CC 02-01-2022 Oral Communications_ Written CommunicationsCC 02-01-2022
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, January 24, 2022 7:05 PM
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk
Subject:FYI - letter to County Board of Supervisors pertaining to Lehigh referral agenda item #14
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
FYI ‐ letter to County Board of Supervisors pertaining to Lehigh referral agenda item #14 follows.
Please include in the next City Council meeting under public comment.
Thank You for reading,
Rhoda Fry
From: Rhoda Fry [mailto:fryhouse@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:00 PM
To: 'BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org' <BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org>
Cc: 'Kristina.Loquist@bos.sccgov.org' <Kristina.Loquist@bos.sccgov.org>
Subject: Please Vote YES on Agenda Item #14 Lehigh on January 25
Subject: Please Vote YES on Agenda Item #14 Lehigh on January 25
Email to: BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org
Email cc: Kristina.Loquist@bos.sccgov.org
Subject: Please Vote YES on Agenda Item #14 Lehigh on January 25
Link to Agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=13887
Honorable Supervisors,
Please approve Supervisor Simitian’s Agenda Item #14 Board referral “to Administration and County Counsel
to report to the Board, through Housing, Land Use, Environment, and Transportation Committee, by the first
Board meeting in May 2022, with a list of all noticed violations …”
We know Supervisor Simitian was spot-on with his “Don’t Chop the Top” campaign for sharing oversight of
our 1972 Ridgeline Protection Easement Deed with the Open Space District.
And we now know Supervisor Simitian was spot-on with his recommendation to invest in a third-party review
of Lehigh’s Financial Assurance Cost Estimate (FACE). FACE determines how much money Lehigh needs to
earmark for reclamation to stabilize the site so that it can have a secondary beneficial use, such as open space. If
the estimate is too low, County taxpayers would be left “holding the bag,” so to speak, for the remainder of the
work. Per a 27-line-item letter, dated January 11, 2022, the County Planning Department explained to Lehigh
that indeed FACE is insufficient and will need to be increased:
https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/2250_2021_FACE_Letter_Inadequacy.pdf As a side note, the
bond for the Cement Plant is only $75K!
Now it is time to go three-for-three. Please vote yes. A massive violation record from multiple regulatory
agencies did not happened by accident. Permanente Creek, Air, Water, Noise, Land violations and lawsuits are
all a direct consequence of County land-use decisions or County decisions by default. We must have a better
2
understanding about how the County’s land-use policies impact our residents and how we must do better. That’s
why we voted for you – to make our lives better.
Yet, there is much that this report won’t tell you.
It won’t tell you that the 1972 Ridgeline Protection Easement Deed has already been violated because it
was never enforced by the County in spite of constituent complaints. By Lehigh’s own reckoning, we’ve
already lost 50 to 75 feet of our protected ridgeline.
It won’t tell you that irresponsible mining caused a hefty chunk of our cherished Rancho San Antonio
Preserve to collapse into the quarry pit. There is no record of violation. The slide was quietly papered
over with a land-exchange.
It won’t tell you that the landslide above Permanente Creek, dubbed the “Yeager Yard Slide,” is a health
and safety hazard per the Water Board and County documents. Moreover, Lehigh has explicitly
excluded its repair from its 2019 Reclamation Plan proposal. To illustrate the gravity of this situation,
please consider the 1983 quarry-caused flood that deluged and evacuated Blach School and other
structures 4 miles downstream. Yes, there was a Notice of Violation in this area, but it pertained only to
sediment that was entering the creek and later resolved with BMPs (Best Management Practices) that
should have already been in place. Meanwhile, the massive mountain of mining-waste, with fissures
over 20-feet deep, continues its march toward Permanente Creek. Even Lehigh’s own documents state
that it is not safe to work there in wintertime.
It won’t tell you that quarrying has diminished the function of Permanente Creek as explained in a 54-
page report by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), “Effects of Limestone Quarrying and
Cement-Plant Operations on Runoff and Sediment Yields in the Upper Permanente Creek Basin.”
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri894130
It won’t tell you that Lehigh has been one of the very worst air polluters in our State that not only
impacts our health but also contributes to reduced visibility at our National Parks, including Yosemite.
So when you go to Yosemite and find your viewed muddied, you can thank Lehigh and BAAQMD for
that.
And it won’t tell you that Lehigh made structural repairs to its giant 80-year-old cement storage silos
without building permits. Naturally, I could go on, but I’ll stop ranting now.
Nevertheless, a report will tell you a lot and I think that the outcome will be rather stunning. For example, it will
tell you that the site’s management took kickbacks from unlicensed contractors and went to jail. How do we
know that the work that we will inherit when the land becomes open space was conducted in a workmanship-
like manner? https://countyda.sccgov.org/news/news-release/former-manager-permanente-cement-plant-
convicted-bribery
In a nutshell, please vote yes and do so unanimously.
Separately, please note also that Lehigh is applying for a twenty-year “take” permit for red-legged frogs from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife in order to continue mining and reclamation. Comments are due this week on
January 27, 2022. Why 20 years? Why allow killing endangered species in order to continue mining? I
sincerely hope that the County will comment on this item as it could well impact the optics of the forthcoming
reclamation plan. The link is here: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FWS-R8-ES-2021-0076/document
Thank You Very Much,
Rhoda Fry
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 25, 2022 6:37 AM
To:Loquist, Kristina; Supervisor Joe Simitian; McCann, Lisa@Waterboards; Miller, Amy; Salisbury, Robert;
John Marvin; FRYHOUSE@EARTHLINK.NET; Darcy Paul; jeffrey.schmidt@conservation.ca.gov; Liang
Chao; Kitty Moore; Hung Wei; Jon Robert Willey; Jim Throop; james.eggers@sierraclub.org; City
Council; Cole Burchiel; Commission, Planning; City Clerk; Congressman Ro Khanna;
senator.cortese@sen.ca.gov; Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; clerk@santaclaraca.gov
Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL] Lehigh
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Kristina, Supervisor Joe Simitian and others,
I am very concerned about the fact that this matter with Lehigh if it goes to court again that there is a limit on reporting
Lehigh's violations and that is why you are only considering violations for the past 10 years and I hope still counting. The
public is very disturbed about what is taking place because we are still being polluted everyday from Lehigh and the
Stevens Creek Quarry. There are many issues that have not been resolved and we the public are upset because no
matter what comes out as problems or violations it seems that Lehigh and the SCQ are not held accountable to any
serious level.
The courts are also confused as we can all see that they are not willing to take the responsibility and shut the polluters
down. This is wrong and so the battle continues day after day with the threat of the mining, rock plant operations and
the cement making plant disaster. When will the people of the Silicon Valley and the SF Bay area be safe from all of this
pollution? Who is going to shut them down once and for all is the question?
Fires have been going on in California at a terrible rate destroying houses, land, killing and hurting people and animals
and the forests have been turned into black and gray dust.from the fires. The air, water and soil is contaminated from
the fires and this contamination will linger for generations. Cupertino and the surrounding cities are not immune to fire
threats and I have mentioned that Lehigh's kiln, cement plant could cause the next major fire here in the valley and this
is a very serious matter. Lehigh has had many fires themselves over the years and one of the fires actually cost them
over $200,000.00 dollars of course this goes unmentioned.
The drought is not over and things will be getting worse and worse. Our forests need to be cleaned up of fallen dead
trees, brush and leaves. Cities need to spend the money to demolish the rundown buildings that still remain rotting
away on valuable land that can be used for the homeless who need housing and help. I have mentioned a great deal
about this in my e‐mail message to the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara County.
It is time to open up our cities. We have been caged up long enough to bring live meetings back. Something occurred to
me that during the web meetings there is no pledge of allegiance taking place. This seems shameful. Many of us are
depressed and confused about the covid and other mutations that seem inevitable that bring real honest information
out to the people.
The Government has serious problems with the possibility that our young people may be called to war against Russia.
The Ukraine people are in danger and are very frightened. One war after another and we still are not learning. I myself
2
worked for a company called BAE Systems in San Jose. They had Government Contracts for the Land Rovers I purchased
parts that were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to be built. It was difficult to find a job back in those days because so many
jobs were outsourced to other countries and still are. Government jobs were available because they could not be
outsourced. I am telling you this because war is big business and this may be what can help the economy crazy I know.
We must look at things as they really are. Is this ok of course not many soldiers on both sides will be killed and many
people will have to leave their homes causing a movement of refugees. Many of you go about your daily lives and it is
difficult to take the time to look at all of the possible threats to our planet but please remember that the environment is
harmed by many things and war is also one of them. If war does come the American people have always stood up for
freedom and we will keep doing that in the days ahead.
Why am I telling you all this because all of you are playing a serious part in the future of the Silicon Valley, SF Bay Area
and California and the days ahead will not be easy. All of us must do our part to stop the pollution and to stop the
companies from polluting. Please do not stand by and think that little Cupertino and the valley can handle more
pollution with the growth that is coming from the continued building here in our City and County. It will push the issues
to the limit we can not take any more pollution.
I hope you will read my e‐mails as there will be others in the future as things go on. I hope and pray for our world to
sustain itself for future generations to come.
I have sent this e‐mail out to so many others in hopes that they will become involved in making a great difference in our
world.
Thanks,
Cathy Helgerson ‐ Environmental Enforcemenet Advocate
CAP‐Citizens Against Pollution
408‐253‐0490
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:45 AM Loquist, Kristina <Kristina.Loquist@bos.sccgov.org> wrote:
Hi Cathy,
Thanks for your suggestion. Our office decided 10 years was a reasonable time frame, but will share your idea with the
Supervisor.
Best Regards,
Kristina
Kristina Loquist, Chief of Staff
3
Office of County Supervisor Joe Simitian
408‐299‐5050
www.supervisorsimitian.org
Newsletter Signup
From: Cathy Helgerson <cathyhelger@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:39 AM
To: Supervisor Simitian <Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>; Loquist, Kristina <Kristina.Loquist@bos.sccgov.org>
Cc: FRYHOUSE@EARTHLINK.NET
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Lehigh
Hello,
I wanted to write to you both about the length of the term 10 years from January 1, 2012 ‐ December 31, 2021. It
seems to me that Santa Clara County should look at all of the issues from the start of the cement plant permit 1939 and
also the very beginning that they started to mine limestone. There have been so many violations and health and safety
issues that it is important to mention them all.
I feel that in this way the public, SCC, City of Cupertino and the Agencies can get the full picture of the violations and
health and safety issues that need to be addressed.
Is there any way that your office can help to open up a full investigation from day one and can you please bring this up
with the other Santa Clara County Board members and staff. It would also be great if the length of time for the May
2022 board meeting could be cut in half because the public needs to know that they are safe as soon as possible.
I am sure that there are many advocates that can provide a great deal of information that can be added to your full
investigation and probably all you have to do is ask.
4
I sent this to Rhoda so she can also see how important this is to me and the public.
Thanks,
Cathy Helgerson ‐ Environmental Enforcement Advocate
CAP‐Citizens Against Pollution
408‐253‐0490
CC 02-01-2022
Study Session #1
PDA Planning
Grant & Heart
of the City Plan
Update
Written Comments
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 2:46 PM
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:Feb 1, Agenda Item 1, Study Session, PDA planning grant
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor, Vice mayor and city council members:
I support this application for a PDA planning grant. It will help with the goals of the Housing Element. I urge you to vote
yes.
Sincerely, Connie Cunningham
Chair, Housing Commission ( self only)
34 year resident
From Connie's iPhone
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:06 PM
To:Christopher Jensen; City Attorney's Office
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Council; City Clerk
Subject:2022-02-1 City Council Study Session - Is this a contract? Can a contract be in a Study Session?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Attorney Chris Jensen,
In preparation for tonight’s City Council Study Session at 5:30 pm, I was reading the Staff Report. Buried on Page 4, last
paragraph is the following:
I was under the impression that a “Study Session” does not have actionable items yet if the City Council agrees with this
work, they are actually deciding to extend EMC’s contract to include the HOC work.
Q1: Is this Study Session to decide whether to extend EMC’s contract?
Q2: If so, shouldn’t it be discussed in a regular CC meeting?
Q3: If this is a “contract” (which it looks like it is but without names), shouldn’t it go out to bid?
Q4: Is this for the entire $400k?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Sean Hughes <jxseanhughes@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 4:31 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Cupertino Study Session & City Council Agenda - 2/1/22
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I would like to submit the following in response to posted materials for the study session and city council agenda items
on 2/1/22:
Regarding the Study Session presentation made public, I have the following comments:
Based on the Housing Simulator tool and just anecdotal, lived experience having grown‐up in Cupertino for 18
years, the "Heart of the City" feels like the best area for ambitious high‐density development and progress
towards making housing. I hope Council accepts the PDA Planning Grant, as re‐zoning the HOC will likely be
crucial to the kind of community and transit‐oriented development needed to ensure a sustainable future for
Cupertino (and hit RHNA numbers).
I oppose the current SB 9 Interim Ordinance, and hope the Council considers revising the Interim Ordinance on
objective standards and regulations for SB 9 ministerial approval. In particular, the cap on unit sizes at 2,000
square feet and difference in size requirements appear arbitrary, especially considering that there are currently
duplexes existing under current municipal code off Rodriguez Ave that have a ~1000 sq foot (100%) difference in
size from one unit to the next ‐ the exact same kind of difference prohibited in the interim ordinance. If there
are legitimate and objective reasons to include a square footage cap, please publish them, because as of now it
just seems like this clause exists to restrict development by adding another random hoop to jump through.
Furthermore, while I understand a maximum height limit of 28 ft is consistent with existing standards, I think
this height restriction is a ridiculous, completely subjective restriction serving no societal or legitimate
government interest ‐ so naturally I wouldn't like to see it in either the interim standard, or the pre‐existing
standards.
I strongly oppose the emphasis in the 2022 legislative platform on "[opposing] additional state powers to
overturn local planning decisions". Fundamentally, cities have no legal authority than what is given to them by
state governments, and "home rule" comes with conditions ‐ when cities make policies that frustrate state goals
like climate change or public health, it is entirely reasonable for states to exercise their discretionary powers in
override local control. The housing crisis in California is fundamentally tied to success in both climate change and
public health (homelessness) goals, and I think Cupertino's past record is clear in a lack of objective outcomes
(virtually no new homes / housing units in a decade). The present continues to serve up more examples (like the
interim ordinance piece, Vallco delays, "missing" HCD's letter regarding our density bonus program), so I don't
see why this is a part of our 2022 legislative platform and it is embarrassing for it to even be present.
Further regarding the 2022 legislative platform, I do not believe "[monitoring] organized retail theft and law
enforcement response to public protests" deserves attention or legislation ‐ there are far more important
problems than this perceived issue, and I would argue that more law enforcement would not be an appropriate
response to this anyways.
Finally, regarding council agenda topics:
2
I support both projects being considered on the westside of the city off Foothill (Canyon and the former Bateh
Bros site). While these are small projects in relative transit desert areas, any small bits help and both areas have
been relatively dilapidated for some time.
I am encouraged by and strongly support the inclusion of residential homes in the electrification support clause.
Regards,
Sean Hughes
CC 02-01-2022
#14
Senate Bill 9
Written Comments
1
Melissa Robertson
From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 1, 2022 3:08 PM
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Feb 1, Agenda Item 14, Extension of Interim Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor, Vice‐Mayor and Councilmembers,
Although this extension of the interim ordinance must be extended without modification, and I concur with that action.
But— I am stating the following for the next stage, which is a regular ordinance to take the place of the interim
ordinance.:
I urge a change to the cap on unit sizes at 2000 sq ft and the requirement that SB 9 duplex units have no more than 200
sq ft difference between them. There are duplexes made under our Municipal Code for R‐2 zones on a street next to
city hall that are 1000 sq ft (100%) different in size one unit to the next.
The interim Ordinance in its current form will discourage homeowners from remodeling their homes to meet their
needs.
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
Chair, Housing Commission ( self only)
34 year resident
From Connie's iPhone