Exhibit CC 11-04-13 Item # 24 Emails1//V //,y _t;_y
Grace Schmidt
a
From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse @earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 3:16 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Monday Council Meeting: Vested Rights: Letter from former City Manager David Knapp
Attachments: David - Knapp- Letter -to- County 2010.pdf
Can you get this into the packet for Monday night's meeting? Thanks!
From: Rhoda Fry [mailto:fryhouse @earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:02 PM
To: omahoney @cupertino.org; msantoro @cupertino.orl;; 'rsinks @cupertino.org'; bchang @cupertino.org;
'Gilbertw @cupertino.org' (Gil bertw @cupertino.or
Cc: 'cityclerk @cupertino.org'
Subject: Vested Rights: Letter from former City Manager David Knapp
Dear City Council Members,
Please read the attached eloquent letter written by former City Manager David Knapp regarding vested rights.
It is interesting to note that when he wrote this letter, the EMSA was neither visible from Stevens Creek
Boulevard nor did the top of the hill look as denuded as it does today (see recent photo below).
know our Cupertino City Council has been reluctant to step on the toes of our parent county; however, the
City Manager's letter reminds the County of our City's constitutional duty to petition government for redress
of grievances.
In addition, legal non - conforming use (vested rights) circumvents appropriate regulation that would
otherwise protect the community and address legitimate citizen concerns. Isn't that what zoning is all about —
protecting the community?
We have just witnessed the power of CEQA to create a better project for Apple and the community.
Due to an erroneous vote by the County BOS, Lehigh's current zoning:
- excludes mining EIR requirements,
- excludes conditional use permits, and
- excludes addressing legitimate citizen concerns.
Please protect our community by supporting the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (and other Bay
Area cities) in their amicus brief to restore appropriate inning of 2600 acres of land. Thank You, Rhoda Fry
i
OFFICE OF THE crry MANAGER
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3265
TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3212 • FAX: (408) 777 -3366
C UP E RT I N 0 davak@cupetno.org
November 9, 2010
Jody Hall Esser
Department of Planning and Development
County of Santa Clara y
County Government Center; East Wing, 7`" Floor
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 9110 -1705
Dear Ms. Hall Esser:
Thank you for your letter dated November 2, 2010; notifying the City of Cupertino that the
County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider whether and to v ,-hat extent
Lehigh/Heidelberg Cement Inc. has a legal nor - conforming use on the East Materials Storage
Area (EMSA). I am w- iting to convey some of the concerns expressed by Cupertino residents
with respect to this hearina.y
Good governance is premised on community ia7 ,olvement and requires the government to be
responsive to citizens' legitimate concerns. This principle is at the heart of Article. 1, section 3 of
the California Constitution, which provides that the people have the right to instruct their
representatives and to petition government for redress of grievances. Good governance. principles
are also embodied in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires local
agencies to inform themselves about the environmental effects of their actions; thoroughly
consider all relevant information before they act;, and give the public an opportunity to comment
on environmental issues pertaining to such actions. The purpose of these procedural
requirements is to ensure that agencies avoid or reduce environmental impacts when it is feasible
to do so.
While the City of Cupertino is mindful of its jurisdictional liruitations as to the use of the EMSA,
use respectfully request that the County pursue a course of action that addresses the concerns of
our residents with respect to this issue. A declaration of legal non. - conforming use will
circumvent the need to obtain a. land use pe_rTnit for EMSA. A use permit could provide
appropriate regulation of the use to protect the community and address legitimate citizen
concerns.
The application for a use permit will further provide a forum for environmental review of the
issues pertaining to the use of EMSA. The provisions of CEQA will not prohibit the County
from approving the use of EMSA; but rather pro .71de the County with a de.e.per understanding of
the environmental concerns. the County can then incorporate into appropriate regulation
of the use through a perrriit. It wilt pro,.-ide -an open process whereby citizens can review-
information about the envilz-on.mealial impacts of 1=;MSA and provide their input.
Karen B. Guerin
From: Marianne & Dave Mehuys [maidav(� @comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, November 04:, 2013 8:17 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Amicus Brief
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid - Peninsula
Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important
including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our
citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus
brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the
Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Marianne Mehuys
10878' Sycamore Court
Cupertino
Karen B. Guerin
a
From: Chris Pribe [chris.pribe @me.com]
Sent_: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:10 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Cc: Ettinger Gary
Subject: Please vote IN FAVOR of the MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
My family and I have lived in Cupertino for many years and plan to stay here many more.
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the
Mid - Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is
important including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the
ability of reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your
support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a
message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our
neighbors.
Thank You,
Christopher Pribe and Family
Cupertino
Karen B. Guerin
From: Vipin Samar [vsamar @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:08 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Amicus Brief Supporting Mid - Peninsula Regional Open Space District
Dear Mayor Mahoney, Council Member Wong, Council Member Chang, Council Member Santoro, and Council Member
Sinks,
As Cupertino residents, we need to ensure that the air Cupertino breathes remains free from dangerous mining and
industrial pollutants. We need to do whatever we can to keep our health as priority #1. 1 am excited about going back to
orchards and apples, but lets not go into mines.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important. Your
support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies
such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors and citizens.
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid- Peninsula Regional
Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Lets give unpolluted air a chance!
Thank You,
Vipin Samar
22361 Santa Paula Ave,
Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
From:
Amy Migdal [amymigdal @yahoo.cc►rn]
Sent:
Monday, November 04, 2013 7:20 AM
To:
Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject:
MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Council Members Wong, Santoro, Chang and Sinks:
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation
expansion is important including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use
permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's
mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in
court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City
Council is united with our neighbors.
Sincerely,
Amy Migdal
11009 Sycamore Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Barry Chang,
Fran Grinels [fran @commcraft.com]
Monday, November 04, 2013 2:00 AM
Barry Chang
Lehigh Cement Facility
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos, and Portola Valley in
Supporting the Mid- Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the
court letter. Personally, I think it is shameful that Cupertino was not the first on board.
I know you do to and it has been an uphill battle. Thank you so much for leading this
battle.
Fran Grinels
1
Karen B. Guerin
From: Fran Grinels [fran @commcraft.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:56 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney
Subject: Lehigh Cement Facility
Dear Mayor Mahoney,
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills., Los Altos, and Portola Valley in
Supporting the Mid- .Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the
court letter. Personally, I think it is shameful that Cupertino was not the first on board.
Fran Grinels
i
Karen B. Guerin
0
From: Steve Arakaki [sarakaki @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:34 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Bany Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Cc: Patty Arakaki
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is
important including environmental impact requirements (IEIR), conditional use permits and the ability of
reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh (Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the
filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other
agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Steve and Patty Arakaki
21884 Monte Court
Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
From:
Chris Toomey [ctoomey @gmail.com]
Sent:
Sunday, November 03, 2013 11:11 PM
To:
Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Mark Santoro
Subject:
MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council:
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important
including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our
citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining; operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus
brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that
the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Sincerely,
Christopher Toomey
Cupertino
Karen B. Guerin
From: Ken Smyth [kend_smyth @yahoo.corn]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 10:08 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
omahoney(aDcupertino.orq, gwonq(a)cupertino.org, bchang(c)cupertino.org, msantoro(Dcupertino.org,
rsinks(cD-cupertino.org
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council,
I recommend a vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid - Peninsula
Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter. For decades the Lehigh facility has belched toxic
emissions into our community and have a track record of resisting implementation of reducing emissions and do so only
when force to implement change by the EPA and community activists. Lehigh is an organization that cannot be trusted.
The facility has emitted an average of 1/4 ton of mercury into our community over the last 10 years. In some years it has
been more than 1/2 ton. These are not safe levels of mercury being released into our community. Are you OK with 1/4 ton
of mercury being released into our community? How much do you deem to be a safe level? And Lehigh has a track record
of countless violations with minimal penalties. In my opinion thE! County Supervisors have had a long track record of being
soft and favorable toward Lehigh. Now is the City Council's opportunity to take a firm stand on this issue.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important
including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's
concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help
win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City
Council is united with our neighbors.
The Cupertino school district is one of the best in the Bay Area and state but our air quality is the worst in the Bay
Area and among top 1.0 in the country. Our kids and community deserve quality air and water quality. Reduce toxins
in our community, vote for Mid - Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief.
Regards,
Ken Smyth
Cupertino Resident
Karen B. Guerin
From: leslie fowler [fowlerl555 @att.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 9:59 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Support MROSD
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Thank You,
Leslie Fowler
10295 Mira Vista Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
From: ekburchard @comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 9:04 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Amicus Curiae Brief
Dear City Council Members,
I strongly urge you as Cupertino's City Council to join the Midpennisula Regional Open Space District
and the participating cities in the Amicus Curiae Brief contesting the county's recently granted rights
to Lehigh Quarry. Clearly Cupertino is greatly impacted by activities in the quarry, and it seems
irresponsible of our city not to support the requirement that the county maintain close oversight over
future quarry operations.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Burchard
Cupertino Resident
Karen B. Guerin
a
From:
Tom Allen [tom.allen @cricketsoft.com]
Sent:
Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:52 131\11
To:
Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Cc:
christina thu ngo allen
Subject:
ROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council:
I have been a resident of Cupertino and a neighbor of the cement facility for 30 years. I regularly find cement dust on
my car in the driveway. I am very concerned to hear that Santa Clara County abandoned responsibility for protecting
US.
Please vote in favor of joining with .Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is
important including environmental impact requirements (EMIR), conditional use permits and the ability of
reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the
filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other
agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Thomas C. Allen
23018 Cricket Hill Rd
Cupertino, CA 95014
+to m
tom.alien @cricketsoft.com 1 +1- 408 -821 -6455 1 Cupertino, CA
Sent from Windows Mail on a Surface Pro
Karen B. Guerin
From: Lani Harriman [lani.hrmn @gmail.corn]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:42 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid - Peninsula Regional
Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important
including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's
concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help
win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other, agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City
Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Greta And Alan Harriman
10107 Lamplighter Square
Cupertino, Ca. 95014
Karen B. Guerin
a
From: Tom Allen [tom.allen @cricketsoft.comj
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:38 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Cc: christina thu ngo alien
Subject: ROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid-
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is
important including environmental impact requirements (I -IR), conditional use permits and the ability of
reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the
filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other
agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Thomas C. Allen
23.018 Cricket Hill Rd
Cupertino, CA 95014
+tom
tom.allen(crcricketsoft.com 1 +1- 408- 821 -6455 1 Cupertino, CA
Sent from Windows Mail on a Surface Pro
Karen B. Guerin
From: Ashwin Krishnan [krishnanashwinCc)g mail. com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:30 f'M
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid - Peninsula Regional
Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important
including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's
concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help
win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City
Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
The Krishnan family,
22705 Medina. Ct,
Cupertino
Karen B. Guerin
0
From: jennieshabel @juno.com
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:25 F'M
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in
supporting the Mid - Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the
court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation
expansion is important including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use
permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's
mining operations. Your support of the filing o-F the amicus brief may help win back our
rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the
Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Please REMEMBER , you REPRESENT the citizens of Cupertino and we expect you to act in behalf
of your constituents. Obviously, the County Supervisors are NOT trying to protect the
citizens of Santa Clara County.
Thank You,
Jack & Jennie Shabel
22622 Oakcrest Ct.
Cupertino, Ca. 95014
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http: / /www.netzero. net / ?refcd= NZINTISP0512T4GOUT.2
1
Karen B. Guerin
From: Robert Ponce [robert911s @netscape.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:21 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please stop Lehigh Cement from expanding!!
They do not conform to current laws regarding emissions for air and
water discharges. Best, Robert Ponce, Medina Lane, Cupertino..
Karen B. Guerin
a
From: Vicky Ho [vickyyueho @yahoo.com:l
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 7:49 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Do the right thing for the residents of Cupertino
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in
supporting the Mid - Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of
the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation
expansion is important including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use
permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's
mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our
rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the. County that the
Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Vicky Ho
22600 Alpine Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
From: Alan Penn [alanp_usa @yahoo.corri]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 7:48 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council,
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid - Peninsula Regional
Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important
including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's
concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations: Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help
win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City
Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Alan Penn
Karen B. Guerin
a
From: patrick lin [patts.lin @gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 7:47 F'M
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
cc: Katty Lin
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is
important including environmental impact requirements (E1R), conditional use permits and the ability of
reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the
filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other
agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Patrick/Katty Lin
10576 Merriman Road, Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
a
From: Gary Ettinger [gary@ettingers.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 7:24 F'M
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Support MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council:
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief., a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is
important including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of
reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the
filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other
agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Gary Ettinger
Cupertino
Karen B. Guerin
From: A G [amargupta2000 @gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 6`28 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Monday, NovA Important Cupertino City Council Meeting related to Lehigh Quarry
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is
important including environmental impact requirements (B:[R), conditional use permits and the ability of
reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the
filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other
agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Amar and Padmini Gupta
22975 Balboa Road, Cupertino
Karen B. Guerin
From: Lyn Faust [lynfaust @yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 6:13 F'M
To Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief & the City of Cupertino - Item #24
Mayor Mahoney and Fellow Council Members,
As a concerned, but hopeful citizen, I am writing to ask that the City of Cupertino approve the request
to join in the Amicus Brief supporting the MROSD, along with other area cities and towns, in seeking
to have the Appellate Court reverse the Trial Court's order granting vested rights to Lehigh without a
conditional use permit.
As you may know, I am long time Cupertino resident and live in a neighborhood within close proximity
to Lehigh's operations. I also have been very involved with Stevens Creek Quarry. When issues of
concern with the latter were brought to the County, both Planning and Board of Supervisors, I believe
that it was primarily because of the existence of their use permits that we were able to work together
for resolution to the issues.
I strongly believe that with the benefit of public scrutiny, via the permit process and environmental
review pursuant to CEQA, that a positive pathway would exist for diligent analysis, along with timely
and appropriate follow up. I see a broader area of citizens, in addition to those of Cupertino,
benefiting from such a process.
Please help us do our part in supporting this effort tonight. I would love to see Cupertino take such
leadership with their YES vote and believe that adjacent communities would have increased respect
for the leadership you would be displaying.The citizens of Cupertino will be forever grateful.
Sincerely,
Lyn Faust
11033 Canyon Vista Dr.
Cupertino
Karen B. Guerin
From: Carol Stanek [carolstaneks @gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 6:09 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: In Favor of joining the MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council,
While I support the rights of businesses to conduct their business to make a profit, I do not support their-right to
bypass environmental controls and pass the cost of their pollution on to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Oversight is the responsibility of our regulatory agencies and should not be relinquished. While this is not
Cupertino's responsibility, it is our right and your responsibility to advocate that the appropriate agencies step
up to enforce appropriate laws and regulations.
Therfore, I support the action for Cupertino to join the MROSD Amicus Brief.
Thank you for your careful consideration to this and all matters that come before you.
Best regards,
Carol Stanek
10382 Mira Vista Rd
Cupertino, CA
Karen B. Guerin
a
From: Frank Geefay [fgeefay @yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 5:46 PIVI
To Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Cc Frank Geefay; barry4assembly @gmail.com
Subject: Mid - Peninsulat Amcus Brief Vote
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
I strongly urge you to vote together with the communities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Portola valley and Sunnyvale in an joint AmiCU.S Brief with the Mid - Peninsula Regional
Open Space Distric in support of an appeal by iBay Area for Clean Environment of a lawsuit
against Lehigh Cement and Permanente Quarry and the County of Santa Clara regarding the
vested right decision by the County.
The problem is that large amounts of areas have been vested by the county to Permanente
Quarry thus eliminating the need of the quarry to apply for a mining permit or
environmental studies or county reviews and public inputs when the quarry decides to
perform mining operations in this area. There will be no oversize regarding safety to
residents or the environment or health impact to nearby Cupertino residents due to such
things as contaminated surface and g.round water.
it is to the City's interest to protect the health and safety of Cupertino residents and
make them feel that they are living in a safe city. Lehigh adversely affects Cupertino
more than any of the other communities already committed to join in the amicus brief.
joining in with other communities in the amicus brief will indicate your support of
concerned residents over the interest of the Lehigh Cement company. Please do what is
right for our community and vote to join with other communities in this amicus brief
being prepared by Mid - Peninsula. Thank you.
Best Regards,
Frank
Karen B. Guerin
a
From: Frank Mangini [FM Mang ini @att.nei:j
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 5:07 131\1
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Cc: sharonomoh @att.net
Subject: Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important
including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our
citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus
brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that
the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Frank and Sharon Mangini
10369 Tonita Way
Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
From: chris liou [chris_liou @yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 5:06 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Nov 4 City Council Mtg - Amicux Brief agenda item
Dear council members -
I will not be able to physically attend tomorrow's city council meeting and discussion on
joining. Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley, and the Mid - Peninsula Open Space
district in the amicus brief for an appeal to overturn the earlier decision that grants vested
rights to the entire Lehigh Quarry, but would like to express my support for Cupertino to
join our neighboring cities in the amicus brief and not allow Lehigh to continue and expand
mining operations without the County's ability to analyze the impacts of noise, dust,
pollution, and traffic to our surrounding communities.
Thank you
Regards,
Chris Liou - Cupertino resident
Karen B. Guerin
0
From: Brett Alten [brettalten @yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 4:55 131\11
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro,; Rod Sinks
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council:
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid - Peninsula Regional
Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important
including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's
concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help
win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City
Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank you,
Brett Alten
22661 San Juan Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
a
From: Meir Statman [mstatman @scu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 4:43 I'M
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid- Peninsula Regional
Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important
including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's
concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help
win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City
Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Meir Statman
23022 Voss Ave, Cupertino
Meir Statman
Glenn Klimek Professor of Finance
Leavey School of Business
Santa Clara University
321 L Lucas Hall
500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95053
USA
Tel 408 554 4147
mstatman cr scu.edu
httn: / /www.scu.edu/ business /finance /faculty /statman.cfm
Author of "What Investors Really Want"
http:// whatinvestorswant .wordpress.com/
Karen B. Guerin
From: Heidi Carson [heidicarson2000 @y�ihoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please join the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's amicus brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Council Members Wong, Santoro, Chang and Sinks,
Please join the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's amicus brief. Our City's support
of the amicus brief may help to overturn the Lehigh vested rights decision and will send a
clear message to the County and Lehigh that local communities impacted by the operations of
this industrial facility want to retain our right to analyze its impacts on surrounding
communities and employ reasonable limits on any future expansion through the use of EIR's and
conditional -use permits. The cost to the City to protect Cupertino's quality of life will be
money well invested.
Kind regards,
Heidi Carson
23647 Black Oak Way
Cupertino
Best,
Heidi
Karen B. Guerin
From:
Paula Wallis [wallisalviar @hotmail.com]
Sent:
Saturday, November 02, 2013 3:23 PM
To:
City Council
Cc:
Paula Wallis
Subject:
Support of Midpen's amicus brief.
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Council Members Wong, Santoro, Chang and Sinks,
Please joint the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's amicus brief in support of
BACE's vested rights appeal. Our City's support of the amicus brief may help to overturn the
Lehigh vested rights decision and will send.a clear message to the County and Lehigh that
local.communities impacted by the operations of this industrial facility want to retain our
right to analyze its impacts on surrounding communities and employ reasonable limits on any
future expansion through the use of EIR's and conditional -use permits. The estimated $7,000
cost to the City to protect Cupertino's quality of life will be money well invested.
'Kind Regards
Paula Wallis
10898 Sycamore Dr
Cupertino.
1
Karen B. Guerin
From: Gary Latshaw [glatshaw @gmail.corn]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: MSROD Amicus Brief
Councilmen:
I am writing to urge the City Council to partner with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos, Portola Valley, and
Midpenninsula Open Space District. They are submitting an amicus brief to the court that is considering an
appeal by Bay Area for Clean Environment in their case against Lehigh Cement Company and the County. The
case is that the original granting of vested rights to Lehigh by the County was done irresponsibly and illegally.
There are two distinct reasons why this appeal should be approved
• One the County granting of vested rights to Lehigh properties was an irresponsible action on the part of
the elected officials who overturned a well -done, extensive analysis performed by the County staff.
• Two, granting vested rights to Lehigh facilitates the expansion of their operations so Lehigh can start a
new pit mine. This facility is one of the largest cement plants in the country and the only one near a major
metropolitan area. The pollution from the plant is incompatible with healthy air for our community.
The law is very precise in stating that vested rights should. be granted only under the most strict circumstances.
The County basically turned the clock back to 1948 when land use regulations were introduced. In 1948 the fact
that cigarette smoking causes cancer, that auto exhaust causes smog, and many other public health issues were
unknown. The transistor was a laboratory experiment, a polio vaccine had not been found, and space travel was
only a subject of science fiction and comics characters.
Thus, most of what we know today about mercury, formaldehyde, benzene, and many other toxic chemicals
(emitted by the plant) was not understood in 1948.
The County staff recommended to the board of supervisors against granting vested rights for the simple reason
that not all the land in question was owned by Kaiser, which through various sales has transferred the land to
the Lehigh cement plant. In fact some of the land was recently purchased — 1995! The County granted these
rights only because of Lehigh's political influence in contributing to o campaigns with funding and staff time.
The board chairman at the time was George Shirakawa, Jr., who is waiting sentencing based on being convicted
of twelve criminal charges, oversaw the board's decision.
For the City to not enter this partnership is to implicitly agree with this injustice.
Karen B. Guerin
From: Hemi Fein [hemif @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013'8:41 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Cc: 'Hemi Fein'
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Importance: High
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council,
would like to add my voice, requesting you to vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and
Portola Valley in supporting the Mid - Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the
court letter.
Lehigh is a major environmental offender. Having it in our back yard is reducing the quality of life in our
community. Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion
is important including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of
reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the
filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies
such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Hemi (Menachem) Fein
10371Mira Vista Rd
Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
From: baotram nguyen [btnguyen @pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:00 AM
To: Linda Sell; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Re: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is
important including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of
reacting to our citizen's concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the
filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other
agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You,
Baotram Nguyen
10460 S Foothill Blvd
Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
From: John McCrory Dohnmccrory@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:37 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Lehigh Cement
Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council
member Sinks,
Please vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of
Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights.
Respectfully,
John and Marilyn McCrory
Dryden Ave
Karen B. Guerin
From: malle lantz [omalleo @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:21 AM
To: Gilbert Wong
Subject: Lehigh
Dear Mr. Wong,
Please join the Amicus Brief. I live near Foothill Blvd. and am very concerned about the
emissions from the Lehigh Plant.
Sincerely,
Malle Lantz
10419 Palo Vista Rd
1
Karen B. Guerin
From: Meera [meera2000 @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:18 ANI
To: Rod Sinks
Cc: Srinivas Ketavarapu
Subject: Upcoming City Council Meeting this evening.
Mr. Sinks,
My husband and I support the Cupertino City Council in joining Los
Altos, Los Altos Hills and Portola Valley and the Mid- Peninsula
Open Space District in the amicus brief, which would restore the
authority of the County and surrounding communities to analyze
and impose reasonable restrictions on the mining operations at
Lehigh.
Regards,
Srinivas Ketavarapu and Meera Nori, resident of 10556 Manzanita Ct. Cupertino.
1
Karen B. Guerin
From: Johnson Lau Ulau98 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 9:15 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barn/ Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council,
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid - Peninsula
Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important including
environmental impact requirements (FIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's concerns
when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicl.is brief may help xvin back our
rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies suclr as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united
with our neighbors.
It's for our kids and their kids!
Thant: You Very Much,
Johnson Lau
Cupertino
Karen B. Guerin
a
From:
Doh -Suk Kim [ds.s.kim @gmail.corri]
Sent:
Monday, November 04, 2013 10:51 AM
To:
Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barnl Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject:
MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council::
I'm very much concerned about the environmental quality of Cupertino residential area where many children are living.
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid - Peninsula Regional
Open Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important
including environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's
concerns when related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help
win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City
Council is united with our neighbors.
Thank You, .
Doh -Suk Kim
22424 Riverside Dr, Cupertino, CA95014
Karen B. Guerin
From: Chester Gabriel [gab rie1002 @com cast. net]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:47 AM
To: Orrin Mahoney
Subject: Mid - Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief.
We urge you to vote in favor tonight of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid -
Peninsula Regional Open Space District's Amicus Brief.
Chester and Cynthia Gabriel
10334 Scenic Blvd
Cupertino
Karen B. Guerin
From: Rochelle Chu [rochelle.chu @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 2:03 PM
To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: MROSD Amicus Brief
Dear Mayor Mahoney and Honorable. City Council
Please vote in favor of joining with Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid - Peninsula Regional Open
Space District's Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter.
Oversight of Lehigh Southwest Cement facility's mining operation and mining operation expansion is important including
environmental impact requirements (EIR), conditional use permits and the ability of reacting to our citizen's concerns when
related to Lehigh Quarry's mining operations. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in
court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our
neighbors.
Thank You,
Rochelle Chu
7724 Huntridge Ln
Cupertino, CA 95014
Karen B. Guerin
From:
Rhoda Fry [fryhouse @earthlink.net]
Sent:
Monday, November 04, 2013 2:03 PM
To:
City Council
Cc:
City Clerk
Subject:
Please Support MROSD and Amicus
Attachments:
BIG.PDF; David - Knapp- Letter -to- County 2010.pdf
Dear City Council,
The vested rights doctrine determines whether IandownE!rs have proceeded sufficiently far down the path of
development of their land that the local government should not be allowed to enforce newly enacted zoning
ordinances.
County Staff clearly stated that the quarry had not gone clown that path and the EMSA did not qualify for
vesting:
"With respect to the proposed East Materials Storage Area, the County Geologist did not identify any
quarrying- related disturbance as of 1948. Moreover, this land was sold to a separate corporation and
developed /used intensively for metals manufacturing and related activities until the 1980s. Thus, any legal
nonconforming use that may have been established on the proposed EMSA land was abandoned long ago. "
Lehigh even tried to pull the wool over staff's eyes and showed a photo of grading for the new company
headquarters on EMSA land and called it mining! County staff rejected that goofy idea.
Furthermore, the concept of expanding the Cupertino Quarry is relatively new. The quarry's neighbor, Kaiser
Aluminum, ceased operations in 1990 and sold their last parcel of land to the quarry in 1995. Interestingly, in
1992 at the Cupertino Planning Commission, the quarry unveiled a proposed housing development for quarry
land as they had anticipated closing the mine (see page 11 of attached document).
The only benefit of the legal non- conforming use designation is corporate profits. No doubt, you'll be told that
it would be a job killer — yet more and more data is coming out that regulations actually create jobs:
htto: / /www.businessweek.com /magazine /regulations- create -iobs- too- 02092012.html The downside of the
legal non - confirming use designation is losing the opportunity to fairly adopt appropriate zoning standards.
Having no zoning could reduce property tax revenue to the City and County and would certainly degrade the
quality of life of your constituents.
It is within your jurisdiction and responsibility to speak out on behalf of your constituents. This was eloquently
explained by our former Cupertino City Manager David Knapp on his assessment of Lehigh and vested rights
(see attached). The County BOS was supposed to make a decision based on the facts, and they ignored the
facts. MROSD's position is neither arbitrary nor capricious. They have commented and followed these issues
for years and are a credible organization. Please support MROSD's amicus.
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
To: County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development Planning Office, the Santa Clara County Board
of Supervisors & the Clerk of the Board
From: Rhoda Fry, Cupertino
Permanente Quarry/Lehigh Southwest Cement Company Legal Non - Conforming
Use Determination: No Vested Rights
Introduction: This document augments the comprehensive report by the Santa Clara County
Planning Department and demonstrates that the Permanente Quarry does not have a vested right to
the Morris, Crocker, or "EMSA" parcels using the claimant's information and other factual data.
Hanson's 2007 maps clearly demonstrates that the established "vested boundary" does not include
Morris or "EMSA." (Crocker inclusion would need to be determined by an expert). Note that this
is not a reclamation boundary which would be well inside the vested boundary line. The
`'approximate property boundary" line has been enhanced in thin white and the "vested boundary"
Diepenbrock Harrison' declares that the properties v✓ere acquired for
There is no doubt that, in acquiring these parcels, Kaiser intended to devote them to mining.
:)wever, Kaiser Board Meeting Minutes' state that.J.Vlorrrs was acquired for legal reasons:
Vice President, E.E. Trefethen, Jr., explained that certain property adjacent to the property
owned by this corporation in Santa Clara County, known as the Morris property, consisting of
approximately 500 acres lying adjacent to the property of this corporation on the south, was
for sale and that due to certain conditions which had developed on this property that could
lead to legal involvements, it seemed advisable that this corporation should proceed to
purchase the said Morris property for its own use.
1 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, Appendix C last page emphasis added, document date on first page
Z 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, page 4
3 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, Appendix D, minutes from April 24, 1942 pages 27, 28
Page - l - of 15
Indeed, the Moms property contained an essential seginent of road between portions of the operation; a
hostile neighbor could have been disastrous to the operation. The intent to purchase for access -only is
affirmed by the fact that in nearly seventy years of ownership, the only land improvement, which preceded
the purchase date, is that road segment. Recall, "There must be evidence that the owner or operator at the
time the use became nonconfonning had exhibited an intent to extend the use to the entire property owned
at the time." (Hansen, State Supreme Court). There were two exploratory drilling holes on the very
edge of the Crocker parcel which occurred too late for vesting consideration (1949 and 1950).
Morris Parcel with road segment is the key to access within facility4
Crocker Parcel exploratory holes don't qualify for vesting cut -off dates
4 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison Appendix A page 53
Page - 2 •• of 15
It is to be expected that a corporation with such a disruptive operation, in an area with a growing
population, would whenever possible purchase adjacent property to serve the dual purpose of
avoiding a hostile neighbor from moving in while creating a buffer from their neighbors. The
concept of creating a buffer is well- documented in the reclamation plans. Again, we know from
the company's board meeting minutes that the Morris parcel was purchased for legal reasons. The
board minutes surrounding the Crocker purchase do not appear to be in the claimant's Appendices.
Finally, the claimant has failed to demonstrate that the paths on these parcels were intended for
mining and it is equally plausible that these were logging roads.
6
Public /Private Permanente Road Determination: When making the determination of the public
or private Permanent road, it would behoove the decision makers to examine the claimant's view
of ownership below.7 This excerpt of an ownership map clearly shows a portion of Stevens Creek
Blvd ( Permanente Road) along with the rail spur as not being within the lines of ownership. This
could be used as one measure as to where the public portion of the road would end.
51/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison Appendix A page 56
6 http: / /en.wikipedia.org /wiki /Black Mountain (near Los Altos, California
11/05/2010 Diepenbrock Harrison letter EXHIBIT 9, excerpt
Page - 3 - of 15
Area referred to as the East Materials Storage Area (EMSA): The Permanente Quarry does not
have a vested right to an area referred to as the East Materials Storage Area (EMSA). The false
claim that the area is vested because "it has always been an integrated part of the Facility" 8 is
most succinctly stated by the claimant's own letter, which affirms non- integration:9
Next to the cement plant is the former Aluminum plant site, which covers approximately 153
acres. The site was under completely separate ownership from the quarry until 1995, when
the owners sold the defunct plant to Kaiser Cerr ent. The aluminum plant is not used, nor has
it ever been used, to process mined material from the Permanente Quarry.
The independence of these two publicly traded companies is further affirmed:
1. By 1951, Kaiser Aluminum had 9 plants none of which required a quarry for a neighbor.
2. When Cupertino cement workers went on strike, the Cupertino foil plant continued to operate.
3. Conversely, when the Cupertino foil plant sold in 1990, the "facility" continued to operate.
4. The companies that occupied these sites were sold to different investors at different times.
Hanson Map with Vested Boundary: The claimant's 2007 map 10 showing their established
"vested boundary" does NOT include the area referred to as EMSA (see enhanced excerpt below).
Thus the claimant has no right to threaten equitable estoppel for halting use of this property. The
"approximate property boundary" line has been enhanced in thin white and the "vested boundary"
line has been enhanced with thick orange. The EMSA area is outlined in thin white on the top right
along with part of Permanente Road. The EMSA area is also outlined in thick orange on the
bottom showing the beginning of the facility's vested area.
8 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, page 5
9 1/10/2006 Diepenbrock Harrison letter duplicated in Appendix A of this document
10 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, Appendix C last page with document date on the first page
Page -4 -of 15
Company identifiers demonstrate these companies are in very different industries:
Corporate Identity
Lehigh Hanson
Kaiser Aluminum
Address
24001 Stevens Creek Blvd,
23333 Stevens Creek Blvd,
Cupertino, CA 9501.4
Cupertino, CA 95014
Stock
privately owned under HEIG.DE
KALU (NASDAQ)
(Germany)
also KCG, HAN, ...
also KACC, KLU, MXM, ...
NAICS Code
327310
331316 Aluminum Extruded
Cement Manufacturing
Product Manufacturing
DUNS NUMBER
103037458
177762192 (one of several)
EPA Registry ID
110000484039
110011654584
Permanente Metals History: The recently named "East Materials Storage Area"'' is located on
the original site of the publicly traded Permanente Metals Corporation (later Kaiser Aluminum),
which started acquiring land adjacent to the Permanente Company (later Lehigh Hanson) in 1941.
In his lifetime American industrialist Henry J. Kaiser created many companies including Kaiser
Shipyards, Kaiser Steel, Kaiser Motors, Kaiser Healthcare, Kaiser Aluminum (preceded by Kaiser
Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and Permanente Metals), and Kaiser Cement (preceded by
Permanente Cement and Permanente Company). WWII created a strategic inflection point for the
industrialist who capitalized on abundant government opportunities. One of them was Permanente
Metals which was launched using the United States uovernment's Reconstruction Finance
Corporation (RFC).
At this site, Permanente Metals had a state of the art campus for magnesium production for
incendiary bombs and ferrosilicon in WWII, fused phosphate fertilizer from New Almaden
serpentine and phosphate rock from Idaho 1', and for aluminum extruded products until 1990.
Diepenbrock Harrison has led the reader to believe that grading performed to build the company
campus was a mining activity and that material storage is equivalent to dumping mining waste. In
addition, the claimant states: "Both companies performed mining and mining related operations.
The cement plant was the end process that began with limestone mining in the adjacent quarry.
The magnesium plant, similarly, processed dolomite mined from off -site Kaiser facilities
including the Natividad quarry in Monterey County and was simply the last stop before mined
material was processed before distribution to customers." 13 Until the recent impermissible
dumping of mining waste, "EMSA" has neither been used for mining nor has there been a plan to
mine there prior to applicable vesting dates and therefore has no vested rights for mining.
Although a minute portion of the property shows disturbance according to the county geologist,
the substantial changes in operations by both Permanente Metals and its successor, Kaiser
Aluminum clearly demonstrate an abandonment ormaiver of vested rights for mining.
11 Note that although the same name was used in a previous reclamation plan, it referred to a different location that
has since been renamed to "CMSA," Central Materials Storages Area
12 Geoloev and ouicksilver deoosits of the New Almaden District. Santa Clara Countv
13 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, page 29
Page -5 -of 15
Unpermitted Surface Mining Operation & Impermissible Intensification thereof: The
overburden area was first officially recognized by the county in a 2006 Notice of Violation and
again in 2008 as an intensification of the previous Notice of Violation14. In April 2009, county
staff and Lehigh came to a provisional agreement until the timely delivery of a reclamation plan15
ZUUU LeniKn rvvV anu LUUO LU111911 IVUV
is 2009 Agreement regarding EMSA and Associated Correspondence
Page - 6 - of 15
Kaiser Cement Plans to Close Quarry and Abandon Vested Mining Right: In 1992, Kaiser
Cement, owned by British Hanson Industries, pre- a'mounced its exit plan from the quarry
business, a clear intent by the facility to waive, abandon, or otherwise forego its vested right in its
operation. As Kaiser anticipated about 20 more years of remaining material in the quarry, they
hired a consulting firm to plan "the City of the 21st Century" upon their 3600 acres. This plan was
presented at the City of Cupertino Planning Cornmission.16
During this planning period, former Kaiser employee Barbara Koppel served on the Cupertino
City Council and Kaiser manager Tom Legan served on the County Board of Supervisors.
Recognizing a conflict of interest and reversing county counsel opinion, the State of California
Fair Political Practices Commission ruled unanimously that Supervisor Legan could not vote on a
land -use issue that could financially benefit his employer, Kaiser Cement Corp. 17
Abandonment is further affirmed by the company's lack of investment and disregard of regulators.
The Diebenbrock Harrison letter dated January 4, 2011 touts the most recent cement plant
investment was made around 1980, over thirty years ago (by now fully depreciated). The
abundance of violations is well - known.
Considerations Regarding Vested Rights Determination by the County: We urge the County
Board of Supervisors to consider the facts and not provide vested rights to the applicant.
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical & Lehigh Hanson History and News: Below are some interesting
stories about political connections, Permanente Metals, and cement and quarry's
Political Connections
1982
Kaiser Cement executive Tom Legan is appointed to fill Dan McCorquodale's vacant
seat on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. (SJ 11/25/87) He serves on the
board from 1982 — 1989. In 1986, he lost a bid for state senator against McCorquodale.
1985
Kaiser. Cement executive and Santa Clara County Supervisor Tom Legan shows conflict
of interest by seeking to increase housing densities on hillsides in unincorporated areas of
the county which would substantially increase the value of Kaiser property. (SJ 7/13/85)
1987
Former Kaiser Cement employee, Barbara Koppel elected to Cupertino City Council
(elected twice and serves 8 years) and also serves on the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District BAAQMD. (SJ 11/21/90)
1992
Kaiser- Cement Corp., owned by British Hanson, unveils plan to build 1,100 homes and a
golf course in the lulls west of Cupertino. (SJ 2/19/92)
1996
Supervisorial candidate and longtime Cupertino council member Barbara Koppel fined
for accepting too much money from Hanson and fails to accurately report $500 from
Assemblyman Jim Cunneen — who is now an adviser to Lehigh Hanson. (SJ 10/3/96)
2008
Sandra James, forner Cupertino mayor (serving 8 years on Cupertino City Council) is
hired as the company's community affairs and public relations manager. (SJ 10/29/2008)
2010
Supervisor Liz Kniss proposes Resolution No. 2010 -162 commending Cupertino Citizen
of the Year (& Lehigh Hanson PR manager) Sandy L. James. It is adopted unanimously.
16 APPENDIX A San Jose Mercury News 2/20/1992: DEVELOPER'S VISION OF 'CITY OF 21ST CENTURY'
17 APPENDIX B Two San Jose Mercury News Articles Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and FPPC
18 (NYT = New York Times, SJ = San Jose Mercury News)
Page -7 -of 15
Permanente Metals
1941
Permanente Metals Corporation becomes a neighbor of the Permanente Company.
1943
The two companies make sure to be separate: "The Permanente Corporation, former
official name of the cement plant, has been changed to the Permanente Cement
Company. The change will prevent confusion between the cement and magnesium
operations." 20
1947
Permanente Metals Corporation closes the magnesium plant. (NYT 11/1/47)
1947
Permanente Metals Corporation hires San Francisco advertising company for national
campaign of Kaiser Aluminum — [cement is not mentioned at all]. (NYT 3/4/47)
1948
NYT earnings reports of several companies; including: Permanente Metals Corporation
(for the year, $2.67 a share) and Permanente Cement Company (for the quarter, $1.09 a
share). (NYT 6/17/48).
1950
Economic Changes Affect Aluminum: Permanente Metals Corporation purchases
previously rented aluminum mill from the'War Assets Administration. In late 1949
govermnent adds aluminum to the list of strategic metals to be stockpiled. (NYT 1/3/50)
1950
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation (the new name for Permanente Metals)
announces stocks lit and supplies 30% of the nation's aluminum. (NYT 4/7/55)
1951
Kaiser Aluminum expands to nine plants. (NYT 8/21/51)
1956
Company sponsors "Kaiser Aluminum Hour" drama series on NBC. (NYT 11/19/56)
1980
Some Kaiser Aluminum land is sold to the facility. -
1980
Claimant's historical record states that "around 1980, the facility's primary office,
previously abandoned for a number of years, was vandalized and destroyed by arson.
Following the fire, the structure and several associated buildings and features were
razed. " "` These statements are not supported by the photographic record, demolition
permits, or newspaper reports. This description more accurately matches a fire under
Hanson ownership in 1993.
1983
Kaiser Aluminum correspondence with EPA that it is separate from Kaiser Cement and
the location of the latter is at the terminus of Stevens Creek Blvd.23
1983
Kaiser Aluminum obtains a building permit for a 5000 square foot storage facility and
loading dock at the Cupertino plant. (Santa Clara County permit: 1983 - 39739 -00)
1984
Kaiser Aluminum obtains a pen-nit to re -roof (permit: 1984- 40550 -00)
1987
British investor Alan Clore purchases Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and
reorganizes into a company called Kaisertech, LTD. (NYT 5/2/87)
1987
`'Twenty workers at the Kaiser Aluminum &: Chemical Corp. plant in Cupertino have
complained about a mysterious skin rash during the past two weeks, a company official
said." (SJ 1./24/87)
1988
"kerosene fire Wednesday at the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. in Cupertino.
Central Fire District spokesman Angelo Chancellor said the fire broke out about 9:30
a.m. in two kerosene tanks." (SJ 3/24/88)
19 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, Appendix E, page 1.
20 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, Appends D, page 42
21 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, Appendix E, page 2
22 Santa Clara County Historic Reference Public Access Binder_ page 126
23 See APPENDIX B of this document
Page -8 -of 15
1988
Kaiser Aluminum signs letter of intent to sell California, Ohio foil plants to TXL private
investment group. (PRNEWSWIRE 6/2/88)
1988
Kaisertech agrees to be acquired by Maxxam group (NYT 5/24/88) owned by Texas
wheeler dealer Charles Hurwitz and financed with Drexel Burnham Lambert junk bonds.
1989
Santa Clara County fines Kaiser Aluminurri and Chemical Corp. $79,392 for improper
storage and handling of hazardous materials (SJ 6/27/89). See also the Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health 24 and the only EPA Kaiser Aluminum
(0903175) document that is approved for release to the public. More information is
unavailable due to litigation. Site is under consideration for the National Priorities List.
1990
"Kaiser expects to shut down the foil plant at the end of May. It will sell the entire
operation to Coastal Aluminum Rolling Mills Inc. which plans to dismantle the plant and
move the rolling mills and associated processing equipment to Williamsport, Penn.....
The Kaiser foil operation is wedged into a gouged -out portion of the Cupertino foothills,
behind a dusty Kaiser cement facility, and is in an old munitions plant dating back to at
least World War II. Simon said about 100 employees work at the foil plant and the
company hasn't decided how many employees, if any, that Kaiser will move into other
operations... Coastal will offer to transfer some of Kaiser's foil mill employees to
Pennsylvania with the equipment, " (San Francisco Business Times 3/12/90)
1993
A fire at the Kaiser Cement Corp. plant in the hills behind Cupertino and Los Altos
destroyed a storage building and sent a huge plume of smoke into the air ... Kaiser
operations faltered briefly when phone lines went out, ... The building was at the
northern edge of Kaiser's property. It formerly held the company's administration and
engineering offices, but since 1989 had been used for storage ... The fire was reported at
4:42 p.m. and contained about 6 p.m. Firefighters were hampered by inadequate water
supplies, said Teresa Meisenbach, senior deputy fire marshal with Central Fire . The
cause remained under investigation, she said. (SJ 4/27/93)
1995
The remainder of Cupertino Kaiser Aluminum land is sold to the facility.
Cement and Quarry
194' )
The two companies make sure to be separate: "The Permanente Corporation, former official
name of the cement plant, has been changed to the Pennanente Cement Company. The change
will prevent confusion between the cement and magnesium operations." 26
1947
Pennanente Cement Company offers 150,000 shares of common stock. (NYT 12//18/47)
1958
Pennanente Cement announces earnings with record high sales. (3/14/58)
1980
Some Kaiser Aluminum land is sold to the facility. 2
1980
Claimant's historical record states that "around 1980, the facility's primary office, previously
abandoned for a number of years, was vandalized and destroyed by arson. Following the fire, the
structure and several associated buildings and features were razed .,'28 These statements are not
supported by the photographic record, demolition pennits, or newspaper reports. This description
more accurately matches a fire under Hanson ownership in 1993.
24 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health File 07S2W16L01f
25 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, Appendix E, page 2
26 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, Appends D, page 42
27 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, Appendix E, page 2
28 Santa Clara County Historic Reference Public Access Binder page 126
Page -9 -of 15
1985
Striking Cupertino Kaiser Cement Corp. workers mark second month anniversary off the job
Friday with a rally and little hope e of a settlement in the near future. (SJ 8/31/85)
1985
EPA report identifies only one major air pollution site in the area -- the coal- and -coke
burning Kaiser Cement plant in the hills above Cupertino. The disclosure that Kaiser
Cement Corp. may be the single largest source of cancer- causing air pollution in Santa
Clara County did not come as a great surprise to neighbors of the plant. (SJ 10/12/85)
1985
Air Board plans tests at Kaiser will measure metals that may cause cancer. (SJ 11/1/85)
1986
Hanson Industries agrees to acquire Oakland- based Kaiser Cement Corp. (SJ 11/28/86)
1987
A group of Cupertino and Los Altos residents will appear Tuesday before the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors to object to the Kaiser Cement Corp.'s proposal to lower the
hilltop ridge line near Morita Vista because of a landslide. (SJ 9/21/87)
1990
Bay Area Air Quality Management District ranks Kaiser Cement as top Santa Clara
County polluter for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury and nickel. (SJ 8/2/90)
1991
Nine South Bay companies, including Kaiser Cement & Gypsum, are told to warn nearby
residents of potential cancer risks from their emissions, under a sweeping new regional
program to reduce toxic air pollutants. (SJ 8/8/91)
1992
The British company that owns Kaiser Cement Corp. tonight is expected to unveil a plan
to build 1,100 homes and a golf course in the hills west of Cupertino. (SJ 2/19/92)
1993
A fire at the Kaiser Cement Corp. plant in the hills behind Cupertino and Los Altos
destroyed a storage building and sent a huge plume of smoke into the air ... Kaiser
operations faltered briefly when phone lines went out, ... The building was at the
northern edge of Kaiser's property. It formerly held the company's administration and
engineering offices, but since 1989 had been used for storage ... The fire was reported at
4:42 p.m. and contained about 6 p.m. Firefighters were hampered by inadequate water
supplies, said Teresa Meisenbach, senior deputy fire marshal with Central Fire. The
cause remained under investigation, she said. (SJ 4/27/93)
1993
Kaiser Cement agrees to pay $685,933 for faulty cement (contaminated with dolomite in
1980) at Alameda County Jail. (SJ 3/6/91)
1995
The rest of the Kaiser Aluminum land in Cupertino is sold to the facility. 2
1996
Kaiser Cement tire 45 -day burning experiment raises health concerns. The Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, which declared 25 Spare the Air days the same year, had
quietly issued Kaiser its experimental permit in November 1995. (Metro 10/17 - 23/96)
2005
The dumping of quarry rock along a ridgeline in the Cupertino hillsides -- which created
a jarring visual contrast to an otherwise natural setting -- will end this summer. The Palo
Alto -based Committee for Green Foothills announced last week that the Hanson Quarry
has agreed to end the dumping..(SJ 3/17/2,005).
2007
HeidelbergCement buys Hanson.
2008
The largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Santa Clara County is the Hanson Permanente
Cement Plant in Cupertino_ (SJ 2/9/08) _
29 1/4/2011 Diepenbrock Harrison letter, Appendix E, page 2
30 http: / /www aggregateresearch com /article.aspx ?ID =11020
Page -10 -of 15
APPENDIX A: Kaiser Cement Plans Housing Development
DEVELOPER'S VISION OF'CITY OF 21ST CENTURY'
San Jose Mercury News (CA) - Thursday, February 20, 1992
Author: BERNARD BAUER, Mercury News Staff Writer
A spokesman for the owner of the Kaiser Cement Corp. unveiled a plan Wednesday night for a high -tech "city of the
21st and 22nd century" on 3,600 acres in the foothills west of Interstate 280 adjacent to Cupertino.
The community of homes, office parks, golf courses and open space would link up with mass transit and Highway 85
via a 17- mile Southern Pacific railroad line that now serves the Kaiser quarry and cement factory, said Los Angeles -
based consultant John Janneck, who represents Hanson Trust PLC, the British holding company that bought Kaiser
Cement in 1986.
Janneck, in making an informational presentation to the Cupertino Planning Commission, said the first phase of
development could begin as soon as 1997. "It's reasonable to assume it will be developed by someone, so why not
take advantage of it now ?" Janneck said.
The dramatic proposal comes as Cupertino appears poised to enact strict limits on hillside development. Earlier this
month, a majority of the city council endorsed a proposed ordinance that would effectively block significant
development in the hills west of 1 -280, including the Kaiser property. While most of the Kaiser land is under Santa Clara
County's jurisdiction, county regulations would require annexation to Cupertino before development could occur.
"In order to protect those hills, we need that ordinance in -- period," said Phil Zeitman, co- chairman of CURB, a slow -
growth citizens group in Cupertino . "What (Janneck) is proposing is mind - boggling." The hillside protection ordinance
would require minimum lot sizes of five to 20 acres per home, effectively ending large- scale development in that area.
While Janneck did not specify the size of the proposed Kaiser development at Wednesday's meeting, city officials say
he has suggested building up to 3,200 homes.
"We don't want to make this a rich man's enclave," Janneck said. "We must make this property available to everybody."
Janneck said that the community could be served entirely by public transportation, eliminating the need for cars. He
said the community should be built with Silicon Valley's cutting- edge technology.
About 20 percent of the Kaiser land is used for quarry and cement operations. The rest is woods. Janneck said that
under one scenario, only 10 percent of the land -- 360 acres -- would be developed, with the rest remaining open
space. By comparison, the adjacent hillside land owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose, which also wants
to build hundreds of homes, is 208 acres.
Kaiser officials estimate that the quarry has about 20 more years of material. The cement operation, which underwent a
major modernization in 1984, is one of the worst air polluters in Santa Clara County.
Caption: Map
MAP: CARL NEIBURGER -- MERCURY NEWS ( Kaiser Cement Property)
Memo: Shorter version ran on page 1 B of the Morning Final edition.
Edition: Peninsula /Am
Section: Local
Page: 1B
Index Terms: CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT COMPANY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT; CUPERTINO
Record Number: 9201130287
Copyright (c) 1992 San Jose Mercury News
Page - 11 - of 15
APPENDIX B: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and FPPC
FPPC STAFF RULES IN LEGAN CASE SUPERVISOR URGED NOT TO VOTE ON HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
ISSUES
San Jose Mercury News (CA) - Thursday, July 4, 1985
Author: MICHAEL REZENDES, Mercury News Staff Writer
In a long- awaited opinion, the state Fair Political Practices Commission staff suggests that Santa Clara County
Supervisor Tom Legan disqualify himself from further votes on a measure that would increase the value of property
owned by his employer, Kaiser Cement Corp.
The opinion, which has been referred to the five FPPC commissioners, strongly contradicts the arguments of County
Counsel Don Clark, who has said Legan acted properly when he proposed a general plan amendment that would
nearly double the allowable density of development on county hillsides.
The commissioners are scheduled July 12 to hear opinions fcr and against Legan's position, and are expected to make
a final decision on the matter. Lynn Montgomery, a spokeswoman for the FPPC, said the commission will not rule on
whether Legan violated state conflict -of- interest laws on actions he has already taken. "The decision will simply set up
guidelines for him to follow from now on," she.said.
Legan said he intends to challenge the FPPC staff opinion before the commission. "I don't think that opinion is the last
word," he said. Although he declined to be specific, he also said, "There are some areas (in the opinion) that were not
appropriately addressed, and we'll be addressing (them) before the commission." Clark said hell represent Legan at
the commission's meeting in Sacramento. "I'm maintaining our initial position," he said.
Legan requested an opinion from the FPPC after newspaper articles raised the possibility that he had violated conflict
laws. Since the articles have appeared, he has refrained from voting on all hillside matters while awaiting the FPPC
ruling.
Legan's employer operates a mineral quarry in part of its 3,260 acres of hillside property in the northwestern part of the
county. Parts of the property are in the cities of Cupertino and Palo Alto. About two- thirds of the Kaiser property is in a
hillside zone under county jurisdiction. Legan is rock products manager at Kaiser and owns more than $1,000 in
company stock.
In July 1984, he suggested that the county loosen development restrictions on the 180,000 acres of land in its hillside
zone. And in December, he was part of a 3 -2 board majority that voted to proceed with an environmental study of the
effect of his proposed general plan amendment.
State conflict -of- interest law says no public official "shall make, participate in the making, or in any way attempt to use
his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial
interest." The law says an official has a financial interest in a decision if "the decision will have a financial effect,
distinguishable from its effect on the public generally," on a source of income for the official.
After questions about the propriety of Legan's actions were raised, Clark said Legan acted properly because the effect
of Legan's proposal "is not distinguishable from its effect upon all owners of hillside property in the county" -- arguing
that hillside property owners make up a "significant segment" of the general public.
But the FPPC staff disagreed. After determining that Legan's proposal would have increased the fair market value of
Kaiser property by approximately $2.9 million, the opinion says "the effect on Kaiser will clearly be distinguishable from
the effect upon the general public, most of whom will not be affected at all."
With Legan not voting on hillside development, the board seemed deadlocked 2 -2 on the issue. In the December vote
to study Legan's proposal, Legan was joined by Supervisors Susanne Wilson and Zoe Lofgren. Supervisors Rod
Diridon and Dianne McKenna opposed the study. The board never gave final approval to the study, and in March voted
Page -12 -of 15
to drop the study from its agenda until the FPPC issued its opinion. On June 25, McKenna persuaded the board to set
up a task force to study preserving open space on the hillside:>. The vote was 4 -0, with Legan abstaining.
On Wednesday, McKenna said she was not surprised by the FPPC staff opinion. "I've anticipated that opinion," she
said. "That's why I went ahead with my proposal."
Caption: Photo
Supervisor Tom Legan ... Employed by Kaiser Cement
Edition: Morning Final
Section: Local
Page: 1B
Index Terms: CITY COUNCIL ETHICS ZONING DEVELOPMENT OFFICIAL SAN -JOSE
Record Number: 8501090639
Copyright (c) 1985 San Jose Mercury News
LEGAN CAN'T VOTE ON LAND -USE ISSUE, STATE PANEL RULES
San Jose Mercury News (CA) - Saturday, July 13, 1985
Author. ARMANDO ACUNA, Mercury News Sacramento Bureau
The state Fair Political Practices Commission ruled unanimously Friday that Santa Clara County Supervisor Tom
Legan can't vote on a land -use issue that could financially affect his employer, Kaiser Cement Corp.
On a 4 -0 vote, the commission upheld the legal opinion of its staff, which said efforts by Legan to increase housing
densities on hillsides in the unincorporated areas of the county would substantially increase the value of Kaiser
property.
County Counsel Donald L. Clark, who represented Legan at tha hearing, said there was no conflict of interest because
allowing more housing on the hillsides would have affected all owners of hillside property, who they claimed
represented a "significant segment" of the public.
But the FPPC staff said a change in the county's general plan allowing higher hillside densities would increase the
value of Kaiser's undeveloped land by $2.9 million, a result the staff said "will clearly be distinguishable from the effect
upon the general public."
Clark argued that Kaiser had no plans to develop any of its land for housing, stressing the "unity of use and unity of
ownership" based on the quarry operation. Commissioner Michael B. Montgomery was skeptical. He said that if Kaiser
really didn't want to develop its land, then why hadn't the company made an effort to say, "We don't want to be part of
the higher density." Later in the hearing Montgomery said Kaiser's reluctance to "to take everyone off the hook ... sort
of bothers me a little bit." Montgomery noted, for example, that Kaiser could sell its undeveloped property to residential
builders and keep the quarry. And Commissioner Lim P. Lee, noting the clamor for more housing in the South Bay,
said, "If the price is right, Kaiser will sell that land."
Caption: Photojump page hed
Supervisor Tom Legan ... Kaiser rock products manager
Edition: Morning Final
Section: Local
Page: 1B
Index Terms: POLITICS SANTA - CLARA -CO.
Dateline: Sacramento
Record Number: 8501110813
Copyright (c) 1985 San Jose Mercury News
Page - 13 -oF15
APPENDIX D: 1983 Letter from Kaiser Aluminum to EPA stating that the company is separate. This also
supports the end of Stevens Creek Blvd. Source: Page 19 of the only EPA Kaiser Aluminum (0903175)
document in the database that is approved for release to the public from Stevens.Shelley @epamail.epa.
a.
KAISER ,
a�un�rinrund
K A' I::SF R A' L V M,_I'N U M d C H I:, M I :C.A L C OR P O' R'A Ti O "NI
September. 15, 1983.
Hs:. Vera Brady
Environmental Protection Agency
Hail T -2 -2
215 Fremont- Street-
'San Francisco; CA 94105
Dear Ms. Brady':-'.
This is your notification that:our address has changed from:
ff / yet
J. Kaiser, Aluminum, Stevens Creek ,Road, Permanente,. Galiforaia
to: Kaiser Aluminum; Foil Plant, 23333 Stevens Creek Boulevard, ,
Cupertino,- CA 9501"4.
Kaiser Cement is still 36cated ai the west terminus of Steveas
Creek Biiirlevard, Pemanente, California.
We -are two separate.companies who are located, next. to each other.
LiJ .
fiery truly yours,.'
G: A., McGee
Plant Engineer.
itk
23333 STCVC'N$..,C'.A. Cc. O'LVOr..0 U PC P T IN O!; CA- L.I!'O R NJ A. 4:.4 081 2'' 6'.2-'37�6"0
Page - 15 -. of 15
I
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
LIM I 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777 -3212 • FAX: (408) 777 -3360
D U P E RT I N Q davek @ cupertino.org
November 9. 2.010
Jody Hall Esser
Department of Planning and Development
County of Santa Clara V
County Government Center; East Wing, 7r' Floor
70 'Wtst Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110 -1705
Dear Ms. Hall Esser:
Thank you for your Ietter dated November 2, 2.010, notifying the City of Cupertino that the
County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider whether and to what extent
L,ehighlHeidelberg Cement Inc. has a legal non - conforming use on the East Materials Storage
Area (EMSA). I am Writing to convey some of ache concerns expressed by Cupertino resid.e.nts
with respect to this hearina.
Good governance is premised on community in�c,olvement and requires the government to be
responsive to citizens' legitimate concerns. This principle is at the heart of Article. I; section 3 of
the California Constitution, which provides that the people have the right to instruct their
representatives and to petition government for redress of grievances. Good aoyernance principles
are also embodied in the Califonua EnVir01111lental Quality Act (CEQA), wlnch requires local
agencies to inform themselves about the environmental effects of their actions; thoroughly
consider all relevant information before they act, quid give the public an opportunit }� to comment
on environmental issues pertaining to such actions. The purpose of these procedural
requirements is to ensure that agencies avoid or reduce environmental ii.npacts when it is feasible
to do so.
While the City of Cupertino is mindful of its jurisdictional lillutations as to the use of the EMSA,
we respectfully request that the County pursue a course of action that addresses the concerns of
our residents with respect to this issue. A declaration of legal non. - conforming use will
circumvent the need to obtain a. land use permit for EMSA. A use permit could provide
appropriate regulation of the use to protect the community and address legitimate citizen
concerns.
The application for a use permit will further provide a forum for environmental review of the
issues pertaining to the use of EMSA. The provisions of CEQA will not prohibit the County
from approving the use of EMSA, but rather provide the County %vith a deeper understatlding of
the environmental concerns; which the County cao then incorporate into appropriate regulation
of the use tlu-ough a permit. It wiL pro•,-ide an open process whereby citizens can rcview
information about the ens- i.ror.�.me.ntal impacts of E7\2SA and provide their input.
To promote the principles of epenness and good 7o pImance; it is respectfully requesied that the
County seek to rc4ulate the use of E-MS A thou .-b a land use permit and provide an
environment 1 review of such use prior to issuing a permit. To communicate- some of the
individual sent>l�?znts expressed by the Cup(;rtino residents, 1 have attached copies of
correspondence received by the Cite Council.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sinccrcly,
� w
David W. Knapp
City Manager
.This letter does not include attachments.
Karen B. Guerin
From: donstaub@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 2:12 PM
To Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks
Subject: Amicus Brief
Dear Cupertino City Council Members,
Please fulfill your obligation to the citizens of Cupertino and join vote in favor of joining with Los Altos
Hills, Los Altos and Portola Valley in supporting the Mid- Peninsula Regional Open Space District's
Amicus Brief, a friend of the court letter. Certainly, other neighboring cities will also join this action --
don't allow Cupertino to be left out!
am sure you have already seen all the backup documents supporting 'this action. If not, let me know
and I will be glad to send them.
Thank you,
Don Staub
Karen B. Guerin
From: naylorken @comcast. net
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 4:05 PM
To: City Council
Subject: RE: Lehigh Cement Plant
to
�zy
I urge the City of Cupertino to not authorize additional money opposing the potential Lehigh cement
plant expansion. That plant is an important installation that is necessary for cement production
throughout No. Calif. Santa Clara County control is adequate.
Ken Naylor 408 - 446 -1160
0 6 1 if 41
From: Rhoda Fry(fryhouse @earthlink.net)
To:Stephen Testa
RE:SMGB Meeting November 14,2013,
Agenda Item XII1.SMGB Committee Reports,Alquist-Priolo Technical Advisory Committee
Dear Director Testa,
I am writing you once again regarding my concerns about the Lehigh Southwest Permanente Quarry,Santa Clara
County. I live about two and a quarter miles away from the quarry and many residents live closer.On October 2,
2013,1 heard a loud sound at home,there was a cracking sound in my home, and I felt many moving waves.My
door casing was cracked. I knew this was an earthquake and I was frightened.Was this the beginning of another
earthquake?Was this earthquake bigger elsewhere?Was my family safe? I went online and my fright turned to
anger when I learned this was a 2.4 magnitude quarry blast. I went onto USGS and learned that surface quakes
are felt more strongly than deeper quakes. Santa Clara County has no interest in this issue.
• 1 am troubled that this quarry is adjacent to a highly populated area in an active fault zone.
The Berrocal Fault runs through the quarry,the Altamont Fault is adjacent to the quarry,the Monta
Vista Fault is nearby,and of course the San Andreas Fault is in the vicinity.
• There are structures in the quarry area that are in a liquefaction zone and in a landslide zone.
• In the past 9 months there have been sixty-two blasts,nineteen 1.8M or greater and nine 2.OM or
greater.This is unprecedented in the State of California in quantity, intensity, proximity to faults and
population. In the past 9 months in California,there has been blasting 1.8M or greater in the following
areas: 19 Cupertino, 19 Boron,9 Greenville,9 Oroville,8 Lake Almanor,5 Shasta.This data was obtained
from http://earthauake.uses.eov/(0 depth"earthquakes"are assumed to be blasts—quantity is
approximate as it was visually obtained).
What can the State do to protect the workers on site and the nearby population?
Can you guarantee that these blasts will not cause an earthquake?
The quarry is near the highly populated area of Silicon Valley:
Map
Photos
i?
� c
The Quarry •reas Fault, Monta Vista Fault,Altamont and on •
liquefaction FXPLANATION
Structures on and near the quarry are in the . landslide zone:
svbsla
ark
The yellow pins a[d�f O�Y`��� „ \� �� fir• ✓ '^'•`Ts��•+.�
• orange dots represent blasting at the quarry.
Acco
ILA
d
•
e
�u <^4 magnnude earthquake 2?�2'Oct?b��D2 ?Dt3
' _• � ; .-y� z th Jake.l�a Sec _r _