Counter Points!
More to Council Meeting then Meets the Viewers Eye

 I think your take on some items is slightly uninformed - just watching the one Council Meeting without knowing the history of EVP and the LENGTHY discussions about school impact, traffic, outreach is really a bit of a shadowed perspective and I would think it's difficult to comment without knowing the bigger picture.  If you question ANY of the Task Force Members who were at the meeting that night, one of whom spoke (in favor of the process), they would all unanimously feel that Dave and District 8 and the Task Force was on the attack. We knew this going into the meeting.  This is why Dave engaged with Laurel Prevetti in a Q&A about outreach at the outset of the meeting (in my opinion and even Cindy Chavez agreed) he was not defensive but simply allowing more information about the extensive outreach of EVP to be shared with the entire Council.  The point was that this much outreach, this early into a planning process, is unprecedented.  This is unique.  The Mayor and Councilmember Campos' stance seemed to imply that EVP was being conducted in a vacuum - when the reality is that the whole world has known about EVP, right up to the editorial board members of the Merc.  Hence the lengthy discussion on outreach.

 You began your email by stating that Dave didn't bring up the schools issue.  I would like to speak to this:

1) Dave gave the Mayor and each member of the Council a copy of the analysis done by Lou Kvitek (AATK) and others regarding current and future school impact issues.  The document is already well-written, it speaks for itself.  This document was also made available to the public at the table inside council chambers.

2) The excellently written staff report for this item had a LENGTHY section on school impact.  What you heard Laurel speak of was only a summary of what is in the report.  The report mentions schools as a tremendous issue for the Task Force and the community and alludes to it potentially being a make/break issue.  It talks about AATK and unification a charter school.  So there wasn't a need to REPEAT what was already so well laid-out in the staff report.  The report can be found here if you care to read further:

 http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/04_19_05docs/04_19_05_4.7.pdf

3) Dave wrote a memo

 http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/04_19_05docs/04_19_05_4.7_att.pdf

and brought up the schools issue as well.  Once again, no need to repeat what is alread in writing.  Both Dave's memo and the Staff report were made available to the public in the file folder box on the table inside council chambers.  The whole point about schools is that it is an issue that needs to be addressed for any future development to be approved.  That is why it is one of the Guiding Principles (a set of non-negotiable interests for this process) for EVP and DAVE and has stated that NO development plan will be approved without each Guiding Principle being satisified.  The exact language of the guiding principle for schools is, "Ensure adequate capacity at Evergreen schools without sacrificing a quality educational environment."  What does this mean in terms of outcomes? Maybe a new school? Maybe money to the districts to expand programs?  We do not know yet.  This is why all three affected school districts are closely involved with the Task Force (Evergreen Superintendent is on Task Force and East Side and Mt. Pleasant send reps regularly).  We are also meeting offline with the districts to work on this matter further and the plan, if EVP is allowed to move forward as was planned, was for the developers to work directly with the districts (a little of which has occurred already).  Dave has stated publicly at meetings throughout District 8 that he would not approve a plan that does not adequately satisfy school impact.    CM Reed did bring up schools but to what end?  There isn't a solution yet; we're not far enough in the process to have begun to develop one. All we know for sure is that nothing would be approved without an adequate solution. But the issue became a lightening rod and a reason to derail the current process - by CM Reed mentioning it, it doesn't mean that he was aware/interested and Dave wasn't.  We knew that the staff report and Dave's memo discussed the issue well and that it remains to be worked out through negotiation with the developers.

 You also stated that "Cortese characterized the plan as an infill project, while the planning department was prompted to point out that adding 5000+ homes is an unusually large project for the city."  My recollection is that one comment wasn't in relation to another.  This is infill development.  It's the hardest type of development.  5,000 is alot of homes, but who said that 5,000 is ultimately what will end up in Evergreen? We don't know yet, that was the point - approve the initiation of the update to the Evergreen Area development policy so we can launch our EIR and see the effects of 3800, 4200, 4600 and 5700 units.  Then we can negotiate on what Evergreen can tolerate.  Keep in mind that unlike other council districts that have traffic capacity and can add units more often, our district is such that no major land use has been approved in years!  So naturally all our units are coming at once, not in drips and drabs as in other districts. 

 You asked a series of questions which I have responded to in ALL CAPS:

- Is Cortese really against public debate about the school issues and their inclusion in this planning process? 

NO!!!! IF YOU COME TO ANY EVP TASK FORCE MEETING YOU WILL SEE THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEBATED LONG AND WIDE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE DONE SO AND DAVE HAS BEEN A PART OF THOSE DEBATES.  THE SCHOOLS ISSUE IS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS!!! TO SAY THAT IT ISN'T IS TO IGNORE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES WHICH ARE NON NEGOTIABLE FOR APPROVING FUTURE LIMITATIONS ON GROWTH!!!!  JUST BECAUSE DAVE DIDN'T SAY "SCHOOLS" DOESN'T MEAN HE'S AGAINST THEM.  HE'S BEEN WORKING WITH AATK ON THE CHARTER SCHOOL ISSUE, HE'S BEEN MEETING WITH REPS FROM EVERGREEN, MT. PLEASANT AND EAST SIDE ON THIS ISSUE AND HE HAS PLEDGED TO NOT VOTE FOR ANY LAND USE THAT DOESN'T SATISFY SCHOOLS.  SO HOW CAN HE BE ANYTHING BUT INTERESTED IN INCLUDING SCHOOLS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS?

- Does the city really have such little influence to address school capacity issues as implied by the planning department?

IN THE SENSE THAT WE CANNOT DENY A LAND USE PROJECT BASED ON SCHOOL IMPACT, YES, THE CITY HAS NO INFLUENCE.  THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DOESN'T REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO MITIGATE FOR SCHOOLS AND THE CITY WOULD BE SUED IF IT TRIED TO DENY LAND USE BASED ON SCHOOL IMPACT.  IF THIS IS AN ISSUE AATK REALLY CARES ABOUT, THEY SHOULD TALK TO STATE LEGISLATORS ABOUT GETTING THE LAW CHANGED, WHICH DAVE TRIED TO DO WHEN HE WAS ON THE SCHOOL BUT BUT IT FAILED.

- Will starting with a new task force (building on work-to-date) offer more opportunity to highlight the issues of high school capacity and quality?

NO! IT WILL DILUTE THE TASK FORCE WITH OUTSIDERS.  PEOPLE FROM NOT AROUND DISTRICT 8 WHOSE PRIMARY INTERESTS MAY NOT INCLUDE SCHOOLS.  PEOPLE WHO MIGHT ARGUE THAT MONEY GENERATED FROM DEVELOPMENT SHOULD GO INTO OTHER PROJECTS AROUND THE CITY RATHER THAN INTO D8.

- Will expanding the task force to include more members from adjacent/impacted districts impact our ability to get the high school issues addressed?

NO FOR THE SAME REASON AS ABOVE.

 If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.  Please share these facts with anyone and everyone- we want accurate information circulating so people can make appropriate decisions based on the truth...

Take care.
Rabia