Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-2009 Supplemental Council AgendaCurrent Exhibit at CHC: g ootk VV iiincd-s- Scwat a/ ColnAmAAAILty a.itcLew.' 19 72 to A ha n of the/ yu 'ui s'v t ri t cwt.& va,tu,Ya,L force' The Saratoga Community Garden flourished as an educational demonstration garden for children and the community providing an opportunity for all to connect with the ways of the garden and sustainable farming, and to glean insights from nature. Envisioned by Saratoga kindergarten teacher Betty Wesson Peck, with design by the late British horticulturalist Alan Chadwick, this special garden utilized Biodynamic/ French Intensive practices, a combined method not widely known in the United States at the time. The 10 -acre living classroom, with nature as instructor, inspired thousands of children and adults over its fifteen -year life. Many students of the garden went forth to create sustainable gardening programs around the United States and the world. Our exhibit features an oral history interview of Betty Peck and Jackie Welch and many photos of the garden. This exhibit will run through the school year and we plan to add information about other, current community gardens and related issues. CHC hours are Tuesday through Thursday, 9:30 a.m. to 12 Noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. California History Center at De Anza College 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 For more information contact Tom Izu at (408) 864 -8986 From: Jade Bradbury [mailto:jadeartdesign @yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:38 PM To: 'BettyPeck @aol.com' Subject: A Visit to the Creek Dear Betty, Last weekend I had my first opportunity to walk the Creek trail behind your property and was pleasantly surprised to discover what a wealth of Saratoga's natural history can be experienced there. The creek itself seems to have struggled valiantly to reconnect itself to the community whose name reflects its early heritage as an Indian village. Sunlight and shade dapple the path, and diverse wildlife footprints mark its byways to the creek. Somehow it seems almost essential to preserve this lovely remaining area, with its trees and plants and animals, as a symbolic and actual connective feature, binding together Saratoga's past, present and future. If my own experience of it is any indication, children and adults of all ages will cherish and benefit from this natural community treasure for generations to come. Love, Jade 1 of 1 10/7/2009 2:25 PM CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Joint Meeting Agenda DATE: October 7, 2009 TIME: 6:00 PM LOCATION: Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 AGENDA 1. Review Commission Activities 2. Review resulting actions 3. Discuss potential policy implications of trends "Solution Creep" 4. Discuss HOA representation issues 5. Status of Oak Street Task Force and Herriman Task Force Adjournment Traffic Safety Commission Summary IE Request or Concern Street Action Crosswalk Improvements Saratoga Ave at Crestbrook Traffic Engineer plan Crosswalk Improvements Prospect at Covina Striping Crosswalk Improvements Village Traffic Engineer Village Improvement plan Crosswalk Improvements Prospect at Titus Seek grants for in- pavement lighting Misc, (cars traveling in bike lane) Saratoga Ave at Saratoga Glen PI. Install sign and chatter bars Misc. (audible signals) Citywide Traffic Engineer plan Misc. (Blocked intersection) Oak at Lomita Install "Keep Clear” pavement legend Misc. (keep cars in lane) Montalvo Install Bott dots Misc. (Turn pocket) Sara Sunnyvale at Kirkmont No action Misc. (Turn pocket) Ranfre Install turn pocket Sign (Children at Play) Manor Drive No action Sign (No Trucks) El Quito North Install No Truck" signs Sight Distance Crisp and Fruitvale Trim landscaping Speeding Allendale Install knockdown sign Speeding Brookglen Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Komina Speed bump Speeding Purdue Striping plan Speeding Herriman Traffic Engineer plan Speeding 6th Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Martha Striping plan Speeding Glen Brae Median choker Speeding Pierce at Foothill No action Speeding Pierce at Surry No action Speeding Pierce at Pike No action Speeding Austin Way Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Oak Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Fredericksburg Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Farwell Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Stop sign BBW 4th St. No action Stop sign Marilyn at Ravenwood Install Stop sign Traffic light Herriman at Saratoga Ave. No action 2007 �,_e_h Ego `G���._� °s 33• °3 Request or Concern Street Action Red curbs Saratoga at Sarapark Circle Paint red curb Red curbs Montalvo No action Red curbs Big Basin Way No action Red curbs BBW at 5th Paint red curb Red curbs Saratoga Ave Paint red curb Red curbs Douglass Paint red curb Sign (Hidden Driveway) Pierce Install "Hidden driveway" sign Speeding Aloha Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Aspesi Install median island Speeding Ravenwood Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Montalvo Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Portos at Harleigh Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Request or Concern Street Action Speeding Regan Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Brookglen Install 2 median chokers Speeding Allendale Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Sobey Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Braemar Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Cox Avenue Install knockdown sign Stop sign Farr Ranch at Burnette No action Stop sign Quito at McCoy Traffic Eng. plan pedestrian refuge median Stop sign Winter and Chateau Install 2 Yield signs Stop sign Tamworth Install Stop sign Stop sign Hill Avenue Install Stop sign Stop sign DeSanka at Knollwood No action 2008x, n a s� Request or Concern Street Action Crosswalk Improvements Hwy 9 at P.O. Repaint crosswalk Crosswalk Improvements Cox Avenue at Quito Mkt. Traffic Engineer plan Crosswalk Improvements Allendale at Dolphin No action Misc, (Median on Hwy 9) Oak PI and Oak Street Traffic Engineer plan for striping Red curb Knollwood and DeSanka Extend existing red curb 10 feet Red curb Kirkmont at Atruim Paint red curbs Red curb Marshall Lane Paint red curbs Red curb Stoneridge Drive Paint red curbs Red curb Saratoga Hills Road No action Sign (Cross traffic does not stop) Cumberland at Via Escuela Install "2 way stop" on Cumberland Speeding Via Roncole, Arroyo de Arguello Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Hill Avenue Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Williams Road Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Canyonview Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Reid Lane Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Stop sign Chateau at Shadow Mt. Install Stop sign Stop sign Ravine at Bainter Restriping plan g 2009 aYEtt.,' n..... �s, .._n� E.NaeIG- _rivea•; Request or Concern Street Action Red curb Bankmill at Stoneridge Paint curb double yellow near intersection Remove No Right Turn sign Saratoga at McFarland No action Request Crosswalk Kirkbrook Paint one crosswalk at Kirkmont Request Hidden Driveway sign Springer Install sign Request knockdown sign Cox Add crosswalk sign at Glenbrae Seagull Review CIP project Aspesi Move forward with median project Review CIP project Cox Avenue Waiting for neighborhood input Speeding Reid Lane Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Speeding Herriman Wait until Herriman TF process complete Speeding Seagull No action Speeding Springer No action Speeding Braemar Use radar trailer and directed enforcement Increase visibility of center line Chester Add additional reflectors on yellow line o.ifbr 000 9 PM Overwhelming public response could delay Cupertino cement plant's permit process San... Page 1 of 2 S an Jose Valley Your news. your views, your life Powered by The Meo ury News HOME NEWS BUSINESS TECH SPORTS Most Viewed Most E- Mailed (Flom the last 12 hours) 1. Corvette driver dies in accident involving Porsche 2. Jaycee Dugard kidnapping: Phillip Garrido apparently avoided sex... 3. Man who went missing in Campbell finally settles into care center 4. Internal Affairs: Santa Clara County DA's race shaping up as one... 5. Reno casino hits geothermal jackpot underground 6. No threat found on delayed United flight at LAX Top Classifieds fier0LA. iloes rr a POS LARGE 40D Patio Home with PA... an for Details OFFICE Trailer, 10x32'. aide for Details VIEW FOREVER! Angels aid, for Details KLAMATH Falls 0... Click for Detail VIEW FOREVER! Angels Ca... CEdc for Derails WILLOW Glen n... Click for Detail MERCED 1474c oid: for Detail SOUTH /SAN JOSE Via Del' Oro. A... oidi for Detail ALL LISTINGS ENTERTAINMENT BAY AREA UVING OPINION MY TOWN HELP JOBS CARS REAL ESTATE CLASSIFIED SHOPPING PLACE AD j %e Site C- Web Search by YAHOO! Overwhelming public response could delay Cupertino cement plant's permit process By Matt Wilson Cupertino Courier Posted: 09/28/2009 02:15:06 PM PDT Updated 09 /28/2009 02:18:55 PM PDT The Bay Area Air Quality Management District could delay until December a decision about whether Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant should have its permit renewed. The possible delay would be a response to an overwhelming community response to the renewal. At a meeting earlier this month, dozens of Cupertino residents stepped up to the microphone to vent their frustration with having the plant as a neighbor and asked that the plant not have its Title V permit renewed. The district had planned to decide whether to renew the permit by the end of October, but might delay that until December so it has time to consider all public comments. The Title V Permit is a compilation of all existing air quality requirements including emissions limits and standards, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements and is required for the plant to continue operations at the site. Permit renewal is required every five years. Complaints about the plant centered around dust, noise, odors, limestone dust on cars and fears about the potential long -term health issues for living close to the facility. Some residents pleaded with air district staff to consider postponing the permit until new studies about the potentially harmful affects of some pollutants are more clearly studied. A few residents who live near the facility argued that they were better judges of facility compliance than state and country regulators. "I was awakened twice this summer by a noxious odor in the wee hours of the moming," said Ruth Zabor, who lives one mile from the facility. "I really think it has to Advertisement be closed down." Sign In 1 Register 1 Newsletters Subscribe 1 e- Edtion [Home Delivery 1 Motile 1 Mobile Alerts 1 RSS Reprint O_ Boa INFIRK d! 'i0 r; 'M- Print 3 Email 1:113te. Font Resbe A few residents, and some in the health profession, brought slideshow presentations of lime dust in their neighborhood and photographs of what they consider to be too much pollution coming from the facility. "It's very encouraging to see a broader perspective of people at these meetings," said resident Lyn Faust, who lives about a half -mile from Lehigh. "I think it makes a very big impact. I hope the [air district] takes into account the size of the audience and puts the permit on hold until we get all the answers." If a renewal is granted, it will be sent to the Environmental Protection Agency and issued sometime in the fall or before the new year, according to air district staff. Lehigh has no ongoing violations or pattems of recurrent violations, district officials said. Advert) semen mhtml•file: /C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator \Local Settings \Temporary Internet 9/28/2009 Overwhelming public response could delay Cupertino cement plant's permit process San... Page 2 of 2 The former Hanson Permanente Cement plant is in unincorporated Santa Clara County just beyond the westem border of Cupertino. Mining on the site dates back to the 1880s and the cement plant has been operating since 1939. Nearby Stevens Creek Elementary School frequently has its air monitored. As of Sept. 3, there were three samples taken which did not detect the pollutant hexavalent chromium. A very small amount was detected in the fourth through seventh samples. The district said these levels do not pose significant health risks. The EPA and the air district will continue monitoring in September. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is the regional govemment agency that regulates stationary sources of air pollution in nine counties in the Bay Area. Approximately 100 facilities in the Bay Area require Title V permits. For more information go to http: //www.baagmd.gov Comments We are pleased to let readers post comments about an article. Please increase the credibility of your post by Including your full name and city in the body of your comment FAO: Article commenting how4os and tips Recent Comments Post Your Comment Reprint O 13000101215_ hr Print O Email r r. Font Rester Retum to Top Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage Copyright 2009 San Jose Mercury News Help /Contact 1 Site Map I Advertise 1 Home Delivery 1 Copyright 1 Privacy Policy and Terns of Use 1 About MedinNews Group 1 RSS 1 Ethics Policy [About Bay Area News Group I I® MY 0...mot1 mhtml•file: /C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings \Temporary Internet 9/28/2009 QuarryNo! www.quarryno.com Thu Bui Bay Area Air Quality Management District 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Dear Ms. Bui, September 29, 2009 QuarryNo, a community of Santa Clara County residents, hereby submits its comments regarding the proposed renewal of Lehigh Southwest Cement Company's (hereinafter "LSCC Title V Permit to operate its facility located at 24001 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino CA, 95014, for the next 5 years. We find dust on the ground, we understandably fear Mercury and Chromium in the air and we lack confidence in the clearly outdated Health Risk Assessment (hereinafter "H.R.A. the BAAQMD has used to justify its approval. We look to the BAAQMD to "protect and improve public health, air quality, and the global climate as called out in its mission statement. In particular, we look to Jack Broadbent, as Chief Executive Officer and Air Pollution Control Officer, to weigh these comments in considering the proposed renewal of LSCCs 5 Year Permit. We appreciate the BAAQMD time spent in reviewing our following comments. A Clear Nuisance: LSCCs Incessant Airborne Limestone Emissions. Throughout the BAAQMD Statement for Basis of Renewal, it proffers that the Cement Plant complies with existing regulations and in particular Regulation 6- 305, which mandates that no visible particulates fall on adjacent property in such quantities as to be a nuisance. Without question, this representation is untrue. From August 11 through September 1, 2009, we observed and recorded numerous pictures of highly visible particulate emissions corning from LSCCs Cement Plant. A sampling of these pictures are attached and identified below as Pictures 1 -17. The particulate emissions occurred on a daily basis, generally in the 1 afternoon, and settled on the ground as thick dust that blanketed cars, patios, skylights and residents. Notwithstanding the documented emissions, according to the BAAQMD Statement of Basis for Renewa /there were supposedly only 4 such emissions at LSCC in all of 2009. We believe these pictures to be "credible evidence" that Regulation 6 -305 is violated daily. As you can see, the "dust" falling from the sky is literally everywhere as demonstrated further in photographs attached and identified below as Pictures 18 -25. Since this dust contains limestone its presence constitutes far more than simply a visible nuisance, as it cannot be removed with a water spray alone, but requires an acidic wash to remove it. Yet, an acidic wash voids the exterior warranty on any automobile. Repainting a car costs a minimum of $2,000.00, and based on the impacted locations, as reported by numerous residents, we believe approximately 9,000 cars have been adversely affected by LSCCs "dust This quantifiable impact on residents is in excess of $18,000,000.00, and not counting damage to skylights, air filters, etc. LSCC's emissions are well beyond the nuisance level and require prompt corrective action. Pictures 1 -25 also directly contradict the annual compliance statement by LSCC's Compliance Officer that there are no such emissions. The photos clearly demonstrate dust levels in residential areas at such a high level of visibility as to be undeniably noticeable. Despite this proverbial elephant sitting on neighborhood cars, patios, skylights and residents, we are led to the incredible conclusion that no one from LSCC or the BAAQMD, with its 10PM particulate monitoring station, has detected the dust. Calls to complain have.been ineffective as the Inspector must be notified prior to 3:OOPM, while shortly thereafter the emissions, generally, begin. As a consequence, discouraged residents have simply given up calling, which has resulted in the acknowledging only 4 reported violations, although LSCCs emissions occur almost daily. This present situation is profoundly disturbing as it allows BAAQMb's Statement of Basis for Renewal to be based upon the obviously incorrect assumption of no violations" and relied upon by the EPA and the BAAQMD to justify less regulation, when ,just the opposite is the case. For example, on page 44 of the Statement of Basis for Renewal, it states the "District has determined the operation is not out of compliance and hence no Title V permit compliance schedule is required On page 49, it states further that the "annual source test 2 requirement is adequate because previous source tests have consistently demonstrated compliance Yet, this has been proven untrue time and again. It should not be up to residents alone to monitor the particulate emanating from LSCC. In considering the numerous discrepancies between what has been reported by LSCC and what the residents have observed, there should be daily checks at random hours by the BAAQMD to ensure compliance and protect the health of the community. Inadequate And Unreliable Air Quality Testing And Monitoring At LSCC. For purposes of clarity, Title V calls for a re- examination of all monitoring and compliance, however, this has not been done at the LSCC due to the erroneous assumption of no violations at LSCC. The only, ongoing, source monitoring at LSCC has been for NOX and SOX'emissions. There has been no source monitoring for other known Toxic Air Contaminants (hereinafter "TACS Though the annual "source tests" suggests so, the words are misleading as they are not based upon fact but rather modeling. The "source tests" apparently involve only third -party input- output analysis which attempts to predict what LSCCs emissions, theoretically, may contain. In essence, predictive models are constructed using a compilation of data including, but not limited to, average values, average temperatures, and best practices rather than actual source measurements. Such modeling appears to be the only TACS monitoring conducted by LSCC and the BAAQMD over the last 10 years. Unfortunately, this flawed and obviously incomplete level of monitoring is allowed to continue with the new permit, even though Title V calls for a re- examination of all such monitoring. We believe that this real problem must be addressed with real data, not simply hypothetical modeling. We also believe a re- examination would reveal the inadequacy of prior "source test" monitoring at LSCC, as LSCC as been let off the hook for years. In 2001, the "source test" conducted by a contractor picked by LSCC set the average Hexavalent Chromium emission at 0.457 lbs. per year. LSCC "supposedly met this limit for Hexavalent Chromium emissions from 2002 to 2007, when a new "source test "was conducted. This test, disturbingly, suggested the emissions were much higher and LSCC officially then reported the Hexavavalent Chromium emissions had been understated for 7 years. The actual emissions are unknown as there were no actual measurements made apparently. The number was determined by modeling 3 with variable assumptions such as coke or coal for fuel and whether the mill was on or off. In the absence of a real number the LSCC and the BAAQMD agreed to a doubling of Hexavalent Chromium emissions (1.059 lbs. per year). This number was very convenient as it, on paper, allowed all to say that there were no health risks. Instead of garnering additional scrutiny, the prior lower number was categorized as a "miscalculation" and LSCC's new permit has been adjusted to double the amount of Hexavalent Chromium it is allowed to emit. This very significant adjustment occurred even though Hexavalent Chromium is a deadly carcinogenic. We believe any permitted increase, much less a doubling, must be thoroughly analyzed and carefully considered prior to any issuance. The inadequacy of "source tests" was further illustrated when the same miscalculation occurred with Beryllium and Lead and lasted also for 7 years before being revealed. According to LSCC, it contends that it never exceeded or violated the lower Hexavalent Chromium level between 2002 2009. Yet, there have been no public announcements or recordings by LSCC of its Hexavalent Chromium emissions beyond the 0.457 lb limit until now with the official statement they had been understated. According to the BAAQMD, LSCC has allegedly been in full compliance with a "low likelihood" of committing a violation despite the official recognition of understatement. The understatement was not defined as a violation but as a miscalculation by a vendor. However it does require doubling the amount of Hexavalent Chromium allowed to be emitted while at the same time saying there were no violations but on the other hand whatever was emitted was understated. Since there were no actual measurements no one apparently knows what level of Hexavalent Chromium fell on the residents. Simply put, since there were no violations LSCC has demonstrated the ability to meet the current permit level of 0.457 Ibs.per year. Consequently we believe there should be no increase in allowable Hexavalent Chromium emissions included in the new Permit. We also find the absence of meaningful monitoring of LSCC, and substantial deferral to LSCC by the BAAQMD, quite troubling. LSCC has been allowed to propose its own predictive Toxic emission levels, which the BAAQMD appears to readily accept after checking the data provided, but without any real monitoring to independently validate or confirm any of the data LSCC chooses to provide. It appears that every few years LSCC hires a third -party to revalidate its emissions levels which the BAAQMD reviews, and readily approves, without further inquiry. The obvious problem with this methodology is that LSCC appears to remain in 4 compliance, the BAAQMD is credited for "monitoring" and, if there is a violation, it really is only a miscalculation by a third party. It is instructive to compare BAAQMD's seemingly "hands off" approach regarding its monitoring of LSCC's Hexavalent Chromium emissions with that of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (hereinafter "SCAQM Proactively, SCAQM mounted an independent study of air toxins and installed monitoring stations throughout its District. These stations went beyond predictive modeling studies and were designed and specifically implemented to provide SCAQM with real data. As detailed on its website, SCAQM's testing detected elevated levels of Chromium 6 in the air and traced it to a cement plant almost 3 miles away. (SCAQMD Website). In unfortunate contrast, and in the same time period, BAAQMD did nothing until it was ordered by the EPA in March 2009; to test for and measure the presence of Hexavalent Chromium at the Stevens Creek Grade School. Here, the school is located just 2 ominous miles from LSCC In what appears to be an effort to avert community scrutiny, the BAAQMD Statement of Basis for Renewal, continually recites Regulation 2 -1 -412. The Regulation allows LSCC to not have to alert residents because its cement plant is located more than 1,000 feet from a public school. It appears that whenever an air quality threat appears at LSCC, the BAAQMD seeks the path of least resistance, though that has led to additional emissions. Apparently with Mercury that path of least resistance is to issue the LSCC TitleV Permit as soon as possible before the new EPA Mercury restrictions (40CFR parts 60 63) become effective. The EPA has concluded that the risks for Mercury emissions from Cement Plants are far higher than originally expected. The LSCC Cement Plant and Quarry has been one of the worse cement kilns for Mercury pollution in the country (EPA Toxic Release Inventory). According to LSCC the new regulations will require major changes and even then emissions may not be acceptable (Mercury Register, June 25,2009). Only now is the debilitating nature of Mercury poisoning becoming known. We understand that studies are ongoing linking Cement Plants directly with Autism cases in Texas. We sincerely hope that before the BAAQMD decides to renew LSCCs permit that it exercises regulatory prudence and fulfills its charge to be at the forefront of air quality improvement and act to ensure that all Bay Area residents enjoy their right to breathe clean air. 5 LSCC's Application For Renewal Of Its Permit Is Based Upon An Unreliable, Outdated And An Incomplete Health Risk Assessment. We are not dealing with theoretical calculations, unknown substances and unrecorded violations common in 19 Century industrializing nations. Here, the underlying issues deal with the health of a large community and its exposure to known carcinogens. Notably, the Health Risk Assessment incorporated into the BAAQMb Statement of Basis for Renewal is almost a year old and, while stating concerns, declares that LSCC meets health protective risk standards. The concern stated is that they are still awaiting a Toxic Emissions Report even though the BAAQMb Fact Sheet june 24, 2009 says it was received March 30, 2009 prior to the release of the Statement of Basis for Renewal again raising question as to the accuracy and completeness of the H.R.A. Furthermore, on Page 3 of the Fact Sheet, it states risk levels are rising which suggests the H.R.A. is no longer reliable. We are also dismayed that while the BAAQMb Health Risk Assessment is almost a year old, it is based on even older emission data from 2007, which, again, are only estimates and not actual measurements of LSCC's substantial emissions. These "estimates" are then combined along with additional assumptions to construct a model which supposedly predicts the impact on the local "receptor or more commonly known as the resident. Surprisingly, the prediction is that no adverse health effects are expected to occur even for sensitive members of the population like children and the elderly. The Health Risk Assessment ominously concludes with an admonition that an updated Health Risk Assessment may be necessary. We believe an updated Health Risk Assessment is not only necessary but should be mandatory prior to the renewal of LSCC's Permit. In considering all the inadequacies discussed herein, it is very difficult for the community to have faith in the current Health Risk Assessment assurance that "all is well given the dependence solely on LSCC data, the numerous documented emission limit errors since 2001, the absence of any direct monitoring of LSCCs emissions, the substantial evidence of dangerous Chromium and Mercury emissions at other cement plants, and the apparent willingness of the BAAQMD to go along with it all. Consequently, we do not believe a new 5 year permit, allowing LSCC to continue down this harmful path, should be issued at this time 6 Again, the mission of the BAAQMb is to protect our health. Based upon what has transpired at LSCC we do not believe that the BAAQMb is fulfilling its duty. However, there is still time to reverse what has been allowed to take place at LSCC for far too long. We thank you for taking the time to consider the contents of this letter and hope that our comments and concerns are taken under consideration prior to the renewal of LSCCs permit. Bill Almon, on behalf of the Members of QuarryNo. 7