DATE: November 12, 2026
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBMITTED BY: Steven E. White, Director
Department of Public Works and Planning
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission’s technical denial of Classified Conditional Use Permit Application Nos. 3666 and 3667 and associated Environmental Impact Report No. 7763 (State Clearinghouse No. 2020060123) (Applicant/Appellant: Nathan Layfield, Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC)
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
TITLE
Consider appeal of the Planning Commission’s technical denial of Classified Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application Nos. 3666 and 3667 and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2020060123) to allow the modification of an existing surface mining operation in two stages with continued operation of the ready-mix concrete plant with the addition of a modern asphalt plant.
If the appeal is granted and the Planning Commission’s denial of CUP Nos. 3666 and 3667 is overturned:
a. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final EIR for the Cemex Rockfield Expansion Project including adoption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for EIR No. 7763 prepared for CUP Nos. 3666 and 3667 and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as complete and adequate in conformance with the CEQA;
b. Find that Alternative 4 with a 63-year maximum mining life and a maximum mining depth of 300 feet for the Quarry Site is consistent with the Fresno County General Plan policies addressing conservation of mineral resources, orderly mining operations, impact reduction, protection of mineral resource lands, and compatibility with surrounding land uses;
c. Adopt a Resolution determining the required Findings can be made and move to approve CUP Nos. 3666 and 3667, as modified under Alternative 4, Reduced Mining Depth (300 Feet) with Additional Setbacks, subject to the recommended findings, mitigation measures, conditions of approval, and project notes listed in the Planning Commission Staff Report;
d. Approve the Reclamation Plan revised to authorize development under Alternative 4 as described in the Final EIR; and
e. Include a Condition of Approval requiring that the Applicant shall enter into an agreement indemnifying the County for legal costs associated with approval of the project.
The Plant Site is located on approximately 138.5 acres adjacent to North Friant Road, approximately 1.5 miles north of the City of Fresno, and approximately 0.5 miles east of the San Joaquin River. The 138.5-acre Plant Site area includes approximately 126.6 acres owned by the Applicant (APNs: 300-070-56S, 57S, 58S, 59S, and 60S) and 12.9 acres owned by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (portions of APNs: 300-070-43ST, 48ST, and 50ST) (13475 N. Friant Road) (Sup. Dist. 2). The Quarry Site is located on approximately 352.4 acres adjacent to North Friant Road, approximately 1.1 miles north of the Applicant’s current Plant Site and approximately 1.5 miles south of the town of Friant (APNs: 300-040-19 and 20, 300-080-01S, 300-250-12 and a portion of 300-310-01) (13475 N. Friant Road) (Sup. Dist. 5). Both the Plant site and the Quarry Site are located within the AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District. The property is partially in Supervisor District 2 and partially in Supervisor District 5.
REPORT
There is no Net County Cost (NCC) associated with the recommended actions. The request before your Board is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s October 8, 2026, technical denial (3-3, with three Commissioners absent) of CUP Nos. 3666 and 3667 and associated EIR No. 7763 for the Cemex Rockfield Expansion Project (Project). The recommended actions would certify the Final EIR Report, adopt the required CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, approve CUP Nos. 3666 and 3667 as modified under Alternative 4, and approve the revised Reclamation Plan. A copy of the Planning Commission’s action on this Project is included as Attachment A and a copy of the October 8, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report is included as Attachment B. This item pertains to locations in District 2 and 5.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
If your Board is unable to make the required Findings for granting CUP Nos. 3666 and 3667, a motion to deny would be appropriate stating in the motion which Findings cannot be made.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no NCC associated with the recommended actions. Pursuant to the County’s Master Schedule of Fees, the Appellant/Applicant has paid a fee of $572 to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to appeal this matter to your Board for consideration. The Applicant paid $19,331 in fees for processing the CUPs and $1,334,600 in expenditures to-date for EIR preparation.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The proposed project comes before your Board pursuant to an appeal filed October 8, 2026, based on the Planning Commission’s technical denial of the applications.
The Applicant has proposed to modify its existing rock, sand, and gravel mining and processing operation at Rockfield Quarry (the quarry), and to reclaim the quarry when mining operations are complete. The implementation of the proposed Project would require adoption of a Surface Mining and Reclamation Plan for the Rockfield Quarry. The proposed Project also requires the County to approve two Conditional Use Permits (CUP Application Nos. 3666 and 3667) that would amend the Applicant’s current land use entitlements.
As noted in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment B), Cemex and its predecessors-in-interest have continuously mined for rock, sand, and gravel at the Quarry Site since at least 1913. Mining and processing operations have been located on the Plant Site since 1924. Mining and processing operations at the Quarry Site and Plant Site are permitted through July of 2027.
The Plant Site currently operates under CUPs 367, 2209, 3063, and 3093 with additional operational life extensions given in 2023 under CUP Nos. 3755-A and 3755-B and in 2026 under CUP Nos. 3852-A and 3852-B. The request in 2023 was approved by the Planning Commission and appealed to your Board, at which time an extension of three years was granted. The additional one-year extension request was approved by the Planning Commission on June 4, 2026, and was not appealed.
The CUPs allow aggregate mining of the alluvial deposit; plant operations including an aggregate processing plant, a ready-mix concrete plant, a hot-mix asphalt plant (inactive since 2009), and related supportive facilities; and the processing of raw aggregate mined from both the Applicant’s current Quarry Site and Plant Site. A portable plant is brought in periodically to recycle come-back concrete or return concrete.
The Quarry Site currently operates under CUPs 367, 2032, 3063, and 3093. Since there are no plant operations permitted at the Quarry Site, the CUPs allow the interplant haul of approximately 1.4 million tons per year (MT/year) of raw aggregate via North Friant Road approximately 1.1 miles south to the Plant Site for processing. As with the Plant Site, the additional operational time extensions extended the life of the operations until July 28, 2027.
The Project as originally proposed was to permit the modification of an existing surface mining operation in two stages with a total project life of up to 100 years. Stage 1 would continue concurrent operations at both the Quarry Site and the Plant Site for up to 30 years with continued aggregate mining of alluvial deposits and operation of the existing aggregate plant for continued washing, screening, crushing, and sorting of aggregate from the Quarry Site, and continued operation of the ready-mix concrete plant with the addition of a modern asphalt plant replacing an outdated asphalt plant that was removed. For Stage 2, at the Quarry Site, mining would be modified to include hard rock (granite) mining that would require drilling and blasting to a depth of approximately 600 feet below ground surface (bgs). An aggregate processing plant would be added to the Quarry Site to wash, screen, crush, and sort the aggregate.
The recommendation to the Planning Commission was to allow the Applicant continuation and modification of its current aggregate (rock, sand, and gravel) mining and processing operations as described in Alternative 4 of EIR No. 7763, prepared for this Project. This Alternative would limit mining operations to a 63-year maximum mining life and a maximum mining depth of 300 feet for the Quarry Site. At the October 8th Planning Commission hearing, representatives of the Applicant stated they were agreeable to this Alternative.
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 842.5, to approve a CUP associated with aggregate mining projects, the following Five Findings must be made:
1. That the site of the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required by this Division, to adjust said use with land and uses in the neighborhood;
2. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use;
3. That the proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property and surrounding neighborhood or the permitted use thereof; and
4. That the proposed development is consistent with the Fresno County General Plan.
In addition to the Findings in Section 842.5, the approval of a CUP for a surface mining operation in Fresno County is subject to the following Finding as specified in Fresno County Zoning Ordinance Section 834.4.220:
5. The Mining and Reclamation Plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Regulations for Surface Mining and Reclamation in all Districts and meets the applicable requirements therein.
CEQA/Environmental Impact Report No. 7763
The environmental review for the Project was conducted through preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Final EIR pursuant to the CEQA. The Draft EIR was released for public review in December 2024, and the Final EIR was completed in September 2026.
The Final EIR was released and noticed on September 25, 2026, and includes responses to comments received during the environmental review process and other information required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. Comments were received from 14 public agencies, 53 organizations and businesses, and 545 individuals. The Final EIR, together with the administrative record, provides the environmental information necessary for your Board to consider the environmental consequences of the proposed Project.
The Final EIR identified significant and unavoidable project and cumulative impacts related to Aesthetics and Visual Resources and Transportation. Mitigation measures would substantially lessen these effects to the extent feasible; however, no feasible mitigation measure or alternative would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Other potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR would be avoided or substantially lessened through implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into the project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The Final EIR evaluated five project alternatives in addition to the proposed Project, including the No Project Alternative, Reduced Mining Depth alternatives, a Reduced Mining Depth Alternative with Additional Setbacks, and a Reduced Mining Depth Alternative with Reduced Annual Sales. Department staff considered the environmental effects and feasibility of the alternatives and determined Alternative 4 with a reduced mining depth of 300 feet; additional project setbacks and a project life of 63 years support the General Plan’s objectives for land use compatibility and retention of vegetation for wildlife.
Planning Commission Hearing
On October 8, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the Project and Department staff’s recommended reduced project alternative. After considering extensive testimony from the public including testimony from the Applicant, Applicant’s Counsel, the Applicant’s hydrologist, sixteen individuals that spoke in favor of the Project and 62 individuals that spoke in opposition to the Project, the Planning Commission voted (3 to 3, three Commissioners absent) on a motion to certify the EIR prepared for the Project, approve the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), approve Classified CUP Nos. 3666 and 3667, subject the reduced Alternative 4 as identified in the EIR and subject to all mitigation measures and conditions included in the Staff Report. This tie vote resulted in a technical denial.
An appeal was filed on October 8, 2026, by Cemex representatives on behalf of Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC. The appeal form and letter submitted are included as Attachment C.
Included in the Board Agenda Item is late Planning Commission Correspondence following the publication of the Planning Commission Staff Report or received during the October 8th Planning Commission hearing. This material includes 38 letters in favor and 168 letters in opposition to the Project. Letters in support of the Project primarily included discussion of the need for a local sources of aggregate, the preservation of jobs, and the need to serve the areas’ demand for new housing. Other letters noted the company is ethical, highly regulated, and a safe place to work. Letters in opposition expressed concerns related to continued mining activity in the area, blasting activity, traffic, impacts to wildlife, the length of time activities would be allowed, impacts to scenic resources, and impacts to recreational activities. Late correspondence distributed to the Planning Commission at the October 8th hearing is included as Attachment D.
Correspondence received after the Planning Commission hearing (293 in favor and 77 opposed) is included as Attachment E. The correspondence echoed the comments received during the Planning Commission meeting and were sent by representatives of agencies, businesses, industries, and individuals. Letters in favor of approval noted the need for local aggregate supplies, market competition, and well-paying union jobs. In contrast, the letters in opposition to approval spoke to overall concern for the San Joaquin River, its restoration, water quality, parkway development, and recreational use that the writers said would be endangered by the Project. Other letters mentioned concern about noise, traffic safety, and traffic volume.
Letters from agencies focused on their area of expertise made with specific comments about traffic, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, recreation, tribal cultural resources, the San Joaquin River, and other topics covered in the Final EIR.
On October 7, 2026, the day prior to the Planning Commission Hearing, staff received a 17-page letter from the Friant Water Authority, which in-part, raised comments regarding the Project’s need for the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA). This letter was received well beyond the closing of the comment period for the DEIR. Although there is uncertainty as to whether a WSA is required for the subject project, a WSA has been prepared utilizing existing information and analysis contained in the publicly reviewed DEIR, the DEIR’s technical appendices, and the FEIR. The WSA is included in the Project record and appended to the Sate Clearinghouse CEQA documents. The Friant Water Authority letter can be located on page 303 of Attachment D.
Conclusion and Board Action
The County has prepared CEQA Findings of Fact pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (Exhibit 7). The Findings determine that feasible changes and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects and identify the basis for approving the project notwithstanding the remaining significant and unavoidable effects. The County has also prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure implementation of adopted mitigation measures.
If your Board determines to grant the appeal and approve the Project, a motion as specified in the Recommended Actions section of this Agenda Item would be appropriate stating:
1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Cemex Rockfield Expansion Project including adoption of the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Environmental Impact Report No. 7763 prepared for Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3666 and 3667 and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as complete and adequate in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. Find that Alternative 4 with a 63-year maximum mining life and a maximum mining depth of 300 feet for the quarry site is consistent with the Fresno County General Plan policies addressing conservation of mineral resources, orderly mining operations, impact reduction, protection of mineral resource lands, and compatibility with surrounding land uses.
3. Adopt a Resolution determining the required Findings can be made and move to approve Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3666 and 3667, as modified under Alternative 4, Reduced Mining Depth (300 Feet) with Additional Setbacks, subject to the recommended findings, mitigation measures, conditions of approval, and project notes listed in the Planning Commission Staff Report.
4. Approve the Reclamation Plan revised to authorize development under Alternative 4 as described in the Final EIR.
5. Include a Condition of Approval requiring that the Applicant shall enter into an agreement indemnifying the County for legal costs associated with approval of the Project.
If your Board is inclined to deny the Project, a motion to deny the appeal would be appropriate with clarification and reasoning as to which of the five required Findings cannot be made. The Board, in its motion to deny the Project, retains the option to certify the Final EIR Report prepared for the Project as described the first approval motion, but then proceed with a motion to deny the Project based on your inability to make any one of the five required Findings for the land use permits (CUP Nos. 3666 and 3667).
OTHER REVIEWING AGENCIES:
Public Resources Code Section 2772.1(a) requires the lead agency to submit a proposed reclamation plan or plan amendment to the Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR) for review prior to approval. Section 2772.1(b) provides DMR an initial 30-day period to review the submission for completeness, followed by a 30-day substantive review period to prepare written comments.
Accordingly, the County submitted the proposed Reclamation Plan Amendment to DMR on April 8, 2025. DMR subsequently issued a Notice of Incomplete Submission on May 7, 2025, identifying eight completeness deficiencies. The County responded by letter dated May 8, 2026, providing responses to each identified deficiency, revised reclamation plan pages, and a complete revised Reclamation Plan Amendment dated May 2026. DMR received the revised materials on May 8, 2026. Following that submittal, the 30-day substantive review period elapsed without receipt of further completeness comments or substantive comments from DMR.
Public Resources Code Section 2772.1(b)(6)(A) requires the lead agency to give the Supervisor of Mine Reclamation a minimum 30-day notice of the time, place, and date of the hearing at which the lead agency has the intent to approve a reclamation plan amendment. On September 3, 2026, the County, through its consultant, transmitted notice of the October 8, 2026, Planning Commission hearing to DMR, which acknowledged receipt on September 4, 2026.
The original schedule for the Board of Supervisors hearing allowed for at least 30 days’ advance notice to DMR. The County subsequently advanced the hearing to a special meeting on November 12, 2026, which shortened the available notice period. Notice of the revised hearing date was provided to DMR on October 15, 2026, and DMR acknowledged receipt that same day, providing 28 days’ notice.
If approved, the County will provide DMR notice of the approval within 30 days pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2772.1(b)(7)(A). Within 60 days following approval, the County will provide DMR an official copy of the approved Reclamation Plan Amendment, including applicable reclamation-related conditions of approval and mitigation measures, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2772.1(b)(7)(B).
Advance Agenda Material was distributed to your Board on October 20, 2026.
REFERENCE MATERIAL:
BAI #13, July 18, 2023
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND/OR ON FILE:
Attachments A - E
On file with Clerk - Resolution
On file with Clerk - Advance Agenda Material (Memo, Attachments 1 - 1q)
On file with Clerk - Advance Agenda Material (Attachment 2)
On file with Clerk - Advance Agenda Material (Attachment 2a)
On file with Clerk - Advance Agenda Material (Attachment 2b)
On file with Clerk - Advance Agenda Material (Attachment 3 - 7)
Additional Information
CAO ANALYST:
Maria Valencia