San Diego Union High trustees direct RFP for new facilities master plan to preserve state matching‑fund eligibility

The San Diego Union High School District Board of Trustees on Sept. 25 gave staff direction to issue a request for proposals to update the district’s facilities master plan, a step administrators said is needed to remain eligible for state school facilities matching funds and to shape any future bond campaign.

The direction follows a staff presentation outlining the master‑planning process, which the district estimates would take about 10 months and cost between $350,000 and $450,000. "A new facilities master plan is the first step to remain in the state's School Facilities Program and to position the district for potential matching funds," Rick, the district facilities lead, told trustees.

Why it matters: Education Code section 17070.54 conditions participation in California’s school facilities matching program on an updated master plan, staff said. District staff also read a same‑day update from the state that raised the district’s remaining eligibility for matching funds from $22 million to $35 million. Staff presented campus‑level eligibility examples (Carmel Valley Middle $4.4M; Earl Warren $800K; Oak Crest Middle $1.8M; La Costa Canyon $14M; SDA $2.6M; Torrey Pines $12M) and explained matching funds are reimbursement payments received 1–3 years after project completion and approval.

Funding and timing: Staff recommended financing the master‑plan consultant from developer fee fund 25; staff said the expense is modest relative to the potential state reimbursement opportunities and that the consultant scope includes facilities assessments, an equity study, updated educational specifications, and community engagement. "The 10‑month timeline gives us enough time for robust public input and to produce a plan that would be useful whether or not the district pursues a bond," Joel, who ran slides for the presentation, said.

Public comment and personnel issues: Before the facilities discussion, two parents spoke on closed‑session items. Parent Natalie Rajik Reich said she had requested an investigation into Assistant Principal Rebecca Gallow at Torrey Pines High School and alleged that Gallow re‑added her son to a sensitive email thread against her direction; Reich said the district’s response violated student‑privacy protections and Section 504 anti‑retaliation provisions and asked the board to order an independent investigation and reassign involved staff. Another parent, Janice Holoqua, urged discipline or dismissal of Torrey Pines principal Rob Copo and/or AP Rebecca Gallow and referenced prior public complaints. The board reported out from closed session that it had unanimously ratified a separation agreement with a high‑school principal and unanimously appointed Mark Adado as assistant principal at Oak Crest Middle School, effective Sept. 26, 2025; the board did not link those closed‑session actions to the public comments on the record.

Other community priorities: Several public commenters pressed the board on energy and deferred‑maintenance needs. Students from Canyon Crest Academy urged a district‑wide energy audit as a first step toward electrification and greenhouse‑gas reductions. "An audit is the first step to electrification, which will create greener, more resilient and sustainable schools," student Sarca Sati told the board. Community member Melissa Fishell asked for campus‑level breakdowns of remaining state eligibility, questioned whether the district’s $1 million‑per‑year deferred‑maintenance allocation is sufficient given typical turf and track replacement costs (~$700K each) and said pool projects could cost $300K–$600K.

Planning details and next steps: Staff emphasized the difference between a Facility Condition Assessment (the district’s 2020 Kitchell FCA) and a Facility Needs Assessment (the FNA) the master planner would produce; staff said the Kitchell list represented roughly $60 million in capital needs. Trustees asked for clear prioritization criteria, an equity‑based approach to project weighting (safety, equity, instructional needs), and stronger public‑facing prioritization tools to avoid a popularity contest. Staff agreed the vendor should facilitate the prioritization process and community engagement and said staff would return with a recommended consultant and contract for board approval at an upcoming meeting (target: November or December). The board gave consensus direction to issue the RFP; no final bond decision was made at the meeting.

What’s next: Staff will issue the RFP for master‑planning services, evaluate proposals and return to the board with a recommended firm and a contract for approval; the board noted that, if it later chose to place a general obligation bond on a ballot, the earliest realistic target would be November 2028 given the lead time required for planning, polling, community engagement and legal steps.

(Reporting note: quotes and attributions are taken from the Sept. 25, 2025 board workshop transcript.)