By Ned Britt

The Concerned Citizens of Cupertino have qualified three initiatives for an election this fall. Cupertino needs some voter-established guidelines for its future evolution or else the quality of life in this community will be damaged by profit-driven, unrestricted, development. Opponents of the initiatives have promulgated false statements about them. It is essential that voters understand the features and complexities of the initiatives in order to make an informed decision. Let's take a look at the three CCC initiatives for building heights, density and setbacks.

*The three initiatives are independent.

Each of the initiatives will be a separate ballot measure, so criticism of the "CCC initiatives" as a group is likely to be incorrect or, at best, relevant only to some of the measures.

*Initiatives do not limit growth of either population or buildings.

The initiative measures would establish guidelines for new buildings and developments, but they do not state any limitations on the amount of growth within the city.

The opponents have called the proposed measures "No-Growth Initiatives" as one part of a campaign of misinformation.

Many cities have laws on their books which specify a maximum rate of growth. Cupertino doesn't have any growth law, and there is nothing contained in the initiatives that limits growth rates. The CCC initiatives only speak to the building/site architectural features: how tall; how many dwelling units per acre; how far buildings are set back. The initiatives do not say anything about how many new buildings could be constructed.

*The initiatives would not require "... special elections for any changes to the General Plan ..."

The June 8 Cupertino Courier contained a statement that the initiatives would require "...special elections for any changes to the General Plan (with the exception of existing structures, a defined section of the Vallco district, duplexes and triplexes and single family residences)." This statement needs to be clarified. The initiatives would not affect the procedures for General Plan amendments. Special elections would not be required.

If the initiatives become permanent amendments to the General Plan, they could only be rescinded or modified by voters. Nothing is prohibited by the initiatives--each of them contains a clause for exceptions which reads: "An exception to this provision may be granted only if first approved by city voters in an election." Note that such elections would approve specific projects and/or issue a building permit, but not amend the General Plan.

*The initiatives have several exceptions and/or different guidelines for specified districts.

The initiative measures contain exceptions for existing buildings, which would allow rebuilding/remodeling within the original structural envelopes, and housing densities, even if these parameters exceed the limitations specified in the initiatives. There are blanket exceptions for single, duplex, triplex, and fourplex residential units.

The initiatives would apply to the Vallco district (Wolfe to Tantau, and Homestead to Stevens Creek), with more lenient allowances for building heights, densities and setbacks.

The business-intensive Wolfe Road Commercial Corridor (along Wolfe Road, between Stevens Creek and 280) does have an exception--heights and setbacks of commercial buildings are unrestricted. A planned movie complex on top of the Vallco Mall would be unaffected by the initiatives.

Details about initiatives can be read on the CCC website, www.cupertino.cc. Residents should become familiar with the initiatives, to make an informed choice.

Edward J. "Ned" Britt lives in Cupertino.

Con: CCC Initiatives are a threat to the environment

By Rod Diridon Sr.,
Irvin Dawid
and Michele Beasley

This November, Cupertino residents will be asked to vote on three ballot initiatives on growth. As leaders in the local environmental community, we have been alarmed both by the harm these initiatives would do to the environment, and by how these initiatives have been mischaracterized.

In a recent Courier article, supporters of the measures, the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino, proclaimed that the initiatives are "smart growth." This is blatantly false. Our organizations, the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters and Greenbelt Alliance, would like to set the record straight.

Uncontrolled growth is a major problem nationwide. Between 1982 and 1997, developed land nationwide grew by more than 25 million acres--paving an expanse roughly the size of Ohio.

Under current growth patterns, 340 acres of undeveloped land, nationwide, are consumed per hour. This frantic land consumption is the number-one threat to rare plants and animals, especially here in the Bay Area, a globally recognized biodiversity hot spot.

Sprawl development also leads to wetland destruction, degradation of water quality and the gradual elimination of the nation's ability to feed itself. For these reasons, the environmental community has been leading the way in promoting a better way of accommodating growth. It's called "smart growth," and these initiatives aren't it.

The Environmental Protection Agency defines smart growth as development that serves the economy, community and environment. Smart growth directs development to our built areas to create vibrant neighborhoods, increase transportation and housing options and alleviate growth pressure on open space.

The proposed initiatives are not smart growth. Quite the opposite.

These initiatives would encourage the kind of poorly planned development that paves natural areas and limits transportation options.

The overly restrictive limits on building heights and density would throw the baby out with the bath water, handicapping our region's ability to accommodate growth without sprawling outward.

Requiring large setbacks is especially short-sighted. Buildings that are closer to the street are an integral part of what makes older suburbs and shopping districts feel inviting and safe for pedestrians.

Supporters argue that the initiatives allow exceptions through a city-wide vote, but what this actually means is that the planning process would slow to a glacial pace, as every single variance is voted on by the entire city, not to mention the significant public cost of these elections. In the meantime, poorly planned growth will continue unabated, as new subdivisions pave over working farms and scenic areas from here all the way to the Central Valley.

To call the initiatives "smart growth" is to distort the meaning of the term. Rooting out the truth during campaign season while being bombarded with television ads, direct mail and phone calls is a time-consuming necessity of our democracy.

It's our hope that as the campaign season gets under way, Cupertino residents will take the time needed to understand the implications of these initiatives, examine the statements of both sides and come to a conclusion that favors economic development, quality of life and the health of the planet.

Bottom line: These initiatives are anything but smart growth. They're short-sighted, costly and bad for Cupertino and the entire region. Vote for smart growth by voting against these initiatives.

For more information about smart growth, go to www.smartgrowth.org or www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.

Rod Diridon Sr. is chairman of the board of the Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters; Irvin Dawid is chairman of the Sustainable Land Use Committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club; and Michele Beasley is the South Bay field representative for Greenbelt Alliance.