CC 3-5-19 Oral CommunicationsMayor Scharf, Council Members and Staff
My name is Gary Wong, a 21 year resident of Cupertino
As you know, the prior Council approved the draft Feasibility Study of the
Regnart Creek on August 21, 2018. The Santa Clara Valley Water District raised
numerous issues with the approved Study. Revisions were made to the Study
and a Final Study was posted to the City's website in September. The website
noted that only administrative changes were made.
At prior Open Communications, a number of errors in the Feasibility Study, both
draft and Final have been shared. At the City Council Meeting held on February
19, 2019, Councilman Willey and Vice Mayor Chao, inquired as to the changes
made, and received a response similar to the website, that the Final study
contains administrative changes.
We are submitting a comparison of the Draft Study, the Final Study and issues
raised by the Water District. It is our conclusion, that there are many issues of
substance that are not addressed in the District's letter, are inconsistent with
the District's letter and merits reconsideration by the current Council.
With tens of millions of dollars potentially allocated to City trails, the
practicality of the proposed trails, and the cost -benefits thereof, also merit
serious consideration in light of the many competing needs for city projects and
available financial resources.
Regnart Creek Trail Studies -Comparative Changes between City Council Approved Draft
8/21/18 and Final Report, September 2018
Prepared by: G. Wong, Feb .23.2019
Note: Per City website, "Final Feasibility Study was prepared which incorporated Santa Clara Valley Water District
comments and other minor administrative edits".
Observations: The Feasibility was amended to include substantive changes raised by Water District. However, it is our view
that these are not MINOR administrative errors as represented to the Council. The Final Feasibility should seek confirmation
from Santa Clara Valley Water District as to its acceptability and the Final study should be resubmitted to Council for
approval.
Council Resolution 18-081 states that SCVWD concerns and needs have been addressed whereas the letter from SCVWD on
8/21/18 proves that the statement in the resolution is inaccurate.
Council SCVWD Comments
Page Approved Study Final Feasibility Study(partially Letter dated Resident Observations
8/21/18 includes SCVWD comments) 8/21/18
2 Inserts: "SCVWD COORDINATION Four Letter issued on day States SCVWD concerns
coordination meetings between the City and Council considers and and needs are addressed,
SCVWD were held in preparation of the study. votes on Trail Feasibility which is counter to SCVWD
As SCVWD is the owner of Regnart Creek, the Study and approves 8/21/18 letter which
study takes into consideration their needs and funding for design and implies it did not see a draft
concerns. The meetings focused on trail environmental impact of the Study prior to release
alignment, features, maintenance study. or Council approval. responsibility, and liability. The City will
continue coordination with SCVWD throughout
subsequent phases of the project".
1
3 Inserts: "Trail head amenities may be States access road have Trail head illustrations
provided where they do not conflict with or limited space for amenities differ from site constraints.
reduce SCVWD maintenance access" such as information
boards, seating.
4 Alternative 1 is Silent on SCVWD preferred alternatives 4 or SCVWD states preference Alternative 1 is
recommended 5 for Alternative 4 or 5, with recommended by HMH. No
limited impact to SCVWD change nor mention of
maintenance and SCVWD preference fa t
operations. States Alternate 4 or 5. Council
Alternative 1 is most and public were not
impactful informed of SCVWD
preferences
7 Silent on SCVWD concerns. SCVWD expresses concern City will need to hold
that designating trails as SCVWD harmless, take full
transportation corridors responsibility and assume
can be a problem when liability. Such costs are not
considering future uses of considered in the Study.
right of way for SCVWD
purposes. It confers a duty
onto SCVWD, through
CEQA, to mitigate for any
loss of or adverse impacts
to the transportation
corridor, in addition to any
lost recreational use. The
Joint Use Agreement will
provide that the City be
responsible for trail
closures, trail detour
routes, signs and maps,
CEQA documentation and
2
mitigation required to
implement the trail
closures.
8 Under Agencies & Stakeholders, inserts "as Suggests verification of Trail widths constraints
depicted in property documentation and ingress-egress rights of exists and could be further
record maps." PG&E and AT&T be verified constrained by utility access
through actual title rights.
documentation.
14 Inserts: "SCVWD as-builts depict the widths The Study states Despite SCVWD reports o L
varying from 10 feet to 15 feet throughout maintenance road varies 10-15 feet trail widths, with
the corridor". from 12 to 25'. District as-on-going erosion, the final
Leaves in: Field measurements taken in builts show maintenance Study maintains the
preparation of this study recorded widths road widths between 10-corridor widths are from
varying from 12 feet to 25 feet from the 15 ft., however this width 12-25 feet, providing
fence line to top of bank. has been reduced in many misleading, confusing and
areas due to ongoing conflicting information to
At the end of the last paragraph, inserts erosion and deterioration. t he Coun cil and pu blic .
"The City's responsibilities and liabilities The document should be
regarding the trail will be outlined and revised to reflect this.
specified in future joint use agreements
between the City and SCVWD".
16 Table 3.1 indicates Table 3.1 changed to Bank Erosion and SCVWD notes that the Erosion and bank instability
no erosion noted undercutting on Reach 1 and Bank Erosion Feasibility Study states the suggests the Trail may be
on Reach 1 and and undercutting on Reach 2. channel has no erosion. an unsuitable use or
mild incised invert, The information appears to require extensive, costly
spot erosion on The Final Study is silent on bank erosion be taken from an outdated r epairs. Council and the
Reach 2. and the instability of the banks . report. SCVWD have public are not made aware
document reports of of these cond itio n s in the
erosion and sediment Final Study. The study
conditions in all reaches of misleads by u sing old data
Regnart Creek. The banks
3
in these reaches are when new data was
unstable . The section of available from district.
the Study needs to be
updated to reflect the
current condition along
Regnart Creek where the
trail is proposed.
22 Inserts: "SCVWD as-builts depict the access Same comment as right of It is unclear how field
road widths varying from 10 feet to 15 feet way, indicating as builts measurements were made
throughout the corridor. Field showing widths from 10 or what the boundary
measurements taken in preparation of this feet to 15 feet . ranges are. Despite
study recorded widths varying from 12 feet information to the contrary
to 25 feet from fence line to top of bank". from the land owner,
SCVWD, the Study
Deletes: The existing road varies in width continues to rely on its field
from 12 feet to 25 feet, constraining measurements to promote
desired maintenance access widths in the Trail.
select locations.
23 Deletes: "THE HDM, AASHTO, and ADA No comment from SCVWD Removed the Mandatory
manuals provide definitive, mandatory guidelines to be followed
standards for trail design and construction. because there is no space
The PM, DG, UD, UM, NACTO, TK and to build a standards
MUTCD provides guidelines and compliant trail. This
recommendations that are no mandatory confirms the Regnart Creek
features for a proposed trail." Trail may not conform to
broadly accepted t @.il
Inserts" The listed design resource manuals criteria .
provide guidelines and recommendations
that are not mandatory features for a
proposed trail.,
4
25 Deletes: "SCVWD allows the trail tread SCVWD does not have SCVWD asks that certai n
width to a minimum of 8 ft where existing allowable trail tread width i naccurate representation s
access road is narrow." standards . Trails should be delet ed.
accommodate fully loaded
Inserts: "Use of motorized vehicles on maintenance equipment
countywide trails shall be prohibited, and any damage to the
except for wheelchairs, maintenance trail will be City
vehicles , and emergency vehicles . responsibility.
Under Trail Closures, inserts: "The City is City will take full
responsible for temporary trail closures responsibility for trail
when construction, repair, and closures when needed for
maintenance of the creek and or trail are District flood protection
required. These closures responsibilities maintenance purposes.
may include notification to the public and
implementation of detour routing." District does not allow or
permit private access to
Deletes : "Private access to public trails is public trails. All access
discouraged, but in some instances it can points must be public
occur. Criteria that shall be used to access points controlled by
evaluate the appropriateness of private the City.
access to public trails include: visibilit y of
access points, self-closing and self-locking
features of gates, alignment between entry
point and the actual trail head; and
maintenance cost and responsibilities."
Inserts: "Private access to public creek
trails on SCVWD right-of-way is prohibited.
All access points to and from the trail shall
5
be public access points controlled by the
City."
26 Trail Monitoring and Maintenance. SCVWD states "managing Material costs fo r trail
Deletes: "Local and managing agencies are agencies" be changed to maintenance and
responsible ... wo r k. Inserts: "The City of City of Cupertino. operations are not stated in
Cupertino is responsible for patrolling the the Study and are
trail for potential maintenance and City should specify its permanent add itions to the
corrective work." "Routine maintenance maintenance and City's operating budget.
and repa i r of the trail and trail features is inspection criteria .
the responsibility of the City."
Study should state that the
Inserts: "A level of service approach should City will prioritize and
be used by the managing agency to operate implement immediate
and ma i ntain trails. Table UM-1 provides a repairs on District Right of
general management framework for Way where problems are
normal trail-related stewardship activities" impacting Regnart Creek or
(UM-3.0) maintenance activities.
27 The Study is silent on SCVWD participation SCVWD requests invitation Key st ake ho lder, SCVWD
or notification of public outreach. to participate in future was exclud ed from public
outreach efforts so that we outreach, as well as
can be aware of rec eiving feedback on
community concerns draft St udy before
related to the proposed adopt ion by the cou nci1l
use of our right of way and The question is why? H~
the City's plans for SCVWD expressed its
addressing those concerns . acceptability of the Final
Study?
32 Inserts: Agency Coordination added to the Seems contradictory when
Study explaining sensitivity to the needs SCVWD has not seen the
and concerns of SCVWD study before release and
6
staff recommended
approval from city council
without disclosing SCVWD
concerns .
34-38 Does not address SCVWD comment Alternative 1 would be Key concern by SCVWD is
most impactful to the not addressed or
District's operation and documented in the study.
maintenance activities. It
will increase maintenance
costs any work we do in
this area, and the bridges
may not be feasible
without more detailed
information on how their
construction will affect our
maintenance access.
Additionally, it has been
our experience that
pedestrian bridge
abutments cannot usually
be constructed without
removing the adjacent
creek bank, which will
require regulatory
approvals.
39 Third diagram added: 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9 SCVWD requests actual Shows 10' trail width but is
cross sections on this page unclear of the width
6. 7: Trust Bridge increases from 42' to 46' at the most restrictive reduction with wood split-
pinch points to show how rail, which could impact
6.8 New Diagram Added showing 10' the existing maintenance vehicle passage.
bike/pedestrian path. road access width will be
7
impacted . Study should
6.9 Removable wood split-rail added to specify how quickly the
diagr am City will respond to
requests to remove their
bridges when requested by
the District.
40-41 (Diag ra m 6.13 . The 2 foot shoulde r is Railing will not be allowed The diagram doesn't seem
removed. Truss i s increased from 40' to along the top of the bank, to be to scale. Though the
4 6'. unless it is outside the truss bridge was increased
District right of way as it by 6 feet, the footings seem
impedes our ability to to be positioned at the
access the channel from same spot the diagram it
the top of the bank. updated. It would seem the
longer truss bridge would
take up more room from
the current trail path. 6
feet is a meaningful
distance where trail w i dths
are already narrow.
42 Cantilever Structure at Lozano Lane SCVWD ask that these These alternatives were
Inserts: "and was unacceptable to the designs were unacceptable offered to residents on
Santa Clara Valley Water District". to the District. New Lozano Lane and De Palma
language suggesting these Lane.
Box Culvert at Lozano Lane alternatives would cause
Inserts: "The SCVWD was unwilling to erosion, affect seasonal
accept the negative environmental and wetlands and restrict
slope stability consequences of this District maintenance for
concept". flood protection. These
alternatives were not
selected based on sound
engineering principale and
8
do not represent the
District's opinion.
44 Inserts:" Trailhead and access features shall Trailhead features should
be implemented as to not restrict or limit not limit ability for the
SCVWD's ability to access the creek for District's maintenance
maintenance . The City will be responsible equipment to enter and
for the maintenance of trailhead features". leave maintenance roads.
45 Not addressed Plantings and decorative
pavement at entrances are
subject to damage and
may be in the way of
maintenance activities.
47 The Final Study is silent on safety con cerns Safety railing and features The Final Study is silent on
make maintenance and safety concerns next to a
i nspection of District steep creek, which is
facilities d ifficult. At 3:1, no significant when a path is
fencing is required, bu t p roposed as a safe route t o
m ost bank slopes are school
steeper than 3:1. A fence
2 feet from top of bank The final study still
r educes usable space m aintains that railing is
u n derstanding that a allowed which is inaccurate
ve h icle needs more than while negotiations ar e st ill
8' +/-width of the vehicl ~ going on.
when the r e are
const r ain t s/wall on either
side. Secondary screening
f ences will ta ke another 18
inches or so, furthe r
reducing the width of the
maintenance road.1
9
Removing fencing is also a
lot of work and setting the
fencing 2 feet back from
the top of the bank w i ll
r educe the District's
maintenance footprint to
10 feet in some places
which is not enough room
for maintenance
equipment
51-53 The Final Study is silent on these concerns. The cost for these Adds increased operational
additional measures adds costs for the City and
costs and time to District.
operations. It limits when
and how we inspect our
facilities, increase public
frustration with the District
when facilities must be
closed and increases labor
hours to work around .
56 Trail Alignment. Insert: "the City will work Is there an increase in
closely with these residents to implement insurance premiums to the
an appropriate screening solution". City for this increased
liability? The Study is silent
Insert: "Mitigation for any loss or adverse on this matter.
impacts to the trail is the responsibility of
the City. The City is also responsible for
coordination with CEQA to provide
pertinent documentation regarding trail
10
closures associated with flood protection
work performed by SCVWD".
57 Insert : "The porous paved trail will be Trail Surface Porous
designed to withstand maintenance vehicle pavement must be
loads. Swales, ditches, and drainage designed to withstand
systems will not restrict or limit maintenance loads and
maintenance vehicle access widths". swale/drainage designs
cannot restrict
maintenance path width.
59 Insert: "The porous paved trail will be County wide, Police
designated to withstand maintenance Departments are strapped
vehicle loads. Swales, ditches, and for resources and cannot
drainage systems shall not restrict or limit provide consistent
maintenance access widths". patrolling.
Insert: "The city will coordinate directly The Study states
with the County Sheriff's office to establish removable fencing is
patrol resources and scheduling consistent with many
commitments". Creekside trails. There are
few Santa Clara County
Insert : "In the event that creek side railings trails that have top of bank
need to be temporarily removed to allow fencing. This is a
SCVWD to perform maintenance work or significant impact to the
construction, the City will initiate trail District which must be
closures and railing removals within 24 addressed.
hours of notification as to not impede
SCVWD from performing work".
61 Cr oss Section 4-4, 2 feet shoulder removed. (Further narrows the trail
width in an already
constrained location .
11
r Lo
~ ( D ~ (C '/-frt O f /' "l // .....,.... " ,.,.,J ~ Jl /J A • ::, :.. rat_ . L--° n-,_ PL--i
~ ~ {U--;Svf/../1~ 5 I:) v (..A/ 1./VI...-"' w..,, (UVL-
Listed as _FY 2015-16 Emissions Fees t:£_ '5 .S <;)/V'J~ ~ '3 z.. _ i . ~ ~
Non-Veh1cularSourceFeesFicalYear2015-2016 Pagelof 2 J2.tz-~ G h G ~
Facilities ID District Facilities Fee Payer 2013 Emissions (Tons) $Per Ton Fee Fee
11 Bay Area AQMD Shell Martinez Refinery 4,269 $289.18 $1,234, 509.00
£_. Bay Area AQM D Lehigh Southwest Cement Co. 3,082 $289.18 $891,253.00 -10 Bay Area AQMD Chevron Products Company 2,840 $289.18 $821,271.00
14628 Bay Area AQMD Tesco Refining & Marketing Co. 1,973 $289.18 $570,552.00
12626 Bay Area AQMD Valero Refining Co. Ca. 1,287 $289.18 $372,165.00
21360 Bay Area AQMD Phillips 66 Carbon Plant 1,242 $289.18 $359,162.00
21359 Bay Area AQMD Phillips 66 Carbon Plant SF 955 $289.18 $276,167.00
11661 Bay Area AQMD Salvey USA lnc. 324 $289.18 $93,694.00
30 Bay Area AQMD Owens-Brockway Glass Container 274 $289.18 $79,235
9 Eastern Kern APCD California Portland Cement Co. 2,617 $289.18 $756,784.00
21 Eastern Kern APCD National Cement Company 1,105 $289.18 $319,544.00
20 Eastern Kern APCD Lehigh Southwest Cement Co. 756 $289.18 $218,620.00 ---
11800001 Mojave Desert AQMD Mitsubish Cement 2,772 $289.18 $801,607.00
100005 Mojave Desert AQMD Cemex -Black Mountain Quarry 2,456 $289.18 $710.226.00
1200003 Mojave Desert AQMD Riverside Cement Company 1,613 $289.18 $466,447.00
900002 Mojave Desert AQMD Searles Valley Mineral 1,566 $289.00 $452,856.00
3100068 Mojave Desert AQMD Southern ca. Gas South Needles 867 $289.00 $250,719.00
3101437 Mojave Desert AQMD Southern Ca. Gas Co. Blythe 350 $289.00 $101,213.00
970 North Coast Unified AQMD Hum bolt Redwood Co. Sawmill 269 $289.00 $77,789.00
3 North Coast Unified AQMD Sierra Pacific Industries 319 $289.00 $92,248.00
477 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Pikington North America, Inc. 551 $289.00 $159,338.00
593 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Owens-Brockway Glass Cont. 347 $289.00 $100,345.00
948 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD PPG Industries 334 $289.18 $96,586.00
2073 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Covanta Stanislaus Inc. 325 $289.18 $93,984.00
801 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Ardagh Glass Inc. 308 $289.00 $89,067.00
598 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Guardian Industries Corp. 284 $289.00 $82,127.00
1662 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Gallo Glass Company 268 $289.00 $77,500.00
2234 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD California Resources Elk HS LLC 255 $289.00 $73,741.00
-----·~-~-----.. ---, .. ----------
continued Listed as FY 20125-16 Emissions Fees
Non -Vehicular Source Fees Fiscal Year 2015 -2016 Page 2 of 2
Facilities ID District Facilites Feepayer 2013 Emissions (Tons}
1547 San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Aera Energy LLC 253
43 Shasta County AQMD
_1..?hasta County AQM D
800089 South Coast AQMD
174655 South Coast AQMD
800030 South Coast AQMD
800036 South Coast AQMD
171109 South Coast AQMD
171107 South Coast AQMD
44577 South Coast AQMD
174591 South Coast AQMD
800026 South Coast AQMD
Total
Wheelabrator Shasta 536
Lehigh Southwest Cement 461
Exxon Mobil Oil Corp. 2,148
Tesoro Refining & Marketing, 1,834
Co., LLC-carson
Chevron Products Co. 1,346
Tesoro Refining & Marketing, 642
Co., LLC-Carson
Phillips 66 Co., -LA Refinery 633
Phillips 66 Co., LA Refinery 580
Wilmington
Long Beach City, SERRF Project 311
Tesoro Refining & Marketing, 300
Co., Wilmington
Ultramar, Inc. 263
42,915
$289.18 = 213.57 Base Fee+ $75.61 Supplemental Fee
Legend
AQMD Air Quality Management District
APCD Air Polution Control District
Note: The Fiscal Year is the date of the invoice the information is based on 2 years prior.
$per Ton Fee Fee
$289.00 $73,163.00
$289.00 $155,000.00
$289.00 $133,312.00
$289.00 $621,159.00
$289.00 $530,356.00
$289.00 $389,236.00
$289.00 $185,654.00
$289.00 $183,051.00
$289.00 $167,724.00
$289.00 $89,935.00
$289.00 $86,754.00
$289.00 $76,054.00
$289.00 $12,410,160.00
To look up the reports go to the Air Resource Board web site and type in Lehigh look under the Title Non -Vehicular
Source Fees Fiscal Year pull up the year you want to look at.
The listings are for all of the Air Resource Board Facilities Feepayers
;jf::>!LUrn Luu1-ui:s-L1 Arr f-'Ot1ut1on ano Hea1m
rJl:JHDEI -....,
CALIFORNIA
f\ AIR RESOURCES BOARD
About Our Work Resources Business Assistance Rulemaking News
, •• ..,,._~ ... ·· ,.-,.,.,~w-. ~.., ,n o,,v... ,.,.,.r,.a..,.,~,. 'M''-"~"'r"'=-' """"'"' •re,,..; ,,._,y.....,..,.,,~,.,.,.,,,c,·,,,_,,,,..,_,,_.,,.-......,"""""'"'°'........,v,,.-,...,..,.,.,,.,,,,,.,,.,_., . ._-.,.,..,_.,,..,.._,~,.....,--,,"''"""'""" ....,.°""'.,_""."'"' ._.,,......,,,,~,..._,,.,,.,.,_.._,,_.,=,..,..-,•,,,,.,~.,._.,...,.,<'._,o .,..,...,..,.. ~,..,,_,~'T~"''"«>• ""''"-~"'"',._,,,.,~ ·• """""'"'~"""'""..,...~,...,_,.,..,..,,.. ,.......-,,. • ..,,., _ _,~.,x1,..-,<><"~"'""-''...,..·•"-"
ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution and Health
......... ........._____ ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .
This page reviewed December 2, 2009
Despite significant success in reducing overall pollution levels, air pollution continues to be an important public health problem. Air monitoring shows that over
90 percent of Californians breathe unhealthy levels of one or more air pollutants during some part of the year. Health-based ambient air quality standards set by
the Cal.~ Air Resources Board (ARB) identify outdoor pollutant levels that are considered safe for the public -including those most at risk of adverse effects
with exposure to air pollution, such as children, the elderly, and people who are active outdoors. The ARB has set standards for eight "traditional" pollutants,
such as ozone and particulate matter. In addition to setting standards, the ARB identifies other air pollutants as toxic air contaminants (toxics}-pollutants that
may cause serious effects with long-term exposure, such as cancer, when exposure level is low. Most toxics have no known safe levels and some may
accumulate in the body from repeated exposures. The Board has identified about 200 pollutants as toxics, and measures continue to be adopted to reduce -emissions of toxics. Both traditional pollutants and toxic air contaminants are measured statewide to assess the success of programs for improving air quality.
The ARB works with local air pollution control districts to reduce air pollution from all sources.
What are the health effects of some common air pollutants?
The table below shows the health effects of some of the common pollutants found in our air and examples of some of the sources of these pollutants.
IIPOLLUTANT IIHEALTH EFFECTS I EXAMPLES OF SOURCES
I
httm,·/1,.,...,w =-h ""' """roco<>rf'hiho,,Jth/fc/fc1 /fc1 htm 1/~
;;5/0/L'.Ull:1 :.::uu·1-u1:5-:.::1 Air f-'olluuon ana Hea1m
Particulate Matter I • Hospitalizations for worsened • Cars and trucks (especially diesels)
I heart diseases (PM2.5 and PM10: less than or
I
• Fireplaces, woodstoves
equal to 2.5 or 10 microns, • Emergency room visits for asthma • Windblown dust from roadways, agriculture and I
respectively) • Premature death construction
• Cough, chest tightness • Precursor sources*: motor vehicles, industrial I
Ozone (03 )
• Difficulty taking a deep breath emissions, and consumer products
• Worsened asthma symptoms
• Lung inflammation
• Chest pain in heart patients** • Any source that burns fuel such as cars, trucks,
Carbon Monoxide (CO) construction and farming equipment, and residential • Headaches, nausea**
• Reduced mental alertness**
heaters and stoves
!
• Death at very high levels** I
• Increased response to allergens • See carbon monoxide sources
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02)
• Cancer • Cars and trucks (especially diesels)
Toxic Air Contaminants
• Chronic eye, lung or skin irritation • Industrial sources, such as chrome platers
• Neurological and • Neighborhood businesses, such as dry cleaners
reproductive disorders and service stations
• Building materials and products
I *Ozone is not generated directly by these sources. Rather, chemicals emitted by these precursor I
I
httnr:::.~//u1tM.A1 !::trh ~ nAl.rlroco~rl"'h/ho~lth/fr:::./fc;:1/fc.1 htm ?I?.
-~ ··---~·-------~ -~-~-.-------~------·
;5/b/ZUll:! :ZUUl-U!:h,,'.1 Air f-'OIIUUOO ana Hea1tn
llsources react with sunlight to form ozone in the atmosphere.
**Health effects from CO exposures occur at levels considerably higher than ambient.
If you have questions or comments regarding this web page, please contact Barbara Weller
at (916) 445-1324.
ARB Fact Sheet
(800) 242-4450 ! he!pHne@arb.ca.gov
~ CDi i stt~eet: ,S2crarr:ento 1 C.A. 958'"14
?.C). 3cx 281~\ S2cr2:--:1ento, C,A. 958'12
The Cat'.fort~/2 ,-6,.ii .. Resc.urces Board is ere of six boards 1 depsrtrnen-ts, and offices u:~dez-the Califor;;ia
'.=n\.1i;c~rr·:e:--1tai P:otectcr ,,o.,ger.cy.
CaiEPA Ca!Recycle DPR DTSC OEHHA SVVRCB
httnc-/AM.AI\Ar ~rh ~ n.n"/roc.o~rrh/ho!:!.lth/fc::/fc:1 /fed h+m
Hl!l,~1 1111 ,.,~ .. -·
ACCESS!B!UTY
PR!VACY POUCY
COND!TiONS OF USE
LOCAL AIR D!STRiCTS
REGISTER TO VOTE
Copyrigh~ c~) 2G 19 State c'/( c:cd'.·fo;nia
'<./?.
County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development
To: Housing, Land use, Environment, and Transportation Committee (HLUET) -& the Board of Supervisors
From: Cathy Helgerson -Citizens Against Pollution -cathyhelger@gmail.com -408-253-0490
Reg: Recent Activities at Steven Creek Quarry and Lehigh Permanente Quarries and more
Pgs. 223 agenda Packet pg. 9, 10, 11, & 12
Meeting Date: February 21, 2019
The delivery of aggregate material from Lehigh Permanent Quarry to Stevens Creek Quarry for processing and resale on an illegal haul road
used as an access road by PG & E between the quarries may have prompted this meeting but there is much more involved. In reading the Staff
Report by Jacqueline R. Onciano, Director, Dept. of Planning and Development regarding the issues and history of the matters it is evident that
a great deal of overslte if you could call it that by Santa Clara County was extremely lacking. There has been no mention of Lehigh Permanente
now called Lehigh H11nson Company using the Stevens Creek Blvd road for 100 years to transport their processed cement to customers and that
they turned left on to Foothill Blvd. or use 280 HW to deliver their product seems to have been omitted from the paperwork. This still continues
to this day and I wonder why no one has stopped the dust and pollution on to this road for many decades with condos right next door. I am
totally bewildered by the fact that the people in those condos on both sides of Stevens Creek Blvd. on the road up to Lehigh are not fighting to
prevent the dust and pollution that is coming into their homes. I had walked around in the area getting signatures years ago and 97 people
signed up not only In the condos but also private homes that said they wanted to close the Lehigh Permanente Cement Plant and quarry at the
time I provided Santa Clara County with this petition and they never did anything to stop Lehigh. I asked how many signatures did they need
and was never told I suppose there could never be enough signatures to satisfy Santa Clara County because of the revenue the County receives
from Lehigh and the Steven Creek Quarry. I would love to see this matter taken up with the voters and allowing the public to vote is important
because I believe the public should know all of the truth and then decide what kind of industry they want in their community there should be
no new quarry.
The delivery of the polluted unprocessed rock from Lehigh Hanson on the Foothill Blvd. to Stevens Canyon Road is first coming down the
Stevens Creek Blvd. and then the trucks are turning right was the major issue regarding unauthorized truck traffic. The major disturbances and
pollution drove the public of over 150 people to a City of Cupertino meeting to protest the use of the roads which seemed to have opened the
eyes of the City of Cupertino. The City of Cupertino also had been overlooked by Lehigh Hanson to get permission to use either City streets or
the illegal road the Illegal haul road had been partially built on incorporated City of Cupertino land and now it was evident that the City of
Cupertino had to do something about it. The letter that they wrote to Santa Clara County says a great deal but we need to dig even more Into
what is really going on here and the question Is should this matter be taken to court in order for it to be settled? Santa Clara County Is
definitely to blame they knew way ahead of their cease and desist order that Lehigh Hansen was building this road but did nothing until the
road was finished. The destruction of 50 trees to widen the road did not seem to matter to any of them Lehigh should pay for their criminal act.
The unprocessed aggregate rock is overburden taken from the quarry and now they want to call it green rock and they want to state there
seems to be nothing wrong with this rock and this is not true. In the past Lehigh has processed this same rock on their own property and Is still
set up to do so with the equipment still on the Lehigh site property and so the question remains why are they farming out this work to the
Stevens Creek Quarry? This rock was first supposed to be used to fill the Lehigh quarry pit for reclamation but it looks like it will not be used for
that purpose there is no reason for Lehigh to move this rock and any water pollution captured is sent to the Lehigh Waste Water Treatment
Plant.
Lehigh Hanson Company and the Stevens Creek Quarry have been under the watch and scrutiny by the State Regional Water Quality Control
Enforcement Department because of their pollution and the use of a chemical that was hurting the aquatic life. The Stevens Creek Quarry will
provide water tests in May 2019 from the Illegal dammed up ponds and also water tests from the rainwater that has flowed over the
unprocessed aggregate rock overburden delivered by Lehigh to the Stevens Creek Quarry to process. The question in my mind and I have asked
the State Regional Water Quality Control Enforcement Department Is why are you not testing the rock at Lehigh before ever deciding to allow
transport to Stevens Creek Quarry? I mentioned they now need to test both locations and also that they need to stop moving the rock on
Cupertino City streets to the Steven Creek Quarry. i also asked why Is the State Regional Water Quality Control waiting until May 2019 to get
any water test from Stevens Creek Quarry we should be able to get information now. I am also not happy with SCQ doing testing even with a
legitimate lab the State Regional Water Quality Control Enforcement Division should conduct testing and we hope that their testing is honest.
,
The vested right determination by Santa Clara County regarding Lehigh stating there is no need for a use permit for Lehigh's ongoing surface
mining activities is a travesty and should have never been allowed. This matter should be reopened by the State or Federal Government and
Justice should be served by imposing the need for a use permit. The need for a use permit regulating the processes at Lehigh would have
possibly protected the public from harm now there is no telling what harm In the future will come of their wrong decision. The threat of a new
mine by Lehigh in the future is the publics worst nightmare please Santa Clara County don't let it happen.
The sad realization in my view is that the agencies give out Permits and Mediated Agreements that give the polluters Lehigh Hanson Company
and the Stevens Creek Quarry the right to pollute. Reclamation Agreements are also designed to reclaim the land that will never ever be the
same. The Reclamation Agreement Is In Itself a form of pollution allowance it gives Lehigh and the Stevens Creek Quarry the go ahead to pollute
and it justifies their existence. How can anyone ever put back the historic limestone and the land back to any real use this Is a terrible horrible
shame and we all should be ashamed for not doing anything about it but it is not too late to stop the next Lehigh mine in our valley.
The Air, Water and Soll have been polluted by the Lehigh Hansen Cement and Quarry Company and the Stevens Creek Quarry and It is still going
on. The levels of pollution set by the agencies do not take into consideration the cumulative effect and the chemical cocktail effect these
dangerous pollutants are killing the public and It seems that cement and tax revenue from these polluters ls more Important than human life.
Santa Clara County needs to look past the property tax revenue and sales taxes taken in when they make any decisions about polluters and the
pollution they spread human llfe, animal and aquatic life is important no one is immune from the destruction from the horrible diseases and
sicknesses that their pollution emits and spreads. The Lehigh Cement Plant is destroying the Silicon Valley and the SF Bay area with their
pollution in the Air, Water and Soil we the people need to unite in this cause to shut the polluters down.
The Internal illegal haul road or the new proposed road by Lehigh neither of these roads should be allowed especially when there is no real
need for them. The question needs to be addressed how much more unprocessed rock needs to be moved and does either Lehigh Hansen or
Steven Creek Quarry have the right to set up new business between them? I say no they do not and I think that they also have no right to ask
for a use permit or any other permit to do business. I would think that the public should have the right to decide what kind of businesses they
want in their community and I for one say I do not want this polluted rock to be exported or processed. I am also wondering If it should even be
allowed to be returned to the Lehigh Hanson Quarry upon Reclamation this should also be looked into and if not It should be transported to a
place that allows for polluted quarry waste to be disposed of legally and without harm to the public. We are not sure what Lehigh is also
transporting besides and the WMSA has been a place that Lehigh has dumped their cement waste in for years this matter Is serious and needs
to be investigated. The State Regional Water Quality Control Enforcement Division should look into this matter and I understand they have their
own labs and could test this pollution In the water themselves.
The Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies set high pollution limits so as to allow such companies such as Lehigh Hansen
Company and Stevens Creek Quarry to operate otherwise they could not operate this is wrong. The EPA and agencies may come down in the
level they set for a pollutants but it Is never enough because the public is still made ill and many people are dying. The EPA does not regulate all
pollutants and many people are not aware of that this needs to be made known to all people. The so called Best Available Technologies are not
the best this Is Just an excuse for the truth the Best Available Technologies cannot save people's lives it Just sounds impressive, Governments
and Companies need to find new technologies that actually stop the pollution and if it means closing down Lehigh Hanson Cement and Quarry
and the Stevens Creek Quarry then so be it. The public is fooled by false promises made by Governments and Agencies this pollution is causing
global climate change and the drought in California is not over even with all of the rain we have had. The fires we have seen In Paradise and
Napa Valley the terrible destruction Is not over we must inform our Local, State and Federal Government that we the people want change and
we need to have it now. There is a strong possibility that Santa Clara County or another form of Government is allowing seeding of clouds here
in our valley and in California to make it rain allowing pollution to flow from the chemicals they release causing all kinds of climate disasters this
needs to stop. There needs to be a great deal of investigation into this matter and if it is causing more harm than good it should be stopped.
The failure of Santa Clara County to impose fines on Lehigh and Steven Creek Quarry for their violations ls hard to apprehend. The polluters and
violators who use regulations and permits to hide behind in order to conduct their businesses continue to violate, why are they not made to
pay high fines for their criminal acts against humanity. The small fines if at times they are imposed may not be enough the polluters consider
these fines operating expenses and Just go out and violate again and again no one shuts them down for their continued law breaking actions. It
seems that no agency, State, County or City wants to shut them down seems no one has the enforcement power this should send us all a clear
message the polluters are more important and their pollution is just part of doing business. The fact that we are all getting or going to get sick
and die sure does not matter to the greedy people who would even sit working at Lehigh exposing themselves to pollution they seem to think
they are Immune to the Illnesses brought on by the dust they are breathing In each day. I must tell them they are not immune and some people
at Lehigh have gotten sick and died one person even went crazy and killed his fellow workers has everyone forgotten what happened? I do not
think that Lehigh has forgotten they erected a memorial right outside of their gate in honor of these people so each day they can go by and
view this monument. The real problem there is they are not thinking that Just maybe someone else may go crazy again and God help us do It
again. Please Santa Clara County do not let this happen again if Lehigh had been shut down as I had been suggesting to everyone prior to this
crime these people that where killed would still be alive and living lives with their loved ones. The man who did this was I believe dying and he
knew it unfortunately Lehigh management should have realized how much he was suffering and helped him instead they did nothing.
The Issue of the road is Just a prelude to an even more serious matter and I want to bring up the issue of Lehigh Hansen Company and the real
possibility that they will put in an application to mine a new pit, which will be in the area near the either the Illegal road or the new road they
have an application for at this time. The Treatment Plant they built has also been a prelude to justify the new quarry are we going to allow this
to happen if they do put in a new quarry people will not be able to live In this valley. The new quarry may also usher In the next major earth
quake in California because there are so many fault lines around the area it would be a great disaster.
I cannot see why Lehigh Hansen does not stop all of this pollution the company is very wealthy and they really do not need to farm out this rock
to the Stevens Creek Quarry except that I believe the State Water Board has told them to dispose of it all this has caused a great deal of
problems. I agree with the letter from City of Cupertino wrote to Santa Clara County about this road and the problems and upset it caused the
public. The City of Cupertino finally got involved instead of saying they have not Jurisdiction over Lehigh and their lack of keeping our City safe.
There is I believe another reason for all of this happening and that is that I think that Lehigh Hansen Company has mined down to the aquifer
water table and now they are pulling water up from there to clean In their Lehigh Wastewater Treatment Plant. The EPA years ago did a
Superfund Site Investigation of Lehigh Hansen Company and the Stevens Creek Quarry there was justification but they did not issue a
Superfund Cleanup. I asked for this Investigation and wondered after all of the work they did why did they not close them down and do a
Superfund Site Cleanup. I think they did not do one because the EPA told all involved to clean up this mess or we will, well they never cleaned it
up In 14 years until now because finally Lehigh Hansen Is running out of Limestone and they have reached the aquifer water table. The aquifer
is filled with the water from the Stevens Creek Quarry and also other reservoirs in the valley which are highly polluted with Mercury and other
pollution the Santa Clara Valley Water District does nothing to clean them up. Lehigh Hansen is pulling water up from the aquifer water table
below the quarry via many ejection wells and this water is pulled up and then is transported to the Lehigh Hansen Wastewater Treatment Plant
but the Treatment Plant does not treat the water down to zero pollution levels. The water is then sent down the Permanente Creek to the SF
Bay area this water Is polluted not only with pollution but with chemicals they are treating the water with.
I am sorry to say I do not know what Santa Clara County or the City of Cupertino will do now but history will record what they did not do and
should have done. I can only hope they make the right decision and have been an advocate against Lehigh Hansen Cement and Quarry and the
Stevens Creek Quarry for going on 14 years and counting never giving up my dream to stop them. This land should be used for a State or
Federal park for all to use In the future preserved in any way possible with the agencies and our representative doing all they can to preserve It
sure would be a pity If it all goes to waste with another Lehigh Hansen Quarry. Please do not forget what damage the Cement Plant does dust is
every place and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the EPA Region 9 does nothing to really stop this pollution to the Air, Water
and Soll.
I would like to end here by saying that me and my family have suffered of years and continue to suffer many health issues and there even was
the death of my daughter and my husband who suffered from the pollution and died the details are too horrible to bring up now. My son has
ADD and Dysflexia and it Is a miracle that he was ever born, I had infertility problems and two miscarriages and each day I breathe in and eat
the dust from Lehigh Hansen cement that has caused my breast cancer, diabetes, asthma and other symptoms. I can tell when the Lehigh
Cement Plant is operating because it is very difficult to breath. I must ask who will fight for the future of our children and the next generation I
can only hope that all reading this paper will do your part and fight there is no time to waste all of our lives depend on it.
Thank you