Hi, Carl. I do see that you're online. Would you like to do a quick test of your presentation?
This
is going to be a short meeting.
All
right. This is a call to order for the January 29th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Clara County Planning Commission. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Commissioner Hederle.
Here.
Commissioner Cohen. Here. Commissioner Belska.
Here. Commissioner
Levy.
Present.
Vice
Chairperson O'Donohue.
Here. And
Chairperson Rauser.
Present.
You
have a quorum?
Item 2, Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand if you're able to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Good
evening. My name is Mark Rauser, and I'm the Chair of the Planning Commission.
On
behalf of the Commission, welcome to today's meeting. At this time, please turn off or mute all electronic devices.
The
item 2 is item 2 of the agenda agenda, which is the submission of the agenda agenda. The first
item on the agenda is public comment.
This
item is reserved for persons who wish to address the commission on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission that is not on the agenda. The law does not permit commission action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances.
Members
of the public who wish to address the commission on a non -agendized item should request to speak. this time by giving a request to speak form to the deputy clerk if you're in the chambers or by using the raised hand icon if attending virtually.
We currently have no request to speak.
Item 4, consent calendar. We are skipping because there is nothing on the consent calendar. Item 5, under
land use, and we will turn it over to the staff for presentation.
Thank you. Good evening Planning Commissioners. My name is Laura Tran, Senior Planner, presenting on item number 5, which is a public hearing to consider an appeal of the November 21st, 2025 decision by the Department of Planning and Development to deem incomplete a concurrent land use application for the Silver Estates Housing Development Project consisting of a major subdivision and grading approval for 44 units of housing. 38 single families. And 6 below market rate single family residences
on
approximately 16 .8 acre parcel. Appellant Carl Gundquist, applicant Jim Campbell of Rome Development, property owner Robert Amami, property address location 19960 Almaden Road, San Jose, assessor parcel number 742 -06 -031, zoning by the name of Robert Amami. A -20AC -D1 -SR, Supervisorial District 5, file number PLN 25128, SB 330, APL 1. So
the project before you highlighted is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, adjacent to the City of San Jose City Limit and Urban Service Area. The subject parcel is zoned A -A20 -SB -330 -APL -1. A -20AC -D1, which stands for exclusive agriculture with a 20 -acre lot size and setbacks combining district and a design review combining district and a general plan designation of open space reserve. The property currently has an existing single family residence with a few accessory structures and surrounding uses consists of a
plant
nursery that is adjacent, a goat farm to the south, the Almaden Quicksilver Park to the west and the single family residences to north and east.
The
subject parcel is approximately 16 .8 acres in size the proposed development is for 44 housing units and related amenities include a U -shaped street loop, a waste water treatment system and a bio retention basin.
Before staff presents the analysis of the appeal, it is important to understand the THE KEY MILESTONE DATES ASSOCIATED TO THIS APPLICATION. ON JANUARY 27, 2025, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR THE QUICKSILVER ESTATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS SB 330.
UNDER
THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT, SUBMITTING A COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION VESTS THE
APPLICANT'S
ABILITY TO SUBMIT A FORMAL APPLICATION WITHIN 180 DAYS. ON
JULY 22, 2025, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A FORMAL APPLICATION FOR THE SILVER QUICK ESTATES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THE COUNTY DETERMINED THE PROJECT APPLICATION WAS INCOMPLETE AND ISSUED THE FIRST INCOMPLETE LETTER ON AUGUST 22, 2025. ON OCTOBER 2024, 2025, THE APPLICANT RESUMMITTED THE FORMAL APPLICATION, AND THEN ON NOVEMBER 21, 2025, THE COUNTY ISSUED THE SECOND INCOMPLETE LETTER. THE COUNTY DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICATION WAS INCOMPLETE BECAUSE THERE WERE STILL TWO ITEMS MISSING RELATED TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING. THEREAFTER, ON DECEMBER 4, 2025, THE APPLICANT APPEALED THE INCOMPLETE DETERMINATION. AND ON DECEMBER 8, 2025, THE APPLICANTS RESUMMITTED THE FORMAL APPLICATION, AND I ALSO WANT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE DECEMBER 8 RESUMMITTAL OF THE FORMAL APPLICATION WAS ADDRESSED ONE OF
THE INCOMPLETE COMMENTS, WHICH IS ITEM 1A, BUT NOT ITEM 1B.
THE FIRST INCOMPLETE LETTER DATED AUGUST 22, 2025, IDENTIFIED 23 INCOMPLETE ITEMS, INCLUDING SIX ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING DIVISION, 10 ITEMS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING, THREE ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, AND FOUR ITEMS FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE. AFTER THE APPLICANT RESUMMITTED ON OCTOBER 24, 2025, THE FORMAL APPLICATION WAS ADDRESSED. THE SECOND INCOMPLETE LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2025, IDENTIFIED TWO INCOMPLETE ITEMS THAT ARE SUMMARIZED AND INCLUDE SHOWING THE APPROXIMATE WIDTH AND DIRECTION OF FLOW FOR ALL WATER COURSES, AND SHOW THE STATE SEISMIC HAZARD AREA ON THE TENATIVE MAP.
MOVING TO THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL, THE APPEALANT IDENTIFIED TWO REASONS FOR THE APPEAL.
AS
FOR THE FIRST, THE APPLICANT STATES THAT PER PREVIOUS SUBMISSION, CONTOURS WERE UPDATED PLAN WIDE TO DENOTE DIRECTION OF FLOW FOR ALL WATER COURSES, AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS NOT REQUIRED IN THE COUNTY'S SB 330 SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST. STAFF'S RESPONSE IS THAT THE UPDATED PLAN SET, SHEET C3 .1, DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DIRECTIONAL FLOW OF THE TRIBUTARY ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, AND THEREFORE THE APPLICATION WAS INCOMPLETE AT THE TIME THE INCOMPLETE LETTER
WAS
ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 21, 2025. ADDITIONALLY, THE SECOND INCOMPLETE COMMENT IS THAT THE SAMPLE SITE PLAN FROM THE SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST REQUIRES IDENTIFICATION OF THE EXISTING DRAINAGE FLOW. ONE NOTE THAT I WANT TO ADD,
THAT
THE APPLICANT DID RESUBMIT ON DECEMBER 8, 2025, AND THIS ITEM HAS BEEN RESOLVED AS OF TODAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT FOR THE COMMISSION'S AWARENESS.
THE SECOND GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS THAT THE APPLICANT STATES THE LIQUOR FACTION LIMITS WERE SHOWN ON THE PLAN SET, AND THE INCOMPLETE COMMENT DOES NOT SEEK INFORMATION LISTED ON THE COUNTY'S SB 330 SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST. THE RESPONSE FROM STAFF IS THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT IDENTIFY OR LABEL THE AREA OF THE STATE SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE, BUT INSTEAD ONLY SHOWED THE LIQUOR FACTION ZONE PER CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. ADDITIONALLY, THE COUNTY'S SB 330 CHECKLIST REQUIRES THE SUBMITTAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP, WHICH NEEDS TO INCLUDE THE GEOLOGICAL HAZARD AREAS PER COUNTY ORDINANCE C12 -20.
BEFORE MOVING TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR THIS ITEM AS OF THIS EVENING ARE 93 COMMENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS PART OF THE RECORD. TO CONCLUDE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENY THE APPEAL
AND
UPHOLD THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT'S DETERMINATION THAT THE LAND USE APPLICATION FOR THE QUICKSILVER STATE'S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS INCOMPLETE AS OF NOVEMBER 21, 2024.
THIS
CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
WE
HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING AND COUNTY COUNCIL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE.
THANK
YOU.
OKAY. CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN, YOU MADE A COMMENT, THIS ITEM HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE.
HOW DO YOU SQUARE THAT WITH THE DATES THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT? DECEMBER 8th VERSUS, WAS IT NOVEMBER 1st? NOVEMBER 20,
SO
YOU MEAN YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.
CORRECT.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT COMMENT MEANS.
CORRECT.
SO THE APPLICANT APPEALED ON DECEMBER 4th RELATED TO THE NOVEMBER 21st, 2025,
INCOMPLETE
LETTER. HOWEVER, THEY DID RESUBMIT ON DECEMBER 8, 2025.
And
in that, they did address one of the item comment from Land Development Engineering, which is the water flow.
Okay,
so, okay,
got
it.
So
you have that information, but the date in question, you didn't have that information
is -
Correct.
For the November 21st, 2025 incomplete letter, those two items were still
incomplete.
Okay, I'll open it up to the commissioners, and if you had any ex parte communication, if you can identify that.
Commissioner
Levy.
Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you.
I
had a conversation with staff yesterday to get a clarification on the issue associated with the seismic hazards.
I
will save my questions for after I hear from the applicant.
Any
other commissioners have questions of staff at this point?
Commissioner
Hederle.
Yes, thank you. I'm wondering if you can tell us, did the applicant ever, did the applicant contact you following the August 22nd incomplete letter, seeking any clarity about what was being requested?
No, it wasn't in regards to the discussion of the comments or anything like that.
Which
comments?
So,
the applicant did not contact staff
directly in
regards to discussion of the incomplete items from the August 2022nd, 2025 letter.
Did they do so following the November 21st incomplete letter?
No,
they did not.
Thank
you.
If I could just ask a quick question.
Okay. Okay. Okay.
Thank
you. Can you just explain a little bit more what you're asking for on that? That's the seismic, what
are we asking, what are we looking for there to see if that was satisfied?
Sure. I can provide a brief illustration here.
So this is the, to the right, there's a screenshot of, so this is the layer of the state seismic hazard zone and it is, is required to be shown on the tentative map
per
county code. And this is, this information can be found through our GIS system, it's also available on our public interfacing GIS system on our website as well. And this is just a showing of the state geological hazard area overlaid on the property.
All
right. With that, we'll open the public comment portion and the appellant, we can give, I assume they want to talk 10 minutes.
We currently have speaker cards for Travis Brooks and joining online will be Carl Guttenkirst.
While he's coming up, can I just ask about how many speaker cards we have beyond them?
Certainly.
Well,
we currently have four speaker cards for general public comment. And on the Zoom, it looks to be currently at five.
Okay. All
right.
Welcome.
I'm not sure if my mic is,
okay,
my mic is.
Just stand there and talk and it should pick it up right there. Beautiful
technology. Hi, Travis Brooks, land use council for the applicant.
I
have Jim Campbell and multiple representatives of Rome, the applicant here.
We
also have Carl Guttenkirst, I think I said that right, Carl. From Kieran Wright. Hi, I'm Carl Guttenkirst from Kieran Wright, who will speak after me and who's available on Zoom. We'll all be available for your questions tonight as the hearing proceeds. At the outset, I want to remind the commission that in addition to the incompleteness notice that is the subject of this appeal, the applicant received a separate letter on November 21st indicating its position that it believed Rome lost its vesting under SB 330 because staff didn't think the project application was complete after its firing.
This is the only
reason
why we had to appeal this was because staff issued that separate letter.
And
I just need to point out that that position that staff took in that separate letter is contrary to the positions that have been repeatedly taken and issued in assistance letters from HCD.
The
state attorney general's office recently issued a technical letter. And then I can now say three courts, trial courts have also agreed with our position on that, on this matter.
And
I can say three trial courts have now taken our position because today the Santa Clara County Superior Court just decided this issue for a different project.
Judge
Williams of that court, who would likely hear a loss,
certainly
the Santa Clara County Superior Court would hear any litigation here. And Judge Williams would as well.
But
in Judge Williams' words in the order issued today, the court is convinced that SB 330 allows for multiple 90 -day resubmission periods for a project proponent to respond to successive incompleteness determinations
without losing the
project vesting conferred by a preliminary application. So at the outset, I'd just like to say regardless of the outcome tonight, I would respectfully ask the commission to direct staff to comply with the HCD. I'd also like to acknowledge the HCA and all this overwhelming guidance from every outside source that has authority
and
honor this project and other projects vested rights under SB 330, even if they are not deemed complete after a single resubmittal.
The
HCA
requires
the county to process this application in the manner that affords the fullest possible weight to the interest of and approval and provision of housing.
. This
Pro -Housing Interpretive Mandate applies during the application completeness process.
Therefore,
the county must comply with the Permit Streamlining Act's Pro Application Rules. For completeness purposes, the county can request applicants to provide any item not listed as specifically required on the application checklist that applied the time the applicant submitted their application. They can't add anything new to a subsequent letter. Perhaps this ruling allows the county to spend more in total time giving the applicant more In 2025, the legislature added some additional rules to protect applicants during the completeness process, and these are relevant here.
For
example, a local agency can now violate the HAA and therefore be subject to a lawsuit if it finds an application incomplete, but a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant submitted all the items listed as required on the local agency's submittal checklist. And now I'm going to turn it over to Carl, who's hopefully able to break through on Zoom, who will explain why the submittal that the applicant provided in October of 2025,
a reasonable person would find that that submittal included all the materials required to deem the application complete.
Good evening, everyone.
Thanks
for taking the time.
Can
you guys hear me okay there?
Yes,
we can.
Thank
you. I sent a quick slide deck prior to this meeting.
Was
I able to get? Can I get through or can I just share screen on Zoom?
You're able to just share the screen right now if you'd like.
Perfect.
Thank
you.
And
can you pronounce your last name?
You
know what?
You
guys all had it close enough.
It's
glucose.
Thank
you. Of course.
So Laura kind of went through a lot of the items that we wanted to talk about. So I'm going to skip forward here, and I'd like to focus on how these specific comments were phrased on the checklist and how our team felt about responding to them. So the two items in question here are highlighted the existing drainage patterns and drainage patterns as a result of the proposed improvements show areas of flooding for the 100 year flood and any known soil or geologic geologic hazards here as well. The October 2022 submission, we all felt like that it addressed these items, you could kind of see here that the liquefaction elements are shown highlighted in yellow or
if you're going page north to south.
So the two items in question here are highlighted the existing drainage patterns and drainage patterns as a result of the proposed improvements show areas of flooding for the 100 year flood and any known soil or geologic geologic hazards here as well. Now,
Laura brought up some great points about showing these limits, and on the first application, we had not shown these, so it was responded to in October of 2022, with the state liquefaction limits, alongside our work with the geotechnical engineer,
and
apologies as I pan around here,
with
work with the geotechnical engineer to as well confirm that there were no susceptible hazards to the site in regards to geologic concerns.
This item was one that as well came back to us as part of the second response letter that Laura mentioned, with a added component that they said a simple statement will not suffice as the actual approximate locations and the type of hazard area must be shown on the map.
The
hazard area has distinct approximate boundaries, which must be shown, and note that she called it the state seismic hazard zone. We felt, again, like this response that we gave on the resubmission was adequate in the way that it was shown. We felt that the state was looking at this in the way that Daryl was looking at this,
and
the liquefaction limits were continuing to be discussed
offline
with their team. And it wasn't until a later discussion where we realized that they had been asking not just for the state liquefaction limits, but also the county liquefaction limits, which was not an item that was discussed in the first or the second letters.
Item
number two, regarding
the existing drainage patterns and drainage patterns as a result of the proposed improvements.
Our team did work to show these areas, and we did that. We did that via contours. You can see this on the map here, and this is something that we felt any person who had seen a map before or layman would be able to understand, that the contours down the page, I'm going to zoom in here a little bit, depict how water would flow down a site.
You
can see a 370 here, a 365 here, a 360 here. That's a note how water moves down an area.
Now,
we did this to show that the water was moving from page left to right. And then went around the whole site to make sure that we further identified areas of storm drains. You can see here that we had an area that's going page
left
to right, it's going down the hill.
We
had Alamigos Creek as well, which we gave a proposed storm drain easement to. And we gave one to this small tributary creek here on the bottom with the five foot proposed storm drain easement.
This
in combination with the contours down the page meant to imply that water flows down and as well labeled the areas with which water was going to be found.
For
these reasons, we felt that the comments that were provided in both the October and November letters were not sufficient and any reasonable person would be able to understand the concepts of what was going on. And at
this point, I'm happy to answer any questions further.
Just keep going and if there are questions at the end, we'll ask them. Yeah, that's what the standard is. If a reasonable person would conclude that our application was complete based on what Carl just explained, it doesn't mean all reasonable people have to agree on the same thing. But if a reasonable person would conclude that we submitted that information, you shall deem our application complete. And that language was added as part of the HAA
because the legislature sort of filtered through that as the substantive reasons to deny these projects have gotten harder, it's really the completeness process and other procedures where local agencies are frustrating state housing rules. So that's all I have for now. We're happy to take
your questions.
Okay. On the last item, the state, what was that called, the state hazard? Liquefaction. State hazard zone. State hazard zone.
Do you feel that that's properly being displayed on here or what is your position on whether or not the initial
checklist called for that? There's two big parts here. The first one was from the engineering side. We wanted to make sure that there were no geologic concerns on site. And here I'm moving to the geologic letter here. We did work with the geotechnical engineering license in the state of California to confirm that there were no hazards on the site. That's kind of our first check that says, hey, there's nothing here that from an engineering perspective anybody who would live here would need to be concerned with. And as you can see here, all of these items were confirmed that there were no hazards on the site. And this document was submitted with our first package. So
the team definitely should have had it. Alongside that, we did confirm that there are zones in this area.
You can read here that Alamitos Creek has a seismic hazard zone for liquefaction as well as Santa Clara County designated by liquefaction hazard zone. I think the issue here is that county letter, and I'm going back to it now.
The county letter listed the state seismic hazard and liquefaction hazard zones. And as well, when Laura was sharing her screen, she was showing us the same document, which I can actually show here as well. The way that the comment was phrased, as well as the lack of geotechnical hazards on the site, made us believe that the state zone was the one being requested. As I mentioned earlier, it wasn't until later that the county further clarified that they were looking for the county hazard zones alongside the state ones, which again was not listed in there first. So it's kind of two factors here. One is that there were no hazards on the site other than being
in the zones. And number two, that the full county and state requirement was not listed until a much later letter.
Okay,
so it's your position that the report from your geologist was enough to state what the hazards were on that property?
Alongside us listing liquefaction limits here, I tried to highlight it on the, this is our recent mission document that you see. Right. I tried to, I'm not sure how well it comes across on your guys' screens, but it's highlighted down here throughout the page. Got it. But yes, to answer your question, we did feel like this was an adequate response.
Okay, Commissioner Belska.
Yeah, thank you.
So there's a state hazard zone and a county hazard zone, and what was the third one?
I'm sorry, there is a state zone. Can you see this okay? Yep.
I'm going to go around item by item here. The state zone is being shown currently. Okay. If you turn that off, you can turn on the county zones, which is here and here. This is the orange to the right is a landslide zone, and the one to the left is a liquefaction hazard zone. Now again, both of these are the county ones, and our geotechnical engineer did confirm that neither
of them are a
concern to anybody living on the site. And as well, the state hazard zone was the one that we had shown and the one that Laura had been showing on her screen.
And okay, so the one
you showed was the state one. This is what you're showing right now is the state one. Great. The slide from planning was showing the state one, so then I'm confused. Who is asking for the county one, and where was it? I believe. What's missing? I believe the letter
that the county was saying is that they want to see state and county lines.
Through the chair,
if I may. Sure. Can I request land development engineering to specify in terms of
the two zones that you're referring to? That would be very helpful.
And if I may, just one point of clarification, and Carl, you can confirm this.
The
application checklist itself does not list the county liquefaction zone. It only lists the state.
Is that right? It sounded even more generic than that. It says any known soil or geologic pattern.
Good evening. Darrell Wong with Land Development Engineering.
So we, in my comments, we were just asking for the geologic hazard zones. And so the geologic hazard zones are used in general to
describe
whether it be county hazard zones or state hazard zones. And so I think Carl has
nicely
provided those on the screen,
the
differences between the county landslide hazard zone, the state seismic hazard zone, as well as the county liquefaction zone. There are three zones.
Through their submittals,
they showed one
of those three zones.
That's the liquefaction hazard zone? It was the state seismic hazard zone.
Which
is the one seismic hazard zone listed on the page? And see, liquefaction hazard zone
could
be county or state. It's not specific. Yeah. And this is where, I mean, this is where this
whole process. Well, yeah. One at a time. So.
Because you could read that as
just requiring state. The liquid, liquefaction on the plans now, I'm asking staff, what do you think that represents? Which of those three does that satisfy or none of them? So on the plans, they showed liquefaction, right? Lines? Highlighted in yellow? The highlighted yellow would be
one
of the three zones, and that would be the state seismic hazard zone. Got it. Sorry, if I may. Go ahead.
There are multiple online offerings for geotechnical hazard zones. There's not only the county one that I believe Laura and her team are referencing, but there's also the state of California one, which is shown here. Very similar in concept. You'll see a lot of the same data. I kind of just kind of pan between these two. You can see that this green zone is meant to be the state zone that we're discussing at this moment. Here is our parcel,
74206031.
And here is the same.
The difference here is that on the California state website, they do call it a seismic zone, but it's further specified as a liquefaction zone, so a state liquefaction. It's kind of one of those. A rectangle square kind of issues where one can be both, not just, you know, one being over encompassing. So when we were looking again using the county provided letter, which required us to look at the state
zones,
we, of course, went to the state website first to look at that. And that's where we had the liquefaction limits. So, yes, Darrell is correct in calling this the, how is it worded, the state seismic hazard zones. But it is further defined. If you go to the California page as being a liquefaction zone. So that's why we're showing it as such. And why, again, why we thought it satisfied the original comment provided by Darrell.
Okay. And to staff, then, they showed one of those and
the
other two would have shown something slightly different, more or less.
That's correct. I think Carl
actually has our GIS up on the screen. So if he were to click on that. And then, he would show, for instance, the county landslide hazard zone. And highlight that. That's a completely different area.
And I'm just, that's one of the
three
that would have needed to be shown. Is that the light green or the tannish? Okay. Yeah, it's that one. Okay.
Any, okay, I don't know who had it first. We'll go with Commissioner Belska.
I just wanted to clarify. Because, so the state lands, sorry, the state liquefaction
seismic
hazard zone, sorry, the state liquefaction hazard zone and the state seismic hazard zone
appear
to be identical. Am I correct? The state
defines it as a, yes,
so
the state defines it as a hazard zone. Just any seismic hazard zone. And then it's further clarified as specifically a liquefaction zone. If you go to the state website, which is here.
Again, I'm not sure what you guys can see.
Okay. So they are one and the same. So that request and the comments that said show the state seismic hazard zone and there we go. Thank you. The state seismic hazard zone and liquefaction hazard zones,
those
are the same. One on top of the other. Exactly. The same boundaries. And the way it's capitalized,
I mean, it looks like it's one, I mean, it looks like it's on the same map. But I mean, even if
they were two separate things in this particular case, if you look, it seems like the maps are showing it in exactly the same location. One is the other,
right?
That is correct. Okay. And that's why you felt that the way we depicted
our
drawing, sorry, I'm panning again, depicted our drawing satisfied that. Okay. And so
it
sounds like the point of contention then was that the county landslide zone was not shown.
Is
that? The county landslide zone and the county liquefaction zone. That is correct.
Is the county liquefaction zone any different? Yes. Give me one second. Okay.
The
county liquefaction zone is slightly larger. Got it. Okay. But those were not,
all
of the comments refer to the state zones and the county zones were never specifically asked for. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Commissioner Hederle.
Yeah, I'm going to complicate it a little
bit further. So I'm looking at the letter, I think this is the letter, yeah, the August 22nd letter, which is what we have on the screen. Now, but on the checklist, it seems to say that all known soil and geological hazard areas must be identified on the tentative map. Now, I wouldn't claim to necessarily be a reasonable person, but personally, I would assume that meant all known soil and geological hazards. Yeah, that's a good
one.
And your geological study does identify fault lines. It identifies landslide areas. And it identifies liquefaction zones. Those all three seem to me to fit in that category. But the only one you chose to show on your map was the liquefaction. Now, I'm hearing that that was because that was the only one that you believed was an issue of concern.
But this doesn't, the
checklist doesn't ask you to make that judgment. It asks you to show all of the areas. And I have a follow -up question also about the image you showed us of the map with the highlighted yellow line showing the liquefaction zone. That, to me, in my perception, is very different to see a single line than to see an entire area. It feels to me like what has been
requested
was the area, not a point, a line. So I'd love to hear your
response to that. Yeah, and I can answer the first question. And I'll refer to Carl for the second question. On the first question, the way the Permit Streamlining Act works is it's a narrowing funnel, basically. So, you know, the applicant, you know, when they first put their application together, they're looking at a very detailed application checklist that, you know, requires hundreds and possibly thousands of items. They submit that application, obviously. And then once the first incompleteness notice is issued, the county is required to identify anything that it wants to say is incomplete in that first letter. So for the purposes of determining whether or not an application is complete after that first incompleteness notice is
issued, the only thing that the county can point to, and this is spelled out very clearly in the Permit Streamlining Act, are the items that were identified on that first incompleteness notice. And it's really designed, you know, so you don't have to worry about that. You don't really go back to the first step. Each step you're narrowing down. But
that does include, oh, the language just went away, but it includes all known, I don't remember the phrase now. Sorry, I'm getting back to it. Thank you.
Approximate known soil or geological hazard areas, including but not limited to state seismic hazard and liquefaction hazard zones. It's pretty clear to me that including but not limited to means exactly that, that those two specific called out areas are not necessarily the only ones. So that seems like something that should have triggered some clarification questions. And again, the areas, you haven't had a chance to answer the areas versus line question. Yes,
I'll just briefly answer that question on the including but not limited to. So this is another point where I insert an annoying lawyer point. So under the HAA and under SB 330, the applicant's only required to comply with objective standards and requirements. And those are standards that are not subject to any interpretation by staff, and they're uniformly verifiable by the applicant and the county. So when I read this, including but not limited to, that is, you know, an entirely subjective requirement. The objective requirement here is the state seismic hazard and liquefaction hazard zones. And under state law, that's really the objective requirement of this list. That would be our position on that. And I'll, unless
you have any other questions on that, I'll refer to Carl for the second part.
Carl,
are you there? I'm sorry. Yeah, sorry. Are we good to move on to point number two? Yeah.
Okay.
And apologies as well. I did not intend to show the full submission here. The full submission. The comments, you know, would take hours to go through. So what I have presented here and what I believe the board has is just a quick snippet of our full set. I just included another page from our set, and I'm happy to send it along as needed. But I've included now page 3 .2. The way that civil plans kind of work together is that they have numbers down here, which kind of implies to the reader that plans are kind of meant to ride together. In this case here, and you can see it on the screen, if I zoom
in here, there's
a
match list. There's a match line on this sheet, which says go to sheet 3 .2, which I'm heading to here. I quickly did highlight that the other end of the liquefaction limits are shown. And on that C3 .2 sheet, you see both sides of the liquefaction limits on the left and the right. And sorry, I didn't highlight this one in time.
I'm just going to cloud it. But this was obviously meant to imply the area within is that bound by those liquefaction limits. And again, these were the state, seismic, and liquefaction limits, which were the comments that we received. We're just looking on the screen.
Did
staff recognize that there was two limits and it was within those two lines, the liquefaction zone for that particular one? Yes. Yeah. Okay.
Any other questions from the commissioners?
All right. You have a minute and a half left, but we will give you five minutes of rebuttal at the end of comments. Yeah.
I think that's – unless, Carl, you have anything else, I think we're good. Okay.
No, that's
good. Am
I okay to stop sharing?
We're actually very handy, but I think we'll take it from here. Thank you. Thanks
so much.
Would
you like to go ahead and call the other speakers?
Sure. We currently have four requests to speak in chambers, and it looks like we're holding at six speakers for a total of ten. So I will call our first speaker, and we'll give them two minutes. Two
minutes apiece. Two
minutes. Okay. Our first few speakers are Steve Wilkinson, Rich Griffiths. Keith Lubliner, and Xavier Campos. You can just go ahead and line up.
Any order.
So,
again, there is no actual microphone, but if you just speak forward, we should hear you fine. Okay. Thank
you. My name is Steve Wilkinson, and I've lived in Almaden Valley for 45 years. I'm here tonight to ask you that you deny the appeal request. I frequently use Almaden Road to access Cooksilver Park and visit my friends who live directly across from the proposed development. The surrounding property is a high hazard area, a fire hazard area, and a fast -moving fire could result in loss of lives with limited exit routes. The developer is seeking this development.
They're pushing this to the Planning Commission. The proposed residential development is in a rural two -lane road zone for agricultural use. The site provides a wildlife corridor, including at Alameda's Creek. It's not an ideal spot for dense housing. All these reasons, these are all reasons for not approving the development on this site.
You have a difficult decision to make. I'm thankful for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission. I urge you to accept the staff's recommendation and reject the builder's application appeal. Thank you.
Hi.
Rich Griffiths. Lived in Almaden for 30 -plus years. Actually, I thought I was just going to be talking about some general concerns like the previous gentleman, but the discussion about the liquefaction zone piece actually drew some attention of mine. It does seem clear to me that... The developer and engineers were aware of all of the different seismic zones, including the county zone, as they pulled it up on the GIS. And that the county zone is significantly larger than the state zone and seems that it would cover a large part of where the development is planned to be placed.
In addition to that, just coming back to my original general concerns, comments is... It does seem a little haphazard to drop... This size or density into an area that does not have the... Infrastructure to support it. Especially concerning is the lack of sewer and putting in essentially a private sanitation district for these 44 houses.
Also concerned about, given the wildfire... Urban interface. How these people will get homeowners insurance. As I understand it. I know that I and many people of my neighbors have significant trouble getting coverage for our houses in this area.
And then just generally concerned about... How do the exceptions and the variances work to the general plan and zoning? This is a very significant outlier with respect to the open space aspect of the general plan and to the agricultural 20 -acre zoning. As well as... Nobody brought up the scenic route aspect of... But the combining district, the scenic route, I think, is also a significant aspect to take into consideration with respect to putting this kind of density... Plopped out
in the middle
of the country. Thanks. Thank you.
Hello. My name is Keith Walbunner. Thank you, commissioners and neighbors. I'd like to ask that you deny the appeal. And I have a couple of points here. One is I don't believe that this... You know, world development was in the spirit of SB 330. And I think as such, since the window for SB 330 is closed, infinite extensions don't seem to make sense. And it leads to sort of chaos if the process and the rules are not followed. And I guess I'm a big believer in following the rules to some extent.
And so, like I said, the window was missed. If we extend this, then that applies to... I think there was 40 other...
Submittals and I just think that causes too much chaos. Thank you for your time. I yield.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair. I'm Javier Campos with VER Engineers. We're not the civil engineer on this project. We were asked to review the two comments. One of them got resolved. So we have had several SB 330 projects that we've worked on, that had been deemed complete, and I do believe just going to the SB 330 builders remedy legislation and law the intent of the checklist and the the whole process is to vet out projects that don't even see the day of light of being able to be built and the issue becomes completeness and consistency and I think as you review this project and staff has put a lot of work in reviewing this project that the
issue of the liquefaction zone and the hazard zone be being shown or not being shown on the tentative map or on the the civil plans that all those all of those hoops they're going to have to go through to prove that this is a viable project those are consistency items and I think it was shared as the this discussion started with the attorney I'm forgetting his name that a judge ruled that okay you get you get 90 days to get your comments back in if there's additional questions or comments then this then the the judge ruled that the state's intent is okay you'll get another 90 days because the whole goal is to build housing
and this project will have to also provide six affordable units and I think that that's very valuable given that California is in a housing crisis. So thank you for your time and I urge you to support the project. Thank you. Moving
on to our Zoom speakers. Our first speaker is Alice Kaufman. Alice, you will have two minutes.
Chair
Rausser and Commissioners, my name is Alice Kaufman. I'm the Policy and Advocacy Director for Green Foothills and we urge you to deny this appeal. As was recognized by Commissioner Hederle, the incomplete letter asked for known soil or geologic hazard areas including but not limited to state seismic hazard and liquefaction hazard zones. And the argument that that language in the letter should be read to ignore the first part of the sentence and only focus on the second part just does not make sense. The applicant clearly was aware of the county hazard zone information. Could have easily included it. They also could have asked staff for clarification on what exactly was meant by that phrase, the incomplete
letter. And again, staff has confirmed that the applicant did not contact them about those items after either incomplete letter. I think it's worth mentioning that as of this date, at least 13 builders remedy projects have been deemed complete by planning staff. You may not be aware of this because when an application is deemed complete, that decision does not come in front of this Commission. It just quietly moves into the environmental review process. But although you've considered several incompleteness determinations, it is worth noting that more than twice as many projects managed to provide the somehow managed to provide the required information within the deadline. And it's not because their sites were less challenging than the others.
They're all located in rural areas where there's no existing infrastructure, just like the projects that have come in front of this Planning Commission. So the requirement to have a complete application by the deadline is entirely reasonable and you should deny the appeal. Thank you very much. Our
next speaker is S. Remien. You'll have two minutes.
Your mic is open.
S. Remien, your mic is open. You'll have two minutes.
It appears you muted your mic. Would you like to unmute?
We can come back to you. Our next speaker is Kelly Lanspa. Kelly, you'll have two minutes.
Hi,
I am a resident of New Almaden, so I drive the stretch of road every day. And I urge the commissioners to reject the builder's appeal.
This parcel functions as a wildlife corridor, and these animals are traveling. I see them every night and every morning. They're traveling from Quicksilver Park to the creek and then off into Santa Teresa Parks. And that's a massive amount of area that these animals need to traverse, and this would put something right in the middle of that. This is also a national scenic drive, and altering the rural character and viewshed would really hurt that national status. Also, this site presents a significant safety and infrastructure concern since it lies within high and moderate wildfire hazard zones, and nearly all of the proposed development is in a liquefaction zone, which is raising serious problems. Also,
the private sanitation and septic systems in a sensitive rural setting is very concerning and raises concerns about the long -term reliability and environmental protection in this sensitive area. And then placing 44 homes on this site represents residential sprawl. It's consuming open space, increasing vehicle miles traveled, and placing houses in hazardous areas. And increasing long -term public service costs to get out there and to service these people. So for these reasons, I urge the commissioners to deny this appeal. Thank you.
Our
next speaker is Hugh Scullin. Hugh, you'll have two minutes.
Hugh,
you're in my... Thank you, Commissioner. I can. Thank you.
I
am a resident of New Almaden as well, and my house is on Los Alamitos Creek. I have vision. I have visual and photo evidence, for anyone who's interested, of mountain lions, coyotes, fox, deer, skunk, whatever other creatures you can imagine.
And they live here too. I think any project that goes into this type of environment requires a wildlife corridor to be instituted in the design. And as far as the septic... The septic system, basically, it's a septic system for 44 houses. I have my own, a 1 ,500 -gallon tank. Of course, the science is a little different. But I think it's a major stretch to have 44 houses in a rural setting, basically leaching out to Los Alamitos Creek, which has recently been seen as a corridor for Chinook salmon.
I just hope... I hope you consider this when, along with the liquefaction, it seems like a push, and you're less than maybe a couple of thousand feet from a city septic system or a city sewer system. Why would you, you know, put in something like this that's going to put that kind of pressure on a natural resource? As well as the scenic highway.
This is the beautiful area. We don't want it to change, as you can imagine. And I've seen it change. It's already shrunk quite a bit. And that's just what the city does. It just keeps moving out. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Junior. Junior, you will have two minutes.
Junior, you're able to unmute your mic.
Appears you may be having some technical difficulties. We'll move on to our next speaker. Next speaker, San R.
You will have two minutes.
Good
evening, Chair and Commissioner. Speaking on behalf of myself only as a county resident. I live in a similar area where my property is one home away from the county boundary on the hillside. So my entire street and the adjacent street that I live on are all properties that were built in the 80s and 70s. And behind us, is County Hillside. And what I can tell you is we cannot get insurance anymore. I've been struggling to work with HomeSite, which is my insurance provider through GEICO. And they're increasingly putting in conditions where it costs us a lot of money to get insurance on these kinds of locations. We can no longer get insurance from Farmers, State
Farm, or any of the other vendors. HomeSite and its subsidiaries are the only ones that will insure in these areas. We also see, quite a bit of concerns around continued wildfire risks in these areas, particularly as the county hillsides need fire management, which is an increasing risk. And so I urge you to deny this appeal and deny the project. We are in a situation where the county lands need to be preserved for maintaining the wildlife corridors, for managing the wildfire risk, and just being aware that insurance is increasingly impossible in these peripheries where the hillsides meet the existing, subdivisions, and tracts. And so I urge you to keep that in mind. We don't want to
have these corridors being built and then nobody can get insurance, and then it turns into blight because people cannot actually maintain a mortgage if you don't have insurance. So I urge you to reject this project and do the same with any other Headside projects that the county may be receiving. Thank you.
And we're going to, excuse me, try for S. Rameon again. S. Rameon, your
mic is unmuted. You'll have two minutes.
It appears you're having technical difficulties. We'll move on to Junior again. Junior, you'll have two minutes.
Your mic is unmuted. Yes, we can hear you now. Thank you.
So good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jyoti Reddy, and I live at 20010 Almaden Road, two homes from the proposed Quicksilver Estates Project for more than 20 years. I am very familiar with the recent state housing laws and fully supportive of meeting California's housing needs in appropriate conditions. I'm here to urge you to deny this appeal because the Quicksilver Estates Project is not eligible for SB 330 or the Builder's Remedy. Both SB 330 and the Builder's Remedy apply only to projects that submit a complete and qualifying application within required statutory timeframes. The record shows that this application was incomplete and never vested. Because the application failed to vest, neither SB 330 nor the Builder's Remedy
applies. The application was not accepted to be approved as a matter of law. And this Commission retains full authority to enforce the county's A220 acre zoning and deny the project. Also, there is a clear and independent basis for denial under Government Code Section 65589 .5 . The project site is zoned for agriculture and is surrounded on at least two sites by agriculture or resource preservation land, including APN 7420602 . which is my immediate neighbor on 2000 Almaden Road which is an active goat farm and the other APN is a nursery. This is precisely the type of agriculture setting the statute was designed to protect. Section D4 further allows denial when a project lacks adequate wastewater
facilities. Quicksilver Estates proposes 44 high density septic leach fields adjacent to a creek even with 150 foot setback the cumulative nitrode loading from this level of density poses serious threats to ground water quality. For these reasons I request for a CEQA environmental impact report and deny the appeal and determine that.
And that concludes public comment.
We'll go ahead and allow the appellant five minutes to rebut any of the comments you heard or any other information pertinent to this.
Yeah I won't use five minutes unless Carl you have something to add you know just to the specific nature of this appeal and completeness issues just to return it back to base the base issue I think you know in the county's processing of this application in making this completeness determination it is directed by the HAA to afford the fullest and possible weight to the interest in the approval and provision of housing. I think it's clear that reasonable people could disagree. I mean I think you know they have a lot of different views about the HAA based on the technicalities of the different maps involved that you know a reasonable person could conclude that you know
were complete as of October 24 when we submitted that submittal and you know maybe another reasonable person could disagree but with that pro housing directive I think that pro housing directive is violated if you go with the position that's you know opposed to that other reasonable person's position that would be more pro housing. also like to address there was a comment uh i that you know somehow this project uh wasn't deemed complete after one resubmittal whereas several others have been deemed complete after one resubmittal i think that's a by virtue of of timing my understanding is that the county wasn't taking this 90 -day loss of vesting position until its housing element application sorry its
housing element was deemed substantially compliant with state law and my understanding is there are several sb 330 builders remedy projects that were just earlier in the process that had multiple resubmittals didn't lose their vesting and that that were then deemed complete so i just wanted to make clear my client has been extremely diligent uh and isn't some outlier you know they just diligently went through the process that all projects go through thanks that's all i have okay
with that we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion uh commissioner balska
um i i did actually want to get a little more clarification from staff we talked at depth about the seismic hazard item but i do want to understand what was missing for the other incomplete item and how if you can share how that was eventually satisfied through
the chair if i may um the the other item i believe commissioner belskas referred to is the uh the water flow yes the flow of the water course for the tributary and that was um and i can also defer to land development engineering to jump in for the technical details but that was addressed in their resubmittal um on december on december 8th so land development engineering did deem that item complete
and the applicant did address that i i
understand that i'm just i'm trying to get a visual here of what's what was the scope of changes that we were asking for i mean was it literally they added one arrow to the map and you said okay now it's good or you know was there how how was that comment satisfied what what is it that you were looking for that was missing from from the previous maps
sure again daryl long land development engineering so on the i guess it would be sheet 3 .1 that carl had shown up earlier the main creek alamitos creek there was flow arrows so it actually shows the direction of the flow in that main creek in the tributary blue line creek that runs to the south i guess on the southerly portion of that property line
there is no flow arrows at all so those flow arrows general and you would say the flow line would be called as a flow line of the creek and so those are what that's typically what you'd look for uh
if i may i can show the difference i i missed who the original question originated from but to answer the your state yes it was as simple as showing a flow arrow um and i'm happy i don't know if i can okay
we yeah i'm sorry we closed the public hearing i um
sorry do you want to was the staff's answer adequate for you yes
do you like
to see the i mean i
i mean it sounds like they're saying yes it was literally just at an arrow um was the entire
does water flow from high to low typically i mean there are places where it could pool and you can kind of go back up but for the most part
it
does but on the plans there's not even a call out that there's a creek there okay
so you you wanted to identify what what the creek was the
point of the the requirement is to show where all the creeks and watercourses i'm are on the property so anyone who evaluates the project good or bad right can see where the creeks are on sheet 3 .1 as you see in front of you as it says lands of griffiths along that property line there's actually a blue line creek can
you define what's a blue line creek is that the name of it or is a blue line something land engineering knows about
it's considered that by the water water registry so it's just a categorization got it okay all right so it's a tributary creek but on the plans it's not identified as anything so while an engineer or a surveyor may be able to look at the topo and try and see if there is a flow of water there i'm
not sure that it's readily obvious
is that seasonal or is that year -round creek it's
a tributary
creek so it flows when it rain when there's precipitation got
did
that answer your question commissioner belska
is it possible to see the resubmitted plans that you you were satisfied with
again i'm trying to get a sense of what's what was the delta here right like what what was the scope of the changes that were
specifically being asked for sure
i can pull up the plans give
me one moment maybe we can
move on to other questions yeah
commissioner headerly did you have a still have a question or i
had the same question and a tiny bit of follow -up um and i also wanted to just clarify that this this uh informational complete was is
it's been taken care of now it doesn't really tell the whole story because it wasn't taken care of whatever we're going to see what that looks like until after that second notice of incompleteness so i don't think that a december 4th submittal meets the deadline for completeness so while it's it would be useful to understand whether this whether we were just looking at a at an arrow as opposed to something else even the fact that staff is now satisfied with this current presentation is not sufficient to say that this item was completed prior to the deadline
so through the chair if i may um so this is the plan set i'm i'm going to zoom out a little bit see you
guys pardon
me for one moment so here as you can see this is the tributary that daryl is referring to and there's arrows that's pointing to the flow so this is the resubmittal that the applicant submitted on december 8th to address item the the the first item and
that was within 90 days of the incomplete letter the december 8th
this was after so this was this plan that you're seeing was resubmitted on december 8th which was after when the applicant filed the appeal so it was after after the
90 days correct okay um
i would like to get from the department
to the department for comment on today's item and and then i would like to think about the based on the legal ruling that came today what has the county's position changed at all as far as the date goes
so
we're still evaluating the ruling that came out today was issued or we became aware of it in the late afternoon to determine how it will apply to the county moving forward i'll just note that the town of las gatos should have a slightly different process and argument from the counties and so we just need to evaluate we will be taking that into account but again the issue of the incompleteness determination i think staff has rightly focused on the november 21st determination which is what's before the commission today
understand i think it would have been very transparent for county staff to let us know of that update because we've all been very interested in that so i'll just put that out there that rather than coming from the appellant that would have been nice to come from county staff it doesn't change what we're looking at but it's still very very very relevant to these cases just
just to clarify this was a decision in a case that we're not in so i understand get served on us so it's not like we knew that we could i don't think jack even knew before right now so
i can say this jacqueline anciano director of planning development that was not the case that's pending for this county i
understand i was made
aware of it it doesn't change and sir the the chair closed the floor to the close he closed so he'll have to before you speak he has to reopen it but um county council both our councils are correct we we didn't it was not information we were bringing forward to this commission because it's not relevant in our case and on this application i'm sorry i
just want to clarify it's not that we don't think it's relevant it's that we found out about it way too late to share with anyone i have not read a single word of it yet because i've been preparing for
this understand it would have been for transparency it would have been helpful and i agree some people knew about it yeah i agree
on the relevancy thank you but it's not our case that's pending maybe that is yes
let me i think at this point we've we've closed that you've you've very well stated your opinion on this um it's my understanding that the judge that gave the ruling today is also handling the county's cases and i don't think the state's position has changed between las caddas and this county and so i think it is very relevant but that's not what's before us right now what's before us right now is something a very small subset of what we're trying to do so i'll stay focused on that commissioner levy
thank you mr chair based on what i just heard from staff we have two issues we're looking at not because one of them was resolved after the deadline. So if our very limited focus here, and it is very limited, is did they conform to the requirements in advance of the deadline, then we have actually two items and not one to look at. Is that the case? You're
asking staff?
That's staff. I guess that's council probably. Or staff.
May we repeat the question for them?
Well, the question is, you know, in a previous discussion you were saying they submitted a revised map, and that revised map resolved the issue with the creek on the southern portion of the property. But that map was submitted after the close of the deadline. So do we take that revised map into consideration, or are we making a determination as to when the deadline happened, were they in compliance?
I'll let the officer lead. Deputy County Council. You're not making a determination about when the deadline was, when they submitted what in comparison to the deadline. They submitted a submission, and I don't have the dates in front of me because I haven't worked on this project, but in the staff report it lists we're considering the department's determination on the submission of X date.
Department determined there were two items, two items that were still incomplete. That is the determination that is on appeal before the planning commission. So you're reviewing, was the planning department's determination that the resubmission was still incomplete because two items, according to the department, were missing? You're deciding, was that correct? Was it, in fact, incomplete, or was it complete?
I think that answers my question, and that is that we, we don't really take that resubmission after the appeal letter into consideration because that's not, we have to consider both the issues, not just one of the issues.
Okay, great. That's, one thing that was brought up by counsel here and also by Alice Kaufman is that they've had a number of builders already projects approved. Your comment was they were, they were approved prior to the approval of the housing element. Would, have we had builders remedy projects approved after the approval of the housing element?
Deputy County Council, Nicole Collins, to clarify, I don't think anyone said a builders remedy project was approved.
No, okay, sorry, sorry. They, they, they, it wasn't moved forward. Some projects
have been deemed complete. I believe we are now up to 16. Some of those were, I think only a couple were, were deemed complete before the certification of the housing element. And then there have been subsequent submittals that were deemed complete after the certification of the housing element.
Okay, so other, other applicants have been able to get through the process successfully.
Great, thank you. And
one more question for counsel. And that is, we're all, the concept of, you know, I guess, what's the term? Overview, or be able to look at this. Different people can look at it from different perspectives. I don't remember the exact term that was used. But the, the people of, they did a, you know, the people with different opinions consider, consider this complete and incomplete. Counselor, maybe you can help me with a specific terminology.
But if that's a, is that a standard in the state law?
If I may, the comment was reasonable people. That's the reasonable, thank you very much. That was the, that was the statement that was made. And I would ask staff, well, county council can respond. But I would ask staff to pull up the plan that doesn't have the flow on it. If you didn't see the arrows, you're reasonable. Would you have understood that plan? That's
exactly the reason I asked the question about the two issues versus the one issue. Because on the one issue, on the geologic hazards, saying, well, you know, I could see their argument there. On the flow issue, I think that was pretty clear. And that's, the primary reason I asked that question is because I don't think I can reasonably say that flow was being shown on that tributary. The seismic one, I think that there's, there's still debate. And I'm still on the fence on that one. But that's, that was the primary purpose of asking whether we were looking at one item or two items.
So through the chair, staff is sharing the, the plan set that is associated to the November 21st incomplete letter. So here on this sheet, you are not seeing the arrows for this, for the flow or the, or the call out. So as you can see here.
Let me just make a comment and then we'll go to vice chair O'Donohue. Um, my
opinion on this is, goes
to, to consistency over completeness. I think there was enough information to know that there is liquefaction in the area. And if, if, if you want to start to pick out who's got the biggest one, the smallest area that, that to me goes to consistency on the water. I could get to that same thing. It's going to be flowing downhill. If you want an arrow to show that, then, then that's fine. But that, that to me is a consistency argument. Um, I share the state. It's view that I think it should be an iterative 90 day cycle. That's not what we're talking about here, but I'll just throw it out there. I was, uh, encouraged by
the ruling. So vice chair O'Donohue. Yeah,
I, I, I'll just kind of echo off of that. I was thinking the same thing. Uh, you know, you can see the, there's a 35 foot stream setback line and why would they put that there? There was no water course there. Yeah. You can. You can see there's contours with a V channel. Um,
there's
a call out for a proposed storm drain easement. Um, was this, was this verbiage there from the beginning or was this added in response to the comments? I think that's a question for staff.
I
believe this was added in a response for one of the comments in the previous letter. Okay.
So. So before that, maybe there was no, I didn't look at the, the incomplete letter number one, but you know, if this was added in response to the incomplete letter, um, although it may not be what you're looking for and certainly arrows makes it easier. They have arrows in the Alameda's Creek so that, you know, that's really nice for somebody who's reviewing plans, but they did. They did something here and, uh, it may be inconsistent with the department's looking for, but, um, you know, it's not like they just ignored it altogether. So, um, yeah, that's kind of how I'm leaning.
Commissioner Belska.
Uh, pretty much the same thing, right? I mean, as a reasonable person, you know, I look at this map and it's like, okay, there's a stream there. It's obviously. Flowing from the left to the right.
Um, this is nitpicking, right? It's, uh, you know, yes, maybe there should have been an arrow, an arrow with a nice, um, I, I think, you
know, a quick phone call or email saying, Hey, can you add an arrow? Uh, you know, rather than deeming an application and complete over the lack of an arrow, I, you know, I, I find that a little. Excessive, um, and then for the, you know, for the geologic hazard zone, all of, yes, it says not limited to, but I mean, if there's something specific county was at looking for, ask for it, say state and make sure you include the county, right? I think it was a reasonable interpretation for them to go. Okay. We included this thing you specifically list out here. It's there. Um, again, I think as a reasonable person, that information was, was
present. Um, yeah, that's, that's it.
Commissioner headerly. Yeah,
I have the exact opposite reaction. I feel like the, the failure to even call out the Creek, the tributary at all is, is a far more glaring failure than the arrow, the directional arrows. I am somewhat persuaded by the. Contour lines indicating that the water's going to go a certain direction, but the requirement was very clear to identify all water, whether flowing or not flowing. It's not identified here on this page in any way that I see. Um, and with the, the seismic hazard zones. That I think isn't is. Even more. Concerning because it was clear to in my rating of the checklist. That that was intended to have you indicate where the fault lines
are, where the landslide risks are, where the liquefaction is. And as you mentioned earlier about the, I guess I shouldn't direct to you since it was as was mentioned earlier about the importance of. Um, objective standards. Um, objective standards. AND NOT SUBJECTIVE ONES. I DO FEEL AS THOUGH THE FACT THAT ALL THOSE OTHER CATEGORIES OF SEISMIC RISK WERE CALLED OUT IN YOUR GEOLOGICAL STUDY, IT WAS A SUBJECTIVE CHOICE BY THE APPLICANT TO NOT SHOW ANY OF THEM DESPITE AN EXPLICIT CALL IN BOTH LETTERS, IN COMPLETELESS LETTERS ASKING FOR EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS THAT THEY WANTED. SO
I
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE AS OF NOVEMBER 21ST. I THINK THIS IS A MUCH CLOSER CALL THAN ANY OF THE OTHER APPEALS WE 'VE SEEN, SO I THINK IT'S A HARDER CALL TO MAKE. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE CONSISTENT ABOUT WHETHER COMPLETE MEANS YOU PROVIDED WHAT WAS ASKED
BY
THE DEADLINE, THAT BY NOVEMBER 21ST, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS ACHIEVED HERE. SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
I 'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER
HEDERLY AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LEAVEY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YEAH, I 'LL SPEAK TO
MY SECOND. AND THAT IS, I 'VE SORT OF SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE HERE. I THINK THAT A REASONABLE PERSON
COULD
SAY THAT THEY PROVIDED THE GEOLOGICAL HAZARD INFORMATION, THAT THE ITEM THERE, 7P, DID SORT OF STATE, STATE
AND YOU
KNOW, IT IDENTIFIED THE TWO STATE ITEMS, THE LIQUEFACTION AND THE HAZARDS. AND SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS COVERED. BUT ON THE REPAIRING CORRIDOR, I DON'T, I THINK IT WAS NOT CLEARLY DEFINED AT ALL. I DON'T THINK THE REPAIRING CORRIDOR WAS OUTLINED ON THAT PLAN. I DON'T THINK THE FLOW WAS OUTLINED ON THE PLAN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IF WE WERE TAKING A LOOK AT BOTH, I THINK ONE OF THEM, I THINK, A REASONABLE PERSON COULD AGREE. THE OTHER ONE, I THINK IT WAS FAIRLY CLEAR THAT IT DID NOT SATISFY
THE REQUIREMENTS.
OKAY. LET'S TAKE A VOTE. COMMISSIONER HEDERLY? YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN? YES. COMMISSIONER
BELSKA? NO. COMMISSIONER LEVY? YES. VICE CHAIRPERSON O'DONAHUE? NO. AND CHAIRPERSON RAUSER? NO. THE MOTION
DOES NOT
CARRY. 3 -3.
I HAVE A QUESTION. GO AHEAD. IF WE, IF WE'RE AT 3 -3, WHAT HAPPENS TO
THIS APPLICATION? SO THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN STATE LAW THAT ACTION BE TAKEN ON THE APPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS. AND IF THAT IS NOT DONE, THEN THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED COMPLETE. SO THE EFFECTIVE ANSWER IS THAT IF THERE IS NO MOTION THAT PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES, THEN THE, SORRY, NOT THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED COMPLETE. THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED COMPLETE.
SO EFFECTIVELY, THE TIE BREAK WILL GO TO DEEMING THE PROJECT COMPLETE. AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU STAY HERE FOREVER AND TRY TO GET TO A MOTION THAT CAN CARRY FOUR, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS THREE ON ONE SIDE AND THREE ON ANOTHER SIDE. THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY THREE UNREASONABLE
PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION. AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WHICH THREE. IT DEPENDS ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
ITEM SIX, STEPHENS CREEK QUARRY ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2024.
SORRY, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT
EVERYONE WAS DONE WITH ITEM FIVE, WHICH LIKE I SAID IS OKAY, BUT BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM. WE HAVE FAMILIES TO GET TO. YEAH, OKAY. AND THANK YOU TO ALL THE PUBLIC WHO
PARTICIPATED. WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE AND VALUE YOUR FEEDBACK AND INPUT. THANK YOU. THERE'S A QUESTION.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL. WE DON'T HAVE ANY WIGGLE ROOM HERE, RIGHT? THERE'S NO WAY TO SPLIT THE BABY ON A DECISION LIKE THIS. IT'S EITHER YES, APPROVED, NO, DENIED. IS THAT CORRECT?
THERE'S NO
HALFWAY. YEAH, I THINK YOU HAVE TO EITHER AGREE THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE OR AGREE THAT IT WAS INCOMPLETE. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE. YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME TO OUR SIDE IF YOU
LIKE.
NO, BUT I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT TO THE COMMISSION IF THAT'S OKAY. ABSOLUTELY. WE LOVE YOUR INPUT. I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL AND CONSISTENT AND MINDFUL OF WHEN WE'RE SUBSTITUTING OUR PERSONAL PREFERENCES OR JUDGMENT FOR
THINGS THAT ARE EXPLICITLY CLOSE AND CLEAR ON THE PAGE OR FOR STAFF'S JUDGMENT. I WOULD NOT LIKE, AS I SAID, I THINK THIS WAS A TRICKY ONE.
BUT IN GENERAL, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE US
ARGUING ABOUT
EVERY SINGLE LINE ON THIS VERSION OF THE SUBMITTAL VERSUS THIS VERSION OF THE SUBMITTAL AND THIS VERSION AND DECIDING, WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE COUNTY LINES ARE IMPORTANT. I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY LINES ARE IMPORTANT. I THINK WE DO NEED TO KEEP IN MIND STAFF'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION THERE AS WELL. AND I HOPE THAT WE ALL WILL DO THAT. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM SIX, STEPHENS CREEK COREY ANNUAL
REPORT.
ARE WE GOOD TO GO WITH THE STAFF REPORT OR THIS REPORT?
WE ARE INDEED. THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER. OKAY. MY NAME IS PRINCIPAL PLANNER ROB SALSBURY. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS AN ANNUAL REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2024 RELENTING TO COMPLYING WITH THE MINDS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR STEPHENS CREEK COREY. THE OWNER IS STEPHENS CREEK COREY INC. THE APPLICANT IS JASON VOSS. PROPERTY ADDRESS LOCATION IS 12100 STEPHENS CANYON ROAD IN COOPERTINO. THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF ASSESSOR'S PARCELS 351 -10 -019, 351 -10 -20, AND 351 -18 -048. THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATES HILLSIDE. THE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE HS -D1 -SR WHICH IS HILLSIDE WITH A DESIGN REVIEW AND A CEDENC ROAD COMBINING DISTRICT. AND THEN
HILLSIDE
WITH A DESIGN REVIEW COMBINING DISTRICT. SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT IS 5. FILE NUMBER IS PLN
07
-1253 -2024 ANNUAL REPORT. AND WITH ME IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER MICHAEL SCHWAY WHO IS GOING TO PROVIDE THE PRESENTATION OF THIS EVENING.
GOOD
EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MICHAEL SCHWAY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER AND SMARA STAFF.
THE
ITEM BEFORE YOU IS DID YOU JUST SAY SMARTEST STAFF? I THINK YOU DID.
SMARA.
I'M JUST GIVING YOU A HARD TIME. YOU'RE
SMART
TOO.
RIGHT. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR STEPHEN'S CREEK QUARRY COVERING COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1ST, 2024 TO DECEMBER 31ST, 2024. THIS ANNUAL STATUS REPORT UPDATES THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD
OF
JANUARY 1ST, 2024 THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, 2024 PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
STEPHEN'S CREEK QUARRY IS A HARD WORK QUARRY LOCATED WEST OF THE CITY OF CARPATINO. THE QUARRY OPERATES UNDER A USE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1950. IN 1984, THE USE PERMIT WAS AMENDED AND A RECLAMATION PLAN APPROVED THAT SPECIFIED HOW THE SITE WAS TO BE RECLAIMED ONCE MINING HAD CEASED. THE USE PERMIT WAS MODIFIED AND RENEWED FOR A PERIOD OF 20 YEARS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1996. THIS USE PERMIT HAS EXPIRED AND THE QUARRY CONTINUES TO OPERATE LEGALLY UNDER THE TERMS OF A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT.
THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY SETS OF CONDITIONS THAT REGULATE THE QUARRY OPERATION. USE PERMIT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT COVER PARCEL A AND MEDIATED AGREEMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT COVER PARCEL B. THERE IS SIGNIFICANT OVERLAP BETWEEN THESE CONDITIONS. USE PERMIT CONDITION NUMBER 53 REQUIRES AN ANNUAL REPORT BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND MEDIATED AGREEMENT CONDITION NUMBER 27 SPECIFIES THAT COMPLIANCE MONITORING FOR THE MEDIATED AGREEMENT SHALL UTILIZE THE SAME MECHANISMS AS USED FOR PARCEL A. IN
ORDER TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE, THE COUNTY SMARA TEAM INSPECTS SEAVINGS CREE QUARRY ON A MONTHLY BASIS. DURING THESE INSPECTIONS, WE MAKE SURE THAT ALL RELEVANT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE BEING COMPLIED WITH, THAT MINING IS OCCURRING AS SPECIFIED BY THE APPROVED RECLAMATION, AND THAT EROSION CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY SYSTEMS ARE BEING APPROPRIATELY MAINTAINED. DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD, THE QUARRY WAS INSPECTED EVERY MONTH EXCEPT FOR NOVEMBER, WHICH DID NOT OCCUR DUE TO SCHEDULING ISSUES. IN ADDITION TO THE MONTHLY INSPECTIONS, THE COUNTY SMARA TEAM VERIFIES COMPLIANCE BY CONTACTING OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES, SUCH AS BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, COUNTY SHERIFF, AND CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL. AS IS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, DECIDED FROM
THE S .F. BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, EACH OF THESE AGENCIES HAS STATED THAT THEY RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS AND ISSUED NO VIOLATIONS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD. LATER ON IN THIS PRESENTATION, I WILL DISCUSS THE ISSUE REPORTED BY THE S .F. BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD.
AS REPORTED IN YEARS PAST, THE COUNTY ISSUED A NOV TO STEVENS CREEK QUARRIE IN 2021 FOR MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF D .H., FIRE, AND BUILDING CODES. THE COUNTY AND STEVENS CREEK QUARRIE SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED INTO A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT WHICH LAYS OUT A TIMELINE TO RESOLVE THESE VIOLATIONS. CERTAIN MINOR VIOLATIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED BY THE OPERATOR. THE MORE SIGNIFICANT
ISSUES STILL
NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THE OPERATOR HAS COMPLIED WITH THE TIMELINE SPECIFIED BY THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT BY MAKING THE REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ON A DATE SPECIFIED IN SAID COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT.
THE
RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT NEEDED TO CORRECT COMPLIANCE ISSUES RELATED TO SLOPE STABILITY AND GROUND CRACKS OUTSIDE OF THE RECLAMATION BOUNDARY IS STILL IN PROCESS, AND THERE ARE DETAILS IN THE COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. FOR THE MOMENT, I WILL FOCUS ON THE RECENT LETTER OF CORRECTIVE ACTION FROM THE S .F. BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND PROVIDE UPDATED INFORMATION ON STEPHENS CREEK QUARRIES PROGRESS TO ADDRESS ITEMS IN THE 2021 NOV.
THE ONE NEW MINOR ISSUE THAT AROSE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD IS THE 2024 LETTER OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ISSUED BY THE S .F. BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD.
THE ISSUES AND
INQUIRIES
THAT THE LETTER DISCUSS INCLUDE THE UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE OF UNTREATED PROCESS WATER FROM A SEDIMENT TRAP, UNTREATED PROCESS WATER DISCHARGE WHICH AFFECTED WATER QUALITY IN SWISS CREEK, THE PURPOSE OF THE HOSE WHICH CONNECTS THE BAG BASIN AND INSTREAM POND FOUR, THE TWO INQUIRIES AND REQUESTS, ONE WAS A REQUEST FOR AN UPDATED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM REFLECTING CURRENT CONDITIONS. AN INQUIRY INTO THE MAINTENANCE OF SEDIMENT TRAPS AT THE SITE. STEPHENS CREEK QUARRY PROVIDED A RESPONSE TO THE S .F. BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND IS CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE WATER BOARD TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES TO THEIR SATISFACTION.
MOVING ON NOW TO THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COST ESTIMATE REVIEW, STEPHENS CREEK QUARRY SUBMITTED THE 2024 FACE ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2024, AND THE FACE WAS APPROVED BY THE S .F. BAY REGIONAL DEPARTMENT AFTER THE DIVISION OF MINING RECLAMATIONS REVIEW. THE 2024 FACE ESTIMATED THAT IT WOULD COST $10 ,596 ,873 TO RECLAIM THE QUARRY TO THE STANDARDS SPECIFIED BY THE APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN. STEPHENS CREEK QUARRY INCREASED THE RECLAMATION BOND TO THAT SAME AMOUNT TO MATCH THE APPROVED FACE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO ACCEPT THE ANNUAL STATUS REPORT REGARDING STEPHENS CREEK QUARRY FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2020. THE REPORTING PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2024 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2024. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR THE SUMMARY OF THAT REPORT. JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION.
THAT REPORT IS THROUGH DECEMBER. IS THERE A SCHEDULED TIME WHEN THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE COMPLETED TO YOU GUYS? IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF LATE. BUT I KNOW WE HAD AT LEAST ONE MONTH THAT WAS ON THAT WE DELAYED IT.
DO YOU THINK IT WILL COME OUT AT DECEMBER?
THE TIME FOR THIS REPORT HAS VARIED TO SOME DEGREE OVER THE YEARS. THERE IS NO MANDATED DATE ON WHICH THIS REPORT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION. OKAY.
BUT CERTAINLY
IF IT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION, WE CAN TRY TO GET THE 2025 REPORT TO YOU EARLIER
THAN THE 2024 REPORT. IT JUST GETS CONFUSING IF THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVITY THAT'S HAPPENING CURRENTLY AND PRETTY SOON YOU'RE GIVING US A 25 UPDATE OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED AND WE'RE SHOWING YOU THE WE'RE STILL NOW REVIEWING THE 24 BUT IN THESE CASES IT'S SORT OF STEADY AT THIS POINT. AND THEN THE OTHER THING WAS FOR THE NEW MEMBERS, THE 2021 BUILDING
VIOLATIONS,
THERE WAS A LOT OF AT ONE POINT WE KIND OF GOT SORT OF UPSET BUT ULTIMATELY THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD PERMISSION FOR THOSE BUILDINGS OR NOT. AND SO I JUST WANT TO SAY IT WASN'T A COMPLETE IN YOUR FACE VIOLATION. IT WAS MORE CONVOLUTED THAN THAT. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY 'VE BEEN VERY WILLING TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES ONCE THEY
WERE BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I WOULD AGREE. THE OPERATOR IS DEFINITELY WORKING WITH US TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THESE ISSUES. THEY HAVE COMPLIED WITH A LOT OF THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION. DEMOLISHED A LOT OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WE DETERMINED WERE BUILT WITHOUT PERMIT OR MODIFIED WITHOUT PERMIT. SO YES, I BELIEVE THE OPERATOR IS WORKING DILIGENTLY TO COME FULLY INTO COMPLIANCE. COMMISSIONER BELSKA AND THEN
COMMISSIONER LEVY. ACTUALLY ALONG THE SAME LINES I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 2021 NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS.
BECAUSE IN THAT NOTICE THERE WAS A STATEMENT THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE TO BE REMEDIED BY SEPTEMBER 14, 2021.
I
THINK WE'RE A LITTLE BIT PAST THAT DATE.
AND THE STAFF REPORTED THAT THE STAFF REPORT WAS SAYING THAT SEVERAL OF THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED. SO WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE REST OF THE VIOLATIONS? BECAUSE THERE WERE QUITE A LOT AND SEPTEMBER 2021 HAS COME AND GONE.
CAN YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE ON WHEN WE CAN EXPECT ALL OF THEM TO BE ADDRESSED?
AS YOU
SAID, THERE'S QUITE A FEW. AND SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY ANY SORT OF VIOLATIONS AT A SPECIFIC DATE. CERTAINLY SOME OF THE LARGER ISSUES THAT REMAIN OUTSTANDING
REQUIRE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THEIR RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT AND ALSO WHICH REQUIRES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. AND SO THAT PART OF THE
PROCESS HAS
CAUSED SOME OF THE DELAY. BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION DEADLINES AREN'T REALLY APPLICABLE ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY DID ENTER INTO A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT WITH US. SO IT'S THAT COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT THAT IS NOW DICTATING THE TIME FRAMES WHEN THESE ISSUES NEED TO GET RESOLVED. AND WE CERTAINLY AT THE MOMENT, AS I SAID, WE DO HAVE A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. WE DO NEED TO UPDATE IT JUST TO REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL LENGTH OF TIME IT'S TAKEN TO PROCESS THE RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT AND WORK THROUGH THE CEQA PROCESS WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THAT AMENDMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. TWO MORE
QUICK QUESTIONS.
ITEM 21. E FROM THE TABLE THAT YOU PROVIDED SAYS THAT THE NOISE TESTS WEREN'T CONDUCTED.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THE REQUIREMENT IS COUNTY WILL CONDUCT A MINIMUM OF TWO RANDOM NOISE TESTS ANNUALLY AND REPORT THE RESULTS. NO NOISE TESTING WAS CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY. THAT
REQUIREMENT WAS PUT
INTO PLACE MANY, MANY YEARS AGO. AND IN THE FILE RESEARCH THAT I DID WHEN THERE WAS A REQUEST TO AUDIT THE DEPARTMENT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THIS AND THE COURT'S COMPLIANCE WITH VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THOSE NOISE STUDIES WERE DONE FOR MANY YEARS WHEN THIS USE PERMIT IMMEDIATED AGREEMENT WERE FIRST PUT INTO PLACE. NO VIOLATIONS OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE WERE REPORTED DURING THAT PERIOD. AND THERE IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OPERATOR AND THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME THAT FOR THAT REASON THE NOISE, THE ONGOING NOISE STUDY DID NOT NEED TO CONTINUE. I WILL SAY ALSO THAT THE NOISE ORDINANCE IS AND NOISE TESTING IS USUALLY HANDLED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
AND SO, AND THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY NOISE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD. CERTAINLY IF THE COMMISSION PREFERS, WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT NOISE TESTING AS REQUIRED. BUT AGAIN, MANY YEARS AGO IT WAS DECIDED THAT DUE TO THE LACK OF EXCEEDENCES AND THE LACK OF COMPLAINTS, IT WAS SIMPLY NOT NECESSARY TO CONTINUE TO DO THOSE
COMPLAINTS EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
SO, IS THERE ACTIVE BLASTING, LIKE EXPLOSIONS HAPPENING AT THIS QUARRY, OR NO? NO, THEY DON'T BLAST IN THAT QUARRY. OKAY, THANK
YOU.
COMMISSIONER LEAVY? AND THEN, IS IT HEDERLY? COMMISSIONER HEDERLY? I THINK. OKAY.
GREAT. THANK YOU. IT'S REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE QUARRY IS DOING THEIR BEST TO COMPLY. HOW ARE THEY DOING AGAINST THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT? I LOOK AT THE DATES IN THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. MOST OF THEM ARE WELL PASSED. ARE THEY MAKING THE DATES? DOES THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT NEED TO BE WORKED ON
ADDITIONALLY? I WOULD SAY THAT THOSE DATES ARE NOT FULLY WITHIN THE OPERATOR'S CONTROL. THE EIR PROCESS HAS TAKEN LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED, AND IT'S A BIT OF A TECHNICAL REASON. ESSENTIALLY, THE ISSUE IS THAT CERTAIN OF STEPHEN'S CREE QUARRIES PARCELS ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF CUPE TINO. CITY OF CUPE TINO HAS A SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT ORDINANCE, AND THEY ALSO DON'T, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DON'T ALLOW MINING AS A LAND USE. AND THEREFORE, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR THIS DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE OR APPROVE A RECLAMATION PLAN OR A USE PERMIT COVERING THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS THAT ARE WITHIN CUPE TINO. SO WE HAVE BEEN, WE DIRECTED THE OPERATOR TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE
ENGAGE WITH CUPE TINO TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DETACHMENT, WHICH COUNTY STAFF HAS ALSO BEEN PARTICIPATING IN, WHEREBY THOSE CUPE TINO PARCELS WOULD BE RETURNED TO COUNTY JURISDICTION, AT WHICH TIME WE WOULD BE FREE TO APPROVE A REC PLAN COVERING THOSE PARCELS AND A USE PERMIT COVERING THOSE PARCELS. I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME THAT HAPPENED WAS IN THE 70s, AND SO THE PROCESS IS HAVING TO BE REDISCOVERED. SO IT HAS TAKEN SOME ADDITIONAL TIME, BUT WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH THOSE ISSUES, AND THE OPERATOR IS FULLY WORKING WITH
US TO DO SO. SO THE OPERATOR IS ON BOARD WITH THE ANNEXATION, SORT OF THE REVERSE ANNEXATION, RIGHT, FOR THE ANNEXATION BACK TO THE COUNTY. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH LAFCO ON CURRENTLY?
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE HAVE NOT ENGAGED LAFCO YET, BUT I COULD CERTAINLY FIND OUT IF THE OPERATOR HAS DONE ANYTHING WITH LAFCO. DOES COOPERTINO HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH LAFCO? RIGHT. AND REPORT BACK?
THIS IS PURELY A LAFCO ISSUE, RIGHT, JURISDICTIONAL LINES. YEAH, BUT
COOPERTINO WOULD BE THE ONE ENGAGING LAFCO TO ACCEPT IT. IT WOULD BE BOTH, RIGHT, AND BOTH TWO PARTIES WOULD
HAVE TO AGREE TO THIS. WELL, ACTUALLY, LAFCO HAS TO, WE MAKE A PRESENTATION, LAFCO MAKES THE DECISION ON WHERE JURISDICTIONAL LINES ARE.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT COOPERTINO WOULD INITIATE THE APPLICATION TO ANNEX THAT
PORTION. IT COULD GO BOTH WAYS. THAT'S NOT HERE AND THERE.
I WAS GOING TO SAY, YEAH, WE DIDN'T DIRECT STEVENS CREEK COREY ON WHAT TO DO TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM. THEY DECIDED THEY WANTED TO PURSUE DETACHMENT, AND BASED ON OUR RESEARCH, THAT'S A PROCESS THEY, YOU'RE RIGHT, APPLIED THROUGH THE CITY OF COOPERTINO. LAFCO MAY BE INVOLVED AT SOME POINT, BUT IT'S NOT A PROCESS THAT IS GOING DIRECTLY THROUGH US. AND THEY WOULD NEED TO COMPLETE THE DETACHMENT OR GET APPROVAL OF THE DETACHMENT BEFORE IT COULD COME TO THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PROVIDING, CONSIDER WHETHER TO APPROVE A USE PERMIT AND THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN. OKAY, GREAT.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE ROAD THAT WENT BETWEEN STEVENS CREEK COREY AND LEHI, THAT WAS SOMETHING, I MEAN, THAT WAS IN YOUR MIND. THAT WAS AN UNDERFACED VIOLATION IF THERE EVER WAS ONE. AND I DON'T SEE THAT REFERENCED HERE, OR IF I'M MISSING IT.
SO WHEN THE COUNTY BECAME AWARE OF THAT, THE USE OF THAT HALL ROAD TRANSPORT MATERIAL, WE ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION. THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION, THOUGH, WAS ON LEHI PROPERTY, NOT STEVENS CREEK COREY PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHY IT'S NOT MENTIONED IN THIS PARTICULAR STAFF REPORT. BUT THE ANNUAL REPORT THAT'S COMING UP NEXT, WE 'LL... HOLD
ON TO THAT QUESTION.
WE 'LL SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE. BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO.
OKAY. FINALLY, A QUESTION ON HOW LONG IS THIS THE LIFESPAN OF THIS COREY? I MEAN, HOW LONG ARE THEY STILL GOING TO BE MINING? DO WE KNOW?
IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. ALSO DIFFICULT ONE TO ANSWER WITH PRECISION. THE RATES AT WHICH THEY EXTRACT CAN VARY OVER TIME. I THINK UNDER THE CURRENT REC PLAN, THEY'RE GETTING RELATIVELY CLOSE, I WOULD THINK, WITHIN FIVE TO TEN YEARS OF BEING OUT OF MATERIAL THAT THEY CAN EXTRACT AND PRODUCE AGGREGATE FROM. I THINK THE PROPOSED REC PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD BUY THEM SOME ADDITIONAL TIME, PROBABLY IN THE ORDER OF ANOTHER FIVE TO TEN YEARS.
OKAY, GREAT. AND JUST I WANT TO THANK STEPHENS CREEK QUARRIE FOR NOT HAVING TRUCKS ON THE ROAD WHEN I RODE MY BIKE BY A WEEK OR SO AGO. OFTEN IT'S A VERY SCARY ROAD TO RIDE WHEN THOSE BIG TRUCKS ARE ON THERE, SO I WAS REALLY HAPPY LAST THURSDAY AFTERNOON AND THERE WERE NO BIG TRUCKS ON THAT ROAD. THAT WAS
BOB LEAVY'S CONDITION OF APPROVAL. THAT'S
EXACTLY RIGHT. COMMISSIONER
HEDERLY.
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THE ISSUE OF THE USE PERMIT. IS IT, AM I CORRECT TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU 'VE GOT THE DRAFT EIR HAS BEEN PREPARED, IT'S READY TO, YOU KNOW, WE COULD, THE COUNTY COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSIDERING A CUP AT ANY POINT NOW, BUT WE'RE WAITING TO SEE HOW THIS DETACHMENT ISSUE IS RESOLVED? IS THAT CORRECT? I
THINK IT'S MORE ACCURATE TO SAY THE EIR COULD BE RELEASED REALLY AT ANY TIME PENDING SOME REVISIONS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE DETACHMENT PROCESS.
EIRS OF COURSE HAVE A MANDATORY COMMENT PERIOD, AND THEN A FINAL EIR NEEDS TO BE PREPARED THAT RESPONDS TO ALL SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD THAT RELATE TO THE CEQA ANALYSIS IN THE EIR. SO ONCE THAT PROCESS IS DONE, THEN THE ITEM COULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL.
IF I COULD JUST ADD. SO THE DRAFT EIR IS NOT BEING HELD ONCE IT'S READY TO BE RELEASED. THE EIR PROCESS WAS A BIT DELAYED BECAUSE DETACHMENT, THE PROPOSED DETACHMENT IS NOW A PART OF THEIR PROPOSED PROJECT. AND AT FIRST IT TOOK THEM A WHILE TO FIGURE OUT THAT THAT IS THE ROUTE THAT THEY WERE GOING AND THE PROCESSES, AND THEN ONCE THEY CONFIRMED, YES, WE ARE PURSUING DETACHMENT. THEN WE REACHED A POINT OF NEEDING TO INTEGRATE THAT INTO THE DRAFT EIR. AND I THINK THAT IT IS CONTINUING TO MAKE ITS WAY THROUGH THE REVISIONS PROCESS AND WILL BE RELEASED AS SOON AS IT IS READY. THE PART THAT CANNOT HAPPEN UNTIL THE DETACHMENT IS
POTENTIALLY APPROVED IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDING WHETHER TO
GRANT
A USE PERMIT OVER THOSE PARCELS. THEY CANNOT GRANT A USE PERMIT OVER PARCELS THAT ARE STILL PART OF COOPERTINO AS ROB EXPLAINED. THANK
YOU. THAT'S HELPFUL. AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION IS, IF THEY ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT AND THIS MEDIATED AGREEMENT, AND MAYBE THIS IS A PREMATURE QUESTION, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE START THINKING ABOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? IS THERE ANY URGENCY, ANY AUTHORITIES OR ENFORCEMENT POWERS OR OBLIGATIONS THAT FALL UPON THE COUNTY UNDER THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENT THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT WITH A CUP?
ARE WE UNABLE TO EXERCISE ANY AUTHORITIES NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A CUP?
UNDER
THE TERMS OF THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT AND THE MEDIATED AGREEMENT, I BELIEVE THOSE TWO IN CONJUNCTION GIVE THE COUNTY LARGELY THE SAME
OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY AS WE WOULD HAVE AND WILL HAVE PROVIDED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS GRANTED BY THIS BODY. SO I BELIEVE WE'RE ABLE TO ENFORCE AND REGULATE
SUFFICIENTLY NOW AS WE WILL BE ABLE TO SHOULD ANOTHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE GRANTED. AND I WOULD ALSO AGAIN LIKE TO SAY THAT THE OPERATOR IS FULLY COOPERATING AND ABIDING BY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN THE USE PERMIT EVEN THOUGH IT IS TECHNICALLY EXPIRED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, WE DO HAVE ONE HAND RAISED ON ZOOM.
VICTORY. WE HAVE SOMEONE PAYING ATTENTION. THANK YOU.
OKAY. TWO MINUTES. BRODA FRY, YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
BRODA. HI.
GOOD EVENING.
I AM NICE TO SEE SOME NEW FACES. YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THESE THINGS SINCE BEFORE THESE STIPULATED, WHAT IS IT CALLED, THESE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS EXISTED. AND, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY YOU ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE AND THEN YOU SAY, OH, OKAY, WELL, WE WILL GIVE YOU SOME MORE TIME. SO THAT IS WHAT A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT IS. IT IS A RELATIVELY NEW THING. BUT IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A REALLY LONG TIME. AND I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. WE JUST NEED TO GET THESE GUYS INTO COMPLIANCE. THE OTHER THING THAT I FOUND REALLY SHOCKING WAS WHEN THAT HUGE NOTICE OF VIOLATION CAME AROUND. THERE WERE A LOT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES IN THERE. FIRE
AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE WAS UNDER PERMITTED STRUCTURES. AND IT WAS JUST REALLY SURPRISING TO ME THAT THEY HAD THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN SO LONGSTANDING AND IT JUST MADE ME WONDER ABOUT THE GENERAL OVERSIGHT OF THE PROPERTY. AS TO, I'M A CUPERTINO RESIDENT
AND,
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT SLICE OF PROPERTY WITHIN CUPERTINO IS BEING SOMEWHAT OF A BUFFER AREA.
AND
QUARRIES GENERALLY HAVE BUFFER AREAS.
FOR
EXAMPLE, OVER AT LEHI, YOU 'VE GOT ABOUT 600 ACRES THAT'S BEING USED AND 33 ,000 ACRES THAT ARE NOT ACTIVE. SO, I WOULD, ON THE FACE OF IT, I WOULD BE OPPOSED. BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO THAT HAPPENING.
AND
THEN, YEAH, I AGREE THAT THANK YOU FOR NOTICING THESE REPORTS ARE REALLY LATE.
VERY
WORRIED ABOUT MORE WATER ISSUES.
THIS
IS NOT NEW. WE 'VE HAD WATER ISSUES BEFORE. KEEP IN MIND, SWISS CREEK GOES RIGHT INTO STEPHENS CREEK RESERVOIR.
THEY'RE
RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE RESERVOIR.
AND
IT'S NOT OKAY. THE OTHER THING, THEY DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO NOT, YOU KNOW,
TAKE THEM OUT.
AND
THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT.
ALL
RIGHT. MS. FRY, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU. WE 'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT THE REPORT. WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THAT, DO WE? WE DO. OKAY. WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT MY VOTE'S GOING TO BE. SO, LET'S TAKE ROLL CALL.
I NEED A MOTION AND SECOND. SO MOVED.
SECOND.
SECOND. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEVY AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COHEN TO ACCEPT THE REPORT.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HEDERLY? YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN? YES. COMMISSIONER BELSKA?
YES.
COMMISSIONER LEVY?
AYE. VICE
CHAIRPERSON O'DONAHUE?
YES. AND
CHAIRPERSON RAUSTER?
I
APPROVE.
THE
MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NUMBER 7.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
MY
NAME IS STILL ROBERT SALSBURY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. AND THIS IS THE ITEM BEFORE YOU NOW IS THE ANNUAL STATUS REPORT, THE 13TH SUCH STATUS REPORT FOR LEHIGH COREY, COVERING THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2024 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025, RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE 2012 RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ANNUAL SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION INSPECTIONS, AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PERMANENT DATE COREY. THE OWNER APPLICANT IS LEHIGH SOUTHWEST. THE PROPERTY ADDRESS LOCATION IS 24001 STEPHENS CREEK BOULEVARD, COOPERTINO.
ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER IS
35109013, 020, 022, 023, 025,
AND
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER IS 351 -10 -005, AND 033, AND 037, AND 037.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER IS 351 -11 -001, AND 005, 006, 007, AND 081. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION IS HILLSIDES, WITH SOME AREAS DESIGNATED AS OTHER PUBLIC OPEN LANDS, AND THEN SOME PARCELS HAVE AN URBAN SERVICE AREA DESIGNATION COOPERTINO FOR THE GENERAL PLAN. THE ZONING IS HS -D1, AS WELL AS A -D1, A1 -D1, AND A1 -20S -D1. SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT IS 5, AND THE FILE NUMBER IS PLN 12 - 2250 -2023 IN YOUR REPORT. SO WITH ME IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER RAVA KOKARIA TO PROVIDE THE STAFF PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM.
GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RAVA KOKARIA, AND I'M AN ASSOCIATE PLANNER AND ANOTHER SMART TEAM MEMBER. ANOTHER
SMART TEAM MEMBER. I LOVE IT.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS THE 13TH ANNUAL REPORT ON LEHI PERMANENTA CORI, COVERING THE TIME PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2024 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025. I 'LL PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ANNUAL REPORT, AND THEN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE.
SO TO START WITH A LITTLE BACKGROUND, LEHI PERMANENTA CORI IS A LIMESTONE AND AGGREGATE CORI LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED SANTA CLARA COUNTY, WITHIN THE EASTERN FOOTHILLS OF THE SANTA CRUZ MOUNTAIN RANGE AND WEST OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO. LEHI PERMANENTA CORI OPERATES UNDER A VESTED RIGHT, AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN 2011. THIS MEANS THAT LEHI DOES NOT NEED A USE PERMIT TO CONDUCT MINING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC AREA. LEHI DOES HAVE AN APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN 2012, AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ASSOCIATED WITH THE RECLAMATION PLAN REQUIRE LEHI TO SUBMIT AN ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND REQUIRE THAT AN
ANNUAL REPORT BE BROUGHT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
DURING EACH ANNUAL REPORT, WE REPORT ON A VARIETY OF TOPICS, INCLUDING RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES, COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, PRIMARILY WATER QUALITY, AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COST ESTIMATE REVIEW. WE ALSO REPORT ON ANY VIOLATIONS
IN THE STATUS OF ANY APPLICATIONS THAT ARE IN PROGRESS.
AS NOTED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY LEHI, THERE WAS MINIMAL RECLAMATION DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD. LEHI DID CONDUCT MAINTENANCE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS, WHICH INCLUDED REMOVING 295 CUBIC YARDS OF SILT FROM SILTING BASINS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS, INCLUDING THE WEST AND EAST MATERIAL STORAGE AREAS, THE YEGER YARD, PON 20, AND ROCK PLANT AREAS. ADDITIONALLY, UPON ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT ON JUNE 12, 2025, LEHI BEGAN GRADING WORK FOR THE PERMANENTE CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT AND IS IN PROGRESS OF OBTAINING GRADING APPROVAL FOR THE PCRP PON 22 PROJECT.
REGARDING WATER QUALITY, LEHI PROVIDED WATER SAMPLING AND TESTING DATA FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD. WATER IS DISCHARGED INTO PERMANENTE CREEK AT TWO PERMITTED DISCHARGE POINTS, AND THE SLANIUM CONCENTRATION IN THE DISCHARGE WATER RANGED FROM .19 TO 4 .6 MICROGRAMS PER LITER, WHICH IS BELOW THE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE OF 5 MICROGRAMS PER LITER PURSUANT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER BOARD. BASED ON THIS DATA AND LEHI'S CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER TREATMENT AND STORMWATER MONITORING, LEHI IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATED TO WATER QUALITY.
STAFF CONTACTED SEVERAL AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO AND THE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. NONE OF THESE AGENCIES ISSUED ANY VIOLATIONS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD.
REGARDING LEHI APPLICATIONS, THE 2023 RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT WAS DEEMED COMPLETE ON JANUARY 27, 2025. THE COUNTY IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO THE 2012 RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT EIR.
THE
PERMANENTED CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT GRADING APPROVAL RECEIVED A GRADING PERMIT ON JUNE 12, 2025,
AS
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, AND LEHI COMMENCED WORK ON THE PROJECT IN AUGUST OF 2025. THE DEPARTMENT'S LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING STAFF HAVE BEEN REGULARLY INSPECTING THE WORK AS IT PROGRESSES.
AND
LASTLY, THE APPLICATION TO RESTORE THE POND 22 AREA OF PERMANENTED CREEK WAS DEEMED COMPLETE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024. STAFF IS IN THE PROCESS OF COMPLETING AN ADDENDUM TO PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS.
THE 2024 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COST ESTIMATE WAS APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON AUGUST 24, 2025, FOR AN AMOUNT OF $79 ,859 ,963. THE COUNTY HOLDS A BOND IN THE SAME AMOUNT.
IN
CONCLUSION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE LEHI ANNUAL STATUS REPORT NUMBER 13 FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 2024. TO JUNE 30, 2025. THANK YOU, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER LEVY, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON A PARTICULAR ROAD?
NO, I DON'T. BUT AS LONG AS YOU'RE ASKING THEM, I 'LL ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS. I SAW IN HERE THE VARIOUS PHASES, PHASE 1, PHASE 2, PHASE 3,
AND
ON ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS, I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH, BUT IT SAID PHASE 1 IS ENDING THIS YEAR. ANOTHER ONE SAYS PHASE 2 IS ENDING THIS YEAR. ANOTHER ONE SAID PHASE 3 IS ENDING THIS YEAR. I WAS VERY CONFUSED BECAUSE THERE WASN'T CONSISTENCY ON THE TIMELINE BETWEEN THE PHASES WITHIN THE DOCUMENTS.
MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT CONFUSION. WE 'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT AND MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR NEXT TIME.
THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THAT ANY PHASING IN A RECLAMATION PLAN IS SPECULATIVE,
AND
IT'S CREATED AT THE TIME THAT A RECLAMATION PLAN IS FIRST PREPARED AND THEN APPROVED.
AND
BECAUSE LEHI IS A VESTED CORRI, THEY DON'T HAVE A USE PERMIT. THAT LIMITS THE LIFESPAN OF THAT OPERATION. SO THE SPEED AT WHICH A CORRI MINES AND RECLAIMS LANDS, CERTAINLY WHEN IT'S A VESTED CORRI, IS REALLY BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS AND THEIR PROGRESS AND OTHER FACTORS THAT ARE REALLY NOT UNDER THE COUNTY'S DIRECT OVERSIGHT. AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY'RE A VESTED CORRI, THEY DO NOT NEED A USE PERMIT, AND THERE ARE NO TIME LIMITS ASSOCIATED WITH A USE PERMIT, LIKE THERE WOULD BE WITH A USE PERMIT. IS
THERE TIME LIMITS ON COMPONENTS OF THE RECLAIMATION PLAN THAT THEY HAVE TO ADHERE TO?
NO.
REALLY, THERE ARE LIMITS BASED ON PRODUCTION.
SO
SHOULD PRODUCTION FALL BELOW A CERTAIN LIMIT, THEN THE CORRI WOULD BE DESIGNATED TO BE IN AN IDLE STATUS. THEY CAN BE IDLE FOR UP TO 15 YEARS, AND IF THEY NEVER INCREASE PRODUCTION, THEN THEY WOULD BE BACK UP TO THE LEVEL THAT MEANS THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED IDLE UNDER THE LAW, THEN AT THAT TIME THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO START AND FINISH RECLAIMATION. THE LAW WAS WRITTEN THAT WAY IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR MARKET FLUCTUATIONS AND NOT HAVE OPERATORS GO OUT OF BUSINESS WHEN MARKET CONDITIONS ARE TEMPORARILY LOW. SO
THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO MINING ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE, SO ANY TYPE OF ACTIVITY THEY'RE DOING IS BASED ON STOCKPILES. AND SO HOW LONG WOULD IT BE UNTIL THEY'RE CONSIDERED IDLE BASED ON THE USE OF THEIR STOCKPILES? SO THE
PRODUCTION LIMITS ARE BASED ON EXPORT TONNAGE. IT'S NOT BASED ON TONNAGE EXTRACTED. THERE'S NO MORE EXTRACTION. YEAH, NO MORE EXTRACTION IS OCCURRING, BUT THEY ARE STILL TECHNICALLY ACTIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL PRODUCING AND SELLING AGGREGATE FROM THE EXISTING STOCKPILES. EXACTLY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS
ASKING, IS HOW LONG WILL THAT STOCKPILE LAST BEFORE WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE IT'S IDLE AND THEY HAVE THAT 15 -YEAR CLOCK STARTING TO TICK?
I DO
NOT KNOW THE EXACT VOLUME OF STOCKPILE MATERIAL THAT THEY HAVE, SO I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO IT AND GET BACK TO YOU. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. OKAY. A YEAR FROM NOW, IF WE DO THAT. AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THEY HAVE A RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT IN PROCESS, WHICH IS CLEARLY A PLAN TO FULLY RECLAIM AND SHUT DOWN THE QUARRY. AND SO I THINK IF I COULD SPECULATE A LITTLE BIT HERE, I THINK LEHI IS OBVIOUSLY HOPING THAT THAT RECLAMATION PLAN GETS APPROVED. IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE 2012 RECLAMATION PLAN. AND THEN ONCE THAT RECLAMATION PLAN, SHOULD IT BE APPROVED, I THINK FULL RECLAMATION WOULD LIKELY COMMENCE
SHORTLY THEREAFTER. YEAH, WELL, THAT NEW PLAN, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WEST MATERIALS SERVICE AREA, IF THAT'S RIGHT. THEY'RE LEAVING ALL THAT MATERIAL IN PLACE AND NOT USING IT FOR THE RECLAMATION PLAN AND TRUCKING IN MATERIALS INSTEAD. IS THAT SOMETHING STAFF SUPPORTS OR DO WE WANT TO SEE ALL THOSE TRUCKS OR DO WE REALLY WANT TO SEE THE MATERIAL THAT WAS TAKEN, IT WAS STOCKPILED, PUT BACK WHERE
IT BELONGS? I WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE ANY KIND OF STATEMENT. IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE ITEM IS NOT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME AND WE'RE STILL DOING ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW. YEAH, OKAY. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE 'LL REALLY, I 'LL BE LOOKING AT AT LEAST. THE OTHER ONE IS PART OF THE RECLAMATION PLAN, DO THEY TALK ABOUT LAND USE AT ALL? FOR EXAMPLE, HOW IS THE PROPERTY GOING TO BE USED ONCE THE RECLAMATION TAKES PLACE AND WHEN YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, SOME BEING OPEN SPACE, RECREATIONAL, HOUSING, ET CETERA, IS THE LAND USE COMPONENTS OF IT INCLUDED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN? YES, IT IS. EACH
RECLAMATION PLAN HAS TO SPECIFY THE END STATE OF THE COREY ONCE RECLAMATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED. AND AS IS COMMON WITH A LOT OF COREYS, THE END USE THAT'S SPECIFIED IN THE PLAN, WHICH ALSO TO SOME DEGREE DICTATES THE RECLAMATION STANDARD THAT'S APPLIED, IS OPEN SPACE. YEAH, AND SO PRIMARILY
OPEN SPACE, BUT THERE MAY BE COMPONENTS THAT AREN'T. IS THERE A COMMITTEE OR ANYTHING THAT GETS PUT TOGETHER TO WORK WITH? WITH LEHI IN DETERMINING WHAT THAT RECLAMATION PLAN LOOKS LIKE AS FAR AS LAND USE
COMPONENTS?
WE HAVE NOT BEEN ENGAGING WITH LEHI AS TO THAT FINAL DESIGNATION. IT'S REALLY, THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS ON WHAT CAN BE SPECIFIED IN RECLAMATION PLAN. FOR EXAMPLE, THE RECLAMATION PLAN CAN'T SPECIFY THAT IT'S GOING TO BE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING WHEN THERE'S NO ENTITLEMENT FOR THAT END USE ALREADY IN PLACE.
AND
THE TIME FRAME OF EVEN THE 2023 RECLAMATION PLAN, WHICH IS STILL IN PROCESS, IS ABOUT A 40 YEAR TIME HORIZON. AND SO I THINK, AGAIN, IF I COULD SPECULATE, I THINK LEHI IS JUST REALIZING THAT RECLAMATION IS GOING TO TAKE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME AND ARE NOT IN ANY SERIOUS HURRY TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE ONCE
RECLAMATION IS COMPLETE. OKAY. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE WAY PAST MY TENURE ON THE COMMISSION, BUT I'D BE VERY INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT THEY DO AS FAR AS THE LAND USE COMPONENT IS CONCERNED. I MEAN, THERE COULD BE A HOUSING PIECE OF IT ALONG THE ROAD WHERE THERE ARE SERVICES. WE 'LL HAVE TO SEE.
ALL RIGHT. SEE, THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR ASKING ME.
SO YOU'RE OKAY WITH
THE ROAD, THE USE? WELL, THAT ROAD DOESN'T GO THERE. STEPHEN'S CREEK THEY RIDE ON, AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY ON STEPHEN'S CREEK. WELL, THEY USED IT TO GET ON THEIR PROPERTY.
ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS BEFORE I OPEN? LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
NO.
LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE DO HAVE ONE. APOLOGIES. WE NOW HAVE TWO SPEAKERS
ON
ZOOM. WE COULD DO TWO MINUTES EACH. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS RODA FRI. RODA, YOU 'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
HI,
GOOD EVENING AGAIN. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A HILLSIDE THERE THAT IS PROTECTED BY DEED, THE 1972 RIDGELINE PROTECTION EASEMENT VIEWING US.
WE'RE LOSING IT. IT'S CRUMBLING. IT'S CRUMBLING. IT'S CRUMBLED ABOUT 50 TO 75 FEET ALREADY, AND WE NEED
TO
PROTECT IT. AND WE KEEP ON DELAYING THIS RECLAMATION, AND WE'RE GOING TO LOSE IT, AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT HIDEOUS
CALDERA FROM EVERYWHERE. RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN ALREADY SEE THE SCAR OF THE WEST MATERIAL STORAGE AREA FROM ACROSS THE BAY. YOU CAN SEE IT FROM PORTUGAL VALLEY. YOU CAN SEE IT FROM A LOT OF PLACES. SO WE GOT TO GET ON WITH RECLAMATION. I AM GLAD TO HEAR THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON THE LAWSUIT MANDATED REPAIRS AT
PERMANENTE
CREEK. AS FAR AS THE RECLAMATION IS CONCERNED, I WANT TO KIND OF LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S THIS EAST MATERIAL STORAGE AREA IN LEHI DID NOT WANT TO MOVE IT BECAUSE THEY, BACK IN 2012, BECAUSE, WHICH WAS AN ILLEGAL MOUNTAIN THAT THEY BUILT, BY THE WAY, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MOVE IT BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE TOO MUCH FUEL, CREATE TOO MUCH POLLUTION. SO NOW INSTEAD THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT TRUCKING STUFF IN. YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT TRUCKING STUFF IN IS ACTUALLY LESS POLLUTING THAN ACTUALLY MOVING THE EAST MATERIAL STORAGE AND, OF COURSE,
THE
WEST MATERIAL STORAGE HAD BEEN MENTIONED AS WELL. NOW THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT THEY HAVE RESURRECTED THE ROCK PLANT, WHICH, IF THEY HAD ANY VESTED RIGHTS TO IT, THEY LOST IT BY STOPPING OPERATING FOR TEN YEARS. BUT WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, AND I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD, IT'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE. I'M NOT PERSONALLY AFFECTED, BUT IT IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD BE HELD AT THE SAME TIMEFRAMES AS STEPHENS CREEK. THE OTHER THING IS THERE
WAS
A 5 MILLION -GALLON SPILL THAT WAS NOT REPORTED TO THE SOES, AND THE COUNTY'S NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THEY'RE TO CUPA, AND I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT. THANKS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SAN R.
SAN, YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES.
WHO DO YOU HAVE? GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER. SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
MYSELF ONLY, I SPOKE EARLIER AS WELL TODAY. SO MY STREET IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE QUARRY, BEHIND THE LEHI QUARRY, AND SO ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS ARE BACKING UP TO THE QUARRY. WE'D LIKE TO REQUEST
THAT
THE QUARRY BE REQUIRED TO ONLY ALLOW TRUCKS AFTER 630. I BELIEVE STEPHENS CREEK QUARRY HAS A USE PERMIT THAT DOES ENFORCE HOURS OF TRUCKING, AND THAT STARTS AT 630, AND TRUCKING IS PRIMATED ON THE 630. I BELIEVE THE LEHI QUARRY IS NOT ENFORCING ANY HOURS OF OPERATION, AND SO WE HAVE TRUCKS THAT ARE COMING IN AT 3 A .M., 4 A .M., 430 A .M., AND SO ON. THESE TRUCKS ARE SPEEDING BRAKES, SO IT IS QUITE A NOISE NUISANCE
THAT
IS OPERATING AT THE EARLY HOURS OF THE MORNING, SO APPRECIATE IF ANYTHING CAN BE DONE TO TRY AND ADDRESS THIS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE QUARRY. THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RECLAMATION, MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED. MAYBE THEY SHOULD USE THE RAILROAD AND THE RAIL TRACKS TO DO SOME OF THE RECLAMATION BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS THAT THEY'D HAVE TO RUN TO DO RECLAMATION FROM OUTSIDE IN IS GOING TO FURTHER INCREASE THE TRUCK TRAFFIC, AND RATHER THAN SEEING TRUCK TRAFFIC, YOU MIGHT WANT TO SEE OR TEST THE CONCEPT OF RUNNING THE RAILROAD AGAIN. AND FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THE QUARRY CAN BE COMPLETELY ANNEXED INTO THE
RANCHO'S HAN ANTONIO COUNTY PARK SYSTEM SO THAT ALL OF THE QUARRY LAND BECOMES OPEN SPACE PRESERVED AND COUNTY PARK RATHER THAN ANY SORT OF HOUSING AS WE TALKED ABOUT. WE CANNOT GET INSURANCE EVEN FURTHER DOWNHILL FROM THE QUARRY. WE CANNOT GET INSURANCE. AND SO THERE IS NO CHOICE LEFT. EVEN THE STATE POLICY IS UNABLE TO INSURE THESE AREAS. SO IT'S TURNING INTO A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN'T HAVE A MARKAGE BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE INSURANCE, YOU CAN'T HAVE A MARKAGE. SO I APPRECIATE LOOKING AT TREATING THIS AS
OPEN SPACE PRESERVED. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON TRUCKING AND HOURS AND NUMBER OF TRUCKS OR ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY?
BY VIRTUE OF THEIR VESTED STATUS, THERE ARE NO MANDATED TIMES OR HOURS OF OPERATION. RIGHT. OKAY.
I 'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT IF I DIDN'T JUST NOW. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS REPORT? I 'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELSKA AND A SECOND BY VICE CHAIR O'DONAHUE. CAN WE TAKE A VOTE?
COMMISSIONER HEDERLY? YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN? YES. COMMISSIONER BELSKA? YES. COMMISSIONER LEVY? YES. VICE CHAIRPERSON O'DONAHUE?
YES. AND CHAIRPERSON RAUSTER? I APPROVE. MOTION CARRIES. I DO NOT HAVE A REPORT OTHER THAN I JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR FLEXIBILITY. AND MEETING AN HOUR LATER TODAY. I DO APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? NO. DO WE HAVE A REPORT FROM COUNTY COUNCIL? NO. PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY IS NOT HERE. THAT WOULD BE ME. NO. OKAY. YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THAT REPORT?
BUT
I DO HAVE ONE FROM THE DIRECTOR.
WE'RE GOING TO STRAIGHT. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THERE'S ONE. NO. SO JUST GO STRAIGHT TO 13. I JUST WANTED TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT THE SERGEANT RANCH CORY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN. THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD TO THE PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST POST. AND SO THAT APPLICATION IS GONE.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH NOT HAVING
ANY CORRESPONDENTS TO READ ANYMORE? I AM. THAT'S JUST. AND I ALSO WANT TO LET THE
COMMISSION KNOW THAT WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SECURING AN INTERIM DEPUTY DIRECTOR THAT WILL SERVE BEGINNING IN MARCH. WE'RE SOLIDIFYING THAT CONTRACT THIS MONTH AND OVER FEBRUARY. AND SO AT THE TIME THAT THEY JOIN US, WE WILL BRING THEM TO INTRODUCE TO YOU.
THE
POSITION OR YOU HAVE A PERSON IN MIND ALREADY? WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT WE HAVE SECURED. GOT IT. OKAY.
ALL
RIGHT. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENTS. NUMBER 14. CURRENTLY TWO VACANCIES. AND THE COUNTY PROVIDES REIMBURSEMENT TO APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS FOR BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND IF WE GOT ANY CORRESPONDENTS, WE RECEIVED IT. WITH THAT, I ADJOURN TO THE FEBRUARY 26, 2026 MEETING. IF IT IS.
IF IT OCCURS. AND IF YOU WILL. WE DO HAVE SALAD FOR THE COMMISSION IN THE BACK. SO IF YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO
INDULGE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS, PLEASE GO BACK AND ENJOY. AND THERE'S SOME LITTLE SNACKS THAT YOU CAN TAKE AS WELL. THANK YOU ALL FOR
BEING FLEXIBLE. AND THANK YOU FOR THE MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT STAYED WITH US THE WHOLE TIME.