Critics of the 1992 evaluation — which determined that the area did meet the minimum standards for school siting — maintain that the Department of Transportation ignored department evaluation procedures, overlooked land use recommendations in the existing Airport Master Plan and used maps to perform the evaluation that lacked any acceptable scale.

"The 1992 aeronautics evaluation was fraudulent."

— Bernard Feldman

Bernard Feldman, Watsonville resident and critic of the decision to locate a school on the proposed property maintains that, according to the DOT Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (ALUPH), approval of the property for school use is impossible.

According to Feldman, the proposed project is located within the airport's Inner Turning Zone, where land use restrictions are recommended that prohibit the location of a school. The handbook additionally recommends that schools should not be sited even within the less restrictive Traffic Pattern Zone.

Feldman said the discussions about the importance of the rectangles associated with various sights surveyed and "evaluated" in 1992 are meaningless. Regardless of who created the maps, or when, he says the fact the maps lack an acceptable scale makes them unsuitable for any type of objective analysis. He adds, since there is absolutely no scale at all, the maps are worthless.

The map shows the "Lee Road at Harkins Slough Road" site to be one mile farther south than the currently proposed project and not very close to the airport.

Supporting Feldman's contention that the 1992 evaluation was inadequate if not fraudulent is the recent discovery of the earliest known map showing alternate sites. The map was faxed as part of a memo from District New Construction Director Richard Meyer to DOE Field Representative Stan Rose on Dec. 16, 1991, one month prior to the Department of Transportation evaluating 11 potential sites for the district. The map shows the "Lee Road at Harkins Slough Road" site to be one mile farther south than the currently proposed project and not very close to the airport. So far, there has been no explanation of the discrepancy.

The Coastal Commission recognized deficiencies in the 1992 evaluation and the lack of an administrative record regarding that evaluation and created a condition for its acceptance of the Local Coastal Program Amendments that called for an evaluation of the entire site for airport safety pursuant to requirements in the California Education Code and authorized by Section 30253 of the Coastal Act.

The condition, however appears to be flawed, as does the reference to Ed. Code 17215. The district maintains they already have aeronautics approval (from a 1992 evaluation and 1997 update) for a portion of the site, and the DOE has recently given final approval for the school construction project.

The Ed. Code sited makes no provision for reevaluating an approved site and making an alternate determination.

On May 24, 2000, the State Allocations Board set aside $45 million for the school based on these approvals.

The Ed. Code sited makes no provision for reevaluating an approved site and making an alternate determination. The code addresses a procedure for determining the suitability of a site for school development prior to a district taking possession of a site. The district has technically taken possession, and the DOE has allocated the funds. These actions may make the condition required by the Coastal Commission moot.

The wording of the Commission's condition is also problematic in terms of the commission's ability to enforce its desire to ensure a safe environment for the proposed public school use.

The condition calls for the school district to "request an evaluation from the Department of Education". This condition appears to have already been met. The condition does not require the DOE to act on that request, nor does it offer standards as to the acceptability or unacceptability of the site based on the conditional evaluation. The DOE has standards they maintain have all ready been met and the condition does not ask the DOE, the City of Watsonville or the Pajaro Valley Unified School District to take any action based on the new evaluation.

An earlier generation of the condition, found in the March 1, 2000 report requires a finding that "all areas proposed for development on the site are safe for siting public school facilities." but the language of the March 13, 2000 Report Addendum linked above does not.

Diane Landry, Attorney for the Central District Office of the Coastal Commission maintains that the condition will have the desired effect. She said the commissioners are very serious about the aeronautics evaluation issue and will insist on airport safety approval.

A curious twist related to the condition involves the district's advancement of the project and DOE funding allocation prior to certification of the Local Coastal Program Amendments.

Technically, without the amendments certified, the previous LCP remains in effect, and a school is not permitted where it is proposed.

Technically, without the amendments certified, the previous LCP remains in effect, and a school is not permitted where it is proposed. And it won't be permitted until the Coastal Commission signs the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the City of Watsonville accepts the conditions suggested by the commission, and the new LCP is certified, a process that could take over a year.

The district may have successfully preempted the commission by taking possession of the property, receiving final DOE approval of their project and having the funds allocated for the construction prior to meeting the condition. Had the district been required to have the evaluation prior to taking possession, the condition may have been effective. As it is, the district's actions to date leave the condition wanting. It is entirely possible that the school district will seek and accept a bid from a contractor for 50% of the construction, bank the allocated funds and commence spending them even prior to the new LCP has been certified.

That the Coastal Commission might object and halt a project based on the condition as it is written in the commission's final report is anything but assured. The commissioners might say that they meant for the site to be evaluated favorably prior to a school being built there, but the district will merely have to counter that they took action based on what the condition said, not what the commissioners wanted it to say. The district will claim that their actions were consistent with the condition as written and they have already spent millions. They will also claim that the site is safe and has state approval.

The Coastal Commission may be left holding the bag.