New Policy Lets County Reject Projects That Would Burden Schools

In a major victory for school districts struggling to absorb skyrocketing enrollments, the Los Angeles County counsel said Thursday that the Board of Supervisors has the power to reject residential developments if the projects will overburden crowded school systems.

The opinion by County Counsel DeWitt W. Clinton reversed a county policy which held that the board could not consider the potential impact on schools when judging a proposed development’s application for a zone change.

The new policy in effect gives school district officials the power to negotiate with developers, granting approval to new construction in return for land, money or other aid.

School officials hailed Clinton’s opinion, but builders said it would delay or kill their projects and would unjustly force developers to shoulder more responsibility for building new schools in rapidly growing parts of the county, especially the Santa Clarita Valley.

To curry the favor of school districts, developers may have to scale back projects, donate land for school sites or pay higher fees, said Don V. Collin, legal counsel to the California Building Industry Assn. in Sacramento. “The blackmail system is beginning to work,” he said, referring to the power of school officials to extract concessions from builders.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich predicted that the opinion would open “floodgates of litigation” between schools and developers. He also said a change in the board’s policy could force developers to pay more for schools than required under a state school financing law.

Board Chairman Ed Edelman told the other supervisors at their meeting Thursday that it is clear the board and the Regional Planning Commission will have to reassess the criteria they use to weigh development proposals. “We’re in a new era, gentlemen,” he said.

Edelman said the board will take the opinion into account, although it may not always side with districts opposing developments. Depending on the case, he said, the supervisors may back the demands of school officials or determine that a new housing project would not unreasonably burden a district.

County attorneys based the opinion on a ruling by the Court of Appeal in San Diego last November that upheld the San Diego City Council’s denial of a zoning change for a housing tract proposed by Mira Development Corp. The appellate court issued a narrow ruling that applied only to projects requiring zone changes and plan amendments.

Until Thursday, the precedent set by the Mira decision had not been felt because no school district had attempted to use it as an argument against approval of a development, Collin said.

But at Thursday’s board meeting, zone changes and plan amendments were proposed that would allow two developers to build 517 houses and condominiums in Castaic. The Castaic Union School District and William S. Hart Union High School District opposed the developments and cited the Mira decision, saying the developments would funnel hundreds of students into two already crowded school systems.

Diane Jacob, a past president of the California School Boards Assn., called Thursday’s action by the Los Angeles County government significant because other cities and counties may be influenced by the state’s most populous county.

Decision Was Delayed

A decision on the two developments had been delayed until the county counsel could review the Mira decision. At Antonovich’s urging, the two developers will meet with officials of the two school districts to negotiate solutions to the districts’ concerns.

Kenneth B. Bley, an attorney for Valencia Co., said the school districts would have an unfair advantage in the negotiations. The company hopes to build 191 houses and 300 condominiums in Castaic. “You’re allowing the school districts to make an offer the developers cannot refuse,” he said.

But Clyde Smyth, superintendent of the Hart district, said school officials would not take advantage of developers. “I don’t think the developers should have to handle the whole problem,” Smyth said. “I don’t think that’s right.”

Jacob, who chairs a school financing committee for the California school board group, praised the Mira decision but feared its impact would be short lived. The decision relied on a provision in a 1987 state law that requires developers to pay school districts $1.56 for every square foot of new residential construction they build.

The aim of the state law, she said, was to establish specific developer contributions for building new schools. Since the Mira decision could force developers to pay more than those fees, it goes against the spirit of the law, Jacob said. She predicted builders would push for legislation to eliminate the provision that produced the Mira decision.

The Los Angeles County counsel’s opinion marks a change of fortune for the Castaic and Hart districts.

In June, 1987, the two districts joined three other Santa Clarita Valley school systems in proposing a special tax on new construction, averaging $6,300 a unit, to build schools. Voters overwhelmingly approved the tax, but in February the state Supreme Court let stand a Court of Appeal ruling that declared the tax unconstitutional.

Now the county counsel’s opinion has opened the door to the possibility that the Santa Clarita districts could reap benefits comparable, if not better, than those declared illegal by the appellate court.