Santa Clarita Backs Schools on Growth Issue : Education: A controversial court ruling provides a way for schools to use development controls to help avoid overcrowded classrooms, despite a ruling to the contrary from the L.A. County counsel.

Santa Clarita city officials say they are abiding by a controversial state appellate court decision that gives school districts leverage to head off classroom crowding by controlling housing development, despite a recommendation by the Los Angeles County counsel to the Board of Supervisors to disregard the ruling.

Santa Clarita City Atty. Carl K. Newton has informally advised the City Council to follow the court ruling, to the satisfaction of local school officials.

But in light of the opinion by County Counsel De Witt W. Clinton, Santa Clarita city officials asked their own legal staff this week to review the court ruling. Newton is scheduled to present his opinion to the council Monday night.

The decision--formally known as Mira Development Corp. vs. City of San Diego--does not directly give schools veto power over development. But in effect, the decision gives schools legal leverage to win concessions from developers.

The Mira decision held that cities and counties could take into consideration the effect of proposed housing developments on local school capacity in deciding whether to approve zoning for them. Because school officials could block a development by objecting that it would overburden their classrooms, developers could be forced to woo their support by giving them land or money for new schools.

One builder called the impact of Mira blackmail. Another called it extortion.

Four months ago, the county counsel told the supervisors that they had to follow the Mira decision, but reversed his advice in an Oct. 19 memo.

Santa Clarita’s city legal staff has consistently told City Council members and planning commissioners that they could use the Mira decision as a legal justification to reject zoning changes for housing projects that could increase the population and cause school overcrowding.

This month, the city Planning Commission took the Mira decision to heart when it ordered a developer hoping to build 1,400 condominiums to meet with school officials to discuss how to handle extra students.

Santa Clarita Valley school trustees have rushed to bolster the city’s previous interpretations of the Mira case.

On Tuesday night, the trustees of the William S. Hart Union High School District called on the city to uphold Mira and to reject housing developments unless the state or developers provide money to build new schools in the rapidly growing area.

Trustees of the Saugus Union Elementary School District passed a similar resolution last week, and trustees in the Castaic, Sulphur Springs and Newhall districts are expected to consider comparable resolutions soon.

Clyde Smyth, superintendent of the Hart district, said the district passed the resolution to support the city. “It’s really, more than anything, a reaffirmation of what the city has already been doing,” Smyth said.

Smyth said the school districts are not opposed to growth. They oppose growth that does not provide for schools. For this reason, small projects are not necessarily better than larger ones, he said. The key is providing for the new students, he said.

In the Castaic district, for example, Supt. Scott Brown recently wrote to the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission to commend Cook Ranch Associates, developers of the 5,100-unit Northlake residential development north of Castaic. Brown did not endorse the project outright, but said that the developer’s willingness to help find a site for a school should be considered by planners reviewing Cook Ranch’s application.

Brown and Smyth said they were disappointed but not surprised by the county’s reversal on the Mira case, saying that they had heard rumors such a decision was coming.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the building industry praised the county counsel’s opinion. Richard R. Wirth, executive director of the government affairs council of the Building Industry Assn., also known as BIA, said Clinton was merely complying with the state school financing law.

Because the Mira case gave schools the ability to extract concessions from developers, it violated a state school financing law already requiring developers to pay a $1.56-school-construction fee for every square foot of new building, Clinton concluded. Mira could force developers to pay more than the required fee, he wrote.

“We’re pleased he reaffirms what we’ve always believed,” Wirth said. “He’s not made a political decision, he’s made a legal decision.”

Wirth said the opinions of the Los Angeles County counsel often influence the attorneys for other counties throughout the state.

As for the city of Santa Clarita, Wirth said it was free to interpret Mira as it pleases, but could open itself to litigation if it clings to a disputed interpretation of the Mira decision.

If the city should use Mira to reject a development--and a builder sues the city as a result--the BIA would strongly consider joining the builder in its legal fight, Wirth said.

But Newton, the city attorney, said Santa Clarita could face lawsuits regardless of what it does. “If the city takes the county counsel’s opinion, it could be exposed to litigation from the school districts. If we take a position contrary, the city could be exposed to litigation from the developers,” Newton said.