What's at stake:
The river: CEMEX wants to blast a hard-rock granite mine about 200 yards from the San Joaquin River, near the river parkway and where salmon spawn. Federal regulators at the Bureau of Reclamation have warned of a "notable risk" that the pit could be breached and spill lead, arsenic and sediment into the river system that supplies the region's drinking water.
The need: The Fresno region already has 530 million tons of gravel permitted, more than twice the 227 million tons it's projected to need over the next 50 years, according to the California Geological Survey.
The jobs: Around 95 people work at CEMEX's site. Many of them came to the hearing to support the project.
What's next: The Planning Commission deadlocked 3-3. The decision now likely goes to the Board of Supervisors, which has backed CEMEX in the past. No date has been set, although it's likely to come in November.
CEMEX’s proposed blast mine on the San Joaquin River stalled before the Fresno County Planning Commission on Thursday, when commissioners deadlocked 3-3 — a split that amounts to a preliminary denial and sets up a likely appeal to the Board of Supervisors at a date yet to be determined.
Fresno County’s meeting hall was packed to the gills Thursday morning: the hearing room was standing-room-only, with three overflow rooms filled with scores of residents from across the county who oppose the controversial proposal, which sits about 200 yards from the San Joaquin River.
Speaker after speaker said they could not imagine a worse location for a mine than a river, inside a public parkway, near where salmon spawn and children play at summer camp.
“How this is even a project is beyond comprehension,” said one mother, shaking her head as she stared at the ground.
“I am sick and tired of Fresno being the butt of every joke. We need to prove them wrong” she said.
Fresno has long been described as a cautionary tale of “planning gone wrong and development gone wild.” The region’s planning agencies have already approved more than twice the amount of gravel than is projected to be needed over the next 50 years, according to a state report released this spring by the California Geological Survey.
Some members of the public said the project could be rejected on its merits — the costs too big, the benefits too thin. Around 95 people work at the site, and many of them showed up Thursday in support of the proposal.
“Allow us to build Fresno,” said CEMEX employee Jessie Gonzalez. “Let’s not go against Fresno.”
Commissioners ultimately reached a stalemate, unable to find a consensus to approve or deny the blast mine. Commissioner Michelle Roman left in the middle of the hearing for a previous commitment, leaving an even number of commissioners to vote and opening the door to the split vote late Thursday afternoon.
Commissioners John Arabian, Kyle Chaney and David Borchardt voted yes, and Commissioners Linda Hill, James Quist and Chair Ken Abrahamian voted no.
When given an opportunity to explain their support, two of the three commissioners who voted yes did not give an answer. They just voted yes.
The only one who explained his support was Arabian.
“I’m really leaning on staff and the EIR and trusting them,” Arabian said.
County did not consider alternative sites
The resource CEMEX wants to mine — hard-rock granite — can be mined virtually anywhere along the valley floor where the soil meets the granite protruding at the base of the Sierra Nevada.
The big question asked by multiple commissioners: With a resource so common, and so many other places to mine it, why didn’t the county look elsewhere instead of right next to where salmon spawn?
The answer came at the meeting: the planners on the project didn’t try looking.
Why? Because they weren’t required to.
“When you have a project that involves resources … like aggregate materials, there’s a provision in CEQA that you need not look at alternative locations,“ said a consultant who worked on the project’s environmental review.
“So we relied on that in not looking at other locations,” he added.
To some commissioners, that was unacceptable.
“I thought that would have driven the county to a little more looking,” Quist said, referring to the trade-offs of blasting a pit near the river.
“It’s not in the right place. It’s too many lives to impact — whether it’s recreation, Boy Scouts in the river. I have a real major concern with that,” said Hill, the commission’s vice chair.
Residents ask for alternative locations away from river be considered
The county’s decision not to look elsewhere grew harder to ignore as a line of opponents described what makes the site unique. It’s where much of the region’s water comes from — water that cities, anglers and farmers depend on.
“Even though it’s probably a really good project, it’s just probably the wrong location, because it’s impacting the families,” Hill said.
The area is in a federally designated flood zone, and the federal Bureau of Reclamation has warned the county of a “notable risk” that the huge mine pit could be breached, spilling lead, arsenic and other sediment into the broader San Joaquin River system, which flows to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and broader Bay Area.
Ronald Bohigian, a lifelong Fresno resident who spoke during public comment, said the county should extend CEMEX’s existing permits while the company finds a new site away from the river parkway and its critical habitat. Bohigian described a win-win-win: save the jobs, help the parkway and steer away from the catastrophic risk of a mine breach.
“Aggregate, jobs and a world-class parkway: How can we have all of that together?” he said. “The entire valley is underlaid by granite next to the foothills. I don’t think a serious look has been given to where granite can be mined.”
CEMEX did not explain during its presentation why it chose this particular location, although Nathan Layfield, a CEMEX vice president, said the company wants to blast because the hard rock it can extract is good for making asphalt.
The commissioners did not take up Bohigian’s recommendation, instead taking a simple vote on the proposal. They did not request any alternative locations be considered. The 3-3 split now sets the stage for a vote by the Board of Supervisors, which has a conservative majority that has been supportive of CEMEX in the past.
“There’s nothing wrong with what they’re [CEMEX] doing on the river,” Supervisor Buddy Mendes said last year.
“It’s good to have competition. It’s better not to have one company own all the gravel. That’s not a healthy thing.”
A date for the Board of Supervisors vote has not been set.
