Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Writing for the Court: BROUSSARD; BIRD, C.J., and MOSK; NEWMAN; KAUS; RICHARDSON
• Citation: 187 Cal.Rptr. 398,32 Cal.3d 779,654 P.2d 168
• Parties: , 654 P.2d 168, 7 Ed. Law Rep. 1023 FULLERTON JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellant. L.A. 31415.
• Decision Date: 02 December 1982

Page 398

187 Cal.Rptr. 398 32 Cal.3d 779, 654 P.2d 168, 7 Ed. Law Rep. 1023 FULLERTON JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellant. L.A. 31415. Supreme Court of California, In Bank. Dec. 2, 1982.

Page 400

[32 Cal.3d 783] [654 P.2d 170] Parker & Covert, Clayton H. Parker and Spencer E. Covert, Jr., Santa Ana, for plaintiff and appellant.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Warriner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anne S. Pressman and John H. Sanders, Deputy Attys. Gen., James L. Markman, Andrew V. Arczynski and Ralph D. Hanson, Brea, for defendant and appellant.

[32 Cal.3d 784] BROUSSARD, Justice.

The community of Yorba Linda has its own elementary school district, but is part of the Fullerton Joint Union High School

Page 401

District (Fullerton HSD). The State Board of Education (State Board) approved a plan (the Plan) to create a new Yorba Linda [654 P.2d 171] Unified School District ¹ and transfer responsibility for high school education of Yorba Linda students from the Fullerton HSD to the new district. The State Board directed that the proposal be submitted for approval in an election limited to the residents of Yorba Linda.

Fullerton HSD petitioned for mandate to prevent the election. The trial court upheld portions of the State Board's decision, but held invalid other portions, including the limitation of the franchise to Yorba Linda residents, and accordingly barred the election. Both parties appealed.

The appeal presents three issues: (1) Did the State Board comply with the requirements of Education Code section 4200, which specifies the conditions which must be met before the State Board authorizes the creation of a new school district? (2) Is the State Board's decision invalid for noncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21050 et seq.)? (3) Does the State Board's decision limiting the vote to Yorba Linda residents deny the equal protection of the laws to other residents of the Fullerton HSD?

With respect to the first issue, the parties agree that a reviewing court may inquire only whether the State Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support; applying that standard of review, we find that the State Board's decision complied with section 4200. We conclude, however, that the State Board's failure to undertake a threshold environmental study violated the California Environmental Quality Act, and that its limitation of the electoral franchise was unconstitutional.

1. Statement of facts.

The Yorba Linda Elementary School District is completely surrounded by two unified school districts: Brea-Olinda to the north, and Placentia to the west, south and east. The territory included in the Yorba Linda Elementary School District is also a part of Fullerton HSD, but being surrounded by two other districts, it is not contiguous to the remainder of Fullerton HSD. Because there is no high school in Yorba Linda approximately 1,200 Yorba Linda high school [32 Cal.3d 785] students must be bused 5 to 7 miles, across a portion of Placentia Unified School District, to Troy High School, the nearest high school in the Fullerton HSD system.

The isolation of the Yorba Linda portion of Fullerton HSD from the remainder of the district created a number of problems. High school students had to make a lengthy round trip each day to and from school. The distance also imposed burdens on students who wanted to participate in extracurricular activities. In view of these facts, the Orange County Committee on School District Organization (County Committee) prepared the Plan to create a Yorba Linda Unified High School District. In effect, the Yorba Linda portion of Fullerton HSD would "secede" and become unified with Yorba Linda Elementary.

Section 4200 of the Education Code ² requires that a school organization plan must substantially meet the following conditions: (a) the new districts will have adequate enrollment; (b) the new districts will be adequate in terms of financial ability; (c) the new districts will each have a substantial community identity; (d) the proposal will result in an equitable division of property and facilities of the original district; and (e) the formation of the new district will not promote racial or ethnic discrimination or segregation.

Page 402

The County Committee found that all statutory requirements were met and submitted the Plan to the State Board for approval. In addition, the County Committee determined that the election be held in the area proposed for unification only (Yorba[654 P.2d 172] Linda), and not throughout the entire Fullerton HSD.

Before approving the Plan, the State Board must find substantial compliance with the statutory requirements of section 4200, and it must also review the propriety of the County Committee's designation of the territory in which the election will be held. To assist the State Board, the State Department of Education submitted a report which analyzed each of the statutory conditions, found substantial compliance, and approved limiting the election to the Yorba Linda area. At its first hearing the State Board requested further information on the racial impact of removing Yorba Linda from the Fullerton HSD, but after considering that information it voted unanimously to approve the Plan.

Fullerton HSD, which opposed the unification proposal, filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court, contending that the Plan did not meet the statutory criteria and that the election was improperly restricted to Yorba Linda. The trial court ruled that the Plan substantially met the requirements of adequate[32 Cal.3d 786] enrollment, adequate financial ability, community identity, and equitable division of the property. However, the trial court held that the State Board had abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously because (1) the Plan did tend to promote racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination; (2) the State Board did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act; and (3) for a variety of reasons, the voters of the entire Fullerton HSD should vote on the Plan, and their exclusion from the election violated their fundamental right to vote.

2. Compliance with section 4200.

The parties initially agree that the action in the trial court was a traditional mandate proceeding pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and not an administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. They further agree that the exercise by the State Board of the authority to approve proposals for the formation of unified school districts pursuant to the legislative directive of sections 4200-4419 is a "quasi-legislative" act. ³

In reviewing such quasi-legislative decisions, the trial court does not inquire whether, if it had power to act in the first instance, it would have taken the action taken by the administrative agency. The authority of the court is limited to determining whether the decision of the agency was arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or unlawfully or procedurally unfair. (Pitts v. Perluss (1962) 58 Cal.2d 824, 833, 27 Cal.Rptr. 19, 377 P.2d 83; Brock v. Superior Court (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 594, 605-607, 241 P.2d 283.)

Applying this test of review, we examine the State Board's finding that the Plan substantially complies with the requirements of section 4200. That section provides in relevant part as follows:

"The State Board of Education may approve proposals for the formation of districts based upon the division of the territory of existing high school districts, provided that the board has determined, with respect to the proposal and the resulting new districts that the following conditions are substantially met:

[32 Cal.3d 787] "(a) That the new districts will be adequate in terms of number of pupils enrolled.

Page 403

"(b) That the new districts will be adequate in terms of financial ability. For purposes of determining financial ability, consideration shall be given to revenue limits[654 P.2d 173] per pupil, assessed valuation per pupil, and tax rates....

"(c) That the new districts are each organized on the basis of a substantial community identity.

"(d) That the proposal will result in an equitable division of property and facilities of the original district.

"(e) That the proposal and the formation of the new districts will not promote racial or ethnic discrimination or segregation...."

As we have noted, the State Board found that all five criteria had been substantially met. The trial court ruled that the last condition, i.e., that the Plan must not promote racial segregation, was not met. On appeal, the State Board contends that the Plan does not promote racial segregation, while Fullerton HSD contends that it does not comply with the conditions of adequate enrollment, financial ability and equitable division of the property.

(a.) Specific Findings

Preliminarily, Fullerton HSD argues that the State Board action was invalid because it did not specifically state how the Plan substantially complied with the conditions enumerated in section 4200, subdivisions (a)-(e). Fullerton HSD relies on Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the administrative mandamus provision, which impliedly requires the administrative agency in adjudicatory decisions to make some findings "to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order." (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12.) However, as we have stated, in approving the Plan the State Board was exercising a "quasi-legislative" function reviewable by traditional mandamus. (Code Civ.Proc. § 1085.) Because the decision approving the Plan to create Yorba Linda Unified School District was not an adjudicatory decision made as the result of a proceeding in...