Quarry operation goes before planning commission

Brian Wilkinson

(Updated: Thursday, March 04, 2010, 12:00 AM)

2008 lawsuit overturns earlier approval

The Madera County Planning Commission will consider a request at 6 p.m. March 16 to rezone 121 acres of a 540-acre foothill parcel to allow for an open-pit rock quarry.

The operation, proposed by Madera Quarry Inc., would be on acreage now zoned for agricultural use, east of Daulton Road (406) and Road 209, two miles west of Highway 41.

The rezoning and conditional use permit request is the latest step for a development project that has encountered hurdles since Madera Quarry initiated the county application and permitting process in October 2002.

Residents near the proposed quarry site sued Madera County, alleging inadequacies in the project's initial environment impact report, approved by the Board of Supervisors in October 2006.

A revised environmental impact report released Dec. 3, 2009, addresses previous deficiencies, county planning officials said, but identifies seven "significant and unavoidable impacts" that the project will have on air quality, traffic, noise and land use.

Madera Quarry Inc., owned by Jack Baker of Jackson Enterprises Inc. of Redding, proposes developing a quarry on 80 acres, with 28 acres used for processing facilities. The company owns four parcels in the area totaling about 1,000 acres.

In business since the mid-1960s, Jackson Enterprises specializes in paving projects. It recently completed a paving project on Highway 41 south of Deadwood Mountain, past Lucky Lane in Coarsegold.

The company operates aggregate processing facilities near Porterville, Avenal and LeGrand.

Baker said he started searching for an appropriate quarry site in 2000, settling on the Madera County site as the best location.

"An aggregate site is unlike most other commercial or industrial sites," Baker said. "A shopping center, for example, can set almost anywhere, but a quarry must be where the rock is. Madera County does not presently have an operating quarry to serve the construction market."

Baker seeks a mining permit that will allow the quarry to mine, process and transport off-site a maximum of 900,000 tons of aggregate material annually for as long as 50 years.

The proposal estimates 300 truckloads per day in and out of the facility on an average workday and 680 loads per day during a maximum workday.

Baker said the state Department of Transportation is requiring "substantial and costly improvements" to Highway 41 from Road 209 to Highway 145 as a condition of an encroachment permit.

"An upgrade will be made at our expense to Road 209 at a cost of several million dollars," Baker said.

According to the revised environmental impact report, substantial upgrading, reconstruction and realignment of Road 209 from the mine entrance south about 4.5 miles to Highway 41 would be necessary.

The quarry would employ 15 to 25 people, he said, and two shifts could work when special night operations are needed.

Two opponents of the project, Bruce and Sheryl Gray, live less than a mile from the project site and estimate that about 100 homes surround the area.

The Grays filed a lawsuit against the county and lost, but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal for the 5th Appellate District on Oct. 24, 2008.

The Court of Appeal concluded the environmental report had deficiencies, specifically in mitigation matters concerning traffic, noise and water.

Bruce Gray said families around the quarry property call themselves the Bates Station neighbors, because they're near 1870s-era Bates Station, an important stage stop, saloon and post office on the road to Yosemite.

"We have opposed this project for many reasons, including noise, traffic, lifestyle and unique ecosystems," Gray said. "But the underlining reason was, is and will always be water. Without water, there is no life, property values or retirement."

"Here we are, and the same water issues are still there," Gray said.

Gray said the revised environmental impact report recently completed has changed the level of water issues from "potentially significant" to "less than significant."

"In doing so, they have removed any mitigation steps to replace affected private wells and to assume no responsibility," Gray said.

The project will rely on two wells on the property to provide 55 acre feet, 17 million gallons, of water necessary for the quarry operation. The two wells are currently producing 180 gallons per minute and they will monitored by the county for the duration of the project.

Due to the concerns of neighbors over water, the county will require the developer to adopt and pay for a well monitoring program on surrounding wells. If any substantial reduction in well production related to the quarry becomes apparent, the developer will be responsible to provide surrounding property owners with well improvements by lowering existing pumps, installing new pumps, deepening wells or constructing new wells if necessary.

The revised environmental report cites seven "significant and unavoidable impacts" of the proposed project on air quality, traffic, noise and land use.

The report highlights more than 70 impacts and mitigation measures covering exterior lighting, mine and vehicle emissions, erosion control, fuel and chemical storage, surface water and greenhouse gases.

The report lists additional issues where mitigation measures are not required, including visual incompatibility with surrounding land uses; potential public exposure to toxic air contamination, direct and indirect impacts to the Red Tail Hawk, other wildlife and special-status plants, and off-site traffic noise levels.

The report says the project would generate pollutants exceeding the threshold established by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District and that there are no feasible mitigation measures to the project's impact at Highway 41 and Avenue 15.

Baker said benefits of the quarry include employment, taxes and less expensive material for area construction sites.

"Sales tax generated for materials used in Madera County will now be paid to Madera County instead of to a surrounding county, and property tax will be collected based on the substantial investment made in the site and the equipment," he said.

In addition, Madera County would receive 5 cents per ton of material produced at the site.

"We have located our site, as much as possible, to where it cannot be seen by our neighbors and buffered it with our own property," Baker said. "We are committed to being a good neighbor and will adhere to the requirements of our use permit."

Gray sees it differently.

"Our neighborhood is united," he said. "We will not roll over when it comes to our homes and lifestyles. After all, that's why we moved here."

The Planning Commission hearing will begin at 6 p.m. at the county Resource Management Agency, 2037 West Cleveland, Madera.

The 200-page revised environmental impact report may be viewed at www.madera-county.com, under planning.

Details: Madera County Planning Department, (559) 675-7821.