Now, just as hearings are about to begin on the draft environmental impact report, Santa Clara County has issued a scathing 10-page response to the draft EIR, questioning, among other things, how the city came to consider the sports complex a "public project."

That's because the property in question sits within unincorporated county land. If the project is properly deemed a "public project," it might be exempt from county zoning regulations.

As far as the county's concerned, the city has come nowhere near making the case for city regulations trumping county zoning.

The letter, signed by County Counsel Ann Miller Ravel and dated Sept. 27, identifies the same areas of environmental concern that have long been voiced by neighbors—issues that also were spelled out in the draft EIR. But where the city and the AYA take the position that all the concerns can be mitigated, the county argues that many issues, including concerns about water, cannot be.

What's more, the county argues that the draft EIR (the second attempt at an EIR for the project) is still woefully inadequate and that it needs to be done again—and recirculated again.

The county also faults the city for limiting its search for alternative sites to those areas that would accommodate all six soccer fields, four baseball diamonds and two softball diamonds. Citing case law after case law, the county's letter says: " ... the city's rationale for finding an alternative project site is legally deficient. A project proponent is not allowed to artificially confine the range of available alternatives."

Furthermore, the county argues that if the sports complex is, in fact, a public project, an analysis of alternative sites is legally even more important than if it were not a public project.

The county goes so far as to identify an alternative site—land within the Coyote Valley—and puzzles over why the city ruled out that area. Both Coyote Valley and South Almaden Valley are urban reserves, but the city clearly is ready to begin developing Coyote, while required triggers for developing SAVUR have not been met.

Other issues the county listed in its letter include :

An 'affront to CEQA'

The county's letter says: "The county strongly objects to the city's attempt to protect its finances at the expense of the environment and the residents and farmers whose groundwater supplies will be depleted by this project."

The letter continues: "It defies credibility for the city to claim that the sports complex complies with the General Plan because it will not be served by public infrastructure when the project's water demand is so great that it will significantly impact groundwater supplies. Certainly this is not what the city council had in mind when it adopted these General Plan policies. It is also an affront to the policies underlying [California Environmental Quality Act]."

Groundwater threatened

The county wonders whether the depletion of groundwater supplies will force the city to prematurely bring urban services to the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve and consequently then allow premature urban development there. Since the draft EIR doesn't address these concerns, the county once again calls the report deficient and in need of revision.

The county also points out that the EIR acknowledges that the groundwater aquifer and nearby Arroyo Calero Creek are connected. However, the EIR, according to the county, does not mention that runoff from the sports complex, contaminated by pesticides used to maintain the fields, along with pollution from cars parked at the site, will leak into the groundwater. Without analysis, no one knows what that contaminated groundwater will do to the orchards and ranches in the urban reserve.

"These intractable problems further demonstrate that this is an inappropriate location for the sports complex," the letter states.

Cars and safety

The county also takes on the issue of traffic, which the draft EIR says would include significant problems, but supporters of the field say that waivers signed by its players and coaches would minimize the risk.

McKean Road is a two-lane road with a speed limit of 40 mph. One weekend day of soccer practice generates 2,040 car trips, the "worst-case scenario" according to the draft EIR. The AYA has said that its members will sign waivers promising they will not walk or bike to the sports complex, but others have argued that the cars traveling to and from practice, mixed with adults and children walking along the road for any other reason, would create a significant safety hazard.

However, the county says the waiver is not a mitigation measure and "will be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce." And the letter points out that the "mitigation" is not sufficiant to protect the county from a lawsuit if there is an accident.

Other problems the county's letter brings up are the lack of a cumulative traffic analysis that takes into account Coyote Valley development, inadequacy of the current parking design, and the lack of a left-turn lane and bicycle-pedestrian access alternatives.

City/AYA relationship unclear

The letter asks why the proposed sports complex is exempt from county land-use regulations. It questions "whether the City is merely serving as a conduit for the Almaden Youth Association (AYA) to avoid county land-use regulations."

The county also asks that the city provide a copy of the operating and maintenance agreement that the AYA should have to sign in order to run the complex, saying that the city must be more specific about what its relationship with the AYA actually is.

The letter also questions the AYA's capacity to manage the complex. The county says the AYA is "well-meaning, but there is no evidence that they have the necessary skills to implement such complex mitigation measures or the financial resources to hire qualified personnel to do so."

Not 'limited' or 'low intensity'

The draft EIR estimates that up to 650 people may be at the sports complex at one time. This, along with the size of the proposed complex, led the county to argue that the complex is hardly a low-intensity use of the property. Calling the complex an inappropriate "urban-scale use" of SAVUR, the letter states that the EIR goes to "extreme lengths" to show how the project avoids the constraints of the city's General Plan.

"Unfortunately, all of this is done at the expense of the environment in and around Almaden Valley," the letter argues.

Third EIR needed

The county concludes that the environmental impact report conducted for the proposed sports complex highlights significant, unavoidable concerns without providing more than a cursory analysis, according to the county.

The county concludes that the draft EIR for the sports complex is inadequate for a CEQA document and recommends that it be revised to remedy the inadequacies.

The city will hold a series of public meetings to discuss the draft EIR before voting on whether to proceed with the McKean Road sports complex. The key dates are:

• Oct. 7 at 6:30 p.m. at the planning department, city hall, room 216B;
• Oct. 27 at 6:30 p.m. at the Leland High School cafeteria;
• Nov. 17 at 6 p.m. Planning commission meeting in city council chambers;
• Dec. 7 at 7 p.m. during the weekly city council meeting.