Thanks to the Almaden Resident for its article on Sept. 2 about the proposed change to the General Plan that would eliminate forever the possibility of extending Winfield Boulevard ("Winfield extension pits residents' tranquility against Almaden Expressway traffic relief"). If residents of Almaden Valley are concerned about the future traffic circulation around Almaden Expressway, now is the time to make themselves heard. They can do this by looking at the city website for the draft environmental impact report for this project at www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/sjplan, then click on Environmental Review, then click on Environmental Impact Report Library to see the brief article about this project. The contact information for Darren McBain, environmental project manager, is given.

Now is the time to make your views known and to be included in the EIR that goes to the planning commission. Public review ends Oct. 4, so time is running out. The tentative date for the public hearing before the planning commission is Nov. 17.

You may also want to relay your thoughts to the mayor and the city council before the General Plan review on Dec. 7.

Barbara McIntosh

Camelia Drive

Bosomworth letter
false on all counts

Brad Bosomworth claims "much of what was published in reaction to my letter (and so much before it) is flatly false." His "for instance" is just a technicality. When it comes to material facts he is flatly false on all counts.

Here is an item-by-item response:

* The Almaden Youth Association is not "public":

How do you define "public"? After all these years, AYA still has no clear definition of its relationship with the city other than receiving money. The AYA has failed to perform its goals and the city has taken on more and more of the burden along the way. What "huge sacrifices" is he talking about? Spending city money on a haphazard project?

He claims a "partnership" with the city. He cannot define it, because AYA has been going on wishy-washy, supported and protected by Pat Dando. The AYA had to be forced to open up its books and relationship with the city following a public outcry.

* The AYA is trying to make the project work for residents:

No way. From the beginning, the AYA marched in a mob of innocent children in their uniforms to torpedo any reasonable debate, and Dando called this form of mob rule "an exercise in democracy!"

The AYA is now crying that it "repeatedly asked SAVRA to get together so it could logically address concerns"; I do not speak for SARVA, but how can anybody trust your motives?

The stories about "the 5-foot burm and tree line at the road, fencing, sufficient parking ..." makes no sense when the basic safety and other issues have not been addressed.

* The AYA is not trampling on anyone's rights:

Nobody buys their fairy tales. The AYA has been talking for years about "the area will become part of the city."

Bosomworth writes "the assurance that the SJ Unified School District would get its land back." When that happens, what about the children? What "other accommodations" are they talking about? You just told us there is no other land available anywhere? By that time there will be more children and less space. You do not have a solution, do you?

* Fixing school sites is not the solution:

It is the best available alternative. The AYA has so many times reasoned that "referees step into gopher holes" in the existing fields. There are no gophers on McKean Road? Who is being illogical? We can maintain, expand and better schedule the use of the existing school and park sites to meet the immediate demand.

And what do you do when you give the land back to the school district as you claim?

* There will not be 2,000 cars per day:

Now the AYA goes from illogical to absurd. Even its own EIR studies strongly disagree with its assessment, and now you want to "communicate reasonably?" The EIR states that traffic will be impacted all the way to Coleman and Almaden Expressway. The proposed project traffic will have heavy adverse impact on many hundreds of residents and commuters to and from many, many small communities off of McKean, Baily and Uvas roads who depend on McKean Road for their livelihood.

Now they say "let's address safety." But they fail to do so. Their jargon dances around the issue. You cannot make an unsafe project safe by having AYA players sign a piece of paper. That might protect the AYA or the city's behinds, but who is going to answer to the victims of this unsafe project?

* The draft EIR does not say wells will run dry:

They said "water is a real issue." No, water is the real issue. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has, for many decades, insisted that there is just enough surface water in this area for the then-existing (around pre-1960s) homes. Any new home to be built had to dig several hundred feet down to the rockbed for water, if any. Many of the current residents of the area have spent tens of thousands of dollars each to dig deep wells. That is based on the SCVWD years of experience, expertise including models and calculations. Now, Bosomworth is dancing around telling us about what he calls "my understanding!"

The fact remains that there is not enough water. At any time, especially in a drought year, the adjacent wells are going to go dry and that is a fact.

The AYA and the city's heavy-handed approach on the matter of the McKean Road project can only force the residents to take the matter through the courts to prove its illegality on many grounds, especially in trampling over our health and safety ordinances.

Finally, I completely agree with Bosomworth "that what we really should have is a city-funded, city-managed and city-maintained facility" with city water, permanent toilets and sinks—no Porta-Potties, no haphazard job as AYA wants to do.

Our kids deserve better. I have been and am a soccer dad, baseball dad, ... I am all for the kids. We have to work for better fields than the McKean fiasco.

Roy Kole

Schillingsburg Avenue