Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 12/11/2001 (3) * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP December 11, 2001 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, Vice Mayor Thomas R. Eggleston, and Councilmembers Joyce V. Clark, Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, H. Phillip Lieberman, and Manuel D. Martinez ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk 1. WESTERN AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. GP-00-04 CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Jon Froke, Planning Director; Mr. Ron Short, Long Range Planning Manager; and Kathy Langford, Senior Long Range Planner. The Western Area General Plan Update was initiated by the City Council in December of 1999, after a series of workshops that began in 1997. Five community goals resulted from the City Council Workshop series. These goals are: • Goal #1 - Build a strong employment base that provides a variety of high paying jobs for Glendale residents. • Goal #2 - Expand major retail opportunities to serve residents of Glendale and the surrounding area. • Goal #3 - Provide public open space and recreational amenities that enhance the quality of life for Glendale residents. • Goal #4 - Encourage only high quality development that supports new employment opportunities and enhances the character of the area. • Goal #5 - Encourage master planned developments that offer variety, a distinct character, and common amenities. 1 The existing 1989 General Plan for the Western Area is characterized as the employment reserve for the City. The residential/employment boundary is located at approximately 951h Avenue, with the area west of 95th Avenue to 115th Avenue as the employment reserve. The area east of 95th Avenue to 83rd Avenue is predominately residential in nature, with scattered shopping center opportunities. Two areas are shown with multi-family residential densities of 8-12 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). Also included is the former alignment of the "Paradise Parkway" freeway corridor and the associated open space/retention areas, and the approximate location of the Agua Fria Freeway (Loop 101). The proposed Western Area amendment's major features are the continuation of the employment reserve; a regional activity center; strengthening the area's image as the western "Gateway to Glendale"; and the introduction of four new land use designations. The four new land use designations contained in the proposed amendment are Neighborhood Shopping Center (NSC), Community Shopping Center (CSC), Corporate Commerce Center (CCC), and Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use (SEMU). • Neighborhood Shopping Center (NSC) - This is a planned commercial development that meets the daily demand for retail shopping and business services from residents in the surrounding neighborhood(s). A typical center includes an anchor tenant, such as a grocery store, and several smaller retail stores. The center is planned, built, and operated as a unit, with shared access and parking, as well as common architecture, landscaping, and signage. All uses are compatible with each other and the adjoining neighborhood(s). Large community scale retail and heavy retail uses are not appropriate. These centers typically range in size from 50,000 to 150,000 square feet of gross floor area. • Community Shopping Center (CSC) - This is a planned commercial development that meets the demand for comparison-shopping and specialty shopping within the community. A typical center includes one or more anchor tenants, such as junior department stores, major discount stores, "big box retailers", and entertainment uses, as well as a wide variety of smaller specialty stores and restaurants. The center is planned, built, and operated as a unit, with shared vehicular access and parking, as well as common architecture, landscaping, and signage. Preferred locations are near freeways and major arterial streets, away from residential neighborhoods. These centers typically range in size from 150,000 to 500,000 square feet of gross floor area. • Corporate Commerce Center (CC J - This is a major mixed-use employment center that provides an attractive environment for corporate, business, and professional offices. Complimentary land uses include, but are not limited to, community level retail, specialty retail, hotels, restaurants, major medical, entertainment, and other destination uses serving the broader region. 2 Carefully integrated housing development may be permitted in limited quantities. The desired mix of land use is 55% office; 30% retail, hotels, restaurants, major medical and other destination uses; and no more than 15% housing. A variety of housing products are to be provided. Desired land use acreages are calculated from the total number of acres contained within any single area designated as Corporate Commerce Center. Housing is restricted from starting until 30% of the gross floor area of the employment generating land use(s) has been developed in the area. The Corporate Commerce Center is master planned; and developed in orderly phases under common design guidelines. Major amenities include common open space, water features, and public art. Structured parking and mixed-use buildings are encouraged. The intent is to create a high quality development environment with a unique character not found in other parts of the City or the West Valley. • Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use (SEMU) - This is a regional level sports, entertainment and employment center. The following uses are allowed in any combination or quantity: multi-purpose arena, corporate/business/professional office, restaurants, retail power center, entertainment, hotels, commercial, cultural, and housing. Housing development is not allowed to exceed 15% of the total acreage of the area designated SEMU. A variety of housing products are to be provided. Housing is restricted from starting until 30% of the gross floor area of the employment generating land use(s) have been developed in the area. The mixed-use center is master planned and developed in orderly phases, with common driveways, shared parking, unifying architecture, landscaping, plazas, courtyards, open spaces, streetscape, public art, and lighting. The mixed-use center will be developed in phases consistent with high quality, common design standards. The intensity and height of mixed-use development is sensitive to proximity of low-density residential development. Employment generating land uses are the emphasis of the Western Area amendment. Little change is proposed west of the Agua Fria Freeway (Loop 101). Since the adoption of the General Plan in 1989, the freeway has been constructed through the cities of Glendale, Phoenix and Peoria. Loop 101 is now complete between 1-17 and I- 10. This area is predominately designated as Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI). Changes between 115th Avenue and Loop 101 include the addition of the Western Area Water Reclamation Facility, adjusting the location of the commercial opportunity at Glen Harbor Boulevard and Glendale Avenue, adjustment of the New River corridor in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), correction of the alignments of 99 Avenue and Loop 101, and the adjustment of the commercial opportunities at the intersection of 99th and Glendale Avenues. 3 East of Loop 101 to 83rd Avenue can be characterized as a mixture of employment, retail, entertainment, and residential development. The corridor from the east side of the Loop 101 to 91st Avenue is the area of greatest change. Three of the new land use designations occur within this area: Community Shopping Center, Corporate Commerce Center, and Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use. The corridor between 83r and 91st Avenues is predominately residential with some neighborhood commercial located at the intersection of arterials. The residential density overall is slightly lower than that of the existing General Plan. The new Neighborhood Shopping Center designation occurs within this area. The summary of the proposed amendments was provided to the Planning Commission members prior to the first public hearing held on January 11, 2001. The first public hearing on this proposed amendment was held at Independence High School on the evening of January 11 , 2001. The second public hearing was held on January 25, 2001 in the City Council Chambers. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 8, 2001 , to allow time for the Commission to conduct workshops to discuss the proposed amendment and review background material. On March 8, 2001, the Planning Commission was asked to extend the second public hearing to April 19, 2001. A draft listing of issues to be discussed during upcoming workshops on the Western Area General Plan Update was provided to the Planning Commission members at the April 5, 2001 meeting. A tentative schedule for completing the Commission's consideration of Case No. GP-00-04 was also presented to the Commission at that time. On April 19, 2001, the Planning Commission continued the second public hearing to June 21, 2001 . A total of three workshops were conducted with the Planning Commission during the month of May. Al: the most recent workshop, held on May 31, 2001, the Commission indicated that there was a desire to continue this case once more so that two more workshops could be conducted. On June 21 , 2001 , the Planning Commission continued the second public hearing to July 19, 2001. Two additional workshops were conducted on June 19, 2001 and July 12, 2001. Discussions of proposed amendments to the text and land use map occurred at each of these workshops. Testimony was taken at the continuation of the second public hearing on July 19, 2001. A total of ten individuals or representatives spoke. The Commission continued this item to the regular commission meeting of August 16, 2001. A special workshop was conducted on July 26, 2001 . This final workshop was intended to address issues raised by speakers at the July 19th public hearing and to review correspondence and suggested changes to various maps. On August 16, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of Application No. GP-00-04 by a vote of 6-1. 4 The first City Council Workshop on this item was conducted on November 13, 2001. This workshop reviewed the evolution of the land use map from November 2000 to August 2001. The public hearing on this amendment application before the City Council is scheduled for January 8, 2002. A Citizen Participation Plan was prepared and implemented to encourage community involvement in this General Plan update. This included mailings to individual property owners and other interested parties, two public open house meetings, a half-day workshop with commercial brokers and developers, meetings with major property owners, ongoing meetings with a marketing group sponsored by the City's Economic Development Department, information on the City's web site, periodic news releases, and a final public meeting in December of 2000. A detailed Citizen Participation Final Report is on file al the Planning Department. Notices for the January 11, 2001 and January 25, 2001 public hearings were published in the Glendale Star. Posters were placed at 30 locations within the study area and letters were sent to 2,451 property owners and interested parties. A public meeting was conducted at Desert Mirage Elementary School on the evening of May 30, 2001. Approximately, 80-90 people were in attendance. The purpose of this public meeting was to discuss alterations to the draft land use map resulting from the proposed arena and other recent developments, and the issue of multiple-family housing. On August 8, 2001, the Planning Department held a public meeting at Desert Mirage Elementary School. Approximately 55 people attended. The goal of this meeting was to provide an opportunity to view and discuss the August 6, 2001 draft that resulted from numerous workshop discussions with the Planning Commission. On August 24, 2001 the 60-day review, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes, was initiated. A copy of the Western Area Amendment, as recommended by the Planning Commission, was sent to a total of 16 local jurisdictions, state agencies, utility companies, and school districts for review and comment. The 60-day review period ends on October 23, 2001. There are no additional budget or cost impacts resulting from this amendment process. The recommendation was to review the Western Area General Plan Amendment and move forward to a public hearing on January 8, 2002. Ms. Langford said the study area is between 83rd and 115th Avenues, bounded on the north by Northern Avenue and on the south by Camelback Road. She stated that discussions on the area began in 1997 and continued through 1999, with a series of five Workshops conducted by the City Council and a bus tour of the planning area. She 5 said Council initiated the formal General Plan amendment in December of 1999 and the initial Citizen Participation draft was presented to the Council in November of 2000. She explained that the draft contained two alternative land use maps, the first being very similar to the existing General Plan Map and the second containing the first introduction of the Corporate Commerce Center as a new land use designation. She said, in response to the Citizen Participation Process, they introduced a public hearing draft of the Western Area Amendment in January of 2000, which included a future land use map basically based on the second alternative. She reported that the draft land use map was revised in May of 2001 due to the announcement of the mixed use development of the Ellman site. She said the Planning Commission made its recommendation for approval of the application on August 16, 2001 . Ms. Langford reviewed five community goals identified during the citizen discussions: (1) Employment, (2) Commercial Services, (3) Public Amenities, (4) Quality Development, and (5) Master Plans. She explained that the employment goal placed an emphasis on the creation and expansion of employment opportunities within the City, including a variety of high-paying jobs. She said increased and improved public open spaces and recreational amenities was also an important goal. She explained that quality development was desired in all areas of residential, commercial, and industrial development. She said Master Plans were also encouraged, especially in the western area where the City has opportunities to assemble properties into larger pieces. Ms. Langford noted that two new land use categories were introduced in the General Plan amendment: (1) Neighborhood Shopping Center, to satisfy the demand for retail shopping and services to residents in surrounding neighborhoods; and (2) Commercial Shopping Center, to address comparison and specialty shopping within the community. She said General Commercial areas do not necessarily have to utilize master plan developments and have more highway or freeway support services. She said the new Employment category would provide a mixture of corporate, business and professional offices, with opportunities for retail and housing developments. She stated that the desire for a variety of housing products became evident during the Planning Commission discussions. She explained that the Sports Entertainment Mixed Use is intended to address a regional level sports, entertainment, and employment center and includes an option for housing. She noted that the housing could not begin development until 30% of the other gross floor area has been developed. Mr. Froke said there are a number of different properties and interests in the 10 square mile planning area; however, land use issues have been narrowed to one or two properties. He explained that they are having to review their planning concepts for the Pendergast Estates neighborhood because the Tolleson Union High School District has decided it wants 1:o place its fourth high school on a portion of the property at 91St Avenue and Camelback Road. He said they had spent a great deal of time with members of the Council, property owners, and the school district and have developed an alternative concept for the area, consisting of a mix of low-density residential along Missouri Avenue and a small level of commercial at the immediate northwest corner of 91St Avenue and Camelback Road. Mr. Froke stated that the second issue involves the southeast corner of 91St and Northern Avenues. He explained that a convenience 6 store, a gas station and a car wash were planned for that parcel and were being processed through the County Planning and Development Department. He stated that the 28 acres surrounding that parcel are under separate ownership and the City's analysis of that parcel and the 89th Avenue alignment caused concern about the amount of retail planned at the southeast corner of 91st and Northern Avenues. He recommended that the amount of commercial be reduced to a more realistic level of 20 acres, providing 10 acres of that parcel adjacent to 89th Avenue for transition to the residential community to the east. Mr. Froke noted that the Pendergast Elementary School District requested the acquisition of two new elementary schools tentatively in the area of 95th and Missouri Avenues and 87th and Missouri Avenues. In response to Vice Mayor Eggleston's question, Mr. Froke stated that they would retain a portion of the low-density land use category for transition to Pendergast Estates. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Froke about the viability of the number of corners designated for retail development, considering that a 200-acre retail, mixed-use and entertainment development was coming. Mr. Froke said, while development has begun on the northwest corner of 99th and Glendale Avenues, the areas further west and north have yet to see commercial development. He stated that they were in design review with the owner of the southeast corner of 91st and Glendale Avenues. Councilmember Goulet asked how the southeast corner of 91St and Glendale Avenues, as depicted, would compete with the center going in across from it. Mr. Froke said Glendale has done a good job of obtaining a balance in other areas of the City and plans for that area are leading them to do further analysis of future land uses. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Froke what type of input he had received from citizens since learning of the Coyotes project. Mayor Scruggs questioned the viability of grocery stores being developed on various corners in the area of the new arena. She pointed out that they would be unable to apply for a conditional use permit for anything over 75,000 square feet. Mr. Froke stated that the southeast corner of 91st and Northern Avenues is not zoned or planned for any use other than residential. He said the southeast corner is hard-zoned C-2 and is in design review for a shopping center. He noted that the northwest corner of 83rd and Glendale Avenues is hard-zoned for a mix of various commercial uses, not necessarily in keeping with the type of development envisioned for the property today. He stated that the southwest corner is zoned SC and will be developed as brand new retail. He said the northwest corner of 83rd Avenue and Camelback Road is also zoned for commercial, but has not experienced any development. He stated that the northeast corner of 91st Avenue and Camelback Road is zoned, but not developed. He confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that none of the properties along Camelback Road have vested zoning. Mr. Flaaen explained that vested zoning gives the property owner the right to use the property as zoned at that point, as long as the property owner has obtained building permits and started construction. He said vested zoning could also be obtained through a development agreement with the City. 7 Councilmember Clark stated that the residents in the area of the Ellman project were not happy about all of the planned commercial development. She acknowledged that there is little that: can be done about hard-zoned properties. She stated that the residents would like to see other commercial designations go away. She said the land south of Pendergast Estates has involved a very complex series of discussions with the high school, the property owners, and City staff. She stated that a small amount of commercial development on the northwest corner of 91st Avenue and Camelback Road and the retention of commercial development opposite the Vestar project would be required to make the high school go where the residents believe it is most appropriate. She said, other than that, the residents do not want additional commercial, knowing they will be served by the much larger project. Councilmember Clark confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that the high school has already gone through the School Facilities Board and it is known that funding for the high school is available. Councilmember Lieberman asked if vested zoning and hard zoning were synonymous. Mr. Flaaen explained that vested zoning is a legal term, while hard zoning is a term used by planners. He confirmed that the owner of a property with vested zoning is not precluded from applying for a zoning change. Mr. Flaaen explained for Mayor Scruggs that, under common law, there are possibilities for vesting to occur when an individual has invested substantial sums of money in connection with the property. He said the amount of investment required would be determined on a case-by-case basis. He confirmed that the vested properties they had discussed had already been developed and, therefore, there is no question as to their being vested. Councilmember Martinez asked how a commercial property could be rezoned other than upon request of the property owner. Mr. Froke pointed out the General Plan map designation does not effect zoning. He stated that it is their goal to have zoning be in concert with the General Plan. Mr. Flaaen explained that there are two ways a property can be rezoned: (1) through the property owner's request; or (2) through a City-initiated rezoning on a property not already vested. Councilmember Martinez asked if any written comments about the proposed changes for 91st Avenue and Camelback Road had been received from any neighborhood groups or citizens. Mr. Froke said a lot of correspondence had been received and a number of meetings have been held since the Planning Commission hearing. Councilmember Martinez asked if the recommendations were a result of those meetings. Mr. Froke responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Clark noted that the Tolleson High School District is very big, going past Lower Buckeye Road. She said the School District's request was in response to a group of parents in the Desert Mirage area who want a high school north of 1-10. 8 Councilmember Martinez asked if staff supported a limit on commercial development at 91St and Glendale Avenues. Mr. Froke said they would prefer that the high school take all of the property up to the immediate corner; however, the School District has expressed concern about having frontage onto an arterial/arterial intersection. Councilmember Lieberman noted that almost all of the land not presently annexed into the City has County A-1 zoning and would have to come in for future zoning. Mr. Froke stated that most of the County land is zoned R-43, which is similar to the City's A-1. He said they had put the County on notice about the plan and had asked them to work cooperatively with the City by referring any inquiries about development of the Western Area to Glendale. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the arena property would retain the same County zoning for six months. Mr. Froke stated that the City has six months from annexation to zone the land with County-compatible zoning. He noted that the Ellman Companies had filed an application to rezone from A-1 to PAD. In response to C;ouncilmember Lieberman's request, Ms. Langford reviewed areas which had been annexed into the City. She said, in large part, the City has control of the majority of the study area; however, significant holes would be filled through future annexations. Councilmember Frate acknowledged the school's hesitance to be located against Camelback Road. He said he did necessarily agree that it should be zoned commercial. He questioned why they would put commercial in the area. He pointed out the fact that high school students would naturally be attracted to it. Mayor Scruggs said, based on the initial meeting she had attended, the proposed plan is probably as good as it will get. She shared Councilmember Frate's concerns about the high school's close proximity to commercial development. Mr. Froke explained that the northern tier is owned by one local family, the Belay's. He stated that the property on the southern tier is bifurcated by a parcel owned by the Yamamoto family, with the parcels on either side owned by the Russo Farming Company. He confirmed that discussions have included all landowners. Mayor Scruggs stated that part of the problem was attributable to the fact that the School District did not come to the City before going to the School Facilities Board. She stated that other options suggested at the first meeting were even less desirable. Mr. Froke agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He stated that there were some very ambitious expectations. Councilmember Clark said the proposed plan reflects a compromise on all sides. She agreed that the School District's original proposal was incredibly ambitious and greedy. She stated that, in a perfect world, this would not be her preferred plan; however, she believed it was the best solution. Mayor Scruggs asked about circulation patterns around the high school. Mr. Froke said they had given that issue considerable thought and would further evaluate traffic and pedestrian circulation with the Transportation Department as they get further into the zoning process. 9 Councilmember Clark confirmed for Mayor Scruggs that she believed the proposed solution would accommodate the needs of the area. Councilmember Clark referred to her memo. She stated that Land Solutions Inc. has amassed 300 acres on the southeast corner of Glendale and 91St Avenues, with large lot developments to the east of 83rd Avenue and M1 with a minimum of 7,000 square foot lots west towards 91st Avenue. She noted that the Peoria School District has land on the east side of 91st Avenue that could be used for another high school and an elementary school. She said the corner designation of 5 to 8 (DU/AC) is no longer appropriate or compatible with the Land Solutions Inc. properties. She suggested that the 5 to 8 DU/AC designation be removed and be designated as 2.5 to 3.5. DU/AC Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Froke to describe the type of project the City could expect to see in an area designated as 5 to 8 DU/AC. Mr. Froke explained that 5 to 8 DU/AC is considered single-family, similar to the La Paloma development at 51St Avenue and Cactus Road. He said it could be a combination of detached or attached units, would include planned open space and may or may not be gated. Mayor Scruggs asked what the zoning designation would be. Mr. Froke said it would typically be R1-4 PRD or possibly R-2. Mayor Scruggs asked if they could still offer R1-4 as a stand alone. Mr. Froke said, although they could, it would be subject to various criteria. He confirmed that R1-6 could only be offered if it is an infill, is irregular, or is part of a larger project. He said they could not place an R1-6 PRD in an area identified as 5 to 8 DU/AC in the General Plan. He noted that the applicant for the project on the northeast corner of 89th and Glendale Avenues has filed a General Plan Amendment to replace the 5 to 8 DU/AC with 2.5 to 3.5 DU/AC. He explained that the applicant has to file a General Plan Amendment separate from the Western Area Plan because the 1989 General Plan shows not only 5 to 8 DU/AC on a portion of the property, but also Limited Office. Councilmember Goulet questioned the appropriateness of larger lots in the area of corporate commerce and sports entertainment. He noted that housing would be needed to support new employment in the area and many people would not be able to afford the larger lot properties. He stated that 5 to 8 DU/AC would be more appropriate in the future. Mr. Froke agreed with Councilmember Goulet. He stated that they were very careful when designating 5 to 8 DU/AC and they were cognizant of the communities' goals for quality residential. He pointed out that other design plans were already in place that require substantial landscape buffers along Glendale Avenue. Councilmember Martinez said he could support 5 to 8 DU/AC because it would provide for some diversity, as well as affordable housing. Councilmember Clark pointed out the fact that the City added an additional 25 acres of 5 to 8 DU/AC north of Camelback Road between 91St and 95th Avenues. She said many parts of the City have 2.5 to 3.5 DU/AC or 3.5 to 5 DU/AC residential butting up to the corners. She reiterated her position that 5 to 8 DU/AC is incompatible with Land Solutions' intent for their property. 10 Councilmember Goulet said, while it may not be compatible with Land Solutions' vision, tens of thousands of people will move into the area over the next 10 to 15 years and the City will have to meet their diverse needs for housing. Mayor Scruggs asked how many units 25 acres of 5 to 8 DU/AC would produce. Mr. Froke estimated it to yield 125 to 400 units. He noted that it would be subject to zoning approval. Councilmember Clark pointed out the fact that there are 975 acres within CCC (Corporate Commerce Center) and SEMU (Sports/Entertainment Mixed Use), 146.25 acres of which could be used for housing. She expressed her opinion that the City is providing diverse housing products and should reserve some areas for regular lot development. Mayor Scruggs said this issue is directly related to Glendale's total lack of newer style housing, She explained that there is a fear the housing developments will be substandard. She stated that, in reality, gated and tightly controlled developments typically require homeowners to meet certain standards. She noted that the price per square foot on these homes would be higher than more traditional homes. She agreed that people are interested in alternative housing products. She pointed out that the quality of those projects would be determined by the Planning Department staff, the Planning Commission and the Council in effect at the time. Councilmember Goulet clarified that he did not mean to infer 5 to 8 DU/AC would be a lesser quality development. He agreed that the type of product could be substantially superior to what people may have envisioned in the past. Councilmember Frate said density in housing helps control urban sprawl. He stated that he thoroughly supported the 5 to 8 DU/AC designation and saw how the product could benefit the area. He noted that people were very supportive of multi-family residential when Icon Studios made its proposal. Councilmember Lieberman mentioned a case heard during the last Planning Commission meeting which involved zero-lot lines. Mr. Froke stated that the case was the Fireside Villas development. Mayor Scruggs said there have been two zero-lot line homes built in the Valley since she has lived here. She noted that both homes have maintained their value. She said the concept results in a very large, usable yard on one side of the house rather than two smaller, less functional yards. Mr. Froke said both of the homes that Mayor Scruggs referred to were in 5 to 8 DU/AC designated neighborhoods. Councilmember Clark explained that she and other residents were concerned that each individual property owner or developer could ask for their portion of the housing and develop it as multi-family. She stated that 15% residential is too much. 11 Mayor Scruggs asked if the 15% referred to square footage or acreage. She acknowledged that housing is necessary to make everything else in the plan work. Mr. Froke indicated that the 15% refers to acreage. Councilmember Clark said the residents had indicated at the Ellman Companies' public meetings that they would support vertical integrated housing, such as loft apartments and condominiums above retail establishments. She said they also had no problem with locating multi-family around the freeway. Councilmember Goulet pointed out that the Ellman Companies' 15 acres of multi-family was a reduction from their original request. of 25 acres. Mayor Scruggs told Mr. Froke that she would like to further discuss this with the property owners. She said high quality multi-family housing works best when it is not located directly across from commercial. She stressed the need to make decisions that value the people who choose to live in multi-family housing and treating them as well as single-family residential areas are treated. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director; and Mr. Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Manager. On November 6, 2001 the citizens of Glendale overwhelmingly approved a Transportation Package of funding and projects to address Glendale transportation needs. Commitments were made to deliver new transportation services early, including (1) evening and weekend bus service, (2) enhanced dial-a-ride service, (3) expanded community programs, (4) completion of street and bicycle projects in five years, and (5) a new Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission. Under the normal process, new transportation projects and services would be addressed as part of developing the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget. However, in anticipation of a successful Transportation Election, the Fiscal Year 2001-02 program includes $1.1 million in contingency funding authorization for new transportation projects. This agenda explores opportunities to expedite the implementation of the Transportation Program as approved by the voters. CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT COMMISSION The ballot language for Proposition 402 states: "To ensure public input and government accountability, a Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission (CTOC) shall be established. The CTOC shall monitor the transportation fund expenditures to ensure that the voter approved projects in accordance with this measure are 12 completed in a timely and cost effective manner, and may recommend adjustments to projects when warranted to serve the best interests of the public." A draft ordinance to establish this Commission was presented to the Mayor and Council for review and discussion. The format and requirements of the Commission are similar to other Commissions that the City Council has established. Key features include an eleven-person commission of Glendale residents, with one member appointed by the Mayor; one member from each district; and four persons serving at large. Given the importance and high visibility of this Commission, it was recommended that these openings be widely advertised for interested and qualified candidates. Action to establish the Commission is being targeted for January of 2002 and appointment of members is anticipated in February or early March of 2002. The first meeting of CTOC could occur in March of 2002. The new CTOC will address all duties and responsibilities of the existing Transportation Advisory Commission and will also be directly responsible for monitoring and making recommendations to the City Council on transportation sales tax funded projects and programs. It was proposed that the existing Transportation Advisory Commission be terminated and that its current three active members be encouraged to apply for membership with the new Citizen Transportation Oversight Commission. OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVANCE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM The Transportation Election Package identified specific projects for early action. The City Council could take action in January of 2002 to expedite the implementation of some of these projects. On the other hand, the City Council could defer action until a CTOC committee has been appointed and meets to consider these issues. CTOC could meet for the first time in March of 2002 and action by the City Council on their recommendations could take place in April or May of 2002. Some possible opportunities for early action could include the following: 1. Bus Service. On March 14, 2000, the voters of the City of Phoenix approved a new sales tax to expand transit services. New evening and weekend bus service has been implemented in the City of Phoenix, but on those routes entering the City of Glendale, buses turn around at the City line. Significant changes in regional bus schedules are undertaken only twice a year. The next opportunity to add evening and weekend bus service will be July of 2002. 13 2. Dial-a-Ride Service. When the hours of bus service are expanded, Federal requirements mandate that there be corresponding increases in dial-a-ride service for the disabled. However, new dial-a-ride service can be implemented earlier than new bus service or at the same time. New evening and weekend dial-a-ride service for the last half of Fiscal Year 2001-02 is estimated to cost $215,000 and would include hiring three new drivers and one dispatcher. 3. Community Transportation Programs. The Transportation Package, as approved by the voters, includes a commitment to expand ongoing community based transportation programs within one year, including (1) traffic mitigation, (2) safety projects, (3) safety education, (4) transit marketing, (5) demand management, and (6) bicycling. Last year, because of budget limitations, two transportation community programs were canceled. One of these was Go Glendale, which is a community- wide bicycle ride to support bicycling in Glendale, and the other program is Slow Down Friday, a traffic education program for all 3rd graders in our City. An opportunity for early action is to restore these programs this spring at a cost of $70,000. 4. Preliminary Engineering. The Transportation Election Package, as approved by the voters, was front loaded with street and bicycle projects to be completed in five years. For example, this includes improvements at 30 intersections and construction of 12 bicycle projects. Completion of all street and bicycle projects in five years is an extremely aggressive schedule and construction projects need to be spread over several years to minimize disruptions to traffic. In order to ensure the timely and effective completion of projects it was proposed that $100,000 for consultant service be obligated in Fiscal Year 2001-02 to initiate preliminary engineering of voter-approved capital projects that need to be completed in five years. Staff requested guidance on the process to possibly expedite implementation of some of the Transportation Program approved by the voters. Early action could expedite implementation of weekend and evening bus service, Dial-a-Ride service, community transportation programs, and preliminary engineering for street and bicycle projects. However, as discussed above, some of these actions could take place before the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission could be established. The voters of the City of Glendale overwhelmingly approved Proposition 402 on November 6, 2001. The City Council authorized this election and approved a detailed ballot on June 26, 2001. This ballot was based on the Transportation Election Package, as approved by the Citizens Advisory Committee for Transportation Issues (CACTI) on May 24, 2001. On November 27, 2001, the City Council took action to authorize the collection of this new half-cent sales tax starting January 1, 2002, with 14 proceeds to be deposited in a separate fund that can only be used for transportation purposes. The Transportation Election Package, as approved by the voters, was part of a broad- based process to update the Glendale Transportation Plan. The Citizens Advisory Committee for Transportation Issues (CACTI) approved both the Transportation Election Package and the Transportation Plan. Development of the Plan was based on an extensive public outreach process that included focus groups, a public opinion survey, two community business forums, 18 district meetings, one open house, and 13 meetings of related Glendale transportation commissions. The Transportation Election Package was summarized and mailed to every household in the City of Glendale. The Plan was also reviewed by a technical review team, which included representatives from neighboring communities, the region, and key departments within the City. The Fiscal Year 2001-02 program includes $1.1 million in contingency funds for early action to implement the Transportation Program as approved by the voters. It is anticipated that the new transportation sales tax will raise $7 million in Fiscal Year 2001-02 and these funds can only be used for transportation projects. The recommendation was to provide staff direction on the draft ordinance to establish the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission, as well as direction on potential projects in Fiscal Year 2001-02 for early action, including possible weekend and evening bus service, expanded dial-a-ride service, community transportation programs, and consultant services to start preliminary engineering. Mr. Book stated that the Commission's goal is to ensure the election commitments are met. He explained that, during the 25 year program, the City committed to doing an annual review and report of costs, revenues, and completion dates, as well as a physical audit every three years. He said the Commission would review any proposed changes to the program and make recommendations to the Council. Mr. Book said they were proposing that there be 11 Commission members - one appointed by the Mayor, one from each Council District and four at-large members. He proposed that the terms be split, with five initially appointed for a three-year term and six appointed for a two-year term. He said the proposed schedule would be to authorize the Commission at the January 2002 Council meeting, followed by an advertising for bid by any and all interested citizens, with the tentative proposal of appointing members in February. He said all members would receive Commission training prior to the first meeting in March. He stated that they could potentially start bringing recommendations forward to Council in April and May. He proposed that the Citizen Transportation Oversight Commission replace the current Transportation Advisory Commission. He noted that there is a great deal of overlap between the two commissions. 15 Councilmember Lieberman referred to the ordinance and asked where Sections 3-21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 were. Mr. Flaaen explained that the language reserves those sections for future additions, changes and/or provisions. Councilmember Martinez stated that he would support taking action on the recommended items before the Commission is named. Councilmember Clark asked what the annual report would contain. Mr. Book said they envisioned the outline of the report to be the same as the ballot proposal. Mr. Johnson continued by stating that the report would look at costs and revenues to ensure they are in balance and to make sure timelines are being followed. Mr. Ernster confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the program would be audited every three years as part of the usual City audit process. He stated that the audit would be a public document. In response to a question posed by Councilmember Martinez, Mr. Book stated that members of the Transportation Advisory Commission would have to reapply for seats on the Citizen Transportation Oversight Commission. He noted that the Transportation Advisory Commission is currently short of a number of members. Councilmember Martinez suggested that staff send a letter to the Transportation Advisory Commission members, advising them of the process for applying for a seat on the Citizen Transportation Oversight Commission. Mayor Scruggs pointed out that the loss of half of the Commission each year when terms expire would cause an upheaval. She questioned whether the terms could be staggered in a way so as to help maintain the Commission's continuity. Councilmember Lieberman pointed out that members would often be re-appointed. Mayor Scruggs expressed her opinion that losing half of its members at one time would be detrimental to the Commission because of the long-learning curve it entails. Mr. Book agreed with Mayor Scruggs. Mayor Scruggs said it causes problems most often when Commissions, such as the Citizen Transportation Oversight Commission, have a strong legal component. Councilmember Lieberman suggested having only three members subject to re- appointment at the end of their term. Mayor Scruggs asked staff to work on this issue. Mr. Book stated that both staff and the Commission members will have a learning curve in the beginning. He explained that this is why he was adamant that the first group have a three-year term. Mayor Scruggs asked the Councilmembers if they approved of the draft ordinance. They responded in the affirmative.. Mr. Book asked for Council direction with regard to placing an ad. Mayor Scruggs directed him to proceed with the ad. She suggested that he talk to the Government Services Committee to address the issue of a majority of commission members leaving at the same time. 16 Mr. Book stated that one of the Commission's early activities will be to match City of Phoenix service levels by extending weekend and evening service. He noted that, since the bus book is published two times a year, July of 2002 would be their next opportunity for inclusion in the book. He said they will need authorization in April of 2002 for a Fiscal Year 2002-2003 cost of $950,000. Vice Mayor Eggleston agreed on the importance of extending bus service. He stated that it was promised to the voters. He emphasized the need to be included in the July 2002 bus book. Councilmember Frate asked how the City would pay for the extended service. Mr. Book explained that they had Council authorization to add the one-half cent sales tax in January of 2002, which would provide six months of revenue collections by June of 2002. Councilmember Frate asked if money had been set aside in the Transportation account. Mr. Book stated a contingency amount was set aside by the Council; however, the plan put before the citizens included extended service. Mayor Scruggs asked how much money would be collected each year. Mr. Book said they projected annual collections to be approximately $17 million. Mayor Scruggs reiterated that the Citizen Transportation Oversight Commission would monitor Transportation Fund expenditures to ensure that voter-approved projects are completed in a timely and cost effective manner. She said the Commission would not make policy decisions regarding allocations. She questioned why they have to wait for the Commission to be established before making a decision to act. Mr. Flaaen explained that the purpose of the Commission is to provide oversight and to report on whether what is being done meets the purpose and intent of what the voters passed. He stated that the Council would make appropriation decisions and give direction to staff, with a review by the Commission being done at a later date. Mayor Scruggs asked if the Commission would review available options and make recommendations to the Council regarding the money designated for the light rail project should it ultimately not proceed. Mr. Ernster noted that the Commission could review certain projects and make recommendations for changes should community priorities change. Mr. Book asked if the Council wanted to extend a courtesy to the Commission to review some issues prior to the City implementing the concepts. Councilmember Clark pointed out the fact that the Transportation Advisory Commission currently looks at transportation issues within the community and makes initial recommendations in terms of service, while the Oversight Commission would be more of a watch dog committee to ensure that monies are spent appropriately. She asked Mr. Book why staFf had recommended the dissolution of the Transportation Advisory Commission since its role is different from that of the Citizen Transportation Oversight Commission. Mr. Book agreed that the Oversight Commission would not do all of the things currently done by the Transportation Advisory Commission. He stated that it would deal with a majority of the same things and, therefore, the Transportation Advisory Commission would be redundant. Councilmember Clark said, based on what she had heard, she did not believe the Transportation Advisory Commission should be 17 eliminated because it has a distinctly different role. Mr. Flaaen explained that the Oversight Commission would oversee the mandate and act as an advisor to Council on transportation issues, including making recommendations for transportation plans, issues and upgrades. Councilmember Clark stated that, having heard Mr. Flaaen's explanation, she had no problem with the elimination of the Transportation Advisory Commission. Councilmember Lieberman read the ordinance. He said he believed it should be re- worded to identify the advisory duties that the Oversight Commission would take over from the Transportation Advisory Commission. Mayor Scruggs pointed out the fact that the advisory process occurred when the people voted on the map included with the ballot. Councilmember Clark asked if the Oversight Commission would be able to recommend improvements or changes to the transportation system. She explained that this was the purpose of the Transportation Advisory Commission. Mr. Book asked Mr. Flaaen if they could add a section to the ordinance regarding the advisory role of the Commission. Mr. Flaaen agreed that the voters had given the Advisory Commission the overall transportation plan. He explained, however, that the Oversight Commission could address issues not addressed by the plan. He said he would work with the Transportation Department to clarify the language and bring it back to the Council. Mayor Scruggs noted that there is a set amount of funding available and certain items that must be completed within a set timeframe. Councilmember Lieberman expressed his opinion that the Council Transportation Commission should be re-established. He asked if ideas, such as purchasing an electric car, Gus the Bus, or a Luke link, would go before the Oversight Commission. He stated that the ballot language does not address the Commission's ability to review new items. Mr. Johnson stated that all transit parts are in the Transportation Election Package and, therefore, all new transit projects beyond those presented to the voters would come to the Commission. He stated that the Commission would have the authority to recommend additional projects. Councilmember Martinez referred to language which states "The new CTOC will address all duties and responsibilities of the existing Transportation Advisory Commission and will also be directly responsible for monitoring and making recommendations to the City Council for transportation sales tax funded projects and programs". Mayor Scruggs asked the Council if they would like to move forward with expanded bus service, Dial-A-Ride service, the community transportation programs, and preliminary engineering. The Council responded in the affirmative. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to move forward on those items, but to hold off advertising until the functions of the new Commission have been clearly identified. 18 Councilmember Clark asked if they would have to wait until the Oversight Commission has been established to look at issues such as the lack of bus shelters on Glendale Avenue, west of 67th Avenue. Mr. Book explained that preliminary engineering would need to be done to determine where the bus shelters could be placed. He said they would prepare a list of shelters that would support the proposed fixed route service for comparison to the budget items included in the Transportation Package. Councilmember Lieberman said he would like to see where $17 million would be spent in the next year. Mayor Scruggs reiterated that the citizens voted for certain things and the Council has a responsibility to fulfill the promises made to those voters. She said she thought staff would present a budget to the Oversight Commission for their review to ensure that it implements the items chosen by the voters. Mr. Ernster agreed that was the intent of the Oversight Commission. Councilmember Lieberman stated that he would like to review the budget first. Mr. Book said they were going to prepare a budget for Council's review as part of the normal budget process ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. 19