City Council Proposes New Yearlong Development Ban : Ordinance Designed to Take Place of Invalid Moratorium

After the state Court of Appeal invalidated Glendale’s year-old moratorium on apartment and condominium construction, the Glendale City Council on Tuesday introduced legislation to impose a new moratorium effective until Nov. 9, 1990.

“This time, we are going to do it right,” said Councilman Larry Zarian, who introduced the proposed moratorium ordinance.

The moratorium would allow the council more time to continue searching for mechanisms to control the city’s population growth.

The council also signaled through introduction of a second ordinance Tuesday its willingness to allow about 30 building projects now frozen by the present construction ban to proceed under zoning standards that were in place before it was imposed.

Although the moratorium was ruled invalid, the city does not have to issue building permits until its 15-day deadline to appeal the decision expires.

Postponed Vote

The council also postponed for another week a vote on the so-called Design Ordinance, which would terminate the present moratorium. The council wants to make its adoption concurrent with the two ordinances introduced Tuesday--the new moratorium and release of the projects frozen by the ban.

The new moratorium would become effective 30 days after adoption. To avoid a period in which developers could apply for building permits, the council asked planning staff members to prepare for consideration next week a resolution that would allow the city to withhold building permits until the new moratorium goes into effect. That resolution would take effect when it is adopted.

The Court of Appeal ruled Sept. 28 that Glendale had imposed its moratorium illegally because the council had not allowed five days to elapse between its introduction and adoption.

The court ruled that the council had the right to impose a moratorium on building construction, but chastised the city for enacting the moratorium as an emergency ordinance without a five-day waiting period to allow public input.

The proposed moratorium, like the invalid one, is intended to temporarily prevent a flood of applications for building permits while the city studies a zoning ordinance to limit the city’s population to about 200,000, as recommended in the General Plan.

Council members said they need up to another year to draw up permanent limits because the zoning changes they are seeking will require land-use surveys, environmental impact reports, General Plan amendments and extensive public hearings.

In recent weeks, the council had been unable to agree on temporary zoning restrictions to replace the moratorium.

Three council members wanted to reduce by half the number of units allowed per lot, but the other two council members opposed that option, claiming that it was too drastic. The proposed moratorium is a compromise between the two positions.

Until last week’s court ruling invalidated the present moratorium, council members had been reluctant to adopt a new one because city attorneys had expressed doubts that a new building freeze could withstand a legal challenge.

On Aug. 24, Planning Director John McKenna told the city manager in a memorandum that the city “could enact a new moratorium,” but he added that the option is not defensible, said Scott H. Howard, senior assistant city attorney.

McKenna said Tuesday that his report was written before the court decision and thus “doesn’t have a bearing on the current situation.”

‘Very Difficult’

Howard said last week that the city planner had misunderstood him. “I said it would be very difficult--not impossible--to defend a new moratorium in court without a solid reason to impose one,” he said.

City Atty. Frank R. Manzano said the city’s inability to accomplish its goals during the tenure of the present moratorium makes the new freeze susceptible to a legal challenge. “It’s the time element,” he said. “The courts might ask, ‘Why weren’t you doing this six months ago?’ ”

The spokesman for a group of developers that successfully challenged the moratorium said his group would not attempt to halt the proposed building ban.

“The city has the legal right to adopt the new moratorium,” said Haik Vartanian of the Moratorium Litigation Committee.

“At this point, it’s their decision,” he said. “But they’ve gone through an entire year with an illegal moratorium and caused a great deal of suffering to the projects in the pipeline.”

Vartanian said he was considering filing suit against the city for damages and lost profits caused by the present moratorium.

Council members were divided as to whether the city should appeal the Court of Appeal ruling.

“I think it’s time to put this case behind us and move on,” Zarian said. Councilman Dick Jutras agreed.

Court Ruling

But Councilwoman Ginger Bremberg said the city should appeal because although she agreed that the developers were entitled to proceed with their projects, the court ruling interfered with the city’s right to self-government.

The ruling “is inaccurate and contradictory,” Bremberg said. “It upholds our City Charter in one page, then state law in the next. I feel our right to home rule is being challenged and our right to decide our destiny as a city.”

Mayor Jerold Milner said the council will most likely decide Tuesday whether to appeal to keep within the 15-day court deadline.

Manzano said it would be very difficult to obtain a hearing in the Court of Appeal or the state Supreme Court. But he said both possibilities were open to the council.

MORATORIUM SAGA Sept. 19, 1988: The City Council holds study session in Oxnard on growth-control measures.

Sept. 27: The City Council introduces, unanimously adopts and makes effective immediately as an “emergency measure” an ordinance stopping all development in neighborhoods zoned for apartments, townhouses and condominiums for 150 days.

Oct. 4: A group of developers form the Fair Growth Coalition to oppose the moratorium.

Oct. 25: The council rejects a coalition request to exempt from

the moratorium some 70 projects halted in the plan-approval stage.

Nov. 4: The city planning staff unveils a draft ordinance that

would reduce the size and improve the quality of all new apartments.

Nov. 20: The Planning Commission holds the first of four public hearings on the proposed ordinance.

Nov. 21: The Moratorium Litigation Committee, an offshoot of the Fair Growth Coalition, files suit against the city, claiming that the moratorium was improperly enacted and therefore void.

Dec. 29: Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Miriam A. Vogel rules that while the city erred in not allowing five days between the introduction and passage of the moratorium ordinance as required by the City Charter, the builders do not have a vested right to building permits. Vogel grants the plaintiffs a reconsideration hearing.

Jan. 10, 1989: Without a five-day waiting period, the council adopts another ordinance extending the moratorium to April 24.

Jan. 26: Vogel blasts city officials for defying the intent of her ruling by incorrectly extending the moratorium.

Jan. 31: The City Council reintroduces the Jan. 10 ordinance for approval the next week.

Feb. 6: Upon reconsideration, Vogel rules in favor of developers and orders the city to issue building permits. The city appeals. Vogel’s order is stayed.

Feb. 7: The council adopts a moratorium extension ordinance identical to the one of Jan. 10, except for the addition of an “emergency” clause intended to make it effective immediately.

Feb. 13: At the final of four hearings, the Planning Commission endorses the proposed zoning ordinance with minor modifications and sends it to the council for final approval.

Feb. 21: The City Council adopts a resolution, which requires no waiting period, to extend the moratorium until May 21 to hold public hearings.

March 28: After three public hearings, the council is told by city planners that the proposed zoning ordinance would only have a marginal effect in reducing population growth. Council members start calling the proposal the Design Ordinance. They instruct the staff to begin work on a new ordinance to limit population growth. Planners say the new ordinance will not be ready until at least February, 1990.

April 25: With another resolution, the council extends the moratorium to Aug. 22 or until the Design Ordinance is adopted. Although the council no longer believes that the Design Ordinance is the solution, the language of the original moratorium ties the two together.

June 20: Councilman Carl Raggio proposes replacing the moratorium with temporary zoning controls that would reduce by half the number of units allowed. Three council members vote in favor, but City Atty. Frank R. Manzano advises that zoning ordinances require four votes for approval. Unable to agree on temporary zoning restrictions, the council postpones action for the 10th time on the moratorium-ending Design Ordinance.

July 11: A third resolution extends the moratorium until Feb. 28, 1990, or until the Design Ordinance is adopted. Raggio reintroduces his proposal for interim controls and falls short once again. Council members Dick Jutras and Larry Zarian say it’s too drastic.

Sept. 21: Under pressure from public officials, Manzano reverses his previous stance, advising the council that Raggio’s proposal can be approved by resolution on a simple majority vote. With that issue resolved, Zarian finally introduces the Design Ordinance after 19 postponements for a vote.

Sept. 26: The city submits arguments against Vogel’s ruling to the state Court of Appeal.

Sept. 28: The appellate court quickly upholds Vogel’s ruling, adding that the resolutions adopted by the council are also invalid because zoning issues must be legislated through ordinances.

Oct. 3: The council introduces ordinances to enact a new moratorium and allow the projects held up to proceed under present zoning standards. The Design Ordinance vote is postponed another week.