In the Courier article March 10 on the General Plan, there is a distinct implication that the General Plan Task Force Group, selected by the city council, was a divided group.

Yes, you can call a 66 percent versus 33 percent vote on most issues as divided. The majority report reflects just that...the majority of the members' opinions.

So when Mayor James says "the fact that there is a majority report and a minority report shows that there is no agreement," she implies that the two camps should be given equal consideration.

Three members of the minority report group are developers. Several more were council, handpicked commission members. Do you think that a developer would vote to limit heights and densities? I don't believe that developers should be given equal weight to map the future of the city when it is in direct conflict to what the majority of the people want.

Malka Nagel

General Plan Task Force Member

Task force is not self
selected; it's appointed

Excuse me, but where was the Courier during the General Plan Update task force meetings? I was and am part of that task force and it was not "basically a self-selected volunteer group." It was an appointed group. Taking such editorial freedoms is really an affront to all those who were appointed and served on the task force. And the two reports were a majority and a minority report.

Come on, how about some unbiased reporting.

If one wishes to embellish the story, give the job status of each of the minority and see if one can connect the dots.

I would also hope that our elected city leaders are able to tell the count difference between the majority and minority vote and that they have the clear vision to understand why a stand was made by those who felt that they didn't get the majority approval for their respective turfs.

Bob Hendrickson

Cupertino

City officials are ones sabotaging General Plan

Councilwoman Sandoval's concern about initiatives the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino has submitted to allow our citizens to determine the future of Cupertino is very revealing. Claiming there are no new project proposals for taller buildings than the Cypress Hotel gives us a vision of her height limit.

If there are no new proposals for such monstrosities then it has been the voice of the CCC that has been responsible.

She claims the CCC agenda would sharply limit "affordable housing" without explaining what housing is considered "affordable" and by whom. The affordable housing proposed for the Oaks project was in the $600,000 to $700,000 range and would have been subsidized by the other units in the complex. Furthermore, in Palo Alto buyers of such housing get no benefit from appreciation and cannot borrow for repair costs which the city and its citizens must eventually subsidize.

Most amusing is the contention that CCC is trying to short-circuit the General Plan process in which many citizens participated during 2003.

Many of the participants I have interviewed stated that city officials initially tried to orchestrate acceptance of their pre-prepared plan. Many quit in frustration.

However, some strong-minded citizens persisted and generated a majority report, which opposed the developer-friendly urbanizing plan of city officials.

Undaunted, city officials then welcomed a minority report championed by developer advocates. If anyone is short-circuiting the General Plan process and attempting to sabotage the majority opinion of citizens, it is some city officials who attempt to manipulate the process to get their way.

The CCC initiatives, whose full text is available on our website www.cupertino.cc/, return the future of our city to the decisions of the citizens. Perhaps that is the real concern of Councilwoman Sandoval.

Robert L. Garten

Cupertino

Dropping students off at
Monta Vista a nightmare

As a parent who has endured school traffic woes through eighth grade, I thought I'd seen everything. Nothing, however, prepared me for the nightmare that takes place daily at Monta Vista High School.

Trying to get through the line that runs from the drop off circle far, far down McClellan, has transformed me from a generally calm person into a generally hysterical person. There are two lanes at the drop off, one to let out or retrieve your kid, the other a parallel "through" lane to pull out of line and escape.

Drivers, however, either out of desperation, ignorance or temporary insanity ignore the posted signs and wait in the through lane, creating instant gridlock. Also, many drivers will not pull forward. There could be four spaces in front of their car and 100 cars behind, but some drivers will just stay put. More instant gridlock.

I saw one women park in the through lane and leave her car. What was she thinking?

There seems to be a "stop wherever and whenever" mentality in place. I see illegal U-turns, parents letting kids off in the middle of McClellan and a variety of other "it's all about me" behaviors that cast serious doubt on whether any of us passed driving school.

Not only is this a huge safety issue, but we are acting as awful role models for our new and already adrenaline laced teenage drivers.

There is no instant fix.

Maybe, though, we as a community can start by showing each other some courtesy on a daily basis. We can look where we are stopping, who is behind us and who can't get through. We can remind ourselves that all signs apply to everyone. Combine this with a dose of patience, some goodwill, and maybe even a sense of humor and maybe that line will move a little faster.

Adrian Kolb

Cupertino