However, within 24 hours of the agenda's release, the item vanished.

Sara Hensley, director of parks, recreation, and neighborhood services, said she'd been out of town when her staff wrote the agenda. "I pulled the item from the packet," she said.

According to a memo issued by Hensley's office and attached to the agenda, the AYA also wants approval for a lease in five-year increments for the Caglia property from the San Jose Unified School District.

The AYA was awarded a $150,000 HNVF physical improvement reimbursement grant on July 1, 2003. The nonprofit and the city of San Jose have agreed to lease the property from the school district for 20 years, with the lease considered for renewal every five years.

However, one requirement for a physical improvement reimbursement grant from HNVF is a 15-year lease or a statement from the landlord agreeing to enter into a 15-year lease upon approval of the grant and the landlord's permission for renovations.

Hensley said since discussions are still under way concerning the lease, she thought it premature to put the well item on the agenda.

It may reappear, she added, when the draft environmental impact report for the project gets approved. The draft EIR was released Aug. 13.

City planning staff and the environmental consulting firm hired to produce the report refused to comment on the impact of an additional well while the report remains open for public review. The review period ends Sept. 27.

"I guess someone thought if water supply was an issue, two wells would produce twice as much water," said AYA president Dan Smyth. Later Smyth added that Denelle Fedor, one of Dando's aides, could answer questions about the second well.

But according to the draft EIR, the problem with the water supply at the site is the lack of sufficient groundwater to support the proposed 35-acre sports complex without damaging water supply to residents of the urban reserve, who rely on well water to maintain ranches, orchards and homes.

An additional well would not create more water for the project, and the impact of drilling an additional well isn't discussed within the current draft EIR.

If significant changes are made to a project during the review period that make environmental impacts worse, another draft EIR will have to be circulated for another round of public review, said environmental lawyer Jim Moose of Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley.

He pointed to a case filed in 2001 in Monterey County, in which a developer wanted to close a well that had been designated as open in the initial EIR and was told by the 6th District California Court of Appeals to update the report to show the well closed and then recirculate the report for public comment.