Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos School District
200 Cal. App. 4th 1022
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bullís Charter School sued Los Altos School District alleging noncompliant facilities under Proposition 39 and its regulations for the 2009-2010 year.
- Proposition 39 requires districts to offer facilities to charter schools with conditions reasonably equivalent to district schools, considering teaching, specialized teaching, and non-teaching space, and site size.
- District offered facilities at five comparison schools but excluded large portions of nonclassroom space and miscalculated site metrics, allegedly overstating some offerings to Bullís.
- Bullís claimed omissions included childcare facilities, miscounted turf/blacktop space, misused shared-use spaces (e.g., soccer field), and relied on standard room sizes rather than actuals.
- Trial court denied relief; the matter was appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding mandamus appropriate to compel proper compliance.
- Court found the District’s analysis violated Proposition 39 and regulations 11969.3 and 11969.9, and that the offer was not reasonably equivalent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did District's Facilities Offer comply with Proposition 39? | Bullís contends the offer undercounted non-teaching space, misrepresented site size, and omitted childcare. | District asserts its methodology was proper and consistent with regulations. | No; the offer failed to meet Proposition 39 requirements. |
| What is the proper standard of review for the district’s analysis? | De novo review of statutory interpretation should apply. | Review should defer to agency findings and substantial evidence standard. | De novo review is appropriate for statutory interpretation in this context. |
| Must non-teaching space include all available space in the comparison group? | District must allocate all non-teaching space proportionately based on ADA and per-student space. | District may exclude some spaces if not part of the standard categories. | District violated by failing to allocate all non-teaching space. |
| Did the District properly select and use the comparison group and consider site size? | Using five schools and not adequately analyzing Acreage-per-student misstates comparables. | Regulation allows the chosen comparison group and method; policy discretion applies. | Site size analysis was required; failure contributed to noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sequoia Union High School Dist. v. Aurora Charter High School, 112 Cal.App.4th 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (mandamus to compel reasonably equivalent facilities; de novo interpretation in mandamus context)
- Ridgecrest Charter School v. Sierra Sands Unified School Dist., 130 Cal.App.4th 986 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (contiguity of facilities; mandate relief for Proposition 39 compliance)
- Environmental Charter High School v. Centinela Valley Union High School Dist., 122 Cal.App.4th 139 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (mootness/public interest in regulatory compliance; authority to review regulations)
- Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind, 67 Cal.2d 536 (Cal. 1967) (mootness/relief principles; declaratory relief exceptions)
- Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, 82 Cal.App.4th 473 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (recurrence exception to mootness; public interest considerations)
- California School Boards Ass'n v. State Bd. of Education, 191 Cal.App.4th 530 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (Prop. 39 shared facilities; parenthetical discussion on statute/regulation scope)