Court Upholds Local Limits on Rezoning : Growth: Ruling says development plans may be rejected if they would overtax public schools.

Local planning commissioners can deny residential construction proposals that require a zoning change if they believe the development would overburden public schools, according to a recent state appellate court decision.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that cities and counties may also make construction approvals contingent on a developer donating money, or land, to school districts in addition to payment of state fees.

The decision was greeted with enthusiasm by school officials, who said it will provide them with more leverage to get the facilities they need.

But Los Angeles County--the loser in the suit--probably will appeal, said Charles J. Moore, principal deputy county counsel.

“We feel the appellate court decision poses more questions than it answers,” Moore told the county Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday. “This is at least confusing, if not harmful” to the county, he said.

The suit was filed against the county in 1989 by two crowded Santa Clarita Valley school districts which were unsuccessful in efforts to force the Regional Planning Commission to block a 2,500-unit housing development in Saugus because it would inundate their schools with students.

At that time and in subsequent litigation, county lawyers maintained that the state had stripped the county of the ability to deny projects on that basis in 1986, when the Legislature imposed fees on developers for public schools. Builders are currently required to pay school districts $1.58 per square foot of residential construction.

Hamilton C. Smyth, superintendent of the William S. Hart Union High School District, which filed the suit along with the Saugus Union School District, said the $9 million in developer fees collected by his district since 1986 would barely pay for a junior high school, not to mention the new high school that will be desperately needed by 1992.

“We’re drowning in kids,” Smyth said, adding that the developer fees pay only “about a third of what is really necessary to handle the school construction needs.”

Statewide, as districts try to respond quickly to enrollment growth, developer fees have primarily paid for temporary trailer-style classrooms while new schools have been built with public bond money, said Henry Heydt, assistant director of school facilities planning for the state Department of Education.

But the bond issues have not kept pace with the state’s burgeoning population of children, Heydt said, leading to a $6-billion shortfall this year. Within five years, he said, $17 billion will be needed to house the projected 1.1 million new students.

The Building Industry Assn. of Southern California minimized the significance of the ruling, saying that local officials and school districts already have broad powers to attach taxes and fees to developments.

“It’s been an option for some time, but if they don’t want to, they don’t have to,” said association attorney Terry Tao.

The association has supported legislation aimed at weakening an earlier San Diego court ruling that was similar to the appellate panel’s decision.

Statewide government organizations said the appellate court’s decision gives school districts greater leverage in pressuring planning commissioners to require more of developers.

“This is going to place the heat back on the cities and counties to seriously consider schools when they allow development,” said Leslie McFadden, senior consultant to the state Senate Local Government Committee.

“It’s always been a little unclear. People interpreted current law the way they wanted to and . . . if they wanted to hide behind it, they could say, ‘We have no power to condition this development based on schools.’ ”