Question has been raised on the Creston Yahoo Group site:
What is the Status of
Possible Annexation of Creston into Cupertino, or into Los Altos?

some background gathered by Jack Truher 2010-10-29

search google: ("los altos" council creston annexation}

Jun 27, 2006

[PDF] TUESDAY, MEETING DATE - City of Los Altos File Jun 27, 2006 ... Council briefly discussed a request from the Creston Improvement Association to annex the. Creston Area into the City of Los Altos, ...

18. Creston Area

Councilmember Carpenter introduced the item.

The following residents of the Creston area spoke: Pat Musachia Ishmael Perez Frank Deppong

Council briefly discussed a request from the Creston Improvement Association to annex the Creston Area into the City of Los Altos, and possible impacts to the City, noting that the area is currently in the City of Cupertino's Sphere of Influence, as defined by the Local Area Formation Committee (LAFCO.)

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CASAS, to direct staff to review the impacts of annexing the Creston area into the City of Los Altos. The motion carried 4-1, with Mayor Pro Tem Cole dissenting.


SEPTEMBER 12, 2006



PRESENT: Mayor Packard, Councilmembers Carpenter, Cole, Casas, and Colehower


14. Creston Neighborhood Annexation

Community Development Director Walgren presented the staff recommendation to not annex the area based on three points: 1) not in the City of Los Altos,Aeo sphere of influence, 2) geographically not a part of Los Altos, and 3) negative impact on budget as the impact to city services would require staffing increases. He advised the Council of the steps that would have to be taken by the City of Cupertino, THE Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the City of Los Altos to effect an annexation.

The following Creston area residents spoke: Pat Musachia Frank Deppeng Srinivas Bharadwaj Easy Perez

Council lauded the Creston residents for their efforts and agreed that there is no compelling reason to annex the area. One Councilmember would like to explore annexing the area.

MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM COLE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER COLEHOWER, to accept the memorandum as an informational item only and do not direct staff to pursue annexation of this City of Cupertino unincorporated pocket. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1, with Councilmember Carpenter dissenting.


filename is _gp02_landuse An undated Cupertino PDF long-term planning document, probably in 2007

Urban Service Area The City must focus its resources and energies on places where its residents already live, work, shop and play. The City desires to grow for the next 20 years within its existing urban service area. The City's long-term growth boundary defines the area where the City intends to expand its services over the next 20 to 30 years. Thus the current urban service area boundary is coterminous with the City's long-term growth boundary. This does not preclude opportunities for the City to adjust its boundaries with adjacent cities where it is desirable to create logical com- munity form. For the year 2020 timeframe, the amount of land in Cupertino will remain essentially the same except for additions resulting from the annexation of small, unin- corporated islands and potential boundary realignments with abutting cities in valley floor locations. Policy 2-12:Annexation of Small, Unincorporated Islands Actively pursue the annexation of unincorporated properties within the City's urban service area, including the Creston neighborhoods, which will be annexed on a parcel-by-parcel basis with new development. Other remaining small, unincorporated islands will be annexed as determined by the City Council.


BOS Agenda Date : November 13, 2007 Agenda Item No. 47

County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development Development Services Office PLN01 111307 .

Prepared by:. Steve Homan Senior Management Analyst - Coordinator, Clean Water Program Reviewed by:. Tom Whisler Development Services Manager

DATE: November 13, 2007 TO: Board of Supervisors

FROM: Valentin Alexeeff Director, Department of Planning and Development

SUBJECT: Consider vacating light and air easements on portions of Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 326-11-014, located at 10613 Baxter Avenue, Los Altos, and APN 326-11-012, located at 10645 Baxter Avenue, Los Altos

RECOMMENDED ACTION Hearing to consider vacating light and air easements on portions of Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 326-11-014, located at 10613 Baxter Avenue, Los Altos, and APN 326-11-012, located at 10645 Baxter Avenue, Los Altos. Possible action:

a. Open public hearing and receive testimony regarding light and air easement located at 10613 Baxter Avenue.

b. Receive testimony regarding light and air easement located at 10645 Baxter Avenue.

c. Close public hearing.

d. Adopt Resolution vacating light and air easement on a portion of APN 326-11-014, located at 10613 Baxter Avenue, Los Altos, property of Jok Tong Yiu and Simon Yiu. (Roll Call Vote)

e. Adopt Resolution vacating light and air easement on a portion of APN 326-11-012, located at 10645 Baxter Avenue, Los Altos, property of Alfred Lau and Winnie Yiu. (Roll Call Vote) FISCAL IMPLICATIONS There are no fiscal implications to the General Fund resulting from the proposed


1) The applications for vacation of two Light and Air Easements are in order, including payment of two $1,200 fees.

2) The public hearing will have been properly noticed by the Clerk of the Board and by the Land Development Engineering Section prior to the hearing, pursuant to the California Streets and Highways Code, and property owners within 300 feet will also have been notified of the public hearing by mail.

3) The California Streets and Highways Code provides for vacation of easements by local legislative bodies.

4) If the easements are vacated by Board action, then the planning setbacks provided for in the zoning ordinance will prevail.

5) The Planning Office, the Development Services Office, and the City of Cupertino Planning Department all have expressed no objection to the proposal. The County Surveyor's Office has reviewed and approved the plat maps and legal descriptions.

6) The public hearing was set by adoption of a Resolution of Intention by the Board of Supervisors on October 13, 2007. Therefore, the Development Services Office recommends adoption of both resolutions, providing for vacation of the Light and Air Easements on the subject properties.

BACKGROUND The Creston Subdivision, Unit 2, Tract 780, was recorded on March 4, 1954. It is located within the unincorporated area. Some of the subdivision lots included building setback lines as "Light and Air Easements". The exisiting Light and Air easements are unrelated to public utilities or matters of access, but they do affect site planning setbacks for buildings.

The Land Development Engineering Section of the Development Services Office has received two applications for vacation of these easements, one for 10613 Baxter Avenue, and the other for 10645 Baxter Avenue, Los Altos.

The General Plan designation is "Cupertino" and the Zoning designation is R1 -10. The Planning Office has reviewed the applications, and has no objection, since normal setbacks established by the zoning ordinance will prevail if the Board approves the proposals. The established front setback for R1 -10 zoning is 25 feet.

Since these lots may be subject to annexation upon substantial remodeling, the City of Cupertino Planning Department was contacted, and the department has responded in writing that there is no objection to the applications, but that the City of Cupertino may decide to pursue annexation in the future, pursuant to county ordinance.

The Development Services Office also has no objection to the two applications.

CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION If the Board of Supervisors does not approve the vacation of the Light and Air Easements, then the existing easements will remain in force, and the applicants will not be permitted to build additions to their homes in the manner they desire.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL (1) The Clerk of the Board executes and records the approved Resolutions with Exhibits. (2) The Clerk of the Board notifies the following persons and agencies of the Board action:


What mailing address would Crestonites have,
after an annexation into City of Cupertino, should that ever happen?

I have read in several places that Los Altos addresses would be allowed indefintely after an annexation.  So long as you have the right Zip code and street address, the mail gets delivered.  That's a good point for people to understand.  I pokes around the web looking for a clear statement by maybe the U.S. Postal Service.  No policy emerges explicitly, but pretty clear, they care about Zip Code, and don't care so much about the place name.

I found one instance on the web where the US Postal Service held an election among homeowners in a annexed area, to determine what the mailing city address of their district would be. But this is apparently a special case.

However, LAFCO has no direct role in the annexation process, said executive director Neelima Palacherla. There can be no change "unless San Jose and Campbell together come to LAFCO with a request to change the annexation. The request to change the urban services area boundaries must come from both cities," she said.

Cambrian 36 has never been in Campbell's sphere of influence, said Paul Kermoyan, Campbell's planning manager. "I understand what the residents are feeling, but it's always been anticipated that it would go into San Jose. The [boundary] lines indicate the logical growth boundaries of municipalities."

Even with annexation, most things in Cambrian 36 will not change, Chirco stressed. There will be no changes in schools, addresses, ZIP codes and fire services, she said. "Homes will not be moved. These people weren't Campbell residents before."

This language below is repeated in hundreds of web sites.  I searached to test my suspicion it originates with USPS, but google doesn't find the language there.  Why so often copied?

U.S. mail delivery

Many unincorporated communities are also recognized as acceptable place names for use in mailing addresses by the United States Postal Service (indeed, some have their own post offices), and the United States Census Bureau uses the names of some unincorporated communities for its census-designated places (CDPs) for which it tabulates census data. The borders used by the census bureau for the CDP seldom align exactly with the borders of either the hamlet or the postal district.

However, the USPS is very conservative about recognizing new place names for use in mailing addresses, and typically only does so when a place incorporates. The original place name associated with a ZIP code is still maintained as the "default" place name, even though the name of the newly-incorporated place is more accurate. As an example, Sandy Springs is one of the most populated places in Georgia, but is served by a branch of the Atlanta post office. Only after the city was incorporated in 2005 has "Sandy Springs" been approved by the USPS for use in mailing addresses, though "Atlanta" remains the default name. Accordingly, "Atlanta" is the only accepted place name for mailing addresses in the nearby unincorporated town of Vinings, also served by a branch of the Atlanta post office, even though Atlanta is in a different county. In contrast, neighboring Mableton has not been incorporated in nearly a century, but has its own post office and thus "Mableton" is the only acceptable place name for mailing addresses in the town.

If an unincorporated area becomes incorporated, it may be split among ZIP codes, and its new name may be recognized as "acceptable" for use with some or all of them in mailing addresses, as has been the case in Johns Creek and Milton, Georgia. However, if an incorporated area disincorporates, this has no effect on whether a place name is "acceptable" in a mailing address or not, as is the case with Lithia Springs. ZIP code boundaries often ignore political boundaries, so the appearance of a place name in a mailing address alone does not indicate whether the place is incorporated or unincorporated.

here is an interesting site: !!  to include such as:

ZIP codes only loosely tied to cities

An address's ZIP code and the "city" name written on the same line do not necessarily mean that address is within that city. The Postal Service designates a single "default" place name for each ZIP code. This may be an actual incorporated town or city, a sub-entity of a town or city or an unincorporated census-designated place. Additional place names, also of any of these types, may be recognized as "acceptable" for a certain ZIP code. Still others are deemed "not acceptable", and if used may result in a delay in mail delivery.

Default place names are typically the actual city or town that the address is located in. However, for many cities that have incorporated since ZIP codes were introduced the actual city name is only "acceptable" and not the "default" place name.

shows that zip 94024 only is for Los Altos, while
Los Altos yields:
94022 94023    94024

Cupertino uses 95014 and 95015 (POBox)

Zip Codes and place names - a hot issue.  Here's an example: