The Cupertino Courier

Letters & Opinions

Speak Out

Cupertino spills more red ink on out-of-towners

Approximately 90 percent of the city's unprofitable Blackberry Farm picnic business clients are nonresidents. Parks and Recreation director Therese Smith confirmed the majority of users come from San Jose, followed by San Francisco. Meanwhile, Cupertino residents not only have to pay full-fare for day use, but are also continuing to pay a 2.4 percent utility tax to pay off the bond that financed the property's purchase.

Although profits from golf and picnics are reported together, council members say golf nets about $200,000 per year. Using that figure, picnic losses have been alarming: $69,000, $206,000, $244,000 and $316,000 from 2002 through 2005. Yet the city's redevelopment plan of this property is keeping the business with the understanding it would be profitable.

New facilities are to be built such as a catering building, two kiosks, fencing around a field to keep visitors out and a new 350-space parking lot. Sadly, the most desirable portion of the property will be inaccessible to residents unless they pay.

Most perplexing, the redevelopment plan also ignores aspects of the original sales contract from the previous owners to the city pertaining to hours of use and blocking views. The previous owners also wisely anticipated the potential closure of the current neighborhood entrance, yet the city plans to retain access from a residential neighborhood, rather than using Stevens Creek Boulevard.

As for the Cupertino-based nonprofit groups that have used the park for their large annual gatherings, allow them to continue with catering done by outside vendors and shuttle groups in rather than building a 350-spot parking lot. The city council will be reviewing the business plan again at the council meeting on Wednesday, July 5 at 6:45 p.m.. Please join CupertinoPark@yahoogroups.com.

Marilyn Goodman

Cupertino

Unchecked development threatensCupertino with sprawling condos

Thank you for your editorial about development (Courier, Carol Bogart column, June 28), and the description of your bucolic farmland. Development is inevitable.

The problem in Cupertino is smoke and mirrors are used to further the efforts of greedy developers. Catch phrases like "affordable housing" are used to describe below market rate, available only to a select few--that can't be re-sold at prevailing rates--and senior rental apartments, rather than "for sale" units.

Both are extremely restrictive, and usually bestowed by county-wide lotteries.

Our city council majority is seemingly out of touch with the latest trends in shopping malls, housing developments and conceptualizing a viable downtown. Putting it in perspective, Vallco's development of 137 condos in the Macy's back parking lot would equate to morphing your lovely 46 rolling acres into 1,242 housing units--just over the 1,000 planned along Stevens Creek between DeAnza and Tantau.

Ruby Elbogen

Cupertino

Follow proper procedure
when cutting down a tree

Recently I have seen many cases come before our council and commission where trees have been cut and the applicant is forced to apply for a retroactive permit with the city.

While we can require removed trees to be replanted, this is not OK in my opinion. I concede Cupertino has a tree ordinance that is difficult to interpret. Thus, the council has directed staff to expedite a review of this ordinance. However, ignorance of the rules is not an excuse and the underlying principle of the ordinance is very clear: If you want to remove a tree on your property, you must call and speak to a planner in the city's planning department. Anything short of this exposes you to a hearing before the Planning Commission and a very expensive bond. I wish this on none of our residents. Not every tree is protected; however, the process to remove them is. Please follow it. Thank you.

Kris Wang

Vice mayor