Slv Care v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified
Decision Date | 26 May 2006 |
Docket Number | No. H028147.,H028147. |
Citation | 139 Cal.App.4th 1356,44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | SAN LORENZO VALLEY COMMUNITY ADVOCATES FOR RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN LORENZO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. |
Dawson, Passafuime, Bowden & Martinez, Gerald Bowden, Kathleen Morgan-Martinez, Scotts Valley, for Appellant.
Burton, Volkmann & Schmal, Timothy R. Volkmann, Santa Cruz, John P. Loringer, for Respondents.
This action arises out of a decision by the defendant school district to close two elementary schools in the San Lorenzo Valley area of Santa Cruz County. Plaintiff seeks to overturn the closure decision, alleging that it violates various state laws, including the California Environmental Quality Act, the Public Records Act, the Brown Act, provisions of the Education Code, and school bond financing laws. The trial court rejected all of the plaintiff's contentions. We shall affirm.
This suit was brought by plaintiff and appellant San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education, an unincorporated association (SLV CARE). SLV CARE challenges a school closure decision made by defendant and respondent San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District (the District). At issue is the District's April 2003 decision to close two of its elementary schools and to transfer students from those schools to the District's other two elementary school campuses. Plaintiff SLV CARE challenges that decision on various legal grounds.
The District made the challenged decision in response to declining enrollment and fiscal difficulties. The initial decision to close one or more schools was approved by District's Board of Trustees in December 2002. From December 2002 to June 2003, the District entertained public comment on the issue at its regular and special board meetings.
The District also convened a task force — called the Superintendent's School Closure Committee (SSCC) — to consider the school closure question and make a recommendation to the Board. The SSCC was composed of 17 people representing all of the affected schools; task force members included seven parents, four teachers, four classified employees, and two community members.
Between mid-January and mid-March 2003, the SSCC met formally eight times; ad hoc subcommittees also met separately. In mid-March 2003, after considering an extensive body of information about the schools, the SSCC recommended the closure of Redwood and Quail Hollow Elementary Schools. To consolidate student populations at the north end of the San Lorenzo Valley, in Boulder Creek, Redwood students would be transferred to Boulder Creek Elementary School (BCE). At the south end of the valley, in Felton, Quail Hollow students would be transferred to San Lorenzo Elementary School (SLE).
At a public meeting held on April 8, 2003, the District's Board considered and ultimately adopted the recommendation of the SSCC. Thus, as to the north valley elementary schools, the Board voted to close Redwood, and keep BCE open. As for the south valley, the Board voted to close Quail Hollow and keep SLE open.
In May 2003, a community group proposed private fund-raising to keep Redwood Elementary School open for the upcoming school year. The Board rejected that proposal the following month.
Starting in June 2003, various written requests for public records relating to the closure decision were made by attorney Steven A. Greenburg, acting as counsel for plaintiff SLV CARE.
In July 2003, the District forwarded more than 400 pages of records to Greenburg. The following month, acting through its counsel, the District provided Greenburg with additional documents. After October 2003, document requests were addressed through formal discovery.
An additional request for documents was e-mailed to the District by San Lorenzo Valley resident David Churchill, with a copy to attorney Greenburg. The principal subject of Churchill's request was the District's use of money from Measure S, a multi-million dollar school facilities bond issue that had been approved by local voters in 2000.
In early August 2003, in response to public concerns — and notwithstanding its receipt of earlier legal advice that the school closure decision was exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — the District retained consultants to evaluate possible environmental impacts, including traffic. The District retained environmental consultant Stephen Graves & Associates (Graves). The District also hired traffic consultant Keith Higgins & Associates (Higgins).
Graves, the environmental consultant, confirmed that the school consolidation decision was exempt from CEQA. On August 19, 2003, the District formally approved the filing of a notice of exemption from CEQA. Despite the exemption, the District authorized Graves to prepare an initial study of environmental effects. The initial study concluded that the school closures and transfers would not create any significant environmental impacts, and that potential traffic impacts, though insignificant, could be minimized with recommended project conditions. After public comment and response, Graves stood by the conclusions in the initial study.
As for traffic, by June 2003, the Public Works Department of Santa Cruz County had advised the Board of Supervisors of the need for an ordinance to reroute traffic in the San Lorenzo Valley following the school closure decision. The initial study by environmental consultant Graves incorporated a report by traffic consultant Higgins. That report identified anticipated traffic and parking problems resulting from the school consolidations. Nevertheless, the traffic report concluded, mitigation measures were not mandatory because those impacts would not exceed historic levels. With respect to BCE, however, the report noted that the District was "planning on implementing several strategies to improve traffic and parking operations" as described in the report. The District implemented those strategies.
By October 2003, having considered the issues, the District was prepared to approve the adoption of a negative declaration, thus confirming the absence of significant environmental impacts. No environmental impact report was prepared.
In August 2003, the District's Board voted to convene a Surplus Property Advisory Committee (SPAC). At the same time, it approved an application form for membership on the committee. In October 2003, the District's Board approved the proposed roster of SPAC members. The Board meeting minutes of November 4, 2003, state: "The Board has declared the District Office and Redwood Elementary School surplus property as a result of the Board decision to close Redwood Elementary and Quail Hollow Elementary Schools and move the District Office from the Felton site to Quail Hollow." Those minutes further state that purpose of the public hearing on the SPAC was "to provide input to the committee for the purpose of determining acceptable uses of these properties." The SPAC met three times, from late October to mid-November 2003. In December 2003, the SPAC presented its recommendations for Redwood Elementary and the District Office, which included commercial, community, and educational uses.
Plaintiff SLV CARE brought this action, challenging the District's closure decision. As amended in August 2004, the complaint states five causes of action, all asserting statutory violations by the District. The first cause of action is for breach of statutory duties arising out of school bond financing laws. The second cause of action alleges CEQA violations. The third cause of action asserts breach of Education Code mandates for community input on certain decisions. The final two causes of action allege violation of the California Public Records Act, which requires disclosure of public records, and of the Brown Act, which compels open public meetings.
The court conducted a six-day bench trial, which started on August 30, 2004, and concluded on September 8, 2004. At the close of evidence and argument, the court took the matter under submission. It issued a statement of decision on September 13, 2004, finding for the District on all claims.
In November 2004, the court entered judgment for the District. This appeal by SLV CARE followed.
On appeal, SLV CARE renews its trial court claims that the District violated CEQA, bond financing laws, the Public Records Act, the Brown Act, and the Education Code. In addition, SLV CARE asserts that the trial court made certain erroneous evidentiary rulings and that it demonstrated bias. Appellant SLV CARE also seeks an award of attorney fees and costs. The District opposes all of appellant's arguments.
We consider each issue in turn, beginning with the claims of statutory violation.
SLV CARE asserts that the District violated CEQA. To establish the proper framework for assessing that contention, we begin by summarizing the governing legal principles.
The California Environmental Quality Act is codified at Division 13 of the Public Resources Code, beginning with section 21000.1 As an aid to carrying out the statute, the State Resources Agency has issued a set of regulations, called Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines).2
CEQA embodies our state's policy that "the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions." As this court has observed, "the overriding purpose of CEQA is to ensure that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
...at pp. 425-426.) Legislative policy favors disclosure. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1408 [44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128] (San Lorenzo).) "All public records are subject to disclosure unless the......
-
Sacks v. City Of Oakland
...the extent of this restriction [citations].' [Citation.]" (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1397 [44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128].) Examining the language of the ordinance, Measure Y has several comp......
-
Am. Civil Liberties Union of N. Cal. v. Superior Court of S.F. Cnty.
...(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125 [97 Cal.Rptr.2d 439].)” ( San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1408, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128.) “Since disclosure is favored, all exemptions are narrowly construed.......
-
Bottini v. City of San Diego
...( San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist . (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1392, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128 [CEQA exception did not apply because "[a] change in physical conditions is a necessary predicate for a finding of environment......
-
“Yes, San Francisco, There Is A CEQA”: First District Reverses Judgment Upholding City’s Categorical Exemption Determinations For Project To Add Four 90-Foot Tall Light Standards To High School Stadium In Residential Neighborhood
...language” (quoting San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates For Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1382), the Court looked to the State Resources Agency’s non-exclusive list and concluded that “[t]he light standards are fundamentally ......
-
While the Project May Change, the Standard of Review Should Remain the Same
...Community College District.4. San Lorenzo Valley Cmty. Advocates for Responsible Educ. v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 128, 138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).5. Id.6. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).7. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(1); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(f)(3). ......
-
Mcle Self-study: Origins and Development of California's Prevailing Wage Requirements and Enforcement Mechanisms*
...with a funded public works project. See San Lorenzo Cmty. Advocates for Responsible Educ. v. San Lorenzo Unified Sch. Dist., 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1401-2 (2006), and 87 Op. Cal. Att'y Gen. 157, 162-3 (2004). This conclusion was also expressed affirmatively in AB 436, § 1(f).59. 2011 Stats......