saftib-sfsd-mar15item01

Page 1 of 3

California Department of Education
Executive Office
SBE-003 (REV.09/2011)
saftib-sfsd-may16item01 / ITEM #09
/ CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
MAY 2016 AGENDA

SUBJECT

Appeal from the action of the Santa Clara County Committee on School District Organization to disapprove a transfer of territory from the Campbell Union School District and the Campbell Union High School District to the Santa Clara Unified School District. / Action
Information
Public Hearing

SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE(S)

The Santa ClaraCounty Committee on School District Organization (County Committee)[1] took action to disapprove a voter petition to transfer territory from the Campbell Union School District (SD) and the Campbell Union High SD to the Santa Clara Unified SD.The chief petitioners appealed the action to the California State Board of Education (SBE). Pursuant to California Education Code (EC) Section 35710.5(c), the SBE “may review the appeal either solely on the administrative record or in conjunction with a public hearing.” The SBE also “may reverse or modify the action of the County Committee in any manner consistent with law.” If the SBE reverses the action of the County Committee, it must set the area in which the local election to approve the territory transfer will be conducted.

RECOMMENDATION

The California Department of Education recommends that the SBE: (1) review the appeal in conjunction with a public hearing and (2) affirm the action of the County Committee to disapprove the transfer of territory from the Campbell Union SD and the Campbell Union High SD to the Santa Clara Unified SD.

BRIEF HISTORY OF KEY ISSUES

The territory proposed for transfer (Pruneridge neighborhood) contains 599 parcels and is located in the Campbell Union SD and the Campbell Union High SD, although it is part of the city of Santa Clara.Voters from the neighborhood submitted a signed petition to the County Committee requesting that their neighborhood be transferred to the Santa Clara Unified SD. The petition cited the following two reasons to support the transfer:

  • Desire for full access to, and participation in, city of Santa Clara youth programs that are aligned with the Santa Clara Unified SD; and
  • Concerns about the distance between the Pruneridge neighborhood and Campbell schools and safety of students going to and from the schools.

The governing boards of the Campbell school districts adopted resolutions in opposition to the transfer primarily due to potential funding losses, loss of assessed valuation (AV) that could threaten the districts’ basic aid status, and the lack of any verifiable reasons to support the transfer. Although the administration of the Santa Clara Unified SD recommended that the governing board of the district adopt a similar resolution opposing the transfer, the board voted against the recommendation and expressed support for the transfer during public meetings on the proposal.

The County Committee is required to examine nine minimum threshold conditions (pursuant to EC Section 35753) before it takes action on a territory transfer proposal. The County Committee may not approve a territory transfer if it finds that any of these minimum conditions are not substantially met (EC Section 35710). The County Committee has the discretion, but not the obligation, to approve a transfer if it finds that all nine conditions are substantially met. Under these circumstances, it must find a local educational need or concern (EC Section 35500) to justify approval of the transfer.

The County Committee determined that three of the nine conditions were not substantially met: (1) “Community identity” because the Pruneridge neighborhood does not have any unique community identity issues that justify the transfer, (2) “Increased State Costs” because the transfer would remove property tax revenue from the Campbell districts, thus potentially moving the districts out of basic aid status and require the state to increase state aid funding to the districts, and (3) “Fiscal Status” because the transfer would result in a significant loss of funding for the Campbell districts. Since the County Committee found at least one of the conditions not substantially met, it was required to disapprove the territory transfer and did so on a unanimous vote.

The petitioners, under the provisions of EC Section 35710.5, are appealing this disapproval to the SBE. In their appeal, petitioners argue that the three conditions that the County Committee determined were not met are, in fact,substantially met.

The CDE agrees with petitioners that all nine EC Section 35753 conditions are substantially met. However, the CDE does not find a compelling reason to overturn the County Committee’s action to disapprove the transfer. The reasons provided in the petition (full participation in city of Santa Clara activities, increased distances and decreased safety in traveling to Campbell schools) were directly refuted by County Committee members during their deliberations. The County Committee made it clear that there were no compelling reasons to approve the transfer. The CDE agrees with the County Committee on this point.

Moreover, the CDE has two other concerns regarding the circumstances surrounding the transfer. First, the general issue raised by the petitioners reflects concern with the fact that school district boundaries and city boundaries do not match. The CDE does not believe that it is appropriate to address a general issue like this through “piecemeal” action. If this boundary mismatch is truly a local concern, then local agencies should take actions to examine the overall impact of addressing the concern.

Second, the CDE questions the appropriateness of state involvement at this time when it appears that local alternatives exist for addressing specific concerns of the Pruneridge neighborhood and the affected school districts. The Santa Clara Unified SD governing board supports the concept of students from the Pruneridge neighborhood attending the district’s schools but, since the district is basic aid, it does not approve interdistrict transfer agreements, which would allow students to attend the schools.

A primary concern of the Campbell school districts (also basic aid districts) is a loss of property tax revenue due to the transfer of AV. However, since the districts are basic aid, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(i) allows the affected districts to enter into an agreement under which all or part of the property tax revenue from the transferred territory stays with the Campbell school districts. Thus, the governing boards of the affected school districts have options to address the issues involved in this appeal—either individually or through negotiation with one other.

The CDE finds no reason in the appeal, the county administrative record, or its own analysis of the issues, to overturn the action of the County Committee to disapprove the transfer of the territory from the Campbell Union SD and the Campbell Union High SD to the Santa Clara Unified SD.

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION

The SBE has not considered any matters related to this territory transfer proposal.

FISCAL ANALYSIS (AS APPROPRIATE)

If the SBE reverses the County Committee’s action, the Santa Clara County Office of Education will incur the cost of the election held to approve the transfer.

ATTACHMENT(S)

Attachment 1:Analysis and Recommendations (22 pages)

10/17/2018 8:41 AM

saftib-sfsd-may16item01

Attachment 1

Page 1 of 22

Review of the Administrative Record

Appeal from a Decision of the

SantaClara County Committeeon School District Organization to

Disapprove a Transfer of Territoryfrom the

Campbell Union School District and the Campbell Union High School District

to the Santa Clara UnifiedSchool District

1.0RECOMMENDATION

The California Department of Education (CDE) recommends that the California State Board of Education (SBE)(1) review the appeal on the administrative record in conjunction with a public hearing and (2) affirm the action of the SantaClaraCounty Committee on School District Organization (County Committee) to disapprove a territory transfer from the Campbell Union School District (SD) and the Campbell Union High SD to the Santa Clara Unified SD.

2.0BACKGROUND

The territory proposed for transfer (Pruneridge neighborhood) contains 599 parcels and is located in the Campbell Union SD and the Campbell Union High SD, although it is part of the city of Santa Clara. This neighborhood, in addition to being in the Campbell school districts and adjacent to Santa Clara Unified SD, is in close proximity to the Cupertino Union SD, the Fremont Union High SD, and the San Jose Unified SD (see Figure 1).

The mismatch between city and school district boundaries is a common occurrence in Santa Clara County, as well as statewide. Campbell Union SD, in addition to serving portions of the cities of Campbell and Santa Clara, also serves students from the Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, San Jose, and Saratoga communities. The Santa Clara Unified SD, which contains a majority of the city of Santa Clara, also contains portions of the cities of Cupertino, San Jose, and Sunnyvale (see Figure 2).

A petition to transfer the Pruneridge neighborhoodfrom the Campbell Union SD and the Campbell Union High SD to the Santa Clara Unified SD was signed by at least 25 percent of the registered voters residing in that neighborhood. The Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools (County Superintendent) determined thatthe petition was “sufficient and signed as required by law” and transmitted it to the County Committee (California Education Code [EC] Section 35704).[2]

Figure 1: School Districts near the Pruneridge Neighborhood

Source: United States Census Bureau, California 2010 Census School District Reference Maps

Figure 2: Cities in Santa Clara Unified SD

Source: United States Census Bureau, California 2010 Census School District Reference Maps

3.0ACTIONS OF THE COUNTY COMMITTEE

The County Committee held two public hearings for the proposed transfer of territory—one on January 30, 2013, within the boundaries of the Santa Clara Unified SD, and one on March 6, 2013, within the boundaries of the Campbell Union SD and the Campbell Union High SD. The County Committee also considered information from the affected school districts and petitioners at a special meeting held on May 20, 2013.

Under the California Education Code, the County Committee had the following options after holding the public hearings:

  • If the County Committee determined that all nine conditions of ECSection 35753(a) are substantially met, it could approve the petition (though not required to do so), and would then notify the County Superintendent to call an election on the proposed transfer (an election is required when an affected district opposes an approved transfer of territory petition).
  • The County Committee could disapprove the petition to transfer territory for other concerns even if itdetermines that all conditions in subdivision (a) of EC Section 35753 have been met.
  • If the County Committee determined that all nine conditions of EC Section 35753(a) are not substantially met, it would be required to disapprove the petition to transfer territory.

The County Committee foundthat three of nine ECSection35753(a) conditions were not substantially met and voted unanimously to disapprove the territory transfer.

Chief petitioners or affected school districts may appeal County Committee actions on territory transfers for issues of noncompliance with the provisions of EC sections 35705, 35706, 35709, 35710, and 35753(a). The chief petitioners submitted such an appeal to the County Superintendent. The CountySuperintendent subsequently transmitted the appeal, along with the complete administrative record of the CountyCommittee action, to the SBE.

4.0PETITIONERS REASONS FOR TERRITORY TRANSFER

Petitioners primarily cite community identity issues as reasons for requesting the territory transfer. The petition identified the following two reasons:

  • The petitioners desire full access to, and participation in, city of Santa Clara youth programs that are aligned with the Santa Clara Unified SD. Although all city of Santa Clara youth are eligible to participate in the programs, the petitioners note that students in the Pruneridge neighborhood are less likely to participate because most of their school friends do not live in Santa Clara, the Campbell schools do not promote the city of Santa Clara programs, and Campbell school identification cards sometimes are not sufficient for participation.
  • Santa Clara Unified SD schools are closer to the neighborhood and the routes used to travel to and from the schools are safer.
5.0POSITIONS OF AFFECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS

The governing boards of the Campbell Union SD and the Campbell Union High SD oppose the proposed transfer of territory. Although administrative staff of the Santa Clara Unified SD recommended that the governing board oppose the transfer, members of the boardvoted not to accept that recommendation.

5.1Campbell Union SD

Staff for the Campbell Union SDprovided the following reasons for district opposition to the transfer:

  • The district serves multiple municipalities, including the city of Santa Clara, which is common for districts in the area.
  • The transfer of the territory and the students will result in a loss of $1.7 million to the district.
  • Funding losses could move the district out of basic aid status.
  • The loss of the assessed valuation (AV) of the territory will have a negative effect on repayment of the district’s general obligation bonds.

5.2Campbell Union High SD

Staff for the Campbell Union High SDprovided the following reasons for district opposition to the transfer:

  • The district serves six municipalities, including the city of Santa Clara, which is common for districts in the area.
  • The transfer of the territory and the students will result in a loss of $800,000 to the district.
  • Approval of the transfer could set a precedent for removing other territory from the district.
  • The transfer may significantly increase the property values of the petitioners.
  • A piecemeal approach to resolving boundary issues is not appropriate and is an obstacle to the district’s long-range planning.
  • While the district hears the concerns of the petitioners regarding travel and safety, it is unaware of any injuries sustained by students traveling to and from its schools.

5.3Santa Clara Unified SD

Administrative staff for the Santa Clara Unified SD recommended that the governing board adopt a resolution opposing the transfer, citing the following concerns:

  • The district’s schools are overcrowded and cannot house the students without incurring significant costs.
  • Approval of the transfer could set a precedent for other communities seeking transfers into the district.
  • The transfer is designed to significantly increase the property values of the petitioners.
  • The transfer may have negative effects on the basic aid status of the district.

Although district administration recommended that the governing board oppose the transfer, the board did not adopt the resolution. The board president, during public hearings on the proposed transfer, noted the following reasons for the board’s six to one vote to not adopt the resolution:

  • Board members, who live in the city of Santa Clara and understand the petitioners’ situation, view the transfer as a way to “right a wrong.”
  • Board members believe there is a safety issue in travelling to schools in the Campbell districts.
  • The board values having school district boundaries aligned with city boundaries.
  • The district has the facilities to handle the additional students.

6.0REASONS FOR THE APPEAL

Chief petitioners or school districts, pursuant to EC Section 35710.5, may appeal a County Committee decision on territory transfers for issues of noncompliance with the provisions of EC sections 35705, 35706, 35709, and 35710.

The chief petitionersbase their appeal on the claim that the County Committee improperly applied EC Section 35753 criteria, specifically as they relate to the “Community Identity,” “Increased State Costs,” and “Fiscal Impact” conditions. Specific concerns from the appeal regarding these conditions will be addressed as part of the discussion in Section 7.0.

7.0CDE RESPONSES TO THE APPEAL

The issues raised by the appellants are discussed below. County Committee findings as well as the CDE responses to theseissues are included.

7.1EC Section 35753(a)(2): The districts are each organized on the basis of a substantial community identity.

County Office of Education/County Committee Findings

The study prepared for the County Committee by the Santa Clara County Office of Education (COE) finds that this “Community Identity” condition is substantially met. Specifically, the study notes that:

  • The area proposed for transfer from the Campbell school districts to the Santa Clara Unified SD is within the city of Santa Clara and homes within the proposed transfer area are similar in “size and architecture” to homes in adjacent Santa Clara Unified SD neighborhoods.
  • The area proposed for transfer is separated from the Campbell school districts by a heavily commercial street (Stevens Creek Boulevard) and an expressway (San Tomas Expressway).
  • Schools of the affected districts are relatively equidistant from the area proposed for transfer. Following is a table, prepared by the COE, showing distance and driving times from the transfer area to relevant schools of the affected districts.

Distances from Pruneridge Neighborhood to Schools

Schools / Distance (miles) / Driving Time (minutes
Elementary School
Lynhaven (Campbell) / 1.7 / 5
Westwood (Santa Clara)[3] / 0.9 / 4
Bowers (Santa Clara) / 3.5 / 9
Middle Schools
Monroe (Campbell) / 1.8 / 6
Buchser (Santa Clara) / 2.3 / 7
High Schools
Del Mar (Campbell) / 2.9 / 9
Santa Clara (Santa Clara) / 2.8 / 9

Source: Santa Clara County Office of Education

The Santa Clara COE recommended that this “Community Identity” condition is met by the proposed transfer of territory. Despite this recommendation, eight of the 11 County Committee members voted that the condition is not substantially met.