Exhibit CC 11-16-2010 No. 2 NOVA EXHIBIT 41--
Who We Are
Developing a Employment and Training Agency:
Skill Workforce . Provides workforce services to job seekers and
for Silicon Valley businesses
• Serves northern Santa Clara County
• Invests S10 million annually in the local economy
NtiVA • Primarily funded by competitive federal and state
grants
Kris Stadelman, NOVA Director
Linda Thor, FH /DA CCD Chancellor
NOVA Cupertino City Council — November 16, 2010
NOVA Consortium Map Job Seekers: Client Demographics
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto All NOVA participants (2009):
1 1 0r -; Milpitas
• Average age: 45.8 years old
Y
Santa Clara
Mtn. vie`" ► sensn � • Average educational level: 14.7 grade equivalent
Los Altos J
14 = Associate's degree; 16 = Bachelor's degree
Cupertino
Santa Clara
County
California
NOVA Cupertino City Council— November 16.2010 NQVA Cupertino City Council — November 16,2010
1
•
What We Do How We Do It
• Job seeker programs CONNECT! One -Stop Resource Center for Job Seekers:
• Labor market intelligence p g
yn l° L i
I j� h, I41', * � l � I y f 11 •
• Staffing and recruitment �li,��. I! I is ILL�i i.� -l' I
1 1 S
• Pre -layoff assistance and outplacement
• Layoff aversion
• Employee training and retention services
NQVA Cupertino Clty Council— November 16, 2010 NOVA Cupertino City Council — November 16, 2010
How We Do It How We Do It
CONNECT! One -Stop Resource Center for Job Seekers: Youth Employment Program:
• Drop -in career advising • One -on -one mentoring and career advising
• Job search workshops • Paid and unpaid work experience
• ProMatch: Professional networking program • Youth @Work online job listings
• Labor market and industry trends
• Empl connections
• Training
NOVA Cupertino Clty Council— November 16. 2010 NOVA Cupertino City Council— November 16, 2010
2
• Job Seekers: Cupertino Residents What Does This Mean to You
Cupertino job seekers (July 2009 —June 2010): • Catalyst and convener
• Accessing NOVA services: 724 residents • Voice to champion workforce policy and issues
• Skilled workers for businesses in your city
Drop - in career advising services: 643 residents
• Training and career resources for:
Joh- search workshop attendance: 198 residents
Enrolled in eligibilirly -based programs: 441 residents City residents
Employees of businesses in your city
• Services provided to Cupertino residents:
10.767 individual services
NOVA Cupertino City Council— November 16, 2010 NOVA Cupertino City Council— November 16, 2010
3
EXHIBIT
Developing a 11e c a
Skilled Workforce
for Silicon Valley
N .\JA
Kris Stadelman, NOVA Director
Linda Thor, FH /DA CCD Chancellor
Who We Are
Employment and Training Agency:
• Provides workforce services to job seekers and
businesses
• Serves northern Santa Clara County
• Invests $10 million annually in the local economy
• Primarily funded by competitive federal and state
grants
N»/Pti Cupertino City Council — November 16, 2010
Map
Consortium
Cons°
Sunnyvale 'las
milPI
N OVA
9
Sa nta C
lara
4 Z?
In Alt°
pa.—
,, Jose
San
,r
,
4 - 1,4.0,
View
. p.1
mtn-
s 1 /
-- A,
Los Altos
e rrvki
0_,
rti o
L
e..-n
2 010
Cup
County
1 , 2,,
Cla ra -
No -6
Cla-
vem
i No-
Santa California
n i —
c.
'um
or°
. Cou is
(VA Consor
El
rti o CitY
a n
N___
Cu
corP°rat ed ited
ro t
It i l nincorP
,
N sJf
Job Seekers: Client Demographics
All NOVA participants (2009
• Average age: 45.8 years old
• Average educational level: 14.7 grade equivalent
14 = Associate's degree; 16 = Bachelor's degree
N tII\ Cupertino City Council — November 16, 2010
What We Do
• Job seeker programs
• Labor market intelligence
• Staffing and recruitment
• Pre - layoff assistance and outplacement
+ Layoff aversion
• Employee training and retention services
N\II Cupertino City Council — November 16, 2010
How We Do It
CONNECT! One -Stop Resource Center for Job Seekers:
N»/P1 Cupertino City Council — November 16, 2010
How We Do It
CONNECT! One -Stop Resource Center for Job Seekers:
• Drop -in career advising
• Job search workshops
• ProMatch: Professional networking program
• Labor market and industry trends
• Employer connections
• Training
N\I1*1 Cupertino City Council — November 16, 2010
How We Do It
Youth Employment Program:
• One -on -one mentoring and career advising
• Paid and unpaid work experience
nllVthaWnrlr online job listings 1 V VL bll e
N».// Cu ertino Ci Council — November 16 p City 16, 2010
Job Seekers: Cupertino Residents
Cupertino job seekers (July 2009 —June 2010):
• Accessing NOVA services: 724 residents
• Drop -in career advising services: 643 residents
• Job - search workshop attendance: 198 residents
• Enrolled in eligibility -based programs: 441 residents
• Services provided to Cupertino residents:
10,767 individual services
N Cupertino City Council — November 16, 2010
What Does This Mean to You
• Catalyst and convener
• Voice to champion workforce policy and issues
• Skilled workers for businesses in your city
• Training and career resources for:
+ City residents
❖ Employees of businesses in your city
NVA Cupertino City Council — November 16, 2010
_ ,,„
„„ S4 TE' MINING AND
, .
k GEOZ.OG
Oly
3::. - EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT
For Meeting Date: July 13, 2006
rxHIBIT
c,,..,,,„
oral C yu) v I cJ *tcYt
Tim Bravta, spec - key
Agenda Item No. 2
In the Matter of:
Review of the 45 -day Notice to Correct Deficiencies
Sent to Santa Clara County, Issued April 19, 2006
Executive Officer's Report
With Exhibits
Executive Officer's import
•
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 2 of 25
Table of Contents
Title Page
Executive Summary
Background
Regulatory Authority
Identified Deficiencies in SMARA Compliance
Executive Officer's Analysis of Responses from the County
Findings of the Executive Officer
Determination of the Board
Suggested Motion Language
Exhibits
Exhibit No. 1: Board's Notice to Correct Deficiencies within 45 Days,
Compliance with the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975, dated April 19, 2006.
Exhibit No. 2: County of Santa Clara Response to
Notice to Correct Deficiencies within 45 Days in Compliance
with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, and
Action Plan to Address Deficiencies in Conformance with SMARA
Exhibit No. 3: Testa Environmental Corporation's Assessment of
Environmental Compliance of Mining Operations at
Lexington Quarry, Santa Clara County, dated March 18, 2005.
Exhibit No. 4: Office of Mine Reclamation power point presentation titled
"SMARA Lead Agency Administrative Review, Preliminary
Findings, April 2006" presented at the Board's regular business
meeting held on April 13, 2006.
l%s
Ecutive Officer's &port
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 3 of 25
Exhibit No. 5: Office of Mine Reclamation power point presentation titled
"SMARA Lead Agency Administrative Review, Performance
of Annual Inspections, June 2006" presented at the
Board's regular business meeting held on June 8, 2006.
Exhibit No. 6: Office of Mine Reclamation Correspondence pertaining to
Financial Assurance Cost Estimates, dated May 27 through
June 9, 2006.
Exhibit No. 7: 2005 SMARA Surface Mine Inspection Reports as prepared
by the County's Consultant, Resource Design Technology,
dated November 30, 2005, through January 4, 2006.
Exhibit No. 8: Documents Provided to the SMGB Pertaining to
Lexington Quarry (CA ID #91 -43 -0006)
Exhibit No. 9: Documents Provided to the SMGB Pertaining to
Stevens Creek Quarry (CA ID #91 -43 -0007)
ii1
Executive Officer's l port
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 4 of 25
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At its April 13, 2006, regular business meeting, the State Mining and
Geology Board (SMGB) determined to issue to the County of Santa Clara (County) a 45 -day Notice to
Correct Deficiencies (Notice). This determination was made pursuant to the provisions contained in
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2774.4(c) of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA). This action by the SMGB commenced with the receipt of complaints by neighbors and
interested parties pertaining to the Lexington Quarry, and receipt of information and numerous
documents over a sixteen -month period from the Department of Conservation Office of Mine
Reclamation (OMR), residents of the County, and the County's administrative staff.
On April 19, 2006, the 45 -Day Notice to Correct Deficiencies was issued to the County [Exhibit 1]. In
that Notice, the County was informed that the SMGB had identified deficiencies with nine of the
surface mines under the County's lead agency jurisdiction. These deficiencies included the County's
failure to enforce the provisions of SMARA.
The nine surface mines with deficiencies cited in the Notice were:
Curtner Products (CA Mine ID # 91 -43 -0001)
Serpa Pit (CA Mine ID #91 -43 -0002)
Azevedo Quarry (CA Mine ID #91 -43 -0003)
Permanente Quarry (CA Mine ID #91 -43 -0004)
Polak Pit Quarry (CA Mine ID # 91 -43 -0005)
Lexington Quarry (CA Mine ID #91 -43 -0006)
Calaveras Quarry (CA Mine ID #91 -43 -0007)
Freeman Quarry (CA Mine ID #91 -43 -0008)
Stevens Creek (CA Mine ID #91 -43 -0010)
On June 9, 2006, the County responded to the SMGB's Notice [Exhibit 2]. The County concluded
that:
1. The County did not undertake annual inspections for all the mines within their jurisdiction
in 2000 and 2001;
2. The County has taken certain steps to remedy their previous shortcomings via contracting
with a third party in 2003 to assist in conducting inspections and financial assurance
estimates, stating that "As a result of these changes, the quality of the inspections have
improved significantly. ", and "the amount of funding posted through increased financial
assurance mechanisms on file by the mine operators was significantly increased. "; and
3. The County's continued process will include partnering with Office of Mine Reclamation
(OMR) staff, improved fully trained County staff, and use of technical consultants.
In review of the administrative record, mine files, and documents provided by the County, information
and files maintained by OMR, and information and documents provided by interested parties and
mine operators, among other sources, several conclusions are reached. The County has corrected
some deficiencies by simply conducting a mine inspection, requiring submittal of annual written
calculations of financial assurance amounts, and reviewing the financial assurances for all mine sites
Executive Officer's import
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 5 of 25
within their jurisdiction. However, of the original 9 surface mines cited as having deficiencies, a
minimum of five are considered to be significantly out -of- compliance with SMARA, with their noted
deficiencies as cited in the Notice having not been adequately addressed by the County.
In review of the administrative record, the County has not shown a working knowledge of the
requirements of SMARA. This lack of understanding did not allow the County to be in a position to
understand or review its consultant's work product. In essence, the County does not recognize what
is an adequate work product or what is not. Simply performing an inspection is not equivalent to the
inspection being performed in an adequate and comprehensive manner. If the State is to rely on the
adequacy of the County's inspection process to determine whether a surface mining operation is in
compliance with SMARA, then the County must ensure that the inspection reports are accurate and
represent a true description of the mine site's SMARA activities. Without some knowledge of what is
required under SMARA, and some means of recognizing and measuring the adequacy of their
consultant's work product, it makes it impossible for the State to rely on the adequacy of the County's
inspection process. To gain an accurate and adequate picture as to what the site specific conditions
actually are at each site within Santa Clara County with an appreciable degree of confidence,
someone knowledgeable in the requirements of SMARA must perform the inspections.
Poorly performed and inadequate inspections lead to adverse ramifications, that being the existing
and recently adjusted financial assurances for all nine sites being unreliable. The financial assurance
amounts do not reflect existing site conditions in respect to performance standards, criteria set forth
in the site - specific approved reclamation plan and conditions of approval, nor corrective measures
required in light of the violations, among other issues.
---Furthermore, there is little evidence in the administrative record demonstrating that the County has
the understanding, or will, to enforce SMARA. This is clearly documented by the the County serving
as a lead agency unwillingness to issue Notices of Violation, Orders to Comply, or Administrative
Penalties, when appropriate, for any of the sites in all the years leading up to 2005. Furthermore, the
County has not demonstrated that it understands the administrative process in getting surface mine
operations into compliance. Administrative procedures and proceedings are time consuming and
require diligence and continued monitoring. The County has provided no documentation, nor
demonstrated by its actions, that it has developed an administrative process to administer and
monitor SMARA enforcement actions.
It is the conclusion of the Executive Officer that the County's SMARA program is deficient and has
not been corrected so that it meets the intent of the Legislature, as expressed in Article 1 of the Act.
The Executive Officer thus recommends that the SMGB find that the County has not satisfactorily met
the statutory conditions of PRC 2774.4, in that it has not corrected in a timely manner the deficiencies
cited in the 45 -Day Notice. The SMGB will determine if the County has, to the SMGB's satisfaction,
corrected within the 45 days provided in statute the deficiencies cited in the 45 -Day Notice to Correct
Deficiencies, or satisfied the SMGB that no deficiency existed at the time the Notice was issued.
BACKGROUND: On March 22, 2005, the office of the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB)
received correspondence and documentation from the Los Gatos Hillside Preservation League, a
group of Los Gatos citizens and residents, expressing concern about environmental threats to their
surrounding area as a result of surface mining operations being performed by Western Aggregates at
l%e
Executive Officer's Rport
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 6 of 25
the Lexington Quarry, Santa Clara County, California [Exhibit 3]. Issues were raised pertaining to the
surface mining operation being out of compliance with its approved reclamation plan, and whether the
lead agency, Santa Clara County, was administering SMARA in an appropriate manner.
Following receipt of the report prepared by Testa Environmental Corporation dated March 18, 2005
[Exhibit 3], from the Los Gatos Preservation League, the office of the SMGB on March 22, 2005,
inquired from the Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) whether there were any outstanding
compliance issues with the Lexington Quarry, and that it would welcome any comments on the
matter. The report prepared by Testa Environmental Corporation raised a number of compliance —
related issues, and also questioned the lead agency's ability to administer SMARA in an
appropriate manner.
OMR subsequently performed two site visits of the Lexington Quarry, and summarized their results
in a draft report dated July 12, 2005. Three violations were readily apparent, along with several
corrective measures being noted. The violations included: 1) the operator was conducting
operations outside of the approved reclamation plan, with over - steepened slopes, 2) the operator
intercepted groundwater and there were no provisions for encountering groundwater in the
approved reclamation plan, and 3) the operator failed to adjust the financial assurances for new
lands disturbed and changes in site conditions. The issues noted in the report prepared by OMR
raised other issues pertaining to the County's performance as a lead agency. As a result, OMR
provided a preliminary assessment of the County's overall performance at the SMGB regular
business meeting held on September 22, 2005. At the regular business meeting of the SMGB held
on November 10, 2005, the SMGB requested that OMR compile information regarding the
County's overall performance as a lead agency, and to update the SMGB at its January 2006
regular business meeting. In addition, OMR indicated that it would finalize the Lexington Quarry
inspection report, with consideration of additional information provided by the Los Gatos
Preservation League. At the SMGB's regular business meeting held on April 13, 2006, OMR staff
summarized the results of their review of files and other pertinent documentation [Exhibit 4]. OMR
presented their final conclusions of their review and monitoring of the lead agency's mine
inspection activities, and analysis of overall lead agency performance in accordance with SMARA
at the SMGB's regular business meeting held on June 8, 2006 [Exhibit 5].
REGULATORY AUTHORITY: Article 1, General Provisions, of the Surface Mining and Reclamation
Act provides in Section 2712 the following:
It is the intent of the Legislature to create and maintain an effective and
comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy with regulation of surface mining
operations so as to assure that:
(a) Adverse environmental effects are prevented or minimized and that mined lands
are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternative land
uses.
(b) The production and conservation of minerals are encouraged, while giving
consideration to values relating to recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and forage,
and aesthetic enjoyment.
e,1441.
Executive Officer's Rport
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 7 of 25
(c) Residual hazards to the public health and safety are eliminated
Article 5 of SMARA, Reclamation of Mined Lands and the Conduct of Surface Mining Operations,
provides in part, in Section 2774.1(f) that:
The lead agency has primary responsibility for enforcing this chapter and Section
2207.
PRC Section 2774.4 (SMARA) provides that if a lead agency fails to perform specific responsibilities
to enforce the Act, or performs those responsibilities deceptively, then the responsibility for enforcing
the Act shall be assumed by the SMGB. Prior to any assumption of a lead agency's SMARA
authority by the SMGB, the Board must first notify the lead agency of any identified deficiencies, and
allow the lead agency 45 days to correct the deficiencies to the satisfaction of the Board.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2774.4(a):
"If the board finds that a lead agency either has (1) approved reclamation plans or
financial assurances which are not consistent with this chapter, (2) failed to inspect or
cause the inspection of surface mining operations as required by this chapter, (3)
failed to seek forfeiture of financial assurances and to carry out reclamation of surface
mining operations as required by this chapter, (4) failed to take appropriate
enforcement actions as required by this chapter, (5) intentionally misrepresented the
results of inspections required under this chapter, or (6) failed to submit information to
the department as required by this chapter, the board shall exercise any of the powers
of the lead agency under this chapter, except for permitting authority."
IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES IN SMARA COMPLIANCE: There are six categories of violations
listed in PRC Section 2772.2(a) under which the SMGB may find a lead agency needs to take
corrective actions. These six categories are as fcllows:
Category [ 1 1 A le;
Category [ 21 A lead agency has failed to inspect or cause the inspection of
surface mining operations as required by SMARA;
Category [ 31 A lead agency has failed to seek forfeiture of financial
assurances and to carry out reclamation of surface mining
operations as required by SMARA;
Category [ 4 1 A lead agency has failed to take appropriate enforcement actions
as required by SMARA;
Category [ 51 A lead agency has intentionally misrepresented the results of
inspections required under SMARA;
(( I
Executive Officer's Rport
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 8 of 25
Category r 61 A lead agency has failed to submit information to the Department
of Conservation as required by SMARA.
The SMGB is to determine if the County has corrected, to the Board's satisfaction, within the 45-
days provided in statute the deficiencies cited in the 45 -Day Notice to Correct Deficiencies, or
satisfied the SMGB that no deficiency existed at the time the Notice was issued.
EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM THE COUNTY: The following
deficiencies in the County's administration of SMARA are identified with respect to all nine surface
mines within the County's jurisdiction:
Nature of Notice Deficiency 1: During the period from 2000 through 2005, the County failed to
perform an annual review, adjustment or recalculation of the financial assurance amounts for eight
mine sites in 2001, and all nine sites for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Category 1 violation
pursuant to PRC Section 2774.4; deficiency pursuant to PRC Sections 2773.1(a)(3) and 2774(b)):
Azevedo Quarry
Calaveras Quarry
Curtner Products
Freeman Quarry (Mine activity commenced in 2002)
Permanente Quarry
Lexington Quarry
Polak Pit Quarry
Serpa Pit
Stevens Creek
County's Response: The County acknowledges that it did not conduct financial assurances
estimate reviews as part of the annual SMARA inspections from 2000 through 2003. The
County states that such lack of administrative action reflected work load and staff resource
issues, notably, lack of expertise implementing inspections and administrating SMARA
compliance among in -house staff. Since 2004, the County has taken steps to retain a
consultant who conducted the SMARA inspections with staff, and prepared the annual report
that was subsequently reviewed and approved by County staff.
The County claims that the use of a third party consultant was instrumental in the County
increasing its technical ability to adequately advise the mine operators of their SMARA
obligations.
SMGB Staff Analysis: The County increased the financial assurance mechanisms for six of nine
mines during the 2005 calendar year. Financial assurance amounts for the remaining three
mines were decreased (Curtner Quarry, Permanente Quarry and Polak Pit Quarry), and
possibly reduced in the case of the Hanson Permanente Quarry. OMR correspondence dated
May and June of 2006 [Exhibit 6], reviewed the adjusted FACEs, and requested that the
financial assurances for eight sites be re- evaluated and adjusted appropriately. The County
contends that any potential problems with the FACE could be addressed during the 2005
mine inspections and annual financial assurance review, and "that a separate response to the
Ecutive Officer's Report
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 9 of 25
OMR correspondence was not necessary" The County continues to state "County staff has
since learned that the obligation to provide such response regarding the FACEs cannot be
deferred to the next inspection. As part of the improvements to our inspection program, all
such correspondence will be addressed within the 45 day time frame mandated by SMARA."
The County may have expressed good intentions in utilizing third -party consultants in
conjunction with County staff to review and adjust FACEs in a timely manner; however,
adjustments to the FACE reflecting comments made by OMR in their May 27, June 1 and
June 9, 2005, correspondences, has not been received by OMR at the time this Executive
Report was prepared.
Curtner Products (CA ID #91 -43- 0001): The 2003 Mining Operation Annual Report, dated
June 30, 2004, noted that the operator claimed 47 acres of disturbed land during 2003. This
value was apparently used as a credible number by the County's consultant in the 2005
Surface Mining Inspection Report. However, the inspection performed by the County's
consultant on December 17, 2004, and noted in the Surface Mine Inspection Report signed
April 12, 2005, notes 80 acres of disturbed land. The latest County consultant noted in the
inspection performed on December 6, 2005, and Surface Mining Inspection Report signed
January 4, 2006, "47, per Operator Annual Report." Based on the site visit performed by
OMR staff, and further discussed under Deficiency No. 4, it is clear that 47 acres is a
significant understatement as to the amount of disturbed land as a result of surface mining
operations.
Permanente Quarry (CA ID #91 -43- 0004): In the case of the Permanente Quarry, the FACE
was reduced from $627,255 to $382,040. This reduction as determined by the County's
consultant and supported by the County, ignored the significant slope stability issues along
the mine pit rim, encroachment onto adjacent property, and mitigative efforts to comply with
the existing approved reclamation plan (refer to Deficiency No. 4). The enforcement actions
that should have been implemented for this site are discussed under Deficiency No. 4;
however, if an adequate inspection had been performed, and corrective measures and
violations noted, the financial assurance cost estimate for this site would have been
significantly increased, not decreased.
Lexington Quarry (CA ID #91- 43- 0006): The financial assurance for the Lexington Quarry
was recently adjusted from $67,960, which was established on May 12, 1999, to $532,381 in
November 2005. No adjustments were made between the period of May 1999 and November
2005. This financial assurance amount is based on 26 acres of disturbed land "per Operator
Annual Report' as stated in the 2005 Surface Mining Inspection Report. This amount of
disturbed acreage is absurd, as noted in the report prepared by Testa Environmental
Corporation dated March 18, 2005 [Exhibit 3], and does not accurately reflect the significant
increase in disturbed land at this site. In addition, the adjusted financial assurance amount
does not adequately reflect encroachment: beyond the approved reclamation plan boundaries,
over - steepened intervening cut walls, excessive heights of intervening cut walls, groundwater
quantity issues, among other factors.
Executive Officer's Rport
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 10 of 25
Stevens Creek Quarry (CA ID #91- 43 -000fl: The financial assurance amount for the Stevens
Creek Quarry was established at $829,435 on May 16, 2005, and was deemed adequate by
OMR in their correspondence to the County dated June 9, 2005. However, this FACE did not
take into account several violations as reported during a site visit performed by OMR in 2006.
These violations included encroachment beyond the boundary of the approved reclamation
plan, inadequate revegetation of final slopes, and disturbed areas not reported during
inspection by the County's consultant. As in the case of the Permanente Quarry, the
enforcement actions that should have been implemented for this site are discussed under
Deficiency No. 4; however, if an adequate inspection had been performed, and corrective
measures and violations noted, the financial assurance cost estimate for this site would have
been significantly increased.
Remaining Surface Mine Sites: OMR noted numerous site - specific deficiencies upon review
of the financial assurance cost estimates provided by the County for the remaining five mine
sites. The quality of the inspections performed by the County's consultant, as exemplified in
the examples above, raises significant doubt, and causes one to question the validity and
adequacy of the financial assurance cost estimates for all the sites within the jurisdiction of the
County.
Nature of Notice Deficiency 2: The County failed to take steps to make adjustments to the financial
assurance mechanisms promptly following increases in the financial assurance amounts for two mine
sites (Category 1 violation pursuant to PRC Section 2774.4; deficiency pursuant to PRC Sections
2773.1(a)(3) and 2774(b)):
Calaveras Quarry
Azevedo Quarry
County's Response: In regards to the Calaveras Quarry and Azevedo Quarry, the County contends
"The consultant (the County's consultant) estimated that the existing bond posted by the
operator was sufficient, and that a new or adjusted financial assurance is not required."
SMGB Staff Analysis: OMR's 45 -day review as presented in their May 27, 2005, correspondence
noted several issues, with only one requiring an immediate response. In regards to the
Calaveras and Azevedo Quarries, OMR noted that production rates, machine time and labor
costs provided in the FACE could not be verified without a known quantity of material to work
with. Without such information, OMR assumed that all soils for topsoil or overburden must be
imported, resulting in substantially higher reclamation costs. Furthermore, issues relating to
absence of supporting documentation for certain reclamation activity, and general form and
layout were also identified. OMR requested in their May 27, 2005, correspondence that their
comments be incorporated in the FACE, and resubmitted to OMR for further review. The
County has not responded to OMR to date.
Nature of Notice Deficiency 3: The County failed to require mine operators to submit amended
reclamation plans as a result of observed SMARA violations for at least two mine sites (Category 1
violation pursuant to PRC Section 2774.4; deficiency pursuant to PRC Section 2774(b) and
2774.1(a)):
Executive Officer's Rport
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 11 of 25
Lexington Quarry
Permanente Quarry
County's Response: In the case of the Lexington Quarry, the County was aware of several out -of-
compliance actions. Notably, the County was aware that the operator had located their scale
house and office outside of the Use Permit area, moved material and expanded a sediment
pond outside the Use Permit area, and obtained materials for expansion of the sedimentation
pond from an area outside its Use Permit and reclamation plan boundary. The County also
acknowledges that its staff did not realize that SMARA mandated a process to cite the
operator for a violation. Instead, the County incorrectly required the operator to simply modify
its Use Permit and Reclamation Plan applications to include the area where the additional
disturbances had occurred.
In the case of the Permanente Quarry, the County claims it has been working with the
operator for approximately four years to address unstable slopes, and other issues. The
County is waiting for modifications to the reclamation plan anticipated some time in 2006 to
address the existing landslide issues.
SMGB Staff Analysis:
Lexington Quarry (CA ID #91 -43- 0006): The County, despite the acknowledgement noted
above, has not issued any violations for the Lexington Quarry. The County has provided a
timeline for completion of CEQA requirements, but has not adequately addressed the nature
of the violations noted by OMR. Although numerous issues have been identified and
presented to the County by Testa Environmental Corporation [Exhibit 3], and the Los Gatos
Preservation League, these issues have not been adequately addressed, including their
impact on the current version of the amended reclamation plan and the FACE. No violations
have been issued to the operator, nor has the FACE been adequately adjusted to reflect
these issues.
Permanente Quarry (CA ID #91 -43- 0004): The County did not request that the operator
amend its reclamation plan for the Permanente Quarry since "The County believed that the
boundary encroachments that the State observed are actually landslides at the rim of the
mine pit. These slides are not located in areas actively being mined." The County was wrong
in this determination. The landslides along the rim of the mine pit were caused in part, if not in
whole, by the mining operation, and thus, he County had a responsibility and obligation to
request that the operator amend its reclamation plan.
The County did, however, recognize that the slopes required repair, and such mitigative
activities would extend beyond the existing reclamation plan boundary. The County claims
this process has taken longer than anticipated due to potential adverse impacts to a ridgeline
easement and slope stability issues for a hillside adjacent to certain mined areas of the
quarry. The County contends that the operator will file for modification of the reclamation plan
in 2006 to address these issues; however, no violation has been issued to the operator, nor
has the FACE been modified to address these issues.
l/Ait
Executive Officer's Weport
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 12 of 25
Nature of Notice Deficiency 4: The County failed to perform SMARA mine inspections for the
following eight of the nine mine sites in 2001, although the County performed annual SMARA
inspections for all nine mine sites from the years 2002 through 2005. However, the quality of the
inspections is uncertain. Notably, the County failed to issue any violations from 2001 through 2005
(Categories 2 and 4 violations pursuant to PRC Section 2774.4; deficiency pursuant to PRC Section
2774(b) and 2774.1(a)).
Azevedo Quarry
Calaveras Quarry
Curtner Products
Permanente Quarry
Lexington Quarry
Polak Pit Quarry
Serpa Pit
Stevens Creek
County's Response:
SMGB Staff Analysis: Pursuant to PRC Section 2774(b), "The lead agency shall conduct an
inspection of a surface mining operation within six months of receipt by the lead agency of the
surface mining operation's report submitted pursuant to Section 2207, solely to determine
whether the surface mining operation is in compliance with this chapter. In no event shall a
lead agency inspect a surface mining operation less than once in any calendar year. The
operator shall be solely responsible for the reasonable cost of the inspection." The SMGB
provides guidelines for the conduct of surface mine inspections, which were adopted by the
SMGB on November 14, 2002.
In review of the 2005 Surface Mining Inspection Report for all nine sites, it is noted that the
County's consultant issued no violations for any of these sites.
Between November 30, 2005, and January 4, 2006, the County's consultant performed the
SMARA mine inspections for all nine sites within the jurisdiction of the County [Exhibit 7].
OMR accompanied the County's consultant in its performance of the inspections, and
performed an assessment of the County's performance of SMARA inspections, notably, for
Curtner Products, Permanente Quarry, Lexington Quarry and Stevens Creek, in the spring of
2006. These four sites are further discussed below.
Curtner Products (CA ID #91 -43- 0001): No violations were noted by the County's consultant,
although a minimum of three violations should have been noted. A preliminary site
reconnaissance of Curtner Products by OMR revealed three violations: status of reclamation
in the Phase 1 area; control of noxious weeds; and maintenance of the sedimentation basins.
The 2004 Mine Operation Inspection Report states "Phase 1 [h]as been reclaimed." The 2005
Mine Operation Inspection Report states "Reclamation previously completed in Phase 1 ".
However, current site observations clearly show the presence of equipment, stockpiles and
structures. Abundant growth of noxious weeds such as black mustard, tree tobacco, purple
Executive Officer's &port
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 13 of 25
loosestrife, poison hemlock and milk thistle was observed throughout the site, although the
Mine Operation Inspection Report noted that revegetation was "OK," with no mention of the
abundant growth of noxious weeds. The 1997 Reclamation Plan Modification also states "All
sedimentation basins and other drainage facilities, such as catch basins and slope drainage
benches, shall be periodically maintained. Maintenance work shall include...removing
sediment when it reaches the cleanout level in the riser and depositing the sediment in a
suitable area." As of May 2006, the two sedimentation basins were observed not to be
maintained; this condition was not mentioned, nor the need for maintenance in accordance
with the requirements of the approved 1997 Reclamation Plan Modification.
Permanente Quarry (CA ID #91 -43- 0004): No violations were noted by the County's
consultant, although a minimum of four violations should have been noted. A minimum of four
violations were noted by OMR staff: disturbed areas beyond the boundary of the approved
reclamation plan; total disturbed acreage reported; unstable slopes along the North Pit Main
Wall; and situation of the cement plant and other surface mining related activities beyond the
boundary of the approved reclamation plan.
The County's consultant's 2005 Surface Mining Inspection Report only indicated that the
operator has "exceeded reclamation boundary on south slope." It did not identify other
disturbed areas that appear to be outside the reclamation plan boundary. And although the
inspection report did indicate that the reclamation plan should be amended to adjust the
reclamation plan boundary, update the financial assurance, and bring the operation up to
current reclamation standards, no violation was issued.
The 1984 approved reclamation plan states "For the next 25 years, the existing and planned
excavation and storage areas will encompass approximately 330 acres." OMR staff estimated
that the area within the approved reclamation plan boundary is approximately 337 acres. The
2005 Surface Mining Inspection Report indicates that the total disturbed acreage is
approximately "411 acres, (per Operator Annual Report)." OMR staff estimates that the total
disturbed acreage for the site is about 424 acres, which exceeds that of the approved
reclamation plan by approximately 90 acres, or 28 percent.
The cement plant is situated beyond the approved reclamation plan boundary, although it
does fall within the meaning of "mined lands" as defined pursuant to PRC Section 2729 which
states "includes the surface, subsurface, end ground water of an area in which surface mining
operations will be, are being, or have been conducted, including private ways and roads
appurtenant to any such area, land excavations, workings, mining wastes, and areas in which
structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other materials or property which result
from, or are used in, surface mining operations are located." Should the cement plant be
included in this estimate, then the total disturbed acreage amount increases to approximately
400 acres,[don't you mean the exceeded acreage amount ?] or 120 percent. The 2005
Surface Mining Inspection Report does not mention the significant surface disturbance in
excess of the 330 acres which encompasses the approved reclamation plan, nor the cement
plant.
(
Executive Officer's I;port
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 14 of 25
Along the North Pit Main Wall, active slope failures and slides were observed. Failure of this
area of the pit wall was reported in 1987 and additional failure was noted in 2002. The head
scarp of these failures have exceeded beyond the reclamation plan boundary; whereas, the
2005 Surface Mining Inspection Report states only that "Some historic instability near the top
of pit," with no mention of such failures existing beyond the approved reclamation plan
boundary.
Lexington Quarry (CA ID #91- 43- 0006): No violations were noted by the County's consultant,
although a minimum of three violations should have been noted. Three violations were
reported by OMR in their July 2005 inspection report for the site. The County's inspector
referenced such violations in the July 2005 report prepared by OMR, but did not note nor
provide quantification or description of the violations, and the County has not issued any
violations to date. These violations reflect: disturbance of land beyond the reclamation plan
boundary, possible adverse impact on groundwater availability, which in turn would adversely
impact adjacent homeowners who depend on well water, and no revised financial assurance
has been provided. The County indicates that it was the mine operator and County staff that
recognized that the scale house and office was situated outside of the Use Permit area, and
the mine operator also disclosed that it had moved material and expanded a sediment pond
outside of the Use Permit boundary using material also derived from outside of the Use Permit
boundary. Regardless, the County continues to allow the operator to operate outside the
approved Use Permit and reclamation plan boundary, while a new permit application is being
processed.
OMR staff showed through the use of an aerial photograph with an overlay of the reclamation
plan boundary, that the operator had disturbed land outside of the approved Use Permit and
reclamation plan boundary. The County has also allowed the operator to continue certain
activities and works with the applicant (operator) in order to achieve compliance. The County
thus has allowed the operator to continue certain activities, notably, continued excavation of
the cut wall with appreciable groundwater seepage without satisfactorily confirming whether
significant adverse impact exists to groundwater availability to the adjacent residences. The
County did have the operator post a revised financial assurance; however, no mention is
made in the inspection reports of over - steepened walls, height of intervening cut walls, and
other factors that may significantly impact the FACE; although, the County has been provided
periodic correspondence by concerned parties noting such issues and requesting assistance
from the County in assuring that these concerns are adequately addressed.
Stevens Creek (CA ID #91 -43- 0007): No violations were noted by the County's consultant,
although a minimum of three violations should have been noted. A preliminary site
reconnaissance of Stevens Creek by OMR revealed three violations: encroachment of
disturbed land beyond the boundary of the approved reclamation plan, encroachment of
quarry slopes beyond the boundary of the approved reclamation plan, and inadequate
revegetation measures implemented on final slopes. Significant encroachment of disturbed
land beyond the boundary of the approved reclamation plan exists, yet there is no mention of
such encroachment in the 2005 inspection report. According to the approved reclamation
plan, the toe of the proposed final slope should be about 375 feet due west of the
transmission tower; however, the toe is about 260 feet due west of the tower. OMR staff
Executive Officer's 44port
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 15 of 25
observed excavations and quarrying activities parallel to or extending beyond the northern
boundary; however, no mention of such encroachment is mentioned in the 2005 Surface
Mining Inspection Report.
The approved reclamation plan (Revegetation Notes, Sheet 5) states "In areas to be
revegetated, planting and hydroseeding shall commence as soon as possible upon
completion of quarry operations in the immediate area and as seasonal constraints allow."
Condition of Approval (COA) No. 9(a), December 1996, states "The revegetation process
shall be commenced as soon as that particular phase of excavation is completed and shall be
carried out in accordance with plans approved." OMR staff observed that some natural
revegetation was occurring on these final slopes, however, planting per the revegetation plan
was not completed on portions of the property where quarrying operations have concluded. In
review of the County's 2005 Surface Mine Inspection Report, no mention is made as to the
status of these final slopes, nor indication of timing requirements for their revegetation.
Adequacy of the Lead Agency to conduct surface mining inspections under SMARA: The
SMARA mine inspection is crucial to the determination as to whether a surface mining
operation is in compliance with SMARA and the operation's approved reclamation plan.
During the conduct of inspections, the inspector must:
• Know what is required by SMARA;
• Review and know what is required by the approved reclamation plan, conditions of
approval, applicable environmental documents, permits, etc.;
• Determine and record all actions and conditions deemed out of compliance;
• Assess the progress of all required reclamation efforts;
• Determine whether the existing financial assurance requires re- evaluation and revision;
• Accurately reflect findings in the inspection report;
• Recommend appropriate corrective measures to mitigate and resolve any
compliance issues; and
• Note all violations for administrative action, when appropriate.
The lead agency is responsible for assuring that the inspector is performing inspections in an
appropriate manner. The lead agency is also responsible for:
• Issuance of notices of violations, orders to comply, and administrative
penalties, if warranted; and
• Review and adjust the financial assurance amount to reflect current labor and
equipment rates, and overall costs to reclaim the site in a manner consistent
with the approved reclamation plan, among other responsibilities.
It would appear that the County has been sincere in its efforts to administer SMARA in an
appropriate manner; however, it is clear from review of the 2005 Surface Mining Inspection
Reports and the County's enforcement history that there is an overall lack of understanding of
SMARA.
Executive Officer's &port
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 16 of 25
It is clear from review of the 2005 Surface Mining Inspection Reports that there is an overall
lack of understanding as to the purpose and objective of a SMARA surface mine inspection.
As a result, implementation of the inspection failed to identify significant corrective measures
and violations on a site - specific basis. In fact, inspection reports for all nine surface mining
sites recognize only one violation (Permanente Quarry; in which case the financial assurance
amount was recommended to be decreased), in addition to the three violations cited only by
reference for the Lexington Quarry; the inspection report simply stated that the operator
should "complete corrective measures cited in the DOC report." No Notices of Violations were
recommended.
Based on the findings summarized above the County has not shown a working knowledge of
the requirements of SMARA. Such lack of understanding hindered the County in review of its
consultant's work product. In essence, the County does not recognize what is an adequate
work product or what is not, and thus, simply performing an inspection is not equivalent to the
inspection being performed in an adequate and comprehensive manner. If the State is to rely
on the adequacy of the County's inspection process to determine whether a surface mining
operation is in compliance with SMARA, then the County must ensure that the inspection
reports are accurate and represent a true description of the mine site's SMARA activities.
Without some knowledge of what is required under SMARA, and some means of recognizing
and measuring the adequacy of their consultant's work product, it is impossible for the State
to rely on the adequacy of the County's inspection process. To achieve an accurate and
adequate picture as to the site - specific conditions at each site within Santa Clara County with
an appreciable degree of confidence, someone knowledgeable in SMARA must perform the
inspections.
Adequacy of financial assurances: In addition, there are adverse ramifications to poorly
performed inspections. Existing and recently adjusted financial assurances remain unreliable
since the financial assurance amounts do not reflect corrective measures required in light of
the violations.
Adequacy of the Lead Agency to enforce SMARA: In addition, there is little evidence in the
administrative record demonstrating that the County has the understanding, or will, to enforce
SMARA. This is clearly documented by the issuance of no Notices of Violation, Orders to
Comply or Administrative Penalties, when appropriate, in all the years the County has served
as a lead agency. Furthermore, the County has not demonstrated that it understands the
administrative process and is reluctant to enforce compliance of surface mining operations.
Administrative procedures and proceedings are time consuming and require diligence and
continued monitoring. The County has provided no documentation, nor has demonstrated by
its actions, that it has developed an administrative process to administer and monitor SMARA
enforcement actions.
Nature of Notice Deficiency 5: The County failed to enforce and seek forfeiture of the financial
assurances of the Calaveras Quarry upon its abandonment by the operator (Category 4 violation
pursuant to PRC Section 2774.4; deficiency pursuant to PRC Section 2773.1(b)).
l/ /fit
Fcutive Officer's &port
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 17 of 25
County's Response: The County states in its response to Notice that the operator of the Calaveras
Quarry was notified during conduct of the 2004 and 2005 SMARA mine inspection that the
operator had an obligation to commence reclamation, or pursue a Use Permit to re- commence
operations. The operator indicated that there was no intent to resume mining and thus would
seek a modification to the reclamation plan to reflect a change in reclamation strategy. The
operator proved delinquent in developing final reclamation performance criteria, and was
issued a Notice of Violation by the County on April 12, 2006. The operator has since
complied with the Notice of Violation with the submittal of a modification to its reclamation plan
on May 25, 2006, albeit, the adequacy of the response is uncertain.
SMGB Staff Analysis: The County believes that this deficiency has been corrected with the
operator's submittal of a modification to its reclamation plan. Although the adequacy of the
operator's response is uncertain, SMGB staff concurs with the County's belief that this
deficiency has been remedied.
Nature of Notice Deficiency 6: The County failed to enforce and require from the operator of the
Calaveras Quarry commencement of reclamation activities upon expiration of the Interim
Management Plan (IMP) in August 2003 (Category 3 and 4 violations pursuant to PRC Section
2774.4; deficiency pursuant to PRC Section 2770(h)(6)).
County's Response: As addressed under Deficiency No. 5, the County believes that this deficiency
has been corrected with the operator's submittal of a modification to its reclamation plan.
SMGB Staff Analysis: The County acknowledges that it failed to enforce and require surface mining
operators to submit annual written calculations of the financial assurance amount for all eight
mine sites in 2001, and all nine mine sites for years 2002, 2003 and 2004. The County
believes that this deficiency has been corrected by retaining a consultant for technical
assistance with fulfilling this requirement for 2004 and 2005. Although the adequacy of the
operator's response is uncertain, SMGB staff concurs with the County's belief that this
deficiency has been remedied.
Nature of Notice Deficiency 7: The County failed to enforce and require surface mining operators
to submit annual written calculations of the financial assurance amount for all eight mine sites in
2001, and all nine mine sites for years 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Category 4 violation pursuant to PRC
Section 2774.4; deficiency pursuant to CCR Section 3805).
Azevedo Quarry
Calaveras Quarry
Curtner Products
Permanente Quarry
Lexington Quarry
Polak Pit Quarry
Serpa Pit
Stevens Creek
f%
Executive Officer's Weport
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 18 of 25
County's Response: The County acknowledges that it failed to enforce and require surface mining
operators to submit annual written calculations of the financial assurance amount for all eight
mine sites in 2001, and all nine mine sites for years 2002, 2003 and 2004. The County
believes that this deficiency has been corrected by retaining a consultant for technical
assistance with fulfilling this requirement for 2004 and 2005.
SMGB Staff Analysis: SMGB staff does not concur with the County's belief that this deficiency has
been remedied, since the adequacy of the inspections performed even as recently as the fall
of 2005 were deemed inadequate as discussed under Nature of Notice Deficiency Nos. 1, 3
and 4. Since financial assurance amount calculations are directly linked to and depend on the
quality of the surface mine inspection, inadequate surface mine inspections lead to
inadequate and questionable financial assurance amounts. SMGB staff thus concurs with the
County's belief that this deficiency has been remedied in that written financial assurance
calculations have been generated, but all calculations generated to date are deemed
unreliable.
Nature of Notice Deficiency 8: The County failed to submit copies of proposed financial assurances
and calculations of financial assurance amounts for eight mine sites in 2001, and all nine sites for the
years 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Category 6 violation pursuant to PRC Section 2774.4; deficiency
pursuant to CCR Section 3805).
Azevedo Quarry
Calaveras Quarry
Curtner Products
Freeman Quarry (Mine activity commenced in 2002)
Permanente Quarry
Lexington Quarry
Polak Pit Quarry
Serpa Pit
Stevens Creek
County's Response: The County acknowledges that it failed to submit copies of proposed financial
assurances and calculations of financial assurance amounts for eight mine sites in 2001, but
that this deficiency has been corrected wii:h retaining a consultant for technical assistance and
a thorough review of the financial assurance estimates. The consultant presented the results
of such review to the County, as provided in their Surface Mining Inspection Reports. The
County notes in their response to Notice that five of the nine mine operations have been
required to increase their financial assurance mechanisms, three mine operations are deemed
to have adequate financial assurance mechanisms, and one mine (Permanente Quarry) was
allowed to decrease its financial assurance.
SMGB Staff Analysis: The County's consultant only notes in one case the need for a financial
assurance to be adjusted (in this case, decreased for the Permanente Quarry), and makes
note that four have been increased per recommendations by the County in 2004 or 2005.
Notwithstanding the recommended decrease in the financial assurance for the Permanente
Executive Officer's import
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 19 of 25
Quarry, the consultant, as a result of the inspection performed in 2005, recommended no
independent adjustments.
SMGB staff concurs with the County's belief that this deficiency has been remedied. Refer to
SMGB staff response to Deficiency Nos. 3, 7 and 10 as to the quality of the review of financial
assurances performed by the County's consultant, but such financial assurances are
unreliable. .
Nature of Notice Deficiency 9: The County failed to submit copies of inspection reports for eight
mine sites in 2001 (Category 6 violation pursuant to PRC Section 2774.4; deficiency pursuant to CCR
Section 3504.3).
Azevedo Quarry
Calaveras Quarry
Curtner Products
Permanente Quarry
Lexington Quarry
Polak Pit Quarry
Serpa Pit
Stevens Creek
County's Response: The County acknowledges that it failed to submit copies of inspection reports
for eight mine sites in 2001, but that this deficiency has been corrected with retaining a
consultant for technical assistance as fulfilling this requirement.
SMGB Staff Analysis: SMGB staff concurs with the County's belief that this deficiency has been
remedied, but that the inspection reports provided since 2001 are unreliable. Refer to SMGB
staff response to Deficiency No. 3 as to the quality of the inspections performed by the
County,
Nature of Notice Deficiency 10: The County failed to respond in a timely manner to OMR's request
for the resubmission of financial assurance cost estimates for eight out of nine mine sites (Category 6
violation pursuant to PRC Section 2774.4; deficiency pursuant to CCR Section 3805.5, and PRC
Section 2774(d)):
Azevedo Quarry
Calaveras Quarry
Curtner Products
Freeman Quarry
Permanente Quarry
Lexington Quarry
Polak Pit Quarry
Serpa Pit
County's Response: As of 2005, all reporting mine operations had approved financial assurance
instruments. By June 2005, OMR informed the County that financial assurances for eight of nine
Executive Officer's (port
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 20 of 25
sites within the County's jurisdiction required re- evaluation. The County's consultant performed
inspections of all sites, accompanied by OMR staff (OMR staff did not conduct the formal SMARA
inspection) in November and December 2005. The County believes that any identified problems
have been or would be rendered moot based on i revised financial assurances, and also that
outstanding issues remain, and reliance on the subsequent round of financial assurance estimate
review is not appropriate.
SMGB Staff Analysis: Pursuant to PRC Section 2773.1, "Lead agencies shall require financial
assurances of each surface mining operation to ensure reclamation is performed in
accordance with the surface mining operation's approved reclamation plan...The amount of
financial assurance required of a surface mining operation for any one year shall be adjusted
annually to account for new lands disturbed by surface mining operations, inflation, and
reclamation of lands accomplished in accordance with the approved reclamation plan."
Pursuant to CCR Section 3805.5, "...the lead agency shall submit a copy of the proposed
Financial Assurance and the Calculation of Financial Assurance Amount submitted by the
operator...to the Director of the Department of Conservation for review...the lead agency
shall...indicate to the Director that the Financial Assurance Amount is adequate...to conduct
and complete reclamation on the mined lands in accordance with the approved reclamation
plan."
The County has indicated in its response to the Notice that in the future it will promptly
respond to any comments from OMR to ensure the County has addressed any concerns.
Regardless, the County has not formally responded to OMR's request in their
correspondences dated May 27 and June 1, 3 and 9, 2005, requesting that eight out of nine
2005 financial assurances be re- evaluated.
FINDINGS OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER: The Executive Officer recommends that the
SMGB find that Santa Clara County has not satisfactorily met the statutory conditions of PRC
Section 2774.2 in that it has not corrected in a timely manner the deficiencies cited in the 45-
Day Notice. Deficiencies concerning the adequacy of reclamation plans, financial assurances
and mine inspections, and the ability of the County to enforce SMARA, as contained in the 45-
Day Notice, have existed for several years. The County has not taken sufficient and timely
actions to correct these deficiencies. Since 2000 and through 2005, the County failed, and
continues to fail, in demonstrating an overall working knowledge of SMARA, and implementing
SMARA. Specific findings are summarized below:
G/
Executive Officer's import
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 21 of 25
With respect to Deficiency No. 1:
Finding No. 1(a): The County did fail to review and adequately adjust the financial
assurance amounts from 2000 through 2005 pursuant to PRC Section 2773.1, 2774(b)
and 2774.4, and CCR Section 3804. [Category 1 — failed to review and adjust
financial assurance amounts in a manner consistent with SMARA].
Finding No. 1(b): The County did fail to adequately adjust and increase the FACE in
the case of Curtner Products. The inadequate financial assurance amount failed to
reflect any costs associated with the un- reclaimed Phase I area, control of noxious
weeds, maintenance of sedimentation basins and an increased amount of land
disturbance. [Category 1 — approved financial assurance amount in a manner not
consistent with SMARA].
Finding No. 1(c): The County did fail to adequately adjust and increase the FACE in
the case of Permanente Quarry. In regards to the Permanente Quarry, the financial
assurance amount was, in fact, reduced from $627,255 to $382,040, and did not
reflect any costs to address significant slope stability issues along the mine pit rim,
encroachment onto adjacent property, and mitigative efforts required to comply with
the existing approved reclamation plan. [Category 1 — approved financial assurance
amount in a manner not consistent with SIVIARA].
Finding No. 1(d): The County did fail to adequately adjust and increase the FACE in
the case of Lexington Quarry. The inadequate financial assurance did not reflect any
costs to address significant slope configuration issues, encroachment onto adjacent
property, identified water availability issues and potential slope mitigative efforts.
[Category 1 — approved financial assurance amount in a manner not consistent with
SMARA].
Finding No. 1(e): The County did fail to adequately adjust and increase the FACE in
the case of the Stevens Creek Quarry. The inadequate financial assurance amount
did not reflect any costs to address significant slope stability issues along the mine pit
rim, encroachment onto adjacent property, and mitigative efforts required to comply
with the existing approved reclamation plan. [Category 1 — approved financial
assurance amount in a manner not consistent with SMARA].
With respect to Deficiency No. 2:
Finding No. 2: The County did fail to make adjustments to the financial assurance
mechanisms promptly following increases in the financial assurance amounts for the
Calaveras Quarry and Azevedo Quarry pursuant to PRC Sections 2773.2(a) and
1774.4. [Category 1 — approved financial assurance amounts in a manner not
consistent with SMARA].
l/ /fit
&(ecutive Officer's !&port
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 22 of 25
With respect to Deficiency No. 3:
Finding No. 3(a): The County did fail to enforce correction of substantial deviations
that should have been identified during the 2005 SMARA mine inspection performed
by the County's consultant, and previous inspections performed under the authority of
the County, for the Permanente Quarry pursuant to PRC Sections 2774.4, 2774.1(a)
and 2774(b). [Category 1 — approved reclamation plans which are not consistent with
SMARA].
Finding No. 3(b): The County did fail to adjust the financial assurance amount to
reflect noted violations and their impact on the current version of the amended
reclamation plan and existing FACE, for the Permanente Quarry pursuant to PRC
Sections 2773.1(a)(3), 2774.4, 2774.1(a) and 2774(b). [Category 1 — approved
financial assurances which are not consistent with SMARA].
Finding No. 3(c): The County did fail to enforce correction of substantial deviations
that should have been identified during the 2005 SMARA mine inspection performed
by the County's consultant, and previous inspections performed under the authority of
the County, and identified during the inspection performed by OMR and by the Los
Gatos Preservation League, for the Lexington Quarry pursuant to PRC Sections
2774.4, 2774.1(a) and 2774(b). [Category 1 — approved reclamation plans which are
not consistent with SMARA].
Finding No. 3(d): The County did fail to adjust the financial assurance amount to
reflect noted violations and their impact on the current version of the amended
reclamation plan and existing FACE for the Lexington Quarry pursuant to PRC
Sections 2773.1(a)(3), 2774.4, 2774.1(a) and 2774(b). [Category 1 — approved
financial assurances which are not consistent with SMARA].
With respect to Deficiency No. 4:
Finding No. 4(a): The County did fail to perform SMARA mine inspections for eight of
the nine mine sites in 2001, although the County performed annual SMARA
inspections for all nine mine sites from the years 2002 through 2005 pursuant to PRC
Section 2774(b). Notably, the County failed to issue any violations from 2001 through
2005 pursuant to PRC Section 2774.1(a). [Category 2 — failed to inspect or cause
inspection of surface mining operations as required by SMARA; Category 4 — failed to
take appropriate enforcement actions as required by SMARA].
Finding No. 4(b): Inspections conducted under the authority of the County did fail to
accurately report on conditions at Curtner Products, Permanente Quarry, Lexington
Quarry, Calaveras Quarry and Stevens Creek Quarry. [Category 2 — failed to inspect
or cause inspection of surface mining operations as required by SMARA; Category 4 —
failed to take appropriate enforcement actions as required by SMARA].
Executive Officer's import
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 23 of 25
Finding No. 4(c): The County did fail to determine whether observations made during
conduct of the mine inspections met the requirements of the approved reclamation
plan, Conditions of Approval, or permit requirements (i.e., Curtner Products,
Permanente Quarry, Lexington Quarry and Stevens Creek Quarry). [Category 2 —
failed to inspect or cause inspection of surface mining operations as required by
SMARA; Category 4 — failed to take appropriate enforcement actions as required by
SMARA].
Finding No. 4(d): The County did fail to assess the progress of reclamation efforts at
specific mine sites (i.e., Curtner Products and Stevens Creek Quarry). [Category 2 —
failed to inspect or cause inspection of surface mining operations as required by
SMARA; Category 4 — failed to take appropriate enforcement actions as required by
SMARA].
Finding No. 4(e): The County did fail to accurately reflect findings in the inspection
report and recognize potential SMARA compliance issues (i.e., Curtner Products,
Permanente Quarry, Lexington Quarry and Stevens Quarry). [Category 2 — failed to
inspect or cause inspection of surface miring operations as required by SMARA;
Category 4 — failed to take appropriate enforcement actions as required by SMARA].
Finding No. 4(f): The County did fail, and continues to fail, in recommending and
enforcing corrective measures and violations in a timely manner (i.e., Curtner
Products, Permanente Quarry, Lexington Quarry and Stevens Creek Quarry). The
County has issued no violations as a result of findings or recommendations presented
in the 2005 inspection reports, albeit, the County has issued one violation in regards to
the Calaveras Quarry since completion of the inspections, and at the recommendation
of OMR staff. [Category 2 — failed to inspect or cause inspection of surface mining
operations as required by SMARA; Category 4 — failed to take appropriate
enforcement actions as required by SMARA].
With respect to Deficiency No. 5:
Finding No. 5: The County did fail to enforce and seek forfeiture of the financial
assurances of the Calaveras Quarry upon its abandonment by the operator pursuant
to PRC Sections 2773.1(b) and 2774.4. [Category 4 — failed to take appropriate
enforcement actions as required by SMARA].
With respect to Deficiency No. 6:
Finding No. 6: The County did fail to enforce and request from the operator of the
Calaveras Quarry commencement of reclamation activities upon expiration of the
Interim Management Plan (IMP) in August 2003 pursuant to PRC Sections 2770(h)(6)
and 2774.4. [Category 3 — failed to seek forfeiture of financial assurances and carry
Ut
Executive Officer's l port
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 24 of 25
out reclamation; Category 4 - failed to require and take appropriate enforcement action
as required by SMARA].
With respect to Deficiency No. 7:
Finding No. 7: The County did fail to enforce and require surface mining operators to
submit annual written calculations of the financial assurance amount for all eight mine
sites in 2001, and all nine mine sites for years 2002, 2003 and 2004 pursuant to PRC
Section 2774.4 and CCR Section 3805. [Category 4 - failed to require and take
appropriate enforcement action as required by SMARA].
With respect to Deficiency No. 8:
Finding No. 8: The County did fail to submit copies of proposed financial assurances
and calculations of financial assurance amounts for eight mine sites in 2001, and all
nine sites for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 pursuant to PRC Section 2774.4 and
CCR Section 3805. [Category 6 - failed to submit information to the Department of
Conservation as required by SMARA].
With respect to Deficiency No. 9:
Finding No. 9: The County did fail to submit copies of inspection reports for eight
mine sites in 2001 pursuant to 2774.2 and CCR Section 3504.3. [Category 6 - failed
to submit information to the Department of Conservation as required by SMARA].
With respect to Deficiency No. 10:
Finding No. 10: The County did fail to respond in a timely manner to OMR's request
for the resubmission of financial assurance cost estimates for eight out of nine mine
sites pursuant to PRC Section 2774.4(d) and CCR Section 3805. [Category 6 — failed
to submit information to the Department of Conservation as required by SMARA].
DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD: The SMGB may make the following determinations:
(141. The SMGB may determine that the County has, to the SMGB's satisfaction,
corrected the deficiencies cited in the 45 -Day Notice within the statutorily
permitted 45 -day period, or that no deficiencies existed at the time the Notice was
issued. If the SMGB makes this determination, then the issue of the County's
SMARA compliance for the purposes of this Notice shall be removed from further
SMGB consideration.
[or]
(2)2. The SMGB may determine that the County has not corrected, to the SMGB's
satisfaction, the deficiencies cited in the SMGB's 45 -Day Notice within the
statutorily permitted 45 -day period. If the SMGB makes this determination, then
/7lit
Executive Officer's Weport
Agenda Item No. 2 — Santa Clara County Review of 45 -Day Notice
July 13, 2006
Page 25 of 25
statute provides that the SMGB shall hold a public hearing within the County's
jurisdiction to receive oral and written evidence from interested parties as to which
of the County's SMARA authorities (except for permitting) the SMGB should
assume as authorized under PRC Section 2774.4(a).
SUGGESTED MOTION LANGUAGE: The Board may use the following motion language:
[Should the SMGB determine that, to its satisfaction, no deficiencies or violations remain uncorrected]
Motion No. 1: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board, in light of the evidence presented
before the Board today and contained in the Administrative Record of this meeting,
find that those violations and deficiencies contained in the Board's 45-Day Notice to
Correct Deficiencies issued to Santa Clara County on April 19, 2006, have been
corrected to the satisfaction of this Board, and that no further action is required by this
Board as a result of the April 19, 2006, Notice.
[or]
[Should the SMGB determine that it is not satisfied, and that deficiencies and violations remain
uncorrected, then the following two motions are required]
Motion No. 1: Mr. Chairman, in light of the evidence presented before the Board
today and contained in the Administrative Record of this meeting, I move that the
Board adopt the findings and analyses contained in the Executive Officer's Report,
and that the Board find that those violations and deficiencies contained in the Board's
45-Day Notice to Correct Deficiencies issued to Santa Clara County on April 19, 2006,
have not been corrected to the satisfaction of this Board.
Motion No. 2: Mr. Chairman, in light of the Board's adoption of the previous motion, and
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2774.4, I move that the Board hold a Public
Hearing to determine to what extent the Board will assume Santa Clara County's lead agency
authority at the Board's September 14, 2006, meeting.
Executive Officer's import