The URL can be used to link to this page

2-7-12 Searchable Packet Table of Contents Agenda3 Library Commission interviews No written materials9 Teen Commission update on the Anti-Tobacco Grant project No written materials10 Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code 54957.6); Agency negotiator: Carol Atwood; Employee organizations: CEA and OE3 No written materials11 January 10 City Council minutes Draft minutes12 January 17 City Council minutes Draft minutes14 January 23 City Council minutes Draft Minutes24 Accounts Payable for period ending November 10, 2011 Draft Resolution26 Accounts Payable for period ending November 18, 2011 Draft Resolution37 Accounts Payable for period ending November 23, 2011 Draft Resolution50 Accounts Payable for period ending December 2, 2011 Draft Resolution56 Accounts Payable for period ending December 9, 2011 Draft Resolution70 Accounts Payable for period ending December 16, 2011 Draft Resolution80 Accounts Payable for period ending December 29, 2011 Draft Resolution93 Accounts Payable for period ending January 6, 2012 Draft Resolution104 Accounts Payable for period ending January 13, 2012 Draft Resolution110 Accounts Payable for period ending January 20, 2012 Draft Resolution126 Approve destruction of records from the Finance, Human Resources, City Clerk, and Parks & Recreation (Senior Center & Quinlan) departments Draft Resolution135 Files to destroy136 Annual adoption of the City Investment Policy Staff Report155 City Investment Policy156 1 Treasurer's Investment and Budget Report for quarter ending December 2011 Staff Report164 Investment Portfolio166 Retiree Health Trust Report167 Investments by Type, Rate of Return, and Compliance Charts169 General Fund Budget Report171 Expenditure and Revenue Charts172 Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Appointments Staff Report177 Draft Resolution178 Municipal Improvements, 10056 Orange Avenue Staff Report179 A. Map180 Rezoning from Agricultural Residential to Single Family Residential Staff Report181 A. Ordinance No. 12-2090182 Annual renewal of bingo permits for St. Joseph of Cupertino Church and Cupertino Senior Center Coordinating Council Staff report185 St. Joseph of Cupertino Church application186 Cupertino Senior Center Coordinating Council application191 Mid-year budget adjustment Staff Report197 Contract for the Online Permit Tracking Software System for Permit Review Staff Report200 A. Draft Contract203 Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District requesting that the District reconsider the designation of Lehigh cement plant, so that the plant would be regulated in a manner appropriate to a new or remodeled facility Draft letter to BAAQMD233 Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan 11/11 Workshop Report234 January 10 Redevelopment Agency minutes Draft minutes257 2 AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING SUCCESSOR TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Conference Room A 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:30 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL – 5:30PMCity Hall Conference Room A COMMISSION INTERVIEWS 1.Subject:Library Commission interviews Recommended Action:Conduct interviews No written materials Page: No written materials in packet ROLL CALL –6:00 PM Community Hall Council Chamber CLOSED SESSION 2.Subject:Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code 54957.6); Agency negotiator: Carol Atwood; Employee organizations: CEA and OE3 No written materials Page: No written materials in packet PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – 6:45 PM ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS ANDPRESENTATIONS 3.Subject:Teen Commission update on the Anti-Tobacco Grant project Recommended Action:Receive update No written materials Page:No written materials in packet 3 Tuesday, February 7, 2012Cupertino City Council Successor to theRedevelopment Agency POSTPONEMENTS 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. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 4.Subject:January 10 City Council minutes Recommended Action:Approve minutes Draft minutes Page: 5.Subject:January 17 City Council minutes Recommended Action:Approve minutes Draft minutes Page: 6.Subject:January 23 City Council minutes Recommended Action:Approve minutes Draft Minutes Page: 7.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending November 10, 2011 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-009 Draft Resolution Page: 8.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending November 18, 2011 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-010 Draft Resolution Page: 9.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending November 23, 2011 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-011 Draft Resolution Page: 4 Tuesday, February 7, 2012Cupertino City Council Successor to theRedevelopment Agency 10.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending December 2, 2011 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-012 Draft Resolution Page: 11.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending December 9, 2011 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-013 Draft Resolution Page: 12.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending December 16, 2011 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-014 Draft Resolution Page: 13.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending December 29, 2011 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-015 Draft Resolution Page: 14.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending January 6, 2012 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-016 Draft Resolution Page: 15.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending January 13, 2012 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-017 Draft Resolution Page: 16.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending January 20, 2012 Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-018 Draft Resolution Page: 17.Subject:Approve destruction of records from the Finance, Human Resources, City Clerk, and Parks & Recreation (Senior Center & Quinlan) departments Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-019 Draft Resolution Files to destroy Page: 18.Subject:Annual adoption of the City Investment Policy Recommended Action:Adopt the City Investment Policy Staff Report City Investment Policy Page: 5 Tuesday, February 7, 2012Cupertino City Council Successor to theRedevelopment Agency 19.Subject:Treasurer's Investment and Budget Report for quarter ending December 2011 Recommended Action:Accept the report Staff Report Investment Portfolio Retiree Health Trust Report Investments by Type, Rate of Return, and Compliance Charts General Fund Budget Report Expenditure and Revenue Charts Page: 20.Subject:Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Appointments Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-020 Staff Report Draft Resolution Page: 21.Subject:Municipal Improvements, 10056 Orange Avenue Recommended Action:Accept Municipal Improvements Description:The work included sidewalk, curb & gutter, asphalt pavement, and driveway approach improvements in the City right-of-way Staff Report A. Map Page: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 22.Subject:Rezoning from Agricultural Residential to Single Family Residential Recommended Action:Conduct second reading of Ordinance No. 12-2090, "An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council rezoning a portion of one lot and its fronting half-street of 0.456 acre from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) and the remaining portion of the lot and its fronting half-street of 0.319 acre from R1-10 (Single Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) located at 11215 Mount Crest Place, APN 356-26-026" Description:Applications: Z-2011-04, EA-2011-13; Applicant: Daryl Fazekas (Isaac Segal); Location: 11215 Mount Crest Place, APN 326-26-026, Noticing 300 ft; Environmental Declaration: Negative Declaration; Description: Rezoning application to rezone approximately 0.39 acres from Agricultural Residential (A1-43) to Single Family Residential (R1-20) and approximately 0.30 acres from R1-10 to R1-20 Staff Report A. Ordinance No. 12-2090 Page: 6 Tuesday, February 7, 2012Cupertino City Council Successor to theRedevelopment Agency PUBLIC HEARINGS 23.Subject:Annual renewal of bingo permits for St. Joseph of Cupertino Church and Cupertino Senior Center Coordinating Council Recommended Action:Conduct public hearing and renew permits Staff report St. Joseph of Cupertino Church application Cupertino Senior Center Coordinating Council application Page: ORDINANCESAND ACTION ITEMS 24.Subject:Mid-year budget adjustment Recommended Action:Approve mid-year budget adjustment Staff Report Page: 25.Subject:Contract for the Online Permit TrackingSoftware System for Permit Review Recommended Action:Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Computer Software Incorporated (CSI) Magnet solution and Avolve Software Corporation for an Online Permit Tracking Software System including licensing, training and services in the amount of $483,410.00 for implementation and additional annual maintenance for five years per Attachment A and an additional contingency in the amount of $16,590.00 Staff Report A. Draft Contract Page: 26.Subject:Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District requesting that the District reconsider the designation of Lehigh cement plant, so that the plant would be regulated in a manner appropriate to a new or remodeled facility Recommended Action:Provide direction to staff Draft letter to BAAQMD Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan 11/11 Workshop Report Page: REPORTSBY COUNCIL AND STAFF ADJOURNMENT SUCCESSOR TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 7 Tuesday, February 7, 2012Cupertino City Council Successor to theRedevelopment Agency CONSENT CALENDAR 1.Subject:January 10 Redevelopment Agency minutes Recommended Action:Approve minutes Draft minutes Page: ADJOURNMENT The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council’s decision with respect to quasi-judicial actions, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the council’s decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code §2.08.096. 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. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. 8 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February 7, 2012 Subject:Library Commission interviews NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February 7, 2012 Subject:Teen Commission update on the Anti-Tobacco Grant project NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 10 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February 7, 2012 Subject:Conference with Labor Negotiator (Government Code 54957.6); Agency negotiator: Carol Atwood; Employee organizations: CEA and OE3 NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 11 MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 2012 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 5:00p.m. Mayor Mark Santorocalled the specialmeeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge ofAllegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Mark Santoro,and Council members Gilbert Wong, and Rod Sinks. Absent: Council member Barry Chang (5:07 p.m.) and Vice-Mayor Orrin Mahoney. Mayor Santoro said that City of Cupertino Service Center employee John Recordspassed away unexpectedly on December 31, 2011. John had worked for the City since 1994 maintaining the urban forest in Cupertino as the lead member of the tree crew. He trained the entire staff on the proper way to trim trees. John was also big on the concept of respecting the job and taught the members of the crew what respect means. He and his wife of 14 years, Stacey, raised their two daughters and one son that same way. A Celebration of Life service is scheduled for January 12 at the Quinlan Community Center at 11:00 a.m. A moment of silence was held in memory of John. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None ORDINANCESAND ACTION ITEMS 1.Subject:Elect City of Cupertino as Successor Agency/Successor Housing Agency to dissolve Redevelopment Agency Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-001 electing the City of Cupertino to serve as both the Successor Agency and Successor Housing Agency to the dissolving Redevelopment Agency, and directing staff to file the appropriate notification of these elections in accordance with the Dissolution Act Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastavareviewed the staff report. Wongmoved and Sinksseconded to Adopt Resolution No. 12-001 electing the City of Cupertino to serve as both the Successor Agency and Successor Housing Agency to the dissolving Redevelopment Agency, and directing staff to file the appropriate notification of 12 Tuesday, January 10, 2012Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency these elections in accordance with the Dissolution Act. The motion carried with Vice Mayor Mahoney absent. ADJOURNMENT At 5:07p.m., the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, January 17 beginning at 6:00 p.m. for a closed sessionregarding conference with real property negotiator (Government Code 54956.8), Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue. ____________________________ Grace Schmidt,Acting City Clerk 13 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 17, 2012 ROLL CALL At 6:00p.m. Mayor Mark Santorocalled the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Present: Mayor Mark Santoro, Vice-Mayor Orrin Mahoney, and Council members Barry Chang, Rod Sinks, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: none. CLOSED SESSION 1.Subject:Conference with real property negotiator (Government Code 54956.8); Property: Abandoned well lot on Greenleaf Drive, Cupertino, CA, 95014; APN 326-41-114; Negotiating Parties: Director of Public Works; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of sale Recommended Action:Provide direction to negotiator At 6:00 p.m. Council recessed to a closed session, and reconvened in open session at 6:45 p.m. Mayor Mark Santoro announced that the City Council hadmet in closed session with the real property negotiatorobtained a briefing and gave direction to staff. No action was taken. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Mark Santorocalled the regular meeting back to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Mark Santoro, Vice-Mayor Orrin Mahoney, and Council members Barry Chang, Rod Sinks, and Gilbert Wong. Absent: none. CEREMONIAL MATTERS ANDPRESENTATIONS Mayor Santoro presented aproclamation to the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS)recognizing its efforts to promote the ancient heritage and cultural values of Yoga in Cupertino. 14 January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 2 2.Subject:Proclamation recognizing Angela Zhang, the Monta Vista high school student who won a $100,000 scholarship Recommended Action:Present proclamation Staff members from Monta Vista High School and Siemens Corporation congratulated Ms. Zhang for her accomplishment. A video from the CBS news was also shown about Ms. Zhang’s project.Mayor Santoro presented the proclamation. 3.Subject:Proclamation recognizing the Homestead High School Band for their hard work and dedication to the community Recommended Action:Present proclamation Band Director John Burn congratulated the band for all their hard work in preparation for the 2011 Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.Mayor Santoro presented the proclamation. POSTPONEMENTS -None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cathy Helgerson expressed concern regarding pollution she saysis coming from the Apple Buildingand the possible pollution that could come from the future new campus facility.Ms. Helgerson requested that Council take action to determine what Apple is doing in their current building as well as what is planned for the new campus. Leslie Fowler stated her concerns regarding the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors’ decision to fluoridate the water system. Ms. Fowler also read a quote by J. William Hervey opposing water fluoridate that he made before a sub-committee in Congress. Gary Latshawnoted that emissions have gone up worldwide since the Climate Action Agreement was in signed in 2008. Mr. Latshaw noted that solar panels could be helpful, and suggested that Council review local commute and bus routes to reduce auto emissions,and address theLehigh Cement Plant situation and theair and water pollution they create.He also left written communications. Michael Gottwald announced that a kick-off meeting will be held on Jan. 26 for the Relay for Life Cancer Society Walk. The meeting will take placeat the Quinlan Community Center from 6:45 pm to 8:00 pm.He also noted that Cupertino High School will be holding a 5K walk sponsoring cancer research on July 21 and 22. 15 January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR Wong/Mahoney moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception of Item Nos.12and 15which werepulled for discussion. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. 4.Subject:November 15 City Council minutes Recommended Action:Approve minutes 5.Subject:December 6 City Council minutes Recommended Action:Approve minutes 6.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, Marukai Market, 19750 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Marketplace Shopping Center) Recommended Action:Approve application for Off-Sale General (21) 7.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, Tatami Sushi & Seafood Buffet, 10123 N Wolfe Rd, Ste 2001 (in Vallco) Recommended Action:Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place 8.Subject:City year-end financial reports for 2010-11 Recommended Action:Accept the reports 9.Subject:Municipal Improvements, Verona Apartments, 20488 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action:Accept Municipal Improvements Description:The work included sidewalk, curb & gutter, and driveway approach improvements in the City right-of-way 10.Subject:City Project, Energy Savings Performance Contract with Siemens Building Technologies, Inc Recommended Action:Accept City project Description:The completed project included the induction retrofit of 2,913 street lights and 92 irrigation controllers 11.Subject:Amend July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012 terms and conditions of employment for the Cupertino Unrepresented (Management and Confidential) Employees Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-002 Description:Delete the classification of City Architect and add the classification of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Manager 16 January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 4 12.Subject:Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2 –Amend design services agreement Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-003, authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment to the agreement with SSA Landscape Architects for design services for Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2, Project 9134 Donna Austin said she supported the project, but expressed concern regarding the placement of the trail. She noted thatshe supports keeping the trail along the creek rather than with the trees.She also suggested that the City consider starting an irrigation plan for the trees. Director of Public Works Timm Borden respondedthat as much of the orchard as possible will be preserved and that irrigation to the trees should begin this spring. Mahoneymoved and Wong seconded to adopt the resolution.The motion carried unanimously. 13.Subject:Tract Map, Habitat for Humanity, Silicon Valley, a California Non-Profit Organization, 20630 Cleo Avenue Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-004 Description:A resolution approving a Tract Mapthat subdivides an approximately 13,213 square foot parcel into six parcels consisting of 4 residential lots and two common lots, ranging in size from 1,432 to 5,234 square feet in area 14.Subject:Resignation of Library Commissioner Ron Miller Recommended Action:Accept resignation and direct staff to set the following deadlines: Application deadline: Friday, January 27, 4:30 p.m., in the City Clerk’s Office; Interviews: Tuesday, February 7, 5:30 p.m., Conference Room A 15.Subject:Seventh Amendment to the Agreement between Santa Clara County and the City of Cupertino for Abatement of Weeds Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-005 Cathy Helgerson expressed her concern that properties including Lehigh are not maintained on a regular basis and she must contact the County and fire department every year. She urged City Council to enforce the same regulations on businesses as on residents with respect to weed maintenance. Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to adopt the resolution. The motion carried unanimously. 17 January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 5 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 16.Subject:Ordinance amending Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection) Recommended Action:Conduct second reading and enact Ordinance No. 11-2088: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 9.18 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection) of the Cupertino Municipal Code to specify the legal authority and implement the requirements in the City’sstormwater permit" Cathy Helgerson inquired about what the Citydoes to determine what is waste water and what is storm water. She expressed concern regarding the pollution she saysis coming from the Lehigh plant.She also requested that the wells betested to protect the public from polluted water. Mahoneymoved and Wongseconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Mahoneymoved and Wongseconded to enact Ordinance No. 11-2088.Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. 17.Subject:Ordinance regarding technical amendments and clarifications to General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Heart of the City Specific Plan Recommended Action:Conduct second reading and enact Ordinance Nos. 11-2086 and 11- 2087. Ordinance No. 11-2086: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Zoning Map to specify boundaries of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area and to refer to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for the zoning designations”; Ordinance No. 11-2087: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Heart of the City Specific Plan to incorporate technical amendments, including clarifications to the language and moving the land use and zoning designations from the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map into maps into the Heart of the City Specific Plan” Description:Applicant: City of Cupertino; Application No: SPA-2011-01; Location: Citywide; Description: Specific Plan Amendment for clarifications to the Heart of the City Specific Plan Senior Planner Aki Honda Snelling reviewed the staff report. Cathy Helgerson expressedconcern regarding Apple’sbuildings and the emissionscoming from them. She stated that she does not believe that Apple is doing “light manufacturing” in the buildings and that the public has a right to know what business is being conducted in these buildings as well as the new proposed campus.She also mentioned that there are some water tanks nearby and that there was nothing mentioned inthe EIR about the water tanks. She stated she would rather not havemanufacturing businesses so close to residential. Jennifer Griffin said that she feels everyone in the City wants to have the Heart of the City regulations upheld and do everything possible to make sure it’s honored along Stevens Creek 18 January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 6 Boulevard. She expressedconcerned that a number of items at the Nov. 15 meeting came up that she felt should have been addressed before conductingafirst reading of the ordinance. She saidthat she didn’tfeel there was a lot of forethought givento rezoning large pieces of land such as Rosebowl, Mainstreet,and the Apple buildings.She also noted that she is concerned about how the rezoning will affect the widening or narrowing of Vallco Parkway. Kevin Dare,Sandhill Property Company, supported the staff report including Planned Office (OP). Wongmoved and Mahoneyseconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Wongmoved and Mahoneyseconded to enact Ordinance No. 11-2086.Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Wong moved and Mahoney seconded to enact Ordinance No. 11-2087with an amendment to include OP (Planned Office) as part of the zoning for the Main Street, Rosebowl, and Four Corners project sites.Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 18.Subject:Rezoning from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) and R1-10 (Single-Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) of a 0.775-acre lot and its half street Recommended Action:Adopt Negative Declaration (EA-2011-13) and conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 12-2090approving rezoning (Z-2011-04): "An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council rezoning a portion of one lot and its fronting half-street of 0.456 acre from A1- 43 (Agricultural Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) and the remaining portion of the lot and its fronting half-street of 0.319 acre from R1-10 (Single Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) located at11215 Mount Crest Place, APN 356-26-026" Description:Applications: Z-2011-04, EA-2011-13; Applicant: Daryl Fazekas (Isaac Segal); Location: 11215 Mount Crest Place, APN 356-26-026; Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration; Description: Rezoning application to rezone approximately 0.456 acre from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) and approximately 0.319 acre from R1-10 (Single Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) Mayor Santoro recused himself since his residence iswithin 500-feet of the project and left the dais. Senior Planner Colin Jung reviewed the staff report. 19 January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 7 Wong moved and Sinks seconded to Approve Negative Declaration.Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Absent:Santoro. Wong moved and Sinks seconded to Approve Z-2011-04.Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Absent:Santoro. The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Wong moved and Chang seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof.Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Sinks and Wong. Noes: None.Absent: Santoro. ORDINANCESAND ACTION ITEMS 19.Subject:Abatement of a public nuisance (weeds) pursuant to provisions of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 9.08 and Resolution No. 11-189 Recommended Action:Note objections and adopt Resolution No. 12-006 Acting City Clerk Grace Schmidt reviewed the staff report. Cathy Helgerson expressedconcern about confidentiality with the addresses noted on the website.She also stated that she always has to call before any action is taken and requested more information about how weed abatement process works. Moe Kumrefrom the Santa Clara CountyHazardous Vegetation Departmentexplained that the list consists ofthose who have been in violationin the past few years.Mr. Kumre explained that the properties on the list may have been reported by a neighbor, code enforcement, or County weed abatement personnelwhile they are looking at another property. He also explained that Lehigh is in an unincorporated area and as such cannot be part ofthe City’s listbut they are added to the County’s list. Mr. Kumre also noted thatthere is a one-timefee of $41 to cover creation and maintenance of the list, but itis not charged again. He also stated ifaproperty is maintained for three years, then they will be dropped from the list. Mr. Kumre stated that only substantial weeds onaproperty between May and October thatposea fire hazardare added to the list.He indicated that small weeds would have to pose a threat to fire safety in order to be added to the list. Wongmoved and Changseconded to adopt Resolution No. 12-006 as presented. The motion carried unanimously. 20.Subject:Ordinance amending the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Bicycle Lanes Recommended Action:Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 12-2091: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Section 11.08.250 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Bicycle Lanes--Designated; Rodrigues Avenue between De Anza Boulevard and Blaney Avenue” 20 January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 8 Public Works Director Timm Borden and Senior Civil Engineer David Stillman reviewed the staff report. The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to read the ordinance by title onlyand that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Direction was also given to staff to monitor reconfigured lane striping and report back to council in 12 months, and investigate possible additional parking on the south side of Rodrigues west of Torre, leaving the decision up to staff to add or not. Wong offered a friendly amendmentto let Council know in weekly notes if parking is not a good idea and to bring back to Council if it is a good idea. Chang did not accept the friendly amendment. Mahoney clarified that the direction to staff is to monitor reconfigured lane stripingand report back to Council in 12 months; investigate additional parking on the south side of Rodrigues west of Torre; and staff to let Council know through weekly notes if more parking is warranted. 21.Subject:Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-007approving the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and directing staff to forward the AI to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to be placed on file Senior Planner VeraGil reviewed the staff report. Wongmoved and Mahoneyseconded to adopt Resolution No. 12-007 as presented. The motion carried unanimously. 22.Subject:City’s surplus property on Greenleaf Drive Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-008authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract to sell an abandoned well lot on Greenleaf Drive to the property owners on the adjoining property at 10500 Castine Avenue Public Works Director Timm Borden reviewed the staff report. Cathy Helgerson said she opposed adoption of the resolution. She expressed concern that Garden Gate School is across from this well and stated that she believes the well is polluted. She stated that even after $27,000 was spent to close it there is stillpollution coming from the well and that the City tested the well, but hid the records. She urged City Council to test the well before it is sold. Director of Public Works, TimmBordensaid he was unaware of earlier testing. He indicated that the wellis destroyed and that there isno direct connectionnowbetween the well and aquifer. Mahoneymoved and Wongseconded to adopt Resolution No. 12-008 as presented. The motion carried with Chang voting no. 21 January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 9 23.Subject:Authorize City Manager to conduct a Request for Qualification(RFQ)process for tennis services at the Cupertino Sports Center Recommended Action:Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to conduct a Request for Qualifications process for the provision of tennis instruction at the Cupertino Sports Center Parks and Recreation Director Mark Linder reviewed the staff report. Wongmoved and Mahoneyseconded to authorize the City Manager to proceed with the RFQ process.The motion carried unanimously. 24.Subject:Council assignments for local and regional organizations and agencies Recommended Action:Select assignments Santoro reviewed the chart listing Council member committee assignments. Sinks requested a description of what the rolesof the Santa Clara County City Association committees are. Wong gave a brief synopsis of the rolesof the Selection Committee, Recycling Committee, and Legislative committee. Wongmoved and Chang seconded to approve the Council assignments with the following changes: Santa Clara County CitiesAssociation City Selection Committee: Chang as alternate; Cupertino Disaster Council: Sinks asalternate.The motion carriedunanimously. REPORTSBY COUNCIL AND STAFF Acting City Clerk Grace Schmidt asked Council how they wanted to handle the commission interviews scheduled for Jan. 23 and 24. Council concurred to do one night of interviews on Monday, January 23 beginning at 5:30 p.m. Chang discussed the possibility of testing the well and finding past records of previous tests. Discussion followed regarding whether checking for a previous test from 20 years agowas relevant today. Discussion also took place regarding new EPA rules. Sinks noted that 2012 is an important year because the Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict(BAAQMD)will be interpreting these new EPA rulesand how Lehigh and other businesses will have to comply. Sinks would like the city to weigh in on the proposed regulationsand will provide a copy of the proposed changes to the city manager to distribute to the entire council.Council concurred to agendize an item at a future Council meeting to consider writing a letter to the BAAQMD regarding new levels of emissions. Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. 22 January 17, 2012Cupertino City Council Page 10 ADJOURNMENT At 9:50p.m., the meeting was adjourned to Monday, January 23, 5:30p.m., to conduct commission interviews. The meeting will be held in Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino. ____________________________ Grace Schmidt, ActingCity Clerk Staffreports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience atwww.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. 23 DRAFTMINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Monday, January 23, 2012 ROLL CALL At 5:30p.m. Mayor Mark Santorocalled the regular adjourned meeting to order in Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Present: Mayor Mark Santoro, Vice Mayor Orrin Mahoney,and Council members Barry Chang, Rod Sinks, andGilbert Wong. Absent: none. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS 1.Interview applicants for commission vacancies: Audit Committee The City Council interviewed Manish Goel, Angela Chenand Raymond Yin. The City Council appointed Angela Chen and Raymond Yin to full terms ending January 2016. Housing The City Council interviewed Nicole Maroko, Radha Kulkarni, Tatyana Belyavskaya, Kenneth Tangand Krista Wilson. The City Council re-appointed Nicole Maroko as the Business Representative and appointed Krista Wilson tofull termsending January2016. Technology Information Communication The City Council interviewed Manish Goel, Wallace Iimura, Patrick Deelyand Shishir Chavan. The City Council re-appointed Wallace Iimura and appointed Shishir Chavanto full terms ending January 2016. 24 January 24, 2011Cupertino City Council Page 2 Public Safety The City Council interviewed Robert McCoy, Rosemary Serio, Andy Huang, Lily Limand Chris Zhang. The City Council re-appointed Andy Huangand appointed Lily Lim to full terms ending January 2016. Parks and Recreation The City Council interviewed Chris Zhang, Patrick Deely, Darcy Paul, and Marcia St.Clair. The City Council re-appointedDarcy Paul and Marcia St.Clair to full terms ending January 2016. ADJOURNMENT At 10:01p.m. the meeting was adjournedto Tuesday, February 7 at 5:30 p.m. for Library Commission interviews, City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014. _________________________________ Kirsten Squarcia,Recording Secretary 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS FROMTHECITY CLERK, FINANCE, HR, AND PARKS & RECREATION (QUINLAN & SENIOR CENTER) DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council did by adoption of ResolutionNos. 8894 and 02- 037 establish rules and regulations for records retention and destruction; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain records in excess of two years old no longer contain data of any historical or administrative significance; and WHEREAS, the departmental request for permission to destroy all said records in excess of two years old has been approved by the City Clerk and the City Attorney pursuant to Resolution Nos. 8894 and 02-037; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino authorizes destruction of the records specified in the schedule attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7thday of February, 2012, by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: ________________________________________________________ Grace Schmidt Acting City ClerkMark Santoro, Mayor 135 153 154 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESDEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February 7, 2012 Subject Annual adoption of City Investment Policy Recommended Action Adopt the City Investment Policy Description No policy changes are proposed. Discussion The California Government Code requires a statement of investment policy to be reviewed and adopted by the City Council on at least an annual basis. This statement is intended to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City’s temporary idle cash and outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City’s cash management system. The ultimate goal is to enhance the economic status of the City while protecting its pooled cash. No changes are proposed for this year’s policy. The Audit Committee acceptedthepolicy on January 19, 2012. _____________________________________ Prepared by:David Woo, Deputy Treasurer Reviewed by: Carol A. Atwood, City Treasurer Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments:Draft Investment Policy 155 City of Cupertino Investment Policy February 7, 2012 POLICY Under authority granted by the City Council, the City Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer are responsible for investing the surplus funds of the City. The investment of the funds of the City of Cupertino is directed to the goals of safety, liquidity and yield. The authority governing investments for municipal governments is set forth in the California Government Code, Sections 53601 through 53659. The primary objective of the investment policy of the City of Cupertino is SAFETY OF PRINCIPAL. Investments shall be placed in those securities as outlined by type and maturity sector in this document. Effective cash flow management and resulting cash investment practices are recognized as essential to good fiscal management and control. The City’s portfolio shall be designed and managed in a manner responsive to the public trust and consistent with state and local law. Portfolio management requires continual analysis and as a result the balance betweenthe various investments and maturities may change in order to give the City of Cupertino the optimum combination of necessary liquidity and optimal yield based on cash flow projections. SCOPE The investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Cupertino as accounted for in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Policy statements outlined in this document focus on the City of Cupertino’s pooled, surplus funds, but will also apply to all other funds under the City Treasurer’s span of control unless specifically exempted by statute or ordinance. This policy is applicable, but not limited to all funds listed below: General Fund Special Revenue Funds Capital Project Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Trust and Agency Funds Any new fund unless specifically exempted Investments of bond proceeds shall be governed by the provisions of the related bond indentures and/or cash flow requirements and therefore may extend beyond the maturity limitations as outlined in this document.Other post employment benefit (OPEB) trust investments are governed by California Government Code Sections 53620 through 53622and trust documents. The trust has discretionary investment authority. Mutual funds,exchange-traded funds, closed- end funds, and securitiescomprising equities, fixed income, cash equivalents, and cash,with maturities possibly extending beyond fiveyears,are allowed investments for an OPEB trust. c:\docume~1\kims\locals~1\temp\city investment policy.doc 156 City of CupertinoInvestment PolicyFebruary 7, 2012 PRUDENCE The standard to be used by investment officials shall be that of a“prudent person” and shall be applied in the context of managing all aspects of the overall portfolio. Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, direction and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. It is the City’s full intent, at the time of purchase, to hold all investments until maturity to ensure the return of all invested principal dollars. However, it is realized that market prices of securities will vary depending on economic and interest rate conditions at any point in time. It is further recognized that in a well-diversified investment portfolio, occasional measured losses are inevitable due to economic, bond market or individual security credit analysis. These occasional losses must be considered within the context of the overall investment program objectives and theresultant long-term rate of return. The City Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer, acting within the intent and scope of the investment policy and other written procedures and exercising due diligence, shall be relieved of personal responsibility and liabilityfor an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely manner and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. OBJECTIVES The primary objectives, in order of priority, of the City of Cupertino’s investment activities shall be: A.Safety of Principal Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City of Cupertino. Each investment transaction shall seek to ensure that capital losses are avoided, whether fromsecurities default, broker-dealer default or erosion of market value. The City shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating the two types of risk, credit risk and market risk. Credit risk, defined as the risk of loss due to failure of the issuer of a security, shall be mitigated by investing in investment grade securities and by diversifying the investment portfolio so that the failure of any one issuer does not unduly harm the City’s capital base and cash flow. 2 157 City of CupertinoInvestment PolicyFebruary 7, 2012 Market risk, defined as market value fluctuations due to overall changes in the general level of interest rates, shall be mitigated by limiting the average maturity of the City’s investment portfolio (see maximum maturities) and structuring the portfolio based on historic and currentcash flow analysis eliminating the need to sell securities prior to maturity and avoiding the purchase of long term securities for the sole purpose of short term speculation. B.Liquidity The City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated and provide the City with adequate cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months. Additionally, the portfolio should consist largely of securities with active secondary resale markets. C.Yield The City’s investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with Cupertino’s investment risk constraints and cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. MAXIMUM MATURITIES Maturities of investments will be selected based on liquidity requirements to minimize interest rate and maximize earnings. Investment of surplus funds shall comply with the maturity limits as set forth in the CaliforniaGovernment Code 53600, et seq. Where this section does not specify a limitation on the term or remaining maturity at the time of the investment, no investment shall be made in any security that at the time of the investment has a term remaining to maturity in excess of five years, unless the Council has granted express authority to make that investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the Council no less than three months prior to the investment. Reserve funds may be invested in securities exceeding five years if the maturity of such investments is made to coincide as nearly as practicable with the expected use of the funds. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Investment performance is continually monitored and evaluated by the City Treasurer. Investment performance statistics and activity reports are generated on a quarterlybasis for presentation to the oversight (audit) committee, City Manager and City Council. 3 158 City of CupertinoInvestment PolicyFebruary 7, 2012 Yield on the City’s investment portfolio is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. The City’s investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market average rate of return through economic cycles. The market average rate of return is defined as the average return on the Local Agency Investment Fund (assuming the State does not adversely affect LAIF’s returns due to budget constraints). Whenever possible, and consistent with risk limitations as defined herein and prudent investment principles, the Treasurer shall seek to augment return above the market average rate of return. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY The Treasurer is responsible for investment management decisions and activities per City Council Resolution. The Treasurer shall designate a staff person as a liaison/deputy in the event circumstances require timely action and the Treasurer is not present. No officer or designee may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under terms of this policy and the procedures by the Treasurer and approved by theCity Manager/Council. The Treasurer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE An audit committee consisting of appropriate internal and external members, appointed by the City Council, shall be established to provide general oversight and direction concerning the policy related to management of the City’s investment pooland OPEB trust. The City Treasurer shall serve in a staff and advisory capacity. The committee shall meet at least quarterly to review policy changes, new legislation and portfolio status. ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Officers and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that conflicts with proper execution of the investment program, or impairs their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Additionally the City Treasurer and the Deputy Treasurer are required to annually file applicable financial disclosures as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES To protect against fraud or embezzlement or losses caused by collapse of an individual securities dealer, all securities owned by the City shall be held in safekeeping by a third party custodian acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement. All trades executed by a dealer will settle delivery versus payment (DVP) through the City’s safekeeping agent. 4 159 City of CupertinoInvestment PolicyFebruary 7, 2012 In order to verify investment holdings, an external auditor, on an annual basis, shall independently verify securities held in custody for the City. All exceptions to this safekeeping policy must be approved by the City Treasurer in written form and included in the quarterlyreport to City Council. INTERNAL CONTROL Separation of duties between the Treasurer’s function and Finance is designed to provide an ongoing internal review to prevent the potential for converting assets or concealing transactions. Wire transfers shall be approved prior to being submitted to the financial institution. Wire transfers initiated by the Treasury Section mustbe reconfirmed by the appropriate financial institution to non-treasury staff.Proper documentation obtained from confirmation and cash disbursement wire transfers is required for each investment transaction. Timely bank reconciliation is conducted to ensure proper handling of all transactions. Separation of duties, transaction approvals, security, and reconciliations shall be included in the wire, receipting, and account receivable processes.Transaction controls, notifications, and reports provided by financial institutions shall be used to help implement these controls. The investment portfolio and all related transactions are reviewed and balanced to appropriate general ledger accounts by Finance on a monthly basis. An independent analysis by an external auditor shall be conducted annually to review internal control, account activity, and compliance with policies and procedures. The analysis shall be reported to the audit committee. REPORTING The City Treasurer shall prepare a quarterly investment report, including a succinct management summary that provides a clear picture of the status of the current investment portfolio. The report will be prepared in a manner that will report all information required under this policy and the California Government Code. The Treasurer will submit the report to Council no later than the second regular council meeting, or approximately 45days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. Following its annual or interim adoption by the City Council,this investment policy shall be remitted to the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission. QUALIFIED BROKER/DEALERS Minimum eligibility criteria for dealers/brokers include a minimum of $1 billionin assets and a minimum of five years in business. The registration status of all dealersis checked with the National Association of Securities Dealers. 5 160 City of CupertinoInvestment PolicyFebruary 7, 2012 Dealers are required to acknowledge the receipt and review of the Statement of Investment Policy, to be familiar with the government code restrictions, and have experience with dealing with other municipal investors. Dealers are then selected on the basis of yields, services offered, and references obtained. They may be primary or secondary dealers. The financial institutions must submit a current annual audited financial statement to ascertain capital adequacy. COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS Collateral is required for investments in certificates ofdeposit and repurchase agreements. In order to reduce market risk, the collateral level will be at least 102% of market value of principal and accrued interest. In order to conform with the provisions of the Federal Bankruptcy Code which provides for liquidation of securities held as collateral, the only securities acceptable as collateral shall be certificates of deposit, commercial paper, eligible banker’s acceptances, medium term notes or securities that are the direct obligations of, or are fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States or any agency of the United States. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS Investment of City funds is governed by the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. Within the context of the limitations, the following investments are authorized, as further limited herein: 1.United States Treasury Bills, Bonds, and Notes or those for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for payment of principal and interest. There is no percentage limitation of the portfolio that can be invested in this category, although a five-year maturity limitation is applicable. 2.Obligations issued by the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), the Federal Farm Credit System (FFCB), the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLB), the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), the Student Loan Marketing Association (SLMA), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association (FHLMC). There is no percentage limitation of the portfolio that can be invested in thiscategory. A five-year maturity limitation is applicable. 3.Banker’s Acceptances (bills of exchange or time drafts drawn on and accepted by commercial banks) may not exceed 180 days to maturity or 40% of the cost value of the portfolio. 4.Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), which is a State of California managed investment pool, may be used up to the maximum permitted by California state law. Investment officers will review LAIF’s investment policy, investment mix, rate of return, etc. on a monthly basis. 6 161 City of CupertinoInvestment PolicyFebruary 7, 2012 Investments detailed in items 5 through 10 are further restricted to percentage of the cost value of the portfolio in any one-issuer name to a maximum of 10%. The total value invested in any one issuer shall not exceed 5% of the issuers’net worth. Again, a five-year maximum maturity limitation is applicable unless further restricted by this policy. 5.Commercial paper ranked P1 by Moody’s Investor Services or A1+ by Standard & Poors, and issued by domestic corporations having assets in excess of $500,000,000 and having an AA or better rating on its long-term debentures as provided by Moody’s or Standard & Poors. Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not exceed 270 days to maturity nor represent more than 10% of the outstanding paper of the issuing corporation. Purchases of commercial paper may not exceed 25% of the cost value of the portfolio. 6.Negotiable Certificates of Deposits issued by nationally or state chartered banks,state or federal savings institutions,or state or federal credit unions.These institutions may use a private sector entity to assist in the placement of the certificates of deposit under the conditions specified by the Government Code.Purchases of Negotiable Certificates of Deposit may not exceed 30% of the cost value of the portfolio. A maturity limitation of five years is applicable. 7.Repurchase agreements that specify terms and conditions may be transacted with banks and broker dealers. The maturity of the repurchase agreements shall not exceed one year. The market value of the securities used as collateral for the repurchase agreements shall be monitored by the investment staff and shall not be allowed to fall below 102% of the value of the repurchase agreement. A PSA Master Repurchase Agreement is required between theCity of Cupertino and the broker/dealer or financial institution for all repurchase agreements transacted. 8.Reverse repurchase agreements are not authorized. 9.Certificates of Deposit (time deposits), non-negotiable and collateralized in accordance with the California Government Code, may be purchased through banks,savings and loan associations,or credit unions. Within a limit of 30% of the cost value of the portfolio, these institutions may use a private sector entity to assist in the placement of the time deposits under the conditions specified by the Government Code. 10.Medium Term Corporate Notes issued by corporations organized and operating in the United States with a maximum maturity of five years may be purchased. Securities eligible for investmentshall be rated A or better by Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s rating services. Purchase of medium term notes may not exceed 30% of the cost value of the portfolio. 11.Bonds issued by the local agency, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue producing property owned, controlled or operated by the local agency or by a department, board, agency, or authority of the local agency. 7 162 City of CupertinoInvestment PolicyFebruary 7, 2012 12.Registered state warrants or treasury notes or bonds of this state, including bonds payable solely out of therevenues from a revenue producing property owned, controlled or operated by the state or by a department, board, agency or authority of the state. 13.Bonds, notes, warrants or other evidences of indebtedness of any local agency within this state. 14.Various daily money market funds administered for or by trustees, paying agents and custodian banks contracted by the City of Cupertino may be purchased as allowed under State of California Government Code. Only funds holding U.S. Treasury obligations, Government agency obligations,or repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Treasury or Government agency obligationscan be utilized and may not exceed 20% of the cost value of the portfolio. 15.Ineligible investments are those that are not described herein, including but not limited to, common stocks and long term (over five years in maturity) notes and bonds are prohibited from use in this portfolio. It is noted that special circumstances arise that necessitate the purchase of securities beyond the five-year limitation. On such occasions, requests must be approved by City Council prior to purchase. DEPOSITS To be eligible to receive local agency money, a bank, savings association, federal association, or federally insured industrial loan company shall have received an overall rating of not less than “satisfactory” in its most recent evaluation by the appropriate federal financial supervisorial agency of its record of meeting the credit needs of California’s communities. INTEREST EARNINGS All moneys earned and collected from investments authorized in this policy shall be allocated monthly to various fund accounts based on the cash balance in each fund as a percentage of the entire pooled portfolio. POLICY REVIEW The City of Cupertino’s investment policy shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council on an annual basis. This investment policy shall be reviewed at least annually to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity and yield, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. 8 163 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCILSTAFF REPORT Meeting7, 2012 :February Subject Treasurer’s Investment and Budget Report for Quarter Ending December2011 Recommended Action Accept the report Discussionand Fiscal Impact Investments The market and book value of the City’s portfolio both totaled $46.4million at December 31, 2011. The portfolio’s 0.28% yield was unchanged from last quarter and a year ago. The LAIF benchmark yield of0.38%was unchanged from last quarter, but down 0.08% from a year ago. The portfoliodecreased$1.1million during the quarter due to sheriffandcapital project contract payments.Fivemillion dollars of maturing Treasurieswereused fornew Treasury purchases. Investments are in full compliance with the City investment policy and State law and are tiered to provide sufficient cash flows to pay City obligations over the next six months. Market values on individual securities in the investment portfolio are provided by Wells Fargo Bank Institutional Trust Services using valuations from Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data, Inc. The PARS retiree health trust increased from $8.8 million to $9.5 million during the quarter due to investment gains and additional contributions. The trust is up 4.3% sinceinception eighteen months ago. Short-term volatility will occur with positive returns expected in the long-run to fund future retiree medical obligations. General Fund Budget Report Revenues for thequarterending inDecember2011 are up 10%froma year ago andahead of budgetprojections.Sales taxes,transient occupancy taxes, licenses/permits, and charges for services are exceeding expectations whileinvestment returnsarecoming in belowprojections. Expenditures for the same quarterare up6% over last year,and on track with thebudget,as costs areincurred to service the higher volume of business resulting from higherrecreation and building revenues. 164 The Audit Committee reviewed this report on January 19, 2012. _____________________________________ Prepared by:DavidWoo, Deputy Treasurer Reviewedby:Carol A. Atwood, City Treasurer Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments:Investment Portfolio Retiree Health Trust Report Investments by Type,Rate of Return,and Compliance Charts General Fund Budget Report Expenditure and Revenue Charts 165 City of Cupertino Investment Portfolio December 31, 2011 ACTIVITY DATE COUPONYIELDADJUSTEDMATURITYMARKETUNREALIZED PURCHASEMATURITYDESCRIPTIONRATE To Maturity COSTVALUEVALUEPROFIT/LOSS SECURITIES MATURED 12/20/1010/31/11US Treasury Note 1.00%0.26%2,000,0002,000,0002,000,0000 01/19/1111/30/11US Treasury Note 0.75%0.23%3,000,0003,000,0003,000,0000 SECURITIES PURCHASED 11/17/1108/31/13US Treasury Note 0.13%0.22%1,996,7212,000,0001,996,480(241) 12/07/1110/31/13US Treasury Note 0.25%0.23%3,000,9053,000,0003,000,480(425) CITY PORTFOLIO CASH 12/31/11Wells Fargo - Workers Comp Checking16,70416,70416,7040 12/31/11Wells Fargo - Repurchase Agreements0.05%0.05%1,530,0591,530,0591,530,0590 1,546,7631,546,7631,546,7630 LAIF 12/31/11LAIF - State Pool0.38%0.38%597,516597,516597,5160 MONEY MARKET FUNDS 12/31/11Wells Fargo 100% Treasury0.01%0.01%4,157,3954,157,3954,157,3950 4,157,3954,157,3954,157,3950 US TREASURY SECURITIES 01/11/1101/31/12US Treasury Note 0.88%0.30%6,002,9446,000,0006,003,780836 02/02/1102/29/12US Treasury Note 0.88%0.28%4,003,9224,000,0004,005,3201,398 03/28/1103/31/12US Treasury Note 1.00%0.27%1,001,8111,000,0001,002,300489 05/25/1104/30/12US Treasury Note 1.00%0.17%1,002,7311,000,0001,003,130399 05/11/1106/30/12US Treasury Note 0.63%0.22%1,002,0171,000,0001,002,770753 05/25/1107/31/12US Treasury Note 0.63%0.23%1,002,2871,000,0001,003,102816 06/15/1107/31/12US Treasury Note 0.63%0.24%1,002,2621,000,0001,003,078816 06/03/1108/31/12US Treasury Note 0.38%0.24%1,000,9221,000,0001,001,801879 06/15/1108/31/12US Treasury Note 0.38%0.25%2,001,7212,000,0002,003,4791,758 03/28/1109/30/12US Treasury Note 0.38%0.52%998,9141,000,0001,000,9352,021 06/15/1109/30/12US Treasury Note 0.38%0.26%1,000,8601,000,0001,002,8852,025 06/03/1110/15/12US Treasury Note 1.38%0.27%1,008,7151,000,0001,009,7301,015 06/27/1110/31/12US Treasury Note 0.38%0.21%2,002,6642,000,0002,003,9801,316 05/19/1111/30/12US Treasury Note 0.50%0.36%1,001,2601,000,0001,002,5761,316 06/27/1111/30/12US Treasury Note 0.50%0.23%1,002,5071,000,0001,003,8241,318 03/28/1112/31/12US Treasury Note 0.63%0.64%999,8221,000,0001,004,6904,868 03/28/1103/15/13US Treasury Note 1.38%0.72%1,007,8521,000,0001,014,2606,408 08/25/1103/31/13US Treasury Note 0.75%0.19%3,021,0463,000,0003,020,850(196) 05/06/1104/30/13US Treasury Note 0.63%0.57%1,000,7331,000,0001,005,8205,087 05/19/1106/15/13US Treasury Note 1.13%0.58%1,007,8961,000,0001,013,1605,264 09/26/1107/31/13US Treasury Note 0.38%0.20%2,005,6282,000,0002,004,760(868) 11/17/1108/31/13US Treasury Note 0.13%0.22%1,996,7212,000,0001,996,480(241) 03/28/1109/15/13US Treasury Note 0.75%0.96%996,5411,000,0001,008,55012,009 12/07/1110/31/13US Treasury Note 0.25%0.23%3,000,9053,000,0003,000,480(425) 40,072,67940,000,00040,121,74049,061 Total Managed Portfolio46,374,35346,301,67446,423,41449,061 Average Yield0.28% Average Length to Maturity (in years) 0.73 TRUST PORTFOLIO MONEY MARKET FUNDSKester Trust 12/31/11Wells Institutional Money Mkt Acct0.07%0.07%48,47048,47048,4700 BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO Bond Reserve Acct Ambac Assurance Security Bond111 Bond Payment Acct Wells Treasury Plus Money Mkt0.01%0.01%992,572992,572992,5720 Total Bond Reserve Portfolio992,572992,572992,5720 166 LÝ;·;· ,ä ä¦; am;7 t©·Ez LAIF Cash Money Market 1% 3% 9% US Treasuries 87% Rate of Return Comparison 0.70% 0.60% 0.50% 0.40% 0.30% 0.20% LAIF Cupertino 0.10% 0.00% 169 Compliance Schedule COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino December 31, 2011 CategoryStandardComment Treasury IssuesNo limitComplies US Agencies No limitComplies Medium Term Corporate Bonds30% with A ratingComplies LAIF$50 millionComplies Money Market Funds20%Complies Maximum MaturitiesUp to 5 yearsComplies Per Issuer Max10% (except for Treasuries and US Agencies)Complies Bankers Acceptances 180 days & 40%Complies Commercial Paper270 days & 25%Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit30%Complies Repurchase Agreements365 daysComplies Reverse Repurchase agreementsProhibitedComplies Page 2 170 General Fund Revenues Projected vs. Actual 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Projected, per current budget Actual 5,000 0 9/11 12/11 Quarter Ending General Fund Expenditures Projected vs. Actual 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 Projected, per current budget 6,000 Actual 4,000 2,000 0 9/11 12/11 Quarter Ending 172 Sales Tax Projected vs. Actual $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 Projected, per current budget $2,000 Actual $0 9/11 12/11 Quarter Ending 173 Property Tax Projected vs. Actual $8,000 $6,000 Projected, per current budget $4,000 Actual $2,000 $0 12/11 Quarter Ending * This is a bar chart because quarter ending 9/11 did not have property tax reve 174 Transient Occupancy Tax Projected vs. Actual 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 Projected, per current budget 400 Actual 200 0 9/11 12/11 Quarter Ending Licenses & Permits Projected vs. Actual 1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 Projected, per current budget 500 Actual 250 0 9/11 12/11 Quarter Ending 175 Charges for Services Projected vs. Actual 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 Projected, per current budget 200 Actual 0 9/11 12/11 Quarter Ending Use of Money & Property Projected vs. Actual 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 Projected, per current budget 100 Actual 50 0 9/11 12/11 Quarter Ending 176 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESDEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT February 7, 2012 Meeting: Subject Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer Appointments Recommended Action Adopt Resolution No. 12- Description Extends the appointmentsof the current City Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer. Discussion Chapter 730 of the statutes of 1976 Section 16429.1 was added to the California Government Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury. This Section requires government agencies to appoint a treasurer and deputy treasurer on an annual basis. The attached resolution extends the current appointmentsof Carol Atwood and David Woo as the City’s Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer, respectively. This legislation was intended to provide ongoing review of investment issues by the governing body. Fiscal Impact None _____________________________________ Prepared by: David Woo, Deputy Treasurer Reviewed by: Carol A. Atwood, City Treasurer Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments:Draft Resolution 177 RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 11-019AND APPOINTING TREASURER AND DEPUTY TREASURER WHEREAS, the City has available funds to invest in accordance with principles of sound treasury management; and WHEREAS, the City annually adopts an investment policy; WHEREAS, the City invests funds in accordance with provisions of California Government Code Section 53600; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City ofCupertino hereby rescinds Resolution No. 11-019and appoints Carol Atwood City Treasurer and David Woo as Deputy Treasurer; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Treasurer is empowered and specifically authorized to invest and reinvest City funds in accordance with California Government Code Section 53600; to buy, sell, trade and deal in authorized securities on margin or otherwise in connection therewith and to pledge any and all securities for future delivery thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this7thday of February,2012by the following vote: VoteMembers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: APPROVED: Mark Santoro,Mayor, City of Cupertino ATTEST: Grace Schmidt, Acting City Clerk 178 PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February 7, 2012 Subject Municipal Improvements, 10056 Orange Avenue,APN357-17-058. Recommended Action Accept Municipal Improvements. Discussion The applicant hascompleted City-specified improvements in the City right-of-way including sidewalk, curb & gutter, asphalt pavement,and driveway approachas required by the improvement agreement with the City. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Chad Mosley, Associate Civil Engineer Reviewed by:Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A.Map 179 ATTACHMENTA 10026 10030 10028 10036 10040 10051 10038 10056 10061 10131 10140 . Subject:MunicipalImprovements,10056OrangeAvenue,APN357-17-058 RecommendedAction:AcceptMunicipalImprovements 180 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 7, 2012 Subject Rezoning from Agricultural Residential to Single Family Residential Recommended Action Conduct the secondreading of Ordinance No. 12-2090: “An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council rezoning a portion of one lot and its fronting half-street of 0.456 acre from A1-43 (Agricultural Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) and the remaining portion of the lot and its fronting half-street of 0.319 acre from R1-10 (Single Family Residential) to R1-20 (Single Family Residential) located at 11215 Mount Crest Place, APN 356-26-026”. Description Applications:Z-2011-04(EA-2011-13) Applicant:Daryl Fazekas Property Owner:Isaac Segal Location:11215 Mount Crest Place, APN 356-26-026 _____________________________________ Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachment:Ordinance No. 12-2090 181 182 183 184 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February 7, 2012 Subject Annual renewal of bingo permitsfor St. Joseph of Cupertino Church and Cupertino Senior Center Coordinating Council. Recommended Action Conduct the public hearing and renew the permits. Discussion The Cupertino Coordinating Council and St. Joseph of Cupertino Church have applied for the annual renewal of their bingo permits as required by the Municipal Code. All forms and fees have been received. The Sheriff’s Department, Central Fire Protection District, the County Health Officer, Cupertino’s Chief Building Inspector and Director of Planning have approved the applications. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Grace Schmidt, ActingCity Clerk Reviewed by:Carol Atwood, Administrative Services Director Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: Staff report Application for St. Joseph of Cupertino Church Application for Cupertino Senior Center Coordinating Council 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICESDEPARTMENT CITY HALL 1010300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3227www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:February7, 2012 Subject Mid-Year budget adjustment Recommended Action Approve mid-year budget adjustment Description IncreaseGeneral Fund revenueand expenditurebudgetsby $271,240as follows: Revenue Increases and (Decreases) Sales Tax$412,240 Vehicle license fees(240,000) Senior Center trip sales75,000 Senior Center class sales14,000 Blackberry Farm Park concession sales10,000 TOTAL REVENUES$271,240 Expenditure Increases Everbridge (3N) emergency notification system$12,000 November 2011 electioncosts70,000 Volunteer servicesmanagement software 10,240 Personnel litigation70,000 City Attorney staffing 10,000 Senior Center cost of trips75,000 Senior Center cost of classes14,000 Blackberry Farm Park concession supplies 10,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES$271,240 Discussion RevenueIncreases -$271,240 The City seesstrongsales tax growth for 2011-12.Recreation revenues from Senior Center programs and Blackberry Farm Park concessions are also coming in better than projected. However, the State has permanently taken awaymotor vehicle license fees from cities and instead will use it to fund law enforcement grants, such as Citizens Option for Public Safety, that 197 the State previously funded out of its general fund. While Cupertino will still get its annual $100,000 COPS grant for the school resource officer, the City has lost$240,000per yearin vehicle license feesthat were usedfor general purposes.This year sales tax growth is sufficient to offset this loss. Expenditure Increases-$271,240 total Everbridge emergency notification system -$12,000 In July of 2011, the County of Santa Clara implemented new fees associated with use of its emergency notification system known as AlertSCC. In addition, the County's agreement with its existing notification provider expires in 18 months. Alternatives have been sought to cost- effectively augment the County system. The Public Safety and TIC Commissions both agreed that the Everbridge system would be an essential tool for communicating with our residents, businesses, staff and volunteers. November 2011 election costs -$70,000 Costs of $244,000, including Measure C, were $70,000 higher than budgeted. Variables such as whether a ballot measure would be included or the size of the ballot in other county jurisdictions can affect the cost.Finance also underestimated the expense. Volunteer services management software -$10,240 In order to improve coordination and deployment of volunteers on a City-wide basis for emergencies and normal City services, a software package is available that can manage up to 3,000 volunteers. Personnel litigation -$70,000 Legal and settlement costs for personnel matters have beenhigher than budgeted. City Attorney staffing -$10,000 As allowed by contract, a one-time meritand evaluation-basedpaymentof $5,000to the City Attorney is presented for Council consideration.In addition, a $5,000 budget increase to cover temporary staff during the legal assistant’s absence is requested. Senior Center cost of trips -$75,000 Senior Center cost of classes -$14,000 With revenue growthfrom the senior travel programand recreationalclasses, the associated cost of providing the servicesis also increased.Costs are forcontractinstructorsand travel packages. Blackberry Farm Park concession supplies -$10,000 Thisyear the City assumed the operation of the Blackberry Farmconcession stand. Revenues and expenses are both higher than expected. 198 Fiscal Impact Approving all revenue and expenditure increase recommendations maintainsabalanced General Fund budget for 2011-12. _____________________________________ Prepared by: David Woo, Finance Director Reviewed by:Carol A. Atwood, Director of Administrative Services Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager 199 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 7, 2012 Subject Contract for the Online Permit Tracking Software System for PermitReview Recommended Action Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Computer Software Incorporated (CSI) Magnet solution and Avolve Software Corporation for an Online Permit Tracking Software System including licensing, training and services in the amount of $483,410.00 for implementation and annual maintenance for five years per Attachment A and an additional contingency in the amount of $16,590.00. Background As part of the work program,Council directed a comprehensive review of the City's development review process. In 2009, the Matrix Consulting Group was hired to conduct a comprehensive organizationaland management analysis of the City’s development permit process and operations. Matrix began their researchin March 2009 and completed the study on November 5, 2009. The study used a variety of sources for its analysis including: customer focus groups, a survey of City staff, and a review of the development process, permit data and the City’s website. Matrix compared Cupertino’s permit processes and organizational framework with other comparable cities and best management practices in the industry and made a list of recommendations to improve the City’s permit process and organizational efficiency. One of the major problems identified in the report is the “lack of an effective automated on-line permitting information system.”Basedon Council direction, twoworkshops were held on July 28 and September 8, 2010 to discuss the development review process and ideasfor improvement. Input from the community workshops also identified the need for a comprehensive online permitting system to simplify processing and tracking of projects. On January 18, 2011,as part of the mid-year budget amendment, Council authorized setting aside $224,000.00in available Information Technologyfunds and $165,000.00in budget savings in FY 2010-11 (a total of $389,000.00) for an online permitting system. The remaining funds were added in the FY11-12 budget to create funding in the amount of $500,000.00, the estimated cost of an online permitting system. Discussion After City Council’sauthorization to move forward, a Permit Tracking Software Committee (PTSC) was formedto review and provide input into creating the Request for Proposals(RFP)and 200 select the online permittingsoftware provider. The committee consists of staff from the Information Technology Division, Finance Department, Public Works, Building, Planning and administrative staff. TheTechnology Information and CommunicationCommission (TICC) also provided input at key points in the process such as reviewing the RFP and interviewing software providers.Feedback on the draft RFP from TICC was received bythePTSC on July 7, 2011. On August 1, 2011, the City of Cupertino released a Request for Proposal to solicit proposals for a permit tracking system solution. The scope of work included in the RFP described software modules and services to be performed during the installation and configurationof the software. The RFP wasmailed to multiple software providers and was posted on the City’s website. By the due date of September 1, 2011, the Committeereceived 13 proposals from various software companies responding to the RFP. The Committeerated the written proposals and short-listed the top four companies. The ratings were based on delivery of requirements stated in the proposal, commitment to the schedule and availability of key team members, qualifications/experience/ understanding of work flow processes, intuitive/user-friendly software, cost and overall presentation of material. The top four firms were invited to City Hall on October 24, 2011to introduce their company and present their software solution to four separate groups including Building, Planning, Public Works and Information Technology (IT)/GIS. A member oftheTICC was a participant in one of the interview panel groups. The top two of these four firms (CRW Systems, Inc. and CSI) were invited back for a second thth interview/presentation on November 16and 17, 2011, allowing more time to present their software to the PTSC and a team of staff making up the various workgroups within the City. After the interviews/presentations were complete, the Committeescheduled anon-site interview and aphone interview with a reference from each vendor. On November 29, 2011, a conference call withmembers of the CommitteeandNewton County, Georgia, was held to interview them as a reference client for CSI. The Committeealso scheduled an on-site visit with the City of Milpitas as a reference client for CRW. st On December 1, 2011, after the Committeemet and discussed the results of the interviews and customer feedback, CSI received the highest score based on their proposed software, number of successful installations, strong customer references, quality customer service, relationship with third party vendors, and commitment to cost of the project.CSI Software was deemed the most suitable for Cupertino because it not only met the requirements of the RFP but also had the highest customer satisfaction ratings for its software and maintenance contract. CSI’s MagNet software solutionis aweb-based application that usesGIS as its foundation. CSI’s proprietary software eliminates the need of third-party licensing for users to benefit from their GIS module.The various applications (permitting, planning, public works, business license, etc.) are integrated into one database, which makes it easier for users to reference all records (i.e., building permit history, codeviolations, pending inspections, plan checks) assigned to an address or parcel. The software meets the City’s goal of integrating its systems to GIS while avoiding the potential of implementing software that may need to be transitioned to be web-based at a future date. CSI’s software and public access portal also appeared intuitive and easy to use compared to the other vendors that were evaluated. The public access portal will allow sign-offs, inspection details and inspection results to be instantly available to the public.CSI’s iPad application used by field staff 201 was shown to be more developedthan any other company can offer. CSI also had the best pricing on a third-party vendor, ProjectDox, which provides advanced software to review and compare plans. While other vendors had their own software programs, theyhad limited review capability. CSI also provided a greater degree of customization per the City’s requirements without increased costs. This was corroborated by a number of CSI’s clients that the City interviewed. The new online permitting system will allow extensive accessibility to the database and its related services including 24-hour, 7 day-a-week public access. Applicants will be able to apply and pay for permits, schedule building inspections, check on status of plans, inspections and projects, and receive real-time notification of inspection results -all on-line. The system will also enhance the wireless connectivity for our field inspectors and will greatly improve efficiency and effectiveness, extending inspection management capabilities to the field for inspections, service requests, and other functions. Time in the field and communication between field staff and the office will be optimized. Fiscal Impact The total one-time cost of implementing the system is $483,410.00per the draftcontract for CSI Magnetprovided as Attachment A.It should be noted that the contract quote,includingthe special reduced pricing for the ProjectDoxplan checking software,is valid until March 31, 2012.An additional contingency amount of $16,590.00is being requested for any additional unforeseen expenses. The amount of the contract and contingency are within the allocated budget of $500,000.00for the online permitting system. The annual maintenance contract is for five years. The cost for the first year is $38,439.00, which is lower since the first year’s cost for Avolve’s ProjectDox software has been waived. Thereafter, the cost increases to $59,319.00with increases of 5% every two years up to year five. Our current annual maintenance cost for the Pentamation system is about $32,000.00with annual increases in the amount of 1-2%. Next Steps The current implementation schedule has a start date of late February2012. The phases in the project include; discovery (data), scope analysis, setup and design, training/testing, transition, production and post-production.CSI has estimated that implementation will last about 12 months with a preliminary “Go Live” date in February2013. _____________________________________ Prepared by:Albert Salvador, P. E., C.B.O., Building Official; Traci Caton, Administrative Assistant Reviewed by:Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director;Timm Borden, Public Works Director Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachment: A.Draft Contract 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3212 FAX (408) 777-3366 February 7, 2012 Jack Broadbent, Director BAAQMD 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Dear Director Broadbent, We understandthat the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is considering adoption of Regulation 9, Rule 13 to achieve the maximum feasible, cost effective emissions reductions of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)and Particulate Matter (PM) in concert with efforts to bring the Lehigh facility into compliance with limits for toxic air contaminants (TACs)consistent with the federalNational Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAP). It is the opinion of this council that the many modifications that have been made to the Lehigh facility may make it appropriate to designate the facility as a remodeled facility so that it may be regulated by an appropriately higher standard. On behalf of the Cupertino City Council, I wish to express our city's support for BAAQMD to apply the highest possible regulatory standards to the Lehigh cement plant that is immediately adjacent to our community. The support and ongoing work of the District and its staff is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Mark Santoro Mayor 233 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Stationary Source Control Measure SSM-9 BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 13: NITROGEN OXIDES, PARTICULATE MATTER, AND TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS FROM PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING Workshop Report November 2011 Prepared by: Robert Cave Senior Air Quality Specialist Planning, Rules and Research Division 234 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.0 RULE UNDER CONSIDERATION ................................................................................................. 15 5.0 RULE DEVELOPMENT / PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS ................................................. 20 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 21 1 235 1.0 Introduction The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD” or “District”) will hold a public workshop to discuss and solicit input on proposed Regulation 9, Rule 13: Nitrogen Oxides, Particulate Matter, and Toxic Air Contaminants from Portland Cement Manufacturing (“Regulation 9-13” or “the rule”). In Stationary Source Control Measure SSM-9 of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, the District identified Portland cement manufacturing as a potential source of emissions reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), a precursor of ozone and secondary fine particulate matter. Additionally, the control measure sought to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO), a precursor of fine particulate matter, and particulate matter (PM) from the 2 manufacturing of Portland cement. Reducing emissions would enable the District to make progress toward meeting federal and state ozone and particulate standards, for which the District is currently in a non-attainment status. In August of 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued final amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. The revised NESHAP significantly reduces emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from new and existing Portland cement kilns. Since adoption of the amended rule, individual Portland cement manufacturing companies along with the national industry association have petitioned EPA to reconsider these rules, and subsequently challenged them in Federal Court. In addition, legislation has been proposed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate (H.R. 2681 and S. 1610, Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011) to provide a legislative stay of EPA emissions standards that apply to cement manufacturing plants. Either of these efforts may delay or rescind the amended standards of the NESHAP. In order to ensure that emissions from the manufacture of Portland cement are significantly reduced in the Bay Area, the emission limits of the NESHAP are included in the proposed Regulation 9-13. This report outlines and explains the proposed rule to the public, the affected facility, affected operators, and any other interested persons. This report includes a description of the Portland cement manufacturing process, the air emissions from that process, the regulatory background for emissions standards, and a technical discussion of the means of controlling those emissions. Following the technical review, the draft rule that staff is proposing is described and associated compliance costs are discussed. District staff will hold a public workshop on December 12, 2011 to discuss the proposed rule. Staff invites participation in the workshop and submittal of written comments on any aspect of the proposal. Staff will then consider all comments, revise the proposed rule as needed, and present the proposed rule to the District’s Board of Directors for adoption at a public hearing. 2 236 2.0 Background Portland cement is combined with water, gravel, sand, or other aggregate to form concrete, which is used in road building and a variety of other construction projects. Portland cement manufacture is a $10 billion per year industry in the United States. In 2008, Americans consumed 104 million tons of cement nationally, or 675 pounds per person for the year. Between 85% and 90% of that is produced in the United States with the rest imported primarily from China, Canada, Colombia, Mexico and Korea. There has been a consistent decline in consumption for the past 5 years. Although the Portland Cement Association projected a small increase (3-5 million tons) in cement production in the US for 2010, this increase may be put in perspective by noting that this is still 60 million tons less than the peak consumption levels of 2005. There are 108 Portland cement manufacturing plants operating in 36 states, with 11 in California, three in Northern California, and one in the Bay Area. Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh), located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, west of Cupertino, is the only cement manufacturing facility in the District. Consistent with national trends, Lehigh has reduced production annually since 2006. Their BAAQMD permit limits their production of clinker (a preliminary stage of cement) to 1.6 million tons per year, but in 2010 Lehigh produced 847 thousand tons of clinker, a little over half the permitted amount. Portland cement manufacturing is the third largest industrial source of emissions of NOx and SO in the nation at 180 thousand tons per year. Lehigh is the Bay Area’s largest source of NOx 2 emissions without modern add-on NOx controls. This facility emitted 1,798 tons of NOx and 181 tons of SO in 2008. The plant has been in operation since 1939, and is subject to a variety 2 of District, State, and federal air quality rules and regulations. District staff initiated rule development on a proposed cement kiln rule and has evaluated more stringent standards for NOx, PM, and SO. In addition, U.S. EPA has adopted amendments to federal rules affecting 2 this facility, with compliance due in September of 2013. Staff has evaluated the standards and compliance deadlines of these federal rules to ascertain their application to this facility and to determine what additional technologies and/or methodologies could be employed to reduce emissions of air pollutants in a cost effective manner. Portland Cement Kiln Overview Portland cement is a fundamental ingredient of concrete, consisting of calcium, silicon, aluminum, and iron. These materials are combined in a number of steps requiring careful control to ensure that the final product meets specific chemical and physical specifications required for building and construction needs. Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of Portland cement manufacturing. Figure 1 – Schematic of Cement Manufacturing Process 3 237 Manufacturing Steps Portland cement manufacturing is a series of steps which take place at a large industrial facility usually located adjacent to a source of raw materials. Raw materials consist of limestone, shells or chalk, clay, sand, alumina and iron ore. The bulk of these are mined at a quarry, blended, and ground to a powder. This blended material is subjected to intense heat in a kiln to cause a series of chemical reactions, transforming the powdered raw materials into something called cement clinker. Cement clinker consists of grayish-black pellets the size of marbles or golf balls, which is cooled, ground and mixed with gypsum and other additives to form powdered Portland cement. In the initial manufacturing step, limestone is mined from a quarry near the plant. At the quarry, the material is reduced to a manageable size (from chair or desk size to softball size) by a two- stage primary crusher before stockpiling and transport to the kiln. The limestone is crushed for a third time and then pre-blended to homogenize the quality of the limestone. It is then mixed with bauxite (a source of alumina) and iron ore before being ground inside a ball mill and further blended to create the required proportions necessary for the desired end product. In older cement manufacturing plants water is added to the raw materials to form a slurry, and grinding and mixing operations are completed in a slurry form. This aids in conveying the 4 238 material, but the dry method is ultimately more energy efficient. The Lehigh facility converted from wet to dry process in 1981. In order to produce clinker the material must be heated to at least 2400 degrees Fahrenheit and this is much easier when the raw materials are dry. At modern plants, the materials are preheated before entering the kiln and at many facilities the process of making cement is begun at this stage in a process called precalcining. A preheater/precalciner tower is utilized at the Lehigh facility to heat the material to approximately 1650 degrees F, and begin the cement manufacturing process prior to the material entering the rotary kiln. At the heart of the manufacturing process is the cement kiln. The blended mixture of raw material is fed from the preheater/precalciner into the upper end of a tilted rotating cylindrical kiln where it will reach temperatures of 2400 to 3000 degrees F. This intense heat causes the material to fuse and undergo chemical reactions to create cement clinker. The clinker is discharged from the lower end of the kiln where it is cooled and then ground into a fine powder. Some of this heat is recovered at this stage and routed to the preheater. The ground clinker is mixed with gypsum and ground one final time to make the final product. Emissions Emissions to the atmosphere from the manufacture of cement primarily come from combustion of fuel to heat the kiln, with additional point source particulate emissions from the kiln, grinding and mixing operations, and fugitive particulate emissions from transport of materials. Choice of fuel can impact combustion emissions, whether it is natural gas, coal, petroleum coke, or tires. Currently no cement kiln in the US is fired by natural gas due to cost and availability. Lehigh uses 100% petroleum coke, having switched from a mixture of coal and petroleum coke in 2007. Generally, emissions of concern from cement manufacture are the criteria pollutants (NOx, SO, 2 PM, and VOCs) and toxic air contaminants (TACs) from combustion. TACs include benzene, hydrochloric acid, dioxins and furans, as well as trace metals such as mercury, cadmium, arsenic, nickel, chromium, and manganese. In addition, cement kilns generate large amounts of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO). 2 Emissions Inventory Table 1 shows the average daily emissions from the cement kiln at Lehigh according to BAAQMD records for 2010. These values are determined by emission factors assigned by District permit engineers, stack testing, mass balance estimates, and the annual throughput of fuel used and clinker produced as reported by the facility. Lehigh reported that they produced 847 thousand tons of clinker in 2010, a little over half the permitted amount of 1.6 million tons per year. Table 1 – Lehigh Southwest Cement Company Kiln Emissions (2010) Pollutant Average emissions in pounds Average emissions in 5 239 per day pounds per ton of clinker Particulate Matter (PM) 32.62 1.40E-02 Precursor Organics (POC) 59.2 2.55E-02 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 9,290 4.00E+00 Sulfur Dioxide (SO) 2,665 1.15E+00 2 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 5,435 2.34E+00 Benzene 16.1 6.84E-03 Hydrochloric Acid (HCL) 179 7.63E-02 Mercury 0.72 3.05E-04 Total Equivalent CO 4.08E+06 1.76E+03* 2 *NOTE: Total equivalent CO2 value calculated based on 2008 inventory scaled by the ratio of reported clinker produced for 2010 and 2008. Federal Regulations Two federal rules address air emissions from the manufacture of Portland cement: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). EPA generally promulgates NSPS for specific industrial operations to address emissions of criteria pollutants from new, modified, and reconstructed sources. NESHAP addresses emissions of TACs (also known as hazardous air pollutants) from both new and existing sources, and may have separate standards for each case. The NSPS for Portland cement manufacture was originally promulgated in 1971, and has been amended many times. Clean Air Act amendments of 1977 require a quadrennial review of all NSPS and, if deemed appropriate, EPA revises the standard. The most recent amendments to the NSPS were proposed in June of 2008 and finalized in August of 2010. The previous standard remains in effect for all sources constructed after 1971. For facilities constructed, modified or reconstructed after June 6, 2008, emissions standards have been made more stringent, and the monitoring methodology has been modified. EPA is requiring continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for each of the three pollutants covered under this rule (PM, NOx, and SO). 2 EPA initially issued the NESHAP for Portland cement manufacture in 1999 to limit emissions of PM as a surrogate for certain toxic metals contained in cement kiln and clinker cooler PM, to limit dioxin/furan emissions, and to set a hydrocarbon limit for new kilns. Several organizations filed petitions for judicial review of that rule. In 2000, the US Court of Appeals remanded parts of the 1999 standard and instructed EPA to consider standards for hydrochloric acid (HCL), mercury, total hydrocarbons, and metallic hazardous air pollutants. In December of 2006, EPA issued final amendments to the NESHAP to set limits for mercury and total hydrocarbons for kilns built after December 2, 2005 and to require that existing kilns meet “work practice” standards to reduce emissions of mercury and hydrocarbons. In a separate December 2006 action, EPA announced that it would reconsider the emission limits for mercury and total hydrocarbons for new cement kilns. Prior to that action, EPA had been sued by the cement industry, environmental groups, and state environmental agencies on the final amendments, and 6 240 also received petitions to reconsider the existing source standards for mercury, hydrocarbons, and the decision not to regulate HCl. On April 21, 2009 EPA proposed to amend the NESHAP to reduce emissions of mercury, total hydrocarbons, HCl, and PM from both new and existing cement kilns. On August 6, 2010, EPA issued final amendments to both rules. The revised NESHAP significantly reduces emissions from new and existing Portland cement kilns, and the NSPS further limits emissions from new and modified operations. Table 2 illustrates the standards in the federal NSPS for NOx, SO, and PM; and Table 3 shows the NESHAP limits. 2 Table 2 – 2010 New Source Performance Standards Pollutant Emission Limit Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 1.5 lb/ton of clinker, averaged over 30 days Sulfur Dioxide (SO) 0.4 lb/ton of clinker, averaged over 30 days 2 Particulate Matter (PM) 0.01 lb/ton of clinker, averaged over 30 days Table 3 – 2010 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pollutant Existing Facilities New and Modified Facilities Mercury 55 lbs/million tons of clinker, 21 lbs/million tons of clinker, averaged over 30 days averaged over 30 days Dioxins/Furans* 0.2 nanograms/dry standard 0.2 ng/dscm (TEQ)*, averaged cubic meter (ng/dscm)(TEQ), over 24 hours averaged over 24 hours Total Hydrocarbons 24 parts per million by volume 24 ppmv, averaged over 30 (ppmv), averaged over 30 days days Total Organic HAP* 9 parts per million by volume 9 ppmv, averaged over 30 days (ppmv), averaged over 30 days Particulate Matter (PM) 0.04 lb/ton of clinker, averaged 0.01 lb/ton of clinker, averaged over 30 days over 30 days Hydrochloric Acid (HCL) 3 ppmv, averaged over 30 days 3 ppmv, averaged over 30 days *NOTES: The Total Organic HAP standard is an alternative to the Total Hydrocarbon Standard. The Dioxin/Furan standard is unchanged from the previous NESHAP standard. Toxic Equivalent (TEQ) weighs the toxicity of less toxic compounds as fractions of the most toxic compound of the group. The amended NESHAP will reduce emission of mercury, total hydrocarbons, HCl, and PM from both new and existing kilns. The amended NSPS will reduce emissions of NOx, SO, and PM 2 from “new” kilns (those constructed, modified, or reconstructed after June 6, 2008). Facilities are given three years to meet these limits as the deadline for full implementation of these rules is September 9, 2013. EPA estimates that by that date the NESHAP will result in national 7 241 emissions reductions of 92% for mercury, 83% for total hydrocarbons, and 97% for HCl. EPA estimates that implementation of the NSPS will result in national emissions reductions of 78% for SO, 5% for NOx, and 92% for PM, although PM is addressed in both the NESHAP and the 2 NSPS. The federal regulations would reduce emissions at the Lehigh facility by approximately the following amounts: 93% for mercury; 91% for total hydrocarbons; and 70% for HCl. The Lehigh facility is not “new or modified” and so only the amended NESHAP limits would apply and not the amended NSPS limits. As previously stated, legislation pending in the US House of Representatives and Senate could stay or rescind these federal regulations. California Regulations All cement kilns operating in California are subject to permitting by the local air district. Major sources of air pollution like the Lehigh facility are required to obtain Title V operating permits which incorporate the applicable NESHAP, NSPS and District regulations. There are currently no State rules that specifically regulate cement manufacture, other than greenhouse gas emissions reporting requirements and those rules governing the use of scrap tires as fuel. Several air districts (Antelope Valley, Amador, Kern, Mojave, and Monterey Bay Unified) with cement kilns operating within their jurisdiction have adopted regulations to address emissions of NOx and/or PM from these sources. South Coast Air Quality Management District has adopted several cement manufacturing regulations addressing emissions of NOx, PM, CO, as well as hexavalent chromium and fugitive dust. At least two of these regulations were adopted to address specific conditions at individual cement manufacturing facilities. Applicable BAAQMD Regulations While there is currently no BAAQMD rule which specifically addresses cement manufacturing operations, these operations are subject to a number of District regulations that govern permitting (e.g., Regulation 2-1, 2-2), emissions of toxic or hazardous compounds (Reg. 2-5), and some general or miscellaneous regulations for individual pollutants (Reg. 6-1 for PM, Reg. 8-2 for VOCs, Reg. 9-1 for SO, and Reg. 11-1 for lead). Requirements for these rules are incorporated 2 into the Title V permit for Lehigh along with the applicable federal requirements of the NESHAP and NSPS. 8 242 3.0 Technical Review Controlling Emissions from Cement Manufacturing The manufacturing of cement requires the movement and processing of many tons of material as well as the combustion of large amounts of fuel in order to heat that material to extremely high temperatures. Emissions of pollutants are directly attributable to both the fuel combustion and materials processing. Any improvements to the efficiency of the material handling processes as well as the delivery of heat can result in a reduction in emissions to the atmosphere. Over many years of operation Lehigh has implemented efficiency related modifications to their process as the state-of-the-art of cement manufacturing has developed. The facility has switched from a wet to a dry process, introduced heat recovery methods, and installed a precalcining tower. The driving force behind these modifications has been financial, but the improved efficiency has also reduced emissions. Staff is continuing to evaluate potential efficiency improvements, but there do not appear to be any obvious additional modifications of this type that might be undertaken at this time. Add-on emissions control or improvements to existing emissions control devices hold far greater potential to reduce emissions in a cost effective manner. NOx Emissions Control The formation of NOx during the manufacture of cement is due to the high temperature, oxidizing atmosphere necessary for clinker formation. NOx is primarily formed by two mechanisms: the oxidation of molecular nitrogen in the combustion air or “thermal NOx”; and the oxidation of nitrogen compounds in the fuel or “fuel NOx”. Although the contribution of fuel NOx cannot be discounted, in the high temperature zone of cement kilns, thermal NOx is the dominant contributor to NOx formation. Additionally, some NOx may be formed by oxidation of nitrogen compounds from the raw materials or “feed NOx”, and a small amount of NOx is formed instantaneously at the flame surface or “prompt NOx.” The predominant nitrogen species in cement kiln exhaust gas is NO, at typically up to 90-95%, with NO accounting for the 2 remainder. Emissions of NOx from cement manufacture come primarily from the manner in which fuel is combusted to heat and chemically formulate the cement clinker. As such, these emissions may be reduced by control of the combustion zone temperature and excess air, as well as combustion modifications. These modifications include low NOx burners in both the kiln and precalciner, mixing air systems, fuel addition systems, and staged combustion. In addition, post-combustion controls involving the use of chemical additives to the pollutant stream can further reduce emissions of NOx to the atmosphere. Many of these methods may be used in combination and some preclude one another or have operational constraints due to the design of the kiln that may limit their efficacy. A number of post-combustion or add-on control techniques have proven successful at removing NOx in exhaust streams from a variety of industrial combustion sources. These include scrubbing technology utilizing various chemical additives, oxidation technology utilizing 9 243 hydrogen peroxide, and selective reduction technology utilizing ammonia or urea injection either with or without a catalyst present. The applicability of these add-on NOx controls to the exhaust from cement kilns is somewhat limited by high temperature, high flow rate, and high level of particulate in the exhaust. The cost, availability, and handling requirements of the chemical additives can further restrict their usefulness in this application. The two post-combustion techniques that present the greatest likelihood of successful NOx reduction from cement kiln exhaust are selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Both SNCR and SCR utilize a nitrogen based reducing agent (usually ammonia or urea) to convert NOx into molecular nitrogen (N) and water vapor (HO). The chemical reactions that 22 accomplish this conversion depend on the reducing agent and the presence of a catalyst. However, the catalyst and the temperature at which the reactions occur is the main difference oo between SNCR (1600-2000F) and SCR (570-700F). Ammonia may be obtained as either anhydrous (dry) or aqueous (mixed with water). Anhydrous ammonia is the most efficient form because it is 100% ammonia, but there are significant issues with the transport, handling and storage of anhydrous ammonia. Both EPA and OSHA classify anhydrous ammonia as a hazardous material. Aqueous ammonia is not a hazardous material but is usually available in concentrations of 19% or 29% by weight, so a greater amount is required to achieve the same benefit. Urea is perhaps a safer alternative than anhydrous ammonia, but is about 46% nitrogen, so it takes about twice as much mass of urea to provide the same NOx control. Urea is available in dry form or mixed with water at 40% to 50% by weight urea solution. Urea solutions are also more viscous than aqueous ammonia so delivery systems must account for this. Use of either SNCR or SCR would require substantial equipment upgrades as well as operational modifications to any cement manufacturing plant. Operational plans and equipment are required for the delivery, storage, mixing and delivery of the reagent. The complexity of this depends on the form of the reagent used. The performance of these systems is highly dependent on temperature, residence time, and concentration of the applied reagent. Control systems to monitor these variables as well as CEMS for NOx and ammonia are required to determine the optimum conditions to maximize NOx control and minimize emissions of unreacted ammonia. Emissions to the atmosphere of unreacted ammonia resulting from the use of SNCR and SCR are referred to as “ammonia slip” and can result in odor concerns, stack plume visibility problems and secondary PM formation. Additional issues associated with poorly managed SNCR systems at cement plants include the potential for increased emissions of CO, and NO (more likely when 2 using urea as a reagent). SNCR has proven an effective means of NOx control at a number of cement kilns across Europe, Japan, and the United States. The first trial use of this technology in cement manufacturing occurred in Europe in 1979, with further trials carried out at cement plants in Europe and Japan throughout the 1980s. As of 2007, over 60 cement plants across Europe utilized SNCR for the control of NOx emissions achieving control efficiencies in excess of 50%. Higher NOx reduction efficiencies are possible when SNCR is paired with staged combustion or some other combustion modification. In the United States, the application of SNCR to cement kilns is more recent and initially only proved successful on preheater/precalciner kilns. However, there are currently several cement plants across the country utilizing SNCR including wet kilns, long kilns 10 244 and those using waste derived fuels. Reported NOx control efficiencies for the US applications run from 12% to 65%. Higher efficiencies are generally associated with higher concentrations of ammonia added to the flue gas, and this often results in greater ammonia slip (emissions of unreacted ammonia). SCR has proven an effective means of NOx control for a variety of combustion sources, from gas turbines at power plants to industrial boilers to diesel locomotives and even automobiles. The application of this technology to cement kilns is much more limited. Primarily, this is due to the high levels of dust in cement kiln gas at the temperature favorable for SCR use. It is possible to utilize SCR after the PM control device, but the exhaust gases would need to be reheated. SCR requires a catalyst bed, catalyst cleaning system, bypass ducting and periodic replacement of the catalyst, and a significantly higher capital investment over SNCR. There are three known cement plant SCR installations worldwide, all in Europe, and another is due to be installed in the US in Illinois in 2013. The first SCR system on a cement plant began operation in 2001 at the Solnhofer cement plant in Germany. In 2006 and 2007 two cement plants in Italy began operation of SCR systems. All of these are high dust applications. It is worth noting that the Solnhofer plant in Germany employs both SCR and SNCR technology, to avoid downtime during cleaning of the catalyst bed. The NOx emission limit applied to that plant under permit is such that it can be met by the less efficient SNCR technology. The system to be installed in Illinois is by consent decree as part of a Clean Air Act Settlement between EPA and Lafarge North America. In determining emissions levels for the NSPS, EPA considered lower NOx levels based on performance of SCR, but determined that SCR was not “sufficiently demonstrated technology for this industry.” This determination was made with full knowledge of the three facilities in Europe, the successful demonstrations of SCR for control of other source categories, and the proposed installation in Illinois as part of a settlement agreement. EPA is concerned about the potential for dust buildup on the catalyst, which can be influenced by the site specific raw material characteristics of the facility’s quarry. Dust buildup on the catalyst can reduce the effectiveness of the SCR and cleaning the catalyst can result in significant downtime. EPA has based its NSPS NOx emission limit of 1.5 lbs. per ton of clinker on a well-designed preheater/precalciner kiln (i.e. with staged combustion) and 50% control obtained by SNCR. PM Emissions Control Particulate emissions arise from a variety of activities at cement manufacturing facilities, some of which are amenable to collection and control by add-on systems and some of which are fugitive in nature but which may be nevertheless reduced by mitigation methods. Dust sources amenable to collection and control include crushing, mixing and storage of raw materials, clinker production and cooling, finish grinding, and packaging. Of these sources, the largest single point of emissions are the stack emissions from the kiln including the feed system, fuel firing, and clinker cooling and handling systems. Fugitive emission come from quarrying and primary crushing of raw materials, storage and handling of raw materials, fuel, clinker, and finished product, and from vehicle traffic. 11 245 Fugitive dust emissions are best controlled by efficient site design and lay-out as well as proper maintenance and operation of equipment to reduce spillage and air leakage from collection systems. These can be addressed appropriately in a dust mitigation plan and operation and maintenance plan. Plan elements may include open pile wind protection, use of water spray or chemical dust suppressors, paving, road wetting, and housekeeping requirements, and humidification of stockpiles. Additional measures may include enclosing or encapsulating dusty operations such as grinding, screening and mixing, covering conveyors and elevators, vacuum systems to prevent formation of diffuse dust from spillage during maintenance operations, and flexible filling pipes for dispatch and loading processes. Particularly dusty operations may require ventilation and collection by a control device similar to that for stack emissions. Various systems have been employed in the cement industry to control point source or stack emissions in the past, but the predominant means of add-on particulate control currently in use are either fabric filtration (bag houses), electrostatic precipitation (ESP) or a combination of the two (hybrid filters). Hybrid filters are often ESP systems that have been modified to include a bag house in order to extend the useful life of the control device. In some cases a cyclonic separator may be used to remove larger particulate matter upstream of these fine particulate control devices. Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) generate an electrostatic field across the path of particulate matter in the air stream. The particles become negatively charged and then migrate to positively charged collection plates downstream of the electrostatic field. The plates are vibrated, tapped or shaken periodically to remove the collected material on a cycle optimized to minimize re- entrainment of the particulate matter. ESPs can operate effectively in conditions of high o temperature (up to 750F) and high humidity. Performance is impaired by particulate build-up on the electrodes forming an insulating layer and thereby reducing the electric field. This is most likely to happen with high chlorine or high sulfur fuel or raw materials forming alkali metal chlorides and sulfates. Explosion risks may also arise in conditions of high CO concentrations in exhaust gas. Fabric filters are very efficient at dust collection, with the basic principle of a fabric membrane that allows the gas to pass but retains particulate. The most common large scale systems use hanging bags arranged geometrically across the top of a box or chamber, hence the name “bag house.” Dust is deposited both on the surface and within the fabric, and in time the dust itself becomes the dominant filtering medium. Periodic cleaning of the fabric membrane is required as dust builds up and resistance to gas flow increases. The most common cleaning methods are compressed air pulsing, reverse airflow, mechanical shaking or vibration. Usually baghouses have multiple chambers that can be isolated in case of bag failure, and to maintain efficiency during the cleaning cycle. Filter bags are available in a variety of woven and nonwoven fabrics o with some synthetic fabrics that can operate effectively at temperatures above 500F. TACs Emissions Control 12 246 The TACs addressed in the proposed regulation as well as the federal NESHAP come in a variety of forms, so that control thereof is equally varied. The addition of adsorptive materials to the production process can be utilized to adsorb organic compounds, ammonia and ammonium compounds, HCl and mercury. The removal of toxic compounds that are emitted in solid form such as lead, beryllium and chrome is also increased slightly by the use of activated carbon. Acidic compounds can be removed through use of scrubbers which either spray caustic liquid into the kiln itself or into a separate reaction chamber downstream of the kiln. Alternatively, dry lime can be utilized in place of the caustic solution. Dioxins and furans are controlled by activated carbon or through operational controls such as maintaining a lower inlet temperature to the baghouse or other particulate abatement device. Adsorption addition refers to adding lime or activated carbon to the cement manufacturing process in either a wet or dry form when raw materials are mixed prior to entering the kiln, or directly incorporated into the clinker formation process. The lime may be calcium oxide (CaO) or any of the various chemical and physical forms of quicklime, hydrated lime, or hydraulic lime. Dry scrubbing is another term for the addition of dry CaO and this has already been implemented to a degree at Lehigh. Two raw mills are situated immediately prior to final mixing of the raw materials and test results show a decrease in emissions when these are operating due to the increased addition of pulverized limestone into the flue gas. A suspension of hydrated lime in water may be sprayed into the cement kiln flue gas to reduce emissions and is called lime slurry injection (LSI). Lehigh obtained a permit from the District in 2010 to add LSI to their process (injection point at the last stage of the preheater/precalciner) and the system has been installed and used on a trial testing basis. The facility is awaiting county approval before beginning full scale operation. Organic compounds, ammonia and ammonium compounds, HCl, mercury, SO, and to a lesser 2 extent, residual dust can be removed by adsorption by activated carbon. As stated above, activated carbon can be injected into the cement manufacturing process (ACI), or alternatively the kiln gases can be routed to packed beds or filters. In both cases, the saturated carbon is then added to the fuel mix in the kiln. Lehigh applied for a permit from the District to install ACI primarily to reduce emissions of mercury. The installation was completed and ACI was fully operational beginning in May 2011. SO Emissions Control 2 Similar to NOx, the formation of SO is a product of the chemical make-up of the raw materials 2 and fuel, as well as the high operating temperatures and oxygen concentration in the kiln. The production of SO is more dependent on the sulfur content of fuel and raw materials however, 2 whereas NOx formation is more dependent on combustion effects. Emissions of the two pollutants are interrelated due to the overlap of contributing factors. Process optimization measures are the first step towards reducing SO emissions, including smoothing of kiln 2 operation, choice and homogenization of the raw materials and fuel, and prevention of reducing conditions in the burning process by controlling the amount of available oxygen. When these optimization measures prove insufficient, add-on controls such as adsorption addition, carbon filtration, and wet scrubbing may be employed to further reduce emissions of SO. 2 13 247 Wet scrubbing is another means of controlling SO emissions which involves spraying a mixture 2 of calcium carbonate and water countercurrent to the exhaust gas in a tower as an add-on control device. The calcium carbonate reacts to form calcium sulfate dihydrate, which is then separated and can replace gypsum as a modulating agent in the finished cement depending on the properties required. The liquid is recovered and reused in the wet scrubbing tower. Wet scrubbing also removes HCl, residual dust and to a lesser extent metal and ammonia emissions. This is the most commonly used method of desulfurization in coal fired power plants and its use is also well established in cement manufacturing, although more often at facilities where sulfur levels are high in the fuel or raw materials. Limitations on the use of this means of control would be increased energy consumption, increased CO emissions, increased water consumption 2 and risk of water contamination, and increased operational costs. 14 248 4.0 Rule Under Consideration Requirements The District is considering adoption of Regulation 9, Rule 13 to achieve the maximum feasible, cost effective emissions reductions of NOx and PM in concert with efforts to bring the Lehigh facility into compliance with limits for TACs consistent with the federal NESHAP. As an existing facility, Lehigh is not subject to the criteria pollutant emissions standards of the amended NSPS. Significant modifications will be required to reduce TAC emissions, including additional controls such as LSI and ACI, as well as enhanced monitoring requirements. The emission limits proposed in Regulation 9, Rule 13 represent the maximum feasible NOx and PM controls as applied to an existing unmodified source. The equipment modifications necessary to meet the proposed NOx emission limit may result in some excess ammonia emissions. Ammonia is a TAC and a precursor to secondary particulate matter formation, for this reason an ammonia emission limit is included in the proposed rule. Additional requirements of the proposed rule address concerns over the present configuration of the emission point from the kiln, and the need for an enforceable fugitive dust control plan. The proposed effective date of September 9, 2013 corresponds with that of the amended NESHAP and NSPS. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Limits The District proposes the following emission limits for Portland cement manufacturing kilns: 2.3 pounds NOx per ton of clinker produced averaged over 30 days 0.04 pounds PM per ton of clinker produced averaged over 30 days 10 ppmv ammonia above baseline, dry at 7% oxygen averaged over 24 hours. Where possible, limits and averaging times are expressed to maintain consistency with federal standards and represent the most stringent limits that Lehigh can achieve for these pollutants in a cost-effective manner. Staff has evaluated the controls required by the federal standards and has proposed these standards based on reasonably achievable emission rates for this facility. These emission limits will require the use of a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) or parametric monitors, as well as a means of monitoring and recording the production rates. CEMS, parametric monitors, and production monitoring requirements are detailed in the monitoring and records section of the rule. There is currently no commercially available CEMS for PM; however, there is a reasonable expectation that parametric monitoring equipment will become available before the federal standards requiring CEMS for PM go into effect in 2013. Lehigh has already installed a parametric monitor to measure ammonia and is currently calibrating and testing this equipment for quality assurance of the measurements. All CEMS and parametric monitors are required to comply with the provisions of the District Manual of Procedures, federal requirements, and to maintain records as provided in District Regulation 1. 15 249 An initial demonstration of compliance with these emission limits must be performed within 90 operating days of the effective date of the rule and repeated annually thereafter. TAC Emissions Limits The following emission limits are proposed to address TACs: 0.2 nanograms Dioxins/Furans (TEQ) per standard cubic meter, dry at 7% oxygen averaged over 24 hours 55 pounds Mercury per million tons of clinker produced averaged over 30 days 9 ppmv Total Organic HAP, dry at 7% oxygen averaged over 30 days 3 ppmv HCl, dry at 7% oxygen averaged over 30 days. The proposed emissions limits are consistent with the federal NESHAP and will provide protection to nearby communities should the federal rules be delayed or overturned either through legislative efforts or pending litigation. Lehigh has already installed control equipment (LSI and ACI) and monitoring equipment (CEMS and parametric monitors) in order to meet the compliance date of the federal rules. Opacity Standard District staff proposes an opacity limit of 10 percent opacity lasting for no more than three minutes in any one hour period from any emission point or miscellaneous operation. Compliance with this standard will be facilitated through the implementation and maintenance of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP). Elements of the FDCP include: List of potential emission sources Mitigation measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions Personnel training procedures Operation and maintenance procedures to minimize fugitive dust emissions As part of Lehigh’s recent Title V permit renewal, the District required Lehigh to develop and implement a FDCP to reinforce the facility’s commitments to mitigate emissions of fugitive dust. Provisions for the submittal, public comment procedures, District review, and potential modifications to the FDCP are included in the proposed regulation to strengthen the enforceability of the measures contained in the plan. Under the terms of the proposed regulation, 16 250 the FDCP must be submitted to the District for review within 90 days of the effective date of the rule, and once deemed complete will be available for a 30 day public comment period. Within 30 days of completion of the public comment period, the District will approve the plan or notify the facility should the plan be deemed to be inadequate. In this latter event, the notification will identify any inadequacies and recommend corrections. Additionally, the District may determine that the FDCP be modified at a subsequent date should physical alterations, changes in throughput, or a recent history of exceedences of opacity standard dictate such a change. Emission Point Requirements District staff is proposing that emissions from the kiln enter the atmosphere not less than 300 feet above grade. This will aid in dispersion of pollutants and facilitate more accurate and less costly monitoring of emissions. A Health Risk Assessment performed for Lehigh determined that the concentration of pollutants at the maximally exposed receptor would be greatly reduced by increasing the stack height to 300 feet. This was confirmed by preliminary modeling of SO2 emissions as described in the following paragraph. In general, a higher emission point allows emitted pollutants to be transported over a longer distance before reaching ground level. The concentration of pollutants decreases as the plume travels from the point of release and is dispersed by wind and other natural forces, greatly reducing health impacts. Structural constraints, dynamic back pressure on the plume, as well as aesthetics and compliance with local building codes place constraints on the actual height of the stack. Sulfur Dioxide On June 2, 2010, EPA established a new one-hour SO ambient air quality standard which 2 became effective on August 23, 2010. The new national standard, 0.075 ppmv, is considerably more stringent than the existing California ambient air quality standard, 0.25 ppmv. District staff is examining whether existing sources of SO, including Lehigh, have emissions sufficient 2 to trigger an exceedance of the new ambient standard. Based on preliminary dispersion modeling according to EPA specified methodology, Lehigh may trigger an exceedance; however, these modeling results do not correlate well with local monitoring data. This is likely due to the complex terrain surrounding the Lehigh facility, which is not adequately accommodated by the AERMOD model. District staff is evaluating the potential of other models to more closely corroborate with existing monitoring and improve the accuracy of the modeled results. Currently Lehigh is limited by permit condition to SO emissions of 481 pounds per 2 hour. As mentioned previously, the LSI and ACI systems recently installed at Lehigh will reduce SO 2 emissions and the elevated stack will greatly reduce ground level concentrations of this pollutant. No SO emissions standard is being proposed in this rule at this time; however, should 2 future modeling or monitoring results indicate the need for SO reductions from the facility, an 2 emissions standard will be proposed that ensures that Lehigh does not cause an exceedance of the new standard. 17 251 Potential Emissions Reductions The proposed rule would limit emissions of NOx to 2.3 pounds per ton of clinker produced. This translates to a reduction in NOx emissions from the kiln of two tons per day or a 58% reduction over current levels. Lehigh is subject to the NESHAP emission limits and has already taken steps to meet these limits through application of the LSI and ACI systems detailed in the Technical Review section of this report. Operation of this equipment will have a side-benefit of reducing emissions of SO over previous levels, although it would be difficult to estimate the 2 exact reduction in SO emissions. 2 Reductions in particulate matter emissions are more difficult to quantify. The Lehigh kiln currently emits at a rate only slightly above the proposed standard for PM which is consistent with the NESHAP standards for existing sources. Both the NESHAP and NSPS require CEMS or parametric monitors for particulate emissions and there is a reasonable expectation that this equipment will become available before the standards go into effect in 2013. Compliance with the FDCP provisions of the rule will also help to ensure the continued minimization of fugitive dust emissions. The proposed limit for NOx will decrease the potential for secondary particulate formation, and the proposed standard for ammonia emissions will limit potential secondary particulate formed by increased ammonia emissions resulting from NOx control. As part of the 2010 Clean Air Plan, District staff developed a multi-pollutant evaluation method (MPEM) to evaluate the benefits of the proposed control measures contained in the plan. This MPEM can be used to calculate the emissions equivalence for NOx, SO, and ammonia to that of 2 directly emitted PM2.5 in terms of the effect on the average increase in PM2.5 concentration in the air. The emissions reduction of NOx combined with the proposed ammonia emission standard would be equivalent to a PM2.5 emission reduction of 8.7 tons per year. This number would be slightly increased by the side-benefit reduction in SO emissions mentioned 2 previously. Cost of Controls Lehigh is undergoing major modifications at their facility to meet the federally-imposed NESHAP requirements. Regulation 9, Rule 13 is being proposed at this time to integrate controls to reduce NOx into Lehigh’s planning process, as well as provide a backstop in the event that amendments to the NESHAP are delayed or rescinded. Some of the cost impacts are a result of the EPA mandates and some are the result of the District proposal. EPA evaluated the cost impacts of the final amendments to the NESHAP and NSPS in a document issued at the same time as those final documents. The costs are nationwide estimates, based on 140 existing and 16 new kilns, and actual costs may vary at individual facilities. Using the EPA estimates for a similarly sized and configured kiln as exists at Lehigh, NOx control utilizing SNCR would have a capital cost of $2.3 million, and an annual operating cost of $700 thousand. Lehigh has provided an estimated capital cost consistent with this estimate that would result from the District proposal. Lehigh estimates that it will cost $2.5 million for 18 252 modifications necessary to meet the stack requirements of this rule. However, these modifications are being undertaken to reduce health risks sufficient to avoid notification requirements for Lehigh should production levels return to maximum capacity. Therefore, this cost should not be attributed entirely to the proposed rule. Ammonia emissions can be controlled by controlling the feed into the SNCR at no additional cost. Although an excess of ammonia may result in incrementally lower NOx emissions, excess ammonia may also result in secondary PM formation and higher costs. In order to meet the NESHAP emission limits, Lehigh will need to install control equipment as well as CEMS or parametric monitors for each emission point from the kiln and clinker cooler. The baghouses at Lehigh are compartmentalized and have multiple emission points, so Lehigh plans to manifold these to allow individual monitoring points. Lehigh has installed a hydrated Lime injection system (LSI) as well as activated carbon injection (ACI) in order to meet the NESHAP emission limits. Both of these systems will have the side benefit of reducing SO. In 2 addition to the control equipment, there are costs associated with monitoring and testing to verify compliance with the rule. CEMS will be required for NOx, and either O or CO, although these 22 are already in place by permit condition. Additional parametric monitors will be required for PM, ammonia, D/F, mercury, total organic hydrocarbons, and HCl, as well as installation of continuous flow rate monitors and production monitoring systems. Costs of control equipment and monitoring to meet the NESHAP requirements are estimated to be $27-$32 million. Costs of control equipment and monitoring for elements of the proposed District rule not already required by the NESHAP would amount to $5 million. Costs for implementation of the Fugitive Dust Control Plan are considered to be minimal. Most provisions are already in place as a condition of Lehigh’s Title V permit. The requirements of the proposed rule are meant to codify the FDCP and improve enforceability. However, it is possible that the existing dust mitigation plan would be revised, and there may potentially be costs associated with modifications to the Permit to Operate for the facility. 19 253 5.0 Rule Development / Public Consultation Process The District has developed rule language and it is attached to this workshop report. The proposal is based in part on federal regulations and existing regulations in other air districts in California. Staff has consulted with officials from Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, Portland cement industry experts, California Air Resources Board staff, and EPA staff during the preparation of this document. A public workshop is the next step in the rule development process. The purpose of the workshop is to solicit comments from the public on the District’s proposed Regulation 9, Rule 13. During the workshop, District staff will seek comments on issues discussed in this workshop report and will respond to questions about information set forth in this report. Staff will review and consider all comments received at the public workshop and revise the proposal as appropriate. In addition, staff will prepare an analysis of environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, a socioeconomic analysis, and a final proposed rule and staff report that will be available for public review and comment prior to a public hearing before the District’s Board of Directors. 20 254 6.0 References 1.Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, “SSM 9 – Cement Kilns”, Volume 2, September 15, 2010. 2.Portland Cement Association; Overview of the Cement Industry, Economics of the U.S Cement Industry, December 2009; www.cement.org 3.National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Andrew Ginsburg, and Ursula Kramer Co- Presidents of Board of Directors; NACAA comment on Portland Cement NSPS and attachments;September 30, 2008. 4.Pete Grannis, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,“Grannis Hails Clean Air Settlement with Cement Manufacturer”, Environmnet DEC Newsletter; February 2010. 5.BAAQMD Emission Inventory, base year 2009. 6.Lehigh Southwest Cement, Permanente Plant; www.lehighpermanente.com 7.US EPA; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants; Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / September 9, 2010. 8.US EPA; FACT SHEET for Final Amendments to National Air Toxics Emission Standards and New Source Performance Standards for Portland Cement Manufacturing; August 9, 2010. 9.Keith Barnett, US EPA; Final Portland Cement MACT and NSPS Standards Webinar; November 17, 2010. 10.Consultation with Mr. Henrik Wesseling, Plant Manager of Lehigh Southwest Cement Company; July 2010. 11.Zephyr Environmental Corporation; Summary of Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxide, SN3049, Portland Cement Association; 2008. 12.US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Alternative Control Techniques Document Update - NO Emissions from New Cement Kilns, EPA-453/R-07-006; November x 2007. 13.European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Draft Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries; May 2009; http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu. 21 255 14.Al Armendariz, Ph. D; The Costs and Benefits of Selective Catalytic Reduction on Cement Kilns for Multi-Pollutant Control; Department of Environmental and Civil Engineering, Southern Methodist University; February 11, 2008. 15.US EPA; United States Announces Two Major Clean Air Act New Source Review Settlements at 28 Industrial Plants Nationwide; January 21, 2010 16.US EPA; Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Final Amendments to Portland Cement NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL); Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2002- 0051; August 6, 2010. 17.US EPA; Summary of Environmental and Cost Impacts of Final Revisions to Portland Cement New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR PART 60, subpart F); Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877; August 6, 2010. 18.Consultation with Mr. Henrik Wesseling and Mr. Scott Renfrew of Lehigh Southwest Cement Company, Mr. Timothy Matz of Lehigh Hanson, and Mr. Shane Alesi of Heidelberg Cement Group; October 12, 2010. 19.Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Multi-Pollutant Evaluation Method Technical Document, April 2010. 22 256 MINUTES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Special Meeting Tuesday, January 10, 2012 ROLL CALL At 5:07p.m. ChairMark Santorocalled the specialmeeting to order in the Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. Present: ChairMark Santoro, and Agencymembers Barry Chang, Gilbert Wong, and Rod Sinks. Absent: Vice-Chair Orrin Mahoney. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None ORDINANCESAND ACTION ITEMS 1.Subject:Approve amended Redevelopment Agency Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 12-01 amending Redevelopment Agency Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule Finance Director David Wooreviewed the staff report. Wongmoved and Changseconded to Adopt Resolution No. 12-01amending Redevelopment Agency Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule.The motion carried with ViceChair Mahoney absent. ADJOURNMENT At 5:12p.m., the meeting was adjourned. _____________________________ Grace Schmidt,Recording Secretary 257