A. Staff Clarifications

1. Airport Safety/Area C Site Constraints

Since release of the staff recommendation, staff has completed additional research on the previous airport safety determination to better understand how much of Area C is appropriate for a public school use in light of its proximity to the Watsonville Airport. Accordingly, the following findings should be inserted in place of the second full paragraph on page 159:

Staff research on the previous airport safety determination raises an important question about how much of Area C is appropriate for a public school use in light of its proximity to the Watsonville Airport. This question is important to the Commission's Coastal Act findings because, in response to the staff recommendation, the PVUSD has indicated that a development envelope that extends north of its proposed Area F, as is recommended by staff, would raise concerns about airport safety and that this siting option is therefore precluded. Essentially, PVUSD has argued that airport safety concerns create unavoidable conflicts with protections required by the Coastal Act, particularly the protection of Hanson Slough wetland resources.

At bottom, there is insufficient information to evaluate the PVUSD argument. This is because there are at least three fundamental problems with the airport safety evaluation done by the Department of Transportation in 1992 and reaffirmed in 1997. First, the administrative record for this evaluation is missing (see Exhibit J for all known documentation), and thus there is very little analytic support for the conclusion that the site evaluated in 1992/97 is safe for a public school, let alone for a specific geographic line on Area C above which a public school would not be safe.

Page 3

Second and related, the site evaluated in 1992/97 is smaller than the school site area currently being pursued by the PVUSD. It is also considerably smaller than the staff recommended development envelope for Area C which, if adopted by the Commission, will be a changed circumstance since the prior safety evaluation. Indeed, staff has reconfirmed with the Department of Aeronautics that the proposed school site identified by the School District in 1992 and evaluated in 1992/97 for safety is the only part of Area C that was approved for a school use by that office. As stated by the Aeronautics Program: Any siting of school facilities outside of the areas depicted on the map originally submitted by the Pajaro Valley Unified School District in 1992 would invalidate our evaluations and another school site evaluation may be required. (Staff Report Exhibit J, p. 1)Click to read The map originally provided by PVUSD to the Department of Education for evaluation is attached to the staff report on page 7 of Exhibit J (site 6). Click to see map Figure 16 shows the relationship of this area to the proposed Area F. Click for Composite As shown, this evaluated site contains only approximately 23 acres - well short of the stated acreage need of the PVUSD. The overlay of this site approved in 1992 on the High School site plan now proposed by PVUSD clearly does not encompass all of the area allotted to the current design of the High School (see Figure 16). Thus, not only is it not clear that going further north on Area C is precluded, it is also not clear that the currently proposed PVUSD school development envelope is safe for a public school.

Finally, in addition to the changed circumstance of the currently proposed school development envelope, there may be other changed circumstances since the 1992/97 evaluation that would change the determination of the Department of Education with respect to how much of Area C is appropriate for a public school. These include new regulations applicable to determinations of siting safety near airports, changes in the current and projected level of airport activity, type of aircraft, et cetera, as well as a proposal to extend the primary Watsonville Airport runway 800 feet. According to Caltrans Aeronautics evaluation staff, the runway extension could, in fact, make more of Area C viable in terms of airport safety, depending on other factors that would typically be evaluated. In the alternative, a new review in light of changed circumstances could also determine that some or all of Area C is no longer safe for a public school.

Under State law (Education Code §17215 - see Exhibit P), Click to see Ed. Code the State Department of Education is the only authority that can require a new Aeronautics safety evaluation in light of the changed circumstance of the currently proposed school design. Therefore, the current modification requiring a Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program evaluation must be amended. However, given the fundamental deficiencies of the currently available Aeronautics review, and the fact that these deficiencies raise direct conflicts with both the wetland resource protection and hazard avoidance policies of the Coastal Act, the Commission can require that the PVUSD request, prior to the processing of a coastal development permit pursuant to the amended local coastal program, that the Department of Education reevaluate the safety of any portion of Area C that PVUSD intends to use for future school development. By statute, such a review must occur within 30 working days of the request, which is not an unreasonable delay for such an important site analysis question (see Exhibit P)

Page 4

In requiring such a reevaluation of the Department of Education, the Commission will be providing for better specification of the actual site constraints for development on Area C. This is critical inasmuch as PVUSD's current proposed site plan is inconsistent with the recommended development envelope for Area C (see Figure 17). The Commission will also be ensuring that new development does not occur in hazardous areas, consistent with Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. Click to read Thus, it is entirely appropriate for the Commission to require a performance standard in the City of Watsonville LCP that the PVUSD be required to provide evidence that a new safety evaluation based on a current site plan and taking into account other changed circumstances, has been performed. In sum, the Commission is asking that a new evaluation and determination by the Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program, be provided that answers the question: In light of all currently applicable facts and circumstances, can a school be sited on Area C, and if so what portion of Area C, that is safe and consistent with the need for a good learning environment?