Loading...
CC 02-03-2015 Exhibit, Oral Communicationscc .z13/1r .Karen B. Guerin From: N & M Szabo <nmszabo@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:47 AM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: Today's Council Meeting I am putting my request in writing, rather than appear before you personally, as I had originally intended to do on February 3. Until this morning I was under the impression that the Park & Recreation Commission's referral of this matter would place this matter on the agenda, but checking your agenda this morning I saw that this was not the case and consequently the Council cannot resolve this matter on the above day. Almost four years ago., with the cooperation of Teresa Mo of the Cupertino Senior Center staff, I established the Current Events Discussion Group. We meet once a month, on the first Thursday of each month from 2:00 to 3:30 PM at the Center to discuss subjects of interest. It is a very informal "bull session". Any member of the Senior Center may attend without paying a fee. Before each session I send out an email indicating a possible subject, to all of our members and also to the Center staff. (See Attachment: Speakers for the Current Events Discussion Group.) Frequently I also invite a guest speaker who is,knowledgeable about a certain subject. On those occasions, I include the speaker's biography and picture with the email, and I also produce a poster to be displayed on an easel at the entrance of the Center. For the 2012 and the 2014 General Elections I invited all the Congressional candidates on the ballot for our district to meet with our group for 11/2 hours, one candidate at a time. In 2012 the Republican candidate did so, but Congressman Honda, the Democrat, sent a campaign worker as a. substitute. In 2014, 1 followed the same pattern, and both accepted our invitation. Then, the Center sent me an agreement to sign, indicating I should require all speakers to submit for approval to the Senior Center staff their proposed speech. I objected on the ground that this requirement conflicted with a well-known U.S. Supreme Court decision that bars the government from exercising "prior restraint" (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 1971). In spite of my objection, I was informed by the Center that the scheduled appearance of Congressional candidate Ro Khanna would not be allowed and all future meetings of our group would be banned, unless I signed the agreement that included 17 clauses. The only two I objected to are: Program content must be approved by senior center staff prior to the program being advertised in the newsletter. With prior approval from senior center staff, political candidates may only have approved presentations and must bein ["sic"] panel format to provide a blend of information for students. My objection is to the "prior approval" and is on the basis of the previously cited U.S. Supreme Court decision. I also wanted to modify the requirement for panel format. I asked the City Manager that we delete the "prior approval" in the two clauses. He suggested that I take this case up with the Park and Recreation Commission, which I did on January 8th. As I understand it, the Commission was to refer the matter -.to -the Council. Reading the two cited clauses indicates that I, as the signatory, would make sure that the political candidates submitted the content of their proposed talk to the staff of the Senior Center for approval. This would be a blatant violation of the candidates' First Amendment rights and of the electoral process. Would you have agreed to have some City staff member censor your campaign literature and platform? Our group is totally transparent, and staff members may attend our meetings, and except for Carol Atwood, who joined two of our meetings, no City employee has set foot in there. We are not a subversive organization that must be controlled. When the City was unwilling to make the requested changes, I first proposed that the legality of the agreement be reviewed by the American Civil Liberties Union, a body expert in First Amendment rights, as you know. The City denied my request. I also object to the "panel format", because it makes it almost impossible to find an appropriate date for a meeting. Typically candidates are very busy during the election season and meeting with our small group would have a very low priority for them, much lower than fundraisers and meetings with organizations such as a chamber of commerce, where the audience is typically much larger. Incumbent candidates also are likely to spend most of their time in Washington and Sacramento, rather than in our area. To find a time on the first Thursday of the month for all the candidates to be available for a meeting with us would be nearly impossible. I have searched and could not find any legal requirement for panels for meetings in government facilities to ensure "parity", the term used for government not being partial in favoring one candidate over another. Certainly the panel format is one way that promises parity, but certainly not the only one. I can cite two alternate examples where a different format has been allowed: the City for many years has broadcasted on the City Channel the candidates' individual statements, not in panel format. Also, the FCC has used the "equal time" provision to allow the use of the nation's public airways to broadcast campaign speeches of candidates. Why is that not allowable for our little discussion group? I have scrupulously observed parity: each candidate is allocated 90 minutes of time to discuss with the group his/her program. We do not have lecterns equipped with timers and lights to indicate to the speaker when to speak and for how long. For our group we really want an informal discussion, rather than a debate. Because I have refused to sign the Agreement the City has not allowed our group to meet, not even to talk about other subjects. On December 4th, when some of us came to the Center to discuss the impasse about me signing the Agreement, we were told that we could not be in the Senior Center, even though all of us were members of the Senior Center. Was this retaliation for me not being willing to sign the Agreement? I hereby request that the Council modify the Agreement, eliminating the objectionable clauses. I would also like to meet with you to discuss this matter. Nick Szabo 10235 Creston Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 408 733-5534 2 Karen B. Guerin From: N & M Szabo <nrriszabo@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:49 AM To: Rod Sinks - Subject: 2/3 Meeting of the Council I am putting my request in writing, rather than appear before you personally, as I had originally intended to do on February 3. Until this morning I was under the impression that the Park & Recreation Commission's referral of this matter would place this matter on the agenda, but checking your agenda this morning I saw that this was not the case and consequently the Council cannot resolve this matter on the above day. Almost four years ago, with the cooperation of Teresa Mo of the Cupertino Senior Center staff, I established the Current Events Discussion Group. We meet once a month, on the first Thursday of each month from 2:00 to 3:30 PM at the Center to discuss subjects of interest. It is a very informal "bull session". Any member of the Senior Center may attend without paying a fee. Before each session I send out an email indicating a possible subject, to all of our members and also to the Center staff. (See Attachment: Speakers for the Current Events Discussion Group.)' Frequently I also invite a . guest speaker who is knowledgeable about a certain subject. On those occasions, I include the speaker's biography and picture with the email, and I also produce a poster to be displayed on an easel at the entrance of the Center. For the 2012 and the 2014 General Elections I invited all the Congressional candidates on the ballot for our district to meet with our group for 11/2 hours, one candidate at a time. In 2012 the Republican candidate did so, but Congressman Honda, the Democrat, sent a campaign worker as a substitute. In 2014, 1 followed the same pattern, and both accepted our invitation. Then, the Center sent me an agreement to sign, indicating I should require all speakers to submit for approval to the Senior Center staff their proposed speech. I objected on the ground that this requirement conflicted with a well-known U.S. Supreme Court decision that bars the government from exercising "prior restraint" (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 1971). In spite of my objection, I was informed by the Center that the scheduled appearance of Congressional candidate Ro Khanna would not be allowed and all future meetings of our group would be banned, unless I signed the agreement that included 17 clauses. The only two I objected to are: Program content must be approved by senior center staff prior to the program being advertised in the newsletter. With prior approval from senior center staff, political candidates may only have approved presentations and must bein ["sic"] panel format to provide a blend of information for students. My objection is to the "prior approval" and is on the basis of the previously cited U.S. Supreme Court decision. I also wanted to modify the requirement for panel format. I asked the City Manager that we delete the "prior approval" in the two clauses. He suggested that I take this case up with the Park and Recreation Commission, which I did on January 8th. As I understand it, the Commission was to, -refer the matter to the Council. Reading the two cited clauses indicates that I, as the signatory, would make sure that the political candidates submitted the content of their proposed talk to the staff of the Senior Center for approval. This would be a blatant violation of the candidates' First Amendment rights and of the electoral process. Would you have agreed to have some City staff member censor your campaign literature and platform? Our group is totally transparent, and staff members may attend our meetings, and except for Carol Atwood, who joined two of our meetings, no City employee has set foot in there. We are not a subversive organization that must be controlled. When the City was unwilling to make the requested changes, I first proposed that the legality of the agreement be reviewed by the American Civil Liberties Union, a body expert in First Amendment rights, as you know. The City denied my request. I also object to the "panel format", because it makes it almost impossible to find an appropriate date for a meeting. Typically candidates are very busy during the election season and meeting with our small group would have a very low priority for them, much lower than fundraisers and meetings with organizations such as a chamber of commerce, where the audience is typically much larger. Incumbent candidates also are likely to spend most of their time in Washington and Sacramento, rather than in our area. To find a time on the first Thursday of the month for all the candidates to be available for a meeting with us would be nearly impossible. I have searched and could not find any legal requirement for panels for meetings in government facilities to ensure "parity", the term used for government not being partial in favoring one candidate over another. Certainly the panel format is one way that promises parity, but certainly not the only one. I can cite two alternate examples where a different format has been allowed: the City for many years has broadcasted on the City Channel the candidates' individual statements, not in panel format. Also, the FCC has used the "equal time" provision to allow the use of the nation's public airways to broadcast campaign speeches of candidates. Why is that not allowable for our little discussion group? I have scrupulously observed parity: each candidate is allocated 90 minutes of time to discuss with the group his/her program. We do not have lecterns equipped with timers and lights to indicate to the speaker when to speak and for how long. For our group we really want an informal discussion, rather than a debate. Because I have refused to sign the Agreement the City has not allowed our group to meet, not even to talk about other subjects. On December 4th, when some of us came to the Center to discuss the impasse about me signing the Agreement, we were told that we could not be in the Senior Center, even though all of us were members of the Senior Center. Was this retaliation for me not being willing to sign the Agreement? I hereby request that the Council modify the Agreement, eliminating the objectionable clauses I would also like to meet with you to discuss this matter. Nick Szabo 10235 Creston Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 408 733-5534 2 Karen B. Guerin From: N & M Szabo <nmszabo@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11:14 AM To: Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong Attachments: Speakers3.docx; Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement I accidentally left out two Attachments, They are attached to this email. Nick Szabo 10235 Creston Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 408 733-5534 nmszabo@att.net Speakers for the Current Events Discussion Group Andrew McGuire, recipient of a MacArthur Genius Award, and Executive Director of California OneCare, spoke on the subject of a single -payer CA Senate bill (SB 810), to cover healthcare for all Californians. Joe Simitian, now member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, previously CA State Senator for our District, presented his take on public attitudes towards government and explained State and County operations. Dr. Harold Luft, healthcare economist at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation; he explained the problems with affordable healthcare. Larry Stone, Santa Clara County Assessor, spoke on how property is assessed and commented on California Proposition 13 (enacted 1978). Susan Hough of the League of Women Voters presented an impartial description of the various propositions on the November 2012 Ballot. Ashley Roybal of the staff of Congressman Honda described.the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. .Evelyn Li, the 2012 Republican nominee for the 17th Congressional District and a cardiologist, she presented her plan for an alternate to Obamacare. Pete Woiwode, of California Partnership, spoke in favor of the 2012 election Prop. 30.. Jim Davis, retired United Airlines captain, gave a talk on airline safety and recounted his experiences during his professional career, one of which was a flight from San Francisco to Hawaii on which three of the four engines of his 747 failed, but the crew landed the plane in Honolulu safely. For this the cockpit crew was honored by the FAA and by United Airlines. Frank Grgurina, Chief of the Sunnyvale Public Safety Department, described the City's approach of employing public safety officers who are all policemen, firemen and emergency medical technicians, and are alternately assigned to these three specialties. John Krogman, retired director of the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Agency, the Federal government's organization charged with enforcing, amongst other things, the gun control laws, talked about his position and experiences. Showing of the documentary "Inequality for All", starring Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor. Paul Klein, Peace Corps volunteer, who had just been evacuated from Ukraine because of the disturbances there, spoke of his service as an English teacher in that country and also about local conditions there. Mark Rumold, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, described the Foundation's philosophy and its opposition to the NSA's storage of telecommunication data. RO Khanna,* one of the two candidates for California's 17th Congressional District in the November 2014 General Election. Scheduled for August 7. Vivek Kembaiyan*, Communications Director for Mike Honda, incumbent candidate for California's 17th Congressional District in the November 2014 General Election. Scheduled for September 4. Susan Hough, representative of the League of Women Voters, speaking about the propositions on the November 2014 ballot. Scheduled for October 2. Ellen Kreitzberg, Professor of Law at the University of Santa Clara, to speak about the death penalty. Scheduled for December 4. (Meeting cancelled due to scheduling conflict.) *_Presentations by RO Khanna and Vivek Kembaiyan, (the latter representing Congressman Honda) were cancelled by the City, due to a policy requiring the prior approval of the conents of thair speech and that the two candidates must appear together on a panel, simultaneously. Karen B. Guerin From: Alexandra Fall <AlexF@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:23 AM To: N & M Szabo Subject: Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement Attachments: Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement.pdf Hi Nick and Marcia, I hope you have been enjoying these last few days of summer. It has been pretty hectic over here as we gear up for our closure this week forma intenance, but the closure also gives us a chance to do some housekeeping. Attached are the instructor guidelines that we are asking all volunteer instructors to sign before they proceed with their September classes or meetings. Please read, sign, and return these guidelines before September 4tn If you would like, a hard copy of these guidelines is available at our front desk when we open again on September 2nd You will notice in the guidelines that all volunteers are required to record their hours. I have for you here, Nick, the link to login to the volunteer portal, as well as your username and password. You can use this login information to record your hours. Volunteer Portal Username:>� Password (Case sensitive): Marcia, as we do not yet have you in our system as a volunteer instructor, you can use that same link to set up your own volunteer account, with a separate username and password. Thank you very much, both of you. Please let me know if you have any trouble logging in or setting up an account, and I look forward to seeing you again soon. Alex Fall Recreation Coordinator Cupertino Senior Center 408-777-3150 cupertino.org/senior CUPERTINO City of Cupertino (Recreation and Community Services Department Creating a Positive, Healthy, and Connected Community 20142015 Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement We are pleased you are an instructor at the Cupertino Senior Center. Thank you for working with us to provide excellent programs that serve about 4,000 seniors monthly. We appreciate your commitment, expertise, and enthusiasm. The Cupertino, Senior Center is dedicated to providing an array of quality programs and services that insure and enhance independence for older adults. Volunteer Instructors: Please read and initial each item indicating that you agree to each condition. Please remember to keep your membership current, which is required for volunteering. The annual membership fee is $22 for volunteers who log 20 hours or more of service per year. Volunteer instructors must record their hours monthly on the online volunteer portal at www.cupertino.org/volunteer. If any of your students appear to be ill, please let the front desk know right away. Our staff is trained in first aid and CPR. Please let us know your requested classroom set-up. The Facility Attendant will be setting up the tables and chairs for your room. Let us know one (1) week in advance for any special set up requirements or equipment needs. Please give the front desk your daily class count. Please inform a senior center staff person with any changes to your scheduled program (i.e. makeup date or a class cancel date). Please check at the front desk for any mail or messages. Please let the front desk know if the room temperature is uncomfortable. Staff will make adjustments to the thermostat. If the building fire alarm sounds, immediately evacuate the students in your class through the nearest exit. The assembly point will be the turf area of Memorial Park. Please remain in the assembly point area until a senior center staff person tells you it is safe to return to the building. Educational presentations are solely to provide information. Turn over to complete Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 777-3150 Fax: (408) 777-3156 www.cupertino.org/senior There can be no solicitation of clients or distribution of company literature, prices, or promotional materials. Program content must be approved by senior center staff prior to the program being advertised in the newsletter. Each class lecture is for the dissemination of oral information only. No client service of any kind is to be rendered. Any personal contact subsequent to the presentation is prohibited unless initiated by the Cupertino Senior Center students. With prior approval from senior center staff, political candidates may only have approved presentations and must bein panel format to provide a blend of information for students. Copies for class instruction will be made for volunteer instructors free of charge. All other copies will be charged at a rate of 10 cents per page. Only black and white copies are available. Instructors are expected to allow time during an educational session for questions from the students. Signature of Instructor ' Date Print Name Class Title Cell Phone # Phone # Email (optional) Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 777-3150 Fax: (408) 777-3156 www.cupertino.org/senior Karen B. Guerin From: N & M Szabo <nmszabo@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015.1123 AM To: Darcy Paul Subject: today's Council Meeting Attachments: Speakers3.docx; Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement.pdf I am putting my request in writing, rather than appear before you personally, as I had originally intended to do on February 3. Until this morning I was under the impression that the Park & Recreation Commission's referral of this matter would place this matter on the agenda, but checking your agenda this morning I saw that this was not the case and consequently the Council cannot resolve this matter on the above day. Almost four years ago, with the cooperation of Teresa Mo of the Cupertino Senior Center staff, I established the Current Events Discussion Group. We meet once a month, on the first Thursday of each month from 2:00 to 3:30 PM at the Center to discuss subjects of interest. It is a very informal "bull session". Any member of the Senior Center may attend without paying a fee. Before each session I send out an email indicating a possible subject, to all of our members and also to the Center staff. (See Attachment: Speakers for the Current Events Discussion Group.) Frequently I also invite a guest speaker who is knowledgeable about a certain subject. On those occasions, I include the speaker's biography and picture with the email, and I also produce a poster to be displayed on an easel at the entrance of the Center. For the 2012 and the 2014 General Elections I invited all the Congressional candidates on the ballot for our district to meet with our group for 11/2 hours, one'candidate at a time. In 2012 the Republican candidate did so, but Congressman Honda, the Democrat, sent a campaign worker as a substitute. In 2014, 1 followed the same pattern, and both accepted our invitation. Then, the Center sent me an agreement to sign, indicating. I should require all speakers to submit for approval to the Senior Center staff their proposed speech. I objected on the ground that this requirement conflicted with a well-known U.S. Supreme Court decision that bars the government from exercising "prior restraint" (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713. 1971). In spite of my objection, I was informed by the Center that the scheduled appearance of Congressional candidate Ro Khanna would not be allowed and all future meetings of our group would be banned, unless I signed the agreement that included 17 clauses. The only two I objected to are: Program content must be approved by senior center staff prior to the program being advertised in the newsletter. With prior approval from senior center staff, political candidates may only have approved presentations and must bein ["sic"] panel format to provide a blend of information for students. My objection is to the "prior approval" and is on the basis of the previously cited U.S. Supreme Court decision. I also wanted to modify the requirement for panel format. I asked the City Manager that we delete the "prior approval" in the two clauses. He suggested that I take this case up with the Park and Recreation Commission, which I did on January 8th. As I understand it, the Commission was to refer the matter to the Council. Reading the two cited clauses indicates that I, as the signatory, would make sure that the political candidates submitted the content of their proposed talk to the staff of the Senior Center for approval. This would be a blatant violation of the candidates' First Amendment rights and of the electoral process. Would you have agreed to have some City staff member censor your campaign literature and platform? Our group is totally transparent, and staff members may attend our meetings, and except for Carol Atwood, who joined two of our meetings, no City employee has set foot in there. We are not a subversive organization that must be controlled. When the City was unwilling to make the requested changes, I first proposed that the legality of the agreement be reviewed by the American Civil Liberties Union, a body expert in First Amendment rights, as you know. The City denied my request. I also object to the "panel format", because it makes it almost impossible to find an appropriate date for a meeting. Typically candidates are very busy during the election season and meeting with our small group would have a very low priority for them, much lower than fundraisers and meetings with organizations such as a chamber of commerce, where the audience is typically much larger. Incumbent candidates also are likely to spend most of their time in Washington and Sacramento, rather than in our area. To find a time on the first Thursday of the month for all the candidates to be available for a meeting with us would be nearly impossible. I have searched and could not find any legal requirement for panels for meetings in government facilities to ensure "parity", the term used for government not being partial in favoring one candidate over another. Certainly the panel format is one way that promises parity, but certainly not the only one. I can cite two alternate examples where a different format has been allowed: the City for many years has broadcasted on the City Channel the candidates' individual statements, not in panel format. Also, the FCC has used the "equal time" provision to allow the use of the nation's public airways to broadcast campaign speeches of candidates. Why is that not allowable for our little discussion group? I have scrupulously observed parity: each candidate is allocated 90 minutes of time to discuss with the group his/her program. We do not have lecterns equipped with timers and lights to indicate to the speaker when to speak and for how long. For our group we really want an informal discussion, rather than a debate. Because I have refused to sign the Agreement the City has not allowed our group to meet, not even to talk about other subjects. On December 4th, when some of us came to the Center to discuss the impasse about me signing the Agreement, we were told that we could not be in the Senior Center, even though all of us were members of the Senior Center. Was this retaliation for me not being willing to sign the Agreement? I hereby request that the Council modify the Agreement, eliminating the objectionable clauses. Nick Szabo 10235 Creston Drive 2 Cupertino, CA 95014 408 733-5534 nmszabo@att.net Speakers for the Current Events Discussion Group Andrew McGuire, recipient of a MacArthur Genius Award, and Executive Director of California OneCare, spoke on the subject of a single -payer CA Senate bill (SB 810), to cover healthcare for all Californians. Joe Simitian, now member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, previously CA State Senator for our District, presented his take on public attitudes towards government and explained State and County operations. Dr. Harold Luft, healthcare economist at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation; he explained the problems with affordable healthcare. Larry Stone, Santa Clara County Assessor, spoke on how property is assessed and commented on California Proposition 13 (enacted 1978). Susan Hough.of the League of Women Voters presented an impartial description of the various propositions on the November 2012 Ballot. Ashley Roybal of the staff of Congressman Honda described,the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. .Evelyn Li, the 2012 Republican nominee for the 17th Congressional District and a cardiologist, she presented her plan for an alternate to Obamacare. Pete Woiwode, of California Partnership, spoke in favor of the 2012 election Prop. 30.. Jim Davis, retired United Airlines captain, gave a talk on airline safety and recounted his experiences during his professional career, one of which was a flight from San Francisco to Hawaii on which three of the four engines of his 747 failed, but the crew landed the plane in Honolulu safely. For this the cockpit crew was honored by -the FAA and by United Airlines. Frank Grgurina, Chief of the Sunnyvale Public Safety Department, described the City's approach of employing public safety officers who are all policemen, firemen and emergency medical technicians, and are alternately assigned to these .three specialties. John Krogman, retired director of the Alcohol, Tobacco ,&'Firearms Agency, the Federal government's organization charged with. enforcing, amongst other things, the gun control laws, talked about his position and experiences. Showing of the documentary "Inequality for All", starring Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor.. Paul Klein, Peace Corps volunteer, who had just been evacuated from Ukraine because of the disturbances there, spoke of his service as an English teacher in that country and also about local conditions there. Mark Rumold, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, described the Foundation's philosophy and its opposition to the NSA's storage of telecommunication data. RO Khanna,* one of the two candidates for California's 17th Congressional District in the November 2014 General Election. Scheduled for August 7. Vivek Kembaiyan*, Communications Director for Mike Honda, incumbent candidate for California's 17th Congressional District in the November 2014 General Election. Scheduled for September 4. Susan Hough, representative of the League of Women Voters, speaking about the propositions on the November 2014 ballot. Scheduled for October 2. Ellen Kreitzberg, Professor of Law at the University of Santa Clara, to speak about the death penalty. Scheduled for December 4. (Meeting cancelled due to scheduling conflict.) *_Presentations by RO Khanna and Vivek Kembaiyan, (the latter representing Congressman Honda) were cancelled by the City, due to a policy requiring the prior approval of the conents of thair speech and that the two candidates must appear together on a panel, simultaneously. Karen B. Guerin From: Alexandra Fall <AlexF@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:23 AM To: N & M Szabo Subject: Volunteer Instructor. Guidelines and Agreement Attachments: Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement.pdf Hi Nick and Marcia, I hope you have been enjoying these last few days of summer. It has been pretty hectic over here as we gear up for our closure this week for maintenance, but the closure also gives us a chance to do some housekeeping. Attached are the instructor guidelines that we are asking all volunteer instructors to sign before they proceed with their September classes or meetings. Please read, sign, and return these guidelines before September 4th. If you would like, a hard copy of these guidelines is available at our front desk when we open again on September 2nd You will notice in the guidelines that all volunteers are required to record their hours. I have for you here, Nick, the link to login to the volunteer portal, as well as your username and password. You can use this login information to record your hours. Volunteer Portal / Username: 11111M Password (Case sensitive):JIM Marcia, as we do not yet have you in our system as a volunteer instructor, you can use that same link to set up your own volunteer account, with a separate username and password. Thank you very much, both of you. Please let me know if you have any trouble logging in or setting up an account, and I look forward to seeing you again soon. Alex Fall Recreation Coordinator Cupertino Senior Center 408-777-3150 cupertino.org/senior CUPERTINO City of Cupertino Recreation and Community Services Department Creating a Positive, Healthy, and Connected Community 20142015 Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement We are pleased you are an instructor at the Cupertino Senior Center. Thank you for working with us to provide excellent programs that serve about 4,000 seniors monthly. We appreciate your commitment, expertise, and enthusiasm. The Cupertino Senior Center is dedicated to providing an array of quality programs and services that insure and enhance independence for older adults. Volunteer Instructors: Please read and initial each item indicating that you agree to each condition. Please remember to keep your membership current, which is required for volunteering. The annual membership fee is $22 for volunteers who log 20 hours or more of service per year. Volunteer instructors must record their hours monthly on the online volunteer portal at www.cupertino.org/volunteer. If any of your students appear to be ill, please let the front desk know right away. Our staff is trained in first aid and CPR. Please let us know your requested classroom set-up. The Facility Attendant will be setting up the tables and chairs for your room. Let us know one (1) week in advance for any special set up requirements or equipment needs. Please give the front desk your daily class count. Please inform a senior center staff person with any changes to your scheduled program (i.e: makeup date or a class cancel date). Please check at the front desk for any mail or messages. Please let the front desk know if the room temperature is uncomfortable. Staff will make adjustments to the thermostat. If the building fire alarm sounds, immediately evacuate the students in your class through the nearest exit. The assembly point will be the turf area of Memorial Park. Please remain in the assembly point area until a senior center staff person tells you it is safe to return to the building. Educational presentations are solely to provide information. Turn over to complete Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 777-3150 Fax: (408) 777-3156 www.cuperrino.org/senior There can be no solicitation of clients or distribution of company literature, prices, or promotional materials. Program content must be approved by senior center staff prior to the program being advertised in the newsletter. Each class lecture is for the dissemination of oral information only. No client service of any kind is to be rendered. Any personal contact subsequent to the presentation is prohibited unless initiated by the Cupertino Senior Center students. With prior approval from senior center staff, political candidates may only have approved presentations and must bein panel format to provide a blend of information for students. Copies for class instruction will be made for volunteer instructors free of charge. All other copies will be charged at a rate of 10 cents per page. Only black and white copies are available. Instructors are expected to allow time during an educational session for questions from the students. Signature of Instructor Date Print Name Class Title Cell Phone # Phone # Email (optional) Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 777-3150 Fax: (408) 777-3156 www.cupertino.org/senior Karen B. Guerin From: N & M.Szabo <nmszabo@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11:34 AM To: Barry Chang Subject: Today's Council meeting Attachments: Speakers3.docx; Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement I am putting my request in writing, rather than appear before you personally, as I had originally intended to do on February 3. Until this morning I was under the impression that the Park & Recreation Commission's referral of this matter would place this matter on the agenda, but checking your agenda this morning I saw that this was not the case and consequently the Council cannot resolve this matter on the above day. Almost four years ago, with the cooperation of Teresa Mo of the Cupertino Senior Center staff, I established the Current Events Discussion Group. We meet once a month, on the first Thursday of each month from 2:00 to 3:30 PM at the Center to discuss subjects of interest. It is a very informal "bull session". Any member of the Senior Center may attend without paying a fee. Before each session I send out an email indicating a possible subject, to all of our members and also to the Center staff. (See Attachment: Speakers for the Current Events Discussion Group.) Frequently I also invite a guest speaker who is knowledgeable about a certain subject. On those occasions, I include the speaker's biography and picture with the email, and I also produce a poster to be displayed on an easel at the entrance of the Center. For the 2012 and the 2014 General Elections I invited all the Congressional candidates on the ballot for our district to meet with our group for 1 1/2 hours, one candidate at a time. In 2012 the Republican candidate did so, but Congressman Honda, the Democrat, sent a campaign worker as a substitute. In 2014, 1 followed the same pattern, and both accepted our invitation. Then, the Center sent me an agreement to sign, indicating I should require all speakers to submit for approval to the Senior Center staff their proposed speech. I objected on the ground that this requirement conflicted with a well-known U.S. Supreme Court decision that bars the government from exercising "prior restraint" (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 1971). In spite of my objection, I was informed by the Center that the scheduled appearance of Congressional candidate Ro Khanna would not be allowed and all future meetings of our group would be banned, unless I signed the agreement that included 17 clauses. The only two I objected to are: Program content must be approved by senior center staff prior to the program being advertised in the newsletter. With prior approval from senior center staff, political candidates may only have approved presentations and must bein ["sic"] panel format to provide a blend of information for students. My objection is to the "prior approval" and is on the basis of the previously cited U.S. Supreme Court decision. I also wanted to modify the requirement for panel format. I asked the City Manager that we delete the "prior approval" in the two clauses. He suggested that I take this case up with the Park and Recreation Commission, which I did on January 8th. As I understand it, the Commission was to refer the matter to the Council. Reading the two cited clauses indicates that I, as the signatory, would make sure that the political candidates submitted the content of their proposed talk to the staff of the Senior Center for approval. This would be a blatant violation of the candidates' First Amendment rights and of the electoral process. Would you have agreed to have some City staff member censor your campaign literature and platform? Our group is totally transparent, and staff members may attend our meetings, and except for Carol Atwood, who joined two of our meetings, no City employee has set foot in there. We are not a subversive organization that must be controlled. When the City was unwilling to make the requested changes, I first proposed that the legality of the agreement be reviewed by the American Civil Liberties Union, a body expert in First Amendment rights, as you know. The City denied my request. I also object to the "panel format", because it makes it almost impossible to find an appropriate date for a meeting. Typically candidates are very busy during the election season and meeting with our small group would have a very low priority for them, much lower than fundraisers and meetings with organizations such as a chamber of commerce, where the audience is typically much larger. Incumbent candidates also are likely to spend most of their time in Washington and Sacramento, rather than in our area. To find a time on the first Thursday of the month for all the candidates to be available for a meeting with us would be nearly impossible. I have searched and could not find any legal requirement for panels for meetings in government facilities to ensure "parity", the term used for government not being partial in favoring one candidate over another. Certainly the panel format is one way that promises parity, but certainly not the only one. I can cite two alternate examples where a different format has been allowed: the City for many years has broadcasted on the City Channel the candidates' individual statements, not in panel format. Also, the FCC has used the "equal time" provision to allow the use of the nation's public airways to broadcast campaign speeches of candidates. Why is that not allowable for our little discussion group? I have scrupulously observed parity: each candidate is allocated 90 minutes of time to discuss with the group his/her program. We do not have lecterns equipped with timers and lights to indicate to the speaker when to speak and for how long. For our group we really want an informal discussion, rather than a debate. Because I have refused to sign the Agreement the City has not allowed our group to meet, not even to talk about other subjects. On December 4th, when some of us came to the Center to discuss the impasse about me signing the Agreement, we were told that we could not be in the Senior Center, even though all of us were members of the Senior Center. Was this retaliation for me not being willing to sign the Agreement? I hereby request that the Council modify the Agreement, eliminating the objectionable clauses. I would also like to meet with you to discuss this matter. Nick Szabo 10235 Creston Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 408 733-5534 nmszabo@att.net Nick & Marcia Szabo 10235 Creston Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 408 733-5534 nmszabo@att.net Speakers for the Current Events Discussion Group Andrew McGuire, recipient of a MacArthur Genius Award, and Executive Director of California OneCare, spoke on the subject of a single -payer CA Senate bill (SB 810), to cover healthcare for all Californians. Joe Simitian, now member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, previously CA State Senator for our District, presented his take on public attitudes towards government and explained State and County operations. Dr. Harold Luft, healthcare economist at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation; he explained the problems with affordable healthcare. Larry Stone, Santa Clara County Assessor, spoke on how property is assessed and commented on California Proposition 13 (enacted 1978). Susan Hough of the League of Women Voters presented an impartial description of the various propositions on the November 2012 Ballot. Ashley Roybal of the staff of Congressman Honda described.the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. .Evelyn Li, the 2012 Republican nominee for the 17' Congressional District and a cardiologist, she presented her plan for an alternate to Obamacare. Pete Woiwode, of California Partnership, spoke in favor of the 2012 election Prop. 30.. Jim Davis, retired United Airlines captain, gave a talk on airline safety and recounted his experiences during his professional career, one of which was a flight from San Francisco to Hawaii on which three of the four engines of his 747 failed, but the crew landed the plane in Honolulu safely. For this the cockpit crew was honored by the FAA and by United Airlines. Frank Grgurina, Chief of the Sunnyvale Public Safety Department, described the City's approach of employing public safety officers who are all policemen, firemen and emergency medical technicians, and are alternately assigned to these three specialties. John Krogman, retired director of the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Agency, the Federal government's organization charged with enforcing, amongst other things, the gun control laws, talked about his position and experiences. Showing of the documentary "Inequality for All", starring Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor. Paul Klein, Peace Corps volunteer, who had just been evacuated from Ukraine because of the disturbances there, spoke of his service as an English teacher in that country and also about local conditions there. Mark Rumold, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, described the Foundation's philosophy and its opposition to the NSA's storage of telecommunication data. RO Khanna,* one of the two candidates for California's 17th Congressional District in the November 2014 General Election. Scheduled for August 7. Vivek Kembaiyan*, Communications Director for Mike Honda, incumbent candidate for California's 17th Congressional District in the November 2014 General Election. Scheduled for September 4. Susan Hough, representative of the League of Women Voters, speaking about the propositions on the November 2014 ballot. Scheduled for October 2. Ellen Kreitzberg, Professor of Law at the University of Santa Clara, to speak about the death penalty. Scheduled for December 4. (Meeting cancelled due to scheduling conflict.) * Presentations by RO Khanna and Vivek Kembaiyan, (the latter representing Congressman Honda) were cancelled by the City, due to a policy requiring the prior approval of the conents of thair speech and that the two candidates must appear together on a panel, simultaneously. Karen B. Guerin From: Alexandra Fall <AlexF@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, August 25; 2014 11:23 AM To: N & M Szabo Subject: Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement Attachments: Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement.pdf Hi Nick and Marcia, I hope you have been enjoying these last few days of summer. It has been pretty hectic over here as we gear up for our closure this week for maintenance, but the closure also gives us a chance to do some housekeeping. Attached are the instructor guidelines that we are asking all volunteer instructors to sign before they proceed with their September classes or meetings. Please read, sign, and return these guidelines before September 4th. If you would like, a hard copy of these guidelines is available at our front desk when we open again on September 2nd You will notice in the guidelines that all volunteers are required to record their hours. I have for you here, Nick, the link to login to the volunteer portal, as well as your username and password. You can use this login information to record your hours. Volunteer Portal Username: Password (Case sensitive): Marcia, as we do not yet have you in our system as a volunteer instructor, you can use that same link to set up your own volunteer account, with a separate username and password. Thank you very much, both of you. Please let me know if you have any trouble logging in or setting up an account, and I look forward to seeing you again soon. Alex Fall Recreation Coordinator Cupertino Senior Center 4o8-777-3150 cupertino.org/senior ,z CUPERTINO City of Cupertino Recreation and Community Services Department Creating a Positive; Healthy, and Connected Community 20142015 Volunteer Instructor Guidelines and Agreement We are pleased you are an instructor at the Cupertino Senior Center. Thank you for working with us to provide excellent programs that serve about 4,000 seniors monthly. We appreciate your commitment, expertise, and enthusiasm. The Cupertino Senior Center is dedicated to providing an array of quality programs and services that insure and enhance independence for older adults. Volunteer Instructors: Please read -and initial each item indicating that you agree to each condition. Please remember to keep your membership current, which is required for volunteering. The annual membership fee is $,22 for volunteers who log 20' hours or more of service per year. Volunteer instructors must record their hours monthly on the online volunteer portal at www.cupertino.org/volunteer. If any of your students appear to be ill, please let the front desk know right away. Our staff is trained in first aid and CPR. Please.let us know your requested classroom set-up. The Facility Attendant will be setting up the tables and chairs for your room. Let us know one (1) week in advance for any special set up requirements or equipment needs. Please give the front desk your daily class count. Please inform a senior center staff person with any changes to your scheduled program ,(i.e. makeup date or a class cancel date). Please check at the front desk for any mail or messages. Please let the front desk know if the room temperature is uncomfortable. Staff will make adjustments to the thermostat. If the building fire alarm sounds, immediately evacuate the students in your class through the nearest exit. The assembly point will be the turf area of Memorial Park. Please remain in the assembly point area until a senior center staff person tells you it is safe to return to the building. Educational presentations are solely to provide information. Turn over to complete Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 777-3150 Fax: (408) 777-3156 www.cupertino.org/senior There can be no solicitation of clients or distribution of company literature, prices, or promotional materials. Program content must be approved by senior center staff prior to the program being advertised in the newsletter. Each class lecture is for the dissemination of oral information only. No client service of any kind is to be rendered. Any personal contact subsequent to the presentation is prohibited unless initiated by the Cupertino Senior Center students. With prior approval from senior center staff, political candidates may only have approved presentations and must bein panel format to provide a blend of information for students. Copies for class instruction will be made for volunteer instructors free of charge. All other copies will be charged at a rate of 10 cents per page. Only black and white copies are available. Instructors are expected to allow time during an educational session for questions from the students. Signature of Instructor Date Cell Phone # Print Name Class Title Phone # Email (optional) Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 777-3150 Fax: (408) 777-3156 www.cupertino.org/senior L ctm. cc ' fis- Steven s Creek Corridor is - G er Ran Opposed Design Elements In order to preserve the tranquility and biodiversity of the Stevens Creek Corridor, please do not include any of the following elements in your selected design alternatives. Roads, trails, bridges, expanded facilities, and noise have considerable negative impacts on native wildlife and diminish the quality of the park experience. STOCKLMEIR RANCH ■ Special events venue for large events (A) BLACKBERRY FARM ■ New "spine" road along creek (A, B) ■ New trail along creek (C) ■ Pedestrian and bike loop trail along perimeter of golf course (B) ■ Bridge to Stevens Creek Blvd parking lot, unless required by a safety study (A, B, C) ■ Destination pool complex (A) ■ Expanded pool complex (B) ■ Multi -use sportsfields (A) ■ Clubhouse/staff offices near San Fernando Park entrance (B) ■ Golf amenities at the Blesch property (A, B, C) RIPARIAN PENINSULA & CENTRAL CREEK CORRIDOR ■ New trails (A, B, C) ■ Seasonal nature discovery area in peninsula (B) ■ Seasonal bridge to peninsula (A, B, C) ■ Enhanced vegetation in peninsula (B, C) ■ New play areas—adventure play, natural play area, obstacle challenge course, off-road cycling area (A, B) MCCLELLAN RANCH PRESERVE, including MCCLELLAN RANCH WEST ■ New bridge between MRP & MRW (A, B, C) • Reduction of meadow (A, B, C) - - ■ Trails through the meadow (A, B, C) ■ Expanded community garden (A) ■ Outdoor skills area in place of bee hives (A) ■ MRW converted to large parking lot.(A) ■ Natural play area in place of nature preserve (B, C) ■ Trail along west side of creek (B, C) -�` ccs/31�s 0WL_Co . 2/3/15 Good evening my name is Tim Brand. I want to tell you about vAW a County Planning Commission meeting that took place on November 20, last year. I have provided you with the part of the Staff Report and minutes, and a partial transcript as well as a full audio CD of that hearing. But first I need to give you a very brief background of the agenda item under discussion: Lehigh illegally constructed a mountain of waste material called the East Material Storage Area (EMSA) which has been leaching selenium into Permanente Creek. Years later this EMSA was legalized by the County Board when they approved the Reclamation Plan Amendment (the subject of the BACE lawsuit). The conditions of approval required that if levels of selenium exceed a specified threshold, Lehigh must take steps to correct it. Agenda item #9 was supposed to be a determination of whether Lehigh's discharges exceed that threshold if so, whether remediation is feasible. Despite the fact that the selenium was well over that limit, the County staff recommended that Lehigh should be found in compliance. But Julie Maceto, legal council for the Regional Water Quality Control Board gave quite a different recommendation. She said "the only conclusion you can draw is that Lehigh is not in compliance with water quality objectives", and she restates this numerous times during her testimony in similar unequivocal language. The next question is whether remediation is feasible. The most likely solution is to redirect the water from the EMSA into the pond that already has a selenium treatment system. But Lehigh says this is not feasible because their water permit from the water Board won't allow it. But Julie Maceto says that the permit merely reflects the water Boards approval of Lehigh's plan; it is what Lehigh requested, not something dictated by the water Board, and she uses the word "duplicitous" to describe Lehigh's excuses. Not only that, but she emphasized that the board is more than willing to work with Lehigh to make the necessary adjustments to the permit. None of Julie's statements are included in the meeting minutes, nor is there a video or audio available on-line. And unfortunately reporters never go to these hearings anymore either. I had to request and pay for an audio CD and do the transcription myself in order to bring it to your attention. I think the city needs to start sending a special liaison to all the regulatory meetings so they can gather the meeting materials including making transcripts where necessary, provide these on the City website, and keep the Council informed of the issues. In addition, I also hope you will submit an amicus brief in support of the BACE lawsuit and you should put this on the agenda for the next meeting right away. Thank you. Additional comments: If you read the short transcript I gave you, you can also see. that that the staff and most Commissioners express great concern about protecting Lehigh but I don't show raise any concerns about protection of the environment (despite the recent history of willful violations by Lehigh). The interests of Cupertino residents are clearly not represented at this County Planning Commission meeting. I am relieved that the water Board sent someone to the meeting and that the commission voted appropriately, but I think it was a close call, and it is not over yet because the vote about remediation will not take place until March 26. So please read the entire transcript I gave you as I think you will learn a great deal about the nature of this regulatory problem. In summary it demonstrates that: 1. Lehigh is out of compliance but County staff says the opposite. 2. Lehigh uses duplicitous statements to avoid fixing the problem. 3. Information about the issue is not readily available to the public. 4. Commissioners show exceptional deference to Lehigh despite history of violations. In my view, without public involvement, staff and Lehigh would have prevailed at this meeting. PC26?1&11124,.V6q f:.,22sv. 5Yq STAFF REPORT 'Plam, liog coin miSROO November 20, 2014 M= PublM Hearing to Consider, (a), Reclamation Plan Annual StAtu, R, - poi t'' e ge ..Requirements, for the East Mafelln''als- Btoragp Area 'S 9'a y of Facility,(or, Alter-nativ, to aid (t) F6 sibilit, 0 ea y Treat S-eleinunit a I Lehigh Per mahente Quavvy duirninig �Redamndon Staff Recommetidatioft: 1. Accept the Reclamation Plan Annual Report for Reporting Period July 1, 2013 to:JunO.30, 201.4; and 2, DOtOrAidne Lei i�,gli is Gut'rently complying- 'W.Ith scot inw-atet- dischir axe Iquir elmnts bbrthe,EMS A; and g -, I Deteraiiiie that it is feasible to construct,., i,nstall and ,operate :a facility—to treat seieniuni for- waterdischatgod "In t'he,W.0 st,Mater-IA18 Storage Area: (WiMSA), axed Quarry 4. Continue the heariiu,, to Iaijuaq 2 2Q15 to determine the feasibility of (or alternative) to, treat ,selenium from water discharged. from. the EM A. to 411ow. Lehlgh-Peiiiianente� Quarryad I ditional thne,to evaluate, the ka�ibfllty, of attorilati'vo options. Board:((' -Su)} Orvisbrk: cMIke,Wa,s8&.rrnar)I, Cindy chavm, DaftCOrteSf., Keh Ye.41,pr, S.,JoseOjVSIAIII9r,' COLthtyExMlfiyp: Jeffrey Y. Smith a LAIC&W. $becg®v. ®'/ . Cr/p/��, ,:��//�i�:•'f/3�h•�'�/p�`s��c�,��f��e��r���s.� Z ®/1112®® fes. pof Planning Commission Minutes p y j e ® � November 20, 2014 Dawn Cameron, Roads and Airports Department Nash Gonzalez, Director, Department of Planning and Development 8. Public Comments This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to one minute, or as directed by the Chairperson. The law does not permit Commission action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. All statements that require a response may be placed on the agenda for the next regular business meeting. There were none. 9. File No. 2250-12PAM Owner: LEHIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT COMPANY Project Staff: Marina Rush (408) 299-5784 marina.rush@121n.sccgov.org Public hearing to: (1) consider arunual status report for the period fuly 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 regarding compliance by Lehigh Southwest Cement Company with the 2012 Reclamation Plan Amendment conditions of approval, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), annual SMARA inspections and financial assurance cost estimates for Permanente Quarry; (2) determine whether Lelnigh is complying with storm water discharge requirements for selenium discharged from the East Materials Storage Area (SMSA) into Permanente Creek pursuant to Final Conditions of Approval No. 80 of the 2012 Reclamation Plan Amendment; and, (3) determine feasibility of a treatment system (or alternative) for selenium treatment at the EMSA, West Materials Storage Area (WMSA) and/or Quarry Pit pursuant to Final Conditions of Approval No. 82 of the 2012 Reclamation Plan Amendment. Address: 24001 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014; APN• 351-09-013,-020,-022,-025; 351-10-005 -033 -037 -038.351-11-001,-005,-006,-007,-081. General Plan: Hillsides and Cupertino Urban Service Area; Zoning District: A -d1, A1=d1, A1 -20s -d1, HS -d1, HS -d1 -sr, HS; Parcel Size: 1,238 acres; Supervisorial District: 5; Williamson Act: No. The item was introduced by Nash Gonzalez, Director of Planning and Development. Director Gonzalez provided an overview of the scope of the meeting and Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and introduced Marina Rush, Planner III. Ms. Rush provided an overview of the background and history regarding Lehigh. She, then, introduced Rob Eastwood, Principal Planner, who spoke to storm water discharge, selenium, and explained the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analysis. Chairperson Schmidt opened the public input portion of the hearing. Julie Macieto, Water Quality Board, Office of Enforcement, spok�tomonitoring �foir 14-2015. Karen Del Compare, Cathy Helgeson, Tim Brand, Libby Lucas, Gary Latcha, and Bill Ahnon, spoke to the issue. Hearing no one further, Chairperson Schmidt closed the public input portion of the hearing. On motion of Commissioner Cauble, seconded by Commissioner Couture, the Commission voted favorably to accept the Reclamation Plan Annual Report Number 2 for Period July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, as submitted. The vote was as follows: AYES: Cauble, Couture, Lefaver, Moore, Rauser, and Schmidt ABSENT: Ruiz �• a Plaiuning Coirunission Minutes November 20, 2014 Next, on motion of Commissioner Couture motioned that the Commission find favorably to determine Lehigh is complying with storm water discharge requirements for the East Materials Storage Area (EMSA). Hearing no second, the motion failed. Next, on motion of Commissioner Cauble, seconded by Commissioner Moore, the Commission voted favorably to find that Lehigh is not currently compliant with storm water discharge requirements with respect to selenium for the SMSA. The vote was as follows: AYES: Cauble, Lefaver, Moore, Rauser, and Schmidt NOES: Couture ABSENT: Ruiz The Commission noted that the motion was made without a value judgment. The Commission looked at numbers. They acknowledged that Lehigh continues to do a lot and encouraged Lehigh to continue in their efforts. , Next, on motion of Commissioner Lefaver, seconded by Commissioner Cauble, the Commission voted favorably to determine it is feasible to construct, install, and operate a facility to treat selenium from water discharged from the West Materials Storage Area (WMSA) and Quarry Pit during reclamation. The vote was as follows: AYES: Cauble, Couture, Lefaver, Moore, Rauser, and Schmidt ABSENT: Ruiz And, last, on motion of Commissioner Lefaver, seconded by Commissioner Cauble, the Commission voted favorably to continue the hearing until January 22, 2015 to determine the feasibility of a facility, or alternative, to treat selenium from water discharged from the EMSA to allow Lehigh -Permanente Quarry additional time to evaluate the feasibility of any alternative options. The vote was as follows: AYES: Cauble, Couture, Lefaver, Moore, Rauser, and Schmidt ABSENT: Ruiz 10. Other Business Report of Planning Commissioners a) San Martin Planning Advisory Committee report (Rauser) There was no report. b) Other reports from Commission members There were no reports. Committee meetings and reports There were no reports. Report of County Counsel (Pianca/Cheleden) There was no report. Report of the Planning Manager/Secretary (Girard) Noted. 11. Update regarding activities of the Department of Planning and Development (Gonzalez). There was no report. 11/20/2014, Santa Clara County Planning Commission meeting Excerpt starting at 105:00:00 on audio CD from County, Transcription by Tim Brand Greg Knapp, Lehigh: ...Actually the final limit in the permit is 4.1 ug/L Kathy Schmidt, chairperson: OK. And that's what will go directly into the creek? Greg Knapp, Lehigh: Correct. Kathy Schmidt, chairperson: And then it will be further diluted by creek water. Greg Knapp, Lehigh: Could be. I mean it depends on the time of the year sometimes there's no water in that creek. Kathy Schmidt, chairperson: OK. Thank you for that clarification. Anyone else have questions right now? OK. Thank you very much. And I'm actually going to thank both staff and Lehigh for thorough presentations. Now I'll open the public hearing. If anyone has a card that hasn't been turned in please make sure we get it up here. And I will start in the public hearing with the representative from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Julie Maceto is that correct? Julie Maceto, RWQCB: That's exactly right thank you. Good afternoon board members. I'm Julie Maceto, senior staff council from the office of enforcement at the state water board and I represent the bay area regional water quality control board and we obviously did the permit for Lehigh and the COA which requires them to get in compliance with the selenium discharges. I spoke to Rob before the meeting and I have just a couple points to go over, one that I think that the county and we are in agreement that Rob did not mention that I wanted to make sure got put into the record was that for the pond 30 at the EMSA it doesn't seem to include monitoring requirements for the 2014 and 2015 period and we think that that's appropriate for establishing baseline conditions. It sounds like the county is in agreement with that. It may be in part of the report it just wasn't mentioned so if you have questions you can go over that with Rob. My two main points are the feasibility of pond 30 and whether Lehigh is in compliance with water quality objectives. I'll take the water quality standard objective standard first. As you can see from page 13 in Rob's slide with regards to the testing, the trend is upward and I would note that the water quality objective is 5. It is not something close to 5. It's not what the discharge objective thinks is good enough. Greg Knapp who we're familiar with and who we speak to frequently at the regional board says the final permit standard is 4.1. 5.9 is actually almost 20% higher than the current standard so the 3 of the 4 sampling results are higher and one of them is almost 3x higher and one of them is almost 6x higher, so when your staff says the conservative approach would be to find that Lehigh is not in compliance I'd say the only conclusion you can draw is that Lehigh is not in compliance with water quality objectives. Regional water quality control board certainly doesn't think that these numbers would allow you to find that they are in compliance when we have one of 4 samples in compliance with state objectives. In terms of pond 30,1 just would like to point out Rob mentioned that we are happy to go back and work with Lehigh but in terms of the chicken and egg type problem you know this EIR reclamation plan was looked at in 2012 and then Lehigh worked with considerable assistance from the regional water board staff to get its new permit. We at the water board don't tell dischargers what to do. They bring us something and then we approve it and we describe that as; we don't tell them the manner and method, they propose a work plan and then we approve it. So to have them come to an agency and not be consistent in what they tell one agency versus another is very frustrating to us. So when they come to you and say `hey this is infeasible, even though you approved our reclamation plan, because another agency is not allowing us to do something we find that a little duplicitous. So for example, we are happy to re -open our permit and get things done to help you, a sister agency but Lehigh came to us and said this is how we want to do something and now is telling you `oh by the way, this how our permit is structured and so we can't meet the requirements of your approval under the reclamation plan'. So I just would like you to know that we are happy to be flexible if you delay something until January we will take a look at it; pond 30 we will make it work. In terms of the feasibility regarding the other consideration we're totally in agreement with county staff, but in terms of pond 30 I think we can come up with something, it is just a matter of working together. And then for the water quality objectives, we just don't feel that the test results allow, you to find that they're in compliance. Let me know if you have any questions. Kathy Schmidt, chairperson: Does anyone have a question? (More discussion about questions for Julie Maceto, partly unintelligible) Dorsey Moore, commissioner: Thank you for your comment. And so I should... unintelligible ... maybe reference with staff this thing I know that they're doing a lot of work out there so when we're out there for the eastern materials storage area, you know, clearly they are trying to get into compliance so, you know, they are sort of baking the cake, and so you know they're breaking eggs and they're trying to get in compliance and so you know from your perspective I don't know if you've been out there or seen... Julie Maceto, RWQCB: I've been out there. Dorsey Moore, commissioner: OK. And so, you know, I think that the goal is to try to get to the 5 ug. So I would welcome your council or your input on just you know what's assort of an acceptable level while they're in the process of getting into compliance. Julie Maceto, RWQCB: Sure. I would re -frame that a little bit this way: So, the question is `are they meeting the water quality objectives' and I think based on an objective number, they're not, right? And the way that we're looking at it now and Rob can confirm if anything I say doesn't make sense or maybe isn't how he wants you to look at it is, are BMP's Best Management Practices effective at getting that number down? Now we never thought, me and the water board and I don't think the county either, thought that BMP's alone would do it, right?' That's why they're going to be an interim treatment system and a final treatment system that ultimately gets us to the 4.1 number. So it's frankly not surprising that you see numbers in excess of 5. So when you say they're not in compliance with the water quality objectives, that just means they're testing higher than 5 and you need to push them to complete the interim and final treatment remedy. That's all that means. It means BMP's ultimately need to coupled with interim and final treatment. But BMP's alone aren't going to get us there.. Does that help? Dorsey Moore, commissioner: Yep. Kathy Schmidt, chairperson: Scott? Scott Lefaver, commissioner: Yes. I was going to ask a similar question and try and put it into context and also perhaps add one more question and that is that during this interim period we did find that in the EIR that the water quality would go up and down as far as selenium based upon BMP and that they do have a period of time to meet the standards as I recall. Julie Maceto, RWQCB: Right. We give them time, I mean in terms of, you know, when we have penalty actions and our sort of enforcement options are a little bit different than yours and certainly your EIR is a little bit different than what we regulate them with the permit. We have something called MMP's which are Management Minimum Penalties and then we have discretionary penalties. So under the permit and CEO we certainly can work with the discharger to let them know, are they doing as much as they can? Are they working toward an iterative process with BMP's, trying to improve things as they go? So we understand that it is the cake baking process, right? But to the extent that 2012 and 2013 were very dry years, I mean it led to the draught in 2014, you expect slightly lower numbers. And then as we see some runoff when you hit the limestone then that mixing with the selenium you hit spikes, that's when you got the three times and the six times the water quality objective. So, we're simply saying they're not meeting water quality objectives and they have to do more. That's what we're saying. And we're not saying they deserve to be penalized, but we're saying `your not meeting water quality objectives and need to continue to meet the requirements under the CEO of the permit and move to the goal that it sounds like both agencies expect them to meet. Scott Lefaver, commissioner: And this is where, and I may be using the wrong words here, this is where one would call acceptable progress as you continually monitor the progress that they're making and seeing what they're doing. Julie Maceto, RWQCB: In terms of BMP's are better than nothing. BMP's plus treatment, treatment doesn't go on on day one right? You saw Gregg's schedule of when the interim treatment is going to be final next year and then when the final treatment is going to be established in 2017. We understand that it's a process. In terms of the question before you today, the question is the chart. Are those numbers below 5 and the answer is no. So to me, the question is have they met the goal of 5. The answer is no. So I would re -frame the question, are they doing things? Absolutely. Are they doing enough to get below 5, no. Scott Lefaver, commissioner: Thank you Julie Maceto, RWQCB: Your welcome. 1:14:45, end of Julie Maceto, RWQCB comments.