San Diego County Grand Jury
2002-2003
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Exercise facilities do not encourage physical exertion that may help relieve stress and/or the potential for increased conflict.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Exercise facilities do not encourage physical exertion that may help relieve stress and/or the potential for increased conflict. RECOMMENDATION The San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the San Diego County Probation Department and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors: 03-77: Expand and increase the use of existing athletic areas as well as other potential exercise areas in a non-contact, non-confrontational sports programs. GIRLS REHABILITATION FACILITY Facts: Date of visit: September 20, 2002 The Girls Rehabilitation Facility (GRF) is located in the same complex as Juvenile Hall. The present unit consists of 33 beds for female juvenile offenders with a staff of 17. Funding has been approved for a new 20-bed wing scheduled for completion in 2003. GRF provides programs for its detainees with the aim of keeping the delinquent girls from a future of continuing offenses and re-institutionalization. The daily routine and program schedule are tightly structured. There are 6 hours of basic schooling per day. Additional programs provided in the facility include vocational training, drug and alcohol treatment, parenting classes, arts and crafts and a book club. JUVENILE RANCH FACILITY Facts: Date of visit: December 13, 2002 The Juvenile Ranch Facility (JRF), which includes Rancho del Campo and Rancho del Rayo, is located in Campo in East County. Originally, this facility was an Army barracks built in the early 1940’s. In July 1978, a new dormitory was constructed, followed by a second in 1980. Two dormitories were renovated in 1990 and 1996. A new library, constructed in 1999, is well stocked with books and other educational materials. A computer laboratory for instruction and use by the wards was also constructed in 1999. This facility is a minimum-security institution, run by the Probation Department, for boys aged 12 to 18. On the day of the Grand Jury visit, the population at JRF was 160 boys. The Board of Corrections rated capacity at this facility is 250. Current staff level is 74 with staff available for both day and night schedules. The medical unit is staffed by two on-site nurses and a doctor that visits one day each week. There are currently four dormitories in use. Two of the dormitories, Rayo I (wards aged 12 to 16½) and Rayo II (wards aged 16½ to 18) focus on wards with a history of substance abuse. These two dormitories have age-appropriate programs. Each program is a minimum of 84 days in length, but may be longer based upon the completion of all the program components. The “Phoenix House” program encompasses reality therapy, anger management, acceptance of self-responsibility and goal setting. This program was implemented in February 2001 and supervisory personnel are pleased with the early results. One of the dormitories, Campo I, provides a structured program for 12 to 18 year old males with minor or no substance abuse issues who are committed to the Breaking Cycles program for behavior modification. This program term is for 54 days. Campo II dormitories houses 12 to 18 year old males who have relapsed from the Breaking Cycles Program. These programs have a variety of components. All the wards attend school 6 hours a day, Monday through Friday, and have a 30-minute lunch break. There are 12 certificated teachers, 1 head teacher and 1 special education teacher. A pilot program of special and intensive reading, spelling, and language comprehension skills has been introduced to improve the literacy of the wards. This program’s aim is to reduce the rate of recidivism by providing tools for inmates to succeed in the community.
F2:
This facility requires constant maintenance because of its age and heavy use.
F3:
A parcel of land has been acquired for future expansion.
Related Recommendations (12)
03-70:
Make assigned parking available nearby for San Diego Central Jail
03-71:
Provide free shuttle or carpool service from a designated parking lot or
03-72:
Proceed with construction of a new women's detention facility as soon
03-73:
Expand all existing programs that have to do with any form of
03-74:
Establish classes, taught by professionals, on non-violent conflict
03-75:
Establish classes, taught by professionals, on non-violent conflict
03-76:
Expand the use of athletic areas as well as increase other exercise areas for
03-77:
Expand and increase the use of existing athletic areas as well as other
03-78:
Where practical and applicable, increase the use of voluntary inmate labor
03-79:
Continue and expand the pilot literacy programs.
03-80:
Continue and expand the pilot literacy programs.
03-81:
Where practical and applicable, increase the use of voluntary inmate labor
F4:
Exercise facilities include: stationary bikes, areas for playing catch, and some equipment for passive games such as pool/billiards.
F5:
The exercise facilities do not encourage physical exertion that may help relieve stress and the potential for increased conflict.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Assessment income $179,970.38 $188,995.95
F2:
Salaries of manager, directors, $ 99,593.56 $ 65,744.00 And office staff (Does not include FY01 Directors/Office expense of $2,2298.00 and payroll burden of $6,145.75)
F3:
Professional fees and consulting $ 30,982.00 $ 59,304.73
F4:
Operating income/ 1 $<21,308.00> $ 959.49 E. The District has placed a current value of $200,000 on the Ground Water Exploration (GEP) wells. This asset originally was capitalized in 1997 at $350,000, to be depreciated over 30 years. Since 1997, the wells have not produced any potable or irrigational water. A San Diego County financial official stated that changes in government entities can only happen because of two events: an agreed upon “solution” or a “crisis”. The Grand Jury finds that, if the District were not to carry the non-producing wells as an asset, the District would be in crisis. F. The District claims to measure the political environment of the Tia Juana Valley County Water District, and acts as an “advisor” to elected officials. The assessment funding received from the District property owner is paying for District payroll expenses and lobbying. A senior water official of the City of San Diego advised the Grand Jury “the District is an enigma. They spend a lot of money. They have no customers and produce no water. Their only value would have to be as an advocacy group.” G According to conversations with the District General Manager and the Board President, the District has applied for a Federal Grant. As per the District’s “Budget Cash Flow 2002-2003”, the grant amount requested is for $1,575,000.00. These monies are to be used to permit the District to attempt to drill wells in order to establish a source of potable water. None of the water, if developed and found to be potable, would be used for the citizens of the District but would be sold to other water districts. The grant has not been approved as of this date and, in light of the current financial situation of the Federal Government, the chances do not appear encouraging that this grant will be approved. H. On July 24, 2002, the District Board of Directors passed and adopted Resolution #115. This Resolution estimated that the District needed $200,000.00 for 1 During FY 01-02, consultant fee of $48,000 replaced manager fee. _1_5_0__________________________________________________________________ operating expenses for the fiscal year 2002-2003. The Board of Directors authorized that this sum be raised by a special assessment on the residents of the District . This means that the present $50.00 assessment will be increased by an estimated 10%. This open-ended assessment imposes upon the estimated 3600 District home and land owners an unfair financial burden not borne by other home and landowners in the City of San Diego. I. Supplemental funds, in the form of grants or loans, have resulted in no benefits to any taxpayers in the District. J. The biggest issues for the home and landowners in the District are flood control and pollution. The District officials claim their efforts were primarily responsible for the creation of the flood control berm. However, the Grand Jury found that the City of San Diego and the U.S. Corps of Engineers were the agencies fully responsible for the creation, planning and construction of the flood control berm. It is a Federal and City problem and has been completely addressed by them. K. At the last election, two of the present Board of Directors members were elected on a platform of dissolving the District thereby eliminating the assessment, but changed their positions once elected. L. Many home and land owners may not be aware of the assessment as it is included as a line item on their annual San Diego County property tax bill.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The investigation by the San Diego County Probation Department of the October 11-16, 2001 hall check incident was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
F2:
Three supervisors who conducted the investigation had no previous investigative experience. These investigating officers were supervisors from either the day or early night shift during October 2001 assigned to Juvenile Hall, just one step in rank above those being investigated. They were investigating officers who were often social friends or acquaintances from different shifts. During an interview, one of the investigators stated how difficult it was to conduct the investigation. The investigator shared how much peer pressure was endured both during and after the investigation.
F3:
The SDCPD did not seek the assistance of the San Diego County Internal Affairs Department, which employs expert investigators. The Grand Jury has verified that the San Diego County Internal Affairs Department did have sufficient personnel to conduct such an investigation at the time in question.
Related Recommendations (8)
03-60:
Ensure that there are policies and procedures in place requiring the use of outside
03-61:
Ensure that investigations are conducted in a fair and consistent manner. A
03-62:
Amend the Juvenile Hall Policy and Procedures Manual to include a more
03-63:
Provide Core Training to all new hires within at least 90 days after employment
03-64:
Conduct a comprehensive retraining of all supervisory personnel and management
03-65:
Post all regulations dealing with hall checks and login procedures in the command
03-67:
Amend the Juvenile Hall Policy and Procedures Manual to contain specific
03-68:
Provide every probation officer and supervisor with a personal Manual, which
F4:
The SDCPD chose not to utilize personnel from the Department’s own Internal Affairs Division to conduct the investigation because it allegedly did not have sufficient staff to handle this assignment. 4
F5:
The investigators often discussed their investigation results with the Director of Juvenile Hall and the Internal Affairs Director of the SDCPD. Those contacts give the appearance of ‘command influence’. This ‘command influence’ problem would not have been an issue had the County Internal Affairs Department conducted the investigation.
F6:
The investigators discussed the interviews with each other, and then by agreement tried to assign friends or work associates to another investigator. Even in cases they chose not to hear, they often sat in as ‘back up’. For the most part, a team of two investigators conducted each interview.
F7:
This investigation has had, and will have, a great impact on both the morale and efficiency of the SDCPD and should have been conducted by the most competent personnel available.
F8:
Of the 37 officers disciplined or terminated, only two had received substandard ratings prior to October 2001; the rest were rated as competent employees. Two of them had been chosen the Probation Department’s ‘Employee of the Year’. Some were mentors to their fellow employees. Many had worked for the SDCPD for over 20 years.
F9:
The background check procedure for SDCPD officers is very involved and includes psychological testing.4 This system disqualifies many applicants and makes it difficult to find eligible line and entry-level candidates for employment. These facts support the statement that many of the fired officers had impeccable backgrounds prior to being hired. B. The Probation Department’s investigation focused on personnel assigned only to the late night shift. One of the three investigators reviewing the videotapes with the Grand Jury admitted that violations of the 15-minute hall checks did occur on the early night shift.
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Grade level and performance
F2:
Parental education rights
F3:
Special needs According to HHSA, the social workers have responsibility to make sure that the records follow the child from foster home to foster home as well as from school to school. In the HHSA manual it is emphasized that “the SW must make every effort to provide the health and education information at the time of placement.” Since HEP is a closed system due to confidentiality issues, HHSA and Foster Youth Services (FYS), a segment of the County Office of Education, do not have access to each other’s records; however, social workers can send updated education and medical records directly to the FYS Education Liaison. This needs to be continued for all foster youths in the HHSA system. 2 ibid. McKinney-Vento Act The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is new Federal legislation. The act came into being in 2001 and was reauthorized in January 2002. It insures the educational rights of children experiencing homelessness so that no child will be academically left behind. The Grand Jury finds that the school at Polinsky Center is for short-term placement of children who may go into foster care and thus is subject to this law. Monarch High School in San Diego also comes under this legislation which is specifically directed at local education agencies (LEAs). The legislation says that LEAs must immediately enroll students in homeless situations, even if they do not have required documents such as school records, medical records [and others]. . . . Enrolling schools must obtain school records from the previous school, and students must be enrolled in school while records are obtained.3 Pending Legislation On April 23, 2003, California Assembly Bill 490 (Steinberg) Helping Foster Children Make the Grade was pending legislation in Sacramento. AB 490 includes the following:
F4:
Creates school stability for foster children by allowing them to remain in, and be transported to, their school of origin for the duration of the school year when doing so will be in the child’s best interest.
F5:
Requires LEAs to designate a staff person as an education liaison to ensure proper placement, records transfer, and enrollment for foster youth.
F6:
Makes LEAs, county social workers and probation officers jointly responsible for the timely transfer of students and their records when a change of schools is in the child’s best interest.
F7:
Requires that a comprehensive public school be considered as the first school placement option for foster youth.
F8:
Allows a foster child to be enrolled in school even if not all typically required records are immediately available.
F9:
Requires school districts to calculate and accept credit for full or partial coursework satisfactorily completed by the youth.
F10:
Authorizes the release of educational records of foster youth to their social workers. Family-to-Family Program A new program, Family-to-Family, founded in 1992 by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and child welfare leaders, is a national movement, begun by private initiative that is now expanding to cities across the country. It was undertaken as an effort to keep students in the same neighborhood, thus eliminating the psychological trauma of changing schools. It also allows them to maintain the same friends and social continuity while eliminating the need to transfer 3 http://www.national homeless.org/shortsunstable.html 5 records. The goal of the new program is to increase (by 15%) the number of students receiving high school diplomas by keeping each one close to his or her original home. The Family-to- Family program also enables siblings to stay in close contact since they remain in the same neighborhood even if placed in different homes by necessity. Foster Parenting Workshops Through the Community College System The California Community Colleges Foster, Adoptive and Kinship Care Education Program at Grossmont College sponsors ‘Support Group Workshops’. Classes are provided that cover many areas of foster care. Of particular interest to the Grand Jury is a class titled “How to Advocate for Your Foster/Kinship Child in the School System”, a program that deals with enhancing the school experience for a foster child; it includes updating school and medical records when the child goes into a foster home. The year-round program is available for foster parents, those who want to become foster parents, and for those who need additional training. Since there are more children in individual foster homes than in group homes, the program is timely and needed. San Pasqual Academy San Diego County has approximately 1,000 children residing in group homes. The Grand Jury chose to visit San Pasqual Academy (SPA) on several occasions because it is so new and unique. The Academy occupies approximately 238 acres in the North County’s Escondido area; it is state licensed as a group home for 136 students, mostly of high-school age, though some younger siblings are also living there. SPA opened on September 28, 2001, as a placement for foster youths in order to provide a stable home life as well as a typical four-year high school program. This is unlike anything done before for foster youth in the nation and provides high school programs similar to the other county schools. The Academy is a unique public-private partnership between New Alternatives, the County, charitable organizations, individual donors and local businesses.4 Some social workers from the Escondido office of HHSA work exclusively with the SPA children. In the future, an office will be provided on the SPA campus for these workers. The social workers maintain and update school and medical records using the Health and Education Passport (HEP) which is generated from the Case Management System- Child Welfare System (CMS-CWS). As of April 21, 2003, 106 students reside at SPA. The student:staff ratio is 15:1. Twenty SPA students will graduate high school in June of 2003. All of SPA’s future graduates have plans to go to college, with a few having been accepted into four-year colleges and universities. The rest will go to community colleges. Students at SPA revealed many concerns during Grand Jury interviews. The most frequently voiced complaints about life before SPA were:
F11:
Waiting up to one week or more for school records to arrive
F12:
Transcripts, when received, not being up to date 4 Flyer issued by San Pasqual Academy, A Residential Education Campus for Foster Youth, A program of New Alternatives, Inc. 6
F13:
Credit for work completed often missing Due to recurrent problems that relate to the delay of school and medical records transfer, a uniform policy needs to be formed regarding the transfer of both medical and scholastic records for these foster children not residing in group homes. Interagency Agreement for Group Homes The San Diego County Office of Education, through the Senior Director and the Safe Schools Coordinator for Foster Youth Services, has developed an “Interagency Agreement” between its office and the San Diego County Probation Department, HHSA, Sweetwater Union High School District, Chula Vista Elementary School District, San Diego Unified School District, Oceanside Unified School District, Ramona Unified School District and three licensed Children’s Institutions (LCIs)—New Alternatives, Devereux, and Broad Horizons. This agreement was made: …to develop a plan for the purpose of providing improved educational outcomes for students in foster care. The SDCOE-FYS and Participants will work together to ensure students’ health and education records are current and accurate, that transfer of records occurs in a timely manner, and that students in foster care are educated in the appropriate educational placement in the least restrictive environment. (Ed. Code 49069.5, Gov. Code 7579.1)5 The transfer of records is done through a FYS Educational Liaison “who assists schools, placing agencies, and group home providers in locating missing health and education records.”6 The Liaison also assists the various group homes in the timely transfer of school and medical records, and ensures that the youth’s education is minimally disrupted when a change of placement occurs. San Diego is one of the few California counties that has this benefit, just one of the many improvements done to alleviate problems and improve conditions of children when they come into the FCS. Polinsky Children’s Center Polinsky is a short-term placement for children removed from their homes due to abuse and/ or neglect. Some of the children are awaiting placement in a foster home. Their education continues while they reside at Polinsky. According to the Polinsky school staff, getting education and medical records for the children, even if it takes only one week, is a problem because some of the children may have been sent on to their new placements by the time the records arrive. However, at Polinsky, a child is admitted to the on-site school immediately without waiting for the records to arrive. Whatever credit the child earns at Polinsky is sent with him or her to the new foster home placement. The new school district decides whether or not to accept that partial credit 5 FYS, “Interagency Agreement” . Flyer issued by FYS Educational Liaison. 7
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
Did DSD assure that the equestrian center facility had its required minimum zoned footage and that the footage-per-horse requirement was fulfilled? Facts: Both of these issues were debated at length in the complainants’ correspondence with the DSD. Lot 153 (the equestrian center facility) is approximately 9 acres in size.2 It is zoned AR-1-1 and surrounded by 25 acres of zoned open space and about 40 acres of single- and multi-family residences. All comprise the Seabreeze Farms Project. The applicable San Diego Municipal Code reference specifies that AR-1-1 zoning requires minimum 10-acre lots.3 The applicable code reference indicates that 5,000 square feet of stable, pasture or corral, or combination thereof, must be provided for each horse.4 When more than four horses are to be maintained, a permit is required for authorizing additional horses.5 According to DSD 2 Development Permit’s Vesting Tentative Map, September 1999. San Diego Municipal Code §131.0303(b). San Diego Municipal Code §44.0308(b). San Diego Municipal Code §44.0308(c ). _ _____________________________________________________________4 staff, the approximate 9 acres of the equestrian facility meet the 5,000 square foot requirement for 76 horses, not 80. An examination of the development permit 96-7919 document, approved on September 14, 1999, by the San Diego City Council, reveals no specific mention of the 10-acre zoning requirement, the 5,000 square foot-per-horse requirement, the 80 horses, or the “more than four horses” authorization requirement. Nor do the accompanying resolutions help. In fact, resolution R-292175 includes a statement that all Seabreeze Farms project lots meet the minimum dimension requirements of their respective zones. The DSD management and staff indicate that the specific issues are cited in various staff memos, reports, maps, layouts, and proposals addressed to the Planning Commission and to the City Council as part of the project’s pre-approval process. All of that documentation is found in the DSD’s “project file”. The “project file” is normally reviewed by the City Council during the sequential approval decision points for a project. For the Seabreeze Farms project, the DSD’s position is that, since the development permit 96-7919 was approved by City Council, they—as the decision-makers—gave due consideration and consent to the issues raised by the complainants. The Grand Jury examined all pertinent files and documents to ensure that the zoning acreage and per-horse square footage issues were part of the pre-approval record and that they were discussed by the decision-making body as part of the approval process. The Grand Jury’s review included an examination of the project file in the DSD’s Records Section as well as a copy of the City Clerk’s file of project documents. Grand Jurors also listened to the audiotape of the entire City Council proceedings on the day that the Seabreeze Farms Council item was approved. Throughout the documents, we found only a few scattered references to “equestrian village of 8.9 acres”, “8 acre equestrian area”, and “80-horse facility”. The audiotape yielded no information of use as it apparently appeared on the Council’s Consent Agenda, which eliminated the need for any discussion. Subsequent DSD correspondence indicated a possible solution. Specifically, the owner of lot 153 can reallocate two lots currently abutting the western border of the equestrian facility. Those lots are part of the 25-acre open space zoning and are to be used for brush management support purposes. Incorporating those lots—155 and 156—into the equestrian facility would achieve the 10-acre minimum zoning and thus meet the 5,000 square foot-per- horse requirements. Procedurally, the developer would seek zoning footage changes for the open space and equestrian facility areas and notify the Tax Assessor of the changed lot acreages. The developer may take those steps voluntarily or not at all. Findings: Based on a review of the development permit 96-7919 and accompanying resolutions, and the documents from the San Diego City Council meeting held September 14, 1999, the San Diego City Council did not provide express declaration of their consideration of, or their decisive intent to override, known provisions of San Diego Municipal Code §44.0308(b) and (c), and §131.0303. _ _____________________________________________________________5 Accessing the “public record” is not for the ‘faint-of-heart’. For John Q. Public, tracking a project from its developmental beginnings through its final construction inspection only begins in the DSD’s Records Section (archives). It soon becomes obvious that there are both active and inactive components of a project file. In addition, documents include paper files, drawings, computer files and records, microfiche, and microfilm. Some data reside with other agencies; some project documents reside in workplace settings under name or function classifications. Project files and documents, that exist in these various sub-collections, require a range of access options: project development number, plan number, building permit number, site address, and the individual’s name. We hope that, ultimately, all will end up in the archives for easy public access. The Grand Jury’s research of the archived project files revealed at least one document that ought not be in the file; often documents or drawings that should be in the file, but weren’t; and most often, duplicates, triplicates, etc.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Relocate the horse wash racks (a visual nuisance) to another location, and
F2:
Did DSD assure that the location of the equestrian center facility was in compliance with the distance requirements as set forth in the San Diego Municipal Code? Facts: Figure 1 shows the proposed layout of the Seabreeze Equestrian Center. An equestrian facility falls within the allowable uses in a lot zoned for agricultural purposes. The developer is free to include all the structures, equipment, and standard farm features deemed necessary to achieve the maximum utility of the property. However, as part of the permit approval process, the decision-maker (City Council) requires that the developer address such issues and requirements as landscaping, vector control, noise abatement, rodent control, manure disposal, etc. The developer commits to submitting plans and obtaining reviews and approvals by the DSD staff. This commitment ensures that the development is appropriately planned and implemented in accordance with the community standards. Those issues become particularly important in a mixed land use setting such as the project area described in this report. Two major issues, discussed herein, concern measures of distance. One Municipal Code provision states that one cannot have a “corral, pasture or stable” if the number of dwelling units located within a one-fourth mile wide belt surrounding them exceeds 300.6 Another requires a distance of 75 feet between a residence or dwelling and any “stable, corral or pasture”.7 Both provisions stated in the code indicate attempts to minimize exposure of a facility to its neighbors by 1) providing for a less than maximum dwelling density in the surroundings, and 2) creating a buffer between adjacent differing land uses. Both provisions are for reasons of aesthetics as well as health and sanitation. San Diego Municipal Code §44.0308(a). San Diego Municipal Code §44.0308(d). _ _____________________________________________________________6 Interpretation and application of these code provisions can lead to a variety of outcomes. The following hypothetical examples illustrate this confusion: In a mixed land use setting, there is a farm the shape and size of which is a perfect circle with a diameter of one-fourth mile. In example one, a barn sits in the center of the circle. In example two, there are four barns – one sits up against the fence in each of the circle’s four quadrants. As a result of applying the code, in example one, the number of dwelling units within one- fourth mile equals zero, and the 75-foot wide belt is non-applicable. However, in example two, all of the dwelling units from the farm’s outer fence to a distance of one-fourth mile beyond will be counted; the 75-foot wide belt begins at the farm’s outer fence line. With the foregoing as background, we can proceed to examine how the interpretation and application of both the one-fourth mile wide belt and the 75-foot wide belt provisions became flashpoints of contention. As part of the project’s pre-approval process leading up to the granting of the development permit, the DSD staff sent a letter to Del Mar Land Management, in early December 1998, requesting certain additional information about various aspects of the Seabreeze Farms project. Plans were in a conceptual layout phase at that time. That letter indicated that DSD staff was evaluating previously submitted information, and they were seeking to collect additional data. That information was to be used to make an appropriate recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. That standard practice helps DSD staff bring development projects to a successful and timely approval. This particular letter sought maps, layouts, and other documents for a variety of needs. For the equestrian center portion of the project, it specified the following requests: Provide an exhibit to demonstrate compliance with Section 44.0308 of the Municipal Code (number of dwelling units within ¼ mile of the stables, corrals, or pasture, adequate area for the number of horses on site, etc.). Equestrian uses must be at least 75 feet from residences. Lots 48-51, 57 & 61-68 may not meet this requirement. Plot residences on these lots to demonstrate compliance with Section 44.0308(d) of the Municipal Code. In the project files made available to us for review in the Records Section, we found no documented response from the developer. The first major issue of the two measures of distance is that of the one-fourth mile wide belt provision. One can draw a scaled circle on a housing tract plat and count the units inside the line or walk the area and achieve a similar count. Determining the belt line and the number of dwelling units within it is a more difficult task than it would first appear. The neighbors, in various counts, found 437, 440, and 500 dwelling units. DSD staff reported an initial _ _____________________________________________________________7 figure of . . .276 houses existing or planned within one-quarter mile of the barns.8 After a second counting, the DSD specified the count total as 233.9 How can there be such a wide range of numbers? A portion of the problem seems to be from which point, in the equestrian center, one chooses to measure. Residents measured from the facility’s perimeter (500 count) and from the barns (437/440 counts); DSD staff measured from the barns where the horses are “kept” (i.e., fed and bedded). (We address using the barns as a measurement starting point in succeeding paragraphs.) Another portion of the problem lies in the inclusion, or non-inclusion, of planned or future dwellings within the one-fourth mile belt line. When DSD management indicated a revised count of 233, it reported that an additional (Grand Jury emphasis) 75 dwellings fell within the belt line.10 Their interpretation of Municipal Code §44.0308(a), however, was that the provision does not apply to additional dwelling units being located near an existing facility. The Grand Jury surmises that the Municipal Code § 44.0308 phrase, “No person shall bring or maintain [Grand Jury emphasis] within the City, any horse….” demands inclusion of planned and future dwelling units in the count. Any other interpretation subverts the underlying intent of the one-fourth mile wide belt of minimizing potential threats to public health and sanitation. The second major issue of the two measures of distance is that of the 75-foot wide belt requirement. The DSD’s interpretation of the Municipal Code’s provision is that at the far end of the 75 feet lies a dwelling unit – specifically, the homeowner’s exterior wall. However, the Municipal Code also specifies the term “residence”. Though not defined in the Municipal Code, the question arises as to whether a residence could refer to a backyard fence or rear lot line. Cannot the 75-foot wide belt end at the homeowner’s property line?11 This is complainants’ interpretation. The complainants pose the example of a barn that borders a 75- foot deep backyard – the homeowner’s backyard becomes, in fact, the buffer! Again, DSD chooses to measure the 75 feet starting from the barns where the horses are “kept” (i.e., fed and bedded). (Depending upon the barns’ locations within the facility, the distances to the dwelling units’ walls will differ – but the minimum distance for any one dwelling unit measurement must be 75 feet.) Cannot the term “kept” refer to the entire area within the facility’s perimeter fence? Which barn(s)? If a barn is relocated when constructed, will a new measurement of the 75 feet be taken? If a corral or pasture is located closer to a residence than a barn, should not one have to measure from the barn, pasture, or corral nearer to a homeowner’s dwelling? Can one consider a training arena, or a jump area, to be a form of corral? The argument against using the barns as a measurement starting point, however, is that the barns represent only the nighttime aspect of equine care. For the residents, it is during the 8 DSD staff response dated April 18, 2002. DSD management letter dated August 15, 2002. City Council approved the neighboring Pacific Highlands Ranch Unit 2-4 project in July 2001. Consider, for example: San Diego Municipal Code §141.0604 Boarding Kennels (a)(2) Kennels and associated structures shall not be any closer than 50 feet to any property lines. _ _____________________________________________________________8 daytime hours when the real activity begins: exercising, horse washing, hot walking, riding, corral activities, manure processing, etc. This seems to be the time when that buffer assumes a paramount importance. The concept of “equestrian uses” (a DSD term appearing in the record of correspondence) can help clarify the issue. The Grand Jury finds that use of the term should encompass structures and activities as well as nighttime and daytime intervals. Thus, for both the one- fourth mile and 75-foot wide belt measures, we suggest that measurements start at the outer edge of any significant equestrian use. Such a “use” includes: permanent and semi- permanent structures such as barns, stables, paddocks, riding arenas, corrals, pens, turnouts, storage sheds, hot walkers, wash racks, and clubhouses. It also includes areas devoted to riding paths, pastures, arenas, manure management, etc. For those perimeters of the equestrian facility directly abutting residential properties, it seems logical to expect a sensitive application of the 75-foot buffer that would include a minimum 50-foot offset from the facility’s perimeter fence line for any significant equestrian use. In the spring of 2002, neighbors of the equestrian center had to look at the world in a completely new way – literally. In the next section, we discuss the event that triggered the complaints. Findings: The Seabreeze Farms Equestrian Center may be in violation of the San Diego Municipal Code §44.0308(a). Both liberal and conservative counts of dwelling units within the one-fourth mile wide belt result in numbers in excess of 300. The Development Services Department applied a strict interpretation and application of the San Diego Municipal Code §44.0308(d). A more reasonable interpretation could have caused measurement to originate at the jump arena fence and at the outer edge of the horse wash racks. Certainly, a preferable option is that of measuring from the outer edge of any significant “equestrian use”. Even better, a 75-foot separation beginning at the homeowners’ property lines to the “equestrian use” should be specified. Public health and safety concerns should require an interpretation resulting in the widest possible buffer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Relocate the dressage arena (a noise and dirt nuisance behind the Rider Place residents) in accord with the conceptual layout. The San Diego County Grand Jury Recommends that the Director, Department of Environmental Health: 03-26: Recommend to the City Council an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 4: Health and Sanitation Article 4: Disease Control – Nuisance Division 3: Animals 44.0308 Horses by:
F3:
Did the planning, approval, and conformance review processes enable appropriate public input/hearing opportunities for area residents and were subsequent plan revisions in compliance with the approved development plan? Facts: The residents on Sandown Way and Rider Place began purchasing, or renting, and moving into their newly built Seabreeze Farms homes in 2001. The residents were not invited to, nor did they attend, the public hearing on September 14, 1999, during which the City Council approved the development permit for the entire 73-acre project. Additionally, they were not invited to, nor did any attend, the public hearing on July 17, 2000, when the San Diego City Council gave its approval for the final map of the Seabreeze Farms development project. The Grand Jury asked a few of the residents what plans they were shown, or what they were told by their realtors, about the equestrian center as part of their home buying process. Their _ _____________________________________________________________9 responses indicated they had been shown a conceptual layout similar to Figure 1. They also signed a document stating that they had been made aware that their future neighbor would be an equestrian facility. In early April 2002, the residents of Sandown Way and Rider Place noticed that construction at the equestrian facility differed significantly from what they expected or imagined, based on the conceptual layout they had been shown prior to purchasing or renting their homes. On September 25, 2001, the DSD staff had performed a Substantial Conformance Review (SCR) of several requested equestrian center site changes that had been requested by the developer. Information in the Records Section’s “project file” reveals neither documents, nor correspondence, between the developer and the DSD staff leading up to the SCR action. After reviewing the requested changes, the DSD staff determined that they were in substantial conformance with the City Council-approved permit and planning documents and thus merited approval by the DSD. Before we discuss the changes that were approved, it is important to analyze the how, what, and why of the process known as Substantial Conformance Review and define its place in the hierarchy of project approval decision-making. Municipal Code article §112.0501 indicates that a proposed development project (and its subsequent permits and maps) must go through one of five established levels of project approvals. Seabreeze Farms, because of its size, multiple land use characteristics, location, and complexity went through the highest (level five) approval. A level five process begins with a DSD staff review, a Planning Commission Recommendation Hearing, and a San Diego City Council Hearing. Before each of these events, property owners within 300 feet of the development project are to be given public notice of the review or hearing. A level four process can terminate after the Planning Commission Hearing unless the applicant chooses to appeal that decision. If they appeal, the San Diego City Council will hold an appeal hearing. A level one process consists of a DSD staff review with a DSD staff decision to approve or deny. Neither notices nor public hearing is required. Various sections of the Municipal Code authorize and define the use of a level one (“ministerial”) process to evaluate proposed minor revisions to an already approved development permit.12 This level one review results in a determination as to whether the revisions are in substantial conformance with the approved permit and applicable code provisions. This review can occur at any point along a project’s implementation. If the level one DSD decision-maker concludes that the requested change(s) is/are in substantial conformance, the request is approved. If the change(s) is/are not in substantial conformance, the DSD decision-maker will deny the requested change(s). If denied, the applicant can request an amendment to the original permit. This application must 12 As to the purpose of the substantial conformance review, the Grand Jury believes that if such a process did not exist, someone would have to invent it. However, questions remain as to application and use of the substantial conformance review process in this case and in general. Specifically, how does a “formal” review process differ from one that is not formal? How does one reconcile the statement in the DSD’s Bulletin 500 (April 2001) that reads, “If the only prior discretionary action, however, was a tentative map or vesting tentative map, and a final map for the project has been approved, then this service (SCR) is not available” with the use of the process in this case? _ _____________________________________________________________10 then go through the same level of approval process that the original permit approval followed. Proposed changes for the equestrian center went through a level one substantial conformance review. The DSD staff approved, under level one SCR authority, the changes and revisions to the original development permit. These SCR approved changes included: • Three barns being consolidated into two. • The barn nearest several residences growing from 10,000 to 15,800 square feet, lengthening by 80 feet and showing 26 additional horse stalls for a total of 52. A roof cupola being removed from the barn’s roof. • The manager’s residence moving further from the residences. • Trees being added between the barn and the residences. • A trailer loading-unloading area being replaced. Figure 2 shows the layout of the equestrian facility after the SCR approval by the DSD staff. The DSD staff believed that the homeowners on Sandown Way and Rider Place would welcome the changes. However, in April 2002, some Sandown Way residents took exception to the action: the re- oriented barns blocked some backyard views; complainants perceived that one barn had been moved closer to their properties; fixed structures known as wash racks appeared between their fence line and the larger barn. Complainants’ concerns raised the issue of due process. There had been no public hearing or any opportunity to influence the DSD’s decision that the changes were in substantial conformance with the project’s permit and plans. They asked for a stop work order. The complaints and responses began in earnest. The Grand Jury found that the DSD staff made a judgment call that the requested changes were minor as opposed to major. If staff determined that the requested changes were major, a level one review would not be applicable. Because the DSD staff performs these level one reviews on a regular and daily basis, one could defer to their decision that the proposed revisions were minor in total. However, when one compares the site layouts in Figure 1 and Figure 2, it is clear that major and significant site realignment occurred as a result of this DSD staff approval. Given the mixed land use features of this specific development project, along with the obvious “quality of life” implications of the review decision for the residents, it is reasonable to believe that the complainants deserved the opportunity to view, discuss, and attempt to influence the DSD’s level one review decision. Noticing the residents and informally FIGURE 2 Equestrian Center Layout-After a Substantial Conformance Review, Sept. 2001 _ _____________________________________________________________11 Please contact the Grand Jury Office at 619-515-8707 for copies of Figures 1 and 2. meeting with the homeowners could have accomplished this communication process. The level one review process, as currently structured, does not allow public involvement. Perhaps this is a shortcoming. Not every review merits public input. However, for the _ _____________________________________________________________12 occasional project that bears “quality of life” issues, perhaps a level one-and-a-half process, or simply an appeal process to the DSD itself, is needed.13 One cannot overlook concerns that the complainants note in their early letters. What can be done about the equestrian use fixtures (i.e., wash racks) that now appear between barn and residences? Has the one-fourth mile wide belt changed again? (It was noted in the previous section that the “less than three hundred dwelling units” provision might have already been violated.) When the barns were re-oriented, was the 75-foot wide belt reduced so that some residences now had less than the required buffer? Findings: The Development Services Department staff exhibited insensitivity, given the mixed land use character of this specific project, in performing a substantial conformance review process on September 25, 2001, thereby disallowing any input from the 18-20 homeowners most affected by the revised facility layout. The results of this process triggered the ensuing complaints. If the SCR level one process precludes public input in all cases, the Grand Jury finds that the process is flawed and needs to be amended.
Related Recommendations (13)
R3:
Changing section (d) to read that the 75-foot wide belt extends from the outer edge of any equestrian use and terminates at the homeowner property line. And, if Seabreeze Farms Equestrian Center continues to operate under an “inactive or closed” permit: 03-27: Work with the Equestrian Center’s manager to achieve consistent and appropriate implementation of the site’s manure management program. 03-28: Work with the Equestrian Center’s manager to achieve consistent and appropriate implementation of the site’s fly control, dust control, rodent control, and vector control programs. 03-29: Work, in consultation with Sandown Way and Rider Place residents whose properties abut the equestrian center’s boundary, to: _ _____________________________________________________________16
03-19:
Amend its DSD procedures to expressly state in approved development
03-20:
Re-emphasize within and across the DSD its records management and
03-21:
Establish a formal communication link process with the Department
03-22:
Determine an appropriate course of action for implementing the
03-23:
Work with the Equestrian Center’s manager to achieve consistent and
03-24:
Work with the Equestrian Center’s manager to achieve consistent and
03-26:
Recommend to the City Council an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 4:
03-27:
Work with the Equestrian Center’s manager to achieve consistent and
03-28:
Work with the Equestrian Center’s manager to achieve consistent and
03-29:
Work, in consultation with Sandown Way and Rider Place residents
03-31:
Assure that the Director, Department of Environmental Health and
03-32:
Otherwise, order reasonable restoration or mitigation as authorized by San
F4:
Is the City making sure that facility managers are observing stipulated site health, sanitation, and safety requirements? Facts: Members of the Grand Jury visited the Seabreeze Farms neighborhood in early January 2003 and viewed the equestrian center from the backyards of three different residents. We saw a long, flat stretch of land bearing an attractive large barn (the second barn is located behind the larger one and thus hidden), several temporary house-trailer units, a parking area, small corrals or pens, horse wash racks, the partially hidden manure storage area, and several large riding arenas. At the north end, the facility lies at the bottom of a 25- 30 foot steep drop from the backyards; in the southern end, the drop is a mere 3-5 foot from the abutting backyards. Trees on the slope are still small.14 The manager’s residence, the clubhouse, and the employee housing – which all appear on the conceptual plan to be permanent structures – may or may not be housed in the house-trailer units at this time. In the northern section several homeowners have an “up close and personal” view of horses being washed in the wash racks. Homeowners in the southern section endure the sounds and action of horse training just a short distance from their backyard fence. These same residents claim that their day begins earlier than the usual 6:30 a.m. tractor startup; regularly between three and four a.m., they are roused by what sounds like a horse attempting to kick its way out of its stall! The approved development permit required that the developer submit a variety of plans including manure management, and fly and dust control. The permit also specified requirements concerning lighting, hours of operation, noise abatement, vector control, rodent control, brush management, etc.15 13 DSD management states that a level two process – a department level one review with an appeal option to the Planning Commission – is not available in this case because the original permit approval occurred via a level five process. Subsequent to our visit, two residents noticed a landscaping change that significantly altered their backyard views. We do not know if the department had approved the location and type of the new plantings. The permit also specified a facility fence. Residents found that their own backyard fences serve as the facility’s perimeter fence. _ _____________________________________________________________13 During the construction phase of the facility, the DSD management and staff negotiated with the developer over such issues as appropriate placement of the manure storage system, and location of the hot walker and wash racks, in an attempt to maintain adherence to the approved layout. The manure management program appears to be a particular challenge for the facility’s personnel. By early December 2002, homeowners noted that both manure and soiled bedding appeared to be stored and processed quite differently from the procedures outlined in the manure management program. Once again, they wrote their concerns in a letter to the DSD. They also captured these processes on film and videotape. Over the past six months, neighbors contacted the Neighborhood Code Compliance agency three times. Concerns dealt with noise and manure processing. They were told that because the equestrian center was under an “open permit” the agency was not empowered to respond. However, by late December, the Grand Jury learned that a Neighborhood Code Compliance representative was investigating the facility’s manure management program in an aggressive manner. As of mid-January 2003, the Department of Environmental Health (known as the Board of Health in the Municipal Code), the agency responsible for administering code provisions relating to horses, was not aware of the equestrian center’s existence. Findings: The Development Services Department staff failed to consider “quality of life” issues for the neighboring homeowners by (1) allowing the construction of the horse wash racks between the large barn and property line (a visual nuisance not shown on any conceptual plan), (2) allowing placement of the dressage or training arena directly behind the properties at the southern end of the facility (a noise and dust nuisance that was shown elsewhere on the conceptual plan), and (3) allowing the site manager to consistently violate his own manure management plan (a public health nuisance). The Department of Environmental Health was, until mid-January 2003, unaware of the existence of the equestrian center. This agency needs to be included in the loop earlier, for development and construction projects involving large-scale animal facilities, if it is to fulfill its responsibilities for public health and sanitation. The information in this question and answer section can be concluded by suggesting that a Good Neighbor policy has not yet cleared ‘the hurdle’.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
When a citizen makes a complaint, it must be specific as to the crime that s/he is reporting. If it is a narcotics complaint or a complaint of officer misconduct, a specific form must be completed.
F2:
Often complainants have no method of tracking the acknowledgement or progress of the investigation related to a complaint.
F3:
Citizen complaints are handled by the VPS Captain-in-Charge according to his/her own style of community relations and the particular situation; for example, if the complaint relates to traffic s/he refers it to a traffic officer. A VPS spokesman stated that they will “address the problem and try to resolve it . . . it depends on the situation and depends on the type of complaint.” The VPS Captain-in-Charge stated that he has confidence in his officers; he maintains a log to ensure that nothing falls through the cracks. Other options cited by the VPS’s Captain-in-Charge as to how citizens might handle problems and complaints were the following: • Ask to speak to the Commanding Officer of the Station. • Go to the Code Compliance Officer of the City of Vista and request an inspection of the area. • Assist the officers by writing down license plate numbers, makes of cars around the neighborhood, and descriptions of people entering and leaving the area.
Related Recommendations (8)
03-52:
Study and improve the liaison between the VPS and the City of Vista
03-53:
Contact other San Diego County local law enforcement agencies and study
03-54:
Post bilingual instructions describing procedures for filing a citizen
03-55:
Amend its system(s) for processing citizen complaints to provide a
03-56:
Coordinate more effectively with Vista C.O.P.P.S. personnel in cases
03-57:
Increase the role of the Vista C.O.P.P.S. officers to include greater face-toface communications with complainants. Officers should be responsible
03-58:
Increase public awareness of, and expand citizen involvement in,
03-59:
Provide a bilingual information pamphlet informing complainants of what
F4:
A significant number of the VPS service calls involve the use of controlled substances. The VPS Captain-in-Charge of the VPS does not receive briefings for every on-going investigation in his station. He claims that the number of investigations is too overwhelming for that. D. The Grand Jury was able to establish that the first recorded complaint the VPS received, for the neighborhood in question, was dated December 2001. In 3 According to testimony before the Grand Jury. 3 addition, a specific complaint about narcotics was received in March 2002 and was referred to a detective with the Street Narcotics Unit. E. Since the VPS records are not retained permanently, records of citizen complaints may no longer exist to assist the tracking of complaints. Specific record retention schedules specify:
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F7:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The number of two-stroke engine PWCs operating in these Sectors on the Fourth of July, for instance, given their dimensions, yield an amount of uncombusted 16 gasoline and oil which results in more than a thin film left on the water according to an EPA study. G. Not all the parts of Mission Bay flush equally well. In fact, some areas (e.g. Sector 6) behave almost like a lake. H. Numerous regulatory agencies have imposed restrictions on the use of the two-stroke PWCs. These regulations vary from outright bans of their use to allowing their usage in specific sites. I. There is a problem of jurisdiction concerning the management and protection of Mission Bay. The Parks and Recreation Department of the City of San Diego has the jurisdiction but not the means to police Mission Bay; the lifeguards have the means but do not have the jurisdiction. J. Statutes exist at the Federal, State and local levels that prohibit the discharging of oil and gasoline upon navigable waters, in general, and Mission Bay, in particular. If these statutes and ordinances at the Federal, State, and local levels are found insufficient for the purpose of citing two-stroke engine PWC operators, the City can adopt its own ordinance(s) to achieve the same effect. K. The designated stewards demonstrate inadequate awareness of these statutes concerning oil and gasoline discharge into Mission Bay. L. The designated stewards of Mission Bay, either as an act of omission or an act of commission, have not performed all of their designated duties. M. Of 1442 tickets issued by the lifeguards during the period 1999 through 2002, not one was issued to two-stroke engine PWC operators for discharging oil and gasoline into the water and polluting Mission Bay.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
03-17:
Direct the designated stewards of Mission Bay to apply the local ordinances
03-18:
Authorize also the lifeguards to be responsible for the enforcement of statutes
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Expand the program to Cuyamaca Community College and to other San Diego County high schools and community colleges.
F2:
Provide additional funding from the high school and college districts to ensure that longitudinal research studies are conducted as to the effectiveness of the program. Commendations for the MCHS Program:
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
03-12:
expand the MCHS program to Cuyamaca Community College.
03-13:
provide additional funding from high school and community college districts to
03-14:
create another Experimental Group (II) to compare the results when using
03-15:
compare cost effectiveness of the LMB clinicians versus San Diego County
03-16:
provide additional funding for further research, either by reallocating current
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The same elected officials who may be subject to an Ethics Commission investigation (City Council members and the City Attorney) nominate the people who may ultimately be called upon to conduct investigations of the nominators or cite them for violations.
F2:
The Grand Jury finds that:
The seven Ethics Commissioners should be appointed by the Mayor from a pool of City of San Diego citizens nominated by a panel of retired judges or chosen through some random process. B. One of the current Ethics Commissioners is an attorney. Either he or his law firm has represented a business with extensive dealings involving City projects and partnerships. The Grand Jury finds that:
F3:
The Grand Jury finds that:
Political party affiliation is not an appropriate criterion for a non-partisan commission. The Ethics Commissioners should be appointed for their integrity, not their party affiliation. a. Of the seven original Commissioners three are registered Democrat, three are registered Republican and one is registered Non-Partisan.4 b. It will be difficult for the Mayor to replace Commissioners while keeping in mind the “diverse” roles that must be filled without sacrificing the most qualified nominees. This is a problem that is presently facing the Mayor. Recently, one of the Ethics Commissioners was appointed to the Superior Court bench requiring her resignation from the Ethics Commission. Since she was a registered Democrat, no Republican can be considered as a replacement. That eliminates approximately 45 percent of San Diego residents from consideration for the position. This situation becomes more acute if the one Non Partisan commissioner would have to be replaced. No Republican or Democrat could be chosen as a replacement, so approximately 90 percent of San Diego residents would be disqualified to fill this position.5 c. A qualification for membership on the Ethics Commission is that “each Commissioner shall be a qualified elector of the City of San Diego.” [San Diego Municipal Code §26.0406] 4. “A person who has held elective governmental office” [San Diego Municipal Code §26.0404] should not be one of the criteria for appointment to the Ethics Commission. I. The City Attorney is both a nominating authority and subject to investigation by the Ethics Commission. In addition he is also the legal counsel to the Mayor, and the City Council.6 Because of conflicts, the City Attorney should not serve as legal counsel for the Ethics Commission, as he currently does. According to information obtained from San Diego County Registrar of Voters, 4 February 2003. For the sake of the example, we assume that 45 percent of the registered voters are Democrat, 45 percent are Republican, and 10 percent are others. The City of San Diego City Attorney’s website, 12 February 2002, http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/attorney/aboutoffice.jsp “The City Attorney serves San Diego as the chief legal advisor and misdemeanor prosecutor. . . .the City Attorney provides legal guidance and support for elected City officials, City departments, and boards and commissions; represents the City before judicial and administrative bodies in Civil proceedings; and prosecutes misdemeanor crimes.” 5
Related Recommendations (9)
03-02:
Amend the Ethics ordinance to provide for a process of prescreening
03-03:
Delete from the Ethics ordinance the requirement that no more than three
03-04:
Delete from the Ethics ordinance the requirement that there be two or
03-06:
Amend the Ethics ordinance to direct the Ethics Commission to hire
03-07:
Amend San Diego Municipal Code§26.0447(b)(1)(A) to provide that, if
03-08:
Retain San Diego Municipal Code§26.0404 (b) “the Commission shall
03-09:
Examine all Commissioners for potential conflicts of interest, including
03-10:
Amend its Ethics Commission conflict of interest code [San Diego
03-11:
Amend procedures presently in place [San Diego Municipal Code
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F1:
Health issues related to the suitability of Pepsi-Cola vending machines on school campuses
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Prop BB-Request for a $187 million general obligation bond. As the ballot stated, the purpose of the bond is: To relieve overcrowding, repair local schools and improve safety conditions for students in the Sweetwater Union High School District, serving the communities of Bonita, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, San Ysidro and portions of San Diego.
F2:
The handling of money (about $40,000/yr) returned to the District by sales from the Pepsi-Cola machines
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The ballot also asked the voters about specific areas of improvement to be implemented with the bond money: Shall the District repair and upgrade school facilities, adding classrooms; improving fire alarms; removing asbestos; upgrading electrical wiring; renovating water and sewer lines; improving heating and ventilation systems; renovating restrooms; and replacing worn roofs? ________________________________________________________________ 157
F3:
Money issues related to other vendor contracts such as senior class rings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Further, while the law does not require the establishment of a Bond Oversight Committee when the ballot measure is based on a 2/3-voter approval, the wording of the ballot support material promised that such a committee would be established. The voters approved the bond measure. The vote tallied with 72.4% in favor and 27.6% against. February 2001: First meeting of the Bond Oversight Committee held. March 2001: $38 million of bonds sold. The District also modified the modernization plan so that the work on the first three schools would be completed in two stages, Phase 1A and Phase 1B, with $32 million designated for Phase 1A. February 25, 2002: Contract negotiations begun for Phase 1B. PROCEDURES EMPLOYED The Grand Jury took the following steps:
F4:
A bank representative authorized to appear on a high school campus to offer students credit card enrollment A Special Audit Is Ordered On November 20, 2002, the Grand Jury decided that, given the size and complexity of the SUHSD, a formal audit would prove useful to the investigation. In January 2003, Grand Jurors met with auditors from the County’s Office of Audits & Advisory Services. Much of the information that follows has been drawn from their report, delivered to the Grand Jury on April 25, 2003. Audit areas reviewed and discussed in this Grand Jury report include:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Interviewed the President of the Sweetwater School Board, the Chairperson of the Bond Oversight Committee, and citizens who had submitted complaints to the Grand Jury
F5:
Assessment of the Proposition BB modernization project planning effort
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Visited and toured the Mar Vista and Sweetwater High Schools, and the Chula Vista Middle School
F6:
Appropriateness of Prop BB bond expenditures
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Observed classes in session and talked with administrators, teachers, and students at each of the three schools visited
F7:
Activities of the Prop BB Bond Oversight Committee
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Reviewed the minutes of pertinent public meetings of the SUHSD Board of Trustees and of the BOC
F8:
Disposition of Insurance Payments related to the fire at the Chula Vista Middle School Establishing Priorities One of several factors the Grand Jury investigated is that bond funds were used to build new gymnasiums and tennis courts at both of the two high schools designated for improvement in Phase 1. The Grand Jury heard several conflicting ideas on the issue. According to several SUHSD officials interviewed, the two Phase 1 high school site committees had, prior to the 2000 elections, declared that gymnasiums were top priority. One District official told the Grand Jury that the gymnasiums were important as a highly visible demonstration to the community that the bond money was being used. Another added that the public couldn’t see what’s happening inside the school buildings. Yet, in the prioritized lists of needs shown in the FIP—the ideas of each school’s site committee—“modernizing physical education facilities” was listed 12th (of 13) needs by Mar ________________________________________________________________ 159 Vista HS and 11th (of 12) by Sweetwater HS. Nowhere in the FIP, nor on the BB Bond ballot, were the words new gymnasiums or new tennis courts used. Further, one Board Member is quoted in the press2 as saying, “Why gyms first?. . . I was under the impression that it was going to start with the classrooms for science and technology.” Although the Grand Jury could find nothing illegal in the way the first phase of the bond project was completed, we did find that very few projects of the type indicated by the BB Bond ballot were completed. The majority of projects listed in the FIP were not completed! School Board’s Planning Process According to the April 25, 2003, Audit Report, initial planning conducted by the SUHSD to produce estimated costs for the completion of the identified repair, modernization, and overcrowding needs at each school site was not based on a detailed analysis of factors that affect the modernization project costs. Consequently, the FIP did not present an accurate description of the funding needed for its implementation. That funding amount was the basis for the BB Bond request. As a result of those inadequate projections, the entire modernization project has been under-funded. Ultimately, the SUHSD is now incurring additional expenses to produce a more accurate Long-Range Facilities Master Plan (LRFMP). (See attached Appendix for details).
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Examined other documents, including statistical reports issued by various academic offices
F9:
Take additional action to further strengthen and improve its effort to inform the community on the status of the projects funded with the proceeds from the sale of Proposition BB bonds by expanding periodic updates to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Requested and subsequently reviewed an audit of specific areas of concern within the SUHSD, conducted by the County of San Diego’s Auditor and Controller FACTS AND FINDINGS While many aspects of the SUHSD operations have been investigated for this Grand Jury report, several other conditions have not been examined in-depth due to time constraints. 158________________________________________________________________ Issues NOT Investigated In-Depth Some of the topics are listed below as an apology to those citizens who showed their concern and took the time to file complaints with the Grand Jury. These areas concern the Grand Jury because it may be that the District’s need for additional funding could lead to unwise fund- raising compromises that might jeopardize the health and welfare of the students. While the Grand Jury recognizes the never-ending need to provide funding for programs that benefit the students, the following are some of the areas of concern that may warrant in-depth investigation:
F10:
Issue reports of bond expenditures; modernization project status; and estimated project timelines to the Bond Oversight Committee so that body could make them available to the press and to interested community members
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Health issues related to the suitability of Pepsi-Cola vending machines on school campuses
F11:
Provide Proposition BB Bond updates to school administrative and teaching staff who have direct contact with parents and the community By strengthening communication with the community regarding the status of modernization projects, the District could benefit from increased support for ongoing and future projects. Bond Oversight Committee Complainants to the Grand Jury pointed out that, when the BOC was established, it did not meet several specific mandates of the law. That accusation was unjustified since the complainants were referring to Education Code sections4 that only apply when a bond issue is passed by the voters under the 55% option (described earlier, on p. 2.) Even there a BOC is an advisory group 160________________________________________________________________ only, serving the Board of Trustees, which is solely responsible for making decisions and setting policy. A “Bond Oversight Committee Structure and Operating Guidelines” was developed and issued by the SUHSD Board of Trustees in 2001 and revised in September 2002. The Grand Jury found that, in general, the BOC has adhered to those Guidelines. The BOC has been diligent in its efforts to have an impact, despite its legal limitations. For example, on April 16, 2001, they suggested that the two gymnasiums should be postponed for a while. In response, the BOC was told it was too late to change the plans to build the gyms first because the “bidding had commenced.” And, on September 10, 2001, when the BOC questioned another SUHSD action, they were told that the tennis courts were added to the bid packages “after the estimates were completed.” The District allowed the spouse of a Board member to serve in the Proposition BB Bond Oversight Committee. The selection of the initial members of the oversight committee was done before the District established its guidelines. According to the committee’s Chairman, each initial committee member was selected by a Board member through an informal process. Although the District is not breaking any laws because a spouse of a Board member is serving on the oversight committee, such a relationship could inhibit the committee’s ability to engage in open and frank discussions and diminish the effectiveness of the oversight committee because of the direct relationship of one of its members to a member of the District’s Board of Trustees. In fact, some committee members have expressed these concerns to the Audit Team. (See Appendix, pg. 7).
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The handling of money (about $40,000/yr) returned to the District by sales from the Pepsi-Cola machines
F12:
Revise and strengthen its Guidelines for the Bond Oversight Committee member selection process to ensure that situations are avoided which can be perceived as inappropriate by the community can be avoided
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Money issues related to other vendor contracts such as senior class rings.
F13:
Open a regular formal dialog with the Bond Oversight Committee that gives more consideration to that body’s advice and recommendations and the rationale for them. Mar Vista and Sweetwater High Schools: Athletics or Academics? The Grand Jury’s site investigations raised another question in the Jurors’ minds: With the $38 million from the initial sale of BB Bonds used to build new gymnasiums and tennis courts, were academics being neglected in favor of athletic concerns? This question was explored by the Grand Jurors. Athletics: As mentioned in an earlier section of this Grand Jury Report (see p. 7), athletic concerns were not neglected in the FIP. In fact, the following quote from that document demonstrates a clear awareness that gymnasiums have an important role in the curriculum: ________________________________________________________________ 161 Physical education facilities including gymnasiums and athletic fields will be upgraded as needed. Gyms will have wood floors reconditioned, or when necessary, replaced. Upgrades will include easy-to-operate bleachers, replacement of damaged stationary equipment and sound systems as needed. Shower/locker rooms will be upgraded, including improved accessibility and ventilation. Hard court [tennis courts] areas and stadiums will be reconstructed as needed. Drainage and irrigation issues will be addressed to improve safety. The Grand Jury questions, however, the accuracy of using the words up-grade and repairs and renovations as being equivalent to building new facilities. When this particular issue was pursued, some very contradictory views came to light. The following statements were made by various interviewees who expressed great pride in the new constructions:
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
A bank representative authorized to appear on a high school campus to offer students credit card enrollment A Special Audit Is Ordered On November 20, 2002, the Grand Jury decided that, given the size and complexity of the SUHSD, a formal audit would prove useful to the investigation. In January 2003, Grand Jurors met with auditors from the County’s Office of Audits & Advisory Services. Much of the information that follows has been drawn from their report, delivered to the Grand Jury on April 25, 2003. Audit areas reviewed and discussed in this Grand Jury report include:
F14:
“The public needs something very visible, to show that we’re concerned about the students and the entire community.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
Assessment of the Proposition BB modernization project planning effort
F15:
“It improves the image of the school.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R15:
Appropriateness of Prop BB bond expenditures
F16:
“Sports are important; they attract a lot of high-risk kids who would drop out of school.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R16:
Activities of the Prop BB Bond Oversight Committee
F17:
“The school has won lots of awards for athletics. And that helps the students’ self- esteem.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
Disposition of Insurance Payments related to the fire at the Chula Vista Middle School Establishing Priorities One of several factors the Grand Jury investigated is that bond funds were used to build new gymnasiums and tennis courts at both of the two high schools designated for improvement in Phase 1. The Grand Jury heard several conflicting ideas on the issue. According to several SUHSD officials interviewed, the two Phase 1 high school site committees had, prior to the 2000 elections, declared that gymnasiums were top priority. One District official told the Grand Jury that the gymnasiums were important as a highly visible demonstration to the community that the bond money was being used. Another added that the public couldn’t see what’s happening inside the school buildings. Yet, in the prioritized lists of needs shown in the FIP—the ideas of each school’s site committee—“modernizing physical education facilities” was listed 12th (of 13) needs by Mar ________________________________________________________________ 159 Vista HS and 11th (of 12) by Sweetwater HS. Nowhere in the FIP, nor on the BB Bond ballot, were the words new gymnasiums or new tennis courts used. Further, one Board Member is quoted in the press2 as saying, “Why gyms first?. . . I was under the impression that it was going to start with the classrooms for science and technology.” Although the Grand Jury could find nothing illegal in the way the first phase of the bond project was completed, we did find that very few projects of the type indicated by the BB Bond ballot were completed. The majority of projects listed in the FIP were not completed! School Board’s Planning Process According to the April 25, 2003, Audit Report, initial planning conducted by the SUHSD to produce estimated costs for the completion of the identified repair, modernization, and overcrowding needs at each school site was not based on a detailed analysis of factors that affect the modernization project costs. Consequently, the FIP did not present an accurate description of the funding needed for its implementation. That funding amount was the basis for the BB Bond request. As a result of those inadequate projections, the entire modernization project has been under-funded. Ultimately, the SUHSD is now incurring additional expenses to produce a more accurate Long-Range Facilities Master Plan (LRFMP). (See attached
F18:
“The gyms are classrooms, there’s learning going on in PE classes.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
Take additional action to further strengthen and improve its effort to inform the community on the status of the projects funded with the proceeds from the sale of Proposition BB bonds by expanding periodic updates to the public.
F19:
“Both of the gyms—they’re identical—have a couple of classrooms for dance and for Special Education students.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
Issue reports of bond expenditures; modernization project status; and estimated project timelines to the Bond Oversight Committee so that body could make them available to the press and to interested community members
F20:
“They’re state-of-the-art, they even have retractable bleachers, and can serve as auditoriums for special events; now we can host volley ball, wrestling; even a football team.” Other observers—many parents and teachers, in particular—reported that they did not agree with the concept of building a new athletic complex when other safety and academic-related needs of the established, in-use classroom buildings are deteriorating. Academic Status of High Schools The District’s philosophy, that ‘gymnasiums are classrooms’, may be correct but, to the parent or teacher with expectations that the improvements listed in the FIP and on the ballot were going to be implemented quickly, the Phase 1 constructions may have been a disappointment. This issue is particularly pertinent to the situation at the high schools where the new gyms and tennis courts were built. 162________________________________________________________________ The Superintendent and the School Board President, as well as the school principals, frequently reminded the Grand Jury that the SUHSD has received “many awards”. The Grand Jurors found that most of the awards at the two schools in question were for athletics, music, art and ROTC. Few were for academic success. The following figures indicate that the two schools with the new gymnasiums had some of the lowest academic scores in the SUHSD and in San Diego County.5 While these test scores may have improved since 2000, it is important to note that these were the scores available at the time when the decision was made to build the new gymnasiums. Figure 1. Stanford 9 Comparative Test Results for 2000: Students at or Above National Average in Mathematics High Schools Grade 9 Math Grade 10 Math Grade 11 Math Year 2000 All San Diego County 58 52 54 All Sweetwater Union 50 46 48 Mar Vista 50 41 47 Sweetwater 37 23 28 60 50 All San Diego County 40 30 All Sweetwater Union 20 Mar Vista 10 Sweetwater 0 Grade 9 Math Grade 10 Math Grade 11 Math Figure 1 shows data from the Stanford 9 test results for mathematics during the 1999-2000 school year. It is presented in table format and, for visual clarification, the same information appears in bar-graph format. Specifically, as demonstrated here, the two high schools tested below the averages of both the SUHSD and the entire County of San Diego in grades 9-11. Figure 2. Stanford 9 Comparative Test Results for 2000: Students at or Above National Average in Reading High Schools Grade 9 Reading Grade 10 Reading Grade 11 Reading 5 The San Diego County K-16 Report 2001. San Diego County Office of Education: August, 2001 ________________________________________________________________ 163 Year 2000 All San Diego County 42 40 43 All Sweetwater Union 29 29 31 Mar Vista 28 20 28 Sweetwater 15 12 17 45 40 35 30 All San Diego County 25 All Sweetwater Union 20 Mar Vista 15 Sweetwater 10 5 0 Grade 9 Reading Grade 10 Reading Grade 11 Reading Figure 2 shows that the same two high schools also tested below the average of both the SUHSD and the entire County of San Diego in grades 9-11 for reading skills. Figure 3. Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT 1) Comparative Scores, 1999-2000 School Year High Schools Averages SAT Verbal Score SAT Math Score SAT Total Score U.S. National 505 514 1019 California 492 517 1009 San Diego County 490 506 997 Sweetwater Union 449 465 914 Mar Vista 427 450 877 164________________________________________________________________ Sweetwater 404 427 831 1200 U.S. National 1000 California 800 San Diego 600 County Sweetwater 400 Union Mar Vista 200 Sweetwater 0 Verbal Math Total Figure 3, the SAT 1 results for the 1999-2000 school year, shows that Mar Vista and Sweetwater High Schools’ averages—in verbal and math skills as well as overall score—ranked below the averages for all high schools
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
Provide Proposition BB Bond updates to school administrative and teaching staff who have direct contact with parents and the community By strengthening communication with the community regarding the status of modernization projects, the District could benefit from increased support for ongoing and future projects. Bond Oversight Committee Complainants to the Grand Jury pointed out that, when the BOC was established, it did not meet several specific mandates of the law. That accusation was unjustified since the complainants were referring to Education Code sections4 that only apply when a bond issue is passed by the voters under the 55% option (described earlier, on p. 2.) Even there a BOC is an advisory group 160________________________________________________________________ only, serving the Board of Trustees, which is solely responsible for making decisions and setting policy. A “Bond Oversight Committee Structure and Operating Guidelines” was developed and issued by the SUHSD Board of Trustees in 2001 and revised in September 2002. The Grand Jury found that, in general, the BOC has adhered to those Guidelines. The BOC has been diligent in its efforts to have an impact, despite its legal limitations. For example, on April 16, 2001, they suggested that the two gymnasiums should be postponed for a while. In response, the BOC was told it was too late to change the plans to build the gyms first because the “bidding had commenced.” And, on September 10, 2001, when the BOC questioned another SUHSD action, they were told that the tennis courts were added to the bid packages “after the estimates were completed.” The District allowed the spouse of a Board member to serve in the Proposition BB Bond Oversight Committee. The selection of the initial members of the oversight committee was done before the District established its guidelines. According to the committee’s Chairman, each initial committee member was selected by a Board member through an informal process. Although the District is not breaking any laws because a spouse of a Board member is serving on the oversight committee, such a relationship could inhibit the committee’s ability to engage in open and frank discussions and diminish the effectiveness of the oversight committee because of the direct relationship of one of its members to a member of the District’s Board of Trustees. In fact, some committee members have expressed these concerns to the Audit Team. (See
F21:
in the State of California
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
Revise and strengthen its Guidelines for the Bond Oversight Committee member selection process to ensure that situations are avoided which can be perceived as inappropriate by the community can be avoided
F22:
and in the entire United States! The presented data on the comparative academic status of Mar Vista and Sweetwater High Schools seem to indicate that there is a need for greater emphasis on basic academic instruction. Poor science labs and poor classrooms (among other factors) are doing a disservice to many students in the SUHSD. The SUHSD does deserve recognition for its other, positive efforts: The Grand Jury learned that 19 of the 23 schools in the District have received the Distinguished School Award in the past 10 years. That Award is based on a school-generated application that includes an extensive ‘self- analysis report’ and a confirmation visit by State inspectors. The report covers 4 areas: curricula, school safety, parental involvement, and professional development. Chula Vista Middle School Built in 1930, the Chula Vista Middle School (CVMS) is one of the oldest in the SUHSD. There are 5 elementary ‘feeder’ schools, one just across the street. CVMS has a total student population of 1300. About 150 are English Language Deficient students and about 450 are Limited English Proficient. About 72-73% of the students are on the State-funded free/reduced lunch program. In 1996 CVMS won a Distinguished School Award and it has also received ________________________________________________________________ 165 awards for the creative and performing arts. Academically it is on the rise: The average API score for the 2001-02 school year increased 34 points, to 592. Insurance payment: CVMS received $2.7 million as the insurance settlement following the fire in February 2000. The amount was based on a detailed analysis from construction experts (retained by the insurance company) who estimated that it would cost $2,182,437 to replace the cafeteria. The remaining funds were for the classrooms and their contents. The new Administration Building: The Grand Jurors were very impressed with the fine Administration Building on the first visit to the site on November 21, 2002. We also noted the large plaque by the front door declaring that the building had been built with BB Bond funds. On October 23, 2002, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that teachers at CVMS picketed in front of the school to protest the building of an administration building before a student cafeteria. California Education Code 17573 states: “The governing board of every school District shall provide a warm, healthful place in which children who bring their own lunches to school may eat the lunches.” The newspaper also cited District officials as saying that the insurance money was not enough to build a new cafeteria. This is contradicted in the Audit Report provided to the Grand Jury by the County of San Diego’s Auditor and Controller. The District officials added that a new multi-purpose building currently in the planning stage would include a state-of-the-art cafeteria facility. Staff and faculty at CVMS indicated that a cafeteria is a priority for their school. A District spokesperson was also cited in the newspaper as saying that “the renovated and expanded administration building isn’t just for the comfort of the principal. It is the welcoming center for parents and community members.” When the old Administration Building was torn down, two structures were installed to serve as temporary offices during construction; those now house new classrooms. In total, 16 classrooms have been added since the fire—that’s 6 more than were lost. The cafeteria facilities in November, 2002: When touring the campus, Grand Jurors viewed at an open area holding about 20 old, splintery benches that might seat perhaps 100 students. This area is provided for students who bring their lunch. Asking where students ate when it rained, we were told that they sat on the floor in hallways and in sheltered walkways. This, we were told, is only a temporary cafeteria area; students who did not bring lunch were not mentioned. Nearby was a white structure with two food-service carts in front of it. An old sign near the door to the building said that it was the metal shop classroom. Actually, the building served as a temporary kitchen. There were a pass-through window and two small rickety food service carts in front. The cafeteria facilities, 6 months later: The Audit Report delivered in late April 2003 spoke of sheltered seating areas and “a state-of-the-art” kitchen facility. So, on May 13, 2003, the Grand Jury returned to see those changes. The rows of splintery benches have increased in number, now seating an estimated 300 students, based, Grand Jurors were told, on ten children per bench. That number may be overstated. A 166________________________________________________________________ bench might hold ten if they were primary age and sat straight and still. A more realistic count might be six middle school youngsters while eating. Another outdoor eating area with rows of benches is now in place across from the front of the building that houses the kitchen. It seats another 300 students—on similar old benches—we were told. (Perhaps another overstatement.) This dining area has two joined tent-peaked tarpaulin covers, installed about February 15, 2003. We were told that a roll-down ‘wall’ is in storage until they decide which side of the structure needs the protection. So it is that the school now has two outdoor eating areas seating, by their count, some 1200 students (600 x 2 lunch periods.) School officials considered it adequate for the school population of 1300. It was also mentioned that “these kids don’t like to eat indoors; they like this outdoor arrangement.” The Grand Jurors did not recognize the old metal shop and were astonished at the improvements since the last visit: The building now houses a bright, expansive kitchen with large (apparently new) windows high on a side wall but no pass-through window. It truly does merit the description as “state of the art” and includes a dining area for staff/teachers. In front of the building, under a roof extension, is an organized area of four molded-plastic food-service carts, one with an umbrella. All appear quite new—or very well maintained. Jurors asked when the kitchen was refurbished and were told that it was done 2-3 months after the fire; i.e., some two years earlier. Yet, Grand Jurors who participated in both visits did not see this new kitchen on their first visit. The SUHSD released a newsletter called the “School Bond Update” (dated Winter 2003) reporting that, “A new covered lunch shelter will temporarily replace the cafeteria destroyed by fire two years ago.” Who is to be believed? Did the Grand Jury’s November visit trigger some much-needed action? The New Long-range Facilities Master Plan In February 2002, The San Diego Union- Tribune reported that the “Architect Hired to Prepare Long-range Facilities Master Plan”: expected the Plan to be delivered in July 2003. The article continues, saying that the new Plan will consider the present and future needs of the District’s ten middle schools and ten high schools, look for future sites and for the support facilities needs of the district, and establish facility standards for educational programs and materials. It will replace the original Facilities Improvement Plan. The Grand Jury found that the SUHSD is committed to a total of $309,250 for this LRFMP and that Proposition BB funds will pay for that bill. The Grand Jury now wonders what will happen during the interim, pending receipt of the LRFMP, to the repair and improvement processes already in progress? What about other actions already initiated on the basis of the original intentions?
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
Open a regular formal dialog with the Bond Oversight Committee that gives more consideration to that body’s advice and recommendations and the rationale for them. Mar Vista and Sweetwater High Schools: Athletics or Academics? The Grand Jury’s site investigations raised another question in the Jurors’ minds: With the $38 million from the initial sale of BB Bonds used to build new gymnasiums and tennis courts, were academics being neglected in favor of athletic concerns? This question was explored by the Grand Jurors. Athletics: As mentioned in an earlier section of this Grand Jury Report (see p. 7), athletic concerns were not neglected in the FIP. In fact, the following quote from that document demonstrates a clear awareness that gymnasiums have an important role in the curriculum: ________________________________________________________________ 161 Physical education facilities including gymnasiums and athletic fields will be upgraded as needed. Gyms will have wood floors reconditioned, or when necessary, replaced. Upgrades will include easy-to-operate bleachers, replacement of damaged stationary equipment and sound systems as needed. Shower/locker rooms will be upgraded, including improved accessibility and ventilation. Hard court [tennis courts] areas and stadiums will be reconstructed as needed. Drainage and irrigation issues will be addressed to improve safety. The Grand Jury questions, however, the accuracy of using the words up-grade and repairs and renovations as being equivalent to building new facilities. When this particular issue was pursued, some very contradictory views came to light. The following statements were made by various interviewees who expressed great pride in the new constructions:
F23:
Work closely with the developer(s) of the new Long-range Master Facility Plan to assure that individual schools’ needs are met.
Related Recommendations (1)
R23:
“The public needs something very visible, to show that we’re concerned about the students and the entire community.”
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R24:
“It improves the image of the school.”
R25:
“Sports are important; they attract a lot of high-risk kids who would drop out of school.”
R26:
“The school has won lots of awards for athletics. And that helps the students’ self- esteem.”
R27:
“The gyms are classrooms, there’s learning going on in PE classes.”
R28:
“Both of the gyms—they’re identical—have a couple of classrooms for dance and for Special Education students.”
R29:
“They’re state-of-the-art, they even have retractable bleachers, and can serve as auditoriums for special events; now we can host volley ball, wrestling; even a football team.” Other observers—many parents and teachers, in particular—reported that they did not agree with the concept of building a new athletic complex when other safety and academic-related needs of the established, in-use classroom buildings are deteriorating. Academic Status of High Schools The District’s philosophy, that ‘gymnasiums are classrooms’, may be correct but, to the parent or teacher with expectations that the improvements listed in the FIP and on the ballot were going to be implemented quickly, the Phase 1 constructions may have been a disappointment. This issue is particularly pertinent to the situation at the high schools where the new gyms and tennis courts were built. 162________________________________________________________________ The Superintendent and the School Board President, as well as the school principals, frequently reminded the Grand Jury that the SUHSD has received “many awards”. The Grand Jurors found that most of the awards at the two schools in question were for athletics, music, art and ROTC. Few were for academic success. The following figures indicate that the two schools with the new gymnasiums had some of the lowest academic scores in the SUHSD and in San Diego County.5 While these test scores may have improved since 2000, it is important to note that these were the scores available at the time when the decision was made to build the new gymnasiums. Figure 1. Stanford 9 Comparative Test Results for 2000: Students at or Above National Average in Mathematics High Schools Grade 9 Math Grade 10 Math Grade 11 Math Year 2000 All San Diego County 58 52 54 All Sweetwater Union 50 46 48 Mar Vista 50 41 47 Sweetwater 37 23 28 60 50 All San Diego County 40 30 All Sweetwater Union 20 Mar Vista 10 Sweetwater 0 Grade 9 Math Grade 10 Math Grade 11 Math Figure 1 shows data from the Stanford 9 test results for mathematics during the 1999-2000 school year. It is presented in table format and, for visual clarification, the same information appears in bar-graph format. Specifically, as demonstrated here, the two high schools tested below the averages of both the SUHSD and the entire County of San Diego in grades 9-11. Figure 2. Stanford 9 Comparative Test Results for 2000: Students at or Above National Average in Reading High Schools Grade 9 Reading Grade 10 Reading Grade 11 Reading 5 The San Diego County K-16 Report 2001. San Diego County Office of Education: August, 2001 ________________________________________________________________ 163 Year 2000 All San Diego County 42 40 43 All Sweetwater Union 29 29 31 Mar Vista 28 20 28 Sweetwater 15 12 17 45 40 35 30 All San Diego County 25 All Sweetwater Union 20 Mar Vista 15 Sweetwater 10 5 0 Grade 9 Reading Grade 10 Reading Grade 11 Reading Figure 2 shows that the same two high schools also tested below the average of both the SUHSD and the entire County of San Diego in grades 9-11 for reading skills. Figure 3. Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT 1) Comparative Scores, 1999-2000 School Year High Schools Averages SAT Verbal Score SAT Math Score SAT Total Score U.S. National 505 514 1019 California 492 517 1009 San Diego County 490 506 997 Sweetwater Union 449 465 914 Mar Vista 427 450 877 164________________________________________________________________ Sweetwater 404 427 831 1200 U.S. National 1000 California 800 San Diego 600 County Sweetwater 400 Union Mar Vista 200 Sweetwater 0 Verbal Math Total Figure 3, the SAT 1 results for the 1999-2000 school year, shows that Mar Vista and Sweetwater High Schools’ averages—in verbal and math skills as well as overall score—ranked below the averages for all high schools
R30:
in the State of California
R31:
and in the entire United States! The presented data on the comparative academic status of Mar Vista and Sweetwater High Schools seem to indicate that there is a need for greater emphasis on basic academic instruction. Poor science labs and poor classrooms (among other factors) are doing a disservice to many students in the SUHSD. The SUHSD does deserve recognition for its other, positive efforts: The Grand Jury learned that 19 of the 23 schools in the District have received the Distinguished School Award in the past 10 years. That Award is based on a school-generated application that includes an extensive ‘self- analysis report’ and a confirmation visit by State inspectors. The report covers 4 areas: curricula, school safety, parental involvement, and professional development. Chula Vista Middle School Built in 1930, the Chula Vista Middle School (CVMS) is one of the oldest in the SUHSD. There are 5 elementary ‘feeder’ schools, one just across the street. CVMS has a total student population of 1300. About 150 are English Language Deficient students and about 450 are Limited English Proficient. About 72-73% of the students are on the State-funded free/reduced lunch program. In 1996 CVMS won a Distinguished School Award and it has also received ________________________________________________________________ 165 awards for the creative and performing arts. Academically it is on the rise: The average API score for the 2001-02 school year increased 34 points, to 592. Insurance payment: CVMS received $2.7 million as the insurance settlement following the fire in February 2000. The amount was based on a detailed analysis from construction experts (retained by the insurance company) who estimated that it would cost $2,182,437 to replace the cafeteria. The remaining funds were for the classrooms and their contents. The new Administration Building: The Grand Jurors were very impressed with the fine Administration Building on the first visit to the site on November 21, 2002. We also noted the large plaque by the front door declaring that the building had been built with BB Bond funds. On October 23, 2002, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that teachers at CVMS picketed in front of the school to protest the building of an administration building before a student cafeteria. California Education Code 17573 states: “The governing board of every school District shall provide a warm, healthful place in which children who bring their own lunches to school may eat the lunches.” The newspaper also cited District officials as saying that the insurance money was not enough to build a new cafeteria. This is contradicted in the Audit Report provided to the Grand Jury by the County of San Diego’s Auditor and Controller. The District officials added that a new multi-purpose building currently in the planning stage would include a state-of-the-art cafeteria facility. Staff and faculty at CVMS indicated that a cafeteria is a priority for their school. A District spokesperson was also cited in the newspaper as saying that “the renovated and expanded administration building isn’t just for the comfort of the principal. It is the welcoming center for parents and community members.” When the old Administration Building was torn down, two structures were installed to serve as temporary offices during construction; those now house new classrooms. In total, 16 classrooms have been added since the fire—that’s 6 more than were lost. The cafeteria facilities in November, 2002: When touring the campus, Grand Jurors viewed at an open area holding about 20 old, splintery benches that might seat perhaps 100 students. This area is provided for students who bring their lunch. Asking where students ate when it rained, we were told that they sat on the floor in hallways and in sheltered walkways. This, we were told, is only a temporary cafeteria area; students who did not bring lunch were not mentioned. Nearby was a white structure with two food-service carts in front of it. An old sign near the door to the building said that it was the metal shop classroom. Actually, the building served as a temporary kitchen. There were a pass-through window and two small rickety food service carts in front. The cafeteria facilities, 6 months later: The Audit Report delivered in late April 2003 spoke of sheltered seating areas and “a state-of-the-art” kitchen facility. So, on May 13, 2003, the Grand Jury returned to see those changes. The rows of splintery benches have increased in number, now seating an estimated 300 students, based, Grand Jurors were told, on ten children per bench. That number may be overstated. A 166________________________________________________________________ bench might hold ten if they were primary age and sat straight and still. A more realistic count might be six middle school youngsters while eating. Another outdoor eating area with rows of benches is now in place across from the front of the building that houses the kitchen. It seats another 300 students—on similar old benches—we were told. (Perhaps another overstatement.) This dining area has two joined tent-peaked tarpaulin covers, installed about February 15, 2003. We were told that a roll-down ‘wall’ is in storage until they decide which side of the structure needs the protection. So it is that the school now has two outdoor eating areas seating, by their count, some 1200 students (600 x 2 lunch periods.) School officials considered it adequate for the school population of 1300. It was also mentioned that “these kids don’t like to eat indoors; they like this outdoor arrangement.” The Grand Jurors did not recognize the old metal shop and were astonished at the improvements since the last visit: The building now houses a bright, expansive kitchen with large (apparently new) windows high on a side wall but no pass-through window. It truly does merit the description as “state of the art” and includes a dining area for staff/teachers. In front of the building, under a roof extension, is an organized area of four molded-plastic food-service carts, one with an umbrella. All appear quite new—or very well maintained. Jurors asked when the kitchen was refurbished and were told that it was done 2-3 months after the fire; i.e., some two years earlier. Yet, Grand Jurors who participated in both visits did not see this new kitchen on their first visit. The SUHSD released a newsletter called the “School Bond Update” (dated Winter 2003) reporting that, “A new covered lunch shelter will temporarily replace the cafeteria destroyed by fire two years ago.” Who is to be believed? Did the Grand Jury’s November visit trigger some much-needed action? The New Long-range Facilities Master Plan In February 2002, The San Diego Union- Tribune reported that the “Architect Hired to Prepare Long-range Facilities Master Plan”: expected the Plan to be delivered in July 2003. The article continues, saying that the new Plan will consider the present and future needs of the District’s ten middle schools and ten high schools, look for future sites and for the support facilities needs of the district, and establish facility standards for educational programs and materials. It will replace the original Facilities Improvement Plan. The Grand Jury found that the SUHSD is committed to a total of $309,250 for this LRFMP and that Proposition BB funds will pay for that bill. The Grand Jury now wonders what will happen during the interim, pending receipt of the LRFMP, to the repair and improvement processes already in progress? What about other actions already initiated on the basis of the original intentions? Recommendations: Given the demographic and economic differences between the various schools in the Sweetwater Union High School District, the Grand Jury recommends that the SUHSD officials do the following: ________________________________________________________________ 167
R32:
Work closely with the developer(s) of the new Long-range Master Facility Plan to assure that individual schools’ needs are met. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2002-2003 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the Sweetwater Union High School District: 03-85: Strengthen and improve efforts to inform the community on the status of the projects funded with the proceeds from the sale of Proposition BB bonds by expanding its periodic updates to the public. 03-86: Issue reports of bond expenditures; modernization project status; and estimated project timelines to the Bond Oversight Committee so that body can make them available to the press and to interested community members. 03-87: Provide Proposition BB bond updates to school administrative and teaching staff who have direct contact with parents and the community. 03-88: Revise its Guidelines for the Bond Oversight Committee members selection process to ensure that situations which can be perceived as inappropriate by the community are avoided. 03-89: Open a regular formal dialog with the Bond Oversight Committee that gives more consideration to that body’s advice and recommendations and the rationale for them. 03-90: Work closely with the developer(s) of the new Long-range Master Facility Plan to assure that individual schools’ needs are met. 03-91: Comply with California Education Code 17573 for Chula Vista Middle School. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.