Loading...
01. Written Communication �2I�H a Ell SZISIHXa Grace Schmidt From: Susan Sievert [spsievert@g mail. com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:10 AM To: Kris Wang Cc: City Clerk; Mark Santoro; Barry Chanel; Gilbert Wong; publicrecords @baaqmd.gov; don. gage @bos.sccgov.org; George. Shirakawa @bos.sccgov.org; dave.cortese @bos.sccgov.org; ken.ye!ager @bos.sccgov.org; liz.kniss @bos.sccgov.org Subject: Re: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS, July 1, 2010, Agenda Item 1 Thank you for hosting, educating, and hearing the concerned citizens of our county, Mayor Wang. Conspicuously absent from these proceedings have been the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. It is reasonable to assume they are preparing to take ownership of their jurisdictional obligations, including the public hearings, after the EPAs historic announcement in August. Perhaps we should offer them use of our Community Hall and television facilities.- - Susan On Jul 19, 2010, at 7:38 PM, Kris Wang wrote: Dear Susan, I have conferred with staff and can provide the following respowe to your email: 1. The presentations from the BAAQMD and from the Courty of Santa Clara are summaries of regulatory and administrative actions taken by the respective agencies. These presentations to Council may include PowerPoint or other fact sheets and, if so, will be posted on the city web site as soon as they become available. Staff has not been provided with a written document but instead we expect the agencies to provide an update to the Council and the community. 2. Public comment will be part of this and all other council meetings on the subject. Given the complex nature of this issue, we anticipate future meetings to be held on this subject and the public will be provided the opportunity to comment during each meeting. 3. This item on council meeting tomorrow is listed as a study session for the Council and community members to receive a report on air quality regulation, standards, monitoring and reclamation as they relate to the Lehigh Cement Plant immediately adjacent to the City. There will be no action taken by the Council. Thanks, Kris Kris Wang Mayor, City of Cupertino, www.cupertino.orp From: Susan Sievert [mailto:spsievert@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:49 AM To: City Clerk Cc: Kris Wang; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong; publicrecordsC�)baaq_md.gov don. gage(&bos.sccciov.org George .Shirakawa(@bos.sccgov.org dave.cortesena bos.sc c ov.or ; ken.yeager@bos.sccgov.org Iiz.kniss@bos.sccgov.org Subject: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS, July 1, 2010, Agenda Item 1 1 Written Communications for Lehigh Study Session, July 20, 2010 AGENDA ITEM 1: Receive a report from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and Santa Clara County. Topics will be air quality regulation, standards, monitoring, and reclamation as they relate to the Lehigh Cement Plant immediately adjacent to the City. (No documentation in packet). Dear Cupertino City Council, Thank you for including the disclaimer, "No documentation in packet" in your council and commission agendas. To that end, I am disappointed that the BAAQMD /Santa Clara County "report" is not included in the agenda packet for pub! is review — and encourage our city to require the discloser of any and all taxpayer financed reports prior to its public hearing. Please consider: 1) Directing Cupertino staff to request a copy of the report, and to then post it to the �"vw.cupertino.org home page prior to the study session. If not, 2) Please agendize a follow -up opportunity for public comment after the community has had time to review the written report. Thank you. Susan Sievert Cupertino, CA cc: Bay Area Air Quality Management District PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST pub icrecordsCa),baagmd.gov Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors do n.gage ii lws.sccgo vmr ? , George.S ccgo n dave.corteseL&bos.scc og v org ken.y<aL c cam o rg Iii knias'dbo�.scy;;cn.org 2 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE ora �,,. YY1►yt �, �� cc c� � I C�Yi S To: FUHSD as an input To Environmental Impact Report for both the Monta Vista and Lynbrook schools. ATTN: Sharon Serrano 589 West Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale. California 94087 From: Mr. and Mrs. E. J. Ford 10853 Wilkinson Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: EIR Concerns Regarding Use of $198,000,000 Measure B Bonds By Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) Preface: Our understandings regarding these taxpayer funded bonds was that: 1) Proceeds from the We of $198M of Bonds would only be used for Wggific school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List. 2) These Bonds have a 40 -year life to retire i.e. taxpayers / homes in this district will be indebted for that time period. 3) Accountability safeguards were to be put in place to assure that taxpayer money would be spent wisely. 4) A specific bond project list was the basis of need for $198M. After multiple requests we find that NO SPECIFIC LIST WAS PREPARED BY FUHSD FOR THIS BOND MEASURE. Discussion: Now after this bond measure has been approved we find that there is a serious intent to add 80-90 foot field lights at Lynbrook and Monta Vista and extend the usage time. Neither of these was included in the "specific projects in the Bond Project List ". These are Environmental impacts to our community. They add light, sound and traffic pollution. They reduce safety and add the potential for expanded sales of drugs and criminal issues for students and the local community. The EIR from FUHSD states that field usage will be extended six days a week till 9:00 PM and football will occur six times per year till 10:30 PM. After contacting real estate agents and appraisers of homes, that surround these schools on all four sides, we are advised that field lights and extended usage will result in a decrease of property value. Value defined in terms of not only money but in quality of life and the desire to locate in these communities. This negative effect will ripple out from adjacent homes to homes near by andi streets that will be further impacted by additional traffic over longer periods of the day. Who will pay for this increase in road usage and subsequent repair, traffic, police and security personnel? We have heard from the FUHSD Board that they are working on traffic. There is no evidence in our neighborhood that anything is being done. We have lived here for more than 40 years and have communicated multiple times with all 3 local schools regarding traffic. All schools have done virtually nothing for our neighborhood traffic. All talk and no actions. We cannot get out of our driveways in the morning or afternoon. Our streets are clogged with cars carrying a driver and a single student. The bulk of those students are attending MV High. Lynbrook reports similar problems. We have drivers of students hit and run our cars so that we can no longer safely park in front of our homes. There are drivers who use our private home driveways to turn around or drop students off. We see drivers double park and students exit on the driver side — directly into moving traffic. Is student safety part of an EIR? We cannot find that it is. Students must not be part of the Environment. Will the current FUHSD board have any legal responsibility for issues such as this? Do we need a death or injury to show how adding usage and lights contributed? We would like a formal response from FUHSD regarding responsibility. Realignment of the MV parking lot does absolutely nothing for our neighborhood. Extending the day with field lights will add imore traffic and increase the potential to run over a student in the dark. Smggest going bark to bum and no Ii" nor extended nw= we do not need a change that ig m=t ve to the environment of our adiacent communities. We see no impact to homeowners that are not adjacent — do they not care? Suggest we ask them outside of FUHSD's preferred answers. Should we host a meeting to openly discuss the negative impacts on our neighborhoods — we could do this? Request an accurate listladdresses of all student parents in these schools. The use of trees to block the lights also blocks the sun in adjacent yards and the view some of these homes have of the mountains that surround this valley. Is FUHSD's intent to diminish aesthetics and quality of life for these homeowners? Trees do little to block sound unless you have a forest — acres deep. Many of the surrounding homeowners are very hard working collage - educated professionals. Some are retired from their profession. There are multiple families in our neighborhood with severely handicapped occupants. None of us needs to listen to bands or any field sport noise at dinnertime or after. Neither of these two schools were ever planned to have Field lights. Campus size of was considered too small and land use inappropriate because homes surrounded these schools. MV was supposed to be one of the walks to all four schools — Lincoln, Kennedy, Monta Vista and De Anza. That is not an urban myth. There is nothing that we can find in the "Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report" for Adding Field Lights and extended usage at these schools regarding "SAFETY ". To reiterate why does the word aft never anoear in the EIR? Does State law allow FUHSD to not address this`.! We believe that all school systems have a responsibility to provide and encourage a safe environment for all school functions. Please document planned safety activities and funding when lights and extended school hours are implemented — add definition of who will be responsible? There is not one report that we can find that states that extending the school time and adding lights is a positive increase of safety for students or the community. Many State funded schools throughout our country express serious concern that added dark operation time brings out drugs dealers and crime/vandalism after sport games. Neither of these FUHSD schools is drug free. Neither of these two schools can attest nor guarantee that extending the day and adding lights will diminish these social problems. Should our communities add these potential risks? Who will be responsible — the School Board? Please provide an answer. The FUHSD has stated that they expect to need another $200 or more for facility additions and renovations. Let us see that specific list. They have also stated that the State of California may pull even more money out to attempt resolution of Billions of dollars of budget imbalance. Why is this FUHSD Board so willing to spend taxpayers $'s for non - essentials? Send all or part of the $198114 back to the taxpayers and FUHSD will not need an EIR. When neighborhoods are degraded the tax dollars go away and the schools fail their primary goal of education — there are many examples — even here in California. The FUHSD is not a partner with the entire community and that is an Environmental Impact. We have contacted our neighbors in these communities and have retained an attorney. Mr. and Mrs. E. J. Ford Cc t 7'0 - 16) 5 s p c� rl5`���1c� (����iV►� Oct. 26, 2009 l ca C1r r a 0 C O' ( CO 5 To: Fremont Union High School District From: Tom and Jackie Kritzer 21785 Hyannisport Dr. Cupertino, CA Re: Environmental Impact study regarding proposed changes to the sports fields at Monta Vista High School. As neighbors who share a fence with Monta Vista's sports fields, we appreciate the opportunity to voice concerns regarding the proposed changes to those fields as explained in the community meeting. We would like to preface our statements by saying that we are in favor of upgrading field conditions and the renovation of the track. All are in bad shape and need to be repaired. During the community meeting, representatives from the District made some blanket statements that are blatantly false. Therefore, the District needs to know that: • As neighbors, we bought our homes knowing full well that we back up to a school. • We already accept and tolerate sports practices, foul balls almost going through our upstairs windows, storage portables and beat -up soccer goals jammed up against our fences, band practices (during the school week and on weekends in the Fall), non - district related sports functions (of which there are many) and other school - related events and the consequent traffic 7 days a week, 365 days a year. • Monta Vista IS a destination for sports at this moment, so it will continue to be so in the future. • The football stadium and bleachers at no other school in the district are so close to adjacent homes. Regarding the proposed football stadium, lights, and bleachers, etc.: Bleachers: The proposed large "home" bleachers abut too closely to the adjacent neighbors' houses, and even though our house would not be affected, we heartily oppose them as planned. The proposed position of ANY bleachers without more space between neighboring fences and bleachers and without camouflage landscaping is totally unacceptable. The potential for strangers to have visual access to living spaces of a home in any fashion is not something that any school has the right to ask of its neighbors, and no school neighbors should ever have to suffer. It constitutes an invasion of privacy, and we will support those neighbors who are affected. The following are a couple of suggestions to mitigate the problems caused by the proximity of the bleachers: 1. Leave sufficient space between the bleachers and the houses for a row of trees. Italian cypress would be a good choice. They have a small footprint (so they would not require much space), are dense, and grow tall enough (30') to provide a shield. This would keep the homeowner from seeing the bleachers and prevent spectators from seeing into the neighbors' yards. The trees also provide the collateral benefit of serving as a windbreak. 2. Lower the elevation of the playing field w much as possible (consistent with drainage requirements, etc.) to lower the maximum. height of the bleachers. This may require removal of some dirt from the school site, which is expensive. However the tremendous savings this project can realize based on the current economic conditions should easily provide sufficient funds for this. Remember, the citizens of Cupertino approved this bond before the current economic crisis. In the preliminary plan presented at the community meeting, there is a group of trees between the football stadium and the practice fields. We would suggest minimizing or eliminating this stand of trees if necessary to add the row of trees to the west of the stadium as suggested above. Lights: The proposed football stadium lights are perhaps ile most divisive issue associated with the playing field upgrade. The neighbors' only point of reference is the current lights at the pool. At the community meeting, we were informed that the proposed stadium lights will be about twice as high as the existing pool lights, offering an opportunity to aim them in a more "downward" direction, thus minimizing "spill light." The desiip sounds like a significant improvement, however the implementation of the plan is of concern to us. Several of the existing pool lights are aimed so that the center of their beam is well outside the pool area. The result is that the spill light from the pool lights as they are currently aligned is unacceptable. These very bright lights shine almost directly into the windows of several Hyannisport houses and fully illuminate the houses themselves. If the stadium lights are also to serve as path lighting to and from the stadium area, that is likely to result in more spill light. Additional, low -level path lighting should be included in the plan to serve this propose. An additional idea might be: Lights could be mounted on one side of the stadium ONLY (facing Fort Baker) to illuminate the football field and the adjacent sports field, but should not be mounted on the side of the stadium facing toward ,any neighboring home on Linda Vista Place. Wherever lights are used (existing or new), trees should be employed to help shield the spill light. There are a number of trees in the proposed plan. Consideration should be given to the placement of these trees to provide light and sound!. shielding. Other issues regarding lights: Despite statements about current practices and district guidelines regarding use of lights, the pool lights are often on well past the 9:00 pm cutoff (Saturday through Thursday), even when no one is at the pool. (No mention was made of any guidelines regarding how early the lights can be used. Pool lights are often on before 6:30 am many mornings in the fall.) We suggest that the school board sit down and really hash out a definitive set of guidelines (for all lights at all outdoor sporting venues), including the circumstances under which these guidelines can be violated, then stick to it. We believe that school district has the opportunity to demonstrate (not just talk about) their respect for the neighbors before a final decision on the stadium lighting is approved or disapproved, by modifying the current pool lighting; situation by re- directing the existing lights to minimize spill light. Design is only one element — implementation is another. Also, adherence to the time -of -use guidelines would further demonstrate the school's expected behavior with stadium lights. (A collateral benefit would be the energy savings.) The words at the community meeting supporting the lights sound nice, but based on current practice, those words may be just rhetoric to get the proposed plan passed. Actions, actions, actions! Do not pass up this important opportunity to win neighbor's support for this project. A final fact: high school students don't need or deserve the opportunity to play under the lights. They need and deserve a good education and a safe learning environment (which they get at Monta Vista). Playing under the lights is a bonus. College teams rarely get this opportunity— with very few exceptions, They play on Saturday afternoons. Monta Vista could do the same. Traffic: We have a long history of traffic problems with the 3 schools in the MVHS area, so we feel we have the right to address this issue. Just because the plans propose limited access to the stadium via an alternative path does not mean it will be used. After living on Hyannisport Dr. for close to 18 years, we know that event attendees will use the spaces in front of houses on Hyannisport, Fort Baker, Presidio and Wilkinson when they come to Monta Vista for events. What precautions or agreements with local sheriff/polio-. for traffic control and monitoring do your plans include? If none, we request something be arranged. Neighbors need to be able to host visitors as well as the school, and our streets need to be safe. Student drivers in the past have created terrible traffic congestion and caused accidents. We had to resort to permit parking in order to restore order on our streets, but that is not in effect after school hours. We neighbors worked hard to share the streets with the school, but that was unsuccessful. As a result, we reclaimed our streets, now we won't support a return to the old scenario. Communications between Monta Vista and neighbors needs to improve. In years past, neighbors were made aware of certain school events, and this was a big help. We knew when the Homecoming parade was coming down the street or when streets would be blocked off. Lately, these notices only have come out for the Senior All Night Party. Neighbors still need to know when graduation is, when dances are scheduled, and when after- school sports events are planned —all of them. We often enter our neighborhood to gridlock and then cannot park in front our own homes. A system of advanced notice to neighbors would be very welcome. If the stadium and these changes come to f - uition, I think Monta Vista should send each abutting neighbor a schedule of events for the entire year, which must be updated as necessary to be correct. A final not"hank the neighbors tangibly: We have given a good chunk of our lives, money, and patience to the school before, during, and after our own children attended it. We would like to suggest that neighbors should be granted free passes to all school - related events that impact our streets and homes as payment and thanks for dealing with the additional noise, traffic and other inconveniences. Efl11JH MIDIS SZIBIHX1 . GL/ 7 -Z -10 f _ p.p.. Presentation Outline ..... .. BAY ARIA ` ' _ on Lehigh Southwest I. Back round AIRQAtr1Y f : - 2. Title V Permit Renewal M ��,,�, M Nr Cement Plant . i. Rule Development Activities DISTRICT ' 4. Nest and Upcoming Emission Controls and Monitors 5. Updated Emissions Inventors and Health Risk ,Assessment Cupertino City Council 6 Compliance Study Session g, „' July 20. 2010 7 Air Monitoring. "` 8 Next Steps Brian Bateman Director of Engineering ;, I �,,,,, I mes_ .. k .� .. 3T . . ^ Facility Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant ,.. Location • a 3 1 r: - � 1� �' C • rnen± Pl • Limestone is quarried, crushed, and combined ''\_J -C ` with other raw materials in a high temperature � � ( �„, n t;Y kiln system to produce cement J ; 7 • Facility also produces x .. IP.- % ■ and sells a „re,ates • 1 Rule Development Activities Title V Permit Renewal Status Affecting Lehigh • Title V permit lists Lehigh's applicable air emissions standards • EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and compliance provisions - Proposed NESHAP amendments issued May 6. 2009 • Title V permits are renewed every five years Mercurs limit: 43 lb/million tons clinker - Final amendments delayed by two months to Aug. 6. 2010 • Lehigh . s draft Title V permit renewal was issued for public comment on Aug. 12. 2009 • BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan Stationary Source Measure 9 - A Public Hearing was held in Cupertino on Sep- 17. 2(109 - Focus on NOx. SO "• ' ••^^" •a •°�" -•° ^� . ^�' - Adoption expected • The District withdrew Lehigh's draft Title V permit renewal on in winter 2010 /2011 Jan. >. 2010 1 ' • CARB Truck and Bus. and - Will re -issue (expected Sep 2010( after nev) standards from Off-road diesel regulations ��'�"•" EPA's amended National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air �' �_ -• •- • •• E Pollutants ( NESHAP( have been incorporated • CARB Greenhouse Gas Cap - and - Trade Rule u�,rmn,. Cin � ,wm a qn pup < uy. ix no ,in ; „mi.-i , l5.1, 20. 2010 Gu,!:7 SIwi,.( s dit New and Upcoming Emission Updated TAC Emissions Controls and Monitors Inventory and HRA • Sorbent injection • Air Toxics Hot Spots Program - Sorbents injected into flue gases absorb - Facility -based program for Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) (or adsorb) pollutants and are collected with fly ash • Lehigh's current status is "Level 0" • Phase 1: Kiln dust recvcline into cement (installed) Update emissions inventory and + n l - • Phase Hydrated lime injection (installed) I Health Risk Assessment (HRA) • Phase 3: Activated carbon injection . ). o. j.,.......). • • Continuous emission monitors Methodological change °• - Dec. 19. 2008: Mercury RELs revised - NOx. SO CO. THC, HCI. CO (installed) .,•( L_ ... 2009: Age factors adopted , - June Mercury (to be specified in NESHAP) ■ 1 • -.ARIL, 1 • Supplemental emissions inventory • Advanced NOx controls - _ ■ - Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR or • Change in method of estimating mercury emissions Selective Non - catalytic Reduction (SNCR) - • Sep. 1. 2010: Updated HRA due to be submitted u , ,, „„,. Iun zo. 2oio 41 2 Compliance Status Air Monitoring Sites • BAAQMD Notices of Violation (NOVS) 1. Stevens Creek - 25 NOVs issued by the District to Lehigh over the past 6 years • - Elementary School - 15 were emissions- related (Hex. Chromium) q - 5 in the last year 2. International - Excessive visible emissions -. _ Baptist Church - All violations were corrected expeditiously etnyt. } EPA NOV Csa - n', f'Itr ' - 3. Monta Vista Park • _ (Multi- pollutant) - Issued March 9. 2010 - n - Alleged violation of Prevention of Significant Deterioration IPSDI • permit requirements for modifications made between 1996 and 1999 - No violations for projects after 2002 EPA reform rule bing 1, aom -s s sum r. Air Monitoring Comparison of Average PM Air Concentrations • Stevens Creek Elementary School Average PM Air Concentrations - Hexavalent chromium ,_ - Sampling began May 26. 2009. and is on a 6° day sampling frequency - Average concentration for first 56 samples was 0.000014 jig/in' ▪ 2° • Chronic 12l'.1. is 0.2 ug /m' is • • Lifetime cancer risk is 4 in a million • International Baptist Church • '0 - PM,,, - Sampling began Oct. 29. 2008. and is continuous - Average daily concentration (through June 30. 2010) was 16.2 pg/m u I - Maximum daily concentration was 55.5 pg /m' Cupertino San Jose • heated I'M levels also measured at other monitoring sites on that dot Figures are for common sampling days from Oct. 29. 2008 to June 30. 2010 lu, 2, 3 New Monta Vista Park Monitoring Site Next Steps • • Continuously Measured • Ev aluate final EPA NESHAP amendments + Compounds - Particulate Mauer 2.5 Microns or Less • Re -issue draft Title V permit renewal (PM, ,1. Carbon Monoxide Methane. �..�" Oxides of Nitrogen. Non- Methane • Finalize BAAQMD control measure Organic Carbon (NMOC). Ozone. Sulfur Dioxide • Evaluate permit applications for emission control projects • Laboratory Analysis • Reviers updated Health Risk Assessment - Metals (Mercury. lead. chromium. nickel. plus others) • Operate Monta Vista Park air monitoring station — Oases (Benzene. 1.3- buradienc_ formaldehyde. acenaldehyde. plus • Review Reclamation Plan Amendment EIRs others, - Particulate Matter 10 Microns or less • Continue frequent plant inspections (PM,,,) MA, 14 • 4 C c - 7 / / o r Grace Schmidt From: Susan Sievert [spsievert@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:10 AM To: Kris Wang Cc: City Clerk; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong; publicrecords @baaqmd.gov; don.gage @bos.sccgov.org; George .Shirakawa @bos.sccgov.org; dave.cortese @bos.sccgov.org; ken.yeager @bos.sccgov.org; liz.kniss @bos.sccgov.org Subject: Re: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS, July 1, 2010, Agenda Item 1 Thank you for hosting, educating, and hearing the concerned citizens of our county, Mayor Wang. Conspicuously absent from these proceedings have been the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. It is reasonable to assume they are preparing to take ownership of their jurisdictional obligations, including the public hearings, after the EPAs historic announcement in August. Perhaps we should offer them use of our Community Hall and television facilities.- - Susan On Jul 19, 2010, at 7:38 PM, Kris Wang wrote: Dear Susan, I have conferred with staff and can provide the following response to your email: 1. The presentations from the BAAQMD and from the Ccunty of Santa Clara are summaries of regulatory and administrative actions taken by the respective agencies. These presentations to Council may include PowerPoint or other fact sheets and, if so, will be posted on the city web site as soon as they become available. Staff has not been provided with a written document but instead we expect the agencies to provide an update to the Council and the community. 2. Public comment will be part of this and all other council meetings on the subject. Given the complex nature of this issue, we anticipate future meetings to be held or this subject and the public will be provided the opportunity to comment during each meeting. 3. This item on council meeting tomorrow is listed as a s :udy session for the Council and community members to receive a report on air quality regulation, standards, monitoring and reclamation as they relate to the Lehigh Cement Plant immediately adjacent to the City. There will be no action taken by the Council. Thanks, Kris Kris Wang Mayor, City of Cupertino, www.cupertino.orq From: Susan Sievert [mailto:spsievert@ gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:49 AM To: City Clerk Cc: Kris Wang; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong; publicrecords@baagmd.gov; don.gage@bos.sccgov.orq; George .Shirakawa@bos.sccgov.orq; dave.cortese@bos.sc cqov.org; ken.yeager@bos.sccgov.orq; liz.kniss@bos.sccgov.org Subject: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS, July 1, 2010, Agenda Item 1 1 Written Communications for Lehigh Study Session. July 20, 2010 AGENDA ITEM 1: Receive a report from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and Santa Clara County. Topics will be air quality regulation, standards, monitoring, and reclamation as they relate to the Lehigh Cement Plant immediately adjacent to the City. (No documentation in packet). Dear Cupertino City Council, Thank you for including the disclaimer, "No documentation in packet" in your council and commission agendas. To that end, I am disappointed that the BAAQMD /Santa Clara County "report" is not included in the agenda packet for public review — and encourage our city to require the discloser of any and all taxpayer financed reports prior to its public hearing. Please consider: 1) Directing Cupertino staff to request a copy of the report, and to then post it to the www.cupertino.org home page prior to the study session. If not, 2) Please agendize a follow -up opportunity for public comment after the community has had time to review the written report. Thank you. Susan Sievert Cupertino, CA cc: Bay Area Air Quality Management District PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST publ icrecords gov Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors d on. gage%ri?bos.scceov.oru ( Gorge. Shirakawa%ci;bos.scceov.ore dave. cortese(r?bos. sccgov. org ken. veaeer; cbos.secgov.ore 1iz.kniss ti'bos.sccgo∎.ore 2 County of Santa Clara E H I B IT a i lik CPCJ % Department of Planning and Development Planning Office `?I *I e I111#* County Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor 70 west Hedding Street San Jose, California 95110-1705 '1 47 1sso - G �� , 4`Z' (408) 299 -5770 FAX (408) 288 -9198 www.sccplanning.org MEMORANDUM Date: July 20, 2010 To: City of Cupertino City Council From: Gary Rudholm, Senior Planner le_ Re: Update regarding the reclamation plan amendment proposals on file with the County of Santa Clara Planning Office related to the Permanente Quarry. The Santa Clara County Planning Office is currently processing two applications submitted by Lehigh Hanson, Inc., for amendments to the existing reclamation plan for the Permanente Quarry. One amendment would affect a portion of the property owned by Lehigh Hanson, and is on an accelerated track to address a Notice of Violation and to provide for reclamation of the area consistent with current state standards. The second amendment is for a comprehensive reclamation plan that would cover the entire area that has been, or would be disturbed by mining activities. This second proposal includes an expansion of the mined area. Below is a summary update of each of these two applications. EAST MATERIALS STORAGE AREA RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION Purpose: The East Materials Storage Area (EMSA) reclamation plan amendment (RPA) is intended to address a Notice of Violation issued by Santa Clara County on June 20, 2008. The proposed RPA would allow for permanent placement of overburden material from the existing mine pit, and for re- vegetation of the final slopes. Description: The EMSA site encompasses approximately 89 acres in the northeastern portion of the Quarry. It proposes three phases that would be completed within five years. The County received the project application on April 20, 2009. Following review of the application the County commenced preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in keeping with CEQA. The County issued a Notice of Preparation on April 21, 2010, and held a public scoping meeting on April 28, 2010. A copy of the Notice of Preparation is posted on the County Planning Office web site (www.sccplanning.org). Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith 6-008 Status: The technical studies required for the DEIR are underway by a County retained consultant. A public distribution of the DEIR is tentatively scheduled to take place in October 2010. A public hearing to receive comments regarding the DEIR is tentatively scheduled for November 2010. Preparation of Responses to Comments is tentatively scheduled to take place through January 2011. A public hearing regarding the Final EIR and consideration of approval of the EMSA RPA is tentatively scheduled for February or March 2011 before the County Planning Commission. COMPREHENSIVE RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION Purpose: The Comprehensive RPA would resolve a Notice of Violation issued by the County in October 2006, provide for a reclamation plan that covers all the land disturbed by mining operations, both existing disturbances and a proposed expansion, and reclaim the land consistent with current State SMARA standards. The application includes a proposal for a Use Permit that would cover a portion of land for a new mine pit. Description: The Comprehensive RPA would span an approximately 20 -year period. It proposes an expansion that would locate a second pit, referred to as the "South Quarry," directly south of the existing pit, across from Permanente Creek. The Comprehensive RPA and Use Permit would encompass a total project area of 1,105. A summary description of the project will be posted to the County Planning Office web page when review of the application materials is complete. The "Project Area Activities" map showing the location of the project boundary is attached for reference. Status: The County received the application for the Comprehensive RPA on May 28, 2010. The application is under review to determine whether it is complete for environmental review under CEQA. Because the completeness review of the application is under way the schedule, including the CEQA process has not yet been determined. 2 � �G 9 .' -T\ Lehigh- Hanson /Permanente Quarry �� ''- EMSA RPA Project Boundary � _GAP ; 'M` F ' F6 7 \, r 14 ° Jar ■a t r 't ! r$ r r a. ,, t , x ' f t ti� . " \n,'A' ^ '1 z i r '/' g A• X I� J 1 My r s t ti : ,• [ 0 9 B� . San Francisco • N Reclamation Plan Boundary .I A \>' 4. Nt' 5� � }i"' Intl ,Mid i ! y41 :Aciff) i J `t ii i � to r [3ay :".7.'"11:).. . j 1 , 1 661 . 1 yy ISS - 1 .V f :f `• h aft I s r jiS `v 4,.•4457 „ . - a, t? ti• [ '?' 1� b 7 } .fr r > 1J .''..`e?tn'S.: 7 'i PF fl to t N �” ) I ( Permanente Property Boundary z LO *A�tOS �+ ; 17 #i ;; j ,�� , k . ti i ,,, ��n Y tu ' nt . ,� Y , a. [ •: � ' x } ! i ) 1j y, r 5 ' r . ^1 - J 7 I t '$ j . SI I 1 r) •s ' • { a r 1 o- ° } I `.y , i t .r R�l, r ' , �"' fp: ' 1 y , s ?. ��\ , ,\ r r ;irC 1 yti• , zA I'�Y /j� ! M1 a .-. . L - " '• `, . ; , 'y? fT ; T: b a t y (' .y '+ f "r�Ya v 1 rY' f " dl., C `� v�r i :r�nJ,m'Y �"'i"` °-. ,# r +r . n-0 a � K '. '� , r+ � y y r / u4 ' a � �' r . ,� fi fp c . gi p M U � t 4�y;1C 1� � ;! i4S3- ; y l t !;-z +�, *. : i ' . 6t -tc. ( l,P ..., ,- . I w Ll; TT , k t. t _ d �,Q / +f <�i!• \�r ^n 'r`r. "7 y i+ � , �'• ��s' rrl , x ''` 'G r '! ! • f Y� • C . JI 5t TS .�+i� w t �/ 1 3 i� � 1 'i'a I e ; , 1 7 v :% � -•r4 o-g 1.0751.4.` 6c Aj MS ' (. �t q � � br �^ fii y-j �5.r' °-, IJ 17 Y � 11 °ma -"Y .I �U Y i� , . • ��.. I f. • .. { [ � k J i Y y y� } { x z ] 71 I r' 3 � , I . r �1' a+. 't� y F � q Y 1, ' ` , I ,. l � n V, y ,. �F - r !' S� w \ I : '• ^. i';' g 'EY, ' �,r y / '",g ..: rr 1, n d .,, _^' ey � a'S. d a , - „.\ S . ' „n ft Y� o K 9 .,, o f y� . .{ 7, t • I S ' ' r � � a a -. '+3 ' 'k.. 1h W or `k ?: t t•' : , .' 5 S 1 , �. s 1 . t ' `-- It , �.�' �,� � e � , $ 1 �.1 � } ?so t s.1, ' �� '� q � =�� :�� �.. _, i . e; � 1 �. ; �" �� -� : ^ . •..• - - ' • ...' " •� r -,t, �,r r Jir a a - i � �\ l� f �! ,, 7 1 ,,,.,R • t, *_,..,h $ 7, Y � , - -, :' y t ,v � 1 -,, 1 . „a t r .+ ,. ...:-.:-.---'.'4..-...-'''.: , w i! 15 ,, ` 1 50. .1\ \ `.Cj t Y• ' , td. � . §yt F.F a .-. pt11 5 i 11 ' Ir t r I .. y .ae.c•. `c f sti R ' 1amatiopi PI4..n, `1 It r 1 4. 6 3 . >, . � r r. k. ,d §w !r:. l c S2l;p * r • y '' r -''..' .. ^rf. ,,, `f`t' '\ 3 '' S s. 3; q z 1 .q S , *a`I ' r ^ ▪ ' �.">1r J '" + f v y B M aty r ti y l a d r+ i . 7 FIFA >., w tt G (I .t 'L' � / ?l _ '7 ! tc / ' 1 � F w ! � '� rlhv. r si'. 7hz�S.. L f ^ l i'..I..,a..; ! .'.! t c, r 7r r' rte' ry y J 1 . _v_^d r '; a� , ? " t � ,... I J'�",�i a�i:' iS 31 v c'I� . Itantttc ., t ,,� ^"~ � . .,f J'i 4 ' - � >_ u �S4 4�'i; 1 3y' , 3F , � �F Stl[} t•�t� n _ F' ,. y 1 R y J t - [%at I t ;s 'L'.&'ak1 i r e� m y r'T k� 1 1 i! Y' i e':7' k T)t M1"S't7'! R 1 = "':";:-::,•,''"'''..$0., c1 " 3 i i ��,r` !; (41 a ii" + at - *- : 1 & F's Berl -E t a ?J } ^i • ._ c. ....i.4- • f 4 A J..,r � i , ril. J "'`j„ 's RbJl� ti1� '' -0 �1�' �II r i311 }p 11 i il�'R E1=�13 J" ", e - m ,. • .. i > etl` @ �'. ; . 1r +,, ? i !p' 'N 1 1 .zsS lxi 7 IF ! :S �: .. " ' ap.. l v #t'. t y C " �, �� 1 Yr ti lr - J t r ,;ow t � i f' i "1 NF� ".rL " 'J o # {} Tir{ r i hp� yh i } r x:: t d i F .:Kit.:,.. ` I Hirt f i s ry . . T .. t g cil' C 1: - 1 rtpr ~ . f 1 F t i . . f .. ) .. (� - '' { f kx ^ ;1 .,,,IPik- L 11-.�s°r� M1 i l T id s i n . l l_. C � - 4 n l` , f. , - ,� * :,,i. i , , p p • a X• g ,� J .. a' T. L t • . r ' l .'" I. 1 } tfl'L`Uy 11 21P F .�I ]..._ � rt�n I tS�N Srr i 1 .- .. . , , °"'� .. (` L \ I 1;p1 - I 'd ut t Yea Y K: �1 i I 1 . , a ,{ , ' ` ". .��:e 1 'f t p a 1 t I v1i116 Cl r . .tk( f!'r•,�n' 1 i, 3 >r `L . e . Y • -,'.3' m • :, Jri - T. ':'• �r •:-....,,,i- t . ' ``. S 1v T . Ai l t :�� t Y• brf 1 :°7s �L'��A't 1 i l J c .h ')!;& d " ," y, • m � } rf .r 1 i.' ,�7� , a!, . Y . 1 h Y .. .. i . . , 6, l g l�r. t� l S °�.�f" �. p +t�, trl- 1.r t, • f � : '. , ,r - - .Y� Pe t110" '.-''i � 1 < r %1 vs. �G. t ' R '',I 'l ' ' i } t': } J •i. , WSJ„ y r . u .41;; �'� Stq � ; ∎ ,.. : s s il , \ a 'nE 1 • ,Z'rr r a : alt . .. , --, d ' . .. , , ,,: � 'i .✓ P4 T I r { � .r ,' fr : r 1( Yd i.,• r :.;.)) ' . 4 4 1., :,, . 1 „ 4 ' y ,,;,'fie ' t r { * ' { ' ,�I :E �`lt�Y! �'11'. J..:.t �4 .4 SCI �� 4`fY't 3R Nr I G � �e �'S r «7✓: •.� i " ' r 5 ,, . ..k y � ` - o N +} T �:)r i re. , 1 4� a% . , , J as ( I,,41 " : . - 4 , } (�' 4 '�'y��y' . } . +° ••''T0'"'' G ,.' X Y„'' • t fi� *? . r' Y 1 , 1 y - a { t1�ll�i " ,. . r: : ' ' ..: 't .t ., 43. 1 1 F, 1 ,�, . . A r V• .� . r ., . " " S -�' 1[n � '�1''f i : f r` � j f- ( �-i� k 5'A ' c'` fi' a�".1f't ,7 �l� I. Y I :. M • , ••� .. xr i ' 4 ! ca. a.r. iF 1 •4 `',1 1, a a. 1:I I � . d ,.: r ' r " �R .' . . ' " ''' ', i as' . d. I k • i v1 J I fu . a�� �tti i c ,,. r i ` * •` ,Jtf �N k a: f1 �.? 3 ' : ,, 4 t^ • . ,,,,, 4 S 3 WS- . ..,,,„ r 7w � ` [r M1 1 ,,.. ,, + t . , : , „ , t , , . : „, � �' ? ” re � � \a af .�, � � � [ /4 � QJ , c � 0 �'T =Vp }�u�rt�.t + � r� r ' y ." ' n'�"' e T'tti., •. a 1 �' � � L €� 5 .•,' 1 • ti. '� .�� k �rt SYi��k, n I r . nY S +r" } u ` .r • ` . { � z ! 1 � r r � x r c 4 '4,:',.;.,_., 1 J4.l�JE rto v,' ,iw', Ys �ry,3 . -73fi , � M `, .. f x T Yt x }NY4 ir. i ' t,. a r y `. t' r r•,I?^J,� . 4 )t I r r x f 4 i^:. I 1 . .'y f "1 /' ,-. y � t �'U Wi Cd ..,. s,, �,w4 mot t4 s 1 ,/t1� : .i.). � ..: A , . ... , . li „ te r. . : I l.. .. r , 4,ITj' `tl" ry ., 5 A �• } . : ,_ . ,.x' 2 4 4y( % +i l {"n i' . tl rY r � Lk.� t t i k ; I ' 4 t 5 v 1 t' { ' ', J 5 a i.9 1 F. ,(e. {� �I� ,,d. �( i + r �, t ', lr , r r St'k)'Cvfl J cl 'f i a, 1 � ltft . .Yfeti '+a Y t �. 1 4 M x p } 1 t,c `. wl�•�. r p �. h 3. ' , t ti + p ,� � I . � t q v /7 n "` Y , • "a "1 { , r > �,� , :! , r ' 4ti t " V 1, 4 3 r- s `• rk:l 6 A vy :' 5 ,r f f � �' i .. o k r • T .� jr v � �'`� i 9 t 4 £� � �. ,r 'X '\ X,' ,,. . ' " C .. r i . l' ”' .., , ■'1{' fl K ' J f t ' '.� t' z . C - 1 N r Ytf'1' { ' .� ' , .. �',� � tX. ir!i,� , S� + ,'., , ,f r z,s, � . t , •.. , � , r :jl C i , U t r 1 r tN i .� # � t t n , m t Y�. ss r ' f 7 r 7 Y 4 r 4 �j d " , � ' "3 rA 9 . C t E � ut �,i4) t ,- ;,, y 1F �. , e ,� b 1, .R 7 . . Z / 3��� t s ,rh y � w 3 „ . • * � .a+'.� h . . .v.,'„4-: ,, , ' ,r r R' ti t ' . R.' �(F .� r. S 0 '�'t! � +' i . r :r ' t h ` f 5 ' a . N r ,�r r 0 :f li'. _ l' '11 e � y 7' R r .*,. ' ' t s - � 0'; ., .� , rk . . a L r } 6' f ' t t -% , -•! r' -5'3. '•5t3 3::,1• i ,. j. . ..k.,' Sw, rU f ,17- � J - ' ' ''' I "t ; f } r ' X 1 4 �• J + y s s at, '.�9 � x ri • _• _y.._ _x. I _ :.r..,,_ -_,.. ...._ ....�^,� ,ui J •c>VSS. : •.r. �' V Z .,_..._ L� _. -• i l'I -x. t . .lLI` _. -. ,,c1,---I= �`x . y i'xil�, t� �. Figure 8 Project Area Activities y - - �•^`_ 'r � �� - sr � 5. ^ f � a ' r' !t ,� ' `h�' ,e. 'r �'- r �,.,, • r _- `j. 3 T vL�1 t Y: i t s i a y Z �- . , S t . `' end r.. _.. •-• ` .tti .� .x-} �z `� y, , g • 3 t.. - gort h Quarry ,.... � ".} `"s.� -"r.r- - ,� lx` • x " ..4..- h - r � P -.- t � t � . r^ �`'. �:� , ti ." rY Y'"l } .:> j - ' .4.„ p, ,, � .e ; — South Quarry t s ,. �,� r a� i �WMSA • • f '.. _ r it • Office / Pile rArea ar .< -, « -,"•,.. Y�, } r Surge Pile • - — — — ^�, y 1 '� Rock Plant i T a x Topsoil Storage Area ' � Buffer Zones ri Project Area • aY *t r? :M V 0 Property Boundary • Buffer Zones , -. - - - ' 0 M `' , � * c � f ` North . t , "-f :, �. x � 'Quarry q 4 , • CG1 _ ,.- l." N 1`y S A W , '. - Office/ E ..� . ... ... a.,, �, • -. vrii5i,8r s' '1.'4. , r . w• i� �' B e Ccossm ` °+a � " �' g i g. "... S ti �. urge ti - Y �`r �: � i. `�� '� S , � Feet Pile ` " . \ z c g . :a 0 1,000 2,000 + y.... tV "mot � _ Quarry ° . I ' 1 inch = 2,000 feet , Topsoil slip !yy, f 4 � °� ' `Z � EMV //'0 � - Inc. i � Date: May 2010 r . + r ' � - _ Y Y 1 yb ) Project Area: Lehigh 1 #M i �T � ; ,,,,4 ' S : , -.;,,t i''r Property Boundary: Jiff `; . r r. " , . r { Surveyed Land S • ' " 1 '' . W , •� . ', •�_ and Craig Land Surveys L '' , `0i } y c ,. ; Aerial: Apri12007, HJW �` ., / { ?' . •' i , ,r " . N w ♦ 2005. USDA NAIP