January 20, 2005

Preservation groups sue city to stop youth sports fields

Almaden Youth Association, city attorney confident city will prevail in courts

By Sheila Sanchez
Staff Writer

The Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) and the South Almaden Valley Rural Alliance (SAVRA) have filed a lawsuit against the city for approving a general plan amendment that would ultimately allow development of a youth sports complex on rural McKean Road.

The lawsuit, filed Jan. 13 in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleges the city approved the general plan amendment with inadequate environmental documentation paving the way for long-term urban-level uses in the rural area known as the South Almaden Urban Reserve without overall impact consideration or regional planning.

Several Almaden ranchers and preservationists who want the reserve protected and developed properly cheered the legal fight saying they want the city to comply with the general plan. They also implied that it’s irresponsible to build the complex in an area with inadequate water sources to maintain the planned soccer and baseball fields.

The CGF is a regional grassroots organization working to establish and maintain land-use policies that protect the environment throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. It’s one of the Bay Area’s oldest and most respected environmental advocacy organizations. SAVRA is a community group formed three years ago to fight the project and protect the valley’s rural heritage.

The Almaden Youth Association (AYA), a group that has actively pursued the sports complex for years, and the Almaden Valley Youth Soccer League, the Almaden Valley Little League and the Almaden Girls Softball organizations and city officials expressed disappointment with the lawsuit.

The city council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project on Dec. 7 by a 9-1 vote despite the San Jose Planning Commission voting 5-2 on Nov. 29 against recommending a change to the city’s general plan. The commission, however, certified the EIR.

The complex is expected to cost upwards of $6 million. It would include installing artificial turf, grading the land, installing a drainage system, creating better road access along McKean Road and doing other road repairs. Most of the money is to be raised by the AYA.

The groups filed the lawsuit in time to meet their 30-day deadline requirement from the city’s so called “notice of determination” filed Dec. 15, setting the clock for the statute of limitations prescribed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

“They have a right to file suit. I’m confident that the work the city has done will stand up in court. It’s an urban reserve not a rural reserve,” said Dan Smyth, president of the AYA.

Smyth also said the suit will prolong the desperation of the sports leagues that want the fields built. “I don’t view this 35-acre site as a massive sports complex,” Smyth said, adding that the project was scaled down to 19 acres.

“This (lawsuit) is not unexpected. It’s their right to do what they think they need to do. We expect this to resolve quickly.”

Nancy LaScola, president of SAVRA, said the groups sued because the city’s EIR is allegedly not CEQA compliant.
LaScola said the suit’s defendants—the AYA, the San Jose Unified School District and the city—were required to prepare an EIR that would include properly prepared studies disclosing all impacts created by the development of the sports fields. She also said the general plan text amendment must offer sufficient mitigation.

“We’re suing because the document is not CEQA compliant,” LaScola said. “It’s not held to the standards of CEQA.”

“The tests done in the EIR were insufficient and misleading. We’re saying, ‘Don’t create sprawl and don’t impact the community to the point where it’s irreversible.”

LaScola added there are several alternative sites to build the fields in what she called the city’s urban service area.

She said the groups thought it was “inconceivable” that the city would “send children by the thousands outside city boundaries on a narrow road that’s heavily impacted.”

“If they applied a tenth of the amount of time and energy on some of these alternative sites in the Almaden area then the kids would probably be playing already. Instead they chose to put their focus on this grand scale project outside city limits even though their specialists said it was not going to work,” LaScola said. “The county turned them down.”

LaScola was referring to Santa Clara County planners who criticized the project as being too high intensity for the area. County attorney Lizanne Reynolds also spoke against certifying the EIR.

LaScola added that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) also believed the project is inappropriate for the location. “They (LAFCO) said this would be growth inducing and that this is going to necessitate city services, which means they would need to annex the land. They wouldn’t recommend doing it,” she said. “They said the same thing the county said.”

“She (Dando) kept driving it and driving it,” she said. “I don’t think the AYA understands the intricacies of its own documents. We’ve asked them to talk with us several times. We invited Pat Dando to our homes to talk to us and they have done nothing but ignore us and be antagonistic with us for about three years.

Dando was not available for comment by press time. Denelle Fedor, Dando's legislative assistant on land use issues, however, denied the accusations that they refused to meet with SAVRA. She said the project has been ongoing for 10 years and that they have always been open and willing to meet with project opponents.

Fedor recalled how Carol Hallett, who lives in the reserve, invited Dando and her for dinner to her home, but later cancelled the appointment. "I have never received a call from Nancy LaScola this past year or ever at all," Fedor said. "We've always made ourselves available."

Dan Kennedy, treasurer of the AYA also refuted LaScola’s claims of opposition and undermining from sports fields’ proponents saying, “We’ve been wanting to talk to these groups to discuss our options to see if we could find a plan that would work for both sides, but they have not been willing to do that. They basically refused to meet with us during this process.”

“They refused to cooperate with us,” claims LaScola. “They refused our suggestions and they tried to mow us over. We were forced into a corner. We didn’t want to sue.”

Dave Hallett, who owns about an acre of land in the reserve, said those who are supporting SAVRA and CGF are not anti-development or anti-sports fields but are against “interim land use and haphazard development.”

“It’s (the complex) going to have 600 parking spaces, lots of traffic and the use of the property will have a significant impact. We want this community developed just like the general plan describes meeting certain triggers so that it’s smart planned and well thought out.”

Attorney Brian Schmidt, legislative advocate for the CGF, echoed Hallett’s concerns.

“There’s a potential for the water table to drop and the neighboring wells could physically collapse,” Schmidt said.

“There are also concerns about changing a working farm area with a rural character. They’re basically starting to convert this into a suburb without doing the type of planning that they’re required to do under the city’s general plan.”

Together with the law firm Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, the groups state that while amending the city’s general plan to allow the proposed complex, the city failed to produce an overall plan for the region as it committed to do before developing the land in unincorporated Santa Clara County.

Kennedy added that the city went through the EIR process and checked all the reports necessary and met all the requirements. He said he thought the suit was premature as the sports complex would be allowed on an interim basis and that no permanent structures would be built at the location.

“This is not considered development by the city,” Kennedy noted. “This is just a general plan amendment to allow for this facility. It’s not a trigger. It’s not part of developing the whole area.”

San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle called the EIR a complete document, which supported the general plan amendment. “The project has not been finalized. The EIR was done with enormous effort and was thorough. I’m confident the court will uphold it,” he said.

Nick Petredis, attorney for the AYA, said, “We’re disappointed that the opposition feels compelled to carry this matter into the courts. Who’s getting hurt here are the children. The delay only hurts them and the residents of Almaden Valley.

“I don’t know their (SAVRA and CGF) motivations, but we will persevere. We’re confident that at the end of the day the children will have their fields… Everyone is still very enthusiastic. The energy level is still high. We had hoped they wouldn’t go this route, but we’ll just have to deal with the process,” Petredis said.

The groups claim in their suit that to allow permanent land uses outside city limits, the city would need to annex the land, develop a land-use plan and conduct extensive public review, all of which the groups claim the city failed to do.

The groups also allege that the city “is sneaking around the entire land use planning process and opening the door for development of Almaden Valley” by claiming that the project is an interim use.

“The proposal brings unplanned growth that destroys working farmland and the rural character of the area,” Schmidt repeated. “Children deserve better than to be used as tools for spreading development across Almaden Valley. Their athletic fields should be in the city where they live, not at the end of a dangerous road far outside of town.”

The groups’ press release said they filed suit after years of urging the city to conduct sound long-term planning before approving “piecemeal development” of Almaden Valley.

Michele Beasley, the South Bay field representative with the Greenbelt Alliance, said her agency also doesn’t support development in the valley’s rural areas. “The lawsuit keeps the conversation going as to whether or not this sports park should really be located in this rural environment,” Beasley said. The Greenbelt Alliance is the Bay Area’s biggest nonprofit organization that fights for land conservation and smart growth.