CC 08-21-2018 Study Session Item No. 1 Lehigh Permanente Quarry Annexation - Public CommentGRAND PLAN FOR HILLS OF CUPERTINO BRITISH
COMPANY WANTS TO PUT 1,100 HOMES ON KAISER
PROPERTY
San Jose Mercury News (CA) -Wednesday, February 19, 1992
Author: BERNARD BAUER, Mercury News Staff Writer
The British company that owns Kaiser Cement Corp . tonight is expected to unveil a
plan to build 1,100 homes and a golf course in the hills west of Cupertino , according to
city officials .
The proposal comes when the city is moving toward strict hillside development limits. A
majority of the city council backs a proposal introduced this month by City Councilman
Marshall Goldman to require minimum lot sizes of five to 20 acres per home in the hills
west of Interstate 280.
Beverly Hills-based consultant John Janneck, who works for Hanson Trust PLC, the
British holding company that bought the cement company in 1986, confirmed Tuesday
that he will make a presentation tonight to the city's planning commission on the 3,600-
acre Kaiser property.
Jan neck, who has been meeting privately for several years with city officials to tout
Hanson's development plans, declined to discuss details of his proposal.
But Councilman Wally Dean said Janneck has told him the company wants to build
more than 3,000 homes, several golf courses, offices and retail businesses on its land
which surrounds the cement uarry.
Dean said he expected Kaiser to propos es at tonight's meeting. "But it's
· · not clear whether that's just Phase One," =..1~,aid .
M.J. "Paddy" Bishop, president of Kaiser Cement, said Tuesday that any development
would occur in "the far distant future" and on "outlying areas" of the property.
Bishop said there is at least 20 years' worth of material left in the quarry. "It's our
intention to keep making cement," he said.
'Massive' development
But Councilman Goldman said Janneck has been pitching a plan to officials that calls
for a "massive" development in the hills.
Last week , Goldman said, Jan neck called him and proposed a smaller version of the
plan. "It appeared to be downscaled from the original proposal, but it's still a fairly high
number of units ," Goldman said.
While most of the Kaiser property is under Santa Clara County's jurisdiction, county
guidelines would require annexation to Cupertino before significant development could
occur.
Diocese has plans , too
/ Until recently , the debate over developing Cupertino 's hills centere man
Catholic Diocese of San Jose, which wants to build hundreds of homes on land it own
\_ adjacent to Rancho San Antonio County Park .
"--., .. ·-. --... --·····-. --··· ·------While no formal application has yet been filed, the fate of Cupertino · ts-wiTI be
decided later this year when the city's current revision of its general plan is expected to
be completed.
The council's endorsement of Goldman's proposed restrictions , which included the huge
Kaiser property, has widened the issue. More than 80 percent of the company's land is
undeveloped woods, according to Robert Cowan, Cupertino's planning director.
Goldman said Tuesday that tonight's presentation by Janneck is probably occurring in
reaction to the political tide in Cupertino turning toward strict building limits in the hills .
Bishop said that while Kaiser intends to concentrate on cement production, "no
landowner can look at potential restrictions on the use of his property with a whole lot of
approval." He also said Janneck wants to "involve the community in deciding" what to
do with the Kaiser land . -----~
Bu~del Blau :\president of OAKS, a citizens group formed to block the diocese's
development plans in the hills, said community sentiment strongly favors open space
west of 1-280. "People want to look to the west of Cupertino and see open hills," Blau
said . "They don't want to see houses on the ridge line ."
Lauren Sapudar
From:
Sent:
To:
Randy Shingai <randyshingai@gmail.com>
Monday, August 20, 2018 10:37 AM
City Clerk
CC 08-21-2018 Item No. 1
Subject:
Attachments:
Fwd: Public Records Request. 2011 LAFCO annexation offer to Cupertino.
LAFCO letter to Cupertino 5-2-2011.pdf
Hi Ms. Schmidt,
I would like this in the public record for tomon-ow's Special Meeting Study Session on the annexation of the
Lehigh Permanente Quany.
Thanks ,
Randy Shingai
----------Forwarded message----------
From: Randy Shingai <randyshingai@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 9:10 AM
Subject: Public Records Request. 2011 LAFCO annexation offer to Cupertino.
To : City Clerk <cityclerk@cupe11ino.org>
Cc: City Council <citycouncil@cupe11ino.org>
Dear City Clerk
At the July 31 , 2018 Council Meeting, Councilman Chang said that the City had an opp011unity to annex the
Quan-y , but there was no interest at the time. I presume Councilman Chang was refeffing to the opportunity
presented by the 2011 letter from LAFCO to the City.
Refer to the attached letter from LAFCO to the Aai1i Shrivastava dated June 2, 2011. The letter encouraged the
City to annex 5 urban islands in the City's "Urban Service Area." The third of the islands was the cement plant
p011ion of the Lehigh Pe1manente Quan-y.
I would like:
1. All records and communication between the City (staff and elected officials) and LAFCO regarding the
annexation of any of the parcels mentioned in the May 2, 2011 letter from LAFCO to Aarti Shrivastava.
2. Any records regarding the June 2, 2011 meeting between the City and LAFCO . This meeting was mentioned
in the June 1, 2011 LAFCO Meeting"
Agenda. http://www.santaclaralafco.org/images /resumes/agenda packet/20110601 2011 JunO l .pdf
3. All records and communication between City Staff and members of the City Council regarding the parcels
mentioned in the June 2, 2011 letter.
4. any documents from public meetings regarding the parcels mentioned in the June 2, 2011 letter.
1
The timeframe would be from October 2010 through October 2012 inclusive.
Please feel free to redact or withhold anything you feel you are entitled to, but I would like to know what and
why anything is redacted or withheld .
I would like the documents in electronic fo1m, but if that isn't possible, please let me know when I can come by
to view the documents.
Thank you,
Randy Shingai
Total Control Panel
To: c ityc lerk@ cup er tino.o rg
From : randyshingai@gmail.com
Message Score : 57
My Spam Blocking Level: High
B lo ck this sender
Block gmail.com
This m essage was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.
2
High (60): Pass
Medium (75): Pass
Low (90): Pass
::LAFCO
Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County
May 2, 2011
Aarti Shrivastava
Director of Community Development
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 95041
RE: Status of Unincorporated Lands within the City of Cupertino's Urban
Service Area (Unincorporated Islands)
Dear Ms. Shrivastava:
In late October 2010, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Santa
Clara County directed its staff to develop an inventory of the remaining
unincorporated islands within each city's urban service area and to report back
to the Commission on each city's plans regarding its islands.
Five Unincorporated Islands Remain in the City of Cupertino
The City of Cupertino has a long history of annexing unincorporated islands,
having successfully annexed several large populated islands over the last 15
years. As a result, only five islands (see table below and attached maps) still
remain in the City's Urban Service Area (USA).
CP02 51.3
CP04 3.8
Total 513.3
70 West Hedding Street , I I tt1 Floor, East Wing , San Jose, CA 95 I IO , /408) 299-5 I 27 , (408/ 295· I 6 l 3 Fax , www.santaclara.lafco .ca .gov
COMMISSIONERS: Pete Constant, Liz Kniss, Margaret Abe-Koga , Mike Wasserman, Susan Vicldund-Wilson
ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS: Sam Uccardo, Al Pinheiro, George Shirakawa, Terry Trumbull
EXECUTIVE OFFICER : Neelima Palacherla
Annex Islands that Qualify for the Streamlined Annexation Process
CP02 (i.e. Creston) is approximately 51.3 acres and consists primarily of private
residential development and is eligible for annexation through the streamlined
annexation process. Islands such as Creston, are substantially developed and
create inefficiencies / confusion in terms of provision of emergency and other
municipal services. Fµrthermore, residents of such islands are politically
disenfranchised from the city government that surrounds them.
Annexation of such islands is a high priority for LAFCO and the County. In
order to encourage these annexations, LAFCO continues to waive its fees for
island annexations and the County continues to provide financial incentives
including covering the costs for preparing Assessor and Surveyor reports and
maps, paying the State Board of Equalization filing fees, and budgeting for road
improvements in islands approved for annexation. As you may be aware, the
law streamlining the annexation process for qualified unincorporated islands
sunsets on January 1, 2014.
We encourage the City to take advantage of this process and the incentives
currently being offered by both the County and LAFCO for such annexations.
Please provide us with an update on the City's plans and time-line for annexing
Creston.
Review Remaining Islands
In terms of the City's four other remaining islands (CPOl, CP03, CP04, and
CPOS), please review these islands that may or may not qualify for the
streamlined annexation process, and determine whether the City intends to
retain them within the City's USA boundary for eventual annexation.
For those islands that the City intends to retain in its USA, please explain what
the City's rationale is for retaining them in its USA and when the City plans to
annex them.
For those areas not appropriate for eventual annexation, the City should consider
whether to exclude these areas from its USA. Please contact LAFCO staff to
discuss the USA amendment process and time-line for resolving these islands.
A Response is Greatly Appreciated
LAFCO staff is willing to work with and assist the City in resolving these island
issues. We would appreciate knowing the City's annexation and/ or urban
Page 2 of 3
service area amendment plans for these islands as soon as possible and no later
than June 10, 2011. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to meet
to discuss the City's plans, I can be reached at (408) 299-5127 or
neelima.palacherla@ceo.sccgov.org or you may contact Dunia Noel, LAFCO
Asst. Executive Officer, at (408) 299-5148/ dunia.noel@ceo.sccgov.org. Thank for
you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Neelima Palacherla
LAFCO Executive Officer
Attachment:
Maps of Unincorporated Islands in City's Urban Servke Area prepared by the
Santa Clara County Planning Office
Cc:
David Knapp, City Manager, City of Cupertino
Cupertino City Council Members
Jody Hall Esser, Director, Dept. of Planning & Development, Santa Clara County
LAFCO Members
Page 3 of 3
D Incorporated Area s (ZJ Urban Island > 150 Acres
o 160320 640 960 1.280 A
Feet
0 85 170 340 510 680 !
Feet
In corporated Area s (ZI Urban Is land > 150 Acres ...... ~--::::.· .. ~ --"."'""t::::.:=.::::<~ ..:::. .. _,
Urban Service Area Urban Island s 150 Acres
o-=1s•oc30•0-•soco==9:aoo--1,200 •
Fe et ,6
Incorporated Areas Urban Island > 150 Acres -...... ,_ .. __ , .... c....,-c .. , .... ,.,,._,,_, ---... -........ -.... -Oft,-····-~...,,,,,,. ...... _ ........ ~--.... -......... -..... ... _ __,,_,
Urban Service Area Urban Island :. 150 Acres
Incorporated Areas IZ) Urban Island > 150 Acres
0 55 110 220 330
Feet
-.. ,..,, • .,.,,...,.,,.c,..,c, ~ ... .....,oou.n..on, .. wu ,.,.,., ...,_,,,..,.~....., .. ,.,,,,,....,_,,,.,_on,.., .. .,n,-.,.
ltt/:OO •IIT.,0 .... YY'nt, .. <U•o,•.._ ......... ,.,,,.. ........ t,I .. -,.M ... ••-·