Facts

Beginning in 2003, the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District ("MSJC"), based in San Jacinto, California, began to acquire parcels of property for the purpose of developing a satellite campus in the City of Banning. Following its acquisition of land, MSJC (with the cooperation of the City of Banning) began the process of developing a temporary learning facility consisting of four modular classrooms and a modular administration building. Classes commenced at the facility beginning in January 2011, providing services to approximately 100 full-time equivalent students.

In November 2010, petitioner Jayne Abston filed an action alleging that MSJC violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") by selecting and developing the campus site without preparing an environmental impact report.

In January 2011, Craig Britton and Martha Bridges filed a separate lawsuit (Case No. RIC1100658) against MSJC on nearly identical grounds as Abston. In May 2011, the Court consolidated that action with the Abston suit.

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS:
Petitioner sought to halt development of the campus site and shut down the temporary learning center pending the preparation and certification of an environmental impact report.

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:
MSJC contended that Petitioner had not initiated the action until well after the applicable statute of limitations had run. Additionally, MSJC argued that the specific action challenged by Petitioner (the formal approval of a long range development plan) had not actually occurred. MSJC also contended that it had adequately conducted a review of the environmental impacts concerning campus development in 2003, when it initially purchased land in Banning and prepared an initial study.

Result

The Court ruled that MSJC did not prepare an environmental impact report as required by CEQA. As a result, the Court ordered that MSJC prepare an environmental impact report concerning development of the campus. However, the Court also ruled that MSJC could continue operations at the campus. The Court found that CEQA did not require that MSJC halt the continued operation of the campus in spite of petitioner's claim that unspecified environmental harm would occur absent a complete shutdown of MSJC's facility.