Supplemental EIR
The Bridge
The City's Coastal Development Permit
Buildable Acreage
Potential DangersSierra Club Law Suit
Remaining Obstacles

Supplemental EIR

On March 1, The Pajaro Valley Unified School District released its Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the most recent incarnation of the proposed high school. The previous EIR had been written in support of a 50+ acre campus to be constructed on 70 +/- acres of environmentally sensitive wetlands and agricultural land west of highway 1. The most recent document — required to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — covers a project of approximately 30 acres.

In a letter from commission deputy director, Tami Grove, she suggested a supplemental EIR might not be sufficient and urged the district to complete a Subsequent EIR instead.

According to Dan Carl of the local Coastal Commission Staff, the report lacks an analysis of alternatives which the act requires. He said the report merely states that alternatives have previously been addressed and would not be readdressed. That the newest construction plan calls for a significantly smaller site may require that the district reanalyze alternatives to determine that there are no 30+/- acres sites that are environmentally superior.

Noteworthy in this discussion is the size in acreage that the report's authors attribute to the project in relation to the previous studied project. In an earlier chapter the report mentions a site of 33.5 acres. However, throughout the alternatives non-analysis the site is 35 acres. Go to Buildable Acreage for a more complete analysis of the size of the project.

The Bridge

A recently released High School Access Feasibility Study concludes that the district's preferred access — via Harkins Slough Rd. — is their superior alternative. A number of alternative access routes from Airport Blvd. were determined to be growth inducing, would threaten biodiversity and would remove agriculture land from production, according to the report.

A cost analysis was also provided indicating that costs associated with acquiring rights-of-way and construction would be considerably greater than would the costs of a proposed bridge. The Coastal Commission required the bridge as an upgrade to the failing culverts and sagging road currently in place, should that access be selected.

The report claims the Airport Blvd. access would cost the district roughly $3.6 to $4.4 million with no available funding source identified. "Planned buildings would have to be eliminated from the high school campus to pay for the access road." The report says the proposed bridge — which they also acknowledged as growth inducing — already has $2.8 million in secured funding (some reflecting the efforts of Assemblyman Keeley) of an estimated $3.7 million total cost.

Also of concern to the writers of the report was the regulatory process which the report claims will be time consuming to the detriment of the already overcrowded district. The Airport Rd. plans were considered encroachment on ag parcels which would require a General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (LCP) Amendment and Zone Change from Commercial Agricultural to Public Facility. This would require CEQA review and, according to the report, the county estimates a 15 month process.

The report claims a bridge over the West Branch of the Struve Slough would require only a Coastal Development Permit and Riparian Exception from the county, and that the county can rely on the district's Supplemental EIR. Also required is National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) analysis since the bridge will require federal funding. The depth of that process is not now known, but it's not expected to have very high standards.

The report also describes improvements to Harkins Slough Rd., which include a 400 to 500 feet right turn lane between the proposed bridge and the school's driveway. That turn land would pave ESHA buffer across the road from the State Fish and Game Preserve. The Coastal Commission has approved a crossing of the buffer, but the proposed right turn lane appears to violate the buffer.

CalTrans has estimated the bridge construction cost to be $3.2 million. It has been learned that the bridge funding is made possible through $1.2 million from the state general fund — arranged by Keeley and approved by Governor Davis — and $2.2 million from the federal government's HBRR Low Water Crossing Program. That program requires 20% local matching funds.

The federal HBRR grant was awarded to Santa Cruz County and it was lead agency on the project since the road and ensuing bridge are in the county, not the city. However, since the county claims limited resources and staff constraints, County Supervisor Tony Campos suggested that the City of Watsonville should take the lead agency roll to facilitate the regulatory process. The county board approved the transfer of the earmarked funds and lead agency control in Feb.

In a speech by Mayor Chuck Carter, he alluded to complications between the county and city regulatory processes which he indicated threaten to delay, even further, the schools opening.

Dan Carl said the Coastal Commission, in its final list of requirements, calls for the school district to get a permit from the county for a bridge and road improvements before executing the city's permit for construction. Under those conditions, the district could hold a valid Coastal Development permit from the City but would be delayed from beginning construction while waiting for the county to process their Coastal Development Permit application relating to access. The district would prefer to attack these two processes simultaneously.

Carl said one approach would be for the city to apply for an amendment to their Local Coastal Plan (LCP) — albeit a minor amendment. He said he wasn't sure how his staff would "come down" on that idea, but it would not be the lengthy process required for the major amendment approved last March.

It is quite unreal to think that a staff report on a minor amendment — to alter language concerning the order of permit processing — would go against the city. The Commission has given permission for the school to be built, and would certainly not do anything now to delay the inevitable.

Carter indicated that the city was prepared to — once again — approach state legislators for their assistance on two fronts. To encourage the commission to permit the parallel permit processing track and help encourage state school officials to somehow freeze the district's hardship funds should additional delays impact their time line and cause the forfeiture of those funds.

The City's Coastal Development Permit

On Dec. 8, the district applied for a Coastal Development Permit under their new LCP. Included in the permit was a full set of drawings showing the various buildings, play fields, roads, sidewalks etc. The plans indicate a lack of features previously planned due to lack of acreage and reduced buying power of the $48 million hardship funds previously awarded by the State Allocations Board.

The lack of certain features originally promised for the campus has caused critics of the high school to argue with the designation "comprehensive high school." The planned swimming pool is not included; neither is the performing arts center, and neither is the football stadium.

The architect has told various gatherings that those features will be included over time. That implies the school district will eventually purchase the remaining acreage to the north, thus complying with new LCP requirements that non agricultural use there be for public school use only.

Aeronautics issues complicate the matter. More acreage to the north of the planned development is only possible if the city gets permission to extend the main runway or the facility closes down. The runway extension would theoretically make more of the 110 acre Edwards property suitable for school use.

And the district would be required to secure funding for their new features — either a general obligation bond additional state or federal funding.

It has been suggested state conservancy money might be available to support a parks/school facility to satisfy high school needs. That would likely require another LCP amendment. If the commission maintains its present approach to the school's needs, an amendment to allow mixed use — park and school for example — would probably be sympathetically received.

In a Feb. 2 letter to the school district, Kieth Boyle, the principle planner for the city, enumerated deficiencies in the district's permit application. They include the commission's requirement that no more than 18 acres be impermeable surface as opposed to the 21.3 acres shown in the application drawings. They also include requests for additional information on a host of other items, none of which are seen as deal breakers.

Buildable Acreage for the High School

Included in the drawings is conflicting information about the developable acreage since a number of restrictions have been placed on the original 70 acres parcel. On one page of the plans there are two references to developable acreage. One describes a 70.46 acres parcel with 36.94 acres of "ESHA areas" leaving 33.52 buildable. The other describes a 70 acres parcel with 44.5 acres of ESHA resulting in 25.5 buildable acres. A third document from Lawrence Soe of DES Architect and Engineering claims an original 70.45 acre parcel with 33.5+/- buildable after ESHA limits. That document says if the 200 ft. ag buffer along Harkins Slough Rd. is a restricted zone, subtract 4.50 acres for a net of 29.0+/- acres.

It is not surprising that some people have trouble finding out the exact acreage. Several individuals have taken the time to calculate the buildable acreage using the district's latest drawings, geometric principles and mathematical formulas. They have come up with numbers considerably smaller than the district's overall approximation of "about 30 acres." A real estate and plot plan expert engaged by this web site — calculated the acreage to be "approximately 26 acres."

The site's total buildable acreage has significance primarily because the district has maintained they need 50+ acres to build the school. During the site selection process of 1992-1993, sites of approximately 30 acres were routinely rejected because of the 50 acre requirement.

The list of potential dangers to school children continues to grow

When the district's Final Revised EIR was finally released in June of 1998, the alternative site analysis proclaimed the Harkins Slough Rd. site to be free of hazards.

Since that time, the 1992 and 1997 CalTrans Aeronautics approvals have come into question — especially since the analysis performed in 1987 declared the site unsuitable for school use. The Coastal Commission insisted that a new evaluation be performed to insure that a school, located within a one mile radius of the primary take-off runway, would be safe.

The safety of the narrow country roads leading to and from the school has also been called into question. A young man was killed on Lee Rd. in 1994, and a senior school board member said they were the most dangerous roads in the county. See a previously forgotten article on this and other dangers reviewed therein.

The school's proximity to multiple landfills — one, an historical dump the contents of which are not known but are suspected to be toxic — also has raised questions of the site's suitability as a school.

The most recent concern came with the discovery of a peat bog fire near Vandenberg Air Force Base which authorities there have contained but cannot extinguish. That discovery has caused the district's governing board to inquire regarding the danger presented by peat bogs on or close to the school's proposed site. Those concerns have been discussed in open session, but the district appears to be satisfied with verbal comments from local fire officials that the dangers presented are not serious.

Sylvia Previtali and her group, the Committee for a Safe High School Site have also claimed environmental racism on the part of those seeking to build the school in its proposed location. She said that the long list of possible dangers and the isolation of a predominantly minority population away from any known neighborhood or community, indicates a willingness on the part of officials to house minority students on inferior and even dangerous sites. She has struggled to convince local Hispanic leaders and individuals of these concerns. So far, the results are mixed. At bottom, there are few who respond to this argument and even fewer who are Hispanic.

The Sierra Club's law suit

As the 60 day deadline for challenging the Coastal Commission's action permitting the high school neared, there were a great number of rumors circulating that indeed the Sierra Club would sue the commission. There were two legal arguments to pursue. The fact that the Memorandum of Understanding was not adequate to mitigate the growth inducing aspects of the project, and the commission did not properly analyze the alternatives prior to giving its approval. Attorneys familiar with the potential litigation were unanimous that the law suit would have been a "slam dunk" victory for those opposed to the high school.

According to George Jamal, the Executive Committee Chairman of the Santa Cruz group — a sub group of the Sierra Club's Ventana Chapter which represents the greater Monterey Bay — had voted overwhelmingly to support a suit. They were very much concerned about the project's precedent setting nature and feared other school district's would enlist assembly persons and paid consultants to convince the commission to permit hardship projects elsewhere in the Coastal Zone.

First the suit came before the Santa Cruz ExCom, and then to the Ventana Chapter. Both bodies supported the law suit and they in turn sought the support and funding from the national organization.

The national organization, headed by Carl Pope — according to Jamal and other ExCom members — would enter into litigation but only if the local organizations could enlist the support of Latino groups who opposed the project. Jamal and an ad hoc committee formed to advance the law suit heard arguments — during several meetings leading up to the deadline — that indeed there were no local Latino groups opposed to the project. Moreover, arguments were presented explaining reasons — both cultural and economic — why Latinos were not likely to be opposed.

In the final days, Jamal relayed accounts of efforts on the part of Assemblyman Fred Keeley to stop the club from suing. He said that Keeley did indeed talk with the Sierra Club staff — not to Pope directly — but that their decision was not influenced by the assemblyman. The club made its decision not to sue based on the consideration that they might be perceived to be racist or anti-education.

It was later learned that the day before the suit was to have been filed, the club staff warned Keeley that they were going to sue and asked if he had any last minute information for them to consider. According to Jamal, Keeley told them he was close to negotiating a price to purchase and preserve the Tai property and that a law suit would make the negotiations more difficult and the price higher. Jamal said, the club maintained that those discussions had nothing to do with their decision not to sue.

Remaining Obstacles

Certainly on the surface is appears as though there are now very few obstacles for the city and school district to overcome before ground will be broken and construction begins. Boiling under the surface however is the regulatory process that has caused some officials to label the project "little Hatton Canyon" in memory of that long stalled project in near Carmel Valley. These officials breath a sigh as they estimate "decades" until the project will be built.

The city's permit process is underway and appears to be moving relatively smoothly — they have no reason to drag their heels and will likely bend over backwards to make accommodations.

The county's permit for bridge construction and Harkins Slough Rd. improvements will be somewhat time consuming, but will probably not be required prior to the execution of the city's permit as their LCP amendments now mandate. The county is likely to be less forgiving in its analysis of relevant information, but there's no indication that they will not ultimately approve the improvements.

It may take a minor LCP amendment from the coastal commission to allow both processes to move forward in parallel, but the commission will likely go along. Either way, there will be delays associated with these two regulatory processes but no devastating delays.

The district, having received approximately $48 million in hardship funds has a time line they are required to meet. Those funds, theoretically must be returned to the state should the district not have construction contracts signed within 18 months of the funds allocation. That deadline will come in Nov.

In a speech to a local Rotary group Feb. 28 of this year, Watsonville Mayor Chuck Carter said there was consideration that local legislators — Keeley and Salinas and McPherson— might need to be recruited to convince state school officials to freeze the hardship funds required for the project.

The commission's requirement that a complete geotechnical analysis be performed to insure the safety of students at the school seems no longer to be an obstacle. The district is convinced that the analysis they have performed — coupled with a 1992 analysis for a proposed hospital there — is adequate. After the 1992 analysis, hospital administrators chose an alternate site.

Steven Rass & Associates, Inc. reported on Dec. 14 of 2000 that additional borings had been performed and soil samples taken to update previous work performed in the Fall of 1997. The latest tests were made to confirm the suitability of new building locations on the site. The engineering group maintains that their recommendations from 1997 are still valid.

So, the only problems remaining for the district are the acceptability of their Supplemental EIR and the potential delays that might cause a postponement of their scheduled Fall of 2003 opening.

If they face no obstacles with regard to the EIR — the city appears to be satisfied, the county has yet to comment and local groups have made only minor grumbling that a suit might follow — it should be relatively smooth sailing. The timetable is another matter.

The 2003 school opening date will be difficult to meet. Superintendent Casey, though not willing to back off that target date publicly appears to be resigned to the possibility that delays may prevent it — privately he has uttered the words "fall of 2004". At this time there are no plans for the school board to seek any temporary solutions to their severe high school overcrowding, but the superintendent has indicated his school board may instruct him to look into it.