Bill to Aid Builders Hit by Growth Laws Gains : Assembly Passes Measure to Give Extensions on Permits in Move Called Attack on Local Controls

In a move criticized as a “direct attack” on local growth controls, the Assembly passed legislation Tuesday that would give developers automatic extensions on building permits when citizens approve slow-growth initiatives.

The bill, by Sen. Jim Ellis (R-San Diego), would also grant the nine-month permit extensions to builders adversely affected by growth-limiting laws passed by city councils or county boards of supervisors.

The urgency measure was approved on a 56-7 vote and returned to the Senate for action on Assembly amendments. If approved in the upper house and signed by the governor, the legislation would take effect in time for the November elections, when several California communities, including Riverside and San Diego counties, will have slow-growth measures on their ballots. The bill would not affect growth limits already in place.

Gov. George Deukmejian has no position on the bill, a spokeswoman said.

Opponents of the measure characterized the legislation as an end run around the initiative process, a way for builders to stockpile construction permits that would be good for as long as 15 months--the six months on the original permit and a nine-month extension--when they anticipate that voters or local governments are going to limit growth.

But the bill’s supporters said it is meant only to avoid a problem caused when builders 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.

Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), usually one of the Assembly’s staunchest supporters of private property rights, opposed the Ellis measure as “an affront and an attack on the concept of local control.”

“Basically what this bill says is that when voters of a community say they want to slow the rate of development, we’re automatically going to grant an extension to all the permits that have been issued,” said McClintock, whose Ventura County district includes nine cities that have some kind of building controls. “I think that’s poor public policy.”

The bill, sponsored by the California Building Industry Assn., originally sought a 24-month extension for building permits. The Sierra Club, which fought the bill in its earlier form, took no position on the measure after the builders agreed to amendments that would limit the extensions to nine months.

Still, Paula Carrell, a Sacramento lobbyist for the Sierra Club, characterized the measure as a defeat for slow-growth advocates. She said the environmental group was forced to accept a compromise because backers of the bill had sufficient votes to win approval for a stronger measure if they were willing to wait until January to let it take effect.

“The bill is set up to allow them (builders) to stockpile permits and frustrate the initiative process,” Carrell said.

But Assemblyman Dan Hauser (D-Arcata), who sponsored the bill on the Assembly floor, said the measure would allow developers to take a reasonable period to build their projects after slow-growth initiatives are passed.

“If a local community decides to limit the number of building permits, the way to get around that under current law is to pour a lot of foundations that are going to sit there on the hillsides and the land of California until the buildings are actually needed,” Hauser said. “What this does is give a little more time, a little more orderly process.”

Hauser said developers would not use the bill to stockpile permits.

“It is no longer simple to go out and get a stack of building permits,” he said. “It’s a very expensive proposition.”

The bill would not change the rarely used authority of cities or counties to revoke or suspend building permits when such an action is necessary to protect public health and safety.