Mountain View Union High School Dist. of Santa Clara County v. City Council of City of Sunnyvale, 17912

• Decision Date: 18 February 1959
• Docket Number: No. 17912,17912
• Citation: 168 Cal.App.2d 89,335 P.2d 957
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, a political subdivision, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF SUNNYVALE et al., Defendants and Respondents. MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, a political subdivision, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SUNNYVALE, a Municipal Corporation et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Page 957

335 P.2d 957

168 Cal.App.2d 89

MOUNTAIN VIEW UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, a political subdivision, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF SUNNYVALE et al., Defendants and Respondents.

MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, a political subdivision, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SUNNYVALE, a Municipal Corporation et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. 17912.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

Feb. 18, 1959.

As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing March 20, 1959.

Hearing Denied April 15, 1959.

Atkinson, Farasyn & London, Mountain View, Marlais & Hover, San Jose, for appellants.

Robert P. Berkman, Sunnyvale, for respondent City of Sunnyvale.

Robert E. Hayes, Santa Clara, for respondents.

BRAY, Justice.

Two causes involving substantially the same issues were consolidated for trial. Plaintiffs are two school districts, one a high school and the other an elementary district. The issues are practically the same. Plaintiffs appeal from judgments in favor of defendants entered upon orders sustaining demurrers without leave to amend.

Questions Presented.

Whether territory called 'Guadalupe No. 2' when annexed to the City of Sunnyvale resulted in the withdrawal of that territory from the two plaintiff school districts and inclusion in the defendant school districts. Corollary to this question are the following:

1. Do sections 2421 and 2421.5 of the Education Code apply to the City of Sunnyvale?

2. Was section 2421.5 complied with?

3. Is section 2421.5 unconstitutional?

Facts.

At the request of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, the City of Sunnyvale commenced and carried to completion proceedings for the annexation to it of the unincorporated territory known as Guadalupe No. 2, owned by the corporation. The proceedings were under the Annexation of Uninhabited Territory Act of 1939, section 35300 et seq., Government Code. In the Resolution of Intention was a provision 'That pursuant to Section 2421.5 of the Education Code of the State of California, said territory proposed to be annexed shall become part of the Sunnyvale School District of Santa Clara County.' During the proceedings and at the time set for protests, both plaintiffs filed written and made oral protests to inclusion of the territory within defendant school districts. The city rejected the protests and in its ordinance No. 487 annexing said territory it provided 'That the territory so annexed shall become part of the Sunnyvale School District of Santa Clara County.' Thereafter plaintiff Mountain View School District filed action for writs of certiorari, mandamus and declaratory relief, and plaintiff high school district filed action for writ of injunction and declaratory relief. Demurrers to both causes of action were sustained with leave to amend. Demurrers to the amended complaints were sustained without leave to amend, and judgments of dismissal entered, from which these appeals are taken.

1. Sections 2421 and 2421.5.

Section 2421 provided: ¹ 'Except as provided in Section 2421.5 every city, except cities of the sixth class, unless otherwise prescribed in its original city charter, constitutes a separate school district, which shall be governed by the board of education or board of school trustees of the city * * *'

Section 2421.5, subdivision (c), states: 'Territory annexed to a city which is contiguous to a city school district within such city, except as otherwise provided in subdivision (v) * * * shall not become part of any elementary, high school, junior college, or any other school district within said city as provided in Section 2421 unless proceedings' are had in the manner prescribed in this code, or unless the resolution of intention to annex 'contains a statement that the annexed territory shall become part of the school district of the city.' The provisions of these subdivisions apply to territory proposed to be annexed to a city in which territory is situated any school district or part thereof. The provisions do not apply to sixth class cities.

Plaintiffs contend that Sunnyvale is a sixth class city and hence sections 2421 and 2421.5 do not apply. However, although originally a sixth class city prior to 1949, Sunnyvale in that year adopted a charter, St.1949, p. 3247, section 1703 of which provides: 'Boundaries. The boundaries of the Sunnyvale School District shall be as the same are now presently constituted together with all territory presently within the city limits of the City of Sunnyvale, and as the same may be changed by annexation or otherwise.' (Emphasis added.)

Section 8 1/2, article XI, California Constitution, granting cities authority to adopt charters, provides that a charter may provide 'for the manner in which, the times at which, and the terms for which the members of boards of education shall be elected or appointed, for their qualifications, compensation and removal, and for the number which shall constitute any one of such boards.'

Strictly speaking, Sunnyvale, because of its charter, is not a sixth class city. However, as pointed out by Professor Peppin in his series of articles on Municipal Home Rule in California (30 Cal.Law.Rev. 1, 304), a city may be designated as a certain 'class' of city for purposes of the Classification Act and of another class for other purposes. When a city adopts a charter it is no longer subject to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Bill (now Gov.Code, § 34000 et seq.) to which as a certain class city it was theretofore subject. Section 8, subdivision (g), article XI, of the Constitution provides that a duly adopted charter 'shall become the organic law of such city * * * and supersede any existing charter and all laws inconsistent therewith.' See People ex rel. Johnson Attorney General v. Bagley, 1890, 85 Cal. 343, 24 P. 716, holding that when the City of Stockton duly adopted its charter it ceased to exists as a fourth class city.

There appears to be no case interpreting section 2421 or its predecessor section 1576, Political Code, with respect to the instant problem. The Municipal Corporation Bill provided for school districts in all classes of cities except sixth class. This omission indicates that the Legislature did not intend school departments to be established in conjunction with such cities. Hence the exemption in section 2421. But since Sunnyvale's charter provides for a school district, there is no reason why it should be exempted from the application of the section. Since the Constitution authorizes charters to provide for school boards it logically follows that a chartered city should contain a school district for the school board to govern, and that annexed territory should also become part of the annexing city's school district. Prior to the enactment of section 2421.5 in 1953, territory annexed by a chartered city automatically was annexed to its school district. The effect of section 2421.5 was merely to create procedures, or, more properly, conditions precedent through which the territory was also annexed to the school district. ²

It should be pointed out that in chartered cities of any class, having a city school department, a most anomalous situation could result if in the annexed territory, which after annexation is as much a part of the city as the older territory, there should continue to be a school district or districts completely independent of the city's school department, unless for some reason the city's best interests require that there be no merger. In Mitchell v. Henry, 1920, 184 Cal. 266, at page 269, 193 P. 502 at page 503, the court, by way of dicta, as the point was not involved, stated with reference to section 1576, Political Code: '* * * a not unreasonable construction of the Code section is, that by it the annexed territory is upon annexation ipso facto taken out from the school district of which it was before a part and made a part of the district of which the city is either the whole or a part. This, in fact, would seem to be the probable effect in the case of the annexation of territory to a city other than one of the sixth class. * * *

'It may be said that the reason for the distinction which the portion of the section just quoted makes between cities of the sixth class and others is that the former do not have school departments as parts of their organizations * * *'

See also Pass School Dist. of Los Angeles County v. Hollywood City School Dist., 1909, 156 Cal. 416, 418, 105 P. 122, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 485; Jefferson Union School District of Santa Clara County v. City Council, 1954, 129 Cal.App.2d 264, 267, 277 P.2d 104.

Plaintiffs ingeniously argue that section 2421 should be read in effect as follows: '* * * every city (unless otherwise prescribed in its original city charter) except cities of the sixth class, constitutes a separate school district * * *' Plaintiffs contend further that a city of the sixth class which adopts a charter still remains a city of the sixth class, and no provision can be made in its charter to constitute the city a separate school district. We believe that the proper construction of the section, in view of the fact that sixth class cities historically have not had and do not now have a separate school district, is that the provision concerning city charters attaches to 'sixth class cities' and not to 'every city.' Plaintiffs also contend that the phrase 'original city charter' refers to the original incorporation of cities under the Municipal Corporation Bill and not to special charters. We are unable to agree with that construction.

2. Compliance.

Plaintiffs contend that where the territory to be annexed is included in or part of any other school district, the provisions of subdivisions (a), (b) and (c) of section 2421.5 must all be complied with. This contention is based upon the following paragraph at the end of subdivision (c): 'The provisions of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of this...