Exerpts from Watsonville Register Pajaronian, March 25, 1999

There appear to be some differences of opinion as to what exactly is meant by the Coastal Commission's ruling regarding the airport evaluation.

John Casey, Superintendent of the Pajaro Valley Unified School District said perhaps the portion of the site previously approved by the Department of Education would remain approved, and the more northerly portion of the property would be evaluated separately.

He said changes were being made to the site design and those would be sent to the DOE for approval. He said very little progress could be made on the project until these evaluations were complete and the result may be a smaller school than the district had envisioned _ or none at all.

John Dominguez, the project consultant for the School Facilities Planning Division of the DOE said they have the 1997 letter from the Aeronautics Program certifying the site for school use, and his office would rely on that evaluation. He said he would assess the new site design with DOT experts, but a full evaluation was not necessarily required. Regarding the possibility that some facilities may have to be located outside of the approved area _ since that area is smaller than the district's site plan _ Dominguez said approval would depend on what facilities are outside of that area, and how far outside they are. ``We have a letter from the DOT that says the site is suitable for a school,'' he said. ``The Coastal Commission's requirement that the site be reevaluated is not our concern. That's between the district and the Coastal Commission.''

Coastal Commission staff council Diane Landry doesn't understand the controversy. ``A new evaluation means just that, a new evaluation of the whole site,'' she said. ``If we meant an evaluation of the portion not previously evaluated, we would have said that.''

Marlin Beckwith, Department of Transportation Aviation Program Director said he was expecting a request from the Department of Education to evaluate the site but as yet hasn't received it. When asked whether the new evaluation would rely on the 1997 evaluation for that part of the site previously approved, he said, ``We will treat it like a new school site.'' According to Beckwith, the DOT uses a team approach. Dan Gargas, airport safety inspector for the department _ who has come under criticism regarding the adequacy of his two previous evaluations _ will take the lead role.

``We have a land use planner, a noise specialist and an environmental specialist along with the aviation consultant,'' Beckwith said. Insisting that procedures for evaluations have not changed in recent years, and that politics would not be a part of the evaluation, he said, ``We follow a criteria and let the chips fall where they may.''

Assemblyman Fred Keeley said his staff have been in contact with Gargas but not since the Coastal Commission decision. He did not, however, rule out the possibility that he might be called upon to discuss aspects of the matter with DOT officials. ``I have not been involved in that issue, but I am available if requested to do so.'' Keeley said. ``My view of my role has been to try to facilitate progress.''

Though the suitability of the site from the standpoint of airport issues remains up in the air, the useable portions of the property relative to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) and agriculture use are not.