Saddleback OK Given to Higher Building Fees

In a move applauded by parents and bitterly criticized by developers, the Saddleback Valley Unified School District on Monday night unanimously passed a resolution that could raise building fees 500% or more.

The move sets no fee outright but will allow the school district to negotiate with various developers about the financing that is needed to build permanent classrooms to accompany the new homes now on the drawing board in the Mission Viejo and south Orange County area.

The school board trustees, in approving the motion 5 to 0, said their intent is to prevent overcrowded classrooms from being caused by new development. The new policy, the board said, will seek fees, or other financing, sufficient to build permanent new schools as needed.

‘Find Other Ways’

“In the past, schools have been built by the state or by school bond issues,” school board member Dore J. Gilbert said. “Since that’s not possible any longer, it’s incumbent on us to find other ways to build schools for the new development that is coming in.”

The board’s new policy, in essence, says: no money for schools, no growth.

“The district (will) oppose any future development taking place within the district unless there is adequate provision taken to ensure that there will be permanent and temporary facilities for students generated by the development,” the board’s resolution said.

A key part of the board’s new policy reads: “The district (will) not enter into any interim facilities agreements to facilitate the issuance of building permits for residential construction within district boundaries unless and until parties seeking building permits provide adequate assurances that permanent facilities will be available for students generated by the residential construction.”

Saddleback Valley Unified has in the past charged a fee of $1,200 per new unit. Peter Hartman, superintendent of the district, said the fee could go up to as much as $6,000 or $7,000 under the new policy.

Hartman explained after the board meeting that the Orange County Board of Supervisors has empowered school districts to negotiate with developers about the impact of new homes. If suitable arrangements are made for schools, a school district “signs off” the project and tells county officials that it has no objection to the proposed development.

If no agreement is reached, Hartman added, a school board can try to halt a proposed development through the environmental impact statement that must accompany each development.

Developers and their representatives at the meeting urged the school board to delay action. They said they had not received sufficient notice of the proposed changes.

Philip Bettencourt, representing the Building Industry Assn. of Orange County, said: “Our industry is profoundly distressed by your resolution.” He said the board’s move was “just not responsible public policy.”

Bob Albertson of Presley Cos., a development firm, said: “I’m disappointed. . . . Lines are being drawn in battle.”

But parents in the audience told the board that they think the new policy is a good and timely one.

One district resident, Bonnie Johnson of El Toro, told the school board that she thinks the developers for too long have “been a part of the problem” and not a part of the solution. Johnson, in addressing some of the builders in the audience, said: “Just as porta-potties are unfit for bathrooms in homes, so are portable classrooms unfit for classrooms.”

Other residents also went to the speaker’s podium to praise the school board for clamping down on developers.

One person who spoke for the developers was Gordon Getchel, a trustee of the Irvine Unified School District board. Getchel told the Saddleback Valley board that he was appearing before it as a consultant for the Baldwin Co., which is proposing a major development in the area. Getchel said he was sure that the board would urge its staff “to be flexible” in implementing the new policy.