Save Our Schools v. Barstow Unified School Dist. Bd. of Ed. CA4/2 (2015) · DecisionDepot
Save Our Schools v. Barstow Unified School Dist. Bd. of Ed. CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Jul 14, 2015 No. E060759Unpublished
Filed 7/14/15 Save Our Schools v. Barstow Unified School Dist. Bd. of Ed. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
SAVE OUR SCHOOLS,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E060759
v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVBS1300156)
BARSTOW UNIFIED SCHOOL OPINION DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gilbert G. Ochoa,
Judge. Reversed.
Johnson & Sedlack, Raymond W. Johnson, Abigail A. Smith, Kimberly A. Foy,
and Kendall Holbrook for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, John W. Dietrich, Jennifer D. Cantrell,
Paul Z. McGlocklin, and S. Pete Serrano for Defendant and Respondent.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant and respondent, Barstow Unified School District Board of Education
(the District), approved closing two of its elementary schools, Thomson Elementary
School (Thomson) and Hinkley Elementary School (Hinkley), and transferring their
resulting in “minor additions to existing schools . . . where the addition does not increase
original student capacity [i.e., enrollment capacity of a transferee school] by more than
25% or ten classrooms, whichever is less” are categorically exempt from CEQA]).2
A citizens group, plaintiff and appellant, Save Our Schools (SOS), petitioned the
trial court for a writ of mandate setting aside the District’s resolutions approving the
closures and transfers and finding them exempt from CEQA. The petition was denied
and SOS appeals, claiming: (1) insufficient evidence supports the District’s
determinations that the closures and transfers were exempt from CEQA; (2) if the
1 All further statutory references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise indicated.
2All references to the Guidelines are to the state CEQA guidelines. (Guidelines, § 15000 et seq.) The Guidelines are binding on all public agencies in California in implementing the provisions of CEQA. (Guidelines, §§ 15000-15001.)
2
closures are exempt, SOS met its burden showing that two exceptions to CEQA’s
categorical exemptions—the “cumulative impacts” and the “unusual circumstance”
exceptions—applied to the closures and transfers (Guidelines, § 15300.2, subds. (b), (c));
and (3) the District improperly treated each school closure as a separate project for
purposes of CEQA.
We reverse the judgment denying SOS’s writ petition and remand the matter to the
trial court with directions to order the District to reconsider its exemption determinations.
(See Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB (1939) 305 U.S. 364, 374 [permitting remand for further
evidence to be taken or additional findings to be made upon essential points]; Cal. Adm.
Hearing Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2014) Decision and Review, § 8.121, pp. 8-79 to 8-
80.) The administrative record contains insufficient evidence to support the District’s
exemption determinations. Specifically, the record contains insufficient evidence of the
“original student capacity” that is, their enrollment capacity before the transfers, of any of
the receptor schools. (Guidelines, § 15314.) Further, the District informed the public
that the transfer students could choose which receptor school to attend.
For these reasons, it was impossible for the District to determine that the closures
and transfers fell within the minor additions to schools exemption. (East Peninsula Ed.
Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School Dist. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 155,
174 (East Peninsula) [because school district allowed students to choose which transferee
school to attend it was “impossible” for the district to “properly determine compliance
with section 15314” of the Guidelines]; San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for
3
Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139
Cal.App.4th 1356, 1387-1389 (San Lorenzo) [proper compliance with Guidelines,
§ 15314 requires knowledge of receptor school’s original student capacity, or physical
capacity to house students].)
II. BACKGROUND
At public meetings of its board in May, June, and December 2012, the District
made it publicly known that it was considering closing two schools, among other options,
in order to meet its financial obligations in future school years. Student enrollment in the
entire district had been declining since the 2006-2007 school year, and the District
projected it would be unable to meet its financial obligations for the 2013-2014 and 2014-
2015 school years unless it made substantial cuts in expenditures.
On February 22, 2013, the District held a “Hinkley School Reorganizational
Meeting” at Hinkley Elementary School. A notice of the meeting advised that enrollment
in all district schools had declined by approximately 1,000 students since the 2006-2007
school year.3 At a public meeting of its board on February 26, 2013, the District
addressed its superintendent’s recommendation that it close Hinkley and Thomson
3 The record shows that on February 14, 2013, there were 5,827 students enrolled in all district schools, some 1,500 fewer than during the 2005-2006 school year when 7,313 students were enrolled.
4
beginning in the 2013-2014 school year, and transfer their students to other district
schools.4
At the February 26, 2013, meeting, the District informed the public that students
from Hinkley and Thomson could choose to transfer to any one of several receptor
schools. The designated receptor schools for Hinkley, a K-8 school, were Lenwood
Elementary School (K-6), Skyline North Elementary School (K-6), and Barstow Jr. High
School (7-8). The designated receptor schools for Thomson, a K-6 school, were four
other K-6 schools, Henderson Elementary School, Skyline North Elementary School,
Cameron Elementary School, and Crestline Elementary School.
Thus, students from Hinkley and Thomson could elect to transfer to Skyline North
Elementary School. At the February 26 meeting, a speaker asked what would happen if
all of the transfer students chose to transfer to Skyline North. District Superintendent Jeff
Malan responded: “When we look at the number of students that are involved, I don’t
believe that would be the . . . full capacity of the Skyline North [E]lementary [School].”
Another speaker then commented: “It doesn’t seem like the school capacity’s been
investigated enough”
Near the close of the February 26, 2013, meeting, the District adopted resolutions
Nos. 29 and 30, approving, respectively, the closures of Thomson and Hinkley for the
2013-2014 school year and subsequent years. The District estimated the closures would
4It is unclear from the record whether the District made it publicly known, before February 22, 2013, that it was considering closing either Hinkley or Thomson.
5
save the District $600,000 annually. In each resolution, the District found the closures
and the resulting transfers of students to the “receptors” schools were exempt from
CEQA under section 21080.18 and the “minor additions” to schools exemption of
Guidelines section 15314. A notice of exemption for each closure was recorded on
March 6, 2013.
In March 2013, SOS, a self-described “after-formed unincorporated association”
comprised of individuals “adversely affected by the [p]roject” and the District’s “failure
to comply with the law,” petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate setting aside the
District’s “project approvals” or resolutions approving the closures, including the
District’s determination that the closures were exempt from CEQA. SOS sought
injunctive relief in the event the District closed the schools pending the adjudication of
the writ petition. The District closed the schools in the spring of 2013, following the
close of the 2012-2013 school year. Following a January 2014 hearing, the trial court
issued a written ruling denying SOS’s writ petition. This appeal followed.
III. DISCUSSION
A. CEQA’s Three-tier Review Process
An overview of CEQA’s three-tier process will aid in understanding the context in
which the District determined that the two school closures and resulting transfers of
students to the receptor schools were exempt from CEQA. CEQA and the Guidelines
establish a three-tier environmental review process, in order “to ensure that public
agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations.” (Muzzy Ranch Co.
6
v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 380 (Muzzy Ranch);
Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161
there is an unusual circumstance that justifies removing the project from the exempt
class.” (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105.)
Finally, on remand, the District should receive evidence from SOS and any other
challengers on whether any exceptions to the minor additions and any other categorical
exemptions relied on by the District applied to the closures and transfers. As noted, “the
amount of analysis and study involved at the preliminary review stage,” in determining
whether a categorical exemption and any exceptions to the exemption apply, is “similar to
that involved at the ‘second’ stage where the agency conducts an initial study to
determine whether the project has a significant effect on the environment (Guidelines,
§ 15000[, subd.] (k)).” (East Peninsula, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 173.)
18
Thus, on remand, the District should effectively conduct an initial study to
determine whether any categorical exemptions and any exceptions to those exemptions
applied. We realize this inquiry will be conducted in hindsight, because Hinkley and
Thomson were closed in the spring of 2013 and their students were transferred to other
schools in the 2013-2014 school year. Still, remand is necessary for the District to
properly determine, based on sufficient evidence, whether the minor additions exemption
or any other exemptions applied at the time of the closures and transfers, and for the
District to consider whether any exceptions to such categorical exemptions applied.
D. SOS’s Claims Are Not Necessarily Moot
The District claims that because Hinkley and Thomson were closed and their
students were transferred to the receptor schools in the spring of 2013, this court can
grant no effective relief on SOS’s writ petition and the petition is therefore moot. SOS
argues its petition is not moot because the District could reopen the schools. On the
record before us, the writ petition is not necessarily moot.
If, upon remand, the District is unable to determine, based on substantial evidence,
that the closures and transfers were exempt from CEQA at the time they were approved,
or if the District improperly determines that no exception to any proffered categorical
exemption applied, then the trial court and this court may be able to provide SOS
effective relief by, for example, ultimately ordering the District to reopen the schools or
take other steps to mitigate the adverse environmental effects—if any—of the closures
19
and transfers. (See Woodward Park Homeowners Assn. v. Garreks, Inc. (2000) 77
Cal.App.4th 880, 888.)
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment denying SOS’s writ petition is reversed. The matter is remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. SOS shall recover its
costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278.)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
KING J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
20
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the District's determination that school closures and student transfers were categorically exempt from CEQA was unsupported by substantial evidence because the administrative record lacked data regarding the original student capacity of the receptor schools. Consequently, the District could not demonstrate compliance with the 'minor additions' exemption under Guidelines section 15314.
Issues
Whether the administrative record contains sufficient evidence to support the District's determination that school closures and student transfers were categorically exempt from CEQA under the 'minor additions' exemption.
Whether the District properly applied the 'minor additions' exemption without evidence of the receptor schools' original student capacity.
Disposition. Reversed and remanded.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The administrative record contains insufficient evidence to support the District’s exemption determinations.”
“Specifically, the record contains insufficient evidence of the “original student capacity” that is, their enrollment capacity before the transfers, of any of the receptor schools.”
“For these reasons, it was impossible for the District to determine that the closures and transfers fell within the minor additions to schools exemption.”