City Attorney Signals End to Apartment Moratorium : Manzano Says Only 3 Council Votes Needed

A change of opinion this week by Glendale City Atty. Frank Manzano has set the stage for a possible end Tuesday to the city’s yearlong moratorium on apartment construction.

Under pressure from two City Council members, Manzano abandoned his position that the council would need four of five votes to adopt interim growth-control measures to replace the moratorium.

Twice since July, Councilman Carl Raggio had introduced an ordinance that would reduce by half the number of apartment units allowed per lot. On both occasions, the ordinance fell one vote short of the four that Manzano said was necessary for all zoning changes.

But last Tuesday, before the City Council meeting, Manzano said he believes that a simple majority will suffice for adoption of temporary zoning standards.

Dick Jutras and Larry Zarian oppose the 50% temporary zoning reduction proposed by Raggio as too drastic.

Mayor Jerald Milner and Councilwoman Ginger Bremberg, on the other hand, said the 50% reduction is the minimum the city needs to keep the population within the General Plan cap of 200,000.

Manzano’s change of opinion broke the council’s two-month deadlock and paved the way for the lifting of the moratorium, which would occur automatically when the council adopts a so-called “Design Ordinance.”

Zarian introduced the ordinance, which would do little more than improve the city’s aesthetic appearance, at Tuesday’s council meeting. The council is expected to consider next week whether to adopt it.

But planning staff members are working on an ordinance that would establish permanent zoning controls to limit the city’s population. Milner asked that the temporary growth-control resolution be brought back for council consideration next week. Before Tuesday, the design ordinance had been postponed 19 times because council members were unable to agree on temporary zoning standards to replace the building freeze.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the two councilmen who oppose the temporary standards proposed by Raggio will vote for the design ordinance, which does need four votes for adoption.

The council unanimously adopted the moratorium last September to prevent an overflow of building applications while the city considered zoning changes to control growth. Two months later, the planning staff introduced a draft ordinance that council members saw as the solution to the city’s rampant growth, which was blamed for problems such as school crowding, traffic snarls and a rising crime rate.

Months later, council members acknowledged that the proposed ordinance, which they began calling the design ordinance, would do little more than improve the city’s aesthetic appearance.

In June, council members asked staff to begin work on a new zoning ordinance to achieve the council’s oft-stated goal of preventing Glendale’s population from greatly exceeding the General Plan cap. Glendale’s population is now estimated at 165,000.

Such a permanent ordinance would require amending the General Plan, environmental impact studies and a series of public hearings--a process that would not be completed until at least next February, city planners said.

Without new controls, city planning officials have warned that Glendale’s population could grow to 300,000.

In July, the council extended the moratorium to February, 1990, or until the design ordinance is adopted. Council members said they needed the moratorium extension to examine the ordinance carefully.

But an Aug. 24 memorandum by Planning Director John McKenna fueled long-held suspicions of developers that the council was purposely dragging its feet. In the memorandum, McKenna advised council members to delay ending the moratorium until they could agree on temporary zoning controls.

A group of developers sued the city last November because their projects in the final plan-approval stages were being stalled by the building freeze. A second lawsuit filed by the same group, representing about 25 projects, challenges the validity of the moratorium’s three extensions.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the developers in the first suit, but the city appealed. On Tuesday, both sides submitted their arguments to the appellate court, which has 90 days to rule. The decision could be rendered as soon as next week. The court has delayed the second lawsuit until the first one is resolved.

As the court pressure mounted, Milner and Bremberg made it clear that they disagreed with Manzano’s contention that the temporary growth control measures needed four votes instead of three. Last week, Bremberg said she was considering requesting that the city hire outside counsel to advise it on how many votes are needed.

By Tuesday, Manzano had changed his mind. “Our research of recent court decisions leads me to believe that the interim ordinance can be adopted by simple majority,” he said.

Jutras and Zarian were shocked to learn after the council meeting that their two votes were no longer enough to block the interim ordinance. Their only option for preventing the temporary measures is to vote down the design ordinance.

“I don’t know what’s worse,” Jutras said. “Extending the moratorium by voting against the design ordinance or allowing the interim standards.”

Zarian and Jutras have said that the interim standards would create a precedent for the permanent ordinance before the public had its say. “There’s no such thing as an interim ordinance in this city,” Zarian said.