San Lor. Val. Commu. Adv for Resp. Edu. v. San Lor. Val. Uni. School Di.- I
School district's decision to close schools was categorically exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act where closings would not cause new schools to add more than 10 new classrooms or increase student populations by more than 25 percent, and where evidence presented by opponents of closure did not support claim that unusual circumstances existed so as to take the decision out of the categorical exemption. School district did not violate state law by using voter-authorized construction bond funds to pay salaries and associated training costs for personnel involved in construction project, to pay printing costs and attorney fees in connection with the preparation of the bonds, to pay for deferred maintenance and repair of septic system on campus, or to pay for demographic and geo-coding studies, consultants, mold reports, a CEQA study, and moving and leasing of portable classrooms in connection with school closures. With respect to cause of action for violation of California Public Records Act, trial court properly excluded testimony regarding CPRA request made by witness who was not a plaintiff and not, at the time the request was made, a member of the organizational plaintiff. Provisions of the Education Code that mandate community involvement in decisions involving school closures and the use of surplus property do not dictate that any particular type of information be provided to members of advisory committee appointed under those provisions. It is sufficient that district make a good faith attempt to provide committee with information that is complete and accurate, and any deficiency in providing information will not be deemed a statutory violation absent showing of prejudice. Claim that district violated public participation statutes applicable to sale, rental, or lease of surplus property by declaring property surplus rather than allowing committee to make that decision and by failing to include representatives from all of the groups listed in statute on the committee was not ripe where district had not yet proposed to sell, rent, or lease the property.
Comments on San Lor. Val. Commu. Adv for Resp. Edu. v. San Lor. Val. Uni. School Di.- I