.
Feedback

Despite Objections, Lehigh Plan Amendment Moving Quickly

Selenium pollution, air pollution and dust were concerns raised by the public at a Santa Clara County Planning Department workshop that served as a warm-up to a public hearing on a draft EIR on Feb. 2.

A Lehigh Southwest Cement reclamation plan amendment is proceeding at a fast clip, but that’s not slowing down quarry neighbors and activist groups that are continuing to question the environmental impacts of the cement plant and quarry, as was evident at a public workshop Thursday night.

Currently on the table is a . The Santa Clara County Planning Department held the workshop to educate residents on how to use the nearly 600-page report and make comments.

The workshop came just one week before the county Planning Commission conducts a public hearing, at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 2, at the county headquarters, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose. Planners encouraged residents to attend the meeting to voice oral comments, or submit written comments by Feb. 21.

County planners told the crowd of about 35 people in the Quinlan Community Center in Cupertino that they expect the EIR to be certified and the reclamation plan to be voted on by the Planning Commission as early as March 22.

The three-phase amendment to a reclamation plan approved by the county in 1985 details how the mining and cement company will reclaim 1,238 acres of land used for mining since the early 1930s over the next 20 years. The EIR details the environmental consequences resulting from reclamation activities.

Despite not being a meeting to capture official complaints and questions about the draft EIR, residents voiced complaints on Thursday that ranged from selenium pollution of Permanente Creek, to air pollution and dust from the quarry, cement kiln, and thousands of trucks that come and go annually.

Selenium Concerns

Selenium pollution was a major topic at the workshop, and in fact, planners said the county put into the draft EIR that the impact of selenium, as well as other negative impacts on the creek, must be addressed immediately upon the plan’s approval. 

Specifically, the report calls for removal of large limestone boulders from Permanente Creek on Lehigh property above  because they could be adding to the discharge of selenium into the creek. In elevated levels selenium can harm fish, birds and other wildlife, and in high levels it can pose a risk to human life.

In December under the Clean Water Act for elevated levels of selenium and other toxins flowing in Permanente Creek from the quarry to San Francisco Bay.

In Phase III of the reclamation process, possibly between the years 2026 to 2030, planners said the company would have to completely entomb the current 265-acre pit to prevent further selenium runoff. The reclamation plan calls for backfilling the pit using overburdened material from the West Materials Storage Area, which faces Los Altos Hills.

Future Quarry Pit Exploration

Plans for a , however, are not in this reclamation plan. However, county planners said Thursday that exploration and testing of the land on the southern side of Permanente Creek for a new pit was expected to exceed reclamation plan standards. That discovery led to a recommendation that exploration activities be included in the plan.

Expedited Process

While the wheels of bureaucracy in most cases appear to turn slowly, this time the process is moving faster, Principal Planner Rob Eastwood confirmed Thursday night. He told Patch that Lehigh agreed with the state Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) to expedite the reclamation plan process.

In 2011 the OMR contended that both Lehigh and the county were taking too long to approve a reclamation plan amendment, . , which includes the OMR, claiming the decision was unfair. The case is pending, according to Santa Clara County Court records.

Eastwood added that previous work done by the county when Lehigh officials sought an earlier reclamation plan last year was collapsed into the current plan, simplifying the process.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Los Altos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Michael Uhler May 25, 2013 at 10:48 am
These are the special education numbers for LASD and BCS for the 2011-2012 school year, the mostRead More recent year that has complete data: LASD had 462 special education students in a total enrollment of 4,486, or 10.3%. Total education expense was $7,319,175, or $15,842 per special education student. Of this expense, they received $3,549,684 from the SELPA, so their expense was about twice the amount they received. BCS had 29 special education students in a total enrollment of 465, or 6.2%. Total education expense was $221,149, or $7,626 per special education student. Of this expense, they were allocated $295,126 from the SELPA, so their expense was completely paid for by the amount they received (they did not keep the excess - it was returned to the SELPA). Sources: CDE DataQuest, SCCOE, LASD
Joan J. Strong May 22, 2013 at 11:21 am
Corrections: 1. Straw man attack: nobody is blaming BCS for district-wide growth. Nobody. 2. BCSRead More does not get "half the funding" of LASD. BCS gets about 6500 and LASD gets about 9500. The BCS program for typical children costs about twice as much as the comparable LASD program. BCS is simple an expensive hybrid public/private school, nothing more. 3. Mr. Roode pointed out that there are about 100 or so special ed. students at LASD (I cannot verify this but it seems very low). LASD calls out an annual expense of $7.5 million for special ed. meaning each of these students cost LASD $75,000, not $1,000 as he implied. 4. The law and the courts have ALREADY compelled LASD to give reasonably equivalent facilities and they have. BCS has a lower student/teacher ratio meaning that they have more classrooms for the same number of kids. This is not, legally speaking, LASD's problem. 5. Mr. Roode has yet to explain how the Covington campus could be 16 acres. Further, he continues to spread the fallacy that campuses ACREAGE is even remotely relevant to its student capacity. Campuses are limited by their location and traffic, not how many acres of grass there is in the back. 6. Were it not for BCS, we would have passed a bond in the last election, as the polling shows. BCS litigation has ripped our community apart and has left it with a mountain to climb when it comes to operating in a normal fashion.
L.A. Chung (Editor) May 22, 2013 at 10:37 am
@David R. I think Homestead uses EarthCare Recycling, based on its April 6 E-Waste collection dayRead More publicity (http://bit.ly/10mIV14) : www.earthcarerecycling.com "Recycle FREE your old electronic equipment - working or not! Anything with a plug or PC board inside. Also accepted are non-household batteries, VHS tapes and other media, and scrap metal. Visit www.earthcarerecycling.com for a list of accepted items. "
David R. May 21, 2013 at 10:26 pm
What kind of bins are there? Do you take used CDROMs? How about VHS tapes? Cables and wire?
David R. May 20, 2013 at 01:18 pm
I saw a public report that said most of the discussion related to carpooling and so forth, sinceRead More Blach is separated so much from the rest of the school. You know, things like dropping off both kids at Egan, and then a group of kids headed for Blach share a ride or vice versa. I don't see how any nonparents can really help with that.