HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 02-03-2026 Oral CommunicationsCC 2-03-2026
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From:Rhoda Fry
To:Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:February 3 City Council Meeting, non-agenda oral comms, Lehigh and Stevens Creek Quarries
Date:Saturday, January 31, 2026 12:49:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
Lehigh and Stevens Creek Quarries
PUBLIC NUISSANCE
I am asking that the City of Cupertino take some action pertaining to the public nuisance of
truck traffic in the middle of the night affecting our residents (I am not personally affected). A
couple of months ago, I spoke with our District 5 County Supervisor Abe-Koga who said that
they’re monitoring the issue. On Thursday, January 29, two Cupertino residents addressed the
County Planning Commission with their concerns, which were dismissed without empathy.
They said that the operation is “vested” and there’s nothing that you can do. But I believe
there is.
Being “vested” means that the operation is exempt from modern zoning rules that would
otherwise dictate hours of operation. It is like being “grandfathered in.” I believe that the new
aggregate business is not vested because: 1. It was abandoned for over 10 years. 2. The old
equipment was removed and later replaced with other equipment. 3. Lehigh exported rock to
Stevens Creek for aggregate processing, further confirming its abandonment of aggregate
processing. Aside from the question as to whether the operation is vested, there is the separate
issue of public nuisance. Please protect our residents!
ANTICIPATED FUTURE TRUCK TRAFFIC FROM LEHIGH’S PERMANENTE
QUARRY
Separately, I am concerned about the amount of rock that is being exported. Consider that
every truck of exported rock means more imported rock during reclamation, which is now
expected to take up to 30 years with 600 trucks a day of trucks, when instead, the quarry
should be using available materials onsite for reclamation per the 2012 Reclamation Plan.
STEVENS CREEK QUARRY WISHING TO ANNEX CUPERTINO LAND INTO
COUNTY
Regarding Stevens Creek Quarry. At the January 29 Planning Commission meeting, we
learned that Stevens Creek Quarry is wanting to have land that is in jurisdictional Cupertino,
to be annexed to the County and that LAFCO would be involved. Is our City Council aware
of this? I am still awaiting to get information back from the County on this issue.
Quarry intends to include in its reclamation plan. Two of them are in jurisdictional Cupertino
and are referred to as “The Licensed Area” in the County’s “Notice of Preparation.” Here are
the APNs for land in Cupertino’s jurisdiction, owned by Lehigh, that Stevens Creek Quarry
wishes to include in its reclamation plan area: 351-10-017 (40 acres) and 351-10-039 (35.5
acres). Looking at the proposed reclamation plan area, it appears that only a portion of these
parcels would be affected. My recommendation is that if the City is considering giving up its
jurisdiction, that the lots be split so that only the area outlined in the reclamation area goes to
the County.
One 4.4-acre Cupertino parcel is owned by Stevens Creek Quarry 351-10-040 and, its use has
been adjudicated by the County under SMARA since an August 2008 agreement (I don’t
know whether it is being considered for annexation to the county).
ANTICIPATED FUTURE TRUCK TRAFFIC FROM STEVENS CREEK QUARRY
Finally, I’d like you to be aware that the Stevens Creek Quarry is intending to import either
11.7M cubic yards of fill or 20.5M cubic yards of fill AND intends the dig the quarry deeper
than is currently allowed. The reason for needing fill for reclamation is to stabilize the over-
mined quarry walls. You can find more information pertaining to the proposed plans from a
variety of linked documents here: https://plandev.santaclaracounty.gov/programs-and-
studies/smara/stevens-creek-quarry
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
From:Anne Ezzat
To:Public Comments
Subject:Fwd: Item #2 on the Agenda for January 27, 2026
Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:56:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Anne Ezzat <aezzat95014@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 5:13 AM
Subject: Item #2 on the Agenda for January 27, 2026
To: <planningcommission@cupertino.gov>
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing in hopes that you will reject the proposed terracing of the yard that abuts the
preserve at McClellan Ranch. There are simply too many issues with the proposal.
1) The property borders one of the few open spaces in the city. This project could be
damaging to the wildlife and is not appropriate for a riparian area. What sort of environmental
study was done to justify this project?
2) Where will the construction equipment and material be staged? Will it be staged at the top
of the property to annoy the neighbors? Or will it be placed on city property at the bottom of
the hill to annoy residents walking through McClellan Ranch and potentially damage
the environment? If the latter, the city should charge rent for the use of their property.
3) The removal of the oaks is particularly problematic because again, older trees will be
removed for a construction project. There is no reason to believe that based on the plans, there
will be room to replace them. So, they will just pay "in lieu" of fees.
4) The current owners of the property were aware of the limitations of the property when
they purchased it. It is my understanding that they have lived in the property, so they have had
adequate time to decide to live with the limitations or list it for sale. Modifications to any
property should not be done with solely the needs of the owners in mind unless it is a safety
issue; in this case, the neighbors and public need to be considered.
For the above reasons and more, I hope that you will reject this proposal.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat