December 2, 2004

Planning Commission deals sports field project a split decision

By Kymberli W. Brady
Staff Writer

With one round to go, the controversial sports complex heads to the City Council after being dealt a one-two punch by the Planning Commission on Monday.

After three-and-a-half hours and more than 90 community speakers, the commission voted 6-1 in favor of certifying the McKean Road Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report [EIR].

“We’d hoped the Planning Commission would approve the EIR for it to move forward,” said AYA CFO Dan Kennedy, who remained confident that the fields would eventually be built, even with a changing of the guard.

“I believe it will still succeed, it just may take longer,” he said. “We have enough community support that it should move forward. Nancy Pyle’s gone back and forth. We had a good meeting with her and she was supportive at that point.”

“I firmly believe if we spent as much time, effort, and money as we have on all these studies and put that into refurbishing the fields in the school district or the parks that we use, we’d be much better off today,” said Carl Rand, former coach and referee. Photos by Kymberli Brady

“It concerns me that there were a significant number of people here who said they were worried about their wells running dry,” argued commissioner James Zito, who tendered the lone vote against the EIR. “My conflict is whether this is the right place to do this and when there’s doubt, I want to err on the side of caution. That’s why I can’t support this.”

The seven-member panel then rejected the proposed General Plan text amendment that would pave the way for interim recreational use in the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve [SAVUR]. They further elected to deny recommendation of the General Plan to the City Council.

“My purpose for opposing the motion is by no means trying to defeat the idea that there shouldn’t be something done,” noted commissioner James. “I just don’t think that this is the right idea for this proposed project. Four or five items in this EIR go directly against the General Plan.”

According to the staff presentation, the action before the Planning Commission on Monday and the City Council next week is for consideration of the proposed General Plan text amendment only. The adoption of the amendment would not authorize a specific proposal for development and recreational use, rather it would serve to provide policy framework for future review of specific proposed recreational uses of various types.

On several occasions, Stephen Haase, director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, had to reinforce the intent of the meeting, which was solely to determine whether the EIR succeeded in identifying significant effects and alternatives.

He later explained that the primary responsibility of the Planning Commission was to determine whether or not the EIR was adequate.

“That’s all they had to decide and we were trying to keep them focused,” he exclaimed. “The EIR is their first responsibility and it identified a number of impacts, but they were taking it to the next step in asking how we could have recommended it in the first place. At times that was a challenge last night.”

Staff admitted that the fields would result in the loss of agricultural lands, which, on its own, falls short of making the text amendment consistent with the General Plan strategies, goals, and policies. However, the conformance of the project, including the proposed amendment is addressed as an overall conformance of the project to the entire body of major strategies, goals, and policies contained in the General Plan, and not on an individual or policy-by-policy basis—making it consistent with the San Jose 20/20 General Plan.

The community spoke to many issues, including concerns with traffic, water, operational noise, alternative sights, and others, should the project push forward.

“Now that another school is closing, we will lose those fields too,” explained AVYSL President Terry Thompson, who coordinates the scheduling of all AVYSL soccer games. “We need these fields desperately.”

Thompson’s comments, combined with those from Scott Reese with regard to impending school closures found Commissioner Jay James questioning yet another possibility.

“The school district is willing to lease you the land on McKean,” he observed. “If they close a school, wouldn’t they be able to lease you that land instead? The fields are already there.”

SAVRA resident and realtor Doug Turk argued whether or not it was “really a public project.” said. “It’s for the exclusive use of children in Almaden and their families. The AYA’s website quotes, ‘this is not a regional facility and the local league’s use will not leave open the opportunity for other league use.”

“My understanding is that we are considering an environmental impact report and a General Plan text amendment—not a specific project,” reminded Commissioner Platten. “Therefore, questions as to some AYA project, including who’s running it, who it supports, and who’s going to play are not part of our consideration.”

Deputy County Counsel Lizanne Reynolds insisted that it was in fact a project-specific EIR.

“We are opposed to this project,” she insisted. “The city and the county have a long-standing cooperative relationship with respect to land use and what types of usage should be directed toward the city, and what types of usage should be directed at the unincorporated areas. We’ve got to stand firm on our policies. Otherwise, they will continue to erode.”

When Commissioner James Zito questioned why the county wasn’t on board, but instead a “disinterested” party against the project, Haase was quick to offer insight into how the county’s view changed when their relationship with the city changed following their lawsuit and the shift in dynamics that he suggested placed doubt on their motives.

“I don’t consider them unbiased responders to this document,” he said. “Mine and the city attorney’s experience with the county in March of this year, when they said they would allow this to process as a public project—that has since changed over the past few months. On or about the time we circulated the document, they sent us a letter in response to it and that letter, in all honesty surprised us.”

“The vast majority of residents in Almaden are in fact in favor of this,” explained soccer coach Michael Manglia.

“We’re sensitive to the concerns of our fellow residents and we have a lot of confidence that when we have a detailed project, we will go back and address their concerns.”

Still Zito continued to question, among other things the “interim” aspect of a project that isn’t a project yet.

“I’m looking for overriding considerations here,” admitted Zito. “Why is Almaden over and above other districts that need fields? Why should I consider this text amendment above other areas?”

“That’s not in your purview tonight,” reminded Haase. “The council will have to wrestle with that and at that time make the statement of overriding considerations.

“We should apologize to the children of San Jose for failing them,” said Gerome Vernack.

“If this is the best we can do, put them five to ten miles out into a rural area, where they could get expelled from the team if they ever dared to ride their bikes. I guess San Jose could become the poster child for pedestrian unfriendly development.”

Yet, having lived in Almaden for 32 years, Kevin Skeen remains determined. He played as a boy and raised his kids on the fields. Even though it will be too late for them, he still hopes to someday see his grandchildren play there.

And while many like Kevin Skeen and Tom Smyth won’t get to see their children benefit from the fields, they remain hopeful that 5, 10, 15 years down the road, someone else will.

“We’ll see what happens in the next week,” adds Haase. “There are some other actions council will be considering that we didn’t discuss, including an agreement between the city and the school district, one that the city council can’t enter into without an environmental document.

As they head to the final showdown in City Council chambers next Tuesday, Haase remains confident in its success, explaining that the Planning Commission has to certify the EIR, but their decisions on the other two issues regarding the amendment are strictly advisory and doesn’t preclude passage.

“There’s a practical side of what we do and then there’s the policy side,” Haase explained. “They can certainly have a different interpretation than we do. In this case, they were struggling with the discrete role of certifying the EIR and the policy of the General Plan. We struggled a lot of the evening with that. At the end, they saw their responsibility. We did a good job of identifying all the issues, but they will be problematic going forward and we’ll have to address them.”

“We as a community will come together to bridge the gap,” said Terry Bechaump. “We will fundraise and we will build.”