City of Moorpark v. Moorpark Unified School Dist. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 921 , 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 896; 819 P.2d 854 (1991)


City?of?Moorpark?v.?Moorpark?Unified?School?Dist.?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?921?,?1?Cal.Rptr.2d?896;?819?P.2d?854

[No.?S019591.?Dec?5,?1991.]

CITY?OF?MOORPARK,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?MOORPARK?UNIFIED?SCHOOL?DISTRICT?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Appellants.

(Superior?Court?of?Ventura?County,?No.?106606,?Bruce?A.?Thompson,?Judge.)

(Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)
COUNSEL

Bergman?&?Wedner,?Gregory?M.?Bergman,?Richard?V.?Godino?and?Robert?M.?Mason?III?for?Defendants?and?Appellants.?[54?Cal.3d?923]

Bowie,?Arneson,?Kadi?&?Dixon,?Carol?J.?Graham,?Wendy?H.?Wiles,?Ronald?D.?Wenkart,?Claire?Y.?Morey,?Geraldine?Jaffe?and?Val?R.?Fadely?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Appellants.

Cheryl?J.?Kane,?City?Attorney,?Burke,?Williams?&?Sorenson,?Lisa?E.?Kranitz?and?Peter?D.?Tremblay?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.

Stephanie?Scher,?City?Attorney?(La?Canada-Flintridge),?Brown,?Winfield?&?Canzoneri?and?Virginia?R.?Pesola?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION

LUCAS,?C.?J.

In?this?case?we?construe?for?the?first?time?the?Naylor?Act?(Ed.?Code,????39390-39404;fn.?1hereafter?the?Act),?which?governs?the?disposal?of?certain?kinds?of?surplus?school?property.?The?City?of?Moorpark?(hereafter?City)?petitioned?the?superior?court?for?a?writ?of?mandate?to?compel?the?Moorpark?Unified?School?District?(hereafter?District)?to?transfer?school?property,?pursuant?to?the?Act.?After?the?court?granted?the?petition,?District?appealed.?The?Court?of?Appeal,?affirming?the?superior?court,?concluded?that?the?Act’s?provisions?regarding?surplus?school?property?displaced?the?common?law?of?contracts,?that?a?binding?contract?for?sale?had?been?made?under?the?Act,?and?that?District?acted?capriciously?when?it?purported?to?exempt?the?school?site?from?the?Act.?We?reverse?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?decision.

  1. The?Act

In?the?preamble?to?the?Act,?the?Legislature?expressed?its?concern?”that?school?playgrounds,?playing?fields?and?recreational?real?property?will?be?lost?for?such?uses?by?the?surrounding?communities?even?where?those?communities?in?their?planning?process?have?assumed?that?such?properties?would?be?permanently?available?for?recreational?purposes.”?(??39390.)?The?Legislature?explicitly?stated?its?intention?”to?allow?school?districts?to?recover?their?investment?in?such?surplus?property?while?making?it?possible?for?other?agencies?of?government?to?acquire?the?property?and?keep?it?available?for?playground,?playing?field?or?other?outdoor?recreational?and?open-space?purposes.”?(Ibid.)?The?net?effect?of?the?Act?is?to?make?surplus?school?property?available?to?local?communities?at?less?than?present?market?value,?[54?Cal.3d?924]?while?assuring?that?participating?school?districts?recover?at?least?the?cost?of?acquiring?the?property.

The?Act?applies?when?a?school?district?determines?to?sell?or?lease?a?school?site,?if?three?conditions?are?met:?(1)?All?or?part?of?the?school?site?consists?of?land?used?for?school?playground,?playing?field,?or?other?outdoor?recreational?purposes,?and?open-space?land?particularly?suited?for?recreational?purposes;?(2)?the?land?has?been?used?for?at?least?one?of?the?foregoing?purposes?for?at?least?eight?years?immediately?preceding?the?decision?to?sell?or?lease?the?site;?and?(3)?the?public?entity?proposing?to?purchase?or?lease?the?land?determines?that?no?other?public?land?in?the?vicinity?of?the?site?is?adequate?to?meet?community?needs?for?playground,?playing?field?or?other?outdoor?recreational?and?open-space?purposes.?(??39391.)

Before?a?public?agency?may?purchase?property?pursuant?to?the?Act,?it?must?adopt?a?plan?that?designates?the?areas?of?the?school?site?the?agency?does?and?does?not?desire.?(??39397.5.)

Once?a?school?district?decides?to?sell?or?lease?a?school?site?containing?land?described?in?section?39391,?the?sale?or?lease?of?such?land?must?be?in?accordance?with?the?Act.?(??39393.)?A?district?may?retain?any?part?of?a?school?site?containing?buildings?along?with?adjacent?land?sufficient?to?avoid?reducing?the?value?of?the?part?of?the?school?site?containing?the?building?to?less?than?50?percent?of?fair?market?value.?(??39395.)?Before?a?district?sells?or?leases?a?school?site?containing?section?39391?land,?the?district?must?first?offer?to?sell?or?lease?the?portion?of?the?school?site?containing?section?39391?land,?excluding?retained?land,?to?a?variety?of?public?agencies?according?to?the?priority?established?by?the?Act.?(??39394.)?The?district?has?”discretion?to?determine?whether?the?offer?shall?be?an?offer?to?sell?or?an?offer?to?lease.”?(Ibid.)

The?Act?provides?that?the?sales?price?for?section?39391?land?shall?not?exceed?the?district’s?cost?of?acquisition?with?certain?adjustments?for?inflation?and?improvements.?In?addition?to?this?maximum?price,?the?Act?establishes?a?price?floor?of?either?25?percent?of?fair?market?value?or?an?amount?related?to?bonded?indebtedness.?(??39396,?subd.?(a).)?Likewise,?the?Act?sets?a?maximum?annual?lease?rate.?(??39396,?subd.?(c).)?A?district?that?offers?a?portion?of?a?school?site?for?sale?may?do?so?at?fair?market?value,?provided?the?district?”offers?an?equivalent?size?alternative?portion?of?that?school?site?for?school?playground,?playing?field,?or?other?recreational?and?open-space?purposes.”?(??39396,?subd.?(b).)

Section?39402?provides?that?a?school?district?may,?as?an?alternative?to?a?sale?or?a?lease?pursuant?to?other?provisions?of?the?Act,?enter?into?other?[54?Cal.3d?925]?agreements?to?dispose?of?the?land,?such?as?a?lease?purchase.?If?the?lessee?or?grantee?has?zoning?powers,?the?alternative?agreement?may?require?the?entity?to?rezone?any?portion?of?the?school?site?retained?by?the?district.?(??39402.)

Land?purchased?or?leased?under?the?Act?must?be?maintained?for?playground,?playing?field,?or?other?outdoor?recreational?and?open-space?uses.?(??39398.)?A?district?that?has?transferred?land?may?reacquire?it?at?any?time?at?a?price?set?by?the?same?mechanism?used?to?establish?the?original?sales?price.?(Ibid.)

Notwithstanding?other?provisions?of?the?Act,?a?school?district?may?exempt?not?more?than?two?surplus?sites?from?the?Act?if?the?district?has?an?immediate?need?for?an?additional?school?site?and?is?actively?seeking?to?acquire?such?a?site?and?may?exempt?not?more?than?one?surplus?site?if?the?district?is?seeking?immediate?expansion?of?the?classroom?capacity?of?an?existing?school?by?at?least?50?percent.?(??39401.)

  1. Facts

District?owns?a?school?site?on?Casey?Road?in?Moorpark?(hereafter?the?site).?Part?of?the?site?is?improved?with?a?variety?of?school?buildings.?In?November?1987,?District?adopted?a?resolution?finding?disposition?of?the?site?was?in?the?best?interests?of?District?and?its?students?and?noting?that?the?site?was?not?a?surplus?school?site.?In?February?1988,?City?adopted?a?resolution?stating?that?public?lands?in?the?vicinity?of?the?site?were?inadequate?to?meet?community?needs?for?playgrounds,?playing?fields,?or?other?open-space?purposes.?Three?months?later,?District?adopted?a?resolution,?which?resolved?that?sale,?lease,?or?exchange?of?all?or?a?portion?of?the?site?was?in?the?best?interest?of?the?students.?Unlike?District’s?previous?resolution,?this?resolution?failed?to?state?the?site?was?not?a?surplus?school?site.fn.?2

Later?in?May,?District?sent?to?13?public?agencies,?including?City,?a?notice?of?its?second?resolution.?The?notice?stated?that?District?”proposes?to?offer?for?sale,?lease,?or?exchange?all?or?a?portion?of?the?[site]?at?fair?market?value?….”?In?July,?City?notified?District?of?its?intent?to?purchase?a?portion?of?the?site?pursuant?to?the?Act?and?generally?described?the?location?of?the?property?City?desired,?which?was?referred?to?as?the?lower?field?area.?District?responded?by?informing?City?that?District?would?not?consider?disposing?of?the?lower?field?area?unless?City?held?hearings?to?allow?for?development?of?an?area?referred?to?as?the?upper?parcel,?and?by?asking?for?City’s?input?on?a?total?development?package?for?the?site.?[54?Cal.3d?926]

After?a?period?of?negotiations,?District?sent?a?proposal?to?City?offering?either?a?lease-purchase?or?an?outright?purchase?of?the?lower?field?area?for?a?price?based?in?part?on?fair?market?value?and?in?part?as?set?by?the?Act.?City?rejected?the?proposal.?Thereafter,?District?twice?asked?City?whether?it?was?still?interested?in?the?lower?field?area?and?suggested?meeting?to?develop?an?agreeable?proposal.

A?City?appraisal?set?the?fair?market?value?of?the?lower?field?area?at?$1,279,000.?City?then?advised?District,?in?early?May?1989,?that?it?was?prepared?to?take?title?to?the?lower?field?area?for?$319,750,?which?was?25?percent?of?the?property’s?alleged?fair?market?value,?as?provided?by?the?Act.?City?and?District?met?on?May?30,?at?which?time?District?made?a?counterproposal.

City?apparently?did?not?respond?but?instead?filed?a?petition?for?a?writ?of?mandate?and?a?complaint?for?declaratory?relief,?seeking?a?ruling?that?District?was?obligated?under?the?Act?to?sell?the?lower?field?area?for?$319,750.?Thereafter,?District?passed?a?resolution?to?exempt?the?entire?Casey?Road?site?from?the?provisions?of?the?Act.

The?trial?court?issued?the?requested?writ?and?ordered?District?to?set?aside?its?resolution?exempting?the?site?from?the?Act.?It?also?ordered?District?to?sell?the?lower?field?area?at?the?price?established?by?the?Act,?25?percent?of?fair?market?value.

The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed.?It?concluded?that?sales?of?surplus?school?property?are?governed?by?the?Act?and?that?District’s?notice?of?its?intent?to?sell,?lease,?or?exchange?some?or?all?of?the?site?constituted?an?offer?rather?than?a?mere?invitation?to?deal.?The?court?rejected?District’s?argument?that?its?notice?could?not?be?an?offer?because?of?its?lack?of?specificity?of?material?terms,?such?as?price.?Instead,?the?court?determined?that,?unless?a?school?district?properly?exempts?a?site?from?the?Act?or?retains?a?portion?of?the?site?pursuant?to?the?Act,?the?district?cannot?sell?surplus?property?for?more?than?the?price?established?by?the?Act.?The?court?reasoned?that?the?notice?was?not?deficient?for?lack?of?specificity;?rather,?the?notice?substantially?complied?with?the?Act,?creating?an?offer?that?City?accepted?by?written?notice?in?July?1988.

The?Court?of?Appeal?concluded?District?acted?capriciously?because?it?thereafter?purported?to?exempt?the?site?from?the?Act?”solely?as?an?effort?to?halt?…?City’s?lawsuit?and?to?thwart?…?City’s?acceptance?of?its?offer?to?sell?the?property?at?a?surplus?price.”?It?held?that?District?could?not?exempt?the?site?from?the?act?”as?a?means?to?extricate?itself?from?a?binding?contract?to?sell?[54?Cal.3d?927]?a?surplus?site?at?less?than?fair?market?value”?and?that?District?had?a?ministerial?duty?to?sell?the?site?to?City.
III.?Discussion

 

  1. Applicability?of?Common?Law

[1a]?In?its?analysis,?the?Court?of?Appeal?concluded?that?sales?of?surplus?property?are?governed?by?the?Act?and?not?by?the?law?of?contracts.?The?court?considered?the?notice?sent?out?by?District?to?be?an?offer,?stating,?”The?use?of?the?word?’proposes’?in?the?notice?does?not?mean?that?it?is?a?mere?invitation?to?treat,?as?it?might?under?common?law.?The?notice?substantially?complies?with?section?39394.”?According?to?the?court,?City?accepted?this?offer?by?its?written?notice?in?July?of?1988.?We?disagree.

[2]?Statutes?generally?do?not?supplant?the?common?law?unless?it?appears?the?Legislature?intended?to?occupy?the?field.?(I.?E.?Associates?v.?Safeco?Title?Ins.?Co.?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?281,?285?[216?Cal.Rptr.?438,?702?P.2d?596].)?[1b]?The?Act?does?not?reveal?such?an?intent.

The?Court?of?Appeal?focused?on?the?statement?of?legislative?intent?in?section?39390?and?the?Act’s?price-setting?mechanism?in?section?39396?to?conclude?that?the?Act?permits?District?to?recover?only?its?investment?in?the?surplus?property?the?District?determines?to?sell,?thus?making?negotiations?over?price?unnecessary.?Likewise,?the?court?focused?on?section?39394fn.?3?to?conclude?that?the?common?law?does?not?apply?and?that?District’s?notice?substantially?complied?with?the?Act’s?requirements?for?an?offer.?We?note?that?this?last?conclusion?seems?facially?incorrect.?District?notified?City?that?it?proposed?to?”offer?for?sale,?lease,?or?exchange?all?or?a?portion?of?the?[site]?at?fair?market?value.”?Section?39394?provides?that?District?”shall?have?discretion?to?determine?whether?the?offer?shall?be?an?offer?to?sell?or?an?offer?to?lease.”?The?section?thus?contemplates?that?District’s?offer?will?either?be?an?[54?Cal.3d?928]?offer?to?sell?or?an?offer?to?lease.?District’s?notice?spoke?of?an?offer?to?sell,?lease?or?exchange.?Such?an?offer?is?not?an?offer?to?sell,?nor?is?it?an?offer?to?lease.

The?Court?of?Appeal?improperly?focused?on?the?foregoing?statutes?rather?than?construing?those?statutes?with?reference?to?the?Act?as?a?whole?so?that?all?sections?of?the?Act?may?be?harmonized?and?given?effect.?(See,?e.g.,?Moore?v.?Panish?(1982)?32?Cal.3d?535,?541?[186?Cal.Rptr.?475,?652?P.2d?32].)?The?Act?contemplates?that?school?districts,?after?deciding?to?sell?or?lease?all?or?part?of?a?site?containing?section?39391?land,?will?make?an?offer?to?public?agencies?to?sell?or?lease?some?of?the?property?at?the?price?established?by?the?Act.?(???39390,?39394,?39396.)?The?Act?is?not,?however,?as?mechanistic?and?all?encompassing?as?the?Court?of?Appeal?believed.?It?does?not?contemplate,?as?the?Court?of?Appeal?seemed?to?hold,?that?once?a?district?makes?a?broad?proposal?to?offer?to?sell,?lease,?or?exchange?all?or?a?portion?of?a?site?for?fair?market?value,?a?responding?public?agency?unilaterally?may?then?decide?that?there?shall?be?a?transaction?in?the?form?of?a?sale?of?a?certain?portion?of?the?property?for?less?than?fair?market?value.

Section?39394,?relied?on?by?the?Court?of?Appeal,?addresses?leases?and?sales.?It?is?clear,?however,?that?school?districts?may?attempt?to?tailor?transfers?to?fit?their?needs?by?engaging?in?other?types?of?transactions.?Section?39402?authorizes?districts?to?”enter?into?other?forms?of?agreement?concerning?the?disposition?of?[section?39391]?property?with?any?entity?enumerated?in?Section?39394,?in?accordance?with?the?priorities?therein?specified?….”?The?variety?and?the?nature?of?the?options?available?to?school?districts?implicitly?require?that?districts?have?the?ability,?recognized?under?the?common?law?of?contracts,?to?make?initial,?nonbinding?overtures?to?various?public?agencies?and?to?engage?in?a?period?of?negotiations.

For?example,?a?district?may?wish?to?dispose?of?part?of?a?site?and?to?have?another?part?rezoned.?Section?39402?expressly?contemplates?an?exchange?that?requires?rezoning.?It?is?therefore?reasonable?for?a?district?to?notify?public?agencies?of?its?desire?to?”sell,?lease,?or?exchange?all?or?part?of?the?site”?while?entertaining?the?hope?that?an?entity?with?zoning?power,?such?as?a?city,?will?respond.?If?such?an?entity?does?respond,?a?period?of?negotiation?will?likely?be?necessary?to?determine?what?form?of?exchange?will?be?employed?and?to?what?extent?the?property?will?be?rezoned.?Indeed,?this?apparently?is?such?a?case.?District?informed?City?that?it?could?not?consider?disposing?of?the?lower?field?area?unless?City?held?hearings?to?allow?for?development?of?the?entire?upper?parcel;?District?asked?for?City’s?input?on?a?total?development?package?for?the?site.

The?Court?of?Appeal’s?conclusion,?however,?ignores?the?need?to?solicit?agencies?and?to?engage?in?negotiations?as?a?prelude?to?making?an?offer?[54?Cal.3d?929]?pursuant?to?the?Act?and?hampers?the?discretion?of?school?districts?attempting?to?shape?transactions?to?fit?their?individual?needs.?Properly?construed,?the?Act?does?not?mandate?a?particular?type?of?transaction?and?therefore?does?not?by?itself?render?District’s?statement?that?it?”proposes?to?sell,?lease?or?exchange?all?or?a?portion”?of?the?site?sufficiently?definite?to?constitute?an?offer.?Indeed,?because?the?Act?does?not?supply?the?material?term?of?the?form?of?the?transaction,?if?City?had?indicated?that?it?wished?to?lease?the?site,?the?trial?court?would?have?been?faced?with?the?impossible?task?of?divining?the?length?of?the?lease.

The?Court?of?Appeal,?to?support?its?determination?that?the?Act?supplants?common?law?and?that?District?made?an?effective?legal?offer,?implicitly?relied?on?its?conclusion?that?school?districts?are?entitled?to?recover?only?the?acquisition?costs?of?the?surplus?property?that?they?sell?and?that?District’s?statement?in?its?notice?that?the?site?was?to?be?offered?at?fair?market?value?was?not?authorized?by?the?Act.?The?court’s?conclusion,?however,?is?based?on?an?unreasonably?narrow?reading?of?the?Act.

In?its?analysis,?the?court?relied?on?section?39390,?which?sets?forth?the?statement?of?legislative?intent,?and?on?section?39396,?subdivision?(a),?which?provides?the?mechanism?for?establishing?the?maximum?sales?price?based?primarily?on?the?cost?of?acquisition?and?sets?a?floor?of?25?percent?of?fair?market?value.?To?be?sure,?these?provisions?reveal?an?intent?to?allow?public?agencies?to?obtain?playgrounds?and?similar?property?at?advantageous?prices?while?ensuring?that?school?districts?recover?their?acquisition?costs.?To?that?extent,?the?Act?in?some?instances?does?supply?the?parameters?for?the?price?term?of?a?contract.

Pursuant?to?subdivision?(b)?of?section?39396,?however,?a?district?may?offer?a?portion?of?a?site?at?fair?market?value?as?long?as?the?district?offers?an?alternative?portion?for?playground-type?use.?The?Act?therefore?does?not?eliminate?the?possibility?of?recovering?fair?market?value?for?part?of?the?surplus?property.?The?Court?of?Appeal?failed?to?consider?the?possibility?that?District?was?attempting?to?determine?whether?any?public?agency?was?interested?in?the?property?at?fair?market?value?as?a?prelude?to?making?an?offer?that?would?conform?to?this?subdivision.

The?Court?of?Appeal?also?relied?on?section?39399,?which?subjects?transactions?under?the?Act?to?the?requirements?of?other?articles?in?the?code?that?do?not?conflict?with?the?requirements?of?the?Act.?The?Legislature?may?require?school?districts?to?perform?certain?acts?as?part?of?the?process?of?making?a?contract.?Doing?so,?however,?does?not?remove?the?contract-making?process?from?the?purview?of?the?common?law?unless?the?Legislature?intends?to?occupy?the?field.?In?this?case,?the?nature?of?the?statutory?regulation?of?the?[54?Cal.3d?930]?contract-making?process?is?such?that?legislative?intent?appears?not?to?be?to?supplant?the?common?law?but?to?supplement?it?by?adding?requirements?not?found?in?the?common?law.?For?example,?the?common?law?does?not?list?entities?to?which?offers?must?be?made?nor?does?it?provide?price?parameters;?the?Act?does?so.?But?in?doing?so,?it?does?not?purport?to?remove?the?entire?contract?process?from?application?of?common?law?principles?consistent?with?the?specific?requirements?of?the?Act.

The?question?of?what?constitutes?an?offer?is?beyond?the?scope?of?the?Act.?The?Act?does?not?explicitly?define?an?offer?nor?does?it?implicitly,?by?the?breadth?of?its?regulation,?support?the?conclusion?that?the?common?law?of?contracts?has?been?supplanted?for?purposes?of?determining?whether?an?offer?has?been?made.?Indeed,?the?flexibility?accorded?to?school?districts?in?the?Act,?as?described?in?the?foregoing?discussion,?is?incompatible?with?a?mechanistic?approach?to?determining?whether?an?offer?is?present?and?is?best?served?by,?and?most?reasonably?requires?the?application?of,?common?law?principles.?We?therefore?conclude?that?the?Act?was?not?intended?to?supplant?the?common?law?of?contracts?as?it?pertains?to?offers.

  1. Existence?of?an?Offer?Under?Common?Law

Our?conclusion,?that?the?Court?of?Appeal?erroneously?held?that?courts?need?not?apply?common?law?contract?principles?to?determine?whether?school?districts?have?made?legal?offers?when?selling?surplus?property,?does?not?end?our?inquiry.?We?must?decide?whether?District?made?an?effective?legal?offer?under?the?common?law.

[3]?”?’An?offer?is?the?manifestation?of?willingness?to?enter?into?a?bargain,?so?made?as?to?justify?another?person?in?understanding?that?his?assent?to?that?bargain?is?invited?and?will?conclude?it.’?”?(1?Witkin,?Summary?of?Cal.?Law?(9th?ed.?1987)?Contracts,???128,?pp.?153-154?[hereafter?Witkin],?quoting?Rest.2d?Contracts,???24;?accord?Winnaman?v.?Cambria?Community?Services?Dist.?(1989)?208?Cal.App.3d?49,?57?[256?Cal.Rptr.?40].)?[1c]?District’s?notice?informing?other?public?agencies?that?it?”proposes?to?offer?for?sale,?lease?or?exchange?all?or?a?portion?of?the?[site]?at?fair?market?value”?manifests?a?willingness?to?enter?into?a?bargain,?but?it?does?not?do?so?in?a?way?that?would?justify?an?understanding?that?assent?by?the?recipient?of?the?notice?is?invited?and?will?conclude?the?bargain.

Rather,?the?notice?”suggests?the?terms?of?a?possible?contract”-(1)?sale,?lease,?or?exchange?of?(2)?all?or?a?part?of?a?particular?school?site-“without?making?a?definite?proposal.?The?result?is?a?mere?invitation?to?others?to?make?offers.”?(Witkin,?supra,???133,?at?p.?157.)?District’s?notice?thus?was?a?mere?invitation,?sent?to?13?public?agencies?with?the?hope?that?one?or?more?of?them?[54?Cal.3d?931]?would?express?interest?in?the?property.?Because?it?was?not?an?offer,?it?could?not?be?accepted?by?City’s?notice?in?July?1988,?contrary?to?the?conclusion?of?the?Court?of?Appeal.?Moreover,?the?history?of?negotiations?set?out?above?indicates?that?although?proposals?that?would?qualify?as?offers?were?made,?none?was?ever?accepted.

  1. Conclusion

We?conclude?that?the?common?law?of?contracts?applies?to?transactions?pursuant?to?the?Act?and?that?under?common?law?principles,?City?and?District?did?not?enter?into?a?contract?for?sale.?Accordingly,?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?affirming?the?judgment?in?favor?of?respondents?is?reversed.

Mosk,?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.

FN?1.?All?statutory?references?are?to?this?code?unless?otherwise?noted.

FN?2.?Application?of?the?Act?does?not?hinge?on?a?school?district’s?determination?that?a?site?is?or?is?not?surplus?property.?If?the?criteria?of?section?39391?are?met,?the?Act?applies.

FN?3.?Section?39394?provides:?”Notwithstanding?Section?54222?of?the?Government?Code,?the?governing?board,?prior?to?selling?or?leasing?any?school?site?containing?land?described?in?Section?39391,?excluding?that?portion?of?a?school?site?retained?by?the?governing?board?pursuant?to?Section?39395,?shall?first?offer?to?sell?or?lease?that?portion?of?the?school?site?consisting?of?land?described?in?Section?39391,?excluding?that?portion?retained?by?the?governing?board?pursuant?to?Section?39395,?to?the?following?public?agencies?in?accordance?with?the?following?priorities:

“(a)?First,?to?any?city?within?which?the?land?may?be?situated.

“?*?*?*

“The?governing?board?shall?have?discretion?to?determine?whether?the?offer?shall?be?an?offer?to?sell?or?an?offer?to?lease.

“An?entity?which?proposes?to?purchase?or?lease?a?school?site?offered?by?a?school?district?shall?notify?the?district?of?its?intention,?in?writing,?within?60?days?after?receiving?written?notification?from?the?district?of?its?offer?to?sell?or?lease.”