2021 04 21 (EF) Petition For Writ of Mandate

1 Leslie R. Perry, Bar No.
062390 ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Scott A. Lewis, Bar No. 149094 Superior Court of California
2 Kristin A. Mattiske-Nicholls, Bar No. 288495 County of Sonoma
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER 4/21/2021 4:55 PM
3 & MOSKOWITZ, LLP
438 1st Street, 4th Floor By: Branden Rasmussen, Deputy Clerk
4 Santa Rosa, California 95401
Telephone: (707) 525-8800
5 Facsimile: (707) 545-8242
6 Attorneys for Petitioner COMMUNITY

ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE
7 EDUCATION
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
11 COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR Case No. SCV-268238

RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION,
12
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
Petitioner, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

MILLER & MOSKOWITZ LLP
13
v.
14
WEST SONOMA COUNTY UNION
15 HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; and DOES
1-10,
16
Respondents. CASE DESIGNATION: CEQA
17 /
18
I. INTRODUCTION
19
20 1. Petitioner COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION
21 (“CARE”), on behalf of its members and the general public, respectfully requests issuance of a
22 peremptory writ of mandate setting aside the decisions of Respondent, WEST SONOMA
23 COUNTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (“Respondent” or “District”): (1) approving the
24 closure of EL MOLINO HIGH SCHOOL, Forestville, CA (“El Molino”), the subsequent
25 transfer of EL MOLINO’s students, faculty, and staff to ANALY HIGH SCHOOL, Sebastopol,
26 CA (“Analy”) and LAGUNA HIGH SCHOOL, Sebastopol, CA (“Laguna”), and the relocation
27 of District Offices and LAGUNA to the EL MOLINO campus (“Consolidation”); (2) finding
28 the Consolidation exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub.
1
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) 1; (3) approving the filing and recordation of a Notice of
2 Exemption (“NOE”) (Resolution #10 NOV.2020-2021), which purported to finally approve the
3 Consolidation, but which was actually an interim approval; (4) all associated determinations
4 made on or about November 30, 2020; and (5) the final determination made on March 10, 2021
5 to approve the Consolidation and associated timeline for completion (the “Project”).
6 2. The District’s exemption determination was improper. The District violated the
7 provisions of CEQA by (a) filing it months before it issued final approval for the Project and
8 without providing adequate notice and opportunity to object; and (b) failing to support its
9 exemptions with substantial evidence; indeed, fabricating and inflating original capacity
10 numbers in order to fit the Project into the exemption.
11 3. The Project is not exempt from CEQA, and therefore the District abused its
12 discretion, because the Project is subject to two exceptions to the claimed categorical exemption:
13 (1) the “cumulative impact” exception (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b)); and (2) the “significant
14 effect” exception (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 (c)).
15 4. The segmented Project consists of the closure of El Molino, the transfer of 553
16 students to Analy and Laguna, and then the transfer of Laguna’s students (currently 88), faculty,
17 and staff to the former El Molino campus. Though not mentioned in the NOE, nor considered
18 by the Board in connection therewith, the District intends to also close its administrative offices
19 and move them to the former El Molino campus.
20 5. The District found the Project exempt pursuant to Class 14 Categorical Exemptions,
21 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15314 (“Minor Additions to
22 School”), finding that “the Project’s minor additions to the three existing schools will not
23 increase these schools’ student capacities, and no new classrooms or support facilities are
24 needed” and concluding, without any analysis or evidentiary basis and in the face of
25 contradictory evidence, that “there is no indication of unusual circumstances that would except
26 the Class 14 Categorical Exemption.” (District Resolution No. 10, dated Nov. 30, 2020.) The
27
1
References to CEQA include the regulations implementing it, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. (“CEQA
28
Guidelines”).
2
1 District’s determination and attendant filing of the NOE on December 3, 2020 violated the
2 provisions of CEQA and constituted an abuse of discretion, because:
3 (a) The District failed to follow CEQA: (i) The District improperly made an exemption
4 determination and filed an NOE prior to final approval of the Project in March 2021,
5 rendering the NOE null and void. The Board’s purported “final approval” issued with the
6 exemption determination on November 30, 2020 was really a mere “placeholder” used to
7 expedite and circumvent the CEQA process in the event that parcel and transient
8 occupancy tax measures put before the voters in March of 2021 did not succeed. (District
9 Resolution No. 11.NOV.2020-2021, dated Nov. 30, 2020.) (ii) The District failed to
10 provide proper notice of a hearing by which members of the public could raise objections
11 to the CEQA violations, instead approving the CEQA exemption during the same meeting
12 and moments before the alleged “final approval,” after having promised Petitioner a full
13 CEQA review to resolve issues of traffic congestion, safety, and potential blight to local
14 communities. See Save Our Sch. v. Barstow Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. (2015) 240
15 Cal.App.4th 128, 139.
16 (b) The District’s exemption determination is not supported by substantial evidence, but is
17 contrary to the evidence before it at the time it made that determination. (i) The District
18 manipulated and falsely inflated student capacity in order to qualify for the exemption,
19 which requires no greater than a 25% increase in student capacity or ten classrooms,
20 whichever is less. (ii) The District ignored evidence contradicting its finding that the
21 Project is not “minor additions to existing schools within existing school grounds.”
22 Instead, evidence indicates that the District improperly segmented the Project—currently
23 limiting its definition of the Project to a mere transfer of students and faculty, with plans
24 to enlarge and improve the Analy campus later—with the intent of avoiding a complete
25 CEQA review by filing incremental exemptions.
26 (c) The District failed to undertake CEQA compliant analysis or put forth evidence upon
27 which to conclude that the Alleged Project would not have any cumulative and/or
28 significant environmental affects, as it was required to do (CEQA Guidelines §

3
1 15061(b)(3); § 15300.2 (b), (c); E. Peninsula Ed. Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula
2 Unified Sch. Dist. (1989) 210 Cal. App. 3d 155, 164-174) (“East Peninsula”)); and,
3 instead, ignored substantial evidence to the contrary, specifically: (i) its own plans
4 presented to the public in two Town Hall meetings held on October 7 and October 21, 2020
5 (one month before the exemption vote) of a massive $195 million expansion of the Analy
6 campus that includes new classrooms and workforce housing; and (ii) information received
7 at these same Town Hall meetings in October of 2020, that the Analy Campus could not
8 maintain the school capacity the District assigned to it and still comply with California
9 Department of Education guidelines.
10 6. Members of CARE exhausted their administrative remedies by speaking in a
11 purposefully limited public forum at the Special Meeting on November 30 and raised CEQA
12 objections as to the likelihood that the Project would have a significant environmental impact
13 and the need for a full CEQA review process.
14 7. The Project approval, if permitted to stand, will significantly affect the environment,
15 will allow the District to violate CEQA by segmenting true scope of the Project and will enable
16 the District to avoid the proper CEQA process by filing an NOE and claiming that the project
17 had “final approval” when, in fact, final approval was months away.
18 8. By this verified Petition, CARE alleges the following:
19 II. PARTIES
20 9. Petitioner, COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION
21 (“CARE”) is an after-formed unincorporated association created as a result of concerns
22 regarding the environmental impacts of the Project. CARE includes individuals residing or
23 working in the County of Sonoma who are adversely affected by the Project and Respondent’s
24 failure to comply with the law. Members of CARE submitted comments opposing approval of
25 the Project at the November 30, 2020 meeting of the District, which has discretionary approval
26 authority over the Project.
27 10. Respondent, WEST SONOMA COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD
28 OF EDUCATION, is a local government agency charged with the authority of managing and
4
1 operating the public schools within its geographical district in compliance with applicable
2 provisions of local and state law, including CEQA. The WEST SONOMA COUNTY HIGH
3 SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION is the lead agency for the Project and is
4 therefore charged with the duty of ensuring compliance with these applicable laws.
5 11. DOES 1 through 10 are individuals or entities that may be responsible in some way
6 for the violations alleged in this Petition. CARE is unaware of the true names or capacities of
7 Respondents identified herein under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 10 inclusive.
8 12. DOES 11 through 100 are individuals or entities that may have an ownership interest
9 in the subject properties, were Project applicants, or claim an interest in the Project approvals
10 that are the subject of this lawsuit. CARE is unaware of the true names or capacities of the Real
11 Parties in interest identified herein under the fictitious names DOES 11 through 100 inclusive.
12 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

13 13. El Molino High School is located at 7050 Covey Road in Forestville, California. The
14 high school consists of 52 classrooms which includes portable classrooms and auxiliary
15 buildings. The campus encompasses approximately 39.17 acres. 553 students currently attend
16 El Molino.
17 14. Analy High School is located at 6950 Analy Avenue, Sebastopol, California. The
18 high school consists of 58 classrooms including portables and encompasses approximately 27.18
19 acres. 1,154 students currently attend Analy.
20 15. Laguna High School is located at 445 Taft Street, Sebastopol, California. It consists
21 of approximately 2.96 acres in combination with the adjacent District Offices located at 462
22 Johnson Street, Sebastopol, California. 88 students currently attend Laguna High School.
23 16. The Superintendent of Schools is Toni Beal. Superintendent Beal manipulated school
24 capacity for purposes of the November 30, 2020 exemption. Resolution No. 10. Nov. 2020-2021
25 states that the “capacity” of Analy High School is 1,639 students, El Molino capacity is 1,193
26 students, and Laguna High School Capacity is 214 students.
27 17. An analysis of Analy enrollment figures show that Analy has not had 1,639 students
28 since at least before 1993, with the highest enrollment figure being 1,420 students in the 2000-
5
1 2001 school year.
2 18. According to Board Minutes dated November 14, 2018, the “Superintendent sets
3 capacity levels.” According to these Board Minutes, the “Superintendent, Facilities Director and
4 the Principals met to come up with capacity number[s]:” At that time in 2018, Analy High
5 School capacity was 1350, El Molino High School was 1100, and Laguna High School was 110.
6 On February 13, 2019, the Board, again, was informed that Analy High School’s capacity was
7 1350, El Molino High School’s capacity was 1100, and Laguna High School’s capacity was 110.
8 19. For purposes of the exemption, Superintendent Beal arbitrarily increased school
9 capacity 21.41% for Analy, 8.45% for El Molino, and 94.55% for Laguna High School to
10 increase the receptor schools’ capacity by 496 students for purposes of the exemption.
11 20. The Project includes the closure of El Molino High School and its facilities, the
12 closure of Laguna High School campus and its facilities, the transfer of students from El Molino
13 to Analy and Laguna, and the transfer of Laguna to the former El Molino campus. The Project
14 has now been enlarged to include the closure and transfer of the District’s administrative offices
15 to the former El Molino campus. The latter was not incorporated into the NOE or considered by
16 the Board in issuing Resolutions 10 and 11 on November 30, 2020.
17 21. The District claims that the redistribution of students and school closure can be
18 approved without CEQA review and pursuant to a categorical exemption.
19 22. On October 7 and 21, 2020, architects hired by the Board presented reports to the
20 Board regarding the “feasibility” of the Consolidation (the “Feasibility Reports”). The
21 Feasibility Reports contained various “Site Options.” One of the Site Options proposed to the
22 Board included plans to build out and modernize Analy High School with a potential budget of
23 $195 million dollars. The information to the Board included briefings that the build-out of Analy
24 High School could include the construction of 563 living units for Analy’s staff and faculty at
25 the former District administration offices and at the former Laguna High School campus in
26 Sebastopol, creating excess properties at the former Laguna campus and site of the
27 administrative offices.
28 23. Thus, the closure of the District’s administrative offices sets the stage for the build-
6
1 out of the Project, which includes identified space for workforce housing. The closure of the
2 administrative offices was not identified in the Board’s Resolution Nos. 10 or 11.
3 24. The Project did not consider the economic effect the closure of El Molino High
4 School would have on the town of Forestville.
5 25. The Project did not consider the excessive miles to be traveled by students to and
6 from the new location, in order to attend their daily classes (some in excess of five hours per
7 day) and the number of students and staff crisscrossing Western Sonoma County to attend school
8 at the beginning and end of the traditional school day, as well as during the day, to attend class
9 offerings in different locations.
10 26. The Project did not consider the danger posed to students traveling through
11 uncontrolled intersections between Forestville and Sebastopol.
12 27. The Project did not consider the academic/sports relationships and scholarship
13 eligibility for students who would be excluded from high school sports due to the excessive size
14 of the teams—resulting from unmanageable student capacity.
15 28. The Project did not consider that El Molino High School has a larger share of socio-
16 economically underprivileged students who could not participate in any after school academic
17 or sports programs because of the increased travel time and cost, thus undermining the
18 Superintendent’s calculation of “student capacity” as to these students.
19 29. The Project did not consider the potential blight to the community of Forestville or
20 the traffic congestion that will increase in the already congested City of Sebastopol.
21 30. The Board promised a full CEQA review in its Frequently Asked Questions portion
22 of the October 28, 2020 Town Hall Meeting. The FAQ states:
23 [Question] Has a study been done to show the impact of increased traffic along
Highway 116 due to students/family commuting to whichever campus? And
24 furthermore, has anyone considered the economic impact to Forestville
businesses if El Molino is the school chosen to close. These questions may not
25
be student-centric, but closing a school creates a ripple effect that will have far
26 reaching implications. [ANSWER] The District fully intends to comply with all
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements including but not
27 limited to a traffic study and urban decay.
28 31. Instead, on November 30, 2020 the District considered and purportedly approved the
7
1 Project without a traffic study , consideration of urban decay or other relevant potential
2 environmental impacts and without meaningful opportunity to present CEQA objections,
3 because the vote was specifically identified as a “placeholder” until the “final” approval of the
4 project, if necessary, in March of 2021—such “final” approval occurred on March 10, 2021 after
5 the property tax measures failed.
6 32. In approving the Project and finding the approvals exempt from CEQA, the District
7 made the following findings in the Resolution:
8 a. The District found that the Project consists of consolidating students,
9 faculty, and staff of El Molino High to Analy High School and Laguna High
10 School, and the transfer of students from the former Laguna Campus to the El
11 Molino Campus
12 b. The District found that the redistribution of students from the closed schools
13 will not require the District to add any new capacity to any of the existing
14 schools that will receive new students as a result of the Project.
15 c. The District claimed an available capacity of 485 students at Analy High
16 School, 640 students at El Molino High School, and 126 students at Laguna
17 High School and found that the Project will not increase original student
18 capacity of any of the District’s schools by a net of 25 percent or ten classrooms.
19 d. The District claimed that no unusual circumstances exist; and
20 e. The District found that the Project would not have a significant impact on the
21 environment and qualified for the exemption.
22 33. The District did not provide, or cite to, any evidence in support of its findings. These
23 findings are not supported by substantial evidence.
24 34. Based on these findings, the District approved one Class 14, “Minor Additions to
25 Schools,” Categorical Exemptions for the Project under CEQA Guidelines § 15314 and
26 approved the filing and recordation of the Notice of Exemption.
27 35. Members of CARE attended the District’s meeting on November 30, 2020 and
28 expressed opposition to the Project

8
1 36. Members of CARE commented that the District’s findings were conclusory and
2 unsupported such that a full CEQA review was necessary as promised by the District
3 37. On November 30th, 2020, during the presentation to the Board regarding the CEQA
4 exemption, the Board was told that the vote on the exemption was a “placeholder” in the event
5 the tax initiatives did not pass and then approved Board Resolution 11 modifying the vote under
6 Resolution No. 10 explaining that the vote on the Project was not final.
7 Resolution #11 which modified Resolution #10 and set forth various potential timelines that
8 might ultimately apply to the Project. Resolution #11stated: “The District has determined that
9 school consolidation may be necessary and advisable” and, “contingent upon satisfaction of any
10 and all statutory and/or legal prerequisites, could be implemented beginning with the 2021-2022
11 school year.”(emphasis added) Resolution #11’s modification of Resolution #10 delayed the
12 timeline for school consolidation in order to afford the community an opportunity to raise
13 additional revenues for the benefit of the District through tax measures placed on the March 2,
14 2021 ballot” Subsequent public statements by the District, as well as its actual final approval of
15 the Project on March 10, 2021, confirm that the District’s November 30, 2020 resolutions did
16 not even resemble, and were not considered by the District, to be its “final approval” of the
17 Project.
18 38. The Board summarily adopted the Resolution and Exemption based on the “cost
19 analysis” presentation (Presentation: “Potential Impacts of CEQA Categorical Exemption and
20 Ballot Measure,” WSCUHSD Board Meeting, Nov. 30, 2020)) instead of examining the
21 environmental parameters of the Project and then determining if the Project fits within the
22 CEQA exemption. Instead, the Board analyzed the cost of implementing the Project with or
23 without full CEQA review. The Board determined it should avoid the cost of preparing a full
24 Environmental Impact Review and then defined the Project to fit within the exemption.
25 39. The Board had several meetings just weeks prior to the November 30, 2020 meeting
26 discussing an expansive demolition and construction of a new Analy Campus.
27 40. For these reasons, Members of CARE asked the District for a full CEQA compliant
28 environmental review and not an illusory vote on an Exemption.

9
1 41. CARE has exhausted all available administrative remedies for maintenance of this
2 action, as provided in Public Resources Code § 21177.
3 42. The maintenance of this action is for the purpose of enforcing important public
4 policies of the State of California with respect to the protection of the environment under CEQA.
5 The maintenance and prosecution of this action will confer a substantial benefit upon the public
6 by protecting the public from environmental harms and other harms alleged in this Petition.
7 CARE is acting as a private attorney general to enforce these public policies and prevent such
8 harm.
9 43. CARE has performed all conditions precedent to filing this action by complying with
10 the requirements of Public Resource Code § 21167.5, in notifying Respondent of the filing of
11 this action (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”), and by complying with the requirements of Public
12 Resources Code § 21167.6, in notifying Respondent of Petitioner’s election to prepare the record
13 of Respondent proceedings in connection with this action (attached hereto as Exhibit “B”).
14 IV. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES
15 44. CARE hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43.
16 45. In 1970, the California Legislature enacted the California Environmental Quality Act
17 (“CEQA”) (Public Resource Code § 21000 et seq.) as a means of establishing a procedural and
18 substantive framework for the evaluation and documentation of the environmental impacts of
19 proposed projects. CEQA requires that public agencies fully inform the public and decision-
20 makers of the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects, and that agencies adopt
21 feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to lessen the significant effects of such projects.
22 Public Resource Code §§ 21000(a), 21000(g), 21002, 21002(a), and 21002.1(b).
23 46. One of the “basic purposes” of CEQA is to “inform governmental decision makers
24 and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.”
25 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(1).
26 47. CEQA applies to an activity deemed to be a “project.” A “project” is defined as “the
27 whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the
28 environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” CEQA

10
1 Guidelines § 15378(a) (emphasis added).
2 48. Under CEQA, “[t]he term ‘project’ has been interpreted to mean far more than the
3 ordinary dictionary definition of the term.” CEQA Guidelines § 15002(d). The term “project” is
4 “given a broad interpretation … to maximize protection of the environment.” RiverWatch v.
5 Olivenhain Municipal Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1203 (citations omitted).
6 49. Where distinct actions are closely related or if success of the overall objective
7 depends on the inclusion of certain actions, the separate actions are viewed as part of a larger
8 project. Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155
9 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1225-1231. “Theoretical independence is not a good reason for segmenting
10 the environmental analysis” of two actions. Id. at 1230.
11 50. CEQA’s requirements “cannot be avoided by chopping up proposed projects into
12 bite-size pieces which, individually considered, might be found to have no significant effect on
13 the environment.” Assoc. for a Cleaner Envir. v. Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004), 116
14 Cal.App.4th 629, 637 (quoting Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. City Council of Arcadia (1974) 42
15 Cap.App.3d 712, 726).
16 51. Separate approvals do not create separate projects. CEQA Guidelines § 15378(c).
17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(The District did not comply with the requirements of CEQA.)
18
A. The District Improperly Approved Categorical Exemptions for the Project By
19
Voting on The Final Project When It Wasn’t Final
20
22 53. CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(2) provides that an agency may determine under the
23 appropriate circumstances that a project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA,
24 except when it is barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Guidelines § 15300.2.
25 54. A preliminary determination that a Project is exempt must comply with the
26 procedural and evidentiary requirements of CEQA. If the District fails to follow the procedural
27 requirements, the evidentiary analysis need not take place and the District has abused its
28 discretion. See San Lorenzo Valley Cmty. Advocs. for Responsible Educ. v. San Lorenzo Valley
11
1 Unified Sch. Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384; see also Laurel Heights Improvement
2 Assoc. of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1133, as
3 modified on denial of rehearing Feb. 24, 1994.
4 55. “[W]hen an agency fails to proceed as required by CEQA, harmless error analysis is
5 inapplicable. The failure to comply with the law subverts the purposes of CEQA if it omits
6 material necessary to informed decision making and informed public participation. Case law is
7 clear that, in such cases, the error is prejudicial.” Cty. of Amador v. El Dorado Cty. Water Agency
8 (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 931, 946 .
9 56. A first-tier CEQA review, such as exemption determinations, are not formalized until
10 after the project has been approved. Under the Guidelines, a notice of CEQA exemption “shall
11 be filed, if at all, after approval of the project.” Guidelines, § 15062, subd. (a). The Guidelines
12 define “approval” as “the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite
13 course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person.” (Guidelines, §
14 15352, subd. (a).
15 57. The District noticed a Special Meeting for November 30, 2020 on November 29,
16 2020, one day prior to the Special Meeting. Among other topics, the Special Meeting Agenda
17 stated:
18 II. Discussion/Action item of the Agenda the following:

“ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO.#10.NOV.2020-2021
19 DETERMINING THAT THE SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION
PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE
20
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND
21 DECIDING TO CARRY OUT THE PROJECT.
22 58. This Special Meeting was a surprise to CARE and its members because, heretofore,
23 CARE was told that the District would engage in a full CEQA review based on Frequently Asked
24 Questions and the two previous Town Hall Meetings which portrayed a massive multi-million
25 dollar expansion of the Analy Campus and the near immediate expenditure and availability of
26 $74 million dollars of construction bond money.
27 59. Instead of holding a hearing by which members of CARE could object to the CEQA
28 exemption, District Board Members followed the lead of Superintendent Beal who explained
12
1 that the Board must vote on the Exemption on November 30th to save money in the event the
2 proposed tax measures placed before the electorate in March of 2021 failed. District
3 Superintendent Beal, in a Power Point presentation explained the potential impacts of “CEQA
4 Categorical Exemption and Ballot Measures.” In this November 30, 2020 Power Point,
5 Superintendent Beal explained that the categorical exemption was a “placeholder” until the final
6 approval of the project was held after the election in March 2021. Moreover, the only thing the
7 District actually approved on November 30, 2020 was “a delayed timeline for consideration of
8 school consolidation in order to afford the community an opportunity to raise additional
9 revenues for the benefit of the District through tax measures placed on the March 2, 2021
10 ballot...,.” (See Resolution No. 11.) The “final” approval of the Project was March 10, 2021.
11 60. The filing of a Notice of Exemption prior to issuance of final approval rendered the
12 NOE null and void. And, thus, by approving the Project on the basis of Class 14 Exemptions,
13 the District committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion requiring that the Project approvals be
14 set aside. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1085, 1094.5; Pub. Resource Code § 21168.5; Cty. of Amador,
15 76 Cal. App. 4th at 946.
16 B. The District’s Determination of Exemption Was Not Based On Substantial

Evidence As Required By CEQA
17
19 62. Substantial evidence must support an agency’s factual determination that a project is
20 categorically exempt. Save Our Sch., 240 Cal.App.4th at 139.
21 63. Superintendent Beal’s Power Point presentation of November 30, 2020 did not
22 address any CEQA related information that would allow the Board to fulfill its CEQA obligation
23 to proceed with a “considered awareness of the purposes and policy” that underlie CEQA.
24 Rather, the Board was presented with economic information about the cost of full CEQA review
25 versus the relative cost savings if an exemption were filed, as the Board awaited results of the
26 future tax measure election slated for March 2021. The Board simply followed the
27 Superintendent’s lead and undertook “a mechanical application of the exemption criteria” in
28 reaching its decision. Dehne v. County of Santa Clara (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 827, 843.
13
1 64. A Class 14 Exemption under Guidelines § 15314 applies to “minor additions to
2 existing schools within existing school grounds where the addition does not increase original
3 student capacity by more than 25% or ten classrooms, whichever is less.”
4 65. In Resolution No. 10, presented to the Board on November 30, 2020 which enabled
5 the Notice of Exemption, the District found that “the Project is minor additions to the three
6 schools because the only additions are students, faculty, and staff.” This finding is not supported
7 by substantial evidence. In fact, the record flatly contradicts it. In its October 2020 Feasibility
8 Reports the District had contemplated a variety of potential plans for consolidation. Those
9 reports concluded that: (a) in all but one circumstance, there was likely a need to add classrooms
10 (at least in the long term) and (b) contemplated the addition of “workforce housing.” The one
11 solution that purportedly did not require the addition of classrooms in the short term “Analy Site
12 Option 1” indicated that Analy currently has 58 classrooms many of which need significant work
13 to receive students and make the facility adequate. Notably, the Feasibility Reports showed that,
14 in order to comply with CDE Guidelines, moving El Molino students to Analy would require
15 “[h]eavy modernization,” including “moving walls”; the demolition of the “admin building,”
16 auto shop, and “northwest classroom modular building”; and the construction of a “New
17 building: Admin with 9 new classrooms.” Based on the information presented to the public, the
18 massive build-out could not possibly be considered a “minor addition to existing schools.”
19 66. The Project also does not meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15314 that
20 any addition would “not increase original student capacity by more than 25% or ten classrooms,
21 whichever is less.” The Project is likely to increase the true original student capacity at one or
22 more of the remaining schools by more than 25 percent or 10 classrooms because of the
23 California Department of Education Guidelines, as well as the aged condition of Analy High
24 School and the urgent need to update the school buildings.
25 C. The District’s Determination that the Exemption was not Barred by Any
Exception was Improper because the District is Improperly Segmenting the
26 Project
28 68. CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b) provides: “All exemptions for these classes are
14
1 inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same
2 place, over time is significant.”
3 69. “Cumulative impacts from the closing of a school and transfer of students may
4 encompass impacts on traffic and circulation patterns, housing patterns, recreational and cultural
5 activities, as well as ‘successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time’ [ ], where
6 such impacts are significant.” East Peninsula Ed. Council, Inc.,210 Cal.App.3d at 172.
7 70. CEQA Guidelines § 15300.0(c) provides: “A categorical exemption shall not be used
8 for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant
9 effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” Moreover, CEQA requires the
10 preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for any project subject to its provisions
11 that “may” have a significant effect on the environment. Pub. Resources Code § 2100(a).
12 71. In the Town Hall Meetings of October 7 and 21, 2020, the District was presented
13 with substantial evidence of potentially significant cumulative impacts such that the approval of
14 a categorical Exemption was improper. Yet, on November 30, 2020, the District voted for the
15 exemption anyway. The Board determined that the exception to the exemption provided for in
16 CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c) did not apply because “the District is unaware of any
17 unusual circumstances that would negate the use of the Class 14 Categorical Exemption for this
18 Project.” The Board failed to cite to any evidence, or to conduct any meaningful analysis in
19 connection with that determination. Moreover, the Board failed to consider whether the
20 exception provided for in CEQA Guidelines 1300.2 subsection (b)—the “cumulative impact”
21 exception—applied.
22 72. Instead, the District was presented with, and ignored, substantial evidence of a
23 reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts as a result of the Project, including,
24 but not limited to traffic/circulation, parking, public safety, noise, and air quality impacts. The
25 approval of categorical exemptions in light of these potential impacts was improper, and
26 exceptions to the Class 14 Exemptions apply to the Project under both Guidelines §§ 15300.2(b)
27 and 15300.0(c).
28 73. On October 7, Superintendent Toni Beal and Facilities Director Jennie Bruneman
15
1 presented the Feasibility Reports—a series of building and facility options at the School Board
2 meeting. Option No. 1 is ostensibly the Project which will cost the District $200,000 to
3 implement.
4 74. Option No. 2 is the recommendation of the California Department of Educations,
5 “Minimum CDE recommendations” which requires two new significant structures and major
6 modernization to the aged central Analy campus which would cost the District $92 million
7 dollars. $73 million is available in current construction bonds implying that construction can
8 commence within 13-15 months.
9 75. Option No. 3 is a major modernization of well over half of the Analy campus which
10 would cost the District $195 million dollars.
11 76. In that same presentation, Architects AXIA, presented the feasibility of beginning
12 this project and a timeline which included workforce housing: potentially, 21 single family
13 homes, 25 single family attached units, and 44 multi-family units.
14 77. According to the AXIA presentation, the sample process begins with the presentation
15 of a Feasibility Analysis (October 7, 2020) and ends 13-14 months later to the submission of
16 “building permits.”
17 78. The District was also presented with “Closure 101—Options” on how to close a
18 school approximately six weeks before the District made the interim decision, on November 30,
19 2020, to consolidate the schools. That same presentation indicated Board tasks well into
20 December 2020 before a closure decision should be made.
21 79. Members of CARE, on October 28, 2020, and at the subsequent Town Hall meeting
22 on the Project, expressed concern that the District was attempting to avoid environmental review
23 and the District should conduct a full review.
24 80. Instead, the District voted to close the schools by filing an exemption in violation of
25 the California Environmental Quality Act.
26 81. The Project as a whole, therefore, was likely to have a significant and cumulative
27 environmental impact. But the District attempted to avoid full CEQA review by segmenting the
28 Project into smaller, incremental parts. This is not allowed under CEQA. See Assoc. for a
16
1 Cleaner Envir. v. Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004), 116 Cal.App.4th at 637 (CEQA’s
2 requirements “cannot be avoided by chopping up proposed projects into bite-size pieces which,
3 individually considered, might be found to have no significant effect on the environment.”).
4 D. The District Manipulated School Capacity To Fit The Exemption
6 83. With Resolution No. 10, the School Board determined the Project falls within the
7 Class 14 Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15314. That section
8 exempts a project that “consists of minor additions to existing schools within existing school
9 grounds where the addition does not increase original student capacity by more than 25% or ten
10 classrooms, whichever is less.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15314.
11 84. The District was eager for the cost savings of filing the Notice of Exemption, as
12 explained by Superintendent Beal, and overlooked the fact that the consolidation of 553 El
13 Molino Students to the existing 1,154 students would create a 1707 student body population in
14 a school with a stated capacity of 1,350 students, as stated in Board minutes in 2018 and 2019.
15 85. To remedy the math that the student population would not be 26% greater than the
16 stated capacity, Superintendent Beal explained to the Board that the “original capacity” of Analy
17 High School was now 1,639 students.
18 86. In fact, during Board meetings in 2018 and 2019, Beal has always maintained that
19 student capacity for Analy was 1,350 students.
20 87. To shoehorn the facts into the requirements of the Exemption, Beal explained to the
21 Board that Analy’s new capacity was 1,639 students when, in 2018, she had stated, in
22 conjunction with consultation from facilities managers and principals, that the capacity was
23 1,350. She also arbitrarily increased the capacity of El Molino from 1100 students to 1,193 and
24 then doubled the stated capacity of Laguna High School from 110 in 2018 to 214 for purposes
25 of meeting the strict requirements of the Exemption.
26 88. Based on these new, unsupported capacity numbers, the Board voted prematurely for
27 the Exemption.
28 WHEREFORE, CARE prays for the following relief on all causes of action:
17
1 89. For the Court’s peremptory writ of mandate requiring Respondent District to set
2 aside its Project approvals, including its CEQA exemption findings and related
3 determinations, and order that the closure of El Molino and the anticipated
4 consolidation be stayed pending compliance with CEQA. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§
5 1085, 1094.5; Pub. Resource Code § 21168.9.
6 90. For the Court’s peremptory writ of mandate requiring Respondent District to
7 consider, prepare, and circulate a legally adequate Environmental Impact Report and
8 otherwise comply with CEQA in any subsequent action taken on the Project.
9 91. For costs of this suit, including attorney’s fees pursuant to law and Code of Civil
10 Procedure § 1021.5.
11 92. For such other and further relief, including preliminary and permanent injunctive
12 relief, in the event that the Respondent District intends to commence closures of the
13 school sites during this litigation. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 526.
14
15 PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,

MILLER & MOSKOWITZ, LLP
16
17
DATED:, April 21, 2021 By:
18 LESLIE R. PERRY
SCOTT A. LEWIS
19 KRISTIN A. MATTISKE-NICHOLLS
Attorneys for Petitioners
20 COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR
RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EXHIBIT A
26
27
28
LAW OFFICES OF

438 First Street, 4th Floor, Santa Rosa, CA 95401
William D. Anderson
David F. Beach April 21, 2021
Deborah S. Bull Ŧ
Traci L. Carrillo VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U.S. MAIL THIS DATE
Isaac M. Gradman Superintendent and Board of Directors
John E. Johnson* West Sonoma County Union High School District
Marla Keenan-Rivero* 462 Johnson Street
Scott A. Lewis Sebastopol, CA 95472
Michael G. Miller
Superintendent Toni Beal - [email protected]
Lawrence A. Moskowitz*
President Jeanne Fernandez - [email protected]
Leslie R. Perry
Vice President Kellie Noe - [email protected]
Burton H. Fohrman
Trustee Angie Lewis - [email protected]
Malcolm T. Manwell † Laurie Fadave - [email protected]
Roger J. Illsley Julie Aiello - [email protected]
Daphne A. Beletsis
Mary Jane Schneider Re: Notice of Intent to File CEQA Petition in the Matter of the Closure
Sheila S. Craig* of El Molino High School and Analy High School, Finding the
Oscar A. Pardo Closures Exempt from CEQA, Approving the Filing and
Martin L. Hirsch Recordation of Notices of Exemption, and all associated approvals.
Megan J. Lightfoot
Nicole M. Jaffee
Dear WSCUHSD Superintendent and Board Members:
Kristin Mattiske-Nicholls
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, under the Public Resource Code § 21000 et seq., that
E. Page Allinson this letter serves as written notice of the intent of Petitioner, COMMUNITY ALLIANCE
Chad O. Dorr FOR RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION, to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate under the
Sarah Jane T.C. Truong provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) against Respondent,
Kelsey L. O’Rourke WEST SONOMA COUNTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF
Sheri N. W. Chlebowski EDUCATION, challenging the District’s approval of El Molino and Analy High School
closures, including: approving the closures of El Molino High School and Analy High
Certified Specialist
* Family Law
School, finding the closures of El Molino High School and Analy High School exempt
Ŧ Appellate Law from CEQA, and approving the filing and recordation of a Notice of Exemption
†Estate Planning, Trust and
Probate Law
(Resolution #10 NOV.2020-2021); and all associated approvals made on or about
The State Bar of California November 30, 2020.
Board of Legal Specialization
TELEPHONE Very truly yours,

(707) 525•8800 PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,
FACSIMILE
(707) 545•8242
E-MAIL
lewis@ Scott A. Lewis
perrylaw.net
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 EXHIBIT B
1 Leslie R. Perry, Bar No. 062390
Scott A. Lewis, Bar No. 149094
2 Kristin A. Mattiske-Nicholls, Bar No. 288495
PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER
3 & MOSKOWITZ, LLP
438 1st Street, 4th Floor
4 Santa Rosa, California 95401
Telephone: (707) 525-8800
5 Facsimile: (707) 545-8242
6 Attorneys for Petitioner COMMUNITY

ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE
7 EDUCATION
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
11 COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR Case No.

RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION,
12
Petitioner, NOTICE OF PETITIONER’S ELECTION
13 TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE
v. RECORD
14
WEST SONOMA COUNTY UNION
15 HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; and DOES (Public Resources Code § 21167.6)
1-10,
16
Respondents.
17 CASE DESIGNATION: CEQA
18 /
19
20 Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21167.6, Petitioner, COMMUNITY ALLIANCE

21 FOR RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION, hereby notifies Respondent, WEST SONOMA COUNTY
22 UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT of Petitioner’s election to prepare the administrative
23 record of proceedings relating to this action.
24 Petitioner requests that Respondent identify all documents, including all transcripts,
25 minutes or meetings, notices, correspondence, reports, studies, proposed decisions, final
26 decision, findings, and any other documents or records relating to Respondent’s approval of the
27 closure of El Molino High School, the subsequent transfer of El Molino students, faculty, and
28 staff to Analy High School and Laguna High School, and the relocation of District Offices and
1
NOTICE OF PETITIONER’S ELECTION TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
1 Laguna High School to the El Molino campus, finding the school closures exempt from the
2 California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and approving the filing and recordation of
3 Notices of Exemption, and all associated approvals made on or about November 30, 2020.
5 PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON,

6
7 DATED: April 21, 2021 By:

LESLIE R. PERRY
8 SCOTT A. LEWIS
KRISTIN A. MATTISKE-NICHOLLS
9 Attorneys for Petitioners
COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR
10 RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
NOTICE OF PETITIONER’S ELECTION TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

2021 04 21 (EF) Petition For Writ of Mandate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 04 21 (EF) Petition For Writ of Mandate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Leslie R. Perry, Bar No.

062390 ELECTRONICALLY FILED

6 Attorneys for Petitioner COMMUNITY

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11 COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR Case No. SCV-268238

Petitioner, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

20 1. Petitioner COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION

24 closure of EL MOLINO HIGH SCHOOL, Forestville, CA (“El Molino”), the subsequent

10 numbers in order to fit the Project into the exemption.

14 effect” exception (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2 (c)).

19 and move them to the former El Molino campus.

21 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15314 (“Minor Additions to

2 provisions of CEQA and constituted an abuse of discretion, because:

15 Cal.App.4th 128, 139.

25 CEQA review by filing incremental exemptions.

28 significant environmental affects, as it was required to do (CEQA Guidelines §

9 Department of Education guidelines.

10 6. Members of CARE exhausted their administrative remedies by speaking in a

13 and the need for a full CEQA review process.

18 8. By this verified Petition, CARE alleges the following:

20 9. Petitioner, COMMUNITY ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION

21 (“CARE”) is an after-formed unincorporated association created as a result of concerns

26 authority over the Project.

27 10. Respondent, WEST SONOMA COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD

12 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

19 acres. 1,154 students currently attend Analy.

26 students, and Laguna High School Capacity is 214 students.

16 the Board in issuing Resolutions 10 and 11 on November 30, 2020.

18 approved without CEQA review and pursuant to a categorical exemption.

4 School would have on the town of Forestville.

9 offerings in different locations.

11 uncontrolled intersections between Forestville and Sebastopol.

14 of the teams—resulting from unmanageable student capacity.

18 Superintendent’s calculation of “student capacity” as to these students.

2 environmental impacts and without meaningful opportunity to present CEQA objections,

5 the property tax measures failed.

7 made the following findings in the Resolution:

8 a. The District found that the Project consists of consolidating students,

14 schools that will receive new students as a result of the Project.

15 c. The District claimed an available capacity of 485 students at Analy High

18 capacity of any of the District’s schools by a net of 25 percent or ten classrooms.

19 d. The District claimed that no unusual circumstances exist; and

21 environment and qualified for the exemption.

23 findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

26 approved the filing and recordation of the Notice of Exemption.

28 expressed opposition to the Project

19 analysis” presentation (Presentation: “Potential Impacts of CEQA Categorical Exemption and

26 discussing an expansive demolition and construction of a new Analy Campus.

28 environmental review and not an illusory vote on an Exemption.

2 action, as provided in Public Resources Code § 21177.

14 IV. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES

15 44. CARE hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43.

22 Public Resource Code §§ 21000(a), 21000(g), 21002, 21002(a), and 21002.1(b).

25 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(1).

26 47. CEQA applies to an activity deemed to be a “project.” A “project” is defined as “the

28 environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” CEQA

4 “given a broad interpretation … to maximize protection of the environment.” RiverWatch v.

10 the environmental analysis” of two actions. Id. at 1230.

11 50. CEQA’s requirements “cannot be avoided by chopping up proposed projects into

15 Cap.App.3d 712, 726).

17 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21 52. CARE hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 51.