Board of Supervisors to Decide Cemex Mining Proposal After Planning Commission Deadlock

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors will vote on a contested mining expansion at a special meeting Nov. 12, after the county Planning Commission deadlocked 3-3 on the proposal Oct. 8.

Multinational mining company Cemex proposed a 600-foot-deep blast mine on a 352-acre site along the San Joaquin River north of Fresno, with a 100-year timeline. County staff recommended a modified version: 300 feet deep, 63 years, with an additional 100-foot setback from the river.

That modified proposal failed when commissioners Hill, Quist, and Abrahamian voted against it; commissioners Borchardt, Chaney, and Arabian voted for it. Three commissioners were absent or left before the vote.

The site sits within the San Joaquin River Parkway, borders Lost Lake Park, sits across the river from a recently announced state park, and is near spawning beds used in Chinook salmon restoration. The Planning Commission recently approved a 5,000-home senior housing development a quarter-mile from the proposed blast mine.

Of 204 comments received on the project’s final Environmental Impact Report, 168 opposed it. At the Oct. 8 hearing — the longest and most attended Planning Commission meeting in at least a decade, running 5 hours 20 minutes — 77 people spoke.

Fifteen spoke in favor, all Cemex employees, labor representatives, or business advocates. Sixty-two spoke against.

Cemex permits for existing operations on that stretch of the San Joaquin River expire next year. The company employs roughly 95 people at its plant and quarry sites along Friant Road. Vice president and general manager Nathan Layfield told the commission employees are asking whether they will keep their jobs.

Cemex representatives attempted to dispute a California Geological Survey report indicating Fresno County already has roughly twice the amount of aggregate reserves in permitted mines it needs for the next 50 years.

What Cemex proposes — blasting and drilling into granite bedrock near the river — is entirely new for the area. All prior gravel mining on the San Joaquin River used traditional alluvial methods, digging and excavating with heavy machinery, since the early 1900s.

Table Mountain Rancheria Tribal Chair Michelle Heredia-Cordova criticized a Cemex attorney’s argument that environmental and cultural damage would be minimal because the site had already been “disturbed” by gravel mining.

“It’s already wrecked, so give us permission to wreck it some more,” Heredia-Cordova said. “How does that make any sense?”

Fresno resident and elementary school principal Ron Bohigian questioned the need for a hard rock mine in an environmentally sensitive habitat near California’s second-longest river. “The entire valley is underlain by granite next to the foothills,” Bohigian said. “I don’t think a serious look has been given to where granite can be mined.”

Multiple commissioners questioned county staff whether they had looked at alternative locations. The answer was no.

Bruce Steubing of Benchmark Resources, the firm that prepared the project’s environmental analysis, said state environmental law does not require looking at alternative locations when a project involves resources like aggregate materials. Commissioner Quist said he thought that would have driven the county to do more looking.

Speakers raised concerns about impacts to air quality, riparian habitat, traffic on Friant Road, residential water wells, water quality in the river, and the dozens of environmental violations and fines imposed against Cemex at other mining sites over the last two decades.

The Breakdown

• The Planning Commission deadlocked 3-3 on a modified version of Cemex’s proposal Oct. 8. A majority vote was required for approval.
• The modified proposal called for a 300-foot-deep blast mine over 63 years, with an additional 100-foot setback from the river. Cemex originally proposed 600 feet deep over 100 years.
• The Board of Supervisors will vote on the proposal at a special meeting Nov. 12.
• The 352-acre site is within the San Joaquin River Parkway, borders Lost Lake Park, and is near spawning beds used in Chinook salmon restoration.
• Cemex’s permits for existing operations expire next year. The company employs roughly 95 people at its plant and quarry sites along Friant Road.
• Public comment on the Environmental Impact Report ran 168 opposed, 36 in favor out of 204 total. At the Oct. 8 hearing, 62 spoke against, 15 spoke in favor.

What This Means for You

The Board of Supervisors will decide at their Nov. 12 special meeting whether a 63-year blast mine proceeds on the San Joaquin River in an area adjacent to parkland, a planned state park, and salmon restoration sites.

If the board approves the project, the company will have the authority to blast into granite bedrock using methods never before used on this stretch of the river, in a location where traffic, air quality, water quality, and habitat impacts are already documented concerns.

The supervisors you elect control this decision. Their vote will answer whether the environmental and cultural concerns raised by 168 public commenters, tribal leadership, and a majority of speakers at the longest Planning Commission hearing in at least a decade affect the outcome.

What to Watch

Cemex will benefit from a 63-year permit to blast and extract granite from a 352-acre site on the San Joaquin River. The material does not state the dollar value of the contract, the revenue Cemex expects to generate, or the amount the county will collect in royalties or fees.

The material does not state what Cemex paid for the site or how long the company has held it. Those figures would show the financial stakes for the company and the county.

The county’s own environmental consultant acknowledged the county did not look at alternative locations for the mine, citing a provision in state environmental law that does not require it for projects involving resources like aggregate.

That means the board will vote on this location without a documented comparison to other sites in Fresno County where granite could be mined. Commissioner Quist said he thought the county should have done more looking. Whether the board asks for that comparison, or proceeds without it, will show whether the supervisors accept the environmental review as sufficient or demand a fuller accounting of alternatives.

Speakers cited dozens of environmental violations and fines imposed against Cemex at other mining sites over the last two decades. The material does not state what those violations were, where they occurred, or what fines were assessed.

The material does not state whether Fresno County reviewed Cemex’s compliance record at other sites before recommending approval of the modified proposal. A compliance history would show the company’s track record and the county’s due diligence in vetting it.

The modified proposal approved by county staff reduces the depth and duration Cemex requested but still authorizes a blast mine. The California Geological Survey found the county already has twice the aggregate reserves it needs for 50 years, and 168 of 204 public commenters opposed the project.

Why county staff recommended approval of even the modified version, and the reasoning behind the county’s position, are questions the material does not answer. The staff report and the board’s discussion Nov. 12 would show that reasoning.

The Planning Commission recently approved a 5,000-home senior housing development a quarter-mile from the proposed blast mine. The material does not state whether the environmental review for that housing project accounted for the cumulative impact of a blast mine operating nearby for 63 years, or whether the blast mine’s environmental review accounted for the traffic, air quality, and water impacts of 5,000 additional homes in the area.

Whether the two projects were reviewed together or separately will show whether the county assessed the combined effect or treated them as isolated decisions.