There are a couple of "significant negative impacts" that have not been fully mitigated (water and safety). If the San Jose Planning Commission and/or the city council accepts this project and it is certified, does that make the city liable for any negative impacts on the community?

The proposed acceptable alternative (according to the draft EIR), apart from not building the complex at all, is to plant five acres of natural turf to start with and see what happens. If the neighboring wells have problems—go dry—does the city of San Jose take responsibility for correcting the problem? Is that the best way to spend taxpayers' money? Create a problem and then pay to solve it?

The report states that the water supply is not sufficient to plant the fields. The report also acknowledges that in times of drought, using the existing wells to water the fields would damage other wells in the vicinity of the project. The interesting part is that they are still considering planting the fields even though the report states that the wells are not sufficient to supply the amount of water needed to sustain the fields. The city paid for a well test and the results are in the report. Now the Almaden Youth Association is suggesting that it will plant five acres and see what happens. This is not mitigation; it is another test.

Isn't that a conflict in itself? And who will be doing the monitoring of the underground water, neighboring wells and the long-term effect? The AYA is not qualified to do the monitoring. Will the city hire a specialist to monitor the problem? That would be a costly solution. What are the judging criteria and the plan of action/reaction to the water-level changes? Is failure the criterion? Just planting the fields and waiting to see what happens is not a plan or mitigation, it is another test. Does that mean that they have selected the Almaden residents who live on well water as the city's guinea pigs?

Second is the safety issue. More than one person has stated that we need safe fields for the kids to play sports. I completely agree. In fact, one of the primary justifications for building the fields is based on this premise. It has also been stated by the AYA that the current fields it is using are not a safe place to play. Now that is where I get confused.

They are currently using school fields. The AYA states that they are unsafe for the kids to play on. These same fields that the AYA states are unsafe for the kids to play after-school sports on are being used by all the children of Almaden during the school day. How can those parents and the AYA believe the school fields are safe during the day but not after school? Shouldn't we be using the taxpayers' money to fix the school fields so that all of the children of Almaden are safe during school as well as after school?

Safety means more than just a safe place to play; it means a good plan so that getting to and from the fields is safe. The mitigation for this is to have the children who are part of the AYA sign a waiver. This absurd mitigation only considers those kids who are playing in the game. It does not protect the rest of the resident children of Almaden. The sports complex will in itself be an attractive nuisance. It will draw children because they will want to play on the playground, watch games and eat at the snack shacks. There is not a safe way for the neighboring kids to approach the fields. They will be riding bikes or walking down McKean Road. This is not a safe journey. They missed the point.

The new report did not find traffic to be a problem. How can traffic not be a problem? Well, for one thing, each and every traffic study that they conducted was done when the Challenger School was not in session. Imagine 2,000 more cars going down Almaden Road, Harry Road and Almaden Expressway, cutting though neighborhoods to find a shorter route, just to sit in line at the sports complex. This will happen 10 to 11 months out of the year (depending on the sports events and city events that will be held).

Again, it looks like the city plans on creating the problem and then using taxpayers' money to solve it.

Do you also know that even if the planning commission recommends against the project, the city council can approve the draft EIR anyway? If it is approved, the document immediately becomes certified and the tractors can start grading the next day. This is called forced development. The South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve has protection from just such development—it is called the General Plan. To develop this area the General Plan requires that a specific plan for the development is created so that the entire infrastructure needed is being included and accounted for (this includes water, roads and sewer).

If the residents of Almaden need a sports complex, let's do it, but let's do it right!

Carol Hallett was born and raised in San Jose and is a longtime resident of Almaden Valley. She has played, coached and refereed soccer throughout her life and has a son who played youth soccer and is now managing an adult soccer team.