Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission delays decision on quarry RFP amid Apperson Ridge environmental and economic questions
Summary
The commission deferred an exclusive‑negotiation decision after extended debate and public comment over environmental impacts tied to Apperson Ridge, differing net‑present‑value claims, and requests for more public review and documentation.
A contentious agenda item on April 24 asked the commission to authorize exclusive negotiations with the highest‑scoring respondent to a quarry redevelopment request for proposals. Staff recommended exclusive negotiations with the Da Silva Group, but public speakers, rival bidders and several commissioners raised environmental, legal and economic concerns tied to a possible Apperson Ridge mining alternative.
Opponents (including environmental groups) argued the Apperson Ridge plan rests on an outdated 25‑year EIR and would threaten habitat for species such as golden eagles, the San Antonio elk herd and listed amphibians. Ralph Canz (Alameda Creek Alliance) asked staff for deeper review of Da Silva’s mitigation performance at other projects and questioned monitoring and enforcement history.
Proponents and one bidder (CEMEX) argued that the staff scoring and subsequent oral interview shifted rankings and that the city should consider net present value and operational timing; Tom Berliner (CEMEX) presented a counteranalysis asserting a different financial outcome. Staff said their outside consultant’s internal negotiation analysis ranked Da Silva highest and emphasized that the ENA (exclusive negotiation agreement) phase would include extensive environmental review and community engagement, and that the commission would see detailed terms before any long‑term lease.
After almost three hours of discussion and public testimony, a motion to continue the item passed; commissioners instructed staff to return with more detail, allow bidders to respond to new materials, and ensure an open community review during any negotiation phase. Staff said that a full CEQA process would be required before any long‑term authorization and that the ENA (if later approved) would return to the commission for vote.
