1. Lack of acreage
2. A large historical building whose cost to renovate was unknown and the opinion of the time was that its cost could be way to expensive
3. Potential lose of valuable recreational space because of the lack of acreage
4. The location is more suitable for a fourth elementary school to reduce the size of the elementary schools we have in the District.

These are not exactly what the site selection committee reported.

Still troubling isthe claim that Cunha is unsafe because of earthquake concerns, but somehow it's going to become an elementary school.

And I'll ask (again), when people say that the Cunha site has too little acreage, are they including the acreage that is used as sports fields?

Specifically, the pros and cons of Cunha and the N. Wavecrest sites from the October 24, 1996 Final Report of the Intermediate School Site Selection Committee are listed here verbatim. The entire report is online at cusdboardwatch.sanmateo.org.

I find almost all of the cons for the Cunha site less than self-explanatory. The report doesn't explain them. Anyone care to elaborate?

The Site Selection Committee reported pros and cons for the sites they considered (that does not include the El Granada "Sonora" site, nor sites that were rumored to have "unwilling sellers").

Wavecrest
Pros Willing seller and could be a land exchange configuration flexibility - planning and design advantages access to highway 1 could have positive political implications carries no sewer assessment zoning not a problem current park facilities exist takes advantage of where future growth could happen proximity to highway 92/highway 1 quiet location centrally located scenic new fire station proximity wildlife/nature studies public transport access site could be secluded for security purposes level site	Cons would need bussing [sic] west of highway 1 - weather crossing from downtown cost of infrastructure (est. 2-3% of total) would lose sense of community for a while foot traffic difficult may need an LCP amendment
Cunha
Pros location no land cost link to past access gym, shop, home ec. [sic] Existing infrastructure	Cons Disruptive - where would students be during construction? No expansion area Size (both buildings and parking) Parking No new middle school in 2nd site Does not conform to Master Plan Violate bond terms

Consider how specious the Cunha list is when you set pros and cons side by side like this:

Pros: zoning not a problem
Cons: may need an LCP amendment

Pros: could have positive political implications
Cons: would lose sense of community for a while

Pros: proximity to highway 92/highway 1
Cons: would need bussing

Pros: quiet location centrally located
Cons: would need bussing

Pros: takes advantage of where future growth could happen
Cons: cost of infrastructure

Pros: public transport access
Cons: would need bussing

Pros: scenic
Cons: west of highway 1 - weather

Pros: current park facilities exist
Cons: foot traffic difficult

This is not a difference of interpretation, this is dictatorial arrogance with zero respect for the community.