Council Fails to Reach Last-Ditch Agreement to Bolster Building Ban : Development: Some call the new moratorium on the construction of single-family homes a toothless tiger. Its provisions weaken the criteria for exemptions.

Malibu’s controversial ban on the construction of single-family homes has been officially extended for another year, but without a hoped-for last-minute compromise over the new law’s criteria for allowing exemptions.

The result, some say, is a toothless tiger.

The City Council’s gridlock on the issue has given developers, building tradespeople and others reason to hope that a moratorium they have long viewed as onerous may be about to lose its bite.

But members of the City Council say they may try to use other means to accomplish what they failed to do when they were unable to reach a last-minute accord to beef up the moratorium provisions.

The new law, passed by a 5-to-0 vote on March 17, took effect Wednesday.

The moratorium on single-family homes--along with a similar ban on multifamily dwellings, commercial properties and new subdivisions--became effective when Malibu became a city last March.

The council unanimously extended the ban on multifamily homes, subdivisions and commercial properties without debate, but the ban on single-family home construction proved to be a thornier issue.

The new single-family home ordinance keeps the moratorium in place, but it weakens the criteria necessary to get an exemption. As approved, it could open the door for projects to escape the moratorium.

It allows the builders of single-family homes to go ahead with their projects as long as they meet height, size, setback and other Los Angeles County standards, and are then approved by the California Coastal Commission.

Slow-growth advocates have castigated the county’s standards as inadequate and say the main reason for cityhood was to allow Malibu to control development.

The county, for example, has no standard with respect to view protection, a sensitive matter in Malibu where ocean views are considered precious.

Failure to reach a last-ditch agreement to strengthen the latest ordinance’s exception criteria--which are not as stringent as any of the council members say they would have preferred--has left the council more divided than ever over the issue.

Under state law, the new moratorium, which expires March 25, 1993, cannot be modified.

This latest development tiff comes as three members of the City Council--Carolyn Van Horn, Mike Caggiano and Missy Zeitsoff--prepare to face reelection April 14.

In the aftermath of a heated debate over the ordinance two weeks ago--and efforts by some council members to alter it right up to last week’s deadline--all of the elected officials have said in separate interviews that they favor swift action to approve one or more laws to ensure tighter development standards.

“Nothing irreversible has happened,” Mayor Larry Wan said. “We can have interim control ordinances establishing building requirements that provide the same protection as any moratorium.”

The mayor said that even though some would-be builders may enter the permit process with the idea of going forward under a weaker set of criteria, the City Council has ample time to put more stringent requirements in place before any future projects become vested.

Vesting describes the point at which a builder establishes the legal right to complete a project. A project is usually considered vested when a foundation has been set.

City officials say that it could take weeks or even months for applicants to clear the necessary hurdles to achieve vesting, enough time for the council to pass new regulations that could supersede the moratorium.

Despite the stated intentions of each of the council members favoring such an approach, council members Van Horn and Walt Keller say they aren’t convinced that their colleagues mean business.

“We’ll see if they mean it or whether they’re just saying that because there’s an election coming up,” said Keller. He and Van Horn frequently have accused the council majority of being too cozy with development interests, something the other members vigorously deny.

By law, Malibu may restrict development for up to 2 1/2 years while it devises a general plan to serve as a blueprint for future development.

However, the law limits to two years the city’s ability to impose moratoriums.

All five council members had expressed the desire to include more stringent requirements in the new law.

Thus far, the City Council has allowed a few residential projects to escape the moratorium when builders have obtained county and Coastal Commission approval.

Such projects were allowed to go forward under county building standards in effect before Malibu incorporated. Barring additional laws the council may impose, the new moratorium provisions would allow any residential project to go forward under the same standards applied to the homes already released.

Keller and Caggiano, who offered competing provisions for setting new exemption guidelines, expressed a desire to get together and hammer out a compromise before last Wednesday’s deadline.

The idea was for the two councilmen to come up with something that then could be acted upon by the entire council in a special meeting that was to have been called before the ordinance went into effect.

However, the two men never got together, prompting a round of last-minute finger-pointing.

Caggiano accused Keller of reneging on a commitment to meet privately with him. Early last week, Keller and Van Horn requested that a special council meeting be held to take up the issue, but Caggiano, Zeitsoff and Wan declined.

Each side accused the other of not being serious about a compromise and said their opponents were trying to use the issue to political advantage prior to the election.