The Santa Clara County Planning Commission on Jan. 17 voted unanimously to accept the annual status report from Lehigh Southwest Cement Company on compliance with the 2012 reclamation plan and related monitoring obligations.

The report, presented orally by Rob Salisbury, the county’s SMARA principal planner, said the quarry has been “more or less mothballed” and that Lehigh continues to process and sell small volumes of aggregate from existing stockpiles while meeting required water-quality monitoring and training. Salisbury told commissioners the county holds a reclamation bond “that totals approximately 77,000,000” to cover reclamation should the operator be unable to do so.

The central policy question before the commission is a reclamation plan amendment Lehigh applied for in 2023 and that staff expects to deem complete following a December resubmittal. Salisbury said deeming the amendment complete will allow the county to start the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. He said the proposed plan differs significantly from a 2019 version Lehigh previously withdrew because the new submittal does not propose new mining areas and instead focuses on reclaiming the existing quarry.

A major element of the proposed amendment is Lehigh’s plan to import approximately 30,000,000 cubic yards of “clean fill” to backfill the main pit rather than use on-site material. Salisbury said the company expects to receive and place the material over multiple decades and described the overall timeline variously: he indicated the company had estimated “approximately 40 years” to reclaim the site and later outlined a phased schedule in which reclamation of areas outside the main pit would occur in about 10 years, import of fill would take about 30 years, and the final 10 years would be devoted to contouring and revegetation after filling the main pit.

Commissioners questioned the traffic and public-safety implications of the import plan. Salisbury estimated the backfill program would require about 600 truck trips per day, five days a week, over the import period. When Commissioner Levy asked whether the plan would allow portions of the property to be usable earlier, Salisbury replied it would be phased, with outlying areas reclaimed sooner and the main pit last.

Commissioners also asked why Lehigh proposes importing clean fill instead of using on-site overburden. Salisbury said state regulators have designated much of the on-site material as mining waste and that placing that material below the water table could create ongoing water-quality monitoring obligations; he said that concern—and Lehigh’s desire to avoid potentially lifelong water-quality liability—appears to be a primary factor. “I think Lehigh sees a way to turn a liability into an asset and also generate some revenue,” Salisbury said.

Salisbury updated the commission on two restoration projects tied to the reclamation plan and other enforcement matters. One is the Permanente Creek restoration project, a restoration described in the 2012 reclamation plan EIR and in a settlement agreement between Lehigh and the Sierra Club; county staff certified that EIR last year and issued grading approval, and Lehigh has applied for grading and other jurisdictional permits for creek restoration work outside the reclamation-plan boundary. Separately, Lehigh applied for grading approval for another restoration area funded in part from monies the company would otherwise have paid following a regional water quality control board violation after an accidental release of potable water: Salisbury said some of that enforcement money will be directed to a restoration project for a northeasterly portion of the facility and that the county expects an addendum to a prior EIR for that work.

A member of the public, Rhoda Frey, spoke during the meeting and urged the commission to act more quickly to protect viewsheds and safety downstream. Frey said a 1970 viewshed easement sets minimum elevations for quarry walls and that nearby residents have lost 50–75 feet of visual buffer; she also referenced historic flooding downstream and prior spills into creek channels. “I’m begging you to please protect our viewshed,” Frey said.

After commissioners’ questions and the public comment, Vice Chairperson Rausser moved and Commissioner Cohen seconded a motion to accept the annual status report; the clerk recorded a unanimous vote. The motion carries; staff will proceed with next steps tied to the reclamation amendment completeness determination and subsequent CEQA review.

The county’s review will include further analysis of importing fill, traffic impacts from truck hauls, water-quality safeguards, and the proposed Permanente Creek restoration work; the commission did not approve the reclamation plan amendment itself at the Jan. 17 meeting and will act again only after the CEQA process and any additional hearings.