Proposed State Area Code Bill Gains Support : Communications: Members of panel working on legislation to block splits and overlays express doubt that phone firms need more numbers.

Support intensified Wednesday for proposed state legislation that would require adoption of number-conservation measures and block future splits and overlays, such as those being proposed for the San Fernando Valley, West Los Angeles and the South Bay.

Four of the six state legislators named to a conference committee created to draw up a compromise plan voiced skepticism Wednesday of phone company assertions that additional area codes are needed.

Committee members include Sens. Richard Alarcon (D-Sylmar), Steve Peace (D-El Cajon) and David G. Kelley (R-Idyllwild), Assembly Speaker Antonio R. Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), and Assemblymen Bill Campbell (R-Villa Park) and Wally Knox (D-Los Angeles), who introduced the bill.

The committee will submit its compromise plan to both houses by Friday, officials said. Supporters of the measure, AB 818, hope the bill will pass and be signed by Gov. Gray Davis before the current legislative session ends Sept. 10.

Although it is too early to predict the measure’s final form, Knox said he will push specifically for a provision to rescind the 310 overlay.

“There cannot be relief for 310 without a reform package, but there could be a reform package that doesn’t help 310,” Knox said. “I am moving every piece of heaven and earth to get it done before we adjourn.”

State utilities regulators released a draft decision early last month that would resume plans for an area code overlay in the 310 region, despite strong opposition from residents and businesses in West Los Angeles and the South Bay.

The draft ruling, written by PUC Commissioner Henry Duque, said opposition came too late to avoid a change in the 310 area, where many phone companies have acquired numbers with the new 424 area code designation. The Public Utilities Commission is set to hear the matter Sept. 16.

“If state and federal regulators think that residents of 310 will be content in knowing that their heroic struggle helped to reform area code plans in the state and across the country--and they will not benefit from that--they have another think coming,” Knox said. “I will be focused on saving the 310 area code.”

The legislation would send a strong message to the Federal Communications Commission that state regulators need broader authority--beyond implementing splits and overlays--to resolve numbering issues, said Alarcon, whose district lies within the 818 area code, where a split has been recommended by an administrative law judge.

Alarcon said he supports provisions in the bill that call for a reduction in how many phone numbers are allocated at one time from 10,000 to 1,000 and the creation of technology-specific area codes for pagers, cellular phones, computer modems and fax machines.

Likewise, Campbell agreed that steps must be taken to place stricter controls on overlays and splits. The Orange County assemblyman’s district is in the 714 area code, which is targeted for an overlay in October 2000.

“The FCC, PUC and the industry itself has taken a head-in-the-sand approach to this issue,” Campbell said. “They have continued to dish out numbers and split area codes instead of trying to control the problem.”

As a result, he added, “we as consumers are suffering under area code proliferation because of an antiquated system of allocating numbers.”

Similarly, Villaraigosa blamed the rapid pace of code changes statewide not on a surge in consumer demand for additional phone lines, but on inefficient distribution.

“There may come a day when overlays are truly necessary,” Villaraigosa said in a prepared statement. “In the meantime, the state Legislature [is insisting] that the Federal Communications Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission take the necessary steps to apportion phone numbers using some common sense.”

While his colleagues expressed detailed views on area code reform, Kelley acknowledged Wednesday that although he is aware of overlays and splits, serving on the committee is the first time he has closely examined the issue.

Kelley said he wanted a clear understanding of federal and state regulations before making a decision that could have a major effect on millions of phone users statewide.

“Whatever we do here,” he said, “we set up a pattern for other communities around California when they face this.”

Committee member Peace could not be reached for comment Wednesday.