Commission begins review of general plan amendment to allow standalone RJ Noble asphalt plant amid resident concerns

The Riverside County Planning Commission on March 18 voted to initiate a foundational general plan amendment (FGPA 24,062) that would reclassify about 40 acres in Temescal Valley from Open Space Mineral Resources to Community Development Heavy Industrial to enable a standalone asphalt plant and ancillary facilities operated by RJ Noble.

The commission’s action was a procedural initiation — not project approval — and sets the path for future applications, a lot‑line adjustment, conditional use permit review and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Planning staff told the commission a full environmental review (likely an EIR) would analyze dust, traffic, reclamation‑plan changes to surface mining permits and other potential impacts before any standalone permit could be granted.

Why it matters: residents said the plant’s existing operations and any expansion could affect neighborhood air quality, traffic and safety as more housing is approved nearby. Commissioners said initiating the FGPA will allow the county to require clear operational limits and mitigation in subsequent permit steps.

What proponents told the commission: the applicant’s team, led by land‑use attorney Patrick Mitchell and consultant Andrew White of Benchmark Resources, said the asphalt plant has operated for decades and supplies much of the county’s paving needs. White told the commission the request is intended to separate ownership and permitting so the asphalt plant can be entitled independently of nearby aggregate mines. The applicants said an independently permitted plant would reduce haul miles, supply local infrastructure projects and allow operational efficiencies such as on‑site maintenance and recycled asphalt processing.

What residents said: three in‑person speakers urged the commission to deny or delay the FGPA. Resident Ruth Brissendon said Ordinance 3.48’s eight‑year cycle limits made the current filing untimely and accused the operator of obtaining a permit change that doubled asphalt production from about 600,000 to 1,200,000 tons per year and expanded hours of operation without sufficient environmental review or public hearing. Tracy Davis asked for a citizen oversight committee and said the community had seen operational changes absent adequate regulatory follow‑up. Jerry Sincich cited dust and PM10 concerns and referenced South Coast Air Quality Management District rules for asphalt plants.

Applicant response: the applicant’s team disputed some accounts of prior approvals and said a 2016 substantial conformance application permitted relocation of the plant. They acknowledged a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued in December 2018 with multiple items, said partial responses were submitted in 2018 and 2019 and that other items were addressed in later filings. The applicant told the commission the previous application was not approved and that any outstanding NOV items would be addressed as part of a new application and environmental review. Andrew White said operations at the site are permitted under an existing Surface Mining Permit (SMP 133) and can continue at current entitlement levels pending the outcome of this FGPA and any future CUP process.

Commission response and next steps: commissioners expressed a mix of cautious support and neutrality; the chair summarized “three supports and one neutral” and directed staff to proceed with initiation so that future permit and CEQA steps can study and, if needed, constrain hours, production limits, dust mitigation and traffic impacts. Staff said future steps will likely include a lot‑line adjustment, modifications to affected surface mining permits and detailed technical studies as part of the EIR.

What’s next: initiating the FGPA allows the county and applicant to prepare a detailed project description and technical studies. Any standalone use permit or changes to mining entitlements will be decided only after public review of the environmental document and additional hearings.

Representative quotes: “Ordinance 3.48 states that this time period shall not be extended…This request to heavy industrial amounts to a second application… and is therefore void,” said resident Ruth Brissendon. “[The asphalt plant] is permitted under SMP 133 and is allowed to operate there irrespective of this FGPA application until 2095,” said applicant consultant Andrew White.

Ending: The commission’s initiation does not approve any new operation or expansion. Any future change in operations, hours or production will be subject to the CEQA process, potential revisions to surface mining permits and a separate conditional use permit review.