Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I have not posted my “Autopsy of defeat” blog yet. I thought it would be instructive to share just a sample of the comments from Yucca residents after the vote. There were many more. I am not editorializing. That will come in my next blog.

  • “It’s disappointing to know that the Glendale City Council can be so easily bought while practically, completely dismissing the district that will be most adversely affected by this. But, greed is a powerful weapon.”
  • “You have done an outstanding job of pulling the community together for a cause. Even in defeat, we are better for the experience of getting out and meeting our neighbors and talking about what concerns us as Glendale residents.”
  • “I feel compelled to believe that Stonehaven was going to happen regardless of how hard the fight was fought. Money talks and there are many seeking to leave their legacy in the marks left behind after they are long gone.”
  • Unfortunately, those who had the power to make this happen don’t have to live with the result. Stonehaven will be a decade long project that provides absolutely no guarantee to the city or surrounding neighborhoods. Traffic, construction equipment, dust, scorpions, and school crowding don’t affect Jacob Long. They don’t affect Mr. Weiers, the vice mayor or Ms. Tolmachoff either and it is an unfortunate fact that they have a say in the process when it is outside their district. As Glendale residents, we should all have a say in who represents the city not just the district.”
  • “In a city that cannot see fit to pave a street properly, or finish a park (Heroes) or develop a traffic plan for game days without stepping all over the local residents, I should have expected nothing less than Pulte and JFLP LLC getting their way. “People don’t want lawns”? I heard there were many condos over at Westgate that are for sale still for those who want small lots. Zanjero remains a thought as well. Glendale hasn’t delivered on promises for years.”
  • “That must have been some awesome pizza and ice cream.”
  • “As we know, Money talks.”
  • “They better finish Heroes Park. Stonehaven won’t have anything recreational for all of those people.”
  • “I hope everyone remembers this when the next election comes up for Mayor of Glendale. Like someone said, money talks. I think Stonehaven will end up being the downfall of the west side. It may take a few years but I believe it will happen.”
  • “Going into this we all knew it would be a battle. The decision was already made and that was that.”
  • “Just don’t be too surprised if a few years into this they don’t come back and want to create more 4000 SF lots out of some of the other larger lots. A precedent has been set, sadly. Also, not sure how many of you picked up on the verbiage of a couple other items. 1.) The builder left open the “option” of another builder possibly coming in or taking over or participating in the project. Meaning, all the fluff of Pulte Homes being a “Premiere Builder” could be all for naught if a lesser “quality” builder decides they want to participate or worse, take over. 2.) The little “carrot” the builder offered that was so eagerly accepted (except by Ms. Clark) was the, again “option”, to build Bethany Home Rd. sooner than originally offered. Meaning, they likely aren’t going to change a thing. So, that secondary vote was a complete joke and utter waste of time.”
  • “Time will tell. If everyone would look at the homes south of Camelback and 87th ave and also the new ones at Copper cove they will see how the Cookie Cutter homes will look on the small lots. If I lived next to that in Missouri Ranch or on 87th ave I would be OUTRAGED.”
  • “This has made us stronger as a district and a community . I hope we as a district stay involved.”
  • “I just moved into Missouri Ranch 2 months ago. Just bought my house so I didn’t understand what has been going on until now. I am absolutely outraged right now. I have a huge lot which was so hard to find. I definitely worry about the tons of people and the traffic. Why do they just stuff people wherever there is a crevice of land? Not happy!”
  • “I guess it doesn’t matter what the residents want. Money talks. I moved to the area for the great amount of space because the lots are huge. I don’t have a patio size backyard. All I can do is shake my head in disappointment.”
  • “Something else we can do is vote. Mr. Weiers’ days are numbered as mayor. He didn’t get my vote last time, he certainly won’t get it the next time around…if he even runs.”
  • “I had asked residents in the area to contact the mayor and council by email and phone for weeks but as you can see it did nothing for all our many hours we spent. Hopefully the homes they build will not be little cracker box homes, all 600 of them. You can see what it looks like on 87th ave where they all look alike. The builders love it because they make more money.”
  • “I wanted to chime in on behalf of Copper Cove… even we (as a neighborhood) aren’t a good example of what Stonehaven will ultimately look like. We have only a handful of “small” lots, and even those are larger than the 4,000 sq ft lots that will be built on there. Even the 6,000 sq ft lots aren’t comparable. While we are “cookie cutter” we are certainly more spaciously arranged (which is hilarious when you actually look at our neighborhood). I’m certainly not looking forward to this build and all the bait and switch crap that will very likely follow.”
  • “In Copper Cove the smallest lot is 5700 sq ft. Imagine what your neighborhood would look like with 4000 ft lots and 4500 ft — 600 of them. It will look like barracks buildings unless they get real creative.”
  • “We just didn’t need the extra 200+ houses, which equals another, at conservative minimum 400 more cars. Those 2 phases are going to be a hotbed of chaos and crime.”
  • “The crime will be there. It’s inevitable when you stick that many people in such a small area. And, I don’t think it’s going to be 10 yrs until it is built out. Based on the numerology of phases assuming they build in order my guess it will be within the next 2-3 yrs.”
  • “The good ole boy network is alive and well #Weiers, McCarthy, Donovan, Hugh, Rosseau.”
  • “What was the council thinking. I thought they represented all of the people in Glendale. Not just the north. South Glendale was ignored and dismissed.”

I encourage you to share your comments on the city council Stonehaven vote of Tuesday, Jun 27, 2017.

© Joyce Clark, 2017               

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

If the proponents of Stonehaven are to be believed…hmmm…it is their intent to offer “diversity and flexibility” to attract millennials, seniors and empty nesters to their smallest lot sizes of 4,000 SF and 4,500 SF. In order to attract these potential buying groups it is essential that Stonehaven provide amenities equal to or greater than the sites at which they have been residing. It has been reported repeatedly in various media that these groups are used to a certain lifestyle including upgraded amenities and expect the same as they make a major investment in a home.

This is from the Stonehaven PAD application, page 21, Section 4.4.1, Active and Passive Open Space, “ Stonehaven will provide an abundance of active and passive open spaces, as depicted on Figure 11, Open Space Master Plan ( I have provided a copy of the plan below). Active open spaces will be evenly distributed throughout the community, providing a variety of recreational opportunities within close proximity to all residents. Amenities will include numerous tot lots, sport courts, soccer fields, ramadas, picnic areas, informal play areas coupled with retention, and trails connecting the overall open space center of the community, providing a community-wide amenity for the use and enjoyment of all residents. Additional passive open spaces will be provided throughout the community along primary entry features, along primary roadways, and between active open space areas connecting the community-wide open space system and providing an open, attractive environment. Retention basins will be integrated into the active and passive open space system, while the primary active amenities such as tot lots and sport courts will remain dry during normal rainfall events.”

Open Space Master Plan

In some parts of the Stonehaven PAD application it is very short on detail and this area is one such. They state that there is 60 acres of open space, both active and passive, provided meeting the minimum of 15% of open space required by the city. This appears to be accurate but it’s difficult to confirm since no data is provided on how much acreage of the open space is active and how much is passive. They do offer that the community park will be 9.1 acres. If you look at their map, there seems to be approximately 10 small pocket parks perhaps a half an acre to an acre in size. Again, they provide no data so it is hard to be exact.

Stonehaven looking west from Sunset Ridge Park

What will the potential home buyer in Stonehaven find? A 9.1 acre community park that directly abuts the 5 acre city park (Glendale taxpayer funded) next to Sunset Elementary School. Why go to the expense of putting a tot lot or basketball park in their 9.1 acre community park when the city has already has those amenities in its park so conveniently close?      

Sunset Ridge Park

 

 

 

 

 

Heroes Park looking northeast

Reference is also made to the Grand Canal Linear Park (city of Glendale and Maricopa County funded); Camelback Park subdivision’s small 3 acre park (with another convenient access route from Stonehaven); and Heroes Park (Glendale taxpayer funded and still unfinished after 20 years).

Stonehaven does not appear to offer much active open space and instead relies on its residents having access to and using city funded active recreation areas. Stonehaven is like a Remora. A Remora is a small fish that purposefully and continually swims with a shark. They have a symbiotic relationship.  Stonehaven, the Remora, appears to have purposefully skimped on active open space relying instead on nearby city, taxpayer funded amenities (the shark).

Keep in mind that a lot of the green area on their Open Space map is street landscaping on the road system, internal streets and entryways. How much acreage is devoted to landscaping? You can’t tell because there is no hard data provided. Are these deliberate omissions of fact? Who knows? If they don’t provide hard data they can’t be criticized if it is insufficient.

It is also interesting to note that Pulte has no problem creating amenities for their other 18 subdivision under construction throughout the valley. Here’s a list of active amenities they offer elsewhere:

  • splash water park
  • indoor rock climbing wall
  • indoor basketball courts
  • lighted tennis courts, softball stadium
  • community pool
  • basketball courts
  • volleyball courts
  • adventure playgrounds
  • dog park
  • amphitheater

Where are these kinds of amenities designed to attract millennials, empty nesters and seniors? Instead the small 4,000 SF, 4,500 SF and 5,500 SF lots are located behind or adjacent to their planned commercial areas consisting of “restaurant row” and a planned grocery center. The lack of active amenities coupled with the location of the small lots is not designed to attract millennials, seniors and empty nesters. The central question is, would you select a home on a 4,000 SF lot with little to no front, side and back yards; behind or adjacent to the commercial centers with a small pocket park that also serves the subdivision’s need for water retention; and has a 9.1 acre community park with sparse amenities serving the needs of 1,391 other homes? If your answer is ‘no’ then how can you possibly support the changes Stonehaven proponents are seeking?

© Joyce Clark, 2017                 

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Smoke and Mirrors

Another milestone: Since its inception my blog has had over 400,000 reads. I thank all who have taken time to read my writings. I hope you have enjoyed them and will continue to follow my blog. I’m not finished…

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

I simply can’t resist. Someone who attended the Stonehaven ice cream social shared with me. This person reported very few residents in attendance. This is the same report I received after the Stonehaven proponents held their pizza party event. There appear to be fewer suckers in the Yucca district than they expected. I suspect they have been highly disappointed with the turnout at their PR events. Did they really believe that they could buy the goodwill and support of Yucca residents with an ice cream cone of a slice of pizza?

I received the handouts that were provided at the ice cream event. What a hoot! The first page of the handout is a map showing where the Stonehaven site is located. The second handout is a depiction of their Open Space Master Plan. I wonder if they shared the fact that they purposefully planted their 9 acres of park abutting the city’s 5 acre, taxpayer funded park. They wouldn’t be planning on Stonehaven’s residents using the city park so that they wouldn’t be compelled to provide a larger one within their subdivision, would they? Na-h-h-h. Just some smoke and mirrors…

Two of the handouts show wonderfully idyllic photos of the largest homes they could find…but there is no representation by them that the houses depicted in the photos are actually sitting on 4,000 square foot lots. I wonder if they mentioned that there will be 12 feet between two homes? Can you imagine someone actually investing in a 2,500 to 3,500 square foot home on a 4,000 square foot lot? One handout depicts a lot size of 45’X 110’. That actually equals 4,950 square feet. I guess even they didn’t have the nerve to produce a photo of a 2,500 square foot house on a true 4,000 square foot lot. Just some more smoke and mirrors…

The last handout is a conceptual of grocery store/commercial pad located at the northeast corner of 91st Avenue and Camelback Road. Of course it includes the inevitable gas station. On June 18th  I and the rest of the city council received an email in opposition to Stonehaven from a Yucca resident who lives close to the proposed Stonehaven. He sums up the grocery store situation far better than I could and so I will quote from his email, The developer and its PR team have repeatedly touted the perceived excitement surrounding the new grocery store to be developed on the commercial parcel.  As yet, we have not received any information as to the specific grocer or the timing. 

“I am a retired senior level commercial asset manager with over 30 years of experience in the management, acquisition, development, and redevelopment of retail centers, office buildings (including the Biltmore Financial Center), and office/warehouse industrial properties in multiple markets across the country including in excess of 50 retail centers here in the valley over the past 20 years. 

“It is no secret that grocery-anchored and other big box-anchored retail centers are a dying breed.  This trade area already has a Fry’s at 83rd and Indian School, a Safeway at 83rd and Camelback, a Super Walmart at 91st and Camelback, a Target at 91st and Northern, and a Neighborhood Walmart at 75th and Glendale.  That leaves Albertson’s and Basha’s or one of its affiliates as the remaining major players.  Albertsons and Safeway are under the same ownership.  Basha’s has not been in expansion mode for quite some time. 

“If they are thinking about one of the smaller specialty markets like Sprouts or Trader Joe’s that could be a nice addition to the area but they would be more likely to remodel and occupy the Fresh and Easy building at 83rd and Camelback, which has been sitting empty for about the last 10 years.  And what grocery chain would want to open a new store and try to compete right on top of the Super Walmart?

“ If they (Stonehaven applicants) had a signed lease or even a signed letter of intent they would be sitting on the fence crowing about it.  I have serious doubts that there will ever be a grocery store built on this site.  They’ll carve out a pad, put out a ‘coming soon’ sign, and then in about five years come back with a plan to carve it up into a multi-tenant building to house another Vape shop or maybe a medical marijuana dispensary and other unsavory uses.” More smoke and mirrors…

What are the proponents avoiding at all costs? Depicting the reality associated with 4,000 and 4,500 square foot lots.  They have avoided telling you that there will be more 4,000/4,500 square foot lots in Stonehaven than in the entire Barrel district.

The Barrel district has a total of 117 acres containing 690 homes on 4,000 square foot lots but they are scattered over 5 separate sites throughout the district. They are not concentrated on one site. The largest site is Country Hollow built in 1993 (24 years ago). It is a 38 acre site with 234 lots that are R 1-4. Other R 1-4 subdivisions in the Barrel district are: Village Rose built in 2002 (15 years ago) with 62 homes on 10 acres; Tarrington Place built in 2003 (14 years ago) with 192 homes on 28 acres; Beacon Heights built in 2004 (13 years ago) with 15 homes on 3 acres; and Alice Park approved in 2015 with 187 homes on 37 acres.

Stonehaven, in one fell swoop, proposes 616 homes on 4,000 and 4,500 square foot lots on 131 acres. Can you imagine the impact of the intense concentration of this small lot size on more acreage in one spot than on any other R 1-4 site in Glendale? That would be like putting all the R 1-4 lots in the Barrel district in one place. Can you say increased traffic, overcrowded schools and diminished property values?

One would think the Glendale Star, the Glendale Chamber of Commerce and Glendale’s Mayor Jerry Weiers would be embarrassed to have endorsed such a grotesque and intense use of     R 1-4 on one site anywhere in our community. But the smoke and mirrors of PR touting a major investment in Glendale along with the promise of increased annual taxes into the city’s coffers and the promise of a completed Bethany Home Road seems to have blinded them to the realities of this project. Did they not realize that the original Stonehaven plan promised the same? Of course not…for you see, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

In my next blog it’s all about R 1-4 zoning…

© Joyce Clark, 2017                 

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Hold on to your hats, folks. This will be a rather long opinion piece as I have much to say.

I am mindfully aware that one of the prime directives of my job as a councilmember is to represent my constituency…the residents of the Yucca district. Their voice is my voice. They do not possess the power, money and privilege of the pro-Stonehaven contingent. Over 1,000 of my district residents have signed a petition in opposition to Stonehaven’s latest version of its proposed residential plan. These are the people who live in adjoining neighborhoods and will receive the full negative brunt of this proposal. They are the people for whom I speak.

Since this is my last term as a councilmember I possess a precious freedom that no others serving on Glendale’s council may have and that is, complete freedom. I can advocate for and take positions that I believe to be right without fear of retribution when the next election season rolls around. In this context, the opinions I am about to express regarding the Stonehaven application are mine and offered without fear or favor. Some will agree and others will disagree. That is to be expected.

Just as we have all heard of the Washington “establishment” aimed at protecting its power, money and privilege, every community in the country, large or small, has its own version of the “establishment.” Glendale is no different.

Lately, the local Chamber, the local newspaper and the local fire union (no surprise there) have announced their support for the latest iteration of Stonehaven. They all represent elements of Glendale’s “establishment.” The “establishment” circles the wagons when one of their own is in danger for that danger could spread and diminish them as well. All it takes is a well placed phone call or conversation with the “right” people. In “establishment” code it’s a plea for help with the veiled notion that it may be their ox gored next and if they expect reciprocal support, then it’s time to ante up.

Then we have the city’s Planning Department. I understand the tremendous pressure they are experiencing. When the Stonehaven applicants proposed 3,000 square foot lots, the Planning Department made it clear that it could not support the concept for Glendale doesn’t even have a zoning classification for 3,000 SF lot sizes. Hence the applicant’s quick pivot to 4,000/4,500 SF lots for Glendale does possess such a zoning classification. The Planning Department cannot be discriminatory and if it has accepted other projects with 4,000 square foot lots, it must be fair and do so in this case. You will hear the statement from the Planning Department that the Stonehaven amendment is “consistent” with Glendale’s General Plan.

But what you will not hear is that 4,000/4,500 SF lots have never been implemented on such a large scale. Yes, Glendale has seen small tracts of such sized lots and it may be used on small-scale infill projects. Hence the Planning Department’s statement of “consistency” with the General Plan. But it has never, in the city’s history, been used where 44% of a new 365 acre subdivision will have such small lots. It is incumbent upon the Planning Department to show where a subdivision of similar size and scope was permitted with at least 40% of the project consisting of 4,000/4,500 square foot lots. If that is their position I expect them to defend it with some relevant examples.

The pro-Stonehaven contingent is touting their $400 million dollar investment in Glendale implying that we should be ever so grateful. Don’t kid yourselves. They are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. We’ve all seen the term, Return on Investment (ROI). That $400 million dollar investment will reap them a hefty profit (ROI). How much? Only they know but we can assume it is substantial or they wouldn’t be pulling out all of the stops to make it happen.

The Stonehaven proponents also tout the benefit of the connectivity to be derived from the construction of Bethany Home Road between 83rd Avenue and 91st Avenue. In an agreement between the city and the John F. Long Trust Bethany Home Road does not have to be completed until January 1, 2021.  What you don’t hear is that the city will pay $1.2 million for the north half of Bethany’s right-of-way (ROW). Where will this payment come from? From the Development Impact Fees (DIF) paid to the city.  Each home buyer pays DIF as it is incorporated by the developer into the price of each home in this subdivision. DIF is used to improve the infrastructure surrounding the new development in terms of libraries, parks, roads, etc. Not in this case, the DIF will be used to pay for right-of-way. This is precedent setting for historically the city has not had to pay for ROW for a new subdivision.

The applicants like to refer to Stonehaven as an “infill” project. Here are some conclusions from national studies done on infill:

  1. The smaller homes associated with the increased density of the project will generate lower property tax revenues, yet it increases the burden on the city’s cost for the provision of services as the new residents use them.
  2. Existent nearby residents bear all of the costs associated with this new infill development in increased traffic and congestion in local schools even though it may provide a benefit to the community as a whole as the city receives state shared revenue benefits from an increase in population.
  3. There is a negative impact for those properties in close proximity to the new, denser subdivision, but a positive impact for those properties at a greater distance.
  4. Lower income neighborhoods tend to benefit from infill development and higher income areas had property values decline.
  5. Larger projects, such as this one, magnify the negative effects more so than smaller infill projects.

What did the April 16, 2016 approved Stonehaven plan consist of? It was a balanced plan that the adjacent neighborhoods accepted.

  • R 1-5 (5,500 SF lots) on 43% of site area
  • R 1-7 (7,000 SF lots) on 36% of site area
  • R 1-8 (8,000 SF lots) on 21% of site area

Now look at the changes requested in the new proposal.

  • R 1-4 (4,000 and 4,500) SF lots on 44% of site
  • R 1-5 (5,000 SF lots) on 22.4% of site area
  • R 1-6 (6,000 SF lots) on 17.9% of site area
  • R 1-7 (7,000 SF lots) on 16% of site area

As a comparison Rovey Farm Estates built 10 years ago is a subdivision of 300 acres north of this proposed project. It is comparable in many ways and has 800 lots ranging in size from 7,000 to 17,000 SF. More recent subdivisions close by such as Boardwalk Place built in 2010 has lot sizes from 7,000 to 12,000 SF and the newest subdivision still under construction is Catania, with lot sizes that start at 5,000 SF. Yet another new subdivision, Horizons at Camelback, has lot sizes ranging from 5, 750 SF to 9, 179 SF. All of these subdivisions demonstrate lot size diversity but not one of them in west Glendale has lot sizes as small as 4,000/4,500 square feet.

The applicant rationalizes the diversity of small lots as more appealing to millennials. Yet an article in the May 12,2017 Wall Street Journal said, “Outside Las Vegas, Tri Pointe home builders has introduced a new-home design that is specifically targeted to millennial buyers, featuring indoor-outdoor patio areas and deck spaces, as well as a separate downstairs bedroom and bathroom suite that could be rented out to a housemate. Building executives said one challenge is that many are buying first homes later in life, meaning they have higher incomes and greater expectations molded by years of living in downtown luxury rentals.”

Perhaps the most impactful to adjacent neighborhoods and families is increased traffic and overcrowded schools. Before Bethany Home Road is completed in January of 2021 and while Stonehaven is being built out, daily traffic trips on Camelback will grow from its current daily count of 25,000 to over double, 54,000 trips. When Bethany is completed the daily trip count on Camelback will drop to 41,000, considerably more than the current count of 25,000. Similar situations occur on 83rd Ave. and 91st Ave. between Bethany and Camelback. This subdivision will intensify local traffic even with the eventual completion of Bethany Home Road.

Who is most impacted by this traffic increase? The Camelback Park subdivision just east of Stonehaven will bear the brunt as well as the traffic to Sunset Ridge Elementary School. 87th Avenue is one of only two primary entries for Camelback Park residents. Now it will also serve as a primary entry for Stonehaven. I am very concerned for the Camelback Park residents for even with a widened 87th Avenue their ability to get in and out of their subdivision will be aversely compromised.

These very same residents will face other difficulties as a result of Stonehaven. While Stonehaven offers the requisite 15% of park/open space, the applicants emphasize and seem to rely upon the connectivity of Stonehaven to Camelback Park’s 3 acre Pasadena Park, Sunset Ridge’s joint 10 acre school/city park and of course, the 20 year, still unfinished Heroes Park. While Stonehaven has 9.1 acres of community park, the balance of 50 acres of open space includes entryway landscaping, perimeter landscaping, street landscaping and the inevitable retention areas doubling as open space and trails.

Pulte currently has about 20 subdivisions. In one of them, Parkside at Anthem, Florence, the house price starts at $146,990. At that subdivision Pulte is offering a recreation center with indoor rock climbing and an indoor basketball court along with a splash water park, lighted tennis courts and a softball stadium. At its Bella Via subdivision, Mesa, they offer adventure playgrounds, basketball courts, a dog park and an amphitheater. Pulte is offering no such amenities in Stonehaven. Why not?

There is no doubt that the two closest elementary schools, Sunset Ridge and Desert Mirage, will be under tremendous pressure. The applicants have received approval from the Pendergast Elementary School District and the Tolleson Union High School district. Little noted is another common practice usually unrecognized by the general public.  Built into the cost of every Stonehaven home will be a dollar amount that will be donated to the school districts to offset the cost of accommodating new students. Could any school district’s, including these districts, motive for approval of this increased density be the result of this typical practice of a home builder donation per house built? It is quite possible that the Pendergast School district will have to accommodate another estimated 1,000 K-8 students. In the last Pendergast bond issue recently approved by voters there is money to expand Sunset Ridge Elementary School but there is nothing allotted for an expansion of Desert Mirage Elementary School.

Finally Stonehaven proponents emphasize the $40 million the city will derive in taxes. In that amount they even count the utilities tax that we pay on our phone, cable bills, etc. They forget to mention this amount is over the lifetime of the project…10 years or better. They make it sound as if the city will receive this amount in one fell swoop.

However, one interesting factoid I learned many years ago is that roof tops (homes) do not pay for themselves on a long term annual basis. In other words, a city loses about $200 per home annually (that is an old figure. I don’t know the current figure). What does that mean? The amount of annual tax generated per home in sales tax, property tax, etc., does not cover the cost of services provided by a city. That is why the life blood of any city isn’t in roof tops but in its commercial, retail, manufacturing, etc. development for those facilities produce taxes that help to offset the loss caused by homes.

This proposed project does not hold the promise of upgrading Glendale. It reminds me of old, 1970s zoning and planning where the smallest lots and consequently the smallest homes are placed behind or adjacent to commercial development. That’s the promise of the Stonehaven plan for the 4,000 SF and the 4,500 SF lots are behind the proposed grocery store center and the proposed restaurant row.  Can you imagine millennials or seniors wanting to live behind a grocery store or restaurant with the lights, the smells and the noise of delivery trucks an estimated 35 feet away from their property?

This kind of plan also reminds me of the old Maryvale. The only difference being is that at least John F. Long offered the public 6,000 SF sized lots…not lots of 4,000 or 4,500 SF in size. This proposed amendment and zoning does not upgrade our community. This large, 365 acre parcel of land deserves to be developed in a manner designed to showcase living in west Glendale and to which all can point with pride.  How much pride will these 4,000 and 4,500 SF lots and homes evoke 5 or 10 years after they are built?

What do power, money and privilege get? They get their way… at the expense of nearby residents who live in stable communities and who don’t want the increased traffic, school overcrowding, and even more pressure on their scant park system. They don’t want small lots with small homes destined to become a sea of rentals harvesting nothing but lower property values for those residents surrounding it.

What was so terrible about the existing, approved plan of 2016? Nothing with one exception…it isn’t dense enough for the applicants. Do you ever wonder how much an additional 204 homes will raise the profitability quotient for those involved? And is it worth it… to us?

© Joyce Clark, 2017          

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

There are Yucca district residents circulating petitions in opposition to the Stonehaven residential plan that will be heard before the Planning & Zoning Commission on Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 6 PM at City Hall in the Council chambers. I have been asked to provide information about the proposal:

2016 city council approved Stonehaven plan. Now add applicant’s request for another 300 homes.

  • The applicants, John F. Long Trust and Pulte Homes have submitted GPA 17-01 and ZON 17-01. It will be heard by the citizen Planning & Zoning Commission on May 18, 2017.
  • The land is about 365 acres located between Bethany Home Road to Camelback Road and from 83rd Avenue to 91st Avenue. The land is currently being farmed.
  • There is a plan for this land that was already approved by Glendale’s City Council in 2016. The density of that plan is 1,100 homes on lots ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting more density (more homes) on smaller lot sizes.
  • Their application asks for an increase (more density) in the number of homes from an approved 1,100 to 1,406 homes.
  • Their request asks to reduce lot sizes from a minimum of 5,000 SF to 4,000/4,500 SF and to reduce the largest lot sizes of 8,000 SF to 7,000 SF.
  • If approved 45% (nearly half) of the project would be on the minimum lot sizes described above (4,000 SF and 4,500 SF).
  • The applicant proposes to develop an 8 acre park within the subdivision. This equals .02% of the total 365 acres. No additional open space has been identified by the applicant.
  • Typically a developer will provide 10% to 15% of a planned subdivision for parks and open space. This applicant has not done so. For this project parks and open space should be a minimum of 36 acres (that is 10% of 365 acres).
  • It is estimated that the construction of Bethany Home Road would not have to be completed until 2021 per an agreement between the John F. Long Trust and the City of Glendale or…until 200 homes are sold and the design for Bethany must be submitted and when 475 homes are sold, construction of Bethany must begin (per the agreement).
  • Until Bethany Home Road is completed additional traffic pressure from this new subdivision will increase traffic on 83rd Avenue, Camelback Road and 91st Avenue.  
  • With new residents and no Bethany Home Road, we can expect average daily traffic loads of an estimated 54,000 vehicles on Camelback Road; 28,000 vehicles on 91st Avenue; and 33,000 vehicles on 83rd Avenue (statistics provided by applicant).
  • If this proposed subdivision is approved the Pendergast Elementary School District will experience the addition of an estimated 759 (conservative estimate) new K-8 students with a need for 25 new classrooms (at 30 students per classroom).
  • The two closest elementary schools that will experience the pressure of 759 new students are Desert Mirage at 8600 W. Maryland and Sunset Ridge at 8500 W. Missouri.
  • Typically a residential developer will donate $1000 per home to the affected school district virtually assuring that the required approval assuring no detrimental impact from the school district will be granted.

© Joyce Clark, 2017      

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Would you like to attend a FREE spring training game at Camelback Ranch this month?
As your Yucca district councilmember I have 14 free tickets for each of the following games:

Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:05 PM

Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 1:05 PM

Monday, March 20, 2017 at 1:05 PM

Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 1:05 PM

Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 1:05 PM
 
  • The tickets will be distributed to a non-profit organization, i.e., church group, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Kiwanis, Rotary, Glendale Ambassadors, Habitat for Humanity, etc.
  • Some members of the group must be Yucca district residents.
  • Groups of adults are welcome.
  • If the group is comprised of minor children, there must be 1 adult for each 3 children.
  • In order to be eligible please share a recent community-oriented activity in which your group participated or organized.
  • First come, first served.
Please contact Councilmember Clark via email at either of these addresses: clarkjv@aol.com or jclark@glendaleaz.com
What a great way to spend a spring afternoon!
This gift is just a small token of my appreciation for all that you do in support of our community.
Councilmember Joyce Clark
Yucca district, City of Glendale

ALL ARE WELCOME!

MY SPECIAL GUEST IS GLENDALE’S VICE MAYOR IAN HUGH

People always wonder and ask what a councilmember really does. Over the next four years of my term as the Yucca district councilmember I may be able to provide you with some answers. I was reelected as the Yucca district councilmember in August of 2016.

After the formal city council acceptance of the Canvass of Votes I began to receive phone calls and requests for meetings. Prior to officially taking office on December 13, 2016 I spent several hundred hours in October and November preparing for office and participating as a councilmember elect.  Since the beginning of October I have had approximately 30 luncheon meetings with community stakeholders, city staff and city councilmembers; more than a dozen “coffee” meetings primarily with residential development interests; and attended more than a half dozen city/community events from HOA annual meetings, to an COG airport open house to the Glendale Christmas parade.

As councilmember elect I began receiving council material for voting meetings and workshops. I spent hours reviewing the material and firing off memos to the city manager and staff asking for answers to questions I had as councilmember elect.  I also personally attended city council voting meetings and workshops on Tuesdays prior to taking office.

Much time was spent reconnecting with various stakeholders and rebuilding positive relationships with them. Another chunk of time was used to bring me up to speed on various city and Yucca district issues by meeting with city personnel. Yet more time was used to prepare for council meetings and to attend various city events.

I suspect since councilmembers are usually seen only on Glendale’s Cable 11 TV, most people think that is all that they do. Not true. It’s a major time commitment with irregular work hours. A simple lunch meeting can easily take 2 hours if you include travel time. A city function such as a public community event or a neighborhood meeting will also consume several hours and many are evening events. The same can be said for a formal council meeting or workshop. Preparation time for council meetings and workshops can easily take a day or more, especially if a councilmember requires meetings or communications with various city staff for further clarification on issues.

A city councilmember has three major responsibilities: to make decisions regarding the city’s public policy on a potpourri of issues; to represent the interests and points of view of Glendale’s residents, especially one’s district constituents; and to represent the leadership of Glendale not only at city functions but at local, regional, state and national venues and organizations.

To accomplish all of these responsibilities each councilmember has access to two taxpayer-funded budgets. The first is a Professional Development budget of $18,000 annually. These funds may be used for trips such as the state or national League of Cities and Towns annual meetings. The money can be used for dues/membership fees to organizations and or activities a councilmember needs to connect to the community, such as the local Chamber of Commerce or the WestMarc Annual State of the State Dinner. This budget can be used for subscriptions to publications such as the Phoenix Business Journal. These are activities that enhance the councilmember’s effectiveness and would not be an ordinary activity or expense as a private citizen. Lastly it can be used to support the ordinary functions of the office such as business cards, letterhead, a computer or tablet or activities such as contributions for flowers for a memorial service of a prominent Glendale personage.

The second councilmember budget is a District Improvement budget of $15,000 annually. It is to be used for minor infrastructure improvements within the councilmember’s district. It can be used in parks to plant trees, do minor repairs to park equipment, repaint park equipment. It can be used to make neighborhood improvements, such as repair of subdivision monument signage. It can also be used for examples such as landscape improvements to a public element within a subdivision or installation or repair of curb, gutter or sidewalks. Some councilmembers have used these funds to make contributions to non-profit organizations or to sponsor city events. I, personally, do not believe that these activities are an appropriate use of taxpayer funded public infrastructure improvements.

I plan on using my council Professional Development budget for 2 major functions: to support the rental cost of meeting space and refreshments for regular Yucca district meetings; and to create, print and mail a Spring and Fall edition of the Yucca district newsletter to every household that has a water bill. One newsletter mailing to Yucca residents is anticipated to cost between $5,000 to $7,000 (primary cost is postage). Even though it is a major expense, I believe it is important to provide this mailing because not everyone has access to a computer and some residents, especially seniors, may not be computer literate enough to access all city material available on the internet. I will continue to use social media, my Facebook page, Twitter and my blog page, www.joyceclarkunfiltered.com as major means of outreach to those Yucca district residents who are computer savvy and regularly visit these sites.

In December I have spent the following amounts from my Professional Development budget with an inherited starting balance from the former councilmember of $13,113.93:

·       $87.28 for Councilmember business cards

·       $299.21 for Councilmember letterhead stationery and envelopes

·       $45.86 for a Councilmember name plate and business card holder for my desk

·       $100.00 as my portion of the cost for rental of the Sahuaro fruit packing shed for a mayor and council sponsored event inviting all West Valley mayors and councils

I did not have to buy a tablet to conduct city business as I inherited the former councilmember’s city tablet. After deducting these December, 2016 expenses my Professional Development budget has a January 1, 2017 starting balance of $12,581.58. Councilmembers recently directed staff to publish their monthly expenditures and these expenditures can be found at: http://www.glendaleaz.com/CityCouncil/FinancialStatements.cfm .

I inherited an Infrastructure budget of $12,500 from the former councilmember. I need your help. This is where you come in. If you are a Yucca district resident I suspect you have seen many areas of our district that need repair. Have you seen subdivision monument signage in need of repair? Or have you seen one of our district parks that could use some further landscaping or repair/painting of equipment? Perhaps you have seen spots in need of curb, gutter or sidewalk repair? These funds can be used on city property or public right of way for improvements. Or do you have an idea for a public project with a cost of no more than $12,000?

I am soliciting suggestions from you until January 31, 2017. Any and all ideas are most welcome. This is your opportunity to participate in your local government. Please submit your suggestions with the following information, your name, and your return email address or phone number; the address of problem; description of the suggested improvement; and if you can, include a photo of the problem area. You may send the information to: clarkjv@aol.com; jclark@glendaleaz.com; post a comment to my Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/joyce.clark.338  ; or post a comment to this blog topic.

I believe a councilmember’s Professional Development budget should be used primarily for outreach to either one’s constituents or to the community-at-large. That is why I intend to use it to hold district meetings and to publish district information. I also intend to use it for councilmember related memberships and activities. As a private citizen there are many events, local and regional, I would not be required to attend but as a councilmember I would be expected to participate. I will use this budget to attend local and regional dinners and conferences.

A councilmember’s Infrastructure Improvement budget was designed to allow a councilmember to invest in improving his or her district. The intent when it was created was not to grant money to non-profits. It is always possible that a councilmember could grant money from this budget to a non-profit that constituents could think was inappropriate. I will use this budget to make minor district improvements.

Next blog up…good news about the west branch library!

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

A constituent asked me to post this video of a young man who attempted to burglarize a house in his neighborhood. The area is Desert Sunset in west Glendale, just north of 83rd Avenue and west of Heroes Park. If you recognize this young man, please call the Glendale Police Department at 623-930-3000. Thank you.

Update: Saturday, November 11, 2016. This may be the young person in the video of a possible attempted burglary suspect. I guess you could call him “a person of interest.” He was skateboarding on 83rd Avenue just south of Berridge Lane, Yucca district, Glendale. If you know who he is, please call the Glendale Police Department. Thank you.

possiblesuspectcropped

There is no doubt that Sammy raised a ton of money for his campaign. Upon review of his campaign finance report filed on August 26, 2016, 99.9% of his money does not come from Yucca district residents or even Glendale residents for that matter. Here is the link to his campaign finance report: http://glendaleaz.com/Clerk/documents/PrePrimary-ChaviraforGlendale.pdf .

Where did Sammy get his money? Can you say special interests? Here are a few that should be of interest. Jacob Long gave $750 and his family attorney, Jim Miller, another $500. They benefitted recently with the approval of Stonehaven (between 83rd and 91st avenues; Camelback to Bethany Home Road). Stonehaven is a planned residential subdivision of over 1,200 homes with 46% of the lots being 5,500 SF (less than Glendale R1-6 standard of 6,000 SF lots). Sammy approved Long’s development with gushing words of praise. Gee, I  wonder why?

There were 3 Glendale residents who contributed: John Phebus, an attorney with offices in north Glendale gave $1000 (I wonder who he represents?); Tom Schmitt with no occupation or employer listed (it is a requirement per Arizona campaign law) gave $200; and Reginald Martinez gave $50. That’s it. No other Glendale or Yucca district resident thought enough of him to contribute.

But guess who did? Why, the fire fighters, course. Three individual fire fighters, from Mesa, Phoenix and California contributed a total of $500.  The big money ( a total of $11,300) comes from Fire Political Action Committees (PACs):

  • International Association of Fire Fighters          $6250 (the maximum allowed)
  • Avondale Fire Fighters                                           $ 500
  • Casa Grande Fire Fighters                                      $ 500
  • Gilbert Fire Fighters                                               $ 500
  • Glendale Fire Fighters                                           $2000 (violation of federal Hatch Act?)
  • Los Angeles, CA  Fire Fighters                                 $ 500
  • Prescott Fire Fighters                                             $ 250
  • Sedona-Verde Valley Fire Fighters                           $ 250
  • Surprise Fire Fighters                                            $1000
  • Tempe Fire Fighters                                              $1000
  • Mesa Fire Fighters                                                  $ 750
  • Peoria Fire Fighters                                                $ 500

I decided to run a grassroots campaign. If district residents and Glendale residents wanted me back they would support me. Here is the link to my campaign finance report: http://glendaleaz.com/Clerk/documents/PrePrimary-ClarkforCouncil.pdf . My campaign donations came from:

  • 21 contributions of $100 or more were from Glendale/Yucca district residents.
  • 10 contributions of $100 or more were from outside of Glendale. They were from friends, former colleagues and retired Glendale employees.
  • 22 contributions of $50 or less were from Glendale/Yucca district residents.
  • 5 contributions of $50 or less were from outside of Glendale. Again, they were from friends, former colleagues and retired Glendale employees.
  • I did receive 3 unsolicited PAC contributions totaling $1200 from 3 police associations that came with the endorsements I received from the Arizona Police Association and the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police.
  • No special interest money or PAC money was sought.

In terms of Sammy’s campaign expenditures, they paint a picture. He paid Ben Scheel of Bright Consulting another $5,570.85. Sammy did not plan or participate in his own campaign. He paid someone else to do it. He paid the LA Machine $7324.00 for field operations. Sammy did not walk his district. He paid someone else to do it.

Just as Sammy has been invisible as a councilmember and unresponsive to the people of his district who he is supposed to serve, he has been invisible as a candidate. He paid to have someone run his campaign and he paid someone to walk his district. In his three campaign reports now filed, he has not received a single donation from a Yucca district resident.

Sammy is about big money from special interests. That is who he will vote for and represent. Not you, not the people of the Yucca district.

© Joyce Clark, 2016        

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

%d bloggers like this: