The URL can be used to link to this page

Reconsideration hearing , ,I r~ 11.1 ¡. /,F··----' dn." i CUPEIQ1NO PTrnr rr WnJH.'"<;: npPA RTMPNT Summary AGENDA ITEM a... AGENDA DATE November 29. 2005 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Reconsideration Hearing on the decision of the City Council to Deny the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application No. TM-2004-05 for California Water Service. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 - ~ Denying the Petition of Cathy and Dale Helgerson seeking Council reconsideration of its approval of a tentative map (TM-2004- 05) for subdivision oflands owned by California Water Service (APN 326-33-107) located on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino BACKGROUND On November I, 2005 the City Council conducted a hearing on the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application No. TM-2004-05 for a tentative map for a subdivision of lands owned by the California Water Service Company for the development of three residential lots on Greenleaf Drive. The appeal was filed by Cathy and Dale Helgerson who are residents on an adjoining parcel at 20697 Dunbar Drive. After hearing testimony trom the Appellant, the Applicant and a report by Staff which included a water quality report trom SLR, Inc., the Council denied the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of the tentative map. On November 10, 2005 a Petition for Reconsideration was filed by Cathy and Dale Helgerson (but was signed only by Cathy Helgerson) under the provisions of Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Section 2.08.096A requesting reconsideration of the Council's decision to deny the appeal. Since the petition was filed within the time prescribed by the Municipal Code (ten days) a public hearing was set by the Council for November 29, 2005 at 7:30 PM. A copy ofthe Helgerson's petition is attached. CMC Section 2.08.096B requires that a petition for reconsideration meet certain specific grounds for the reconsideration. In reviewing the Petition filed by Cathy and Dale Helgerson to reconsider the Council's decision to deny the original appeal on November 1, 2005 staff cannot find any relevant evidence or proof of facts that support any of the grounds for reconsideration as required by CMC Section 2.08.096 B 1-5. .;2-1 Printed on Recycled Paper The specific allegations under each of these grounds contained in the petition are refuted by specific City Council findings, which are attached to and incorporated within the Resolution denying the Petition for Reconsideration. FISCAL IMPACT There is no Fiscal hnpact to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the Reconsideration Hearing on the decision of the City Council to Deny the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application No. TM-2004-05 for California Water Service. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 - I q (p Denying the Petition of Cathy and Dale Helgerson seeking Council reconsideration of its approval of a tentative map (TM-2004- 05) for subdivision of lands owned by California Water Service (APN 326-33-107) located on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino Submitted by: Approved for submission: ~Q~f,< Uti Director of Public Works ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Attachment Petition for Reconsideration - Cathy and Dale Holgerson .;I-d RESOLUTION NO. 05- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF CATHY AND DALE HELGERSON SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSlDERTION OF ITS APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP (TM-2004-05) FOR SUBDIVISION OF LANDS OWNED BY CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE (APN 326-33-107) LOCATED ON GREENLEAF DRNE, CUPERTINO WHEREAS, the California Water service Company owns real property, located on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino, California, more specifically, APN 326-33-107; and WHEREAS, Application TIM 2004-05 for a tentative subdivision map of the property was brought before the Planning Commission by Wayne Aozasa and approved on January 25, 2005 by the Commission; and WHEREAS, that approval was appealed to the City Council on March 15, 2005 by Cathy and Dale Helgerson and Leo and Jian Wang; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after hearing testimony, tabled this item until an independent evaluation of the project could be completed; and WHEREAS, the appeal was heard on November 1, 2005 and after testimony and discussion, was denied by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Cathy and Dale Helgerson requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the November 29,2005 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioners have made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(1).) 3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).) 4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction regarding the application for a tentative subdivision map. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(3).) ,;)-3 5. The petitioners have failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).) 6. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion regarding the application for a tentative subdivision map. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law. b. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact. c. The findings offact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 7. The specific allegations contained in the petition for reconsideration are refuted by specific City Council findings which are attached to this resolution and incorporated herein. 8. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of November 1, 2005 is DENIED. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 29th day of November, 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino .:l- t- CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for consideration, precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings off act; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. The petition for reconsideration ofTM-2004-05, a tentative map of a subdivision of property owned by California Water Service Company (CWSC) on Greenleaf Drive, submitted by Cathy and Dale Helgerson on November 10, 2005 asserts as follows: 1. An otTer of new relevant evidence, which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing: Response: The appellant has failed to provide relevant evidence of any kind that was not considered at the appeal hearing. PETITION FINDING "The Santa Clara County The question of which ofthe wells was tested was Water District should have completely clarified by Shawn Heffner, Director of Real tested the water and the soil Estate and Corporate Development for the CWSC in of the well at the East End direct testimony to the City Council at the hearing of well and did not." P. 2 November 1, 2005 and further in response to a direct question by Council member Sandoval that the well tested was the well at the east end of Greenleaf Drive on the parcel proposed for development owned by the CWSc. "I was amazed that the City The existence of other wells, while not relevant, was also did not tell us about these made known at the appeal hearing. 1 ;1-5 three wells even after the appeal parties were inquiring about any other wells in Cupertino." P. 2 2. An otTer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing: Response: The petitioner has made no offer of relevant evidence that was improperly excluded at the original appeal hearing. The petition contains a number of statements and asks questions that are not fact based nor do they describe any relevant evidence of any kind. They are simply questions or opinions on subjects that were fully considered at the prior hearing. PETITION FINDING ". . . we feel that the This discussion was presented at the original appeal California Water Company hearing and was discounted by the City staff's should not have been presentation. The Council considered that matter along involved in any type of with all others. This "evidence" was not excluded at any referral or recommendation prior city hearing. to the City on choosing of the vendor." P. 2 "The appeal parties would As noted above the confusion over which well had been like to know about possible tested was fully and adequately clarified by Shawn well testing at the West End Heffner's testimony at the appeal hearing. of Greenleaf Drive near Garden Gate School. P.2 Why was the information The existence of other wells, while not relevant, was also about the abandoned will made known at the appeal hearing. [sic] kept from the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction. Response: The petitioner has not provided any evidence regarding contamination of water wells, abandoned or in production. The petition contains unfounded and unsubstantiated statements. These statements, which are apparently the petitioner's personal opinion of what should or should not have been done, are irrelevant and do not represent evidence to support the allegation that the Council acted either without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction. 2 ;1.(, PETITION FINDING "The City Council approved None ofthe wells in Cupertino are contaminated. This the abandonment ofthe [West statement by petitioners appears to offer an opinion, but End] well without proper offers no facts or proof that the Council acted without or consideration of any possible in excess of its jurisdiction. contamination to the four wells. Even after the approval of the Water Well test of the Well at the East End of Greenleaf Dr. the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens had made the City very aware of their concerns about any possible contamination of any wells in Cupertino and this should have been considered prior to any abandonment of a well without a proper water and soil test" P. 3 "The possible contamination Petitioners make no offer of proof of contamination of of the East End Well near the well. In fact, testing of the subject well indicated Apple Computer should have that the water meets domestic use standards. been a wakeup call for the City,," P. 3 "The Air Quality Control The reference to issues between Apple Computer and Board has sent Apple the Air Quality Board (which was spoken to at the Computer a letter requesting a hearing by Michael Foulkes of Apple Computer) is not list of all contaminants in the relevant to the appeal and is not a factor for the building...." P. 3 Council's consideration or reconsideration of the appeal. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. Response: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts required as grounds for reconsideration to demonstrate that the Council failed to provide a fair hearing. In fact, a review of the hearing shows that the Council heard lengthy testimony ITom the appellants and ITom the applicants as well as numerous facts presented by the city staff. PETITION "We still wish to ask the question was the West End Well tested?" . 4 FINDING Whether or not the West End Well was tested at this time is irrelevant to this application. The West End Well is not on the sub'ect ro ert . The hearin was in 3 ;?-7 regards to a tentative subdivision map approval for property located on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino. All relevant evidence was considered by the council. "The East End well is the well As noted above, the confusion over which well had been that was part of the original tested was fully and adequately clarified by Shawn appeal and because the City Heffner's testimony at the appeal hearing. did not review the correct well at the meeting, we feel that one of the reasons for reconsideration should be this well." P. 4 "The appeal parties had asked The hearing was in regards to a tentative subdivision the City and the California map approval for property located on Greenleaf Drive, Water Company to provide Cupertino. All relevant evidence was considered by the information pertaining to the council. other wells in Cupertino and we hoped to view these well [sic] in order to get a good idea of how close these wells were to the streets, sidewalks and home." P. 4 "We also believe that the The existence of other wells, while not relevant, was California Water Service also made known at the appeal hearing. Company were aware of the other wells and also deliberately held back this information ITom the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens." P. 4 There is a great deal of verbalizing in this section presented by the petitioner that refers to matters that were previously heard and discussed by the Council, some relevant and some irrelevant as regards the approval ofthe tentative subdivision map, the subject of the appeal. The rest of the verbiage consists of irrelevant and inaccurate comments by the petitioner regarding well test results. For example, the appellants state in their petition that "...the four metals that were detected are non cancer chemicals but that is not true they cause cancer". The fact is that the report presented at the appeal hearing described the metals as non-carcinogenic as represented by the toxicologist preparing the report, which is fact and science based. (See p. 3, SLR Report.) The appellant's statement to the contrary is not supported by proof or evidence of any kind. It is unfounded and unsupported. This is true of all the statements made by the petitioner in reference to the SLR report provided to the city and presented at the original hearing. An example of the 4 ,;J-8 The petition presents a lengthy statement about how the SLR report should be completely discounted because the City"... should not have used... SLR or BC Labs because the California Water (Services) Company told them who to use." They further allege that the vendor selection should have been a". ..non bias selection and this was not done." ·This discussion was previously presented at the original appeal hearing. The Council considered that matter along with all others. The petitioner offered no evidence at the original hearing to support that allegation, nor have they offered any in the petition for reconsideration. This is a rehash of petitioners' earlier objection and, in no way, constitutes an abuse of discretion by the Council. . The balance of Petitioners' claims regarding the Council's "disregard" of evidence and the appellant's "right to speak... or to discuss the issues" are untrue and/or unsubstantiated. Additionally, Petitioners offer no facts to substantiate their claim that the City Council abused its discretion by not proceeding in a manner prescribed by law; and/or rendering a decision which was not supported by findings offact and/or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Conclusion In reviewing the Petition filed by Cathy and Dale Helgerson to Reconsider the Council's decision to deny the original Appeal on November 1,2005 as noted in detail above, the City Council finds that there is no relevant evidence or proof of facts that support any of the grounds for reconsideration as required by Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B. 1-5. 6 ;)-10 /,~~~. . ! ill \\ 'I' /' ___-.J City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408)777-3366 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK To: City Council, David Knapp, Charles Kilian, Steve Piasecki, Gary Chao From: Karen B. Guerin Subject: PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Date: November 14,2005 ---------- -------- ------ --- --- Attached is a petition for reconsideration regarding TM-2004-05, Wayne Aozasa (CA Water Service), located on Greenleaf Drive. .;1-11 Printed on Recycled Paper November 10, 2005 IT]1E~1E~~lErru U'"ù NOV 1 0 2005 lW To: The City of Cupertino Office of the Clerk From: Cathy & Dale Helgerson CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Representing: Leo & Jian Wang and the Citizens of Cupertino This reconsideration under 2.08.095 Reconsideration and 208.096 Reconsideration-Sought by Interested Person ofthe Chapter 2.08: City Council-Rules and Conduct of Meetings this request has been submitted to the City of Cupertino and the City Council representatives. The appeal parties and the Citizens of Cupertino wish the City Council to reject and make void the already approved building Project Proposal No.TM-2004-05 and APN326-33-107 by Wayne Aozasa and the property owned by California Water Service Company. 208.096 Reconsideration-Sought by Interested Person A. At the conclusion ofthe hearing for reconsideration, the City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify its original decision, and may adapt additional findings offact based upon the evidence submitted in any and all city hearings concerning the matter. Note: The above paragraph is only part of the policy. B. Grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. Note: The above paragraph is only part of the policy Appeal parties information to support reconsideration: Issue pertaining to the comer of Castine and Greenleaf Dr. West End Well by Garden Gate School and The East End Well owned by the California Water Service Company. The initial well that was contracted out to SLR and BC Labs for testing was the well at the East end of Greenleaf Drive near Dale and Cathy Helgerson's property and not the West End Well as so stated by the Cities representive at the appeal hearing. The appeal representative Cathy Helgerson thought that there was some error when the City representive began speaking of the West End Well as Castine and Greenleaf Drive. ¡;I-I1J.. The Santa Clara County Water District should have tested the water and the soil of the well at the East End well and did not. Carol Atwood in the Finance Department at the City of Cupertino was contacted by Cathy Helgerson the Planning Departments representatives where not in and so she asked to talk to someone else. Carol thought I was talking about the West end Well and mentioned the East End well. This brought up the question from Cathy Helgerson what West End well at Greenleaf and Castine? She went on to inform me that their was a well at this location and that the City of Cupertino owned this well and two other wells over near Homestead Rd. I was amazed that the City did not tell us about these three wells even after the appeal parties were inquiring about any other wells in Cupertino. It was known to the appeal parties that there were two other well in Cupertino and thought the California Water Service Company owned them and know one ever let us think otherwise. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. Appeal parties information to support reconsideration: The California Water Company's lawyer at the appeal meeting mentioned that they had provided the City Planning Department with the name of SLR International Corporation and BC Laboratories in order for the City to use this vendor to conduct the work of testing and consultation on the East End Well near the Helgerson's property. With this evidence we feel that the California Water Company should not have been involved in any type of referral or recommendation to the City on the choosing ofthe vendor. We had asked for an impartial and non bias decision as to who would conduct the water test and this did not happen. This evidence was not available prior to this appeal meeting because the City did not divulge it to the appeal parties and to the Cupertino Citizens. The appeal parties would like to know about the possible well testing at the West End of Greenleaf Drive near Garden Gate School was this well tested by BC Laboratories or anyone else? If so what where the f"mdings and can we have a copy of the test result? Is there any other pertinent information that should be disclosed at this time? Why was the information about the abandoned will kept from the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens? We would also like to know why information about the other two well owned by the City was ;J./3 withheld? We feel that this is our City and no information should be kept from its Citizens. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction. Appeal parties information to support reconsideration The Santa Clara Water District had a right to know about the cracked casing in the West End well by Garden Gate School. The City Council approved the abandonment of the well without proper consideration of any possible contamination to the four wells. Even after the approval of the Water Well test ofthe Well atthe East End of Greenleaf Dr. the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens had made the City very aware of their concerns about any possible contamination of any wells in Cupertino and this should have been considered prior to any abandonment of a well without a proper water and soil test. After all with knowledge of wells in general there is a great possibility that one well could contaminate the other three wells in Cupertino and also possibly the aquifer. We feel that the City and the City Council acted way beyond their jurisdiction and failed to take into great consideration the consequences of their acts. The City should have requested a water and soil test of the West End well by Garden Gate School in order to protect the community from possible contamination. The cracked casing of the well should have been a strong indicator that there maybe contamination and the extended period of time that this well was allowed to go unattended is a very serious matter. Water building up in wells that lay still can cause a great deal of problems to humans and to animals. The crack in the casing could have released contaminants into the soil and also eventually into the air. The possible contamination of the East End Well near Apple Computer should have been a wakeup call for the City and we do not see that to be the case. The Air Quality Control Board has sent Apple Computer a letter requesting a list of all contaminants in the building and also what they have on their products. They will also be conducting a test on the smoke stack to see what is coming out ofthe building. I would suggest to the City that they wait for the test results in order to protect the public as a whole. 4. Proof offacts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a Fair hearing. Appeal parties information to support reconsideration: ;1-10/ The representive continued to speak even after Cathy Helgerson tried to correct the error. She asked if they were talking about another test and if so no one had provided information about a test at the West End to the appeal parties. The West End well was the abandoned well and may have been tested prior to abandonment by the City at their own volition and so the appeal parties were never privileged with this information. We still wish to ask the question was the West End Well tested? The East End well is the well that was part of the original appeal and because the City did not review the correct well at the meeting we feel that one of the reasons for reconsideration should be this well.. The error that was made by the Cities representive should not go unnoticed and should be part of the reconsideration to be taken up in the future. The water and soil testing of the West End well at the Corner of Castine and Greenleaf Drive should have been conducted prior to the abandonment of the well and as far as we know was not? The relative information should have been provided to the appeal parties prior to the appeal meeting and it was not. The appeal parties had asked the City and the California Water Company to provide information pertaining to the other wells in Cupertino and we hoped to view these well in order to get a good idea of how close these wells were to the streets, sidewalks and homes. The appeal parties were never informed that the City owned the three well one at the West End of Greenleaf Dr. and the other two near Homestead road. We also believe that the California Water Service Company were aware of the other wells and also deliberately held back this information from the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citiiens. We feel that the Cupertino Citizens nave every right to know what wells the City owns and the City has no right to hold back any information. The Santa Clara County Water District notified the City via Registered letter on October 2, 2003 that they were in Well Violation and the City took two years to abandon the welL The City had previous to this many correspondents with the City about the well and this are on record at the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The appeal parties have copies of these records submitted by Peter Thiemann at the Santa Clara Water District. The City fmally executed the well abandonment on believe September 24, 2005. The City did not notify the Santa Clara County Water District that the well had suffered a crack in the well casing in 1989. Jim Davis in the Public Works department at the City of Cupertino also stated to the Cathy Helgerson that the well had been out of commission since 1968. We are not sure why it was out of commission and would like to know? The problem is that wells that have not been properly dealt with can become contaminated and also contaminate other wells and so we feel that the West End well could be the contaminated well. ;)-1 !5 1) 1, 2 3 and 4 ABC of this reconsideration request contain proof but we will go further to mention Page 5 of 20 Water Analysis Report. The metal Vanadium's test results was 6.5 PPB - Parts Per Billion and the DLR - Detection Limit for purpose of reporting by state is 3.0 PPB - Parts Per Billion. This metal is considered to be toxic and causes cancer. Vanadium is used in place of steel because it is softer and more flexible. This metal may be being used to produce the IPods at Apple Computer and other computers. Table 1 - Well Sampling Analytical Results Page 2 Of 4 - shows Reporting Limit at 3.0 and Reported Concentration at 6.5 they also Mention the Action Level this is the Over Reporting Limit that the Lab set not the State. This table shows that the levels are a danger to humans and animals. Volatile Organic Analysis page 7 of 20 shows the following: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surrogate) at 95.6 this eliment is Discharge from industrial chemical factories. Toluene-d8 (Surrogate) 98.7 this eliment is discharge from petrolume factories. 4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surrogate) 89.5 Note: These levels are in percents not PPB and should be listed as PPB. Prop 65 lists the no risk level for 1,2-Dichloroethane at 100 the levels is very close and therefore we feel this should be of concern. . The Non Detect of or ND listed on all of the Water report is not acceptable and we feel that the levels even if listed at Non Detect should have been made known to us. Especially if they were very close to the mid point levels of violation toxicity. The Water Analysis (Metals) Quality Control Report - Precision & Accuracy pg.l1 Of20 shows the source Result detection as follows: Cadmium 21.137 Prop 65 has a 4.1 as a level of great concern Note: Cadmium resembles Vanadium and is used as such for on computers and IPods. Lead Source Results .65300 Prop 65 at .05 and the Cancer Potency at .28 from studies. Copper also has a reading result at 5.7190 ;J -1(, Nickel at 2.7430 We would do well to look at the results from the spike levels and the way the information was assembled. The letter from Gary Chao stated that the 4 metals that were detected are non cancer chemicals that is not true they cause cancer. The mixing of metals or chemicals can also cause stronger toxicity and increase the chances of cancer. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion: a. Not preceding in a manner required by law: and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings offact: and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings off act were not supported By the evidence. (Ord. 1807, & 1, 1999) Appeal parties information to support reconsideration 1) The City Council failed to review the overall concerns ofthe appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens. The concerns regarding the setback of 50 feet from the homes and the request from the appeal parties and Cupertino Citizens to extend the 50 feet standard to 100 feet to protect the well was never considered. The concern of the association that will be formed for the 3 new homes and that this association will be in charge of maintaining the sewer lines on the property. The Sanitation department has stated they will not oversee them. This is of great concern to the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens. The 5 feet from the house to the property line of home no. 1 and the sewer lines going behind the house within this small area is not acceptable. The storm drain is a concern if it is in the back area of lot 1 next to the sewer line. This was never clear to the appeal parties is the storm drain will be in front ofthe house or behind? The 5 feet from the operating water well to the sidewalk is unacceptable and a danger to the well. Our concerns that the well maybe contaminated already or maybe in the future because wells can be easily contaminated. Example Morgan Hill ;J-!7 and the Perchlorate contamination. The City Council rendered a decision to proceed even after Cathy Helgerson mentioned that the EP A and the Air Quality Control Division were going to investigate the wells. The City should not have used the Vendor SLR or BC Labs because the California Water Company told them who to use. The appeal parties asked specifically that they wished the City to conduct the vendor selection with a non bias selection and this was not done. The EP A is in the process of investigation and the District Attorney has also been contacted and will be looking into it. The safety of the East End water well should be protected from any future or if there is contamination should be cleaned up by who ever caused the contamination. The overall process that the City has taken to proceed with this building project do not reflect the Cupertino Citizens wishes the 78 signatures that were submitted to the City held no value and were overlooked. The findings that the City submitted in the Water Report should not be admitted as evidence because of the non bias requirement set by the City and the appeal parties. City Laws have been violated rendering a decision in which the fmdings are facts this did not happen. The City did not disclose all of the evidence to the appeal parties at the time of the meeting and is still holding back information. The disregard of evidence by the City has caused a great deal of hardship to the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens. The well water is of great concern and the only concern that we see the City taking is to build more homes without our permission. All 4 water wells the aquifer, reservoirs, recharge ponds and treatment plants for our water should be of great concern to everyone. The appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens feel also a responsibility to the builder developer of the proposed building site and we feel that he would hold a great liability if there is contamination in the well water or the soil on the property. The appeal parties also feel a responsibility to protect the Garden Gate Children at Garden Gate School that is right across from the West End Well that was just recently abandoned. The neighbors around this well may wish to buy this well and again we feel a responsibility to inform them of the possible liability of contamination that they would take on. ~-Iß The laws require that we the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens be given a fair and just hearing this was not the case. We were not even provided with the policies and procedures related to filing a reconsideration until we asked for it. The lack of this form 2.08.095 Reconsideration and 2.08.096 Reconsideration- Sought by Interested Person would have made my appeal request void. This disturbs the appeal parties and hope that the City will develop a form in which any party interested in the Appeal process or the Reconsideration procees can easily fill out and submit. These forms should be made readily available at the Clerks office and the parties should be made aware of this at all City Council meetings. The appeal parties were told that they could not speak to the City Council behind closed doors or were not given the right to speak on separate occasions to discuss the issues prior to the appeal, during the appeal or dunng the reconsideration process. The appeal parties are not sure about this process and feel that this may have been against the rules law and fairness. We the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens demand Justice in this matter. 2f;fu¿JI~ Cathy Helgerson óJ-l'1 I. . E:Xt\\5\T r::..'::"/\\/Z(~/DS ~ _ ORAL MIA, ~~ D c3)Joo-¡c! T ~N cY0cL~~~ ~Q~m l N Q> . ~~~ ~ SYC -9J1J. . ~1~~· ~ .' ~,dOlù~ 0îl 'R hJ 'vu-, ~ 1~~~ c:§šww-- ~+ ~ ~ ) ~ ó--JOAJ-9fl4 :f) ~ ,~ùC ~ ~ðÆWt\C1tJtSi ~, ~ U&L~ING flu. chil~ 1vo fh¡J U':J¿ CJLosS \iV/t\\b ~dd . . ~ ~V.MYrl +k ~l(JUlI1;l1QUl¿c ~ p~ C1t1i'tJcl.ü ~ +/ru piwtllåf¡~ 11101 OJ 0 ~ UWSs ik AtuiL~ É\J. Go I N3 [-Hd db ~ J¡ OJ¿ ~? rd.ohfrta.1..fIS MdGL(, ~-1tcttl 0- c¿ cW ~ C5Y\ 5t JV1 . (}J¿gJ)J ûAìcL ÎQJIJ1.Q., Cl.Jv.L ~ .)JJoh- ~ ~ryL l/}.f./}'\, [JW..k e ~üóð fMtflQ~kv ci/úJz01CÍ $.'ÒOPfYI.. uJlJ ':::J . elM- d ~. .,w¡Jl{ ING-- rLEx.r· k cmL' WíL ..ÁL1.JYl)..; M I~ ::iJu., .MJaJk ~ I C41cl ~.).1JJ.. µ..J¥V- ~ (L CL (fIt! V-QJG' J nJ J.)J ! --fu. ct vlA>G4- ~ MJ ~ J-Q!J- ;) J . . " +h4 .1vrw ~&ruJcL ÞvtJ {}- 011~ ~ . W . . ~ ioDJL ~ 1; tJ1IcJ{~ ~ ~ CMd.k~ b Þ ~. WeARot ~. JJMl~ ~ý¡Ù ð-~ d1 l1 ()JjJ'(J!(J' ih . fib, '3 an~ Jdieu ~ iF ÆJ- Jctr1 . 11 ~ +k, ~ 6Yl r?~¿rU" N& J1 'J 'vd Off'd CfLQ(1Jì;Bubb TèbAJ Atre ~(; ~ ~ . ;,iJI()J +h ~ w¡¡.J.!(s I(fL JJJf'6 -fö ~ I ~r JtJa.J1 ~ J.orU.{}U/.2J ()~dañi 6VV v \\\ (}4J {'j¡ffJflJ;n(y thJ- JJrwt ð1Á-' ~ a.nJ JJQkjckJ Vv cbe- ~ IVEiG -ti: lJJmß-./Ø rmJ KillEd .. \II) If- Jd' M1r! fù.µyU. jJ J¡ (ß;WPfIct . yj0 ik- ~C-- ~. ~v0 'm~ \'~ik ~appVn (}GJJf AnzA- BllJð 1""'* ~ /(1[ áÚ1s,^-,l&Þ-- ~ ~rct i fle~ cmAV~ /J-lLr(þ OJj,/'L- CfL~ klf}/[<'S (\,tQ. sl\Í'e ~~. /l/:i) ~ ~d.L GA:t c-./¡y. --¡ f/¡{£j fu ~ --ro ~z9----0JV~V --to JJihw ~ ¡-t ~~ ~tf(J- ~J~lcÝfu' ~j,ll£\ld A~- +h j ~ s~\cI- ~CWi ~ ~ ~ WJ ~~\)W 1)rl\R. [ »hm~ 1.ì<- Œt1\ZcL Blvel ~~ S1~ ~~. -m jg:t d;t\~~K1ìbW ~\~ÅJr fR\L ~ \'9 lSY\. _ . RöA~ " , In \ WfZ; ~ GJ(9. ~J1\.~ PAST "y\ R ~ Ùr>¡V€.-· ~\~ ~O.. ~\¿ ~?ill1\t&, fÇ)~~ ED' ~JJffiL ~ (JJ(t CJJJJ CWL i-hA-i ~\s ~I SIck Wft\$;\ p~ 1f1lDt{r ~·rrJlJ+':? ,~ $~llJ~ ~ ~OcJJDClJuL + J- ht \~ Q ~\cb-lù ^' \\< . A\lCJ,ð CY thAf\\ê &l ~. CfNl-> A \< \ (l.G ::J3)ue Co ~ haf~ thS 'B G-ß-*~ ¡e~b\vtS~. r \ t2~ Cörd-G4 \) \~ rt~ AI Ljo~-SI7- O~~q If \N Pt 1\\\ 10 --rM \~ Ct~ th \ S · f1í{;tßi&v~~I'vI\\(ib\J- --Q1f' ~r-'Ij~ --:-' Jo - / ~. re n \\!7-r~-.r-\.~.. tt 1//~1/rD ~. re J &: .U... \'1 l'O' 1.1.\'1 i # EI!; . - ---I :'1 1. :il : øl.... 11\,!í I NOV 2~. . \:-::.:) r:ITY CLERK This rebuttal is issued to disclaim and repudiate éSMIi'ŒJ·' y City Council denying the reconsideration submitted by Cathy Helgerson. This reconsideration is a continuation of the original petition and appeal submitted to the City of Cupertino and holds the same authorization from all the petitioners as per the original formal document signed by Cathy Helgerson, Dale Helgerson, Leo Wang and Jian Wang. November 27, 2005 The City of Cupertino's City Manager Dave W. Knapp and the Director of Public Works Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. signed a recommendation denying the reconsideration scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 29,2005. A staff person hand delivered the agenda and other supporting documentation to the front door step of Cathy and Dale Helgerson on the afternoon of November 21,2005. The petitioners feel that this was in retaliation to the papers served to the City of Cupertino that morning on the same day November 21,2005. The City was served with papers that pertained to an injunction motion exparte, a complaint supporting a civil lawsuit notice and other supporting documentation. The City of Cupertino's ordinances do not authorize any staff member to provide a recommendation to deny a reconsideration request prior to the reconsideration meeting and prior to the City Council members hearing the reconsideration petition. In all fairness the petitioners have been denied a fair hearing all along and have been submitting supporting documentation defending ourselves continuously. This retaliation on the part of the City representatives further supports proof of the continued disregard for the documentation submitted by the petitioners to the City and their failure to review and consider it worth. Mention in 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. PETITION: "We still wish to ask the question was the West End Well tested?" p.4 FINDING: States - Whether or not the West End Well was tested at this time is irrelevant to the application. The West End Well is not on the subject property. The hearing was in regards to a tentative subdivision map approval for property located on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino. All relevant evidence was considered by the council. The video taken of the last meeting states that the City of Cupertino tested the west end well near Garden Gate School because it was adjoined with the east end well by the petitioners properties. The information above is an example of the confusion that the City of Cupertino has expressed in all of its paperwork. To state that it is irrelevant has to which well was tested is totally ludicrous. We demand to know which well was tested? Where both wells tested and if so we demand to view both reports? Where is the report on the west end well by Garden Gate School? We wish to have these all of the information available to the petitioner and the Citizens of Cupertino. The petitioners resent and dispute the statement made on the cities agenda document stating that our reconsideration petition is defective in anyway. The facts speak for themselves and are noted in all the documents submitted &om the original petition all the way through to this final rebuttal supporting our reconsideration. We have submitted very strong evidence and have continued to do so and this evidence has consistently been denied by the City Council and City representatives. The information pertaining to the abandoned west end Greenleaf Drive next to Garden Gate School was not made available to the petitioners until the last appeal meeting and the information was presented in a way to elude &om the true identity of the well tested. This of course can be proved by reviewing the city tapes. The video tape &om the last City Council meeting is proof that the City at sometime decided to test the west end well by Garden Gate School owned by the City of Cupertino. The justification they provided was that the two wells are adjoined with the east end well by the petitioner's properties and owned by the California Water Company. Again the petitioners would like to mention that the City of Cupertino and their representatives did not make any of this known to use at any of the prior meetings. The continued ignoring of the possible contamination to properties in Cupertino by the cities representatives if unforgivable and should not be allowed. The deception of the City and it representatives and the California Water Company to keep this critical information &om the petitioners is a violation of the City codes of conduct at meetings and further is a violation of City, State and Federal Laws as well. Disclosures of all the well is relevant and should have been disclosed to all parties concerned and the holding back of any information is proof of the continued unfair hearing. The abandoned well at the west end of Greenleaf Dr. near Garden Gate School is not adjoined in the sense that it was a flowing operating well and wonder why the City did not test the east end well next to the petitioners homes as originally intended? This well has not been in operation sense the 1960's and therefore contained water that stood still in itself and had a cracked casing. The petitioners feel that the well at the east end of Greenleaf Drive near the petitioners homes was the well that was originally tested or scheduled to be tested and the City was to locate an impartial contractor and lab to do the work. Did the City test both wells? Did the City decide to disregard the test conducted at the east end well by the petitioners properties and why? The reason for conducting a test on the well at the east end near the petitioners property was originally to make sure that the California Water Company had been conducting their tests on the water honestly. The fears that the water, soil or air may be contaminated warranted the testing. The water report and supporting documentation Exhibit C stated that the Source Group hired by the SLR to pull the samples &om the well states The Source Group, Inc. (SOl) has sampled the production well located near the Greenleaf Subdivision (Figure I). Note: This is the east end well by the petitioners homes. The work included preliminary date collection and analysis of water &om the production well. The purpose of the well sampling was to determine if new construction activities associated with the Greenleaf Subdivision may impact the production well, in part by identifYing chemical concentrations currently present in the groundwater. The City of Cupertino Planning Department and the City of Cupertino's Manager and other staff members stated that they decided to conduct a water test on the west end well. Why did they decide to test the west end well by Garden Gate School instead of the east end well? Why have they not provided the lab report to support the test on the west end well near Garden Gate School? Why has the Planning Department changed and stated they conducted a test on the west end well near Garden Gate School when all of the documentation states the east end well near the petitioners homes was the well tested? There is no supporting documentation in the paperwork provided to the petitioners that supports the test made at the west end well near Garden Gate School. This is a clear deception and cover up by the City and their members. The report &om the lab on the west end well near Garden Gate School has yet to be produced. The City has made statements to leading us now to believe that the paperwork we do have is for the west end well near Garden Gate School. We ask how can this be because all of the paperwork states the east end well near the petitioners property. The State Department ofEnviromnental Protection Agency will be reviewing this matter in full. The Bay Area Quality Control Division will be investigating Apple Computer to see if they are the cause of any possible contamination to the wells in Cupertino. The reconsideration petition submitted provided a great deal of issues that were not even addressed... The agenda provided with the Resolution No. 05 and the other document City Council Findings In Response To Petition for Reconsideration to the City Council members, petitioners or the Citizens of Cupertino was in itself unfair in it's content and the issues where continually skirted around by the staff. The petitioners and the Citizens of Cupertino would like to ask the City Council members to seriously consider all of the material presented before making their final decision to deny the reconsideration petition. Submitted by: On behalf of Ca sú? May6¡ 2005 Mr. Gary Chao Associ. PIaaoor City of Cupertino lOOßOToo-eAvlWle Cupertino, CA9S0t4 .Subjæt: Pl ~r 'iùrE.~ !>fWafer.~ ødI$~f.roat SubdiiÎSÌØB eø....-ti¡¡1I ~. G~ atyotO',..........CaMu,¡.. Dear Mr. Chao: As nlCfuested. this tetret ¡A.l ·1t<a plopoWibran ewIlJationOfWllierqualìt;yin.a local prodUctiœwdl and impaet.sñom subdivisionOOnSCnløtîoRu~ÌîlØ!1I' ~ eoII~!In'atÍOO$tbe :wcèkðfM4y 2 -:;!~Z::æ~~æ==~~:n~= Pwposed wadt inclDdœ 1Jfblim~data co~ :::: and ana!ySe3of'water ftom ilit 1J)fj)jcifta! well, ~ and ~ lit.. á(yrrotW¡ _,---':""" The Ibltowing paragraphs dembe the ~ ~!)fwork. ti$Smnptions,costs, aDd sc!iedble for tlte-evahtlllioo. SCOI'I:OJ'WORK The soope of work dewIèpeå. fur. _.~ ~ GOO~of fuur ~. fMks ~ as follows: Task I: Data <Imi fnlñmmlfoo C.ól,..,...... This I2$k iavolv..... ~ ìntimnation about ·Ilie pr<v/>'""",, well and the ~posed subdivision constrUction activítias. It Í1> ~ tItet the owner/operatol" of the producrion ....n and the daveloper of the !JlJMi1iisioo will be <:ooperative in providiog Te<UOJ!ted infonnatioo. Data and ;"¡umuáÏ\n. of id"'. '''"C01ISÌ3t y>i...... il) oftbe fut"'w~. » J>rodm,tion welt borlngl()j¡;. con$nJctiondetaíls, IIJId screened íntervBI > Hi'Storical_ quality from ~proðootioo _II J>. l»f_¡ttÍO(l reg¡>rdingtreament ofprod¡.o!í"" weIr water }> RegionaJ groUlldwater quat~ infonnation }> Loça depth w grotmd_ ùifoonation Þ I'Iannedst.lbdhrisfon amfnew IItiJityplans. H30 Willow Pas.. Rood, Suite 23¡},Concord,CA 94520 Ü 925;.681-0500 0925-681>0501 Si!,A~'r~'_~f: ^,,~ß)R.-.c41coÞ!Ct'W- ñ\j~S t.O;SANPf'"U5 sM:T'.flf ~t4I K-\N\M..no $U{c.~tîl'1~ (~):M:n1DIRMSNtlHAM £DfNÐL1tG-H NOTrIf.,.1(fHAM öxJ:üRÐ . 9'25- Z Z1~ l'fll ~ ",. Me.. Gmy Chao May6,2005 Page 20fJ Staff wifl contaet· tire WI'ious pa1'ties to ga\h'er &. ~1Ì\m lIIIdwi!!è\IaImite it in order tomalœ professional judgments regarding potential effects of construction 011 water quality in the production well If it is deemed necessary, a selU"Chlbr eì1VironmenlBltyregnlatl:<t sln:sinthnicinity may be pørÍònnect by .m.";,,ÜtgJIß ~ Data R_ (IIDR) RÞport,atan additiooalco.t. Task.1.: ~ÍDflandAna1vsis This task consists of collecting water samplestTom the prodUedon well.aDd analyzing itfòr 9b!mlicaJs for <:omparison to Ca!ifumiadriÐkÌîlgwater~ Smtrplils.mJ he·~ød~-for_ wfIøIIe suite ofooemìca1$ used in compliance mønitoringfor ~e 'WèI1s, including !he folloWing: }> VolatilC Org¡¡njç Compounds (VOQI) by EP-AMetftod S2¢.2: » SemívoJatile organjçoompoollils (SVUQ¡JS\iCb àsp'bènOlby I!PA Mc'Iho<f ns » Traeemeta.l5by.EPAMethod200.8 }> Anions and C3UOJlS by BPA Method 300. In addition, the watM will be analyzed for Perchlorate by EPA J 14. This task is being perfonned at !he request of the City to pt"O\'ÎdiIa tIiinlDilrtv -tl1SÎ& \#1he I!roI1lldwatèr <"(8a1ity tTom the ÐrOdudi0II well fA Older to J"'ÌÑtIII.Ibis:lIIsk,a s1aI'f.~ wiJI~ tb!: _ T· i ~samp1e containers ti'om aSta-œ CertÌÍledLaboratoty,mcet~t1fihelJ1udwti"..wuIt tlt1he site. coI\o:;tlhe~ samples,~andtraftSj:><Jrt the samples to boramryfor ~ Upon receipt of tút Iaborat0ry results, the data will be evaluamd and results will be~· ia the I'eIOlt discll8Sed below. Task]: RC¡JortIDg Upon. completion of the data collection and analysis. a Iette1" report will. be ~ 1baI:presents a OOIII:Pikttion at aildßta andinfi:n:matioø ·<:oßécted,detaim ,_.lii<ð_1ytiœ1lneUlQd»used inwaftratiDg the data, and dÎSCU$Ses COIIclusions and the mtiooa:l~upon which they are based. A discussion of ~Imk.<f will aIStJ beiooluded in this -report. Task 4: Aftél1Ô Chy COtJí¡(:U Mèê'tin~ A member of SLR fIT 1'htt Smiroe 6rmp mff willllllerJd a ciJy _it pubJic bearing f<> pm;cmI tIæ results oftlæevwualÍon and a~questions, as din:eted by the City of Cupertino. PROJECI'SCHEDULE SLR and The Source Group staff are aVailable to implement fuis p~ at your discretion. Depeuding on tile ~làbitity óf da!à and iD~ "'" ~ J>R'!iœt~ wiItria 3m4 weeb tmm time of authorization 10 proceed. This scl1eduie could be expedited by paying a premium to the 8I\aJyticaI Iabœatory fuI:·tìIster sample analyses. If" tIù§ í.~ ofi!ltereSt to !he City, we C8I1 provide !he adIiIiooa1 cost infunnation when ~. sLR? h~c...p - --"---"-..,...---- AIr. Gary éÞao May ~ 2005 Page3of~ 1"JlOJECT TEAM Tho j!rBwipa!oout>a....œ....s IDthis proj!:¡ct is Dr, Madt Stef\ies.. Director « T~ and Risk Assess¡neOtat SLR fntematit:ma1Cwp()tativt.,.IDIdMr. M!rtthðwSûtI!m, }') ihvipod ~l :at~.8ourçe Group, me. The project will be ~¡",dwithslBfftbat may incIudo engineem and ~IIS the- ~ ðfthe-projectdictale. ESTlMATEDrosT TablOl> 1 r-Imllttthe- assumed Iøvd ðfeffort1òn.idI. tII$k.~. whidi tIJe. estimated pmjeeteost is based IDId a detailed çost estimate ¡«the ~ Work will be ~OIla~ ~ as. per the1'llles 'n"'..ated_1he IlllaCMd .RJœ sc~ for ..øot~¥~.œstof$6;359. We lQOk fQ1"WlllÚ tQ the opportunity of worlring with you on this P"!ieei. Sincerely. SLR lnteJ'DatiomdCorp Øttti t.. ~;lJ - Marl( F.. SteUj$, á..Ð. Director ofRjsk Assessment andToxìcolo¡y Attaclunents: Table I Rate ScheduJe ~ SLR? -lnW:tt1aroml-Cutp i I il ..1!11 t I· . ".u·'.. fO.·"'I! . ·e _& t5j '; I ~ I, . ~ 4 .. Jl ~·ã··it:;¡&e _ . '._ ,_ _ Sit 'w.. .'IoI1_.....-VJ _~___-_ '10 i" ~« ~u~ ~¡¡¡¡ ¡a o QQ".O_ÒO !_ø :uunu~ a ai .0-" _ oO'QOQO o~ ~.",$",. $I$t~!1;$9 '" 90 G10a.... -~'-Ø.¡w_¡¡ø- M ¥(cCR ~'ø:IOd,'=' ............___ !-o §ã~¡- aa:;¡a¡¡a Ii ~iI rt.~~N 000000 Bo l.ru t1'lU1 it 1& ~S..2 ~SU¡ ::a.as;¡. ~.l§ ;;.-t;.-;¡. M; .;:¡tø a,a;;'" __ u ---...-,---- 3~ r J ~ '; t I K SLR EXHIBIT ç October It}, 2005 Mr. Gary Chao Associate Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Aveooe Cupertino, CA 9S014 Subject: WflI Sampling Results W~ Quatitý.and T",p9..t from:SnhdivJsùm Constru.c:tlOD Greenleaf Drive. CupertiJió, Califõrlliã Dear'Mr. Chao: On behalf of the City of Cupertino (City), and pursuant to SLR lntemattanalCorp's (SLR's) May 6, 2Ot}5 l'roposol far Emluation of Water Quality Impacts from SubdWiaion Construclion, The Soorœ Group, Inc. (SGl) bas samp1ed the production wet! iot!1ted nearthe D.=tI¡.,.,fSlibdi~i~;on {Figure i). The worl< included preliminæy data collection and analysis of water from the production well. Tbe purpose of the welt sampling'was to determine if new construction activities associated with the Greenleaf Subdivision may impact 1he production well, in part by identifYing chemìcateoncentratioos oorrently present in the groundwater. The results of this sampl;ng are presented herein. ~ of the well sd...pling event are presented below, and a brief discussion of potential impacts is also provided. ACTIVITIESPERFO&'\IED As outlined in the proposaI, the following tasks w&recompieted. Task I -Review of1'reliminarv Data Prior to wet! sampling, the production well log was reviewed, focusing on the constructioii details aùd screened InterVal. The screened interval is the depth at which the well is in direct contact with groundwater. Groundwater is present in the welhtapproximaiely 700 feet below ground šûtfa¢e (ft bgs). Cürrent groundwater quality for the aquifer used. fox potable water meets domestic use standards i1 the area. Groundwater plumes containing potentially hazardous chemicals are not known to be préSellt in thè imme4Jate vicinity .tlf the proposed subdivision or the production well. SGI: 3451-C Vlncenl Road Pleasant Hm, California 94523 Telenhnne:1925\ 944-2856 SLR: 117 8uryundy Court . Martinez, California 94553 Telephone: (925) 229-1411 1,;,\, c CUPEIQ1NO [ ] AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2005 5:00 p.m. Richard Lowenthal Vice Mayor Patrick Kwok Mayor Sandra James Dolly Sandoval Charles Kilian City Attorney David Knapp City Manager Staff Kris Wang Staff . . Speaker's Podium CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: The City Council regularly meets the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 6:45 p.m. These meetings are held in the City Council Chamber of the Cupertino Community Hall located at 10350 Torre Avenue. Closed sessions, when scheduled, are held at 6:00 p.m. Urgent business may require a special or an adjourned meeting to be held. These will be noticed beforehand. AGENDAS. MINUTES. AND CITY COUNCIL PACKETS: Agenda copies are available to the public as soon as they are printed and copies of City Council minutes are available after they have been approved. These same materials are also available by mail, for a nominal fee. Current and prior City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission agendas, minutes, and packets are also available at www.cupertino.org (click Agendas & Minutes). Kimberly Smith City Clerk . . . Rick Kitson Public Information Officer o Staff TËLEVISED MEETINGS: City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission meetings are televised on Com cast Cable, Cupertino Channel 26. The broadcast schedule for the City Council and Planning Commission is: Tuesdays Thursdays Saturdays Fridays (live) (replay) (replay) (replay) 6:45 P.M. 6:30P.M. 9:00 A.M. 3:30 P.M. Meetings can also be viewed at any time online at www.cupertino.org (click Watch Meetings). Dates and times are subject to change. Please confirm meeting schedule with the City Clerk's office, (408) 777-3223. Copies of the City Channel program schedule are available in the City Hall lobby and on the City's website. CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBER, 10350 TORRE A VENUE, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 (408) 777-3200 (City Hall) - Website: www.cupertino.org THE CITY COUNCIL Cupertino is a general law city organized under and subject to statutes of the State of California. It is governed by the five- member City Council with the Mayor as the presiding officer. Members of the City Council are elected at large for four-year terms on an overlapping basis. Two are elected at one election and three are elected two years later. The City Council receives advice and assistance from ten commissions, which are appointed by the Council for overlapping terms. These are the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Fine Arts Commission, Cupertino Housing Commission, Library Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, Public Safety Commission, Senior Citizens' Commission, Teen Commission, and Telecommunications Commission. The City Manager is appointed by the Council to interpret and carry out Council policies. As the chief administrative officer, the City Manager is responsible for coordinating the many activities of the City. Department heads and professional and technical City staff are appointed by the City Manager. Representatives from the Council are selected to serve one-year terms on such organizations that include: · Association of Bay Area Governments · Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board · North Central & Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee · Santa Clara County (SCC) Cities Association , SCC Cities Association , SCC Committee on Housing and Community Block Grants · SCC Emergency Preparedness Commission · SCC Transportation Agency Board · SCC Water Commission · West Valley Mayors and Managers REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The City Council also serves as Cupertino's Redevelopment Agency. Their meetings immediately follow each City Council meeting. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS The Mayor is the presiding officer of the City Council. All statements and questions are to be addressed to the Mayor whether by members of the Council, the staff, or general audience. During the course of business, please refrain from outward expressions of emotion, such as cheering or clapping. Such behavior deiays the meeting and may intimidate the applicant or other persons wishing to express alternate views. Loud, unruly outbursts will result in removal from the meeting. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATION Members of the public are encouraged to speak on any item listed on the agenda. You may also raise topics that are not on the agenda by speaking under the section titled Oral Communications. Please note that the Council is not able to undertake extended discussion of items not on the agenda, nor can it take action on those items. However, it may refer such items to staff for appropriate action which may include placement on a future agenda. Speakers are limited to up to three minutes for each item or under Oral Communications. Please submit a Request to Speak card so that the Mayor can call you to the speaker's podium at the appropriate time. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Written communication is another method used to address the City Council. If such written communication pertains to an agenda item and is received by the City Clerk prior to noon on the Wednesday preceding the Council meeting, it can be duplicated and distributed as supporting information to the pertinent agenda item. The City Council discourages the submission of any printed material during the course of the meeting as this does not provide the time necessary to give it fair evaluation. If materials are presented at the meeting, at least one copy must be given to the City Clerk for the permanent record, however seven copies are preferred. PUBLIC HEARINGS There are two kinds of public hearings: those required by law, and those called by the City Council on its own volition. In either event, the purpose is to provide the opportunity for all persons to be heard. Sign-up cards are available and may be completed and submitted to the City Clerk prior to the start of the item. These cards are used to facilitate preparation of the record of the meeting. Comments are restricted to three minutes. COUNCIL ACTION ORDINANCES Ordinances are the means by which the City enacts its local laws. Unless an urgent situation exists, ordinances must first be presented at one meeting as a "first reading;" and then at a subsequent meeting, there must be a "second reading and adoption." Following a waiting period of thirty (30) days in most cases, during which time ordinances are published in a local newspaper approved for this purpose, ordinances go into effect. RESOLUTIONS Resolutions and minute orders are the means by which the City Council formally adopts policies or approves the taking of specific actions. These go into effect when adopted. APPEALS Any interested person, including a Council member, may appeal a Planning Commission or Director of Community Development decision to the City Council. An appeal must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) days of the action. RECONSIDERATION Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking a Judicial review of the City Council's decisiun 011 ~ matter, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the Ciiy Clerk within ten (10) days after the Council's decision. Any petition so filed must comply with Municipal Ordinance Code §2.08.096. City of Cupertino Fire (Emergency) Police (Emergency) SERVICES AGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS: General Information (City Hall) (408) 777-3200 Santa Clara County Fire Dept. 911 Santa Clara County Sheriff 911 (408) 777-CITY Garbage Parks & Recreation Public Health Sanitary Sewers Water Los Altos Garbage Company Quinlan Community Center Santa Ciara County Public Health Cupertino Sanitary District San Jose Water California Water (408) 725-4020 (408) 777-3120 (408) 732-3720 (408) 253-7071 (408) 279-7900 (650) 917-0152 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the City Clerk's office at (408) 777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. I CUPEIU1NO AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL - 5:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION - Conference Room A 1. Labor negotiations - Government Code Section 54957.6 regarding the evaluation of the City Manager. RECESS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -7:30 p.m., 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber ROLLCALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. November 29, 2005 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Page 2 NEW BUSINESS 2. Reconsideration Hearing on the decision of the City Council to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Application No. TM-2004-05, California Water Service.. Adopt a resolution denying the petition of Cathy and Dale Helgersen seeking Council reconsideration of its approval of a tentative map (TM-2004-05) for subdivision of lands owned by California Water Service (APN 326-33-107) located on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino, Resolution No. 05-196. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified .disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance oj the meetinf(. /:\1 I t/I\~ ~ .., . CUPEIQ1NO PTTRT rrWrlRY<;: T1PPA RTMPNT Summary AGENDA ITEM é).. AGENDA DATE November 29, 2005 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Reconsideration Hearing on the decision ofthe City Council to Deny the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application No. TM-2004-05 for California Water Service. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 - J1L Denying the Petition of Cathy and Dale Helgerson seeking Council reconsideration of its approval of a tentative map (TM-2004- 05) for subdivision oflands owned by California Water Service (APN 326-33-107) located on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino BACKGROUND On November 1, 2005 the City Council conducted a hearing on the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application No. TM-2004-05 for a tentative map for a subdivision of lands owned by the California Water Service Company for the development of three residential lots on Greenleaf Drive. The appeal was filed by Cathy and Dale Helgerson who are residents on an adjoining parcel at 20697 Dunbar Drive. After hearing testimony &om the Appellant, the Applicant and a report by Staff which included a water quality report &om SLR, Inc., the Council denied the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval ofthe tentative map. On November 10, 2005 a Petition for Reconsideration was filed by Cathy and Dale Helgerson (but was signed only by Cathy Helgerson) under the provisions of Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Section 2.08.096A requesting reconsideration of the Council's decision to deny the appeal. Since the petition was filed within the time prescribed by the Municipal Code (ten days) a public hearing was set by the Council for November 29, 2005 at 7:30 PM. A copy of the Helgerson's petition is attached. CMC Section 2.08.096B requires that a petition for reconsideration meet certain specific grounds for the reconsideration. In reviewing the Petition filed by Cathy and Dale Helgerson to reconsider the Council's decision to deny the original appeal on November I, 2005 staff cannot find any relevant evidence or proof of facts that support any of the grounds for reconsideration as required by CMC Section 2.08.096 B 1-5. .;2-1 Printed on Recycled Paper The specific allegations under each of these grounds contained in the petition are refuted by specific City Council findings, which are attached to and incorporated within the Resolution denying the Petition for Reconsideration. FISCAL IMPACT There is no Fiscal Impact to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the Reconsideration Hearing on the decision of the City Council to Deny the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Application No. TM-2004-05 for California Water Service. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 - .J q (p Denying the Petition of Cathy and Dale Helgerson seeking Council reconsideration of its approval of a tentative map (TM-2004- 05) for subdivision of lands owned by California Water Service (APN 326-33-107) located on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino Submitted by: Approved for submission: ~Q~~f,i Uv Director of Public Works ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Attachment Petition for Reconsideration - Cathy and Dale Holgerson .;l-;) RESOLUTION NO. 05- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF CATHY AND DALE HELGERSON SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERTION OF ITS APPROVAL OF A TENT A TIVE MAP (TM-2004-05) FOR SUBDNISION OF LANDS OWNED BY CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE (APN 326-33-107) LOCATED ON GREENLEAF DRNE, CUPERTINO WHEREAS, the CaIìfornia Water service Company owns real property, located on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino, California, more specifically, APN 326-33-107; and WHEREAS, Application TIM 2004-05 for a tentative subdivision map ofthe property was brought before the Planning Commission by Wayne Aozasa and approved on January 25, 2005 by the Commission; and WHEREAS, that approval was appealed to the City Council on March 15, 2005 by Cathy and Dale Helgerson and Leo and Jian Wang; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after hearing testimony, tabled this item until an independent evaluation of the project could be completed; and WHEREAS, the appeal was heard on November 1,2005 and after testimony and discussion, was denied by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Cathy and Dale Helgerson requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the November 29, 2005 reconsideration hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. 2. The petitioners have made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(I).) 3. The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).) 4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction regarding the application for a tentative subdivision map. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(3).) .;7-3 5. The petitioners have failed to present any evidence that fue City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(4).) 6. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion regarding the application for a tentative subdivision map. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law. b. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact. c. The findings offact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 7. The specific allegations contained in the petition for reconsideration are refuted by specific City Council findings which are attached to this resolution and incorporated herein. 8. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of November 1,2005 is DENIED. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council' of the City of Cupertino this 29th day of November, 2005, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ;;;'-'1- CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for consideratiQn, precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds &om being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2, An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3, Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5, Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. The petition for reconsideration ofTM-2004-0S, a tentative map of a subdivision of property owned by California Water Service Company (CWSC) on GreenIeafDrive, submitted by Cathy and Dale Helgerson on November 10, 2005 asserts as follows: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence, which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing: Response: The appellant has failed to provide relevant evidence of any kind that was not considered at the appeal hearing. PETITION FINDING 'The Santa Clara County The question of which of the wells was tested was Water District should have completely clarified by Shawn Heffner, Director of Real tested the water and the soil Estate and Corporate Development for the CWSC in of the well at the East End direct testimony to the City Council at the hearing of well and did not." P. 2 November I, 2005 and further in response to a direct question by Council member Sandoval that the well tested was the well at the east end of Greenleaf Drive on the parcel proposed for development owned by the CWSC. "1 was amazed that the City The existence of other wells, while not relevant, was also did not tell us about these made known at the aDpeal hearing, 1 ;2-5 three wells even after the appeal parties were inquiring about any other wells in Cupertino." P. 2 2. An offer. of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing: Response: The petitioner has made no offer of relevant evidence that was improperly excluded at the original appeal hearing. The petition contains a number of statements and asks questions that are not fact based nor do they describe any relevant evidence of any kind. They are simply questions or opinions on subjects that were fully considered at the prior hearing. PETITION FINDING " . . . we feel that the This discussion was presented at the original appeal California Water Company hearing and was discounted by the City staff's should not have been presentation. The Council considered that matter along involved in any type of with all others. This "evidence" was not excluded at any referral or recommendation prior city hearing, to the City on choosing of the vendor." P. 2 "The appeal parties would As noted above the confusion over which well had been like to know about possible tested was fully and adequately clarified by Shawn well testing at the West End Heffner's testimony at the appeal hearing, of Greenleaf Drive near Garden Gate School. P.2 Why was the information The existence of other wells, while not relevant, was also about the abandoned will made known at the appeal hearing. [sic] kept &om the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction. Response: The petitioner has not provided any evidence regarding contamination of water wells, abandoned or in production. The petition contains unfounded and unsubstantiated statements. These statements, which are apparently the petitioner's personal opinion of what should or should not have been done, are irrelevant and do not represent evidence to support the allegation that the Council acted either without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction. 2 ,;z~(, PETITION FINDING "The City council approved None of the wells in Cupertino are contaminated. This the abandonment of the [West statement by petitioners appears to offer an opinion, but End] well without proper offers no facts or proof that the Council acted without or consideration of any possible in excess of its jurisdiction. contamination to the four wells. Even after the approval of the Water Well test of the Well at the East End of Greenleaf Dr. the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens had made the City very aware of their concerns about any possible contamination of any wells in Cupertino and this should have been considered prior to any abandonment of a well without a proper water and soil test." P. 3 "The possible contamination Petitioners make no offer of proof of contamination of of the East End Well near the well. In fact, testing ofthe subject well indicated Apple Computer should have that the water meets domestic use standards. been a wakeup call for the City..." P. 3 "The Air Quality Control The reference to issues between Apple Computer and Board has sent Apple the Air Quality Board (which was spoken to at the Computer a letter requesting a hearing by Michael Foulkes of Apple Computer) is not list of all contaminants in the relevant to the appeal and is not a factor for the building...." P.3 Council's consìderation or reconsideration of the appeal. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. Response: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts required as grounds for reconsideration to demonstrate that the Council failed to provide a fair hearing. In fact, a review of the hearing shows that the Council heard lengthy testimony &om the appellants and from the applicants as well as numerous facts presented by the city staff. PETITION "We still wish to ask the question was the West End Well tested?" . 4 FINDING Whether or not the West End Well was tested at this time is irrelevant to this application. The West End Well is not on the sub' ect ro ert . The hearin was in 3 ;?-7 regards to a tentative subdivision map approval for property located on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino. All relevant evidence was considered by the council. "The East End well is the well As noted above, the confusion over which well had been that was part of the original tested was fully and adequately clarified by Shawn appeal and because the City Heffner's testimony at the appeal hearing. did not review the correct well at the meeting, we feel that one of the reasons for reconsideration should be this well" P. 4 "The appeal parties had asked The hearing was in regards to a tentative subdivision the City and the California map approval for property located on Greenleaf Drive, Water Company to provide Cupertino. All relevant evidence was considered by the information pertaining to the council. other wells in Cupertino and we hoped to view these well [sic] in order to get a good idea of how close these wells were to the streets, sidewalks and home." P. 4 "We also believe that the The existence of other wells, while not relevant, was California Water Service also made known at the appeal hearing, Company were aware ofthe other wells and also deliberately held back this information &om the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens." P. 4 There is a great deal of verbalizing in this section presented by the petitioner that refers to matters that were previously heard and discussed by the Council, some relevant and some irrelevant as regards the approval of the tentative subdivision map, the subject of the appeal. The rest of the verbiage consists of irrelevant and inaccurate comments by the petitioner regarding well test results. For example, the appellants state in their petition that "...the four metals that were detected are non cancer chemicals but that is not true they cause cancer". The fact is that the report presented at the appeal heàring described the metals as non-carcinogenic as represented by the toxicologist preparing the report, which is fact and science based. (See p, 3, SLR Report.) The appellant's statement to the contrary is not supported by proof or evidence of any kind. It is unfounded and unsupported. This is true of all the statements made by the petitioner in reference to the SLR report provided to the city and presented at the original hearing. An example of the 4 .;J-8 uninformed and irrelevant comments in the petition is the statement that the metal "Vanadium's test results was 6.5 ppb. the detection limit..is 3.0 ppb ... the metal is considered toxic and causes cancer" This statement is completely at odds with the report and has no basis in fact and is without proof or substantiation. The petitioner apparently believes incorrectly that the reporting limit (which the petition calls the detection limit) is the health level of concern. In fact, the reporting limit is the lowest limit at which the metal could be expected to be detected. The health level of concern, called the "action level," is actually 15 ppb, which is well above the tested level. (See Table 1, SLR Report.) The petition similarly goes on to inaccurately list a variety of seemingly random extracts of numbers from the toxicologist's report with no relevance or context. The petitioner has had ample opportunity to respond to anything presented by the staff and the consultant's report with fact based evidence at the hearing: However, even though the petitioners offered no proof, data, facts or science to support their statements, questions or comments, the Council heard and considered everything presented. There is no basis in any material provided in the petition that supports the allegation that the Council failed to provide a fair hearing, 5. Proof of Facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not proceeding in a manner prescribed by law; and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Response: The appellant's petition under this heading presents a lengthy statement of unsubstantiated or untrue remarks about the Council's conduct and consideration at the original appeal hearing. The petition makes no offer of proof PETITION FINDING "The City Council failed to review the Petitioner offers no basis in fact for this overall concerns of the. appeal parties and allegation, the Cuvertino Citizens." P. 6 ". . . the request &om the appeal parties and There is no proof offact of any kind to Cupertino Citizens to extend the 50 feet support this allegation. In fact, that standard to 100 feet to protect the well was suggestion was heard and was not deemed never considered." p. 6 necessary by either the staff or the applicant so no action was needed or taken. Petitioners' other remarks are statements that certain things, such as the location of storm and sanitary sewer lines or proximity of the well to the sidewalk are not acceptable to them. While that may be their opinion, petitioners offer no evidentiary facts to support any ofthe grounds for reconsideration 5 ",7_ q The petition presents a lengthy statement about how the SLR report should be completely discounted because the City"... should not have used... SLR or BC Labs b.ecause the . California Water (Services) Company told them who to use." They further allege that the vendor selection should have been a "... non bias selection and this was not done." 'This discussion was prwiously presented at the original appeal hearing, The Council considered that matter along with all others. The petitioner offered no evidence at the original hearing to support that allegation, nor have they offered any in the petition for reconsideration. This is a rehash of petitioners' earlier objection and, in no way, constitutes an abuse of discretion by the Council. . The balance of Petitioners' claims regarding the Council's "disregard" of evidence and the appellant's "rightto speak... or to discuss the issues" are untrue and/or unsubstantiated. Additionally, Petitioners offer no facts to substantiate their claim that the . City Council abused its discretion by not proceeding in a manner prescribed by law; . and/or rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact and/or rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Conclusion In reviewing the Petition filed by Cathy and Dale Helgerson to Reconsider the Council's decision to deny the original Appeal on November 1, 2005 as noted in detail above, the City Council finds that there is no relevant evidence or proof of facts that support any of the grounds for reconsideration as required by Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B. 1-5. 6 ;;J-IO /ì~1 r 'I ,,~.., d ~\~. ,/1 ~. . City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CI CUPEIQ1NO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK To: City Council, David Knapp, Charles Kilian, Steve Piasecki, Gary Chao From: Karen B. Guerin Subject: PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Date: November 14,2005 ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Attached is a petition for reconsideration regarding TM-2004-05. Wayne Aozasa (CA Water Service), located on Greenleaf Drive. .;7-11 Printed on Recycled Paper rö)ECEDWIe~ Ifl1 NOV 1 0 2005 IJd) ]\[overnber 10,2005 To: The City of Cupertino Office of the Clerk CUPERTINO CITY CLERK From: Cathy & Dale Helgerson Representing: Leo & Jian Wang and the Citizens of Cupertino This reconsideration under 2.08.095 Reconsideration and 208.096 Reconsideration-Sought by Interested Person of the Chapter 2.08: City Council-Rules and Conduct of Meetings this request has been submitted to the City of Cupertino and the City Council representatives. The appeal parties and the Citizens of Cupertino wish the City Council to reject and make void the already approved building Project Proposal No.TM-2004-05 and APN326-33-107 by Wayne Aozasa and the property owned by California Water Service Company. 208.096 Reconsideration-Sought by Interested Person A. At the conclusion of the hearing for reconsideration, the City Council may affirm, reverse, or modifY its original decision, and may adapt additional findings offact based upon the evidence submitted in any and all city hearings concerning the matter. Note: The above paragraph is only part of the policy. B. Grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. Note: The above paragraph is only part of the policy Appeal parties information to support reconsideration: Issue pertaining to the corner of Castine and Greenleaf Dr. West End Well by Garden Gate School and The East End Well owned by the California Water Service Company. The initial well that was contracted out to SLR and BC Labs for testing was the well at the East end of Greenleaf Drive near Dale and Cathy Helgerson's property and not the West End Well as so stated by the Cities representive at the appeal hearing. The appeal representative Cathy Helgerson thought that there was some error when the City representive began speaking of the West End Well as Castine and Greenleaf Drive. ;J-/~ The Santa Clara County Water District should have tested the water and the soil of the well at the East End well and did not. Carol Atwood in the Finance Department at the City of Cupertino was contacted by Cathy Helgerson the Planning Departments representatives where not in and so she asked to talk to someone else. Carol thought I was talking about the West end Well and mentioned the East End well. This brought up the question from Cathy Helgerson what West End well at Greenleaf and Castine? She went on to inform me that their was a well at this location and that the City of Cupertino owned this well and two other wells over near Homestead Rd. I was amazed that the City did not tell us about these three wells even after the appeal parties were inquiring about any other wells in Cupertino. It was known to the appeal parties that there were two other well in Cupertino and thought the California Water Service Company owned them and know one ever let us think otherwise. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. Appeal parties information to support reconsideration: The California Water Company's lawyer at the appeal meeting mentioned that they had provided the City Planning Department with the name of SLR International Corporation and BC Laboratories in order for the City to use this vendor to conduct the work of testing and consultation on the East End Well near the Helgerson's property. With this evidence we feel that the California Water Company should not have been involved in any type of referral or recommendation 'to the City on the choosing of the vendor. We had asked for an impartial and non bias decision as to who would conduct the water test and this did not happen. This evidence was not available prior to this appeal meeting because the City did not divulge it to the appeal parties and to the Cupertino Citizens. The appeal parties would like to know about the possible well testing at the West End of Greenleaf Dr~e near Garden Gate School was this well tested by BC Laboratories or anyone else? If so what where the fmdings and can we have a copy of the test result? Is there any other pertinent information that should be disclosed at this time? Why was the information about the abandoned will kept from the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens? We would also like to know why information about the other two well owned by the City was ;)./:3 withheld? We feel that this is our City and no information should be kept from its Citizens. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its. jurisdiction. Appeal parties information to support reconsideration The Santa Clara Water District had a right to know about the cracked casing in the West End well by Garden Gate School. The City Council approved the abandonment of the well without proper consideration of any possible contamination to the four wells. Even after the approval of the Water Well test of the Well at the East End of Greenleaf Dr. the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens had made the City very aware of their concerns about any possible contamination of any wells in Cupertino and this should have been considered prior to any abandonment of a well without a proper water and soil test. After all with knowledge of wells in general there is a great possibility that one well could contaminate the other three wells in Cupertino and also possibly the aquüer. We feel that the City and the City Council acted way beyond their jurisdiction and failed to take into great consideration the consequences oftheir acts. The City should have requested a water and soil test of the West End well by Garden Gate School in order to protect the community from possible contamination. The cracked casing of the well should have been a strong indicator that there maybe contamination and the extended period of time that this well was allowed to go unattended is a very serious matter. Water building up in wells that lay still can cause a great deal of problems to humans and to animals. The crack in the casing could have released contaminants into the soil and also eventually into the air. The possible contamination of the East End Well near Apple Computer should have been a wakeup call for the City and we do not see that to be the case. The Air Quality Control Board has sent Apple Computer a letter requesting a list of all contaminants in the building and also what they have on their products. They will also be conducting a test on the smoke stack to see what is coming out of the building. I would suggest to the City that they wait for the test results in order to protect the public as a whole. 4. Proof off acts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a Fair hearing. Appeal parties information to support reconsideration: ;7-/'; The representive continued to speak even after Cathy Helgerson tried to correct the error. She asked if they were talking about another test and if so no one had provided information about a test at the West End to the appeal parties. The West End well was the abandoned well and may have been tested prior to abandonment by the City at their own volition and so the appeal parties were never privileged with this information. We still wish to as{ the question was the West End Well tested? The East End well is the well that was part of the original appeal and because the City did not review the correct well at the meeting we feel that one of the reasons for reconsideration should be this well. The error that was made by the Cities representive should not go unnoticed and should be part of the reconsideration to be taken up in the future. The water and soil testing of the West End well at the Comer of Castine and Greenleaf Drive should have been conducted prior to the abandonment of the well and as far as we know was not? The relative information should have been provided to the appeal parties prior to the appeal meeting and it was not. The appeal parties had asked the City and the California Water Company to provide information pertaining to the other wells in Cupertino and we hoped to view these well in order to get a good idea of how close these wells were to the streets, sidewalks and homes. The appeal parties were never informed that the City owned the three well one at the West End of Greenleaf Dr. and the other two near Homestead road. We also believe that the California Water Service Company were aware of the other wells and also deliberately held back this information from the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens. We feel that the Cupertino Citizensbave every right to know what wells the City owns and the City has no right to hold back any information. The Santa Clara County Water District notified the City via Registered letter on October 2, 2003 that they were in Well Violation and the City took two years to abandon the well. The City had previous to this many correspondents with the City about the well and this are on record at the Santa Clara V alley Water District. The appeal parties have copies of these records submitted by Peter Thiemann at the Santa Clara Water District. The City fmally executed the well abandonment on believe September 24, 2005. The City did not notify the Santa Clara County Water District that the well had suffered a crack in the well casing in 1989. Jim Davis in the Public Works department at the City of Cupertino also stated to the Cathy Helgerson that the well had been out of commission since 1968. We are not sure why it was out of commission and would like to know? The problem is that wells that have not been properly dealt with can become contaminated and also contaminate other wells and so we feel that the West End well could be the contaminated well. ;;J~/ S 1) 1,23 and 4 ABC of this reconsideration request contain proof but we will go further to mention Page 5 of 20 Water Analysis Report. The metal Vanadium's test results was 6.5 PPB - Parts Per Billion and the DLR - Detection Limit for purpose of reporting by state is 3.0 PPB - Parts Per Billion. This metal is considered to be toxic and causes cancer. Vanadium is used in place of steel because it is softer and more flexible. This metal may be being used to produce the IPods at Apple Computer and other computers. Table 1 - Well Sampling Analytical Results Page 2 or 4 - shows Reporting Limit at 3.0 and Reported Concentration at 6.5 they also Mention the Action Level this is the Over Reporting Limit that the Lab set not the State. This table shows that the levels are a danger to humans and animals. Volatile Organic Analysis page 7 of 20 shows the following: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surrogate) at 95.6 this eliment is Discharge from industrial chemical factories. Toluene-d8 (Surrogate) 98.7 this eliment is discharge from petrolume factories. 4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surrogate) 89.5 Note: These levels are in percents not PPB and should be listed as PPB. Prop 65 lists the no risk level for 1,2-Dichloroethane at 100 the levels is very close and therefore we feel this should be of concern. . The Non Detect of or ND listed on all of the Water report is not acceptable and we feel that the levels .even if listed at Non Detect should have been made known to us. Especially if they were very close to the mid point levels of violation toxicity. . The Water Analysis (Metals) Quality Control Report - Precision & Accuracy pg. 11 Of 20 shows the source Result detection as follows: Cadmium 21.137 Prop 65 has a 4.1 as a level of great concern Note: Cadmium resembles Vanadium and is used as such for on computers and IPods. Lead Source Results .65300 Prop 65 at .05 and the Cancer Potency at .28 from studies. Copper also has a reading result at 5.7190 ;;J -It, Nickel at 2.7430 We would do well to look at the results from the spike levels and the way the information was assembled. The letter from Gary Chao stated that the 4 metals that were detected are non cancer chemicals that is not true they cause cancer. The mixing of metals or chemicals can also cause stronger toxicity and increase the chances of cancer. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion: a. Not preceding in a manner required by law: and/or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact: and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported By the evidence. (Ord. 1807, & 1, 1999) Appeal parties information to snpport reconsideration 1) The City Council failed to review the overall concerns ofthe appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens. The concerns regarding the setback of 50 feet from the homes and the request from the appeal parties and Cupertino Citizens to extend the 50 feet standard to 100 feet to protect thewell was never considered. The concern of the association that will be formed for the 3 new homes and that this association will be in charge of maintaining the sewer lines on the property. The Sanitation department has stated they will not oversee them. This is of great concern to the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens. The 5 feet from the house to the property line of home no. 1 and the sewer lines going behind the house within this small area is not acceptable. The storm drain is a concern if it is in the back area of lot 1 next to the sewer line. This was never clear to the appeal parties is the storm drain will be in front ofthe house or behind? The 5 feet from the operating water well to the sidewalk is unacceptable and a danger to the well. Our concerns that the well maybe contaminated already or maybe in the future because wells can be easily contaminated. Example Morgan HilI ;J-J7 and the Perchlorate contamination. The City Council rendered a decision to proceed even after Cathy Helgerson mentioned that the EP A and the Air Quality Control Division were going to investigate the weDs. The CUy should not have used the Vendor SLR or BC Labs because the California Water Company told them who to use. The appeal parties asked specifically that they wished the City to conduct the vendor selection with a non bias selection and this was not done. The EP A is in the process of investigation and the District Attorney has also been contacted and will be looking into it. The safety of the East End water weD should be protected from any future or if there is contamination should be cleaned up by who ever caused the contamination. The overaD process that the City has taken to proceed with this building project do not reflect the Cupertino Citizens wishes the 78 signatures that were submitted to the City held no value and were overlooked. The fmdings that the City submitted in the Water Report should not be admitted as evidence because of the non bias requirement set by the City and the appeal parties. City Laws have been violated rendering a decision in which the fmdings are facts this did not happen. The City did not disclose aD of the evidence to the appeal parties at the time of the meeting and is still holding back information. The disregard of evidence by the City has caused a great deal of hardship to the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens. The well water is of great concern and the only concern that we see the City taking is to build more homes without our permission. All 4 water wells the aquifer, reservoirs, recharge ponds and treatment plants for our water should be of great concern to everyone. The appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens feel also a responsibility to the builder developer of the proposed building site and we feel that he would hold a great liability if there is contamination in the well water or the soil on the property. The appeal parties also feel a responsibility to protect the Garden Gate Children at Garden Gate School that is right across from the West End Well that was just recently abandoned. The neighbors around this well may wish to buy this well and again we feel a responsibility to inform them of the possible liability of contamination that they would take on. ~Hð The laws require that we the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens be given a fair and just hearing this was not the case. We were not even provided with the policies and procedures related to filing a reconsideration until we asked for it. The lack of this form 2.08.095 Reconsideration and 2.08.096 Reconsideration- Sought by Interested Person would have made my appeal request void. This disturbs the appeal parties and hope that the City will develop a form in which any party interested in the Appeal process or the Reconsideration procees can easily fill out and submit. These forms should be made readily available at the Clerks office and the parties should be made aware of this at all City Council meetings. The appeal parties were told that they could not speak to the City Council behind closed doors or were not given the right to speak on separate occasions to discuss the issues prior to the appeal, during the appeal or ~unng the reconsideration process. The appeal parties are not sure about this process and feel that this may have been against the rules law and fairuess. We the appeal parties and the Cupertino Citizens demand Justice in this matter. 25~~~ Cathy Helgerson ,;J fl Action Level - 12 - 1750 - i7@. C-<D ~~~~;r t¥~A -<.. ___ () {1 .AI r, \~$ . Ql-~ V'i~. r· Røporteø Reportl1"l9 LimIt ConcentråtlQn 19 till. 0.50 NO 0.50 till. 0.50 NO TABLE 1 Well Sampling Analytical Rasults Greanleaf SubdvisJOJ1 Greenle;lf Avehue, Cupertino, California ....~ ii.". ..;;1 ....--",-..... n/1,. II ¡¡ l<. ,;..~? b~~- I r" "~AA..,V· .. ,'~ "'. ~ C:;;;,.¡;¿oP_ ~,..,ð ÆjZ..,¡.(",,?--t1 - - -- W. 45 ~ J22.. .§Qt 0.006 §Q. 27 ~ 1.! ~ .till. ND 36 lš- 1Q. ill ~ ~ NO 0.10 M!Q. 1150 - ..1Q.. ß8 ....M.. ....:!.:!. 0,50 -õ.44 - !.O ............. 0.05 ..l&.. ...?::\h 0.004Q Ul"llm - ~ uQ/L ~ uglL Ohemlstry - ~ ~ ~ ~ ---!lliI.ih ~ ---!lliI.ih ---!lliI.ih ~ ~ pH l,lni\$ umhoslcm ~ Slr¡iL t;nSIL Ana¡yle t-Butyl alcoh~ Ethvl I-butyl Ether p-&,iT1-Xylenes o-XyienE/$ , .. GtInera Totel Recoverable Ca Tolltl Recover¡¡ble Mg Totel Recoverable No total Recoverable K - BiéarbOliOOe CI!fbo~a\x! _ Hydroxl<:1e Chlortde Nitrèle as ¡ijo, Sulfate _ pH Electrical Conduclivit¥ @ 25'Ç Total Qissolved Solids æn 180'C Perchlor¡¡le AI'IatY1loel Method ~ ~ ~ 624.2 Semple Date 0éJ08I05 09/08105 09/0B/05 09/0B/05 Sample ID LA5-~-91 LA5-U,01 LAS-U.,o1 LAS-2<i-01 ,200.7 WI WI gQQ2 W. W. W. 300.0 3õõ.õ êQ.@ 150.1 gQ1 1§Q:1 314.0 09l0BliJ5 09/0BlO5 09/0B105 09/08/05 09/08105 09/08105 09/08/05 09/08/05 09/08105 (19/08/05 09/08105 09I0B/05 09/08105 09/08/05 LAS-~ LA5-U-1)1 LAS-u.:.1ì1- LA5-24-q1 LA5-24.¡)1 1..A5-U-Q1 LA5-24-I)1 LAS-U.¡)1 LA5-Z4"Ò1 LA5-U.¡)i LA5-24.Q1 LA5-24.q1 LAS-24.q1 LAS-Z4-01 :£: ~~~~ o ""SOI/ltalla"..'" L I SUlIIIIe",alllll!"CD~_1JÍ1 1ff't5 5 e;f,_~,,- r~ 1000 6.1.1 5õ ~ 4.0 - JQ., ..2Q.. ..EQQ 15.0 - 100 - rl~09 NO Ñb Nt) ~ ~ ~ ~ Nb 2.9 Nb M' ,- ~ t 1. it M.. ~ lQ... ~ 2.0 -- M_--, 5.ò~ rÞ~ UlfL ~!fL uq!L ug/L ugfL u~L ug/L U¡¡iL _..\!JÌ!::- Ug/L u¡¡!L UQ/L ~ ~=== fJD L Cl4-~ f;J.. PaQo2014 r-JqrJ ~, , ~ MI>t¡¡1$ Totid IRecoverabfeAI "1:0"11 Recoveraþle Sþ Total Røooverable A$ T ptal Rê<:over¡¡t;>le Be TQt~1 Røooveraþle Cd Total RecoÔverable Cr TQt¡¡1 Récovel1ilt;>ie Cu T ptal Recover¡;¡ble PI;> Tot~1 Re<:óverable I'll T QU! Recoverable S9 Total ReCQverat¡l~ Tòtal Recovel1ilþle In ~ ~ 200.8 ~ 200.8 ~ 200.8 - W:§. W:§. 20o.a W:§. ~ 200.8 - 20o.a 2õõ.ã DJ:'^"" j ¡(¡·'ll.tl I 1'1 \0.<'" 1 ~:~.:..;...-!- s;-/\.~· ~~ ''4'" 4/\ {J't-. 09/08105 09/08/05 1.19/0811)5 09108/05 09108/05 ,09/08105 09/08IÖ5 09108i05 09/0&05 09/08/05 . 09108105 09/08105 -! ~\:.:.;;- ~b~ "" ~ LAS-24-Q1 LAS-24.Q1 LAS-Z4.q1 LA5-24.()1 LAS-:M.()1 LAS-24-q1 LAS"4'!-q1 LAS"24'()1 LAS-4'!·q1 LAS-24.()1 LAS-24* LAS-24 1 1 (' \}J ('LI <"1.-\'_-;;,_ v )r {-. TI!IiI:IIEt 1 v?.xIß LaÞoratorie$,Inc , Drinkin$ water samples Cupertino Malt Suíton Project: Prôj..¡ N¡¡¡nþer: Pro.!ect MftMger: Water Analysis (General Chemistry) QUality ControllReport - Þrec:ision & Accuracy j-. ..' ' :¡;.. ~~,~¡ ~ ..,/ (7 i The Soun:e Group 3451-C Vincen¡ Rd. PIe~3It1 Hili CA, 94$23 . I,· ~ , {'. I. l, /\~. V . Òv ., 0,. '" d'! I, íV ,v -. ~IM ....". . ' j Lab -125 -125 125 125 -120 -120 75 -125 75 -125 75 75 75 75 COllt! ~.alfh ~. QC Sam' ~esult 8010300 8010300-0UP1 t)uplh:atìl 43.439 43,321 rn¡1l 8010300-IIIS1 Matrix $plka 43.489 15i.20101,01 mQIl BOloaOO-MS01 MatriX SplkaPuplleate 43.489 152.37 101,01 mQIl .- BOI0300 BOI03oo-0UP1 Duplicate Ò,3ß513 O.,371S5 - ;;;Qil BOI0300-MS1 Matrix Spike 0.38513 22,,,57 22,35ð mgll. BOlO300-MS01 Matrix Spike Pupllo.... 0.38513 22.648 22.358 mg/L -.-.. -. .---",..---------..---..--- BÖlO300 BOl0300-PUP1 Duplicate Wa,91 10U3 "'QII. BOIP300·MS1 Matrix Spike 106,91 211.69 101.01 mgll. ~___~_,. BOI0300-114501 Matrix SplkeOupHollte108.91 211.90 _101.01._J'Q/L . 0.09 aloarbonale BÖ103S9 BOI0389-D\JÞ1 Oupll<:a1ê 600.96 691.92 mgll 1.00 BOI038m-Ms1 Matrix Spike 000.96 99~.40 304.15 mgll. 98.9 80·120 BOI0389-MSD1 Matrix Spike Oupfioâ!e 600.96 999.32 304.75 mgll 2.10 1ó1 10 80 -120 Carbonate._ BÕíõ3š$ BOI038H,uP;--Duplioatê NO NO __ .-';;;g¡¡:- --~---10 _:~ Hydroxide BOI03S9 BOI0389-(JU"1 Duplioat$ NP NO 11I1g1L 10 p¡:¡--- BOIQ4Be eOI0466-QUP1 Puplita!, -i:3'$4Õ-r.3BOO ,,. pH Unils 0.0211 - 200 -- E:lectrlcal C<¡nductMty@ 25 ¢ BOI0471 BOI0471-OUP1 Pupil,,"!. 61.000 80.000 -----,;;;,hos/cm 1.65 10 -- Perohlorate .- \ ~",)¡.? BOI0490 B01049C>-OUP1 Dupllöel. NO /A-'-- - mg/L --~š---'--" ~ v-Jr-- 801049C>-M81 Malhx Spike NP ( 0.Ø20732. 0.02Q408 mglL ~ 102 80 _ t> . s..~ 8010400-MSD1 Me~b: Spike Dupll¢ilte ND ~Q21009 0.020408 mgIL 0.9715 ~. 15 80 Total RaoovlI'aþle Calalum BOI0581 BOI0587-PUP1 Duplicate 75.$25 e6"""'~ mglL 0 3 20 BOI05B7-Ms1 MelrlxSplke 15.525 ßoI.$99 10,204 m91l 92.8 B010587-MSD1 MatrixS¡¡lke Duplicate 15,525 ßoI.~ 10.2Q4 mgIL 4.88 68.4 20 70tal Recoverable Magnas"'m '---aÕiõs37-ooiÐ587~DUP1 OUpllOe'" - 35.520 35.794 - m91L õ.76B - 2Q BOI0587-Ms1 MatrixS~lke 35.520 45.$28 ~0.204 mgIL 101 __ BOI0587-MSD1 ,,~atrlxS~lke Dupllca.!:......]5.520 45.~ _~0.204 _!!'i.!: 97.9 !B010587 BOIQ51I7-DUP1 Du¡jll¢ate 511.999 81.138 fI1g1L BOIQ587"MS1 Mattix Spll<e 66.999 15.1i63 10.204 1!>9/L BOI05B7-MSD1 .Melrlx Spll<e Duplb,;", 8$.999 1T.224 10.204 rlJ9/L 80-120 10 80· 120 ----.----.--.., 1U -t20 120 104 80 - 120 104 10 80 . 120 ---------"'""-..--_-----.---" 10 97,6 ~OO 80 80 20 ._, 20 RÞ[) "'" 10 ~O to Percent Rec!lYeI 108 108 99.8 '99.6 RPD """'" 0.387 0.00 0.0749 3.12 0,207 0.00 - :1.51 , Constituent ~"I Chloride uS ND3 -~--_. Total Reco'~rable Sodium Nitrat. $u~a'" Ìl8en Page 20 The re.rult$ tn tlf/oS repørtapply 1(J the Irlihp¡", i:Jmrlytld in aC:rJrrlance 'WIth t~ ohabt cfcu.Y1Ddy dœum_nt.. ?'1J¡iJ a11tlé'tfctJl t~f1't mriSt b, ,.~~d In NI ~IQ; linfd ír¡ [bis 1'ql1'A[;ate (of tht ..ch1$~ lie uhht S\J.bmitoo¡ paty, f}C Lt~.lnc. IWUmts no responsibnity r.r I'f:pŒt ..h~ ~ramtl. Jdachfne:n[ Of ~ki.td ~"" inwrprjllil.åøn. " 'lÍ100Ad.. Court· Bilir$lleld, CA 93308' (661) 327-4911' FAX (661) 327-19qs· www.bdo.b5..~ 2.43 BC Labora¡orjes Driuldng water 'ampl.. Cup~rtino Mati Sul'tOlJ Project: Project Number: Project MllJllagct: '/ )-~f 6 -,\, \ ... The Sourc" Group 3451·C ViucehtRd, Ple~t Hili CA, 94523 Re.~Or1ed~ e Organiö Analysis (SPA Method 524.2) nstru.. ment 10 Dilution Batch 10 Biås - - 09109106 09112105 13:32 svml Ms,v4 1 BOI0280 NÒ uglL 0,50 EPA.-524.2 09/09106 09112105 13:32 SVm' 1:;¡s.:y¡' 1 "BõÏ526ã Nï> uglL õ:5õ EPA-524.2 09109106 09112/05 13:32 ;m;; . MS,V4 1 BOI0280 NO -. - --~. --._--~~---,..,..--..... - u91L 0,50 EPA-524,2 09109105 09112/05 13:32 svm MS·V4 1 'BOI0280 NO ugll ~~-~2 09109105 09112105 13:32 'VITI MS,V4 1 BOI0200 ~ -- -,..-- '-- ---------,-------- uglL 0,50 EPA-524,2 09109105 09112105 13:32 svm MS·Y4 1 BOI02eO NO -- -----¡ uglL 0.50 EPA-524,2 09109105 O!il'12105 13:32 svm MS·Y4 1 BOI0280' NO uglL O.SO - EPA.524',2 09109105 09(121~ s.m MS·Y4 1 9010200" NO- _ ~__4'_ uglL 0.50 EPA-524!,2 09109105 09l1210S 13:32 .'iffi MS·Y4 1 Bm02e!) NO _.- --~ - - .~ uglL O.SO EPA.S24.:2 09109105 09112105 13:32 S'iffi MS-y4 1 6010280' NO uglL 1.0 EI'A.524.2 09109105 09'12105 13:32 .',,;:;-- MS-V4 1 aOl0280 NO -_.~. uglL ¡¡¡-- EI'A,524.2 09109105 09/12105 13:3~;--MS,v41 . " 6010280' NO ~_. .----..---. ----.,.-'--,..-. ugl~ 0.50 EI'A·S24.2 09109J.o5 09/12105 13:32 ovm MS-V4 1 B010280' NO ---,-......-.-;--'------------ "g/L 10 EPA-S24,2 09109iO$ 09112105 13:32 own MS-V4 1 a01028b, NO uglL 0,50 . EPA-524,2 09109105 09112105 13:32 svrn MS-VoI< 1 ß010260 Nt) ..- ug/L a:so-- EPA.524.2 09109105 0911211)1; 13:32 svrn MS-V", 11;10102&0 n>lO -, -' . <-------,............_-..",..........--.------~--~ 1!IIL!:. 0,50 EPA·524,2 091Q9/O$ 09/12105 13:32 svm MS-V4' 1 aOl02:ll0 n>l11 _._~.._ ,2-l;>lc~IQrbetham!HI4 76 - 114 (LCL· UC~) EI!'A·S~4,2 09iØ9I06 09/12105 13:32 svm MS-V4 1 1;10102:110 Toluene-d8 -¡s;¡".,;g;¡;;: 88 -110 (LCL - UCL) EII'A-524.2 091!!9I05 09l12/0!113:32 svm MS-V4 -:¡- 80102:110 --~-- H!romof~Q"'benzene(SurrOga.te; 86-115 (LCL-UCL) EI\'A-524.2 09109I05Ò91121Q5 .13:32 sVln MS-V4.'" 80102:110 ~-_._- ------"------ -- -~-~-----;, ~ " ,..11, ' /, t-~¡(."¡~·'rl"-'" ·1 cÍ'Iok'¡d._),. ~k'1 fI c,J~ fl., <.-,r>!A-ð,J_f(~ is-\jkl·...W.·C'''"t r' '''-''',.¡'' - '''' ~U':. ' \(7" - IJ, . -.. ~ 0 t/t'\N1 -",,1A,C;:' J, '7/ ¡ " t . '. ¡'''''''<9'C¡''''' ! ~~. ,~ .. /,ir"~ It:),. oS "r-...... " 1 .z..?:rt-'1 q;.t.{;'. :" r'....~...,D~" ',~Ce¡(~\!A,,!l\4,cÇ- Ii '~'1~ ~ ()¡'c' I). -",~.;:"..4. .... - 1(ll,,"'l,,:¡,¡..,¡'~. Ib'..,:'~' ..~~·r.", ,.:t' Vi """-.",,. .>~ tr' ~v.:~ \"" #' ,\ (')" ¡.-u -_~ ,~~ -, ".- IJ' \. V ¡C Labo.tíi(;>ries 1h< r....U, /n ,hi< r.porl ~oply 10 ¡~ ,a/TIjJ¡" anaiyl'" ,n accorda... wi'h !lte chain of MIIJdY docomi.nJ, ;'hJs aoo/yll,,1 repori ,I !Ji! reprod, NI fØI11u IUrttd.in rhb rcpOt~ ~"f(J ~ødusi~ we of 1ht tubn1Í~nß pt.~. BC l.A.borator~. 1nt. .IJ;OU'.S nø r~ìbi5[r IPrl'ClpOtt al.tcørion. -'¢pal I de:Þ.chmtlu 01' third pnn.)' intJrprecuion. 4100 Ada. Court. lIoktróÎldd, CA 93ð08' (661) 327,4911 -FAX (661) 321-1918· ab..CQm Qmal~ en¡lnly, ~,!!.7 <1\"20 I" Analyst Doi,Ìg liIarwick ~un Dat,mmo 12:00:OQAM Prep Date ~"t"od EPA-624,2 TRIP $LANK, 9/812005 p-¡g ~ 0,50 MDL Units ug/C Volátl Result NO NO -- .1,2,2-TeWlchloroethane I () ;'" NO __ _, _ L-, Tetrachlö,,'.thene .. NO II! --..-_~~_ Toluene I SO, () . r; NO 1,1, Hrlohloroethame ,'2lH;! Iì ,.5 NO 1,1,2-Trlohloroethane c: , r:; ND TrichlOroétnene NO TrichlofOflu~romethane Vinyl chloMo Total Xyklrnes Total Tnlhalemethane& ND I-Arrwl Mathylether' NO I-Buly! alool\ol NO Ethyl t.butYhether-~-l NO , p. & m-Xyløne$ NO --._, J·Xylene 0508938-02 M¡'\l """"" S ~ ,.i Constituent Metl>yl t-butyl ether 1,1,1,2-Teitachloröathane laiD: BCL. Saml ... , /" c. \ t , ç'. ¡ ,t-', ,,_4.><, "'. " ~... . ,,~ Ine, e? * -' ~ ,. i.. A £'i./..."".,4··' '¡Ji"''''-'~~''>.'' . ; ,.;1 Ll:f,Þoratories, BC 6:12 0912\i05 RopOrttdl project: Drinking watèr s8111l'Jes Pr'\ioct Number: Cupertino PrQj<:ct Monagòr: Matt SUlton (' ,,~-yV'--íl._ ,. Sourc~ (Iroup ~51 -C Vint>C!!t Rd. leas,",! HIIJ CA, ~4523 Water Analysis (Metals) Qtålity Control R~IP0rt . Precision & Accuracy \ vI" ) ,"' ~ ,,,,,,, .." ". J,'~ Jre:;l¡' ,J (j sour, match)D QC Sample Ie QC sam~es~ Result Units 8010419 ¡lOI041g..PUP1 D~pllcate NO ND !J.;iL 8010419-M51 Matm SPike NO 19.228 ,,0,406 ugIL 6010419.MS01 Matrix Spike Duplioate NO 19.191 20.406 ugIL 20 --ëõiÕ41e 8010419imJP1 DUplloate- ND NP -- uglL To BOI0479-MS1 MatrlxSpl1<.~ ND 60.$31 51.020 ug/L ,11.9 BOI047g..MSDI Ma\tþ(SpII<eDuplli:at. ND 6D.143 51.020 ugIL 0.844 118 20 BOI0419 B01041g..0UPI Duplicate ~ ND NO . ugIL ----~---. 2Ø BOIœ411HAS1 M.~IxSpii<e ND 22.16;7 2Q.408 ug/L 109 70 ·130 BOJ0479-MSD1 Matrix Spike Dupficste ND 22.54'4 20.408 .glL 0.913 110 2Q 70 ·.130 ~. ----'- '. ----~-_.------'_. , 8010419 BÖ10479-0UP1 Dupllcat. NO Nt .!ò'L 20 ~( 0010479.MS1 Matrix Spike ND (". :ii~I:i['::::> 20.405 ugiL 104 70·130 ..J "'-~~- "''''''I 0010479-MSD1 MattixSplk$ Dupllçot$. NO 20.711. 20.408 uglL t.94 . 102 20 10 ·130 ",Ium.., ãõiÕ419 B01047g:¡¡¡jp2 Dvpl1!",t. ~- ND ...",,"~~-., -- uglL -----. -w-·~---·__..- B0I0479.M52 MatrixSpiU ND ~ 20.408 ug/L 9M 70·130 _, . _ S01047!1,M5D2 Ma\tþ( Splka Dupllalt. ,ND .. 1, l' 20.408 u91l _ 2.01 8M 2Q ~2° ..130_____ Total ReC;Ovenlb~ Copper BDI0479 s010479.DUP1 Oup"cel. 6.0510· ugIL 5,64 20 SOI0479..MSI M"¡ri~ Spike 6.0510 51,597 51.020 ugIL 89,3 70·130 " ..;:¿;ý SOI0479-MSDI Mlilttix Spill. D~pllca!e 1.051!)" 52,840." 51.0:20 ugf~ 2.65 91.1 . 20 10· 130 ~otS ReC:;;venlbl~ L.~QJ p, ( ~¡1~. SOI0419-DUpl oUPlicete/jM5:ro. 0 .3Â;. q:§15....0. O'\~.) ug/!. 5~--20-----_·_--- , /'JV'j."op ¡'I) ~ì,,~¿,<' B010479-M51 MatrtxSpille Ol85:!OO i... ....9}7.!../·, 51.020 u\ll. 95.5 70-130 '-::.........~_ ;.ç:.{i~" e010479-M8D1 Mat~.pl<.DUPIiC8t$ . 8~0 '''.' 4;8,R~1.../51.02~~1l 2.05 93.~.20 7~.:~_.___.___ Total ReQcverable NicKel ¡<t 10419 B010479-0UP1 Pupllut. (. .8530 ...,,/2.7430'" . uglL 3.93 20 \j' BOI0479-MS.1 Metrlx SPike. I 2.8530) 49.521 ! 51.020 u¡;¡ll. 91.5 70 ·130 ______._- _ BOI0419.MSD1 Matrix Splke,Dupllcato.., 2"~§.30/ '51-05.5...// 51.0~_ u¡¡iL _ 4.49 95.7____. 20 ~.: 130 -.--..- Tot.1 Re¡;Qvel1lbli> Selenlun BOJ0479 BOI0419-iDUP1 buplicate NO ND . uglL 20 eOl0411H1S1 M.t... Spike NO 86.031 5'1.020 ugl\. 129 10· ~30 BOI0419-MSD1 M.tti>< Spjke Duplicato .NP.. _. 6Ø.r¡¡1 51.020 U91L 1.54 131 20 10·130 \';103 TotaIRe_O(9bl.Venefu - 6010479 aOI0419-DUP1 Duplì:at. /6.5()4D~f·6.25\Ò1,. Ugl\.--3,84 20"-----. ") ., n¡ , i' ,. aOI0419-MS1, Mall'Ó< Bplke ( 6.1SOiI0 f- 2$.532) 20.408 uglL i "'-"',93.2 70· 130 .<.i!. )~AA,-M~-:2. (; (\"Ù,>V1 1 0'_1" SQI0419-MSD1 Mattb< Spike OUPllcetO\,.!:~~/>~~~7,o/ 20.4D8 . ugl1. \, tt; '~i,)998 . 20 . 70" 130... . BC Lab.oralòries TIot r""'/'" /JI m,mparl opp/y t~ Ih. """PI.. ema/yred In arrorôa>u:è "Uh the Ø>mn a/naIad)' o'CC1Ûi<ir/it:'-1'hfi,,","ytl,::al r¢part mII$t /¡e' r'pJ~dUc",1 i" Its .nllrely. Ibceð illo mi. ttpm tie ro, dE c!~1:Ye qJe:of ~ so.'Ibmitda¡ pucy. ac labo~rics.lntl. _\:"EÀIti no rt1pqn,il:¡ilitr for 1Ç0I:'t ù«I'It:iÓn. t4pmcìon. kl:tdurienl Gr third parry in.C>è,pretation,. 4100 Ad.. Court' Bak<!rsfìeld, CA 9~308' (661J.,327-,1ð' 1 · FAX (661) ~;¡:7·19IS 'www.bclabo.ootl". Pogo 1'1 Qf,O 70 -130 70.130 -~....__.~---'-""'..- 70.130 70·130 -._---~_._,-- R~ 20 Percent RecoVGI 94.2 94.1 _.~, " R'PD 1015 o $plke Add.d onstltuent ota\ ROlX!vonaÞle Antimony otal Roc<Wtrabl. Arsenic 'olal Recoverable 6el)'lIlu", iot.1 R.cov.....bl. CaØmlum () ! d1,..,.ð< fy!ß V' I --~ . Recoverable Chro , Nt <dbl" 1, rota I -f ~e.f·Mltf·-f ~1JMf " LaborWories, Inc. -" a.....,.,)( , 6,!2 BCL $ample ID: ' Name: ,Bel'W1, Const¡tù' t. . füñ'""""" Ifu. an ~Result Urilt$ PQL MDL DatelTln1e Anal: ot II) DIMloo BatohdD Bias Quais Talal R~cOV.,abl!i Alumlnum- L...-..._ , 2 ~ Q ~-~ ~~- =--~.- ~_ s. NO . uglL' ...5.0 EPA-2òQ.7 .09116/.05 .oQ'19!05 12:5<) ARI 'E,OP1 1 801.0587 14 TataIR~coVerabIeAntll1!lø. r-- _.l . . " --- ~~- _ ny. tø "NO uglL ( 2..0 ) EPA-20g.B 091141.05 .oQ'14!Qõ 14:2.0 pp: 'E-EL1 1 '11010419 ND Total R~coverabIeAra.enlc .£. " ... " .~. -~, .--~-----, , , ;;¡.. ND . uglL i'~-'>;.). EPA-2.oQ.B .09114/05 0$'14/.05 14:2.0 PPi PE-ELi 1 8010479 ND TataIR~caVerab~ 8ery"u", , - ''''.' . - ,,~~-' - " .---~- . . . . "I' J NO "gIL \.. 1..0 ) EPA-2.oQ,8 .091141.05 OQ'141Qõ 14:2.0 PP~ PE·EL 1 1 8010479 .0..004' Total R""overable Cadmkrn r!-. -'~ - ---' ---- -, ,.- ¡:------_~~_",.... l NO uglL C..."nb':,;') t:PMOO.8 .091141.05 .oQ'14/05 14:20 PP~ PE-EL1 1 801.0419 ND otafiR~COverabll Chtomlum I'~" ,. ' ~ .:) - - ~ -- ,---.--- - .., .. ,.:1 (il I '() ~ ugIL (_,~Æ..é EPMOO,8 .09114/.05 .09/16.'05 12:45 PP~ PE-EL1 1 0010479 ND rataIRecoV.rablí!Caþp.~ I"" ., ' , -, --- -- ---- rota! RecóverablèLe . (~ :'>iI¡ $"4(6.~.' uglL \..,2,.0 ì EPM.o..o.8 .091141.05 .09114/05 14:2~Pi !E-$L~ 0010419 .0,.0300 __í!d __ ~ NO ugIL 1. ErA-200.S .09114/.05 .091141.05 14:2.0 P?i PE-EL1 1 8010419 NO.. rotal Recoverable NiCkel I' ~, . ,- . ~ --~. ---..---.- . , oX)¡ I ().( 2.9) uglt. :i..o / EpMOO.8 .09114/.05 .o9I1410!i 14:20 ÞPi PE-EL1 . 1 001.0419 .0,.016 rataIR~""".rabIeSel..lum;:;:O t::; '¡¡lye - ug/L C 2:q: EI"A-200.8 091141.013 .o9I141Q5 14¡2Ô--¡;¡;¡ -~1""""'" 801.0419 0.17 "..---- rataIR~covorabJtitV'~adiurn ' ' .. "" ,,' ,,- - ~.._-- ~_ . . . ~. _ t .? (6.5 ¡ ugIL l 3.0 EPA-200,8 091141.013 u9l14/.o5 14:20 PP: PE-EL 1 1 801.0479 ND rataIR~c."erablit_~_ Ji':"'ð .' ~) '6'8'\ uglL (5..0 EPA-2.o.o,8 .091141013 õeiW,;¡¡;;¡;zOPi>: -PE-ëL:¡-'- 8010479 NO - . ,. . -;-- LLjL. ¿~~~~~~ -- ~ ~ ~. I V ø \N\ l NO'" Lilts S~{e(..> _-,.. ~\ ~~ fß,~t~ ll?~.. '¡:'J' t:_ \; If) - f'-\) r-J. '~?-f0 ~ ," ~. '\~~'~ ~~ ~'\.. ¿, Ç) ^ 'Df' ¡JDtJ p~Q I ,~ . ' 't,"'" :'7..::;¡; ""/'. QJ fI¡.J~.~ -.~ ~. N. lJ-r~ Ill" 11\-)< , ~ ~t- e... .¡., r"'" , N!- L ' "I ? C4v\\-¡¡.þ ~~ ~_ ;¡¡ i<J>""ot h..~ . t (¡L% 114C-t... ~~ - ;.)/'7 . Th, ruult.r.ll1 this t,lj.l·~)r! øpc9' 101M .rampk, ana/pied ill Q:CCóh'hm;e wfth ,ne cl41m oj '"-SJ CUl,nent. This '''fla/yti~al report mu,Jt be reprøduad i1¡ its entirely. the ctcll$liivc II5C: q( the tq~thiHing ~I'1If. BC l..Wor:ttMÌt:l. Inc:, 4¥útn~ no r¢'pønA'bility: fu( rtp>tI ahtatÏon. ,.dcuchmtnt 0" thif(! palty In!'Ctp<<:tádon, ) Ad", Court , B~ki;rs6eld, CA 93308' (661) 327-4911 . PAX (661)1327..1918. ob..C<I>m Pn¡¡e$ of20 Drinking water ...nples Cupør1ino Matt Sutton !'roject, Project Number: Project MPIlater: (hUf4PO;l c:ú "0 _"," .-' I The SOllrce Group 345 ).ç Vi~cent Rd. Pleasant Hijl CA, 94$Z3 fyY)~ ~"""'-; ~fe; 050$93a-Ci1 1.0.1 rau.h: AU >~,. Sonia (Io¡o VoIIe\1·Woì.ec f.'iß'uidÔ WELL DESTRUCTION COMPLETION NonCE I'DE 'Z·tS'í08-N-9Sj Inspecio1: c;r;e1J ow:¡: rUling comPAny: Consultantø i~;5: . {x;~w" alar; ¡cums ot.~JI." C~¡;;i~1: Casing Perfófãle<1: S.aling Material: , 0 10 j OOrillOu! DBaii 1> Backfill -' W.&lITyp..: OHSA )ifRotaFY OO'lI\ar(se. o D!r"Gt PU$h 0 Cabi1> T 00'\ comm ents.', Nest Cement ~tO Sack Sand Slurry o Bel\lònilè 0 Oth..,{Se. Commeo\$) o E."t.Cavata o <HhM {See cu.m.m~ O.sùu<:ticn MelhodD' P G t "re&SUfe· roü Bail, Perf, &Sac1<fi1i WeU destroyed according to provísions of Sáñtâ Ctara VaUey WaXer Ofs-tric-t Permit? Yes o No (S.a Comm",,"" (¡PS Cooräíhà!èSO Lat: Comments: .I.ong: ,v 50 -s /lAð.t ~ mstributíon: ORIQIHAL-PermU U..; 'fÉLLOW-CityICo