September 16, 2004

ValleyViewpoints

Bosomworth’s intentions are in the wrong place

Editor,
In reference to Brad Bosomworth’s recent letter to the editor (Sept. 2). If Mr. Bosomworth doesn’t wish to hear negative public statements regarding the proposed youth sports complex, perhaps he should refrain from banding together with his political cronies to push projects which their own consultants have deemed to have “serious and unmitigateable” risks to public safety, the environment and the surrounding properties.

Building any high-use facility requires significant planning, communication and money—three areas Brad and his crew seem unable to demonstrate success with. Serious issues raised by the AYA’s consultants concerning traffic and the environment during the first EIR continue to go unaddressed. Large development projects such as the one in question have huge impacts (as the recent EIR has demonstrated) and require focused and fact based communication to all involved and impacted. The city of San Jose’s informational meetings that took place with less than 24 hours public notice and contained little factual information are further attempts to conceal the true impacts of this project. The recent audit of the AYA’s books show a complete lack of financial wherewithal to run an existing sports complex, much less build such a facility from the ground up.

As for Mr. Bosomworth’s statements with regard to honesty, the pot calling the kettle black doesn’t due (sp.) these comments justice. Honest people don’t attempt to mislead the public into believing the serious impacts raised by their own consultants are really not a big deal. Honest people don’t conduct traffic studies on the one day all schools, including the one neighboring the proposed site, have in-service days; a feeble attempt to mislead the public on the true traffic situation. Honest people don’t call a permanent facility temporary in an attempt to skirt state and local laws and health and safety ordinances.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Bosomworth, his friends at the AYA and the city of San Jose have gotten this far in their quest develop a project with such good intentions but in the wrong place. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer and volunteer dollars have already been wasted because a politically strong minority so easily influences elected offices from city of San Jose and the San Jose Unified School District. If this project continues, more money will be wasted. Based on the facts in the most recent EIR, any reasonable person can deduct that a judge will rule against the AYA and city of San Jose.

I challenge anyone who believes this development is a good idea to visit the local library or the city of San Jose’s Web site and read the EIR for themselves.

Neil Kole
Davis Court

Bosomworth Responds To Attack on His Call for Civility

Editor,
The many comments attacking my call for civility in debating the AYA youth sports fields project reflect that we have a problem. Those opposing the project don't have the facts straight. If there is going to be debate, it should be based on the facts. To that end, literally for years, AYA has invited the opposition group to meet and talk. Positive things can come out of good communication (as will be addressed below), but SAVRA chooses to ignore invitations to meet, and those opposing the project appear to prefer to continue to publish waves of attacks and false information.

Much of what was published in reaction to my letter (and so much before it) is flatly false. For instance, some people who purport to know the facts still refer to me as an AYA board member, officer or official even though I stepped aside as AYA Chairman more than a year ago and the AYA web site reflects as much. So, I'll attempt to set the record straight and address the principal arguments of the opposition group: (i) AYA is not public, (ii) AYA is forcing the project without concern for the area residents, (iii) AYA is trampling on people's rights, (iv) fixing school facilities or finding other sites are solutions, (v) there will be 2000 cars per day and kids are put at risk, and (vi) the area wells will run dry. I'll address some additional points from the opposition letters as well.

AYA is “Public .” AYA is a California non-profit “public benefit” corporation. Its charter is to provide sports facilities for kids. All of its officers and directors are volunteers, and nobody is making any money. To the contrary, participants are making huge sacrifices for their community. This is not a situation where the AYA members get the benefit of the facilities. There is no such thing as an AYA member. The anticipated principal beneficiaries of the facilities are Almaden Little League, Almaden Valley Youth Soccer League and Almaden Valley Girls Softball League. Those leagues are very much “public.” Any kid can sign up to play. Use of the facilities will be no different than the use of the local school facilities. It will be managed by permit so as to avoid chaos. Certainly, it makes no sense to open the gates and let anyone and everyone at it at all times. Managed use is for the area residents' benefit and mitigates possible problems which are otherwise cause for legitimate concern.

The “its not public” cry is the apparent basis for questioning the relationship between the City and AYA, i.e. the City is promoting a private venture. That just is not true. Note here AYA started out trying to provide that which the government should have provided. AYA would pay for the project and provide ongoing maintenance. Now, the project is proceeding down a better path with AYA working together with and backing up the government. Although the project is now a City project, AYA will still do what is necessary to provide the funding and sweat equity for construction and maintenance. The suggestion that the project is a public funds white elephant could not be further from the truth.

AYA Is Very Much Trying To Make The Project Work For Residents. The assertions to the contrary hit a particular nerve with me. I have been in the opposition's shoes as President of a neighborhood association near down town! I know all together too well what it is like to have development pushed for its own sake and without any attempt to work with the area residents to mitigate possible problems. Thus, from the very beginning, I undertook a personal role of looking at the project from the standpoint of area residents. Our very first decision was to cut the prior proposed project scope in half. Tremendous effort was put into investigating appropriate levels of use and mitigation in design. The AYA board members can attest to the fact that there were heated debates on such matters. The design process thus far has been extraordinary and benefits from substantial input from both City and County Planners as well as well respected architects with every effort being made to address any issues we heard of from the area residents. If you actually review the plans you can see that. Note the set backs from the road and creek, the 5 foot burm and tree line at the road, fencing, sufficient parking, turn lanes and “stacking” to ensure that cars don't back up onto McKean, no lights, no sound system, etc., etc., etc.

More importantly, it is simply disingenuous to state on one hand that problems are being forced upon you and at that same time you refuse to engage in actual discussion on how to address issues. Again, AYA has repeatedly asked SAVRA to get together so it could logically address concerns. I asked for that again in my recent letter. You all saw the reaction that received.

AYA Is Not Trampling On Anyone's Rights. There appears to be a misconception that AYA is looking to improperly put sport fields in a “rural” reserve, green belt or open space such that area residents have some sort of vested right to have the property remain as is. Not true. The property is located within the South Almaden Urban Reserve. The area will become part of the City and is planned to be urbanized. When that happens, the underlying land will be so valuable that other accommodations will have to be made for playing fields. The assurance that the SJ Unified School District would get its land back was central to the land lease. So, all we are talking about is, in fact, “interim” use of the land. To that end, what is proposed are playing fields with no real structures used by kids after school and on weekends. Pretty darn “open.” Further, there is no logical connection between this project and other development in the reserve. Other development just can't happen because of the limitations in the reserve which will remain in place. This is where I say that the limited modification to the reserve to permit only the youth sports fields prior to the reserve's full development is more than justified.

Let's be clear that the facility is not any sort of regional facility like the Morgan Hill soccer complex. It is for our area kids. Almaden kids. It will see use much like the local after school use of school facilities, i.e. weekends and evenings only. In the spring, baseball and softball (limited by daylight hours). In the mid summer, the tail end of those sports and a smattering of the very beginning of soccer. Soccer in fall (again limited by daylight hours). In the winter, a whole lot of nothing. At any time, approximately 6 fields might be in use.

It is also important to keep in mind exactly where the property is. Most people are incorrect in their perception of the location of the property. It isn't at the end of the Expressway at Harry Road or the Challenger School site. It is another half mile down McKean on the left side. I encourage you to visit the site for yourself (I'd put a sign up to identify the location, but every time something like that has been done the sign has been torn down or defaced). There are only a few homes across the street and down the road. Aside from the asserted traffic issue addressed later, I submit the immediate impacts to the relatively few true area residents are (i) having to look at the fields or (ii), possibly, noise. I don't think anyone has ever asserted that grass fields are an eye sore, so the “looking at it” argument is a misnomer. In reality, that is the “don't do anything in our area” (NIMBY) argument addressed above. With respect to noise, consider how many homes are immediately adjacent to the school yards used for youth sports. But for one home directly across McKean, the area homes are not nearly as close in this case. I personally took a sound meter and checked the noise levels at youth sporting events and then did some testing out at the site. The cars driving down McKean made more noise than the sporting events! I'm not saying you won't know that there is activity going on at the fields, but it in my opinion it isn't going to be anything close to a nuisance.

Fixing School Sites and Other Sites Are Not The Solution. It would be great if we could rely upon the schools to provide all the facilities we need. But, that just isn't real. The lack of a sufficient number of fields has been recognized for more than a decade. The inability, due to a host of factors, to sufficiently maintain school facilities has been recognized for more than a decade. Our population of kids and demands on the facilities has only grown. Soccer has grown, and lacrosse is growing. So many people have not invested so much over so many years to pursue this project just for fun. It is because there is a need. This isn't to say that other steps cannot be taken or have not been taken. Efforts are ongoing. Ruben Reyes has done a marvelous job with a host of dedicated volunteers to make Bret Harte playable and improve other facilities. But, the fact remains that the school fields aren't designed to have so much use and the local leagues will never have sufficient control over the school facilities to do what is needed to maintain them.

Other sites?! To be clear, when the prior AYA group ran into roadblocks with the McKean Road site, they searched high and low for other sites. My board did the same. Viable sites do not exist.

What we have here is “ the ” opportunity. We have existing public land that otherwise cannot be used. There is not an otherwise prohibitive acquisition cost. Relatively speaking, there are very few people living nearby. Not only is there no other site, it doesn't get any better than this.

There Will NOT Be 2000+ Cars Per Day. This one is my personal favorite (right behind “500 parking spaces means there will be 500 cars”). How many times have you heard “there will be 2000” cars per day? Guess what. That statement could not be more false and misleading. Early in the planning process AYA was asked to determine “worst case” scenarios for use. That would be a 6 field soccer tournament which would have teams coming in and out for multiple games on the same day. For that it was determined there would be more than 2000 car trips in a day. But, that is a galaxy away from “per day.” Soccer tournaments could happen, if at all, only 3 or 4 weekends a year. AYA has never taken the position that AVYSL has to be able to have such tournaments. Use management of the facility is one of those key areas where, if SAVRA would only communicate reasonably, something could be worked out.

The relevant analysis is of the typical weeknight traffic because that is the only time when business commuters are also on the road. Run the math on a weeknight during the Little League and softball seasons. There could be 2 softball teams and 8 little league teams at the facility for a total of 10 teams. If you assume 12 players and 3 extra parents, that is 15 cars per team. By my math, 15 times 10 comes out to 150 each and every time.

Let's address safety. From day one AYA recognized that it could not have pedestrians or cars parked or backed up on McKean Road. In fact, that was the greatest concern we had. We addressed that issue by providing so much parking it would be idiot proof. Turn lanes, acceleration lanes and “stacking” areas (driveway to hold cars before they park) are planned. I don't think there is any issue about getting cars in and out safely.

Kids walking or biking down McKean?! People, go out and look at the site. Although it isn't a long drive down McKean (about ½ mile) the facility will be way out of range for prospective pedestrians and bikers. Aside from the fact that kids rarely even walk or bike around the corner to sports events (just ask the coaches and parents), no reasonable parent would ever contemplate having their child on McKean. Concern has been expressed about persons not affiliated with the playing leagues walking or biking to the facility. Those persons would, presumably, be the kids of the area residents. But, their parents should be most attune to the risks and least likely of all to permit such activity.

Note that the facility will be great for car pooling. Almost by definition, every kid using the facility will live “along the way.” With fields grouped together, we'll have more people going to a single site instead of multiple locations. Thus, no kid should ever need to get there in any manner other than by catching a ride with a teammate.

The Draft EIR Does Not Say Area Wells Will Run Dry.Water is a real issue. But, the present assertion that the draft EIR says the water use will cause the area wells to run dry is, by my read of the document, false. My understanding of the issue raised in the draft EIR is not the capacity of the aquifer and impact on other wells but, rather, the flow rate from the existing wells at the project site. It is stated that the irrigation demands would be in excess of the available capacity of the two project wells and that condition would be exacerbated during times of drought. My understanding is that means, during peak need periods, you can't get enough flow from the wells to cover the entire facility with only nightly watering. It presents a practical issue for AYA, not the area residents. There are all kinds of ways to deal with the issue.

Indeed, another well will help address the concern. Of course, if artificial turf is used the issue goes away completely. If that were done, would SAVRA change its position? This is something else SAVRA and AYA should talk about.

Addressing certain other comments in response to my prior letter:
I agree that what we really should have is a City funded, City managed and City maintained facility. But, that is not going to happen. If Almaden is going to get the facilities its kids need and deserve, for the most part we have to make it happen ourselves. It will be the people involved in the sports leagues that will do that such that those leagues earn the primary use rights. But, even if that weren't the case, assuming we aren't suggesting renting the facilities out to teams from other areas (which won't happen), those are exactly the same leagues that would, by definition, be using the fields under permit just like they use the school facilities.

I agree that the project should be done right. Notably, AYA is doing all of the things which are suggested it should do, except trying to buy land that doesn't exist with money that doesn't exist. I believe AYA would love to put in a chunk of synthetic grass and that it is becoming more affordable. Yes, AYA does expect better maintenance than with school facilities because there will be the elements to cure the school field problems, i.e. appropriate initial design and construction, equipment, appropriate resting of fields, control over systems, etc. With that, even on a shoe string budget, a little sweat equity can go a long way. Moreover, AYA is not looking to run on a shoe string budget.

Some people have proved my point that their approach to this project is an embarrassment.

With investigation and publication of the “facts” in addition to hype, we will have a level field and legitimate debate. That might result in addressing the real issues instead of red herrings.

In conclusion, I encourage you to investigate the facts for yourself. For more information or to get involved e-mail an AYA board member.

Brad Bosomworth,
Shadow Brook Drive

Loss of orchards and hillsides responsible for
wildlife problems, more

Editor,
I have read with interest and concern your articles on the coyote problem. Before a tragedy happens, the coyotes do need to be humanely rescued along with their babies and moved to a safe area where they can have water, food and shelter. Leg traps, padded or not, is not the way to go. If an animal is caught in a leg trap, he or she is most likely to panic and probably chew their leg off to escape.

Coyotes do like to eat fruit, berries, rodents, mice, squirrels and rabbits, but they do not like to eat dogs and cats. Small dogs that do tend to be yappy could antagonize a coyote and provoke an attack. Wildlife and animal control do need to take charge.

Have we ever thought to ask ourselves what is causing the coyote problem? Are we, in our quest for huge hillside homes, contributing to the problem? Coyotes, deer, foxes and other wildlife do need food and water and shelter.

When we build in the hills we are invading their habitat. Several weeks ago my daughter and I took a drive up in the hills to look at the 5000-square-foot homes and walking down the sidewalk was a small doe, possibly lost.

Once our beautiful hills are gone, like our beautiful orchards, not only will the wildlife have lost its home but we will never get back the beauty of the hills nor the beauty of these precious animals.

What have we really gained by losing our orchards and some of our hillsides? More traffic, more empty high-tech buildings, more rudeness and more cramped houses. Do we really need or want more of the same?

Verna Pingrey
Candy Lynn Ct.

Poizner ‘hit piece’ disappoints councilmember

Editor,
I was surprised and disappointed to receive a mailer from assembly candidate Steve Poizner attacking his opponent, Ira Ruskin. Coming from someone who claims to be a “reformer,” this struck me as hypocritical and very much politics as usual.

The mailer was riddled with factual errors and misleading statements. For example, the mailer lambastes the Redwood City council for abusing eminent domain and states “current mayor Jeff Ira didn’t vote for the plan, and apologized on behalf of the city.” In fact, the Mayor Ira has been a supporter of the downtown theater, and didn’t vote due to a potential conflict of interest. Additionally, council member Foust and I were not on the City Council at the time this vote took place.

It’s a big district, so I can forgive Mr. Poizner for not understanding the issues, but I would expect that he would do his homework before putting out such a hit piece. If Mr. Poizner wants to use his immense wealth to promote his own qualifications, I can accept that. But if he wants to use his money to tear down a dedicated public servant, that’s another matter.

Ira Ruskin is one of the most honest, hard working people I’ve known, either in public or private life. He represents the best ideas, ideals and aspirations of the citizens of our district, and more importantly, he has his heart in the right place. Thanks in part to Mr. Poizner’s cynical weekend hit piece, I am more convinced than ever that Ira Ruskin is the right person to represent us in the State Assembly.

Ian Bain
Council member
City of Redwood City