Santa Clarita Holds to Disputed Court Ruling

Santa Clarita city officials say they are abiding by a controversial state appellate court decision that gives cities and counties the authority to reject proposed housing developments that would lead to overcrowded schools.

The stance by the 22-month-old city contradicts a legal opinion Los Angeles County Counsel De Witt W. Clinton has offered to the Board of Supervisors. Clinton’s advice to disregard the court case was hailed by developers but criticized by school districts struggling to serve spiraling enrollment.

Santa Clarita City Atty. Carl K. Newton has informally advised the City Council to follow the court ruling. He is scheduled to present a formal opinion Monday.

The decision--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 win their support by giving land or money for new schools.

The state Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the Mira case.

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

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

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 soon consider comparable resolutions.

Clinton now contends that the Mira case violated a state financing law by granting schools the ability to extract concessions from developers. The financing law already requires developers to pay a school-construction fee of $1.56 for every square foot of new building. The Mira decision could force developers to make concessions exceeding the required fee, Clinton wrote in his opinion.

Richard R. Wirth, a lobbyist for the Building Industry Assn. said the city of Santa Clarita could be open to litigation if it clings to a disputed interpretation of the Mira decision.