Disney Delays Push for Long Beach Theme Park : Legislation: Entertainment firm hopes compromise can be reached next year on $3-billion harbor resort.

Declaring that the firm “ran out of time to reach an agreement,” the Walt Disney Co. on Wednesday announced that it is giving up trying to win passage this year of a controversial bill that would make it easier to build a $3-billion theme resort at the Port of Long Beach.

“We have elected to defer consideration until next year,” said Joe Shapiro, Disney’s senior vice president and general counsel. But Shapiro said he remains optimistic that a compromise can be reached that will win legislative approval in 1992.

The firm has not made a final decision to proceed with the Port Disney project or with a competing plan for a new theme park adjacent to Disneyland in Anaheim. Should the company decide on the Long Beach project, Shapiro predicted the delay would not affect the timetable for its opening in the year 2000. Nor, he said, does the decision give Anaheim an edge in the race with Long Beach.

However, the step represents a setback--even if temporary--for the entertainment giant known for its golden touch, according to lawmakers and lobbyists who have followed the bill.

Disney had paved the way for the legislation by increasing its profile in Sacramento, dramatically boosting its campaign contributions in the past year and hiring lobbyist Donald K. Brown, one of Sacramento’s best-known advocates.

But the company, whose project has generated widespread support from business and labor groups in Long Beach, appears to have miscalculated the strength of environmental opposition and reservations by lawmakers about amending the Coastal Act, lawmakers say.

When Sen. Ken Maddy (R-Fresno) introduced the measure in March, Disney officials said it was needed merely to clarify the authority of the state Coastal Commission to approve landfill required for the project. Port Disney in Queensway Bay would include hotels, restaurants, shops, boat slips, a cruise ship terminal and a theme park, called Disney Sea.

The measure immediately sparked opposition from the staff of the state Coastal Commission and officials of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, who said the Coastal Act does not allow landfill for amusement or theme parks. The Disney portion of the project would require at least 170 acres of landfill.

For more than three months, the measure has been stalled in the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee, where several members have sought additional concessions from Disney. Acceding to legislative complaints, Disney narrowed the focus of the Maddy bill so it would only affect Long Beach, not other stretches of coastline. Eventually, the Coastal Commission dropped its opposition.

In the meantime, Disney and several senators and their staff members began a series of closed-door negotiating sessions in the Capitol.

But several sticking points remained in the negotiations, according to Disney officials and senators who participated in the talks. The major snag was over a formula for lessening environmental damage caused by the project.

At issue was how much money Disney would have to spend or how many acres of coastline it would have to restore as a trade-off for adding new landfill in the Port of Long Beach.

Last week, two senators accused Disney of arrogance and of reneging on a deal to wait until next year to pursue the legislation. The lawmakers were upset that the company submitted amendments to the Maddy bill that committed Disney and Long Beach to up to $52.5 million in “mitigation” measures to make up for the environmental damage that the project would cause. Disney officials said they had not intended to snub the senators.

Shapiro acknowledged that the talks were hung up on the mitigation issue. “Disney accepted the concept of enhanced mitigation but we could not reach closure on a specific formula,” Shapiro said.

“We ran out of time to reach a detailed agreement,” said Shapiro, who had hoped to see the measure get through the Legislature this year. On Wednesday, Maddy agreed to a request from Disney officials to delay considering the bill until next year.

Among the reasons Shapiro cited for wanting the bill shelved were a shortening timetable to get the proposal out of the Legislature before this year’s session ends in September and the current state budget crisis, which has occupied lawmakers’ attention.

“They came a long way in recognizing the need for mitigation,” said Sen. Henry Mello (D-Watsonville), who has opposed filling Queensway Bay for Port Disney. Mello said another snag was over hiring goals sought by lawmakers to ensure that Disney’s work force reflects the ethnic and racial diversity of the Long Beach area.

Mello speculated that Disney officials failed to fully gauge the intense concern about the coastline and thought that once they hired a lobbyist the measure “would be on a fast track.”

Environmentalists welcomed Disney’s action. “I think it’s an excellent decision on their part so it will give us all time to work out a compromise to preserve the Coastal Act,” said Robert Sulnick, executive director of the American Oceans Campaign.

Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) said the fight against Disney “is not over but it’s definitely a victory at the moment for environmentalists. The principle at question is whether the ocean should be filled in for the interests of one large entertainment company . . . and I’m pleased that for now environmentalists have been so strong.”