DOT's Aeronautics evaluation of PVUSD school site inconsistent with California law

Peter Nichols
686 Larkin Valley Dr.
Watsonville, CA 95076
(831) 763-1895

July 2, 2001

Mr. John Dominguez
Consultant, School Facilities Planning Division
California Department of Education
660 J Street, Suite 350
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Insuring that the Pajaro Valley Unified School District acquires property for school siting that has been evaluated and approved by the Aeronautics Division of the Department of Transportation.

Dear Mr. Dominguez,

I have not received your response to my letters of May 2 and June 22, 2001.

In my June 22 letter I brought to your attention that the site being acquired for construction of the District's new high school was partially outside of the area evaluated by Aeronautics, and that 1.67 acres was within an airport Inner Turning Zone. According to DOT's Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the ITZ "reflects the historical distribution of accident sites," and Acting Division Chief Wiswell said DOT doesn't approve sites within that zone.

It has now come to my attention that the District is not purchasing a 30+/- acres site as shown on the map of the approved "Alternative Site B," but a 70+/- acres site. The 70+/- acres includes "Alternative Site B", various areas the Coastal Commission presently designates as not buildable, and the 1.67 acres within the ITZ.

According to California Ed. Code 17215 (a) "In order to promote the safety of pupils...and greater educational usefulness of schoolsites...before acquiring title to property for a proposed schoolsite...", (c) "The Department of Transportation shall investigate the proposed site..." (and) "The Department of Transportation shall adopt regulations setting forth the criteria by which a proposed site will be evaluated..." Further, the code reads: (d) "If the report does not favor the acquisition of the property for a schoolsite or an addition to a present schoolsite (emphasis added), the governing board may not acquire title to the property."

I read the code to mean Aeronautics must have regulations and criteria, use them, evaluate proposed school sites before they are acquired, and evaluate the entire site to which title is being acquired.

The DOT regulations, as I understand them, give it discretion in applying a number of criteria in making their evaluation of sites. Many of the criteria require a subjective evaluation including level of airport activity, published flight patterns, where within a Traffic Pattern Zone it might be suitable to locate a school and how to weigh comments from the airport manager. Other criteria are quite specific. These include the areas where schools shall not be situated — the ITZ is one of those — and the size, shape and location of the various zones. Additionally, the DOT only evaluates the areas they are requested to evaluate — as shown on maps with appropriate scale — and therefore can only approve the areas they have evaluated. If districts seek to acquire property outside that which DOT has evaluated and approved, they must request a new evaluation.

Regarding P.V.U.S.D.'s proposed acquisition, approximately 40 acres are outside the envelope evaluated and approved by Aeronautics. Not evaluated are ESHA, ESHA buffer, agriculture buffer and the 1.67 acres within the ITZ. Clearly the District must
not acquire acreage within the ITZ, but what about the remainder which the Coastal Commission said in March of 2000 is off limits to development? The Commission reflects the political will of the State's governing bodies. The District's ability to develop those 40 acres is subject to that will. It is entirely possible — and quite conceivable — that amendments to the City's Local Coastal Plan could be crafted to permit further development of acreage to the west and east of the area Aeronautics has approved. Should that happen, further evaluations regarding an "expansion of any existing site," as described in 17215 (e), will not be required because the District will already have title to the property. Your department will no longer have jurisdiction over construction of school facilities in areas Aeronautics may find objectionable.

It is unclear why the District did not request an evaluation of the entire 70+/- acres. That the Coastal Commission won't presently permit development on some acres seems immaterial. The District has plans to restore ESHA in conjunction with its "environmental stewardship" curriculum, so those areas will be used for classroom "lab" activities and should be evaluated. Of particular concern is the area west of "Alternative Site B." That acreage is the closest to the airport's published flight pattern and may not be approvable under DOT's "regulations and criteria." Wiswell told me one factor that favored approval of "Alternative Site B" was that it was not under the published flight pattern for aircraft taking off and turning left toward Monterey. The unevaluated areas very well might be under that flight pattern and hence may not be approvable.

The students and educational community are relying on your department to insure their safety within the limited parameters that the state provides. DOT has already compromised their procedures by not requiring that the District seek feasible alternatives prior to acquiring this site. You must absolutely insure that all of the property acquired by the District — with state funds and local funds — be evaluated and approved by the Aeronautics Division of the Department of Transportation.

Your very truly,

//Signed by

Peter Nichols

cc: Mr. R. Austin Wiswell, Department of Transportation
Terry McHenry, Superintendent, PVUSD
Dan Carl, California Coastal Commission
Assemblyman Fred Keeley
Delaine Eastin, State Superintendent of Public Instruction