Judge Upholds Building Freeze in Glendale Despite Flaws

A Superior Court judge Thursday upheld a 150-day moratorium on building permits adopted by the Glendale City Council in September.

Judge Miriam Vogel ruled that while the moratorium’s implementation was technically flawed, there was no evidence that it was illegal.

The 5-month building freeze was adopted unexpectedly Sept. 27 as an emergency ordinance to prevent an overflow of building-permit applications during a reevaluation of the city’s building and zoning codes.

The Moratorium Litigation Committee, a consortium of developers, sued the city in November and asked the court to order the city to stop the moratorium. They argued that the moratorium was invalid because the City Council did not wait 5 days between the introduction and passage of the emergency ordinance, as required by the city charter.

The council adopted the building freeze in response to residents’ complaints about traffic congestion and parking shortages and claims that the city has a glut of apartments and that schools are crowded. The problems are most severe in the city’s southeastern neighborhoods, residents said.

Offshoot Organization

The Moratorium Litigation Committee is an offshoot of a larger group of developers called the Glendale Fair Growth Coalition. Committee members say the moratorium is unfair because the city halted review of plans already submitted to the city by developers.

Vogel ruled that the ordinance was invalid until the 5-day period elapsed. But she found that the developers did not prove that the adoption of the ordinance did not comply with the law once the required waiting period had expired.

Edwin Schreiber, the committee’s attorney, said he will ask Vogel to reconsider her decision. If the judge upholds her ruling, Schreiber said, he will recommend that his clients appeal.

“I think the judge has confused when an ordinance becomes operative with whether the ordinance is valid in the first place,” Schreiber said.

Senior City Atty. Scott Howard refused immediate comment. He said he wanted to read the judge’s written opinion.