he added, “is a matter of significant concern for local homebuilders like myself.”