Bullis Charter Sch. v. L. Altos Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 27 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. H035195.,H035195. |
| Parties | BULLIS CHARTER SCHOOL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
200 Cal.App.4th 1022
134 Cal.Rptr.3d 133
BULLIS CHARTER SCHOOL, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.
No. H035195.
Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.
Oct. 27, 2011.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 21, 2011.
Review Denied Jan. 18, 2012.
Arturo J. Gonzalez, Suzanna Pacht Brickman, San Francisco, Morrison & Foerster, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Paul C. Minney, Sacramento, Middleton, Young & Minney, Charles Bird, San Diego, Luce Forward, for amicus curiae on behalf of Appellant.
John R. Yeh, Mountain View, Donald A. Velez, Dannis Woliver Kelley, for Defendants and Respondents.
DUFFY, J.
The Legislature in 1992 enacted the Charter Schools Act of 1992 ( Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq. ; the Act).1 Eight years later, the California electorate amended the Act by adopting Proposition 39. Under that amendment, school districts must provide to charter schools established within their jurisdiction school facilities with "conditions reasonably equivalent to those in which the [charter school] students would be accommodated if they were attending other public schools of the district." ( § 47614, subd. (b).) This case explores the practical meaning of this reasonable equivalence mandate.
Bullis Charter School filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a complaint alleging that the Los Altos School District (District) had violated the Act, as amended, by failing to offer and provide Bullis with facilities for the 2009–2010 school year that were reasonably equivalent to other public schools in the District. The District prevailed and Bullis challenges the
court's ruling here. Bullis argues that the District's offer of facilities was deficient, inter alia, because the District significantly understated the nonclassroom space available to District-run schools in the comparison group; overstated the size of the Bullis facility; did not consider the size of the site offered to Bullis as compared with the sizes of school sites in the comparison group; understated the size of some of the comparison schools' buildings; and failed to consider or provide for certain facilities, such as childcare facilities, which existed at each of the comparison group schools.
We conclude that the District offer of facilities for the 2009–2010 school year did not comply with Proposition 39 or its implementing regulations. Proposition 39 mandates that facilities be "shared fairly" among all public school students, including charter school students ( § 47614, subd. (a) ). The regulations specify that a school district—in responding to a Proposition 39 facilities request by offering "reasonably equivalent" facilities to the charter school—must (1) select appropriate district-run schools to use as a comparison group with the charter school, (2) consider three categories of space (teaching, specialized teaching, and nonteaching space) in the comparison group schools, and (3) consider the site size of the comparison schools. In making its facilities offer, the school district must make a good faith effort to consider and accurately measure all of the facilities of the comparison group schools and accurately describe the facilities offered to the charter school. It is only through such an approach that one can determine whether "reasonably equivalent" facilities have been offered by the school district.
The District, in its facilities offer here, excluded from consideration over one million square feet of collective nonclassroom space of the comparison group schools. Its past practice notwithstanding, the District failed even to consider total site size; had it done so, using its own methodology, its offer would have contained some 35 percent greater acreage. It overstated the facilities offered to Bullis by considering (1) a soccer field on a 100 percent basis even though its shared use made it available to the charter school for only 40 percent of the time, and (2) a multipurpose room as being District supplied, even though it was built, owned, and operated by Bullis. And the District used an arbitrary
"standard" size figure for certain facilities (e.g., libraries), thereby understating the appropriate size of such facility to be offered to Bullis. Based upon these deficiencies in the aggregate, we hold that the facilities offer was inconsistent with the mandate of Proposition 39 that a school district conduct a fair assessment of the facilities needed by the in-district charter school students so that those facilities offered meet the reasonable equivalence standard. The court should have granted mandamus and declaratory relief making an affirmative finding that the District acted arbitrarily by failing to apply the proper legal standards in its facilities offer to Bullis, in violation of Proposition 39. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Bullis filed this action against the District on June 10, 2009.2 In its amended petition and complaint (Petition), Bullis sought (1) a writ of mandate compelling the District to provide it with "reasonably equivalent facilities" as required under the law, and (2) a declaration from the court that the District's offer of facilities for the 2009–2010 school year violated Proposition 39 and its implementing regulations.
Bullis alleged in the Petition that it was established in the Spring of 2003.3 Although neighborhood parents brought charter petitions that were twice rejected by the District, they ultimately obtained approval of their petition from the Santa Clara County Office of Education (Board). The Board continues to serve as Bullis's chartering authority. Bullis alleged that since its opening for the 2004–2005 school year, it has been a highly successful public charter school for kindergarten through sixth grades (K-6). It has been operating since its inception in portable buildings located on a portion of the District-run Egan Junior High School campus (Egan site). Its facilities at the Egan site are "considerably smaller than, and otherwise incongruous with, facilities and space offered to comparison District-run schools." Because of its claimed success, Bullis applied to the Board in September 2008 for a revision to its charter to permit the addition of seventh and eighth grades; although opposed by the District, the Board granted the application.
In September 2008, Bullis submitted to the District its annual "Proposition 39 facilities request" for the 2009–2010 school year, which included enrollment projections and a request for facilities for a newly authorized seventh grade classroom. The District made a preliminary offer of facilities on January 30, 2009. Bullis responded by noting a series of claimed deficiencies with the preliminary offer, and on April 1, 2009, the District submitted its final offer of facilities for the 2009–2010 school year (Facilities Offer, or Offer). Both the Facilities Offer and the preliminary offer (attached to the Facilities Offer) utilized in the analysis five District-run elementary schools as comparison schools (i.e., Loyola, Covington, Almond, Santa Rita, and Gardner Bullis (Gardner) ). The final Facilities Offer did not provide any facilities for a seventh grade. Bullis notified the District that it would occupy the facilities offered by the District, but continued to communicate its position that the
District's Offer was deficient in that it failed to offer any facilities for the seventh grade and did not propose reasonably equivalent facilities for K-6.
Bullis claimed in the Petition that the Facilities Offer violated the Act and Proposition 39. These violations included (1) failing to offer any seventh grade facilities; (2) omitting a significant amount of space at the five comparison schools; (3) treating facilities that Bullis shared with another school as if Bullis had full-time use; (4) including in its offer a multipurpose room which Bullis itself built, paid for, owned, and maintained; (5) charging Bullis for its own multipurpose room on the same pro-rata per square foot basis as charged for indoor facilities the District itself provides; and (6) improperly imposing conditions in the Facilities Offer.4 As a result, the District, in its Facilities Offer, placed Bullis on a site "little more than one-half the size of all other District elementary school sites."
The parties submitted substantial briefing and evidence in support of, and in opposition to the Petition, including supplemental supporting and opposing papers. After hearing extensive argument, on November 24, 2009, the court issued an order denying the relief sought in the Petition. A judgment was thereafter entered in favor of the District, and Bullis filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. Mootness
The 2009–2010 school year had ended by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial