McKean Road Sports Complex

The proposed McKean Road Sports Complex project is an attempt at premature development of the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve in direct opposition to both the Santa Clara County General Plan's and the City of San Jose General Plan's policies and development triggers. The project's Draft Environmental Impact Report fails to properly analyze and respond to serious unavoidable impacts on the area's water resources, public safety, traffic and environmental concerns. A heavily-used, massive public facility of this kind belongs in an urban setting supplied by urban services and not in a rural area.

Following is a summary of the issues and impacts of the proposed project. We encourage you to read experts' response letters to the DEIR, along with letters and articles from concerned citizens and local journalists on the subject for full information.

Scope of Proposed Project

The McKean Road Sports Complex proposal includes 6 soccer fields, 6 ball fields, a children's play area, portable restroom facilities, concession trailers (on concrete pads), maintenance and storage facilities, and parking for 569 vehicles, all surrounded by 8' tall chain-link fencing on 35 acres. The property is owned by the San Jose Unified School District and is currently farmland planted in barley hay located in the South Almaden Valley Urban Reserve (see map above).

Project Violates Land Use Plans

The current designation of the 35 acres proposed for the sports complex is an Open Space Reserve of prime agricultural farmland. The land is not located within an Urban Service Area and therefore lacks any supporting infrastructure: water, sewers, power, street safety, bike lanes, etc. Established development triggers in the General Plans of both Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose preclude conversion of farmland for a project of this nature, especially without the extension of urban services. The attempt to define the project as "interim-use" to circumvent the policies is disingenuous in that 20 years is not short-term (definition for "interim-use") nor could the converted site (parking lots, play area, fields, etc.) be removed at any time to be returned to barley fields.

DEIR Fails CEQA Requirements

The DEIR assembled for the project is a slapdash document that fails to provide analysis or mitigation proposals for the serious and unavoidable impacts that would occur with the project's development including, but not limited to, water supply, traffic, public safety, and environmental issues. The DEIR violates the California Environmental Quality Act's (CEQA) process by failing to provide the sufficient, accurate analysis and detail necessary to enable decision-makers to make intelligent decisions regarding these life-impacting issues.

DEIR Ignores Valid Alternatives

The DEIR placed too narrow a requirement on alternatives to be valid, requiring space of 25 acres or more for analysis. The DEIR failed to analyze several available vacant parcels because they were not all in one place, although there is no reason why they should be. These ignored alternatives include property with urban services, such as water, sewer, and traffic safety.

Significant Water Supply Shortages

The SAVUR residents rely on wells for their water and the water for their livestock. The sports complex fields would draw on an already limited supply of water to the point that there would be a yearly water shortage for four months out of the year, or more frequently depending on water reserves. The only mitigation offered by the DEIR is to stop watering the fields. This response would be too little, too late, as the residents' wells would already have run dry. The DEIR analysis clearly lacks an understanding of the ground water supply and shallow nature of the aquifer.

Understated Traffic Impact

The DEIR has severely understated the traffic impact of adding a high-use recreational facility off a rural two-lane road. Since there will be no illumination for night use, the proposed sports schedule must be revised to accommodate a lack of daylight hours in the fall/winter months. This schedule revision, along with corrections to the weekday peak hour trips, will double the number of trip generations on the road. McKean is the only feasible access many residents have to and from their homes, as well as the access to residents for emergency vehicles. Impacting a rural road with high-traffic urban use is inappropriate.

Public Safety at Risk

No feasible mitigation measures have been addressed for the threat to public safety by placing a recreational attraction on a high-speed, narrow, two-lane, undivided road with no shoulders or left turn lanes. McKean is already in high weekend use by recreational bicyclists, horse riders, boaters, and motorbikes. The project suggests expelling children who are not driven to the facility. Not only is this not smart growth, which would encourage walking or biking, but this fails to protect children and others who walk, bike, or ride horses along the road.

Water Quality and Environmental Issues Not Addressed

The DEIR completely fails to address the issue of water supply contamination from the project. Pollutants from fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, petroleum products (from the vehicle parking), from the portable restrooms, and mercury-laden runoff into the creek and groundwater have not been analyzed, but are serious impacts. These impacts will not only affect area residents and their livestock, but water and other environmental concerns may adversely affect species and habitats.

Urban Alternatives to Rural Premature Development Required

Building the proposed McKean Road Sports Complex would incur serious and unavoidable impacts on the SAVUR area. The premature conversion of prime agricultural land, ignoring the provisions of the General Plans, could increase the risk of additional premature land development by engaging in urban development in a rural area without supporting urban services. This project is in opposition to the managed, balanced, and responsible growth mandated by the General Plans. The project should evaluate urban alternatives, complete with urban services, and not seek to place a public, heavily-used urban facility in a rural area.