Dear Mr. Casey,

As we recently discussed over the phone, your March 31, 2000 memo to the Pajaro Valley Unified School District Board (see attached) was brought to the Commission's attention at its recent hearing on the MOU between the Coastal Commission, the City of Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County. Your memo raises a number of issues that appear to be contrary to the Coastal Commission's March 16, 2000 action on Watsonville's Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment 1-99, although Mr. McHenry stated at the April 10, 2000 hearing that was not the District's intent. The Commission postponed action on the MOU and directed staff to research your memo's implications. They also asked staff to bring back the relevant information for their deliberations at the next scheduled hearing, which is tentatively set for Thursday, May 11, 2000 in Santa Rosa. The purpose of this letter is to frame the primary issues and questions to be answered. I apologize that I was not able to provide these specific questions sooner and trust this letter will nevertheless assist you in preparing for our meeting scheduled for Tuesday April 25, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. In the interest of time, I also kindly request that you subsequently prepare a written response that we may forward to the Commission.

During our brief phone conversation, you indicated that you are currently pursuing the school design under the strategy described in your memo in order to receive funding approval for the school from the Department of Education (DOE) in May 2000. If that means a different strategy and design of the school will be pursued after you receive funding approvals, then please detail those steps, how they will occur and their anticipated timeframes along with your answers to the questions framed below. It would also be helpful to understand the overall funding picture for this project and why the District believes it must move ahead with the design and strategy described in your memo at this time, rather than waiting until the site constraint reviews and potential design changes required by the Commission's suggested modifications are completed.

Aeronautics Review

Your memo indicates that the District is not intending to pursue a new aeronautics review of Area C. This would be in direct conflict with the Commission's suggested modifications that require a new aeronautics evaluation to determine which portions of Area C are safe for public school use. Under the Commission's suggested modifications, this review must occur prior to finalizing the school design to be submitted with a coastal development permit application. As noted in the Commission's findings, the primary question to be answered by

Page 2

such an evaluation is: "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? " (Staff Report Addendum, page 4). The intent of such a requirement is to plan for the Area C site based upon the known safety constraints. Any proposed public school development on Area C that has not had such a new evaluation performed will not conform to the LCP as modified by the Commission and will jeopardize the ability of the City to approve a coastal development permit for a high school at this location. Questions: Is the District going to request that a new safety evaluation be done for Area C? If so, when? Who are the persons at DOE and at the Caltrans Aeronautics Program that will be responsible for carrying out this evaluation?

Acreage Requirements and Siting/Design Improvement Options
Your memo raises a question as to how many acres are actually needed (or will be used) for the District's proposed high school. The Commission's LCP amendment approval, including a reduction in buffer requirements, was based on the District's assertion that the minimum approvable acreage for a 2,200 student high school was at least 50 acres. It now appears from your memo that 30 acres could and will be approved for such a high school.

If the District can pursue a much smaller site for a 2,200 student high school, it appears that the Commission acted under a misunderstanding of your approval requirements. One of the most important ramifications of this is whether the most environmentally preferable siting of the school on Area C can now occur. A smaller school acreage could be better buffered from ongoing agricultural operations and environmentally sensitive habitat by clustering such a use on the north of the parcel. (Assuming, of course, that the area could be found safe by the aeronautics review discussed above.)

Your memo indicates that the District is pursuing the original 70 acres (by this, we understand you to mean the area that is the subject of the pending imminent domain lawsuit) as phase one of a two-phase process. We are concerned that the acquisition of the 70 southern acres on Area C in tandem with the approval of a specific site plan may foreclose opportunities for the environmentally preferable siting and design of the school under the Commission suggested LCP policies. It is also very unclear to us when and how your necessary approvals from the Division of State Architect will occur and what the flexibility in making modifications to those approvals will be in the course of processing a coastal development permit for the project.

Questions: Can and will your 2,200 student high school be sited on 30 acres? What flexibility will the District have after receiving the funding approval noted under point 5 of your memo to change the final design or siting of the school? What division at DOE is responsible for making this determination? If the school can be clustered on 30 acres, are you still committed to buying the whole Area C site and preserving the-remainder? The District's Architect previously indicated that some measures could be taken to address Commission concerns over structural compatibility with the west of Highway landscape and future geotechnical review; will your current strategy preclude these options from being pursued? What types of changes will trigger DSA reviews and approvals and how long do these take?

As you refer to the various divisions at DOE and other agencies in your response, it would be helpful for you to note the contact person (and their address and phone number) that will be involved or that would be available to further explain their processes. Also, if other agencies may be involved with any of these actions or approvals, it would be helpful to have similar information.

Thank you in advance for your expected cooperation. If you should have any questions, please contact me at (831) 427-4863.

Sincerely,

Tami Grove
Deputy Director
California Coastal Commission Enclosure:

Enclosure: March 31, 2000 memo from John Casey to the PVUSD Board of Trustees
cc: Carlos Palacios, City Manager, City of Watsonville