San Jose Unified School District v. Santa Clara County Office of Education
7 Cal. App. 5th 967
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Government Code § 53094 allows “the governing board of a school district” (by two‑thirds vote) to render a city or county zoning ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by the school district; the question here is whether a county board of education fits that phrase.
- Rocketship Education sought to locate a charter school on City of San Jose property within San Jose Unified School District; the Santa Clara County Board of Education (County Board) adopted a resolution exempting the property from the city’s general plan and zoning under § 53094.
- San Jose Unified School District and adjacent property owner Bymaster sued, seeking writ relief to set aside the County Board’s resolution on the ground that county boards lack authority under § 53094 to issue zoning exemptions for charter school facilities.
- The trial court agreed with respondents and issued a peremptory writ directing the County Board to rescind its resolution; the County Office, County Board, Rocketship and the charter school appealed.
- The Court of Appeal limited the question to whether § 53094 authorizes county boards of education to issue zoning exemptions for charter schools and concluded it does not, affirming the trial court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a county board of education is a “governing board of a school district” under Gov. Code § 53094 so it may exempt property from local zoning for a charter school | County (appellants): phrase includes any public agency operating public schools, including county boards; prior permissive‑code language supports inclusion | District (respondents): phrase refers to local school district governing boards only; county boards do not perform sovereign site‑acquisition functions § 53094 protects | The court held § 53094 does not authorize county boards of education to issue zoning exemptions for charter school facilities; affirmed trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation, 39 Cal.4th 1164 (discusses Legislature’s duty to provide a public school system)
- Today’s Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of Education, 57 Cal.4th 197 (explains charter schools’ place in public school system)
- Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 177 (held school districts immune from local building regulations as sovereign activities)
- Town of Atherton v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.2d 417 (applied Hall to zoning for school site location)
- City of Santa Clara v. Santa Clara Unified School Dist., 22 Cal.App.3d 152 (legislative response to Hall and scope of Gov. Code §§ 53090–53095)
- City of Santa Cruz v. Santa Cruz City School Bd. of Education, 210 Cal.App.3d 1 (interpreting balance struck by § 53094 between state educational and local regulatory interests)
- Wilson v. State Bd. of Education, 75 Cal.App.4th 1125 (charter schools are part of the public school system; chartering bodies owe oversight)
- California Charter Schools Assn. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 60 Cal.4th 1221 (Prop. 39 facilities sharing requirement for charter schools)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (framework for deference to agency statutory interpretations)
- People ex rel. Cooper v. Rancho Santiago College, 226 Cal.App.3d 1281 (did not decide whether community colleges qualify as “school districts” under § 53094; addressed nonclassroom use limitation)