Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jun 16

17

Good news…plus a little of this, a little of that

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 17, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Light Rail  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE THREE CHAVIRA VIDEOS TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN AND PLEASE DONATE TO MY CAMPAIGN.

It has been 18 years and 180 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Rarely does Glendale make a good news headline these days but unbelievably, it has happened. On June 13, 2016, Paul Giblin offered a story in the Arizona Republic entitled Glendale business boom: New companies, jobs headed to city. Giblin tells us, “More than a dozen companies have either moved to Glendale or expanded in the city this year…” representing “approximately 1,000 immediate jobs and 3,000 jobs at build out.” Here is the link to his story: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2016/06/13/glendale-business-boom-new-companies-jobs-headed-city/83852820/?hootPostID=6ada3683edf973f91ab90c9ddc9731c8 .

Who is responsible for the good news? City council? Nah. City Manager Phelps? Nah. The real heroes of this story are Glendale Economic Development Director Brian Friedman and his team. Of the 95,000 person workforce in Glendale, 84,000 travel outside of Glendale to work. Only 11,000 Glendale residents are employed within the city. It should be noted that 59,600 non-Glendale residents travel to work inside Glendale. Congratulations to Brian Freidman and his team. Keep up the good work as Glendale continues its economic resurgence.

One of my readers sent me mayoral candidate Burdick’s latest blast email. In it, I was particularly drawn to this, “Glendale residents deserve well-paying, fulfilling and abundant employment. We have the ability to recruit new, high-paying employers to our region, but unfortunately, many employers and developers look past Glendale because of ongoing budget problems, broken promises and failed relationships.”

There is no doubt that our residents want good, high-paying jobs where they live – here in Glendale. It seems pretty apparent that is exactly what Brian Freidman’ goal is. That is exactly what Freidman is creating in Glendale.

Three days after Giblin’s good news story about job creation and new businesses coming to Glendale, Burdick, in apparent ignorance of the facts, says that new employers are NOT coming to Glendale. I guess Burdick and his team don’t read a newspaper very often. How embarrassing.

I’ve been sent several of Burdick’s email blasts by my readers. What seems to be lacking in all of them are any semblance of fact to back up his claims. Where are they?

At least when I refer to my opponent’s ethical challenges, there are facts gathered from the media or city council minutes to back them. For instance, his travel expenditures were well documented in the Arizona Republic on March 4, 2016. His traffic citation and failure to appear in court were reported by the Glendale Star on April 28, 2016 and his record of absences can be found in city council minutes.

Now, a little of this…the light rail issue, is one of the most divisive in modern Glendale history. A few weeks ago Glendale Councilmember Ray Malnar offered to the public cost estimates to build 7 miles of light rail beginning at the end of the Phoenix light rail and culminating in Glendale on either the east or west side of Grand Avenue. Here are the cost estimates he provided:

  • Glendale Total cost (7 miles) $560,000,000.00
  • Federal Funds 50% $280,000,000.00
  • Glendale Sales Tax (GO Transportation Program) 17.5% $84,000,000.00
  • Phoenix T-2050 Tax 17.5% $112,000,000.00
  • WEST PHOENIX-CENTRAL GLENDALE – Regional Funding 15% $84,000,000.00
  • Assumes 50% federal funds and 15% regional funds
  • Assumes local share is split 4/7 Phoenix (4 miles in Phoenix), 3/7 Glendale (3 miles in Glendale)

Councilmember Malnar went on to report, “The latest estimated maintenance cost is $1.5 Million per mile for a total of $10.5 million per year. Based on the 3/7, 4/7 split between Glendale and Phoenix, the estimated Glendale cost per year for maintenance and operation of the 3-mile section would be $4.3 million per year. These costs are estimated to be reduced by about 1/3 from passenger fares, advertising and other income sources.”   

These are important facts to consider. Cost estimates for Glendale’s portion are $84 million dollars which comes out of Glendale’s GO Transportation sales tax revenues and the annual estimated maintenance cost to Glendale would be in the $4 million dollar range (cost reduced by 1/3 resulting in estimated cost of $3 million dollars per year).

The question of light rail in Glendale at this time and its associated costs demand another public vote expressing ratification or denial of the light rail concept in Glendale. The last vote on the issue was in 2001, 15 years ago, and resident’s priorities may have changed since that vote. Residents need the facts regarding costs and then the right to determine if this is how they want the transportation sales tax to be spent. Are there other priorities for which $84 million dollars of transportation sales tax could be used?

Now, a little of that…the elusive proof of insurance for the Cinco de Mayo Festival has finally been located and produced. Former Councilmember Norma Alvarez received the document as a result of yet another Public Information Request. She shared the result of that request and I am now sharing it with you. Here is a copy of the insurance: BreakthruChurchInsurance 2

Please note that it is under Barrio Breakthru Community Church. It would appear that a claim for the estimated $50,000 of criminal damage to city hall can be made against their policy. It would also be highly appropriate for the city to notify Barrio Breakthru Community Church and/or Productions that it will perform an audit of the $5,000 donated to them by Councilmembers Chavira and Aldama for their Cinco de Mayo event. After all, it is taxpayer money and the public has the right to learn if the $5,000 was spent appropriately.

Lastly…the Scottsdale city council had selected 3 finalists in its search for a new city manager. One of those finalists was Jim Colson, a former Economic Development Director for Glendale. On a 6 to 1 vote, the Scottsdale city council has directed that it will begin a new search with all finalists having been rejected.

© 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.

Jun 16

10

More parks, please

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 10, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Heroes Park • O'Neil Pool • West Branch Library  | Tagged With: , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE CHAVIRA VIDEOS TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN.              PLEASE MAKE A DONATION TO MY CAMPAIGN!!

It has been 18 years and 174 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.                                                                                                               Recently the Arizona Republic had a story about cities and their park rankings. Here is the link:http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/06/03/report-phoenix-area-cities-lag-park-funding-access/84931948/ . Glendale ranked in the middle of the pack nationally at number 55. It was disappointing to read that Glendale spends the least on their park system at $39 per resident. The national median was $82 per resident. Glendale spends less than half the national median. This is a truly unacceptable statistic. Scottsdale spends the most in the state at $115 per capita and even Phoenix spends $88 per resident.

The leadership of Glendale, city council and senior management, want Glendale to grow. An admirable goal to be sure but how does a city attract new growth? Two components are essential. One is first class amenities such as parks and plenty of them. Residents want clean, safe parks close to their neighborhoods as do employees of prospective employers deciding to locate in Glendale. Peoria and Surprise are well on their way to meeting this goal. Just look at Glendale’s Grant Canal Linear Park. It is heavily used daily as is Glendale’s Thunderbird Paseo Linear Park. They demonstrate just how important parks are to residents.

Glendale is woefully lagging its neighbors. We still see an unfinished Heroes Park. Two other major parks in west Glendale also remain unfinished. Forget about new parks when Glendale can’t even find the will or funds to finish what it has started. Where are the funds to reopen O’Neil Pool? Putting in a West Branch Library as a modular building is an affront to current and future residents.If Glendale is serious about growth these are issues that must be addressed.

The other component for growth is quality residential development. Glendale’s vacant parcels should not be destined for high density, single family residential. These precious, vacant parcels are an opportunity to raise the bar of residential development. When Glendale allows a Stonehaven residential development with 43% of the lots only 5,500 square feet in size, it is not raising the bar for quality development. Some make the argument that a 5,500 square foot lot with a small home can still be a quality product. Generally it has been found that this type of house product is an entry level home and those that can qualify for purchase of this product cannot afford to upgrade options offered. So you see laminate kitchen counter tops instead of granite, standard bathroom fixtures and standard flooring…no upgrades. You find small bedrooms with just enough room for a bed and not much more. Stonehaven at approximately 300 acres of prime residential development is an opportunity squandered away by Glendale.

Glendale, it’s way past time to set the bar higher. Use the residential land left to attract other than entry level home products and for goodness sakes, finish our parks and add more parks, please.

© 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.

Jun 16

3

Campaign update…June, 2016

Posted by Joyce Clark on June 3, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale's Fire Union  | Tagged With: , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

PLEASE CHECK OUT OUR LATEST SAMMY VIDEO, CHAVIRA INVISIBLE, TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN. YOU CAN ALSO VIEW THE TWO OTHER CHAVIRA VIDEOS, CHAVIRA MAKES THE NEWS OR NOT AND CHAVIRA MONEY MONEY. EACH RUNS ABOUT A MINUTE AND A HALF TO TWO MINUTES.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016 was the last day Glendale candidates could file their nominating petitions. The City Clerk’s Office has been very, very busy accepting petitions from mayoral candidates Jerry Weiers and Mark Burdick as well as those of council candidates Ian Hugh for the Cactus district ( unopposed); Ray Malnar for the Sahuaro district ( unopposed), myself and Sammy Chavira, my opponent, for the Yucca district.

Here’s some trivia. The number of nominating signatures required for each race is based on the total number of votes for mayor in the 2012 Glendale General Election. The total number of votes for mayor throughout Glendale was 69,558. That means that each of the mayoral candidates submitted a minimum (5%) of 3,478 signatures and a maximum (10%) of 6,956 signatures. Since each petition sheet holds 10 signature spaces the City Clerk received somewhere between 350 and 700 sheets from each mayoral candidate. Not all petition sheets may have been filled out completely. It is possible to submit more than 700 sheets because of that fact.

The total votes for mayor in the Sahuaro district were 15,360. Ray Malnar, unopposed, submitted a minimum of 768 signatures and a maximum of 1,536 (76 to 150 petition sheets). The total votes for mayor in the Cactus district were 9,395. Ian Hugh, unopposed, submitted a minimum of 470 signatures and a maximum of 940 signatures (47 to 94 sheets). The total votes for mayor in the Yucca district were 9,271. Sammy Chavira submitted a minimum of 464 signatures and a maximum of 927 (46 to 92 sheets).  Now you can see why the City Clerk has been busy. She and her staff have processed an estimated 2,000 petition sheets from various candidates.

I turned in my nominating petition signatures on May 4, 2016 with the maximum allowable of 927 signatures. Since some of the sheets did not have all 10 signature

Joyce turns in her nominating petitions

Joyce turns in her nominating petitions

spaces filled, the actual number of sheets I turned in was 101. The registered voters I and my volunteers met during signature collection were eager to sign my petition and often commented on having read about Sammy’s travel misadventures.

Sammy has turned in his petitions. My team discovered some interesting facts from reviewing them. The last time Sammy ran in 2012 he had a lot of support from the fire unions, the Democrat Party, former Councilmember Norma Alvarez and “Dreamers.” All of that support has evaporated. It is rumored that the fire union had a “heart to heart” meeting with Sammy and asked him not to run. They felt that he had tarnished the image of fire fighter with his publicized misdeeds. Former Councilmember Norma Alvarez rejected Sammy, urged me to run and has endorsed me. The “Dreamers” have disappeared.

Sammy has one, last friend to save him…Congressman Ruben Gallego. You remember Ruben, don’t you? Sammy spent $2,075 of your tax money to go to D.C. to see him sworn in. Ruben invited Sammy to go to D.C. to see the Pope on a large screen TV for another taxpayer funded $1,933. Along the way Sammy racked up a $400+ dinner for his bosses and blew $3,136 on changed airline tickets and baggage fees. Yep, you guessed it…on the taxpayers’ dime.

Who circulated Sammy’s petitions? Not Sammy. He’s too busy playing the wheeler, dealer councilman. This time around he had to pay for petition circulators…25 of them. I guess he couldn’t find Yucca district people to support him. The petition company he used appears to have strong connections to…Ruben Gallego. He had 4 Glendale citizens collect signatures for him. Three of them were paid circulators. Only one person was an unpaid volunteer. That volunteer collected a total of 4 signatures for him. How embarrassing.

The race for the Yucca district council seat is on. The next two months are critical. Early Permanent Voter Ballots will be mailed out on August 3rd with the Primary on August 30, 2016. A majority of the voters in the Yucca district now vote by Permanent Early Ballot. One of us will take the election in the Primary because there are only two of us and one will have a majority of the votes.

Now I really need your help. I need an army! I have raised $6545 in campaign thermometer w new numbers Ap 20 2016contributions to date with 98% of the donations coming from people just like you. Some of you may be thinking, “I need to donate to Joyce’s campaign.” You’ve read previous blogs and intended to donate but got distracted. Now is the time. Won’t you take a moment to donate via the Pay Pal button to the upper left of this column or send a donation to: Clark for Council, 8628 W. Cavalier Drive, Glendale, AZ 85305. Any amount is gratefully appreciated. You can make more than one donation as long as your total giving to any onedollar-sign-clipart-black-and-white-dollar-sign-clip-art-dollar-sign-pic---clipart-best candidate does not exceed $6500. Your spouse can make a donation as well. Please include your employer, job title, and address. These items are legally required.

We have received quotes for campaign signs and they are not cheap. We estimate the cost of signs alone will be in the neighborhood of $2,000. Getting quotes on campaign mailers is next. They are even more expensive than the signs…primarily because of the cost of postage.

I need volunteers to call voters. Surely there are a dozen brave souls among youcall-clipart-clip-art-telephone-007396 willing to make cold calls to the voters in the Yucca district. It’s pretty easy work done comfortably in your own home. At least you don’t have to be outside in this heat! Come on, please email me at: clarkjv@aol.com or text/call me at 602-320-3422 and volunteer. I can’t do this without you.

So many people have called, texted or emailed me with their support. Now is the time to demonstrate your support by helping the campaign. Please make a donation or volunteer to call voters.

© 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.

May 16

30

Light rail and city hall damage follow up…again

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 30, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

It has been 18 years and 163 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE TWO SAMMY CHAVIRA VIDEOS TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN.537e4d22979c7.image

Before beginning today’s blog let us all take a moment to remember all armed service active duty and veterans for their service and their sacrifice. A bit of trivia…did you know that 1% of America’s population is responsible for preserving the freedoms that 99% of us enjoy? Our debt is enormous.Memorial-Day-Graphic

Light rail continues to remain contentious. In its city council meeting of April 24, 2016 city council split on a 4-3 vote approving its route and mode of transit. Voting for light rail were Councilmembers Tolmachoff, Turner, Aldama and Chavira. Voting against, while citing the need for an investigation of the alternatives, were Mayor Weiers, Vice Mayor Hugh and Councilmember Malnar.

This issue will come before city council once again, probably in January of 2017. At that time city council will be asked to commit formally to financing and approving the final route. At that time they will still have the option to approve or deny funding for light rail.

There are many angry people out there who are opposed to light rail for many reasons and they are not going to go away. The wisest action this city council could take would be to call for a special election and allow the citizens of Glendale to decide this issue for once and for all. After all, the last vote taken about light rail was 15 years ago and in that time we have seen many things change. It’s time to formally reassess the will of the people of Glendale.

City hall damage and the fall out just will not go away. In Paul Giblin’s story of May 24, 2016, the city acknowledges that nearly $50,000 (not the $30,000 I had cited previously) of damage had been done. Here is the link :  http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2016/05/24/vandals-cause-50000-damage-glendale-city-hall/84557320/ .

 In a second Public Information Request I again asked for the following:

  1. “I request Councilmembers Aldama and Chavira to obtain information from Barrio Breakthru about expenses covered by their donation of $5,000 of taxpayer money.
  2. 2. I request copies of any and all licenses and proof of insurance on file for this event provided to the city by Barrio Breakthru.”

The city’s response was, “The City has reviewed its records and has provided documents on file that are responsive to this request. There were no responsive documents for item #1.” None of the documents I previously received from the city show any licenses or proof of insurance on file with the city. Yet Ordinance 2975 specifically contains these specific requirements.

There is another way to skin this cat. On September 2, 2014 city council took up the question of council guidelines and specifically the issue of councilmember donations to non-profits. Here is the link: http://glendale-az.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2838c6fe-32f9-11e4-bdc2-00219ba2f017&meta_id=7296  .  No consensus was achieved by council to prohibit councilmember donations to non-profits but there were a series of staff recommendations that, by council  consensus, were adopted on that date. They were as follows:

  1. “Requests for an expenditure of council discretionary funds for purposes of a donation of $5,000 or above must be submitted to the City Council for approval.
  2. “Each request for the use of council discretionary funds will require the completion of a new uniform standard request form.
  3. “Council discretionary fund recipients will agree that the City of Glendale and its authorized representatives shall have the right to examine and audit all financial and related records related to the acceptance and expending of the discretionary funding.”

I call upon City Manager Kevin Phelps to perform an audit of Barrio Breakthru and its acceptance of and its spending of the discretionary funding provide by Councilmember Chavira in the amount of $2,500 and Councilmember Aldama in the amount of $2,500. This audit should be publicly released for it involves $5,000 taxpayer dollars. I further call upon City Manager Kevin Phelps to amend Ordinance 2975 making it clear that if these requirements are not met, no permit will obtained. There is also an opportunity to review policies for special events to ensure that all organizations are being treated equally and that city property is protected properly.

City Manager Phelps said, “ Breakthru Productions carries insurance, so city officials will approach the organization’s executives to seek reimbursement for the damaged equipment.” If that is the case, why was I not provided with that information when I made my PIR? None of the documents I received included any proof of insurance despite a specific request for such information.

Why does it seem that Barrio Breakthru is being given a pass by city hall officials? Is it because two councilmembers, Chavira and Aldama donated to Barrio Breakthru?

© 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.

May 16

24

Light rail and Cinco De Mayo follow up

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 24, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Light Rail  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE LATEST CHAVIRA VIDEO, What’s Sammy Been Doing, HIGHLIGHTING HIS CONSTITUENT ENGAGEMENT. IT IS TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN.

It has been 18 years and 158 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

This evening, May 24, 2016, city council will vote on the issue of light rail. The meeting begins at 6 PM in Council Chambers at City Hall. Please park in the parking garage at 59th Avenue and Glendale Avenue. Walk east to council chambers. Make your opinion known. As I have stated in previous blogs, light rail may be one of the most divisive issues to ever surface in Glendale. Your voice counts.

On May 15, 2016 I filed a Public Information Request with the Glendale City Clerk’s office asking for the following information:

“Councilmember Sam Chavira and Councilmember Jamie Aldama each made a $2,500 donation on or about April 28, 2016 in support of the 2016 Cinco De Mayo Festival held on April 29, 2016 to May 1, 2016. The event was cosponsored by the City of Glendale and Barrio Breakthru Productions. I request the following public information:

  1. What was the $5,000 donated by Councilmembers Aldama and Chavira used for with regard to this event?
  2. A list of services, equipment, supplies and personnel supplied by the City of Glendale to support, produce, operate and clean up of the event, in-king or otherwise.
  3. The monetary value of all requested items listed in #2.
  4. Any and all reports, summaries, etc., submitted to the City of Glendale by or for Barrio Breakthru Productions that reflects the expenses required to produce the event and any and all revenues earned as a result of the event.”

My request was promptly fulfilled by the city by May 20, 2016. Questions #2 and #3 were thoroughly answered with the following information:

  1. “Off duty Police officers were hired through Pro-Force (a third party provider) not directly through the city. Sanitation roll-off delivery, rental, pickup and charges for tonnage at landfill. Audio and lighting services were provided by a third party not through the city. Transportation review of Traffic Control Plan (TCP) for event from the barricade company. This generated charges for lane use and TCP review fees.”
  2. “Sanitation roll-off charges: Delivery fee of $46.11; Haul fee of $175.00 and Landfill charges of $22.60. Transportation charges: TCP Review fee of $44.76; and Lane use fees of $335.76.”

My answers to questions #1 and #2 were not fulfilled. It seems that Councilmembers Aldama and Chavira’s total donation of $5,000 is in some black hole of non-information. There appears to be no accountability on the part of these councilmembers. Otherwise they could have provided information to fulfill that portion of my Public Information Request. As far as can be determined, neither asked Barrio Breakthru Productions for any information about the use of $5,000 of taxpayer money.  Apparently they just gave Barrio Breakthru Productions your money. Did the money cover costs of producing the festival? If so, what for?

Based on the information the city requested of the event producer its sole interest seems to be in logistics of holding the event. In the material the city provided there is no request for licenses of any kind or proof of insurance. It would seem these would be important for the city to have on file. Yet the city file supplied makes no mention of either item. One would think that these items would be important especially in light of the criminal damage that occurred at city hall during the event.

We still do not know if Barrio Breakthru Productions or the Breakthru Community Church was ultimately considered the event producer and was responsible for producing a certificate of adequate insurance. If it was the church that was the producer of record with the city then there is still the pesky issue of separation of church and state.

This incident demonstrates a lack of competence and clarity by city staff.  There were requirements for insurance in City Ordinance 2975. Why were the Ordinance requirements not followed? If the requirements were followed why was that information not supplied with all of the extraneous information I received about city requirements for the event? What is city policy these days? If elements of Ordinance 2975 are being waived upon whose authority is it being done?

I guess I will file one more Public Information Request asking Councilmembers Aldama and Chavira to obtain information from Barrio Breakthru about expenses covered by their donation of $5,000 of taxpayer money. I will also ask for any and all licenses and proof of insurance on file for this event provided to the city by Barrio Breakthru. Will let you know what response I obtain.

© 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.

May 16

19

City hall damage…a follow up

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 19, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE “WHAT’S SAMMY BEEN DOING” VIDEO HIGHLIGHTING GLENDALE COUNCILMEMBER SAMMY CHAVIRA’S ACTIVITIES IN THE YUCCA DISTRICT. IT IS TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN.

It has been 18 years and 153 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

As I reported in my blog, City hall damage, sometime during the weekend of the Cinco De Mayo festival, one of the “B” meetings rooms was damaged. Estimates of the damage range from $30,000 to $50,000. On Tuesday, May 17, 2016, at the end of the city council workshop, City Manager Kevin Phelps gave his report. Here is the link beginning at 42:09 minutes: http://glendaleaz.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2443&meta_id=39243 .

If you cannot access the link here is what City Manager Phelps said, “I apologize. I forgot to just notify you of one thing in my City Manager’s Report. If you’re OK. Recently, maybe you’re aware of, we did have some damage done here at the building and we received a couple of inquiries to our office. Basically, there’s an ongoing investigation. The Police Department is working on it. We believe we’ll have it resolved as to the issues. I think they’ve identified who potentially created the damage. We’ll then look at our options. Currently the damage will be covered under our insurance if we’re not able to get restitution from the people who caused the damage. But we’ll report back to you as soon as we get more detail. But it is an ongoing investigation. We feel like we will get, we’ve reviewed tape and we believe we can resolve the situation.”

The City Manager corroborated several facts: 1. Damage was done to City Hall. Although he did not indicate the dollar value of the damage or when it occurred. 2. The Glendale Police Department has an ongoing investigation.  3. There is a tape of the criminal damage being committed and they have identified who caused the damage. 4. The city will be seeking restitution from those who caused the damage. If the person(s) do not have insurance, city insurance will cover the damage.

This incident raises many questions about city policies for special events. Ordinance 2591, a city law, lists various requirements for sponsors of special events such as the Cinco De Mayo Festival.  As you may recall, this event was co sponsored by Barrio Breakthru Productions, an unregistered entity with the Arizona Corporation Commission. However Breakthru Community Church is a registered entity. Who was responsible and filed the application with the city? Breakthru Productions or Breakthru Community Church? If it was the church did the city violate federal law requiring the separation of church and state?

As you can see from direct quotes from Ordinance 2591 insurance and bonding was required. Were these requirements waived? By whom? And on whose authority?

  • “Sec. 29.2-26. – Code compliance; additional application requirements. To ensure that the public health, welfare and safety are protected, applicants shall comply with all city plumbing and electrical code requirements; provide for public safety personnel and resources (police, fire and emergency medical), sanitation and sewage disposal facilities, and indemnification and insurance. If the event will be held during hours of darkness, the applicant shall comply with lighting standards prescribed in this city code for streets and public property.
  • “Sec. 29.2-27. – Indemnification agreement.                                                                           (a)“At the time of application, the applicant shall enter into an indemnification agreement with the city under which the applicant assumes full responsibility and liability for and indemnifies, defends and holds the city harmless against:                                                                               (1) “All liability, claims for damages, and suits for or by reason of any injury to any person, including death, and damage to any property for every cause in any way connected with the holding of the large special event, including the preparation, set-up, holding and closeout; and
    (2) “All expenses incurred by the city for public safety, sanitation and transportation personnel and resources required to preserve public order and protect public health, safety and welfare, together with any other expenses or costs that may be incurred by the city as a result of the large special event. The applicant shall indemnify the city against all charges, expenses and costs, including the city’s legal department services incurred on account of or by reason of any such injuries, damages, liability, claims, suits or losses and all damages growing out of the same.
  • “Sec. 29.2-28. – Insurance.                                                                 (a) “The applicant shall deliver to the city manager, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the submission of a completed application or within two (2) calendar days of the event, whichever occurs first, proof of insurance in the amounts and types of coverage as determined by city manager regulation. All issuers of insurance shall be authorized to do business within the State of Arizona and carry an A.M. Best Company, Inc., FSR rating of at least B++. Minimum coverage shall include, but not be limited to: commercial general liability; automobile liability; and liquor and aircraft coverage as the type of event may necessitate. The city may also require special coverage that would protect against liabilities in case of the provision of activities involving child care. All such insurance shall be endorsed to provide for a waiver of underwriter’s rights of subrogation in favor of the city. Prior to commencing any work on the event, certificates of insurance approved by the city’s division of risk management demonstrating the maintenance of the required insurance shall be furnished to the city. The certificates shall provide that no material alteration or cancellation, including expiration and non-renewal, shall be effective until fifteen (15) business days after receipt of written notice by the city. If one or more cranes or similar heavy equipment pieces are used for any activity associated with the large special event, the proof of insurance will clearly demonstrate that the general liability coverage includes coverage for such equipment and has no limitation specific to use of the equipment. If fireworks displays or pyrotechnic displays are included in the large special event, the proof of insurance will clearly demonstrate that general liability coverage is provided to include coverage for such display(s) with no limitation specific to the display(s). Such evidence must be provided by the organization(s) responsible for such display(s). The failure by the applicant to provide or the failure of the city to demand an insurance certificate as required in this section shall not relieve the applicant’s obligation to provide the required insurance.                        (b) “All coverages are to be provided on a “per occurrence” form. If coverage is only available on a “claims made” form, the insured shall agree to maintain extended reporting coverage for a minimum of two (2) years past the expiration of the annual policy term.                                        (c) “The coverage(s) required under this section shall survive and not be terminated, reduced or otherwise limited by any expiration or termination of particular policies for insurance coverages.                                       (d) “All coverages shall be primary and non-contributory with respect to all other available sources. Where the city is named as an additional insured, it shall be by endorsement and not solely as a listed party on the certificate of insurance. The city shall be an additional insured to the full limits of coverage purchased by the applicant even if those limits are in excess of the minimums required by this section.                                  (e) “Federal, state and local government agencies may submit a statement of self-insurance or proof of eligibility for sovereign immunity allowed by the applicable state or federal statute. Such statement will be acceptable in place of insurance requirements defined herein.                             (Ord. No. 2591, § 3, 10-9-07)
  • “Sec. 29.2-29. – Surety bonds and payment for city resources.               (a) “The applicant shall deliver to the city within fifteen (15) calendar days after the submission of a completed application or within two (2) calendar days of the event, whichever occurs first, surety by a cash bond, payment and performance bond, or a continuing letter of credit in an amount equal to the costs of providing public safety, sanitation and transportation personnel and resources at the event. The surety shall be released if no claims are made against it no later than fifteen (15) business days from the last date of the large special event. Such surety shall be conditioned upon the applicant faithfully observing, fulfilling and performing all obligations under the application, contract and provisions of this chapter, and shall be in a form approved by the city’s legal department according to the standards set forth in this section. The purpose of such surety is to insulate the city from financial loss due to the large special event. Cash bonds shall be deposited into a non-interest bearing account designated for such deposits by the city.                                                               (b) “In addition to the requirements above, the applicant shall pay the city by cash, cashier’s check, certified check, wire transfer or money order within fifteen (15) calendar days after the submission of a completed application or within two (2) calendar days prior to the event, whichever occurs first, fifty percent (50%) of the total costs for city resources as listed in paragraph (a) above. The balance due shall be paid to the city in the same manner by no later than thirty (30) calendar days following the conclusion of the event. If the applicant is unable to obtain surety as required above, then the applicant must pay in advance by cash, cashier’s check, wire transfer, certified check or money order within ten (10) calendar days of submission of a completed application, the total costs for city resources as listed in paragraph (a) above.                                     (c) “The city may seek recovery of the costs listed in paragraph (a) above for large special events conducted without a permit.                              (d) “If the event a large special event is cancelled due to a state of emergency declared by the Governor or the Mayor of the city, the city, at the applicant’s request, shall refund to the applicant all deposits paid hereunder to the extent the costs have not already been incurred by the city, and shall release the net remaining surety posted as soon as practicable.
    (e) “Costs for city resources shall be determined by the city pursuant to city manager regulation.                                                                  (Ord. No. 2591, § 3, 10-9-07)” My apology for the terrible formatting of the Ordinance.

This incident of criminal damage to city hall during the time period of a special event demands a full, investigation and a publicly issued report by the City Manager to city council. The elephant in the room is this: did Councilmembers Jamie Aldama and Sammy Chavira, each of whom donated $2,500 of their council budgeted funds (taxpayer money), create an atmosphere of tacit, unspoken influence on staff? Did their contributions to the Cinco De Mayo Festival cause pressure to be placed on staff to waive many legal requirements of Ordinance 2591? The public deserves a full explanation after having $5,000 spent by councilmembers to support this event.

© 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.

May 16

16

Response to a reader

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 16, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , | 2 Comments

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE VIDEO ABOUT COUNCILMEMBER SAMMY CHAVIRA’S TRAVEL ON THE TAXPAYER DIME. IT IS TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN.

It has been 18 years and 150 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

Last week I posted a blog entitled Historic memory lost. The gist of the blog was the preservation of a historic neighborhood, Historic Thunderbird Estates. In response one of my readers, Shelly, posted the following comment:

Shelly said, “’This becomes more and more difficult as historic memory of what Glendale was and who contributed to shaping Glendale is forgotten by a younger generation.’ (quote from my blog)

“I am of this younger generation and while I respect what once was, I believe that everyone needs to respect what will be, things can’t stay the way they have been for generations, if people don’t start changing there may not be much of a future. I take exception to your phrase as you made it seem like Glendale is doomed if the younger generation is allowed to live and make decisions in and for the city of Glendale. You have to remember that the youth/mid age (30-50 yo) are our future and we should be doing everything to support them and their decisions.

“People get stuck in the old ways or this is the way that we’ve always done it. There needs to be a point where progress is allowed and steps taken to allow progress to happen. This may not be a popular decision, however, I don’t believe it will be the nightmare that people think it will be.

“I’ve driven by this property multiple times throughout the day and I have yet to see a disturbance of any residence. The property is located on the corner of 59th Avenue, customer’s don’t even need to go any further than his property as he is literally right on the corner. There is ample space in front of his home to for customer parking.

“Don is a nice person, he is not a mean or vindictive soul, he is trying to help families live sustainable lifestyles by giving them the opportunity to purchase tropical trees to grow on their own property. He is out there for the greater good of many communities throughout the valley.

“Many families want to live a sustainable lifestyle and enjoy growing their own fruits and veggies (with no chemicals). We are not hippies we just want to know where our food is coming from and hopefully that is our own backyards.”

Shelly hit on several important topics. She said, “Don is a nice person…” I’m sure he’s a very nice man but in this case he made a mistake, either deliberately or inadvertently. If he was aware of the CC&Rs (Codes Covenants and Restrictions) and purchased the property with that knowledge then it was deliberate. If he was unaware of the CC&Rs then he made a mistake by failing to do due diligence.

She went on to say, “Many families want to live a sustainable lifestyle…” There is respect for people’s choice to live life as they see fit…as long as they are not harming others by their actions. Those who choose to grow their own food as much as possible are to be commended. The reader perceives Don as helping them to live this lifestyle but this is not a reason to reward him for his failure to abide by the subdivision’s CC&Rs.

She said, “…I have yet to see a disturbance of any residence.” Her perception of the business activity generated on or near the property is not a relevant argument to allow this gentleman to continue to conduct a retail, commercial use on his property. Granting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a business to operate on this property is precedent setting for every property subject to these CC&Rs and in fact, would make the CC&Rs null and void. If one property owner can circumvent them, you can be absolutely sure others will follow. The purchasers of property in Historic Thunderbird Estates bought with the legal expectation that only residential uses would be permitted.

Perhaps the most interesting comment she made highlights the age old tension between respect and value for tradition (the “old”) and the excitement of change (the “new”). She says, I take exception to your phrase as you made it seem like Glendale is doomed if the younger generation is allowed to live and make decisions in and for the city of Glendale. You have to remember that the youth/mid age (30-50 yo) are our future and we should be doing everything to support them and their decisions.” There is most certainly a recognition and acceptance that the younger generation must lead. There’s an old adage paraphrased that those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. There is a place for historical memory and the preservation of the values it embodies.

In other words, there is rationale for both the old and the new to coexist in harmony. The younger generation as it leads must always be mindful and respectful of the traditions that created their freedom to effect change they are seeking. She raised some interesting and debatable issues. However, she has not made the case for allowing this gentleman to ignore the legal requirements of this subdivision’s CC&Rs.

I thank her for her thoughtful commentary. It was important enough to become the basis for this blog. Comments to my blogs are reader optional and may not be read by all. By using her comment in a blog many more people will see it. I suspect more readers’ comments will be forthcoming. Thank you Shelly.

© 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.

May 16

15

City hall damaged

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 15, 2016
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , | 3 Comments

CHECK OUT THE VIDEO ABOUT SAMMY CHAVIRA’S TRAVEL EXPENSES PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS. IT IS TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN.

It has been 18 years and 149 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

The following is from reliable sources and some of the assertions have been Barrio Breakthrucorroborated. Recently the City of Glendale co-sponsored the Cinco De Mayo Festival in downtown Glendale with Barrio Breakthru Productions (the listed principal is Yvonne Nunez). Someone, during the course of the weekend festival, had access to the “B” meeting rooms in City Hall presumably for the purpose of allowing various participants to use the “B” rooms in preparation for their participation in the festival.

If it is city policy to allow participants in city sponsored events the use of its meeting rooms then it is time to revisit this policy? Does the city require supervision? By whom? Is the policy for use of city rooms posted anywhere? What is wrong with using the city hall restrooms rather than its meeting rooms? Does the city require some kind of insurance by event producers to cover this type of situation?

It is alleged that some of the participants who had been allowed entry into city hall committed approximately $30,000 worth of damage to property, computers, accessories, etc., in one of the meeting rooms, clearly city property. The large dollar value of the damage probably meets the classification of “criminal damage.” The “B” meeting room in question at city hall is currently locked and apparently no one is allowed access to that room. This action seems to verify that something untoward happened in that room.

It appears the Glendale Police Department took a complaint and it was discovered that the participants who had caused the damage are on video.

Now for the sixty-four dollar question, er… make that the $30,000 question…will the city (City Manager Kevin Phelps) file criminal damage charges against the perpetrators? It appears someone had access to city hall meeting rooms and allowed participants to use them freely without any seeming oversight of the activities occurring in those rooms. Who had access that weekend? Why was there no supervision? Those who participated in the alleged acts of criminal damage should be held responsible and restitution should be required.

Will the city file a criminal damage complaint? It should, otherwise; once again, the taxpayers of Glendale will pick up the tab to repair the damage. It’s a matter of accountability.

Will the Glendale Police Department use the video to identify the perpetrators and cite them for criminal damage?

Will the City Attorney’s Office prosecute and seek reimbursement for the damage caused? The citizens of Glendale hope so.

Public knowledge about this alleged criminal damage has been buried. No, that’s not quite right. It hasn’t so much been buried as it has not been acknowledged by anyone. Many city hall employees know that the incident occurred and some have seen the damage but no one is talking.

On another note, Barrio Breakthru Ministries had been holding church services on aBarrio Breakthru Ministries city property. It is a clear violation of federal law related to the separation of church and state. I mentioned this situation in a previous blog. Barrio Breakthru Ministries is now holding its Sunday services at Landmark School (one of the schools within the Glendale Elementary 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.

May 16

13

Historic memory lost

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 13, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

CHECK OUT A VIDEO ABOUT SAMMY CHAVIRA’S USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN

It has been 18 years and 147 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

On March 3, 1953 a lovely, now historic, neighborhood was born in Glendale. It is known today as Historic Thunderbird Estates. This is a neighborhood of large lots, with mature trees and vegetation, many of which said properties still rely upon irrigation water.

The people who created this neighborhood lived in it for many, many years. Many of these people contributed a great deal to the rich history of Glendale. You may even recognize a few of the names. They were Philip and Bessie Rice, Opal and Earl Moore, Patsy Woods, Stanley and Gwendolyn McDonald, Ralph and Margaret Baskett, James and Sarah Sharpe, C.E. and Gladys McDonald, and Elias and Gaeta Coury.

Here are just a few of the accomplishments of the residents who formed Thunderbird Estates in the 1950’s. The Ira Moore building was used for Glendale Union high school’s very first classes. W. F. Moore was a Glendale councilmember from 1930-34. Willis Moore was on the Glendale Union High School’s first baseball championship team of 1923. R.E. Moore was manager of the Valley Bank, across from Murphy Park, in the 1940’s. Dr. Philip Rice was one of the very few medical doctors practicing in Glendale in the 1950’s. His wife Bess, was prominently involved with the Glendale Women’s Club and was known for her support of cleanup projects and tree planting throughout Glendale. The Coury family is remembered as prominent downtown Glendale merchants of the 1960’s with the Coury Market, also across the street from Murphy Park.

They created their Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this historic neighborhood. Here is what they said and what they intended for this neighborhood …their land:

“The stipulations, restrictions and covenants herein contained shall be taken and considered as covenants irrevocable and restrictions running with the land, and with each and every part, parcel, lot and subdivision thereof, no made or hereafter to be made; and shall not only be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective successors and immediate assigns, but the same shall be binding upon each and every person, persons or corporation on who may hereafter become owners of or interested in said premises, or any part, parcel, lot or subdivision thereof, by or through conveyances, leases, permits or licenses, from or through any of the parties hereto.

“Further, all conveyances made by the parties hereto shall by apt words convey said lands and each and every parcel thereof, subject to the said restrictions and provisions. But in case such restrictions and provisions shall be omitted from any such deed or deeds, the same shall nevertheless be binding upon the grantee, his heirs and assigns, the same as though specially set forth in such deed or deeds and each and every such deed or deeds shall be taken by the grantee therein named subject to the covenants and provisions of this agreement.

“The stipulations, restrictions and covenants to which said premises are subjected are as follows, to- wit:

  1. Each parcel of land shall be used exclusively for residential purposes.”

There is nothing ambiguous about their words put to paper. We know exactly what their desire and intent was…to keep their land, in whole or in part, for residential use exclusively and in perpetuity. The residents of this subdivision have relied upon the CC&R’s for over 50 years.  When these residents purchased their parcels over the years they relied upon the character of their historic neighborhood to remain for residential use only.

Until Mr. Don Olson arrived upon the scene. For you see, Mr. Olson purchased one of the parcels within Historic Thunderbird Estates. He is using his newly acquired property within Historic Thunderbird Estates for commercial purposes – the sale of trees, big trees, little trees, all kinds of trees…and now he wants the city to grant him a Conditional Use Permit to bless his apparent violation of the Historic Thunderbird Estates CC&Rs.

5841 W. Royal Palm Glendale, AZ

5841 W. Royal Palm
Glendale, AZ

So what has the city done to protect this lovely, old, historic neighborhood?  On Thursday, May 5, 2016 Mr. Olson’s Conditional Use Permit request went before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is composed of citizens. The current members of the commission are : Chairperson Steve Johnston;  Vice Chairperson Arthur Dobbelaere;  Commissioner Jack Gallegos;  Commissioner Rick Harper; Commissioner Gary Hirsch, Commissioner Al Lenox; and Commissioner David Moreno. They would decide the fate of this historic neighborhood by making an advisory recommendation to the city council.

The minutes of the Planning Commission of May 5, 2016 reflect the following: “CUP16-01: A request by Don Olson for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a home occupation (Class II) business in a private backyard of a residence, which will mainly consist of growing trees and selling trees to customers with appointments on a property in the SR-17 (Suburban Residence) Zoning District. The site is located north of the northeast corner of 59th and Northern Avenues (5841 West Royal Palm Road) and is in the Barrel District. Staff Contact: Martin Martell, Planner. VICE CHAIRPERSON DOBBELAERE MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE CUP16-01 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2016. COMMISSIONER GALLEGOS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH WAS APPROVED WITH A VOTE OF 4 TO 3 (HIRSCH, HARPER, AND LENOX).

Mr. Olson requested that the item be tabled as apparently he has hired a zoning attorney to represent him when the CUP is heard on August 4, 2016. The motion to table was granted on a vote of 4-3 with only Commissioners Hirsch, Harper and Lenox willing to deny the motion to table the action and ready to decide the CUP without the benefit of Mr. Olson’s acquisition of yet another attorney…a  zoning attorney.

This neighborhood is upset, concerned and angry. They don’t have a slick, fancy, new homeowner’s association to protect their interests. As a historic neighborhood they must rely upon the city staff, the citizen planning commissioners and city council to protect them. This becomes more and more difficult as historic memory of what Glendale was and who contributed to shaping Glendale is forgotten by a younger generation.

Will they protect the legacy of Glendale or succumb to a commercialism that slowly eats away at older neighborhoods such as this one? This neighborhood hopes that it can be preserved  as do other historic neighborhoods in Glendale. If we don’t speak for them…if we do not value their legacy…then what is Glendale’s destiny? To become just another ‘burb in the Valley of the ‘burbs??

© 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.

May 16

12

Glendale pays for right-of-way for road

Posted by Joyce Clark on May 12, 2016
Posted in City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Heroes Park  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 2 Comments

CHECK OUT THE VIDEO ON SAMMY CHAVIRA’S USE OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO THE LEFT OF THIS COLUMN

It has been 18 years and 146 days since the city’s pledge to build the West Branch Library.

At the city council voting meeting of April 26, 2016 there were two agenda items that should raise  eyebrows. One was the council approval of the Long Trust proposed residential project located between Bethany Home Road and Camelback Road, 83rd Avenue to 91st Avenue called “Stonehaven.” It comprises over 300+ acres and proposes over 1,100+ homes. By the way, it will look nothing like Rovey Farm Estates, another planned area development. Rovey Farm estates had approximately the same acreage but only 800+ homes ranging on lot sizes from 7,000 square feet on the west side of the project to one acre lots on the east side of the project.

Stonehaven will have 1,100+ homes on lots, 43% of which will be 5,500 square feet…very small lots with very small homes. For this reason alone, many concerned residents asked that Stonehaven be tabled with council direction to take another look at these very small lots. The 5,500 square foot lot size does not even meet the city’s minimum standard for detached homes which should be R 1-6 (6,000 square feet). All of the citizen’s concern fell on deaf ears and city council approved Stonehaven unanimously.

Of more concern and precedent setting was council’s approval of a $1.2 million dollar payment to the Long Trust for the right-of-way for the proposed city construction of the north side of Bethany Home Road between 83rd Avenue and 91st Avenue. When a developer builds a subdivision the developer is responsible for paying for and constructing the roads that will serve its planned community. If it’s a major arterial road, such as Bethany Home Road, then the developer will dedicate the necessary right-of-way for the entire road but pay for construction of only half of the road with the city being responsible for paying for construction of the other half of the road.

Not so in this case and that is what is precedent setting. A senior staffer, part of a “city team” that negotiated with the John F. Long trust, acknowledged that the city had asked Long for dedication of right-of-way for the north side of Bethany Home Road and that Long refused.  Having been refused its request, the city rolled over and negotiated a payment of $1.2 million dollars to Long for the right-of-way for the north side of Bethany Home Road. This is precedent setting. I know of no other instance where the city had to pay a developer for right-of-way for a major road that would serve the planned residential development.

Why didn’t the city team decide that if the trust was unwilling to make the necessary dedication for Bethany Home Road that perhaps the entire residential project should not be approved?  The city could have decided that if the trust was unwilling to make the necessary dedication precluding the full construction of Bethany Home Road that the proposed residents of the project would not have adequate ingress and egress from the project. Under that scenario, the Long Trust eager to sell the land to a developer, would have had to dedicate the right-of-way for the north side of Bethany Home Road, if it wanted to approval for Stonehaven.

There is more within the approved development agreement between the Long Trust and the City of Glendale, “The Parties acknowledge that the Bethany Home Road Extension will be completed and accepted on or before January 1, 2022.” That’s 6 years from now.

In Section 3.4 of the agreement, JFLT (John F. Long Trust) will have final plans and specifications for the Bethany Home Road Extension completed by the civil engineer and approved by the Parties prior to the City’s issuance of the 275th home building permit for the Residential Development Parcel (subject to Force Majeure Events and any mutually-agreed extensions).” It is safe to assume that it will be several years before the Long Trust even has to turn in a plan for the road to the city.

Under Section 4.2 it states, “JFLT will cause the general contractor to commence construction of the Bethany Home Road Extension prior to the City’s issuance of the 400th home building permit for the Residential Development Parcel and to achieve completion and acceptance within one (1) year thereafter (subject to Force Majeure Events and any mutually-agreed extensions), but in no event later than the Outside Completion Deadline (January 1, 2022).” How long will it be before the 400th (40%) home building permit is issued? Several years at least. In the meantime these new residents will have limited access to their newly created subdivision.

How does any of this agreement serve the best interests of Glendale’s taxpayers and the soon-to-be new residents?

© 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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »