Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2017

Home

March 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin The County Office, County Board, and Rocketship appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court affirmed. The Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California, held that county boards of education have no authority to issue zoning exemptions under § 53094. In so holding, the court looked at the plain meaning of the statute, as well as the intention of the state Legislature in drafting it. Again, the language of § 53094 provides in relevant part: "the governing board of a school district . . . by a vote of two-thirds of its members, may render a city or county zon- ing ordinance inapplicable to a proposed use of property by the school district. ..." At issue in this case was the meaning of the phrase "the governing board of a school district," and whether it included county boards of education. The County Office, County Board, and Rocketship contended that "the governing board of the school district" referred "to any public agency that operates pub- lic schools, including county boards of education." The District maintained that the language referred "more narrowly to the governing boards of local school districts, as they are described in the [state's] Education Code." (A number of provisions in the Education Code indicate that a county board of education is the governing board of a school district in only limited circumstances.) Here, the Court of Appeal found that Government Code § 53094 was drafted with the recognition that school districts were to be treated uniquely (as compared to other local agencies) with regard to zoning because "school construction was subject to almost complete control by the state." The court found that, in enacting § 53094, the Legislature accorded to school districts "immunity from local regulation" in an effort "to prevent local interference with the state's sovereign activities of school construction and school location." In other words, "the Legislature intended to forestall local obstruc- tion of state -sanctioned school construction and school location," said the court. Here, the County Board had sought to use that immunity under § 53094 in connection Rocketship's proposed location of a charter school. The court rejected this attempt. It noted that "[w]hile county boards of education are au- thorized to issue charters and oversee charter schools, it is local school districts that are obligated to provide facilities to charter schools" (under the state's Education Code, § 47614, subd. (b).) Thus, noted the court, under the statute, the state had not tasked county boards of education with acquiring sites for charter schools. Moreover, to the extent county boards of education do acquire sites for charter school, the court said they are "not carrying out a sovereign activity on behalf of the state." Thus, the court concluded that it "follows, then, that empowering county boards of education to issue zoning exemptions for charter school facilities does not advance the purpose of section 53094— namely, preventing local interference with the state's sovereign activities." Accordingly, the court was convinced that, pursuant to legislative history and intent, § 53094 "does not authorize county boards of education to issue zoning exemptions for charter school facilities." See also: Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal. 2d 177, 302 P.2d 574 (1956). See also: Town. of Atherton a Superior Court In and For San Mateo County, 159 Cal. App. 2d 417, 324 P.2d 328 (1st Dist. 1958). 4 © 2017 Thomson Reuters