Bill Abruptly Dropped as Slow-Growth Forces Rally

SACRAMENTO — Legislation described as an attack on community growth controls was abruptly dropped by its author Wednesday amid signs that there were not enough votes to pass the bill on an emergency basis so it could become law in time to affect slow-growth measures on the November ballot.

Slow-growth advocates credited a widening statewide network of activists for the demise of the bill, which had sailed--little noticed--over several previous hurdles with hardly a stumble.

As the Legislature approached a scheduled midnight adjournment of its 1988 session, Sen. Jim Ellis (R-San Diego) dropped the measure one step short of final approval, at the request, he said, of the bill’s special-interest sponsor--the California Building Industry Assn.

Declines Discussion

Ellis, obviously upset, would not discuss the matter further. Representatives of the industry group were not available for comment.

The bill would have given developers automatic nine-month extensions on their building permits when citizens or local governments approved slow-growth measures. Under current law, building permits are good for six months, and passage of local slow-growth measures simply prevents them from being extended.

Opponents of the bill had characterized it as an end run around the local initiative process. They charged that the bill would have allowed developers to stockpile building permits when they anticipated that voters or local governments were going to limit growth.

Quirk in Law

But the bill’s supporters said the legislation was needed only to avoid a quirk in the law that forces builders to put down concrete slabs as a way to keep their construction permits alive and then let the foundations sit unfinished for months or even years.

Until Wednesday, the bill seemed headed for certain passage. It was approved on a 56-7 vote in the Assembly last week, and the Senate had approved an earlier version of the bill on a 28-0 vote. The bill, as written, needed 54 votes in the Assembly and 27 in the Senate.

The Sierra Club, once the bill’s primary opponent, had agreed to take a neutral position on the measure after the builders agreed to amendments decreasing the length of the permit extensions to nine months from 24 months, which the bill had called for in its original form.

The turnaround apparently came after news reports about the bill prompted government agencies and citizen groups to rally in opposition.

“This is a case of catching them in the act and exposing the whole thing to the light of day,” said Linda Martin, secretary of Save California, a statewide coalition of slow-growth groups.

Paula Carrell, a Sierra Club lobbyist, said: “Everybody caught up with this bill late in the year and it finally paid off. People said, ‘Now we know what those guys are up to and it isn’t good.’ ”

Lines Up Votes

Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles) said he began working against the bill on the Senate floor after he heard of the overwhelming approval in the Assembly. He said he had lined up enough votes to stop Ellis from gaining the two-thirds majority needed to win passage of the bill as an emergency measure, which would have taken effect immediately upon being signed by the governor.

The builders reportedly wanted the urgency clause so that the bill would become law before the November elections, when several California areas, including Riverside and San Diego counties, will have slow-growth measures on the ballot. The bill would not have affected growth limits already in place.