This letter is in response to Richard Lowenthal's letter in the May 5 Cupertino Courier. How easy it is to sit back and criticize an action initiated by some of the residents of Cupertino without taking responsibility. The initiatives are in response to the city council's actions and are an act of desperation and frustration. We vote representatives into office relying on their promises, and based on the council's actions, but this is not the case. For example, look at the corner of De Anza and Stevens Creek boulevards. The council will say they provided proper legal notification to the residents; unfortunately one would need a magnifying glass to read it in the Courier's "Legal Advertising Public Notices" (I missed it).

The General Plan, which is currently being revised, was created to provide a "footprint" for our city. It details guidelines regarding density, building heights, and setback restrictions. The state of California allows four exceptions to the General Plan per year. At the council meetings, many exceptions to the General Plan are requested and the requests far exceed the maximum allowed by the state.

So how does the city get around this requirement? Simple—they just bundle the exceptions up as one (one bundle could have many exceptions to the General Plan). These bundles give the council the ability to approve projects like the Verona and others.

If we can't trust our representatives, we must protect ourselves.

The Initiatives will allow the residents a vote if a project exceeds the guidelines (no exceptions) and the majority vote will prevail (no minority). Sounds fair to me. I would like to have been able to vote for some of the projects that have evolved especially for the corner of DeAnza and Steven Creek.

P. Parola

Cupertino

Initiatives give residents right to plan city's future

Mr. Lowenthal believes that the initiatives to set standards for the future growth of Cupertino are "impractical." For whom are they "impractical?" Certainly not for the citizens of Cupertino, because the initiatives give them the right to determine the future of our city.

They are impractical for some city council members and developers. Council members Lowenthal, Sandoval and James have consistently fed their "edifice complex" by approving high-rise, high-density buildings that Mr. Lowenthal now admits were a mistake. The consequences of such persistent "mistakes" are to have the decision process removed from the culprits, which is the objective of the initiatives.

Only council members Wang and Kwok and Planning Commission member Wong have consistently exercised common sense in their votes and positions regarding new construction. They listen to the citizens and take their concerns into account rather than paying lip service to citizens' comments and voting with the developers as the other council members have consistently done.

When city council members listen to and actually hear the citizens, they can be entrusted with decisions. Unfortunately, the majority of the council cannot be so entrusted, based on past votes on development.

Mr. Lowenthal laments that developers would have to spend $100,000 for an election for a decision from the citizens of Cupertino. Developers who reap millions from housing in this city can well afford such an expense and would not be deterred. Furthermore, such elections would require developers to make their case to the citizens of this city rather than to three members of the city council.

The real basis of Mr. Lowenthal's concerns is the fear that three members of the city council will no longer control the fate of our city and that citizens will actually be heard in determining its future.

Robert L. Garten

Cupertino

Never drive or own any
vehicle you can't manage

In the May 12 issue of the Cupertino Courier, a reader complains about the size of parking slots in parking lots. The article, "Parking stalls not wide enough for SUVs," goes on to tell us that a parking lot may be mixed with compact slots 8 feet by 15 feet and standard slots 9 feet by 18 feet, or uni-sized slots 8.5 feet by 18 feet. The usage rule (area driven) is that a lot with space for 140 cars could have all slots 8.5 feet by 18 feet, or 30 slots 8 feet by 15 feet and 110 slots 9 feet by 18 feet.

For some reason "staff" recommends going for the uni-size stalls, which are narrower by six inches than the standard slot, and, in any case, would not be an option in a mixed lot as defined in the article.

Assistant city planner Gary Chao's planned streamlining of the permitting process won't do anything for Mike McNutt (who drives a truck) if it doesn't do anything for the width of the parking stalls.

The proper solution to this problem is to never own or try to drive a vehicle you can't manage, whether it's a skateboard or a grader or an SUV!

R.A. Blais

Cupertino

Villagers may not want to pay to raise child

"It takes a village to raise a child" is a catchy slogan, but eloquently stupid. It takes two parents. And if parents cannot control their children without outside help, they can bloody well pay for it themselves.

Unreasonable, of course, but I and quite a few others of us villagers tend to be that way when it concerns their tax dollars.

Jerry H Smith

Cupertino