PLAN! Asks City to Split Growth Measure Into Two : Election: Group wants city to put two measures before voters, instead of one shot down by a judge.

The growth control group Prevent Los Angelization Now! asked the San Diego City Council on Monday to place on next June’s ballot a revised version of a growth management initiative ruled unconstitutional by a judge.

Although the council voted unanimously to consider that request in a closed session today, a number of council members voiced strong skepticism about PLAN’s suggestion that the initiative be split into two ballot measures.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to reform their initiative for them,” Councilman Tom Behr said. “I’m not prepared to play judge with this.”

Similarly, Councilman Ron Roberts argued that division of the initiative, which would establish several new growth-control standards but also specifies that construction workers be paid “prevailing” wages, would “change what people originally signed” in the effort to put the proposal on the ballot.

“Who knows how many people signed because of the growth provisions and how many because of the wage idea?” Roberts asked. “If we put this on (the ballot) in two parts, we’d be doing something that’s different than what was on the petitions. Generally, I don’t think we should make changes like that after the fact.”

However, Mayor Maureen O’Connor, noting that about 82,000 San Diegans signed petitions to place the measure on the ballot, said she believes that the council should “bend over backwards” to try to give the public an opportunity to vote on the initiative.

“If there’s no legal problem, I think the people deserve that chance,” O’Connor said.

Monday’s council action was spawned by a ruling two weeks ago by Superior Court Judge James Milliken in which he said that the initiative’s provisions calling for prevailing wages for construction workers violated a state constitutional mandate restricting such measures to single subjects.

The wage requirements, Milliken ruled, were “not reasonably germane” to the purpose of the Planned Growth and Taxpayer Relief Initiative, which would force builders to pay their share of city services necessitated by new development. In addition, the measure would prohibit new construction if the growth reduced the number of police per capita or increased the likelihood of water shortages, water rationing or higher water rates.

Although PLAN officials, who mounted a $122,000 signature-gathering campaign on behalf of the initiative, contend that it would prevent development from burdening the city’s budget, critics in the building industry and business community warn that it would virtually halt growth and dramatically drive up housing prices.

In urging the council to address Milliken’s objection by placing the initiative on the ballot in two parts--one dealing with the growth limits, and the other with the wage provisions--PLAN political director Gary Rotto argued that that approach would “avoid a costly and time-consuming appeal” of the judge’s ruling.

However, if the council rejects PLAN’S request, Rotto said, the organization’s “second choice” is for the city to pursue an expedited appeal of Milliken’s decision.

Even PLAN’s fallback position, though, drew criticism from some council members.

“Given other priorities for spending money and staff time, I’d be very hard-pressed to authorize this expenditure,” Behr said.