Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jun 22

18

Glendale’s Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 18, 2022
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Heroes Park  | Tagged With: , , , , | 2 Comments

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.

For the second year in a row Glendale’s budget has topped a billion dollars. It reflects the current economic status of many other Valley cities such as Chandler, Tempe and Peoria, all showing a total budget of at least a billion dollars.

The city’s budget is based on several council-identified priorities. The first is Sustainability. We continue to invest in infrastructure. Just as we focused on our streets after years of inattention, we are employing the same philosophy to our parks as we make major investments in our parks to replace and maintain equipment in or serving our park system. Perhaps the most important focus in terms of infrastructure is maintaining our water capabilities and redundancy of systems. As we move into a Stage 1 drought declaration Glendale is in very good shape. No Valley City can exclusively rely upon Central Arizona Project (CAP) water which comes from Lake Mead and the Colorado River. Our portfolio includes Salt River Project water and SRP’s water reservoirs are about 77% full. But that is not all, the city has a portfolio of wells and it will be refurbishing 3 wells over the next 2 years. It also has been banking water underground. The city’s water doesn’t come from just one source. It is a blend of CAP, SRP, wells and ground water storage. We have also entered into Intergovernmental Agreements with Phoenix and Peoria and are now building interconnects so that should there be a water emergency among any one of the three cities, the other two will now be able to share water.

A second priority is Public Safety. Over half (61% or $158 million) of the city’s General Fund budget (total of $255 million) goes to Police and Fire. This city council is a strong advocate for Public Safety and is adding 10 new positions in Public Safety.

A third area is Economic Development. Continued growth of the city’s economic portfolio is essential as it provides funding for many of the amenities our citizens want and enjoy. One of the city’s trademarks has been its provision of “speed to market” for many developers. As our explosion of economic growth continues the city finds it must add new building inspectors, an architect, engineers, and project managers. The council continues to demonstrate its commitment to downtown Glendale by authorizing a $70 million investment in the renovation of City Hall, Council Chambers, the city hall parking structure, Murphy Park and the Amphitheater. As the city embarks on this project it is experiencing renewed interest by developers who are taking a second look at downtown and exploring development possibilities. Over the next few years expect to see the development of vacant parcels as well as new users of vacant buildings. All happening as a result of our investment in the downtown city hall campus.

The last, but certainly not least, priority is Neighborhoods. Sustaining and improving the quality of life for all residents. Projects that have begun or will begin after July 1, 2022 include improvements at the Main Library, replacement of playground equipment, irrigation and lighting at multiple parks, the addition of 8 splash pads and continued pavement management. There are 2 projects slated for Heroes Park. One is an expansion of the community meeting space at Heroes Library from accommodating 30 people to 75 persons. The other is building the ballfields in the northeast corner of Heroes Park.

Just as inflation is killing the family budget as the price of everything continues to increase relentlessly, so, too, is the city’s operating budget experiencing the same inflationary pressures. Everything is costing more from contract prices for all kinds of services, utilities, supplies and fuel. The city has been proactive in anticipating increased costs except for fuel. The prices rise dramatically week over week with no ceiling predicted. This will be one of the issues which council will have to address.

Another issue is the difficulty all Valley cities are facing in filling employee positions. In an attempt to attract well qualified employees, the city will give a 5% Cost of Living Increase (COLA) beginning July 1st. Currently the city is looking to fill 59 new positions, in every field from Public Safety to Parks personnel to Code Inspectors to Sanitation and Technology workers. We need you. If you want a good paying job with generous benefits you should be applying for a job with the City of Glendale.

Keep in mind that this is the single most important responsibility of the city council.  There are always competing needs between city staff and city council as well as between city councilmembers. Some needs are more compelling despite our advocacy for a specific project. For example, I did not get funding for the rehabilitation of 83rd Avenue between Northern and Glendale Avenues. However, staff is prepared to submit the project for federal funding should it become available.

I hope you have gained some insight with regard to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget which begins on July 1, 2022, and ends on June 30, 2023. If there are aspects that you think were missed or were not addressed, please take the time to offer a comment to this blog. It is a budget that council reviewed and amended for over 4 months. Discussions were detailed and council posed many questions.

It is a budget forged out of consensus.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

Jun 22

6

Glendale hosts a downtown merchants meeting

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 6, 2022
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Downtown Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials  | Tagged With: , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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.

On Monday, June 6, 2022, City Manager Kevin Phelps and Vice Mayor Aldama hosted a downtown merchants meeting. The City Manager wanted to offer in detail City Council’s decision to bring an internal city employee on board as Downtown Manager within the Economic Development Department and the city’s plan to renovate the city hall complex.

This new person will have the responsibility of branding and marketing downtown to a greater extent than is done now. In addition, this person will have the responsibility of working with property owners to fill store vacancies as well as encouraging new downtown investment.

He then explained the council’s $70 million dollar investment in renovating City Hall, Council Chambers, the parking garage and Murphy Park. All renderings used in the presentation were strictly conceptual for council is expected to approve contracts for design prior to its July break.

It seemed as if the merchant attendees failed to appreciate or acknowledge the importance of this major investment in downtown Glendale.

I make no secret or apology for the fact that I was one of the councilmembers who preferred moving city hall to the Westgate area. My motivation for such a decision was that it would have signaled a city council and senior management, forward looking and confident in Glendale’s robust future and that Glendale has moved into the 21st century.

I am frustrated by downtown merchants who spend most of their energy continually asking the city to do more and to invest more. I firmly believe that until such time as a broad swath of downtown merchants (not just the historic area) coalesce into a legitimate, 501-C3 downtown merchants association with ‘skin in the game’ in the form of dues downtown Glendale will remain adrift and rudderless. It’s way past time for these fractious merchants to come together and to forge a vision for their future the old-fashioned way, through consensus. It’s way past time for the downtown merchants, through internal debate, to create self-crafted goals and strategies that will benefit all.

However, majority still rules and a majority of council felt that $70 million investment in our city hall complex would signal to all that we still believe in the importance of a robust and successful downtown. I eventually did and still do support council’s hope that this will help downtown Glendale but after the merchants meeting my initial reaction was how ungrateful they are and the city can never do enough to satisfy them.

There were some very thoughtful questions offered at the meeting. I was impressed with those individuals. However, some topics raised offered an insight into just how fractured downtown merchants are. Some wanted the city to rid downtown of the homeless while others wanted to open public restrooms. Public restrooms are a magnet for the homeless. Witness the city’s closure of the Velma Teague library public restrooms. They were closed because they attracted the homeless who used them to the point that the restrooms became a public health and safety issue. And yes, the city promised to find out from other Valley cities if they have public restrooms in their downtowns and what do they do to ensure that they are safe, clean and healthy? Frankly I don’t think other downtowns have public restrooms. This will be interesting data collection. So, downtown merchants which is it? Do you prefer to reduce the homeless downtown or do you want to encourage them to come downtown by offering public restrooms?

Mr. Phelps explained the term, “experiential retail” using examples of venues that combine food and beverage with recreational experiences. One of the attendees felt that the $70 million for the city hall complex renovation rather should have been used in developing experiential retail for downtown merchants. Ah, no. While the city in the past has offered grants to improve the exterior of existent or new downtown buildings it cannot and should not use public tax dollars to enhance the business model of any individual’s business.

Another query centered around the use of food trucks at Glendale’s LIVE event at Murphy Park. Some prefer removal of the food trucks as they compete with downtown’s restaurants while others wanted to see a process that allowed them to compete for space.

Just to put my comments in perspective, I have owned two businesses in the Valley. In my first, to become a tenant of the retail complex, I had to join the merchant’s association, pay dues and commit to being opened a minimum number of hours every day of the week. In my second business there was no merchant’s association as I was in a stand-alone building but I put in long hours and was open every day of the week from 9am to 9pm.

I had my own “experiential retail” before it became a ‘thing’ by having people like Ted DeGrazia, Hugh Downs and Irma Bombeck visit and meet my customers. Successful entrepreneurship is made of equal parts of long hours, passion for what you are doing and always trying something new to attract customers. I didn’t rely on a city to attract customers to make me successful. Why are these merchants always expecting the city to market downtown or create new events for them to attract customers? There are small businesses all over this city that have never made such an ‘ask’. They struggle just as some of the downtown merchants but yet they persevere reliant upon their own talents and resources.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

Jun 22

4

Coyotes’ fans…don’t count those chickens just yet

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 4, 2022
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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 would remind Coyotes fans that in 2010 and 2011 the City of Glendale paid the NHL $25 million a year to keep the Coyotes in Arizona. I guess no one remembers that if Glendale had not paid the NHL the team would have been sold and probably relocated at that time.

During that time fans heaped praise on Glendale and there was no lamenting of traffic difficulties in getting to a game in Glendale. My, how times have changed. The most often heard refrain today has been that it is too difficult to get to Glendale. That seems to be the owners and fans rationale for moving out of Glendale.

The fans have traded $25 dollar tickets and traffic inconvenience for $500 tickets and equally vexing traffic inconvenience. They will trade traffic at the Loop 101 for traffic at the Loop 202.

There are three major issues that it is believed will have to be satisfied if the Coyotes hope to locate in Tempe.

The first is the Coyotes’ proposal that Tempe pay $200 million to clean up the site. They propose a Tempe Community Facilities District. In essence, Tempe bonds for the $200 million which would be repaid by using the sales tax generated on the site for approximately 20 years or until the bonds are paid. In essence, Tempe taxpayers see no new revenue from this development until the bonds are paid and are not benefitting from the sales tax generated by the proposed project.

I would also historically point out that Steve Ellman when seeking City of Glendale financing to build the Gila River Arena represented development of over 1.2 million square feet that would generate enough sales tax to satisfy the annual debt payment. After 5 years there was only about 1/5th of the proposed economic development and that did not generate enough sales tax to pay the annual debt payment. The same scenario could be repeated forcing Tempe to use General Fund dollars to cover the short fall in the annual debt payment.

There has been talk that if the Tempe Council approves the development there will be citizen referendum petitions. If that occurs and enough signatures are acquired, it will put the project on the ballot and the voters of Tempe would decide whether the project moves forward. If this were to occur, add another year of uncertainty.

A second issue is the Coyotes’ proposal to construct 1,600 residential apartment units on the site. These residential units would be directly under Sky Harbor’s flight path. Recently four former Phoenix mayors offered an OpEd on this issue. Here is the link: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2022/06/01/tempe-plan-arizona-coyotes-spells-trouble-sky-harbor-airport/9996700002/ . A little background is in order. In 1994, Phoenix and Tempe entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The purpose of the IGA was to stop residential development under Sky Harbor’s flight path. The concern was and is, that these new residents would complain about the noise generated by takeoffs and landings (at roughly one every minute). Residential complaints would most certainly have an impact on Sky Harbor’s continued and future development.

The four former mayors said, “For more than 25 years, Sky Harbor’s growth, expansion and development plans have been made with the IGA and adherence to its prescribed eastbound departure path in mind.

Tempe even appointed its own aviation commission to ensure that the terms of the agreement remain viable and enforced. All of this to protect Tempe neighborhoods from the life-altering experience of having a flight path directly over their homes.” They go on to say, “These residential units are proposed to be built directly under the very flight paths that were created by the intergovernmental agreement to protect Tempe residents.

As previously communicated by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Air Line Pilots Association, the airlines themselves and by the professional management of Sky Harbor, no residential development can be permitted in this area – less than 10,000 feet from the end of the two south runways – without compromising those flight paths and significantly threatening the airport’s continued operation and future growth.

As community leaders who embrace cooperation and compatible growth, it is essential, if the entertainment district proposal moves forward, that all residential development be removed from consideration.”

When you think about it, it won’t just be the 1,600 residences that will be impacted by the noise but really, everything on the site will experience the noise…people working in offices on the site and the fans while attending a game. Without the residential units, projected to earn income, is it still a viable investment?

The last and perhaps the most important issue to be considered is money. At the Tempe City Council’s June 2, 2022, meeting when approval was granted 5 to 2 to continue to negotiate with the Coyotes, one of the Tempe councilmembers publicly offered a slide depicting Dun & Bradstreet’s financial rating of the Coyotes, Alex Meruelo and associated affiliates. Here is that slide:

It’s not pretty. Tempe staffers circulated a Memo to the Tempe city council revealing staff’s rating of the proposed project. Here is the link: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2022/06/01/tempe-memo-gives-coyotes-proposal-low-marks-financial-strength/9973803002/ . In the Arizona Republic’s article about the memo it states, “On the financial front, a city memo released ahead of the June 2 City Council vote gave the team’s plan a 40% score for “financial strength/ability,” the lowest mark on the six-category evaluation completed by city staffers.”

To be successful and move forward the Coyotes will have to give up its ‘ask’ of $200 million from Tempe and its taxpayers, remove the 1,600 residential units to ensure continued viability of Sky Harbor Airport and ensure that a team that has lost millions of dollars year over year has the necessary guaranteed financial stability to successfully undertake a nearly $2 billion development. As Tempe has stated it will be months before the final decision is made and satisfactory answers to these three issues should be the basis for their decision.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

May 22

28

Mattel Adventure Park, Glendale no longer just for the boys

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 28, 2022
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Mattel Amusement Park • State Farm Stadium • VAI Resort • Westgate • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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.

Several days ago, Mattel, Inc. and Epic Resort Destinations, LLC. announced more plans for their Mattel Adventure Park slated to open in Glendale next to the VAI Resort. This is a pilot project for Mattel and their very first adventure park. Glen Bilbo was a principal in the original Crystal Lagoons project. His focus at that time and now, still remains on the Mattel aspect of the entire project. While Tommy Fisher and his son, Grant, are principals of the VAI portion of the project.

Hot Wheels and Thomas the Train

The entire complex is located at the southwest corner of 95th Avenue and Cardinals Way, just south of the football stadium. They announced that the Mattel Amusement Park’s plan is to be open in the first quarter of 2023. Previously they had announced initial attractions of Thomas and Friends and Hot Wheels.

Now add to that line up Barbie, Masters of the Universe, and Mattel Games. “The new additions include a Barbie Beach House, which comprises an immersive Barbie flying theater that takes riders through deep underwater and outer space; a Dream Closet Experience with a hologram Barbie to curate a wardrobe; and a Barbie Rooftop, where guests can choose from a selection of signature pink beverages, sweet and savory snacks and experience panoramic views.” (Phoenix Business Journal, May 26, 2022).

Add a 9-hole miniature golf course that is a life-sized Pictionary game board and a climbing structure where you jump on oversized UNO cards to get to the top.  They will also have a Masters of the Universe’s Castle Grayskull featuring a laser tag arena.

Mattel Amusement Park

“We are extremely excited to add Barbie, Masters of the Universe and Mattel Games themed attractions and rides to an already outstanding offering in development at the first-ever Mattel Adventure Park. We have spared no expense to bring these iconic brands to life in ways that will delight visitors of all ages for years to come.” said Mark Cornell, president, Epic Resort Destinations, in a statement. (Phoenix Business Journal, May 26,2022).

This concept is full-throated, offering something for every age group, both boys and girls. It makes use of the latest in digital electronics to offer immersive experiences.

Just imagine, children can be water babies while using the lake and then spend time at the Mattel Amusement Park. What a special day for them.

I’m saving up now. While my Grandchildren are too old, my Great Grandchildren are just the right age for such a day.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

May 22

26

Applications grants now available : Beautify Yucca

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 26, 2022
Posted in City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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.

Is there a part of your neighborhood that could use a make-over or a little sprucing up? Councilmember Joyce Clark wants to help you turn that eyesore into something beautiful.

Perhaps you have a retention basin that needs to be beautified with landscaping and a few benches or your neighborhood entry sign needs repair, or a community wall could use a new coat of paint? Do the rights-of-way need more gravel or plants/trees? Maybe you need a large dumpster or two to hold a neighborhood cleanup? Perhaps some art would help spruce up your neighborhood. Think outside the box. What would make your neighborhood look and feel better?

Councilmember Clark has created a $15,000 grant fund to be used in 2022. One-time project submissions can range from $100 up to $5,000.

City funding CANNOT be used on private property. Improving a single home(s) cannot be funded through this grant program. Your project must benefit your neighborhood. Projects not eligible for funding are those that: • Conflict with existing city policy • Benefit a single individual.

The grant can be used to pay for materials and supplies directly related to the implementation of the project. Examples of materials and supplies are plants, paint, mulch, lumber, garden supplies, planters, trash receptacles, benches, and city dumpsters.

A small portion of the grant will be used to pay for a permanent plaque to commemorate the project and acknowledge Councilmember Clark’s Grant and the participants. The grant can be used to rent equipment needed to complete the project. The grant can be used to purchase hand tools for the implementation of the project. All non-disposable tools purchased with grant funding will be the property of the City of Glendale.

Sweat equity from the neighborhood is required in the form of volunteer hours to implement and complete the project. The more support you can get from your neighbors, the better the chances of receiving a one-time grant award.

You may apply for a grant until 4:00 p.m., Thursday, June 30, 2022. Award notifications will be made by no later than July 8, 2022, and projects must be completed by October 31, 2022. All grants must be accepted by the lead applicant within 15 days of grant award notification. Extensions may be granted if supplies purchased are delayed or weather conditions affect the project.

Here are the rules:

  • Deadline to apply is Thursday, June 30,
  • Grant funding may be used for such items as landscaping projects, neighborhood markers, tree plantings, murals, benches, flower planters, signs, trash receptacles, gardens. This list is not all inclusive. You may create a project that is not included in this list.
  • You must submit on your application the costs, including but not limited to, supplies, landscaping materials (trees, plants, containers), benches, monument signage or any other cost associated with the proposed one-time beautification
  • An estimate of the volunteer hours from the neighbors to accomplish the
  • A proposed schedule for the project and the deadline of October 31, 2022, for completion.
  • Your neighborhood must be within the boundaries of the Yucca district

Here is the application as a pdf file. Once completed you may snail mail or return via an email to Sbeck@glendaleaz.com. Yucca Beautification Application FINAL

Good luck! I can’t wait to see your applications!

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

May 22

20

Just look at what you are missing

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 20, 2022
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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 publish a weekly ENews letter every Thursday. It contains a lot of great information. Learn about upcoming events in Glendale or find out which streets in the Yucca district are scheduled for pavement management. Each week there is something new.

Click on this link to subscribe or copy and paste into your browser. It will show up in your email every Thursday.

https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001wG1kY_25URFBkAQ8LSkL7psk_erhO_R-D1UJwhnb6-BHtjPUw_KVOrNgEN96W5zlliIkh053HT4NBV1oPmPMNuX0_bY80Vz3Yt7vl1Kt-M2nk341epSLp34GKVxg3ov_7aX9z4p8NR9Lc35XK8O_Z9UpohiRouh4pZZooHUjZt0%3D&id=preview

Here are some samples from this past Thursday’s ENews:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are great things happening in Glendale and my Enews is a great way to learn about them. Once you subscribe you will receive my weekly bulleting chock full of information. For example, every week I post which streets in the district are scheduled for pavement management.

Give it a try. If you don’t like it you can always opt out.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

May 22

19

Follow up on 70 town house proposal

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 19, 2022
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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.

As of this date Planning Staff has not informed me about the future plans of Mr. Froke’s project for 70 town houses on 5 acres zoned for Low Density Residential on the west side of 83rd Avenue. That is because there have been meetings between Mr. Froke and the Planning Department but no finalization of any plan. As you may recall, it was tabled by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on April 28, 2002, with the applicant to decide when it will be reheard by the P&Z.

Recently I received an email from an old friend. This person lived in Glendale for 40 years and was extremely active in the community, having also served on many boards and commissions. This person read my previous blog on the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 2022. The comments in the email really highlight one of the prime directives of the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z): “I have just skimmed over the report you made of the planning commission’s meeting to address the 83rd Avenue proposal.  I completely agree with you that this is totally out of bounds.  While I didn’t read the whole transcript, I did enough to know that the commission members seem to have had no training on what their duties are. They are to uphold the general plan.  The people have voted on the general plan, and no one or two people are competent enough or have the authority to overturn the public’s desires.  The property owner cannot do whatever he/she wants with their property; they must be held to the zoning regulations and the general plan.”

What is a General Plan? The city states, “A General Plan provides vision and policies that determine how a city will grow and develop in the future. The City of Glendale’s General Plan is a long-range comprehensive plan that guides development in the City by addressing various elements such as land use, housing, growth areas, urban design, military and aviation, open space, circulation, fiscal public health, environmental planning, energy, etc.”

Arizona State Statues requires municipalities to adopt, update, and readopt their General Plans every ten years. The Glendale City Council adopted an updated General Plan on April 26, 2016 and it was approved by Glendale voters on August 30, 2016. It is called Envision Glendale 2040.

Envision Glendale 2040 states, “The General Plan is designed as a policy and reference document to guide future development, projects, and programs.  It is used to determine how and where growth should occur, ways to wisely invest capital improvements, and techniques for enhancing and sustaining Glendale’s quality of life. Using a holistic approach, this plan looks to achieve a citizens’ directive for moderate, well‐managed growth.”  It also states, “Locational placements for private and/or public development investment are coordinated on the Land Use Map.  It is not a zoning map, but it does reflect the types and intensities of current land uses as well as intended development massing with which future zoning decisions are expected to be consistent.”

The Plan offers guidance on General Plan Amendments, and I found this provision very interesting: A Major General Plan Amendment can be applicable for less than 20 acres when,

“The Planning Director may determine an amendment as “major” if it is less than the minimum areas (20 acres) in the above table but: 1) the infrastructure demands are not offset by private investment or privately‐constructed extensions or expansions to publicly‐provided systems: and/or 2) the change has a substantial impact on the neighborhood or on furthering the goals of the General Plan.”

When you look at item 2, “the change has a substantial impact on the neighborhood…” It seems that going from 1 to 2.5 units to an acre to 20 units to an acre within a specific area general planned as low density residential, would certainly have a substantial impact on the neighborhood and should have been considered a Major General Plan Amendment.

Major General Plan Amendments are more complicated and can only be considered by the city at two specific times per year. However, I wonder why this request was not considered by the city as a Major General Plan Amendment?

Perhaps the P&Z Commissioners need a refresher course on their duties and responsibilities. They should be reminded that it is their responsibility to uphold the General Plan…you know, that document approved by Glendale’s voters. Any request for a change must be made by the applicant showing that it offers no “substantial impact on the neighborhood.” Mr. Froke took every opportunity to avoid the issue of density and never made the case.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

May 22

17

Our kingdom for a grocery store

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 17, 2022
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Westgate • Yucca district • Zanjero  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

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.

This blog is for the CEO of every grocery chain operating in Arizona:

  • Aldi
  • Whole Foods
  • Kroger (Frys)
  • Trader Joes
  • Sprouts
  • Albertsons
  • Safeway
  • Bashas
  • Winco Foods

I have been on and off city council since 1992 and to date have served 22 years on Glendale’s City Council as the Yucca District Councilmember. Over the past 22 years a grocery store has never located within the Yucca District. Within the past 5 years a minimum of a dozen multifamily complexes have been constructed or will be completed this year within this geographic area. Each complex has a minimum of 200 units. That’s 2,400 units at 2.3 persons per unit or 5,520 new arrivals in the Yucca district. Add new residential construction of a minimum of another 2,000 units and you can add another 5,000 persons. The residential subdivision of Stonehaven alone will have 1,635 new homes. New construction, both multifamily and single family residential, has added an estimated 10,000 people to the district.

The Yucca District base population before all this new construction is 40,000 persons. In other words, with the addition of the new residential, this district has a population of 50,000 persons with no place to do our weekly grocery shopping. There is a Super Walmart within the district, but a majority of the residents don’t use it. Instead, we are forced to use the closest Safeway in Phoenix or the closest Fry’s in Peoria, both of which are in neighboring cities, some miles away. A typical resident spends between $200 and $300 a week for food and household items.

The most common request I receive from Yucca district residents is for that of a traditional grocery store. Any grocery store that does a one-mile or five-mile demographic study will discover that there are sufficient rooftops and sufficient income to support a grocery store in this area.

I am personally sending this blog to every CEO with a request to do demographic research of this area. You will find that it not only meets your criteria but exceeds it. Better yet, I encourage you to contact Glendale’s Economic Development Department’s Director, Brian Friedman (623-930-2984; bfriedman@glendaleaz.com) or the Department’s Assistant Director, Jessi Pederson (623-930-2996; jpederson@glendaleaz.com) . They can provide the economic data that you seek. This is a community that wants you and will patronize you regularly.

I know my district and I know my residents. This is a community that not only wants you but needs you. I suspect that were you to locate in the Yucca District, your revenue projections will be greater than your best financial forecast. Please consider locating in the Yucca District. You won’t be disappointed.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

May 22

12

Stick to the zoning

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 12, 2022
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

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.

This is another blog that is overdue. This topic is of special interest to me for many reasons. One of which occurred recently. On April 28, 2022, the Planning Commission took up GPA 22-01 and ZON 22-01. Well, what’s that? Mr. Jon Froke, representing the property owners, Dorothy Keith and Teresa Zaddack, for 5.3 acres located at 5136 N. 83rd Avenue in Glendale was seeking high density multifamily zoning.

Before I relate the events of that evening, it’s important to understand what zoning is and why it is important to a community. Zoning has been used by cities large and small, throughout the country since the 1930’s, nearly 100 years.

The purpose of zoning is to create a city plan that develops a balanced city. Zoning is how the local government regulates and develops land within its control. Zoning helps protect the local environment and keep property values stable. It is broken down into multiple categories to help balance a city to ensure proper land use and to provide value to citizens that own property.

Every city has multiple zoning categories, from residential to commercial to industrial to multifamily, to name a few. Usually, there are more zoning categories than you have fingers. Within each zoning category there are regulations and guidelines for the benefit of the property owner so that person knows exactly what is required.

By legal right a property owner can develop that property as it is currently zoned. For example, a property that is currently zoned for commercial can be developed as commercial after the property owner has had the plans approved. Approval would be required, among other standards, to ensure proper setbacks (distance) from a street and surrounding structures. That is not the only requirement. Usually, there is a list of items.

A property owner does not have the legal right to develop the property in a different zoning category without first presenting the plan to the Planning Department and seeking the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.

This is important: by legal right a property owner can develop property within the zoning category identified for the property. There is no legal right for a property owner to develop outside of that identified zoning category. The property owner is legally required to seek approval from the city for any change in zoning. It is up to the property owner to make the case that a change in zoning is not detrimental to the city or surrounding property owners. Only if the case is made will the property owner be granted the right, by the city, to develop in a different zoning category.

That brings us to the night of April 28th and the hearing held for the property at 5136 N. 83rd Avenue. This segment, about an hour and a half, was a clown show. Once again, the Planning Commission (P&Z) demonstrated that it doesn’t understand its role as a citizen advisory body.

I took the time to transcribe this portion of the P&Z meeting. I reviewed it for accuracy and to remove typos, but I am sure that I missed some typos. So, please forgive them. I am providing the link here: Transcript Planning Commission Ap 28 2022

Before I comment on the meeting, let me explain exactly what Mr. Froke was requesting. a minor amendment to the Glendale General Plan from LDR-2.5 (Low Density Residential – 2.5 units/acre) to HDR-20 (High Density Residential – 20 units/acre); and for a rezoning from SR-17 (Suburban Residential 17,000 square foot minimum lot size) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) for 5.03 acres.

Some context is required. There are only two areas within Glendale that have large swaths of land zoned as SR-17 (Suburban residential, lot size of 17,000 square feet). One is comprised of 500+ acres south of Union Hills and around 67th. This land has already been developed at 1 to 4 lots to the acre. Those lots appear to be around 4 homes to the acre with lot sizes in the 8,000 to 10,000 SF range. Was the development a deviation from the SR-17 zoning? Yes, but it was decided to be appropriate as it was single family residential to another single family residential category with a reasonable modification as to the lot sizes (or density). It appears as if the lot sizes went from 17,000 SF down to 8,000 SF, a jump in density by 2 zoning categories. The applicant(s) made their case that rezoning would not be detrimental to the city or surrounding neighborhoods.

The other large swath, about 200 acres, is along 83rd from Glendale to Northern. Much of the land has already been developed as single family residential on large lots. The property in question is within this sea of large lot development along 83rd and the applicant is requesting to go from single family residential to multifamily residential by placing 20 units to the acre. The applicant is seeking a jump in density by 6 zoning categories from SR-17; SR-12; R 1-10; R 1-8; R 1-6; R 1-4; R 2 to R3. That, in and of itself is excessive.

There were several things about this particular P&Z agenda item that were concerning and by reading the transcript, I think you will agree. The first was the P&Z philosophy seems to be that by right, the property owner should be granted the right to rezone the property to any zoning category and P&Z was there to ensure that it happened. Not so. The applicant comes before the P&Z to make the case that it should receive greater, more dense zoning. In my estimation, the applicant did not make the case. Mr. Froke said this property would be a transition between the commercial development to its immediate south and the large lot, single family residential to its immediate north. However, across the street there is commercial directly to the south of and abutting large, single family lots of an acre or more (where our Mayor lives). It has been like this for 20 years or more and there have been no issues between the commercial and the large lot residences.

Another area of concern was the belief of Chairperson Vernon Crow that it is the responsibility of the P&Z to facilitate consensus in allowing this type of development at that location and to do so, to broker a meeting between the applicant and the surrounding neighborhoods. That is not the role of nor the responsibility of the P&Z.

Yet another area of concern was Commissioner Tom Cole’s request that the Planning Department has an obligation to provide both sides of the request. Excuse me, the Planning Department’s obligation is to present the facts of the application and to present the facts regarding its recommendation. In this case, it was a recommendation of denial. It did that and is under no obligation to present the case for the applicant. That is the applicant’s responsibility.

I believe Commissioner Gary Hirsch was out of order. As the Interim Planning Director, Tabitha Perry, was summarizing the reasons for the department’s recommendation of denial, Commissioner Hirsch interrupted her and accused her of “selling” the recommendation of denial. He was rude and his comments were inappropriate.

I also was not impressed by the city’s senior planner, George Gehlert. His job was the present the facts and to support the department’s recommendation of denial. In my estimation, he failed to do so.

What was the result? The first motion, made by Commissioner Hirsch was for approval and failed for lack of a second. The second motion, made by Commissioner Nowakowski was for denial and failed due to a tie vote with Commissioners John Crow (no relation to Vernon Crow), Martin Nowakowski and John Guers supporting denial and Commissioners Vernon Crow, Tom Cole and Gary Hirsh not supporting denial. The final motion, made by Commissioner John Crow, was to table with the applicant deciding when it would be brought back before the Commission. All Commissioners supported the motion except for Commissioner Gary Hirsch.

My greatest concern is that if approved, this decision becomes precedent setting for the entire city. It opens the door to any large lot, residential property owner within all of Glendale to seek similar zoning. There are many single family, large lot properties throughout Glendale that would then have the potential to develop a property as dense, multifamily. If this action is approved, it is going to be extremely difficult to deny a similar zoning request to any other large lot property owner.

It makes the city’s zoning plan irrelevant. Why would a zoning plan be needed if the intent is to ignore it? It creates the ‘Wild West’ in development of the city. If current zoning is to be ignored then there is no rationale to adhere to it or keep it.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

May 22

11

Crystal Lagoons morphs into VAI Resort

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 11, 2022
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale Economic Development • State Farm Stadium • Westgate • Yucca district  | Tagged With: , , , | 3 Comments

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’ve wanted to write this blog for several weeks but as city council work becomes more complex and time consuming, it leaves very little time for writing.

There were a flurry of press releases issued several weeks ago as well as discussion about the development at Tuesday’s, April 26th City Council workshop meeting. In case you missed it, here is what is happening to Crystal Lagoon.

The location of the development is at the southwest corner of 95th Avenue and Cardinals Way. It is just south of the State Farm Stadium. When the project was first announced and approved by council in June of 2020, as Crystal Lagoons Island Resort a 600-room hotel was envisioned with a lake area with white sand beaches, office, and retail space, a 100’ tall Aero Bar and a 400’ tethered balloon and a Mattel Amusement Park.

Two of the principles, Glen Bilbo, and Tommy Fisher, were involved in the project from the beginning. Tommy Fisher, a long-time resident in the Valley, has now taken over the entire project. Mr. Fisher is well respected in the development community.

Mr. Fisher and his son, Grant, reevaluated the project concept and in fact, have reimagined and upgraded it. The project is now called VAI and the VAI hotel has grown from the original concept of 600 rooms to 1200 rooms, making it the largest resort hotel in the state. I asked Mr. Fisher if their intent is to develop a 5-star hotel and he affirmed it that it is.

In essence, the office space and a substantial portion of the retail has been removed to make way for the larger hotel. There will be the main hotel and in essence, two annexes. All will look the same and offer the same level of service. There will be about 13 upscale restaurants on site as well as a “knock your socks off” wedding chapel. There will also be meeting and convention space.

The major emphasis will be on presenting live, musical events with plans for more than 100 events each year with well-known performing artists. Those who book rooms will be able to see the live concerts from the hotel where they will be performed on an island that faces the hotel. The live musical theater on the island will be able to rotate 360 degrees.

VAI Resort Hotel

One interesting feature will be a tunnel system able to accommodate service carts that will be used by employees to get from one structure to another. There will be some parking on site in the form of a parking garage for hotel visitors and overflow parking will be available on the city’s black lot on the east side of 95th Avenue.

The Aero Bar and tethered balloon concepts remain as does the Mattel Amusement Park under the management of Glen Bilbo. The Amusement Park, however, has nearly doubled in size.

All of the changes have affected the timeline for the project. The goal was to have the hotel open in time for the Super Bowl but with its expansion, the more realistic timeline has the hotel opening sometime between March and May of next year.

In summary the VAI Resort will include:

  • A 7-acre water way with sandy white beaches.
  • A 52,000-square foot man-made island.
  • A 360-degree, rotating concert stage.
  • More than 1,200 hotel rooms.
  • 170 stage-facing hotel rooms.
  • A 20,000-square foot spa and wellness center.
  • A wedding chapel.
  • A massive helium balloon that will take visitors nearly 400 feet into the air for an aerial view of the Phoenix area.
  • Aerophile’s Aerobar, a space that will offer food and drinks at 130 feet in the air, giving customers a high-up view of the Valley.
  • A 4D theater and a “fly theater,” similar to the “Soarin’ Around the World” ride in Disney’s California Adventure theme park.
  • Luxury retail shops.

In essence, many of the original deck chair concepts are still there. They have just been rearranged. The original principals involved in the project are still there as well. Their areas of responsibility have been rearranged too.

Make no mistake. This is an ungraded development that will still market itself to families to attend the Mattel Amusement Park but now it has branded itself beyond that concept. The live musical entertainment 100 days a year at a 5-star resort offering unique restaurant and retail concepts has taken the development to a whole new level.

This development enhances the Westgate area as it offers yet another recreational opportunity for Glendale’s premier experiential retail site. Music, sports and entertainment…the Westgate area has it all. There is no other area in the state quite like the Westgate area.

I continue to say that this is the most impactful project not just for Glendale, the state or the southwest but internationally. International visitors will be eager to enjoy a new destination/entertainment experience that offers something for everyone. As the development’s greatest cheerleader, I am eagerly awaiting its opening as well as everyone’s reaction to this blockbuster project.

© Joyce Clark, 2022      

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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »