HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/25/2004 (3) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
HELD TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004, AT 7:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Elaine M. Scruggs, with Vice Mayor
Thomas R. Eggleston and the following Councilmembers present: Joyce V. Clark,
Steven E. Frate, David M. Goulet, and Manuel D. Martinez.
Councilmember Lieberman was absent.
Also present were Ed Beasley, City Manager; Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney;
and Pamela Hanna, City Clerk.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE VII, SECTION 6(c) OF THE GLENDALE CHARTER
A statement was filed by the City Clerk that the six resolutions and three
ordinances to be considered at the meeting were available for public examination and
the title posted at City Hall more than 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 11, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to dispense with the
reading of the minutes of the May 11, 1004 Regular City Council meeting, as each
member of the Council had been provided copies in advance, and approve them
as written. The motion carried unanimously.
PROCLAMATIONS AND AWARDS
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
This is a request for the City Council to approve the recommended appointments
to the following commissions that have a vacancy or expired term and for the Mayor to
administer the oath of office to those appointees in attendance.
Board of Adjustment
Iwanski, David C. Cactus Re-appointment 05/25/2004 06/29/2006
Knaack, Yvonne Barrel Appointment 05/25/2004 06/29/2006
Citizens Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods
Grose, James L. Jr. Cholla Re-appointment 05/25/2004 06/29/2006
Ihori, Ken M. At-Large Appointment 05/25/2004 06/29/2006
1
Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission
Wilkinson, William Barrel Re-appointment 05/25/2004 07/24/2006
Johnson, Neva Ocotillo Appointment 05/25/2004 07/25/2005
Commission on Persons With Disabilities
Loya, Vickie Chair Appointment 05/25/2004 02/25/2005
Maxon, Elaine Vice-Chair Appointment 05/25/2004 02/25/2005
Abramowitz, Elliott Ocotillo Appointment 05/25/2004 02/27/2006
Community Development Advisory Committee
Ferrell, Susan Mayoral Re-appointment 05/25/2004 06/30/2006
Ferrell, Susan Vice Chair Re-appointment 05/25/2004 06/30/2005
Podzius, Jim Cholla Re-appointment 05/25/2004 06/30/2006
Nunez, Magda Sahuaro Re-appointment 05/25/2004 07/22/2006
Historic Preservation Commission
Berner, Brad At-Large Appointment 05/25/2004 04/12/2006
Trumble, Linda Sue At-Large Appointment 05/25/2004 04/12/2006
Housing Advisory Commission
Tennyson, Michelle Chair Appointment 05/25/2004 06/30/2005
Gentry, Donnell Vice-Chair Appointment 05/25/2004 06/30/2005
Bonner, Larry At-Large Appointment 05/25/2004 06/30/2006
Marx, Carole Jean At-Large Appointment 05/25/2004 06/30/2006
Risk Management/Worker's Compensation Trust Fund Board
Stern, John At-Large Appointment 05/25/2004 07/23/2007
The recommendation was to make appointments to the commissions and
administer the oath of office.
2
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Frate, to appoint the applicants
listed above, for the terms listed above, to the Board of Adjustment, Citizens
Advisory Commission on Neighborhoods, Citizen Transportation Oversight
Commission, Commission on Persons with Disabilities, Community Development
Advisory Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Housing Advisory
Commission and Risk Management/Workers Compensation Trust Fund Board.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Scruggs called Mr. Brad Berner and Ms. Linda Sue Trumble, Historic
Preservation Commission, forward and issued the oath of office.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, read agenda item number 1 and Ms. Pamela
Hanna, City Clerk, read consent agenda resolutions numbers 2, 3 and 4 by number and
title.
1. FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FP03-07: TOPAZ — 8012 WEST ORANGEWOOD
AVENUE
This is a request by 80th Avenue Land Solutions, L.L.C. for City Council approval
of the Topaz final plat.
The proposed final plat is consistent with the General Plan and the existing SR-
17 PRD (Single Residence, Planned Residential Development) zoning district.
The site is located on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, east of 83rd
Avenue. The 20-acre parcel is being subdivided into 31 parcels. Lot sizes vary from
18,813 to 21,808 square feet with an average lot size of 19,726 square feet. This
request meets the requirements of the Subdivision and Minor Land Division Ordinance.
On June 5, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat for this
subdivision.
This project will provide an opportunity to develop quality housing stock and
create a new neighborhood in the city. The proposed subdivision adds 31 large lot
home sites to the inventory of available properties in the city. This development also
incorporates sound growth management techniques by utilizing existing infrastructure
surrounding the property.
The recommendation was to approve final plat application FP03-07.
CONSENT RESOLUTIONS
2. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MARICOPA COUNTY FOR
COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM FUNDING
3
This is a request for City Council authorization to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement with Maricopa County Human Services Department to provide funding in the
amount of $286,699. for the fiscal year 2004-05 operation of Glendale's Community
Action Program (CAP).
One of the council goals is to enhance the quality of life for Glendale residents.
Providing responsible and efficient services for low to moderate-income residents will
help residents to become self-sufficient.
The CAP provides direct services to low and moderate-income Glendale
residents. Services include energy assistance payments, minor home repairs, and
crisis assistance for families, including homeless assistance and temporary
rent/mortgage subsidies.
The Community Action Program will ensure that low and moderate-income
Glendale residents will continue to receive crisis services.
The cost of $286,699. for operation of CAP services is funded by Maricopa
County Human Services Department. The City of Glendale's General Fund
supplements the remainder of CAP's budget with an appropriation of $86,696. The City
of Glendale also provides in-kind contributions for office space, utilities, custodial
services and miscellaneous operating expenses.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgete Unbudgete Total
Expense Cost d d
$286,699 $86,696 $373,395
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Maricopa County Human Services, Account No. 46-0046-4241
City of Glendale General Fund, CAP Account No. 01-0001-4846
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a resolution
authorizing the entering into of an intergovernmental agreement with the Maricopa
County Human Services Department for partial funding of the Community Action
Program.
Resolution No. 3756 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONCERNING THE CITY OF GLENDALE'S COMMUNITY
ACTION PROGRAM.
4
3. AMENDMENT #1 TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR
REMIBURSEMENT OF OVERTIME COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
ARIZONA METHAMPHETAMINE PROGRAM
This is a request for City Council authorization to enter into an amendment to the
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO)
for reimbursement of overtime costs associated with the Arizona Methamphetamine
Program.
The City of Glendale has always strived to strengthen community relationships
and create partnerships. This ongoing partnership with MCSO and the City of Glendale
strengthens collaboration between Valley law enforcement agencies for the safety of
our community.
This is an addendum to the initial IGA entered into on August 6, 2002. The IGA
provides for reimbursement of overtime expenses for officers conducting investigations
of clandestine labs. The IGA states that this reimbursement agreement ended
December 31, 2003. This amendment would extend the reimbursement agreement to
December 31, 2005.
This agreement continues a partnership with MCSO that is mutually beneficial in
the exchange of information and intelligence.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the entering into of amendment number one to the IGA with
MCSO for reimbursement of overtime costs associated with the Arizona
Methamphetamine Program.
Resolution No. 3757 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF
AMENDMENT #1 TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (C-50-03-510-2-01)
WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT
OF OVERTIME COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ARIZONA METHAMPHETAMINE
PROGRAM.
4. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MARICOPA COUNTY FOR
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
This is a request for City Council approval of an intergovernmental agreement
with Maricopa County for provision of animal control services to the City of Glendale for
the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2007. Animal control services include the
picking up of stray dogs, enforcement of city leash laws and assistance with the city's
vicious dog ordinance.
5
The provision of animal control services through Maricopa County assists in
meeting Council goals of ensuring public safety and awareness, coordinating
exceptional service delivery, and strengthening partnerships.
The County maintains facilities, equipment, and trained personnel for the
maintenance, control, and impoundment of unclaimed or vicious dogs. The County
also administers licensing of dogs. Utilization of these County services maximizes
existing regional infrastructure and saves valuable city resources. The city's current
contract with the County expires on July 1, 2004.
The Council adopted the city's current contract on May 29, 2001 with an effective
date of July 1 . The city has contracted with Maricopa County for over 35 years for this
service.
During calendar year 2003, Maricopa County Animal Control Services
impounded 3,382 dogs and cats and responded to 612 bite reports in Glendale. The
County's service includes public service information, a new interactive voice recording
telephone system, and a call center operating from 7 AM to 6 PM and dispatch
coverage that operates from 7 AM to 10 PM seven days a week, excluding
Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Funding for this animal control contract was reviewed during the FY04-05 budget
process.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgete Unbudgete Total
Expense Cost d d
$265,660 $265,660
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number
Field Operations Administration, 01-6210-7330 for $265,660
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution approving a three-year animal control contract with Maricopa County Animal
Control Services.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, asked if the
adjacent school will be impacted by the new neighborhood at Orangewood and 83rd
Avenue. He voiced his support of the Community Action Program funding and the
intergovernmental agreement with Maricopa County Animal Services. With regard to
the methamphetamine program, he asked if the intergovernmental agreement with the
Sheriff's office will pay for overtime of the city's officers.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
6
Resolution No. 3758 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING INTO OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MARICOPA COUNTY FOR ANIMAL
CONTROL SERVICES.
It was moved by Eggleston and seconded by Martinez, to approve the
recommended actions on Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 4, including the
approval and adoption of Resolution No. 3756 New Series, Resolution No. 3757
New Series, and Resolution No. 3758. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING — LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTION
5. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA03-02 AND REZONING APPLICATION
ZONO3-10: CHOLLA COVE
Mr. Jim May, Planning Manager, presented this item.
This is a request by the Marlor Land Company for the City Council to approve an
amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map for the property located at 5940 West
Sunnyside Drive. This amendment allows for a change from General Commercial and
Office to Medium Density Residential (2.5-3.5 dwelling units per acre). It also would
enable a rezoning from A-1 (Agricultural District) and C-2 (General Commercial) to R1-8
PRD (Single Residence, Planned Residential Development).
The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan
objective to encourage a mixture of housing opportunities citywide with an emphasis on
single-family dwelling units.
The 11.4-acre site is located at the northwest corner of 59th Avenue and
Sunnyside Drive. The applicant intends to build a gated single-family subdivision called
Cholla Cove. The proposed PRD development plan includes 32 single-family lots at a
density of 2.8 dwelling units per gross acre. The minimum lot size is 8,015 square feet,
the maximum lot size is 16,002, and the average lot size is 8,686 square feet.
On April 1, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
General Plan Amendment and Rezoning application, subject to five stipulations.
The project promotes the development of vacant infill property and will provide
high quality residential choices for the residents of Glendale.
On November 17, 2003, the applicant sent out 166 invitations to adjacent
property owners and interested parties inviting them to a neighborhood meeting held on
December 1, 2003. Seventeen residents attended the meeting. Concerns included
residential density, access to the subdivision, and the effect two-story homes would
7
have on the existing homeowners to the south and west. As a result, the applicant
agreed to one-story homes for all lots on the west side of the project.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing and approve General Plan
Amendment GPA03-02 and Rezoning Application ZONO3-10, subject to the five
stipulations as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the lots between Riviera and Poinsettia will be
two-story homes. Mr. May said the market will drive such decisions, however, there are
options for both single and two-story homes.
Mr. Mark Hardy, Applicant's representative, said they are very proud of the
project and have worked hard with staff to ensure it is an attractive addition to the city.
Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. Hardy if two-story homes will be offered on the
interior of the project. Mr. Hardy explained they offer a 50/50 mix of single and two-
story homes. He said the two-story homes allow them to provide larger housing
products since the largest single story home they can get on a lot of the proposed size
is 2,514 square feet. He noted they are restricted to single-story homes on the west
side of the development because of the existing community and along 51St Avenue.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 5.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, commented
the proposed project will be a beautiful development. He said he typically does not
approve of gated communities, but he supports the project because of the applicant's
willingness to listen to the neighbors. He expressed concern about the narrow streets.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Vice Mayor Eggleston expressed his opinion the proposed project is an example
of an excellent inf ill development.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Goulet, to approve General
Plan Amendment GPA03-02 and Rezoning Application ZONO3-10, subject to the
five stipulations as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion
carried unanimously.
BIDS AND CONTRACTS
6. AWARD OF PROPOSAL 03-38, ON-SITE PARTS ROOM OPERATION
Mr. Stuart Kent, Field Operations Deputy Director, presented this item.
8
This is a request for City Council to approve the award of proposal for a
contracted on-site parts room operation for the Equipment Management Division
effective July 1, 2004.
Award of this proposal meets the Council goal of providing financial stability and
enhancing service delivery.
The Field Operations Department's Equipment Management Division provides
critical repair and maintenance services to the city's inventory of over 1,300 vehicles
and pieces of equipment. During the current fiscal year, Equipment Management
expects to complete 30,500 vehicle and equipment repairs with 95% of these services
done at the city's vehicle maintenance facility. Continued growth in the city's inventory
has presented a growing challenge to find and obtain parts for this inventory, especially
specialty parts. To streamline the parts acquisition function and obtain the efficiencies
of the private sector, the Field Operations Department researched the possibility of
contracting with an outside vendor to provide the needed parts-supply services.
A Request for Proposal was issued in October 2003. Five vendors attended a
pre-proposal conference on November 13, 2003. One proposal was received and one
was rejected due to late submission. An evaluation committee consisting of staff from
the Field Operations Department and the Budget Office reviewed the offers received.
The NAPA proposal scored a total 376 points out of a possible 400.
During a workshop presentation of the Field Operations Center Master Plan in
2002, the concept of outsourcing the parts acquisition function was considered. During
2004, city staff conducted an analysis of this concept. Research indicated the city
could benefit from privatizing the parts operations by lowering long-term parts
acquisition costs and expanding available parts inventory. Staff followed up on earlier
research and also contacted organizations with NAPA contracts. Of the 17 total
governmental agencies (including cities, counties, and one state), and other regulated
organizations surveyed, the feedback was highly favorable.
A contract with NAPA is expected to accrue benefits to the city primarily resulting
from the NAPA organization's nationwide supply chain network and operational
expertise. These unique characteristics are difficult to achieve with city resources. By
outsourcing this service, the city's Equipment Management Division is expected to
reduce vehicle and equipment downtime for repair and service. The division's
customers, including Fire, Police, and Sanitation, will benefit from faster services.
Residents will benefit from this improved service.
Costs for in-house parts room service at the new Equipment Management facility
would be $1,315,179 plus $77,572 for 1.5 new FTEs. Therefore, the total cost for this
in-house service in the new facility would be $1,392,751. The total operating costs for
providing these same services, but with a NAPA contract instead of city staff, are
$1,458,542.
9
The difference between the current operational funding, $1,315,179, and the
costs for the NAPA contract will be $143,363. This difference will be made up from the
existing Equipment Management Fund Balance.
With the NAPA contract, the city will retain acquisition responsibility for a limited
number of parts and line supplies totaling $114,560. This cost is already in the base
budget. Therefore, the projected amount of the NAPA contract will be the total
operational costs of $1,458,542 minus the city's cost of $114,560 for a total contract
amount of $1,343,982. The increased costs will be offset by the following efficiencies:
1. Better service to customers
2. Reduced vehicle downtime
3. Improved inventory control
4. Increased availability of parts
5. Improved mechanic productivity
6. Inventory carrying cost eliminated
7. Fewer invoices to process and monitor
8. Improved allocation of costs to cost centers
9. Improved total cost accountability for service
10.Internal customers such as Fire, Police, and Sanitation will provide improved
service to the community due to the division's improved service.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgeted Unbudgeted Total
Expense Cost
$1,458,542 $1,458,542
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Equipment Management Division, Account no. 16-6252, $1,458,542
The recommendation was to award the contract for RFP 03-38 for on-site parts
room operation to NAPA in an amount not to exceed $1,343,982.
Councilmember Clark asked if the contract requires NAPA to manage the city's
inventory and distribute its existing $200,000 parts inventory at no markup. Mr. Kent
responded yes, assuring Councilmember Clark that NAPA will make no money off the
existing inventory. Councilmember Clark asked Mr. Kent to explain the agreement
wherein NAPA will take out a loan to purchase inventory and the city commits to paying
the interest on the loan. Mr. Kent explained NAPA is currently going through all of the
city's parts to determine what is used and how often. He said they will then purchase
additional parts as needed to fill out the city's inventory. He stated NAPA will borrow
funds to cover their upfront costs, on which the city has agreed to pay the interest. He
estimated the total cost to the city to be between $100,000 and $200,000. He
confirmed the amount the city pays will be plus or minus $20,000 per year and that the
number has been incorporated into the $143,000 cited in Council's books.
10
Councilmember Clark asked why the city is willing to pay the interest on the loan.
Mr. Kent stated they did not want NAPA to recoup their upfront costs throughout the life
of the contract by increasing their markup. He explained the $143,000 cited in the
Council's books is a high estimate of what it will cost to purchase the necessary parts to
fill out the city's inventory. Councilmember Clark asked what is the city's current
markup on parts. Mr. Kent responded 26 percent. He said NAPA's markup will be 10
percent; however their markup is already built into the total cost of the contract so the
markup to the various departments will remain at 26 percent.
Councilmember Clark asked how many people will NAPA employ and how many
people does the city currently employee in the parts department. Mr. Kent said NAPA
will employ five people and the city currently employs seven people, including 5.5 FTEs.
He noted it would have taken another 1.5 FTEs for the city to provide comparable
service. Councilmember Clark asked what will happen to the city's employees once
NAPA takes over. Mr. Kent said one of the FTEs will manage the contract and assist
with specialty parts. He said the contract FTE position expires at the end of July and
the two remaining FTEs will be able to seek other opportunities both inside and outside
the organization. Councilmember Clark asked if the city will assist the two FTEs in
finding other positions within the city. Mr. Kent said the city will offer training to those
employees and their skill sets could match those of an open position.
Councilmember Clark asked if the city will be held liable if a NAPA employee is
injured. Mr. Paladini said Worker's Compensation is a no fault system, therefore
NAPA's Worker's Compensation system would cover their employees. He stated, to
the extent a city employee or agent acted unreasonably, a NAPA person could attempt
to sue the city. He noted, however, Worker's Compensation would have a lien against
any recovery the person would get against the city. He said NAPA's insurance would
also be responsible for any third-party injury as a result of an accident.
Councilmember Clark asked about the city's existing relationships with specialty
parts vendors and the discounted prices the city receives from those vendors. Mr. Kent
said NAPA has great buying power and receives a volume discount. He said specialty
vendors will be willing to sell to NAPA at a discounted rate because NAPA will not be
reselling the parts to the public as a competitor. Councilmember Clark asked if any of
the city's special vendors have agreed to recognize NAPA as the city's purchasing
agent. Mr. Kent responded yes.
Councilmember Goulet asked if other cities are establishing similar agreements.
Mr. Kent said Glendale is the first city in the valley; however cities elsewhere in the
country have set up similar partnerships. He noted those cities contracted were
unanimously supportive of using NAPA as their vendor.
Councilmember Martinez asked if the non-monetary benefits of the contract can
be quantified. Mr. Kent said they anticipate getting an additional one half-hour per
week in productive work time from each mechanic, resulting in over $44,000 in
additional productivity. He said they also expect the time saved by no longer having to
11
process the parts to result in a savings of $31,000 per year. He said those savings,
along with the $60,000 it would cost to hire an additional 1.5 FTEs, if the city
maintained responsibility over parts management, almost equates to the $143,000.
Councilmember Frate agreed the proposed agreement will allow for more efficient
and cost effective parts control and inventory management.
Mayor Scruggs asked how staff intends to analyze the contract once it is in place.
Mr. Kent said all costs associated with the contract, as well as the cost of the one
remaining FTE and costs associated with auxiliary parts the city will purchase, will be
tracked in a separate line item within the budget. He stated they will also measure
mechanic productivity to determine whether there is an increase in billable hours as a
result of the contract. Mayor Scruggs noted there has been a lot of discussion over the
years about various aspects of vehicle maintenance, stating she applauds staff for
looking so thoroughly at the most economic and efficient way to handle inventory
management.
Mr. Kent confirmed for Councilmember Martinez that the contract will run for five
years, with a three year renewals.
Councilmember Clark stated she supports the concept of privatization. She said
the city paying the interest on NAPA's loan is the only component of the contract that
gives her any concern.
Mayor Scruggs pointed out the city can either pay the interest on the loan or the
interest will be factored into NAPA's markup. Mr. Kent agreed.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 6.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated he
originally supported the proposed agreement, but now he opposes the agreement
because he is very uncomfortable that the successful bidder was selected solely on the
basis of their bid amount. He stated he does not like the idea of a pre-proposal
conference and, given that the city will pay $65,791 more than it would without the
contract, he believes the public should have access to the studies. He questioned
whether staff looked at the drawbacks to such a contract. He said city staff knows
better what the city needs in terms of parts than an off-site company. He said he
strongly opposes the contract and wants to see the research behind staff's
recommendation.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Frate, to award the contract for
RFP 03-38 for on-site parts room operation to NAPA in an amount not to exceed
$1,343,982. The motion carried unanimously.
12
7. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT — NOISE WALLS PHASE 3, 67TH
TO 751H AVENUES
Mr. Larry Broyles, City Engineer, presented this item.
This is a request for City Council to award a construction contract to Valley Rain
Construction Corporation to build noise walls along a segment of Loop 101, between
67th and 75th Avenues.
One of the Council's strategic priorities is to enhance the quality of life for the
citizens of Glendale. Construction of the noise walls will assist in mitigating the sounds
generated by the freeway and improve the quality of life for those residents of Glendale
that live in the vicinity of this segment of Loop 101.
Traffic on the Loop 101 freeway has increased significantly over the past several
years increasing the noise levels adjacent to the freeway. In 1999, a noise impact
assessment was conducted to determine the level of noise in the vicinity of the freeway.
Noise walls are being constructed in phases along segments of the freeway to help
mitigate the sound. The first phase between 51St and 58th avenues was completed in
2000. The second phase between Union Hills Drive and 75th Avenue was completed in
2002. The noise impact assessment was updated in 2002 to determine the
effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures. The Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) constructed a rubberized asphalt overlay of the freeway as
another means for reducing the sound levels on the freeway. The current project will
complete the third phase of construction between 67th and 75 h Avenues.
On March 25, 2003, the Council approved a professional services agreement
with Premier Engineering Corporation for the design and construction administration for
the third segment of noise wall. An intergovernmental agreement with ADOT was
approved by Council on April 13, 2004 for cost sharing for over sizing the wall to provide
additional height in the future should it become warranted.
On April 29, 2004, four bids were received and opened. Valley Rain
Construction Corporation, a qualified licensed contractor, submitted the lowest bid in
the amount of $2,570,451.60.
The noise wall, combined with the recent rubberized asphalt overlay, will help
reduce the noise level.
A public meeting for this project was held on September 10, 2003 to discuss the
project with the citizens in the area. The 17 citizens in attendance supported the
proposed noise wall.
Funds for the construction are available in the 2003-05 Fiscal Year Capital
Improvement Plan, Sound Walls, Account No. 61-9627-8300.
13
Grants Capital One-Time Budgete Unbudgete Total
Expense Cost d d
X X $2,570,451.6
0
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number
Sound Walls, Account No. 61-9627-8300
The recommendation was to approve the award of the construction contract to
Valley Rain Construction Corporation in the amount of $2,570,451.60.
Mayor Scruggs asked if Valley Rain has done either Phase I or II walls. Mr.
Broyles responded no. Mayor Scruggs asked if the walls done as part of Phase Ill of
the noise wall project will match the design of the walls in Phase II. Mr. Broyles
answered yes.
Mr. Broyles confirmed for Councilmember Frate that rubberized asphalt has
already been laid in the area.
Councilmember Martinez thanked Mr. Broyles and city staff for their fine work on
the project and the neighborhood for their patience.
It was moved by Martinez, and seconded by Frate, to approve the award of
the construction contract to Valley Rain Construction Corporation in the amount
of $2,570,451.60. The motion carried unanimously.
8. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR 615T AVENUE RELIEF
SEWER, NORTHERN TO ALICE AVENUES
Mr. Larry Broyles, City Engineer, presented this item.
This is a request for City Council approval of a professional services agreement
with Entellus, Inc., for the evaluation, design and construction engineering services
needed to provide a relief sewer for the existing 61st Avenue sewer, from Northern to
Alice Avenues.
One of Council's goals is enhancing the quality of life for Glendale residents.
This project will improve the 61St Avenue sewer system from Northern to Alice Avenues
by increasing the carrying capacity.
The existing 61St Avenue sewer, from Northern to Alice Avenues, is eight-inches
in diameter, relatively shallow, and was installed in the middle to late 1960's. Since the
time of its installation, a significant amount of multi-family housing has been constructed
in its service area, with the result being that the sewer is currently at or slightly beyond
its design capacity. The preliminary work to be performed on this project includes an
14
evaluation of the existing sewer. The anticipated result of this evaluation will determine
whether the existing sewer should be supplemented with a new relief sewer, or
replaced either partially or totally with a new replacement sewer.
The project will improve the 61st Avenue sewer system between Northern to
Alice Avenues, improving the quality of life for those residents in the surrounding
neighborhood.
A public information component is included in the project so that area residents,
property owners and businesses will be informed about the project, including details of
construction and the construction schedule. A public meeting will be held prior to
construction, and a newsletter will be distributed periodically during the course of
construction.
Funds for this project in the amount of $115,403.95 are available in the Fiscal
Year 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program, 61st Avenue Sewer Line, Account No. 84-
9273-8300.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgete Unbudgete Total
Expense Cost d d
X X $115,403.95
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
61St Avenue Sewer Line, Account No. 84-9273-8300
The recommendation was to approve the professional services agreement with
Entellus, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $115,403.95.
Councilmember Goulet asked if an evaluation will be done on the sewer pipe. Mr.
Broyles said an evaluation will be done to determine the number of service areas
connected to the facility and the condition of the sewer main itself. He estimated the
evaluation and design portions of the contract to take seven months. Councilmember
Goulet asked how long is the replacement schedule should the evaluation prove the
sewer main needs to be replaced. Mr. Broyles said it would take approximately eight
months.
Mayor Scruggs asked what do the 450 calendar days refer to in Section 2 of the
contract. Mr. Broyles said seven months is for the evaluation and design of the system
with the additional time allotted to construction of the sewer line.
Mayor Scruggs asked if there was any public comment.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, commented
on the length of time the sewer has existed, stating he strongly approves of the
15
proposed sewer construction. He noted, however, many people in his neighborhood
use that route, asking that the neighborhood be given ample notice of construction.
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Goulet, to approve the
professional services agreement with Entellus, Inc., in an amount not to exceed
$115,403.95. The motion carried unanimously.
9. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS AND OLIVE AVENUE STORM DRAIN
Mr. Larry Broyles, City Engineer, presented this item.
This is a request for City Council approval of a professional services agreement
with AMEC Infrastructure for the engineering design and construction services for
intersection improvements on 51St Avenue between Camelback Road and Peoria
Avenue and at 59th Avenue and Camelback Road. The purpose of this project is to add
medians, bus bays, a turn lane and other intersection improvements. This project
includes a storm drain in Olive Avenue, between 47th and 51St avenues, to help mitigate
flooding in this area.
The improvements included in this project support Council's goals of enhancing
the quality of life for Glendale residents.
The Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission took action on November 6,
2003 to recommend the use of GO Program sales tax to fund the design and
construction of this project. URS Corporation is responsible for the development of
design concepts, which will serve as the basis for the final design. Engineering
Department staff recently selected several qualified firms to provide professional
engineering services for design and construction services as needed. AMEC
Infrastructure was selected from this list.
As part of the GO program, these intersection improvements and pavement
widening projects include: paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, bus bays, landscaping,
lighting, signal modifications, and other street-related improvements. This project also
includes a storm drain in Olive Avenue between 47th and 51st Avenues to help mitigate
flooding in this area.
Bus bays and turn lanes will be constructed to improve traffic flow on the street.
URS Corporation has made contact with property owners directly impacted by
the improvements. Public meetings were recently conducted at several locations
around the city to inform residents of the projects and to receive comments. AMEC
Infrastructure will also conduct public information meetings during the final design
process so citizens remain informed of the progress being made and the schedule for
the project.
16
Engineering Department staff has negotiated a scope of work and fee for design
and construction services with AMEC Infrastructure in the amount of $825,097.
Funds for the design and construction services of this project are available in the
Fiscal Years 2003-05 Capital Improvement Program, 51st Ave.: Camelback to Peoria &
59th Ave/ Camelback, Account No. 25-9450-8330 in the amount of $754,243 and
Collector Drains, Account No. 65-9302-8330 in the amount of $ 70,854.
Grants Capital Expense One-Time Budgete Unbudgete Total
Cost d _ d
X $825,097 $825,097
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number:
Collector Drains, Account No. 65-9302-8330, $ 70,854 FY03-04
51st Ave.: Camelback to Peoria & 59th Ave. & Camelback, Account No. 25-9450-8330,
$754,243 FY04-05
The recommendation was to approve the professional services agreement with
AMEC Infrastructure in the amount of $825,097.
Mayor Scruggs asked if there was any public comment, there was none.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Eggleston, to approve the
professional services agreement with AMEC Infrastructure in the amount of
$825,097. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE
10. PROPOSED INCREASE TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Mr. Roger Bailey, Utilities Director, presented this item.
This is a request for City Council to hold a public hearing and adopt an ordinance
amending the development impact fees effective August 2, 2004.
This DIF increase is required in order for the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds
to maintain adequate operational cash reserves and finance a ten-year Capital
Improvement Program necessary for the viability of the water and sewer system.
Additionally, this will assist the City's Utilities Department to meet criteria set by bonding
companies as a prerequisite to receiving a superior bond rating.
Following a series of Council workshops, wherein the most current report and
recommendations were presented, the City Council directed staff to begin the process
to implement the new DIF structure.
17
In order to be consistent with the Council goals of providing financial stability and
coordinating exceptional service delivery, an increase in the DIF is necessary.
Development impact fees (DIF) are one-time charges to developers that are
used to offset the costs of capital improvement projects necessary for new
development.
Consultant, Black & Veatch, prepared an updated report on the city's water and
sewer DIF dated February 4, 2004. Their update utilized the methodology established
by Tischler and Associates, Inc. in the comprehensive fee study completed in 2001.
The February 4, 2004 Black & Veatch evaluation recommends that water and sewer
development impact fees be increased.
The DIF report documents the cost of water and sewer facilities to maintain
current levels of service while accommodating new development, and proposes
changes to the current DIF. Revenue from the proposed changes will cover the capital
costs associated with growth.
Water and sewer DIF are necessary so that the city can expand and improve its
facilities to serve new growth. The DIF on new development is used to finance costs
related to additional capacity.
In 1994, the City of Glendale undertook an impact fee study that was completed
and the recommendations were implemented on February 1, 1997. Again in 1999, the
City undertook an impact fee study that was completed and new fees were
implemented on September 25, 2000. On June 5, 2001, Council reviewed
recommendations by consultant Tischler & Associates based upon its review of the
previous study. Their final report, dated July 1, 2001, recommended expanding the
fees to cover the actual cost of development to the city. Council reviewed the
recommendations and held a public hearing on September 25, 2001. The last increase
in water and sewer DIF was effective January 10, 2002.
In 2003, consultant Black & Veatch completed another water and sewer
development impact fee study. Following a series of council workshops from October
to December 2003, wherein the Black & Veatch report and recommendations were
presented, city council directed staff to begin the process to implement the new DIF
structure.
By implementing the new DIF, the city will be able to maintain its current level of
service to existing residents and support future growth.
The recommendation was to conduct a public hearing, waive reading beyond the
title and adopt an ordinance amending the development impact fees effective August 2,
2004.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 10.
18
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said he is
always concerned when the city increases the fees associated with building houses
because the developers pass those increased costs on to the purchasers. He stated
he does not support the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Ordinance No. 2378 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING GLENDALE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 28, ARTICLE
VI, TABLE 1 (CITY OF GLENDALE DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE, WATER
SYSTEM & SANITARY SEWER FEE); AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
It was moved by Frate, and seconded by Martinez, to approve Ordinance
No. 2378 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and
Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
ORDINANCES
11. AIRPORT TERMINAL LEASE WITH FIREBIRD FLIGHT TRAINING CENTER,
LLC
Mr. Michael Munroe, Acting Assistant Transportation Director, presented this
item.
This is a request for the City Council to approve a lease with Firebird Flight
Training Center, LLC for Suite 204 in the Glendale Municipal Airport terminal building.
One of Council's strategic priorities is to promote economic development.
Firebird Flight Training Center is a business that started with a staff of two that has
increased to eight.
Firebird Flight Training Center is a small flight school that has been operating at
the Glendale airport since November 2003. Firebird Flight Training originally leased
253 sq. ft. of terminal office space. In February, Firebird Flight Training leased an
additional 253 sq. ft. Over the past several months, Firebird Flight Training Center has
steadily increased the number of students receiving flight instruction. This success
requires Firebird Flight Training to lease an additional 356 sq. ft. for ground school
classes, flight debriefings and one-on-one instruction. As with the previous lease
agreements, the proposed use complies with the 1998 Airport Master Plan or the 1994
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study project.
The term of the office lease will be for one year, commencing on June 1, 2004,
with four one-year renewal options. The tenant must provide written notice to the
airport manager 90 days prior to the expiration of the current term to renew.
19
The annual rent for Suite 204 will be $5,518 for the first year. Each year and
prior to its renewal, there will be a Consumer Price Index adjustment to the lease.
Council has approved two previous lease agreements with Firebird Flight
Training Center on November 25, 2003 and February 10, 2004.
At a public meeting on August 13, 2003 the Aviation Advisory Commission
reviewed and voted unanimously to support the request by Firebird Flight Training
Center to lease office space in the airport terminal building.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance authorizing the lease of Suite 204 to Firebird Flight Training, LLC at the
Glendale Municipal Airport.
Mr. Munroe confirmed for Councilmember Clark that the proposed use complies
with the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study and Airport Master Plan.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 11. As there
were no comments, Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Ordinance No. 2379 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND/OR CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AIRPORT TERMINAL LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH FIREBIRD FLIGHT TRAINING CENTER, L.L.C. FOR CERTAIN
OFFICE SPACE IN THE TERMINAL BUILDING AT THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Martinez, to approve Ordinance
No. 2379 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and
Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
12. AIRPORT TERMINAL LEASE WITH GCA INTERNATIONAL, INC.. DBA GOLD
COAST AVIATION
Mr. Michael Munroe, Acting Assistant Transportation Director, presented this
item.
This is a request for the City Council to approve a lease with GCA International,
Inc., dba Gold Coast Aviation for Suite 205 in the Glendale Municipal Airport terminal
building.
One of Council's strategic priorities is to promote economic development. Gold
Coast Aviation is relocating their office from Litchfield Park to the airport. Gold Coast's
operation will include two managers and several office staff.
20
Gold Coast Aviation provides a wide variety of aviation support services. They
specialize in international logistical support ranging from supplying spare parts and
aircraft maintenance to providing technical expertise, staffing, management and
training. Gold Coast Aviation recently obtained a Federal Aviation Regulation Part 135
certificate so that they can conduct helicopter charters. Gold Coast Aviation has
satellite sites in nine locations along with the corporate office in Litchfield Park. Gold
Coast Aviation will initially operate out of Suite 205 totaling 302 sq. ft., but they
anticipate leasing two additional suites as space becomes available. The proposed
business complies with the 1998 Airport Master Plan or the 1994 Federal Aviation
Regulation Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study.
The term of the office lease will be for one year, commencing on June 1, 2004,
with four one-year renewal options. The tenant must provide written notice to the
airport manager 90 days prior to the expiration of current term to renew.
The annual rent for Suite 205 will be $4,681 for the first year. Each year and
prior to its renewal, there will be a Consumer Price Index adjustment to the lease.
At its public meeting on May 12, 2004, the Aviation Advisory Commission
reviewed and voted to support the request by Gold Coast Aviation to lease office space
in the airport terminal building.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt an
ordinance authorizing the lease of Suite 205 to GCA International, Inc., dba Gold Coast
Aviation at the Glendale Municipal Airport.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 12.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, stated he
appreciates what the Council is doing to bring businesses to the airport. He expressed
his opinion Glendale Municipal Airport deserves more recognition that it has received in
the past.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Ordinance No. 2380 New Series was read by number and title only, it being AN
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND/OR CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AIRPORT TERMINAL LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH GCA INTERNATIONAL, INC., DBA GOLD COAST AVIATION, AN
ALABAMA CORPORATION, FOR CERTAIN OFFICE SPACE IN THE TERMINAL
BUILDING AT THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.
It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Martinez, to approve Ordinance
No. 2380 New Series. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with the following
21
Councilmembers voting "aye": Clark, Goulet, Eggleston, Martinez, Frate, and
Scruggs. Members voting "nay": none.
RESOLUTIONS
13. ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION, PROJECT SAFE
NEIGHBORHOODS GRANT AGREEMENT
Mr. Andrew Kirkland, Assistant Police Chief, presented this item.
This is a request for the City Council to authorize the submission and acceptance
of the Project Safe Neighborhoods grant issued by the Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission. This $25,000 grant will be utilized toward addressing criminal gang
activity within the Orchard Glen neighborhood
The City Council has identified the importance of ensuring public safety and
increased awareness within our neighborhoods. This grant is designed to address
public safety issues and enhance awareness of criminal gang activity within the
Orchard Glen neighborhood.
This grant will provide financial assistance in the sum of $25,000 to be used for
overtime payment to Police employees. Police Officers will utilize the overtime payment
towards addressing criminal gang activity within the Orchard Glen neighborhood.
This grant, with the assistance of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, will benefit
Orchard Glen residents by helping address issues regarding criminal gang activity.
Orchard Glen's neighborhood boundaries are 59th to 63rd Avenues, Glendale to
Maryland Avenues, and 63rd to 65th Avenues, and Glendale Avenue to Lamar Road.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the submission and acceptance of the Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission, Project Safe Neighborhoods grant.
Councilmember Clark asked how they intend to address criminal activity. Mr.
Kirkland said they will use three approaches, intervention, prevention and enforcement.
He said the enforcement tactics they use vary and are adjusted according to the
activity. He said they will also go out to the community to let them know what they can
do to prevent criminal activity.
Councilmember Goulet asked if the grant will go into effect immediately. Mr.
Kirkland answered yes.
Councilmember Martinez asked why this particular neighborhood was selected.
Mr. Kirkland explained ATF focuses on areas with high criminal gang activity.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 13.
22
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, voiced his
support for this item. He hoped that law enforcement continue to work with the
community.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Resolution No. 3759 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND/OR CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AIRPORT TERMINAL LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH FIREBIRD FLIGHT TRAINING CENTER, L.L.C. FOR CERTAIN
OFFICE SPACE IN THE TERMINAL BUILDING AT THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT.
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to pass, adopt and
approve Resolution No. 3759 New Series. The motion carried unanimously.
14. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ARIZONA SPORTS AND
TOURISM AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE IN-LINE HOCKEY EQUIPMENT
Mr. Richard Cardin Jr., Parks and Recreation Deputy Director, presented this
item.
This is a request for the City Council to authorize the entering into an
intergovernmental agreement with the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA)
to receive a grant to purchase in-line hockey equipment for the Bonsai! Park in-line
hockey program.
This agreement addresses the two Council strategic priorities of enhancing the
quality of life for Glendale residents and strengthening community relationships through
new partnerships.
The Parks and Recreation Department recently applied for, and was granted,
funding from the AZSTA to purchase $5,000 worth of in-line hockey equipment. The
funding will be used to develop a large inventory of in-line equipment that can be loaned
to players on a game-to-game or season-to-season basis, who may not have the
means to purchase the required equipment. The city currently has an established
scholarship fund in place for those families that may need assistance with the
registration fee, however, the scholarship does not address the costs of the required
equipment purchase.
The department offers in-line hockey for children, ages 7 — 17. The eight-week
program costs $68 per participant, which provides them a team jersey, 10 games and
participation award. Through research, staff has determined that many youth do not
participate in in-line hockey because of the cost of purchasing the required safety
equipment.
23
The AZSTA was created through an Act of the State Legislature (SB 1220) and
referred to the voters of Maricopa County (Proposition 302), which was approved by the
voters on November 7, 2000. The 1% Hotel Tax and the 3.25% Car Rental Surcharge
fund various youth and amateur sports facilities and programs in Maricopa County
through a grant program.
This grant provides increased opportunities for children to participate in the in-
line hockey program.
This is a self-sustaining program and the cost of purchasing the equipment will
not have any impact on the general fund. The money will be spent in FY 04-05.
Grants Capital One-Time Budgete Unbudgete Total
Expense Cost d d
$5,000 $3,332 $8,332
Account Name, Fund, Account and Line Item Number
Youth In-Line Hockey (73-4266-7520)
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing the entering into of an intergovernmental agreement with the
Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority.
Mayor Scruggs opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 3.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said he
applauds the city's efforts to obtain the grant because all children in Glendale should
have access to sports.
Mayor Scruggs closed the public hearing.
Resolution No. 3760 New Series was read by number and title only, it being A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE TOURISM
AND SPORTS AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE IN-LINE HOCKEY EQUIPMENT.
It was moved by Goulet, and seconded by Clark, to pass, adopt and
approve Resolution No. 3760 New Series. The motion carried unanimously.
15. OLIVE MARKETPLACE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH HAYSCALE, L.L.C.
Mr. Jon Paladini, Interim City Attorney, presented this item.
24
This is a request for the City Council to approve a resolution authorizing the City
Manager to enter into a settlement agreement with Hayscale, L.L.C. regarding the
property located on the southwest corner of 51St and Olive Avenues. The approval of
the agreement would result in the dismissal with prejudice of the pending lawsuit by
Hayscale and provide for development of the property consistent with the current C-2
(General Commercial) zoning.
This settlement agreement and development plan is consistent with the General
Plan and current C-2 zoning. The economic benefits to the city include increased sales
tax revenue and the creation and retention of jobs in Glendale.
Up to1998, the property located at the southwest corner of 51St and Olive
Avenues was zoned A-1 (Agricultural District) and C-3 (Heavy Commercial). Hayscale
filed applications to amend the zoning to C-2 to allow for a shopping center
development. In September 1999, Council approved C-2 zoning for the property
subject to 23 stipulations. Hayscale submitted its Master Development Plan to the city
in July of 2000, reflecting a 220,121 sq. ft. Wal-Mart, a second major tenant of 23,941
sq. ft., and a future building area of 20,000 sq. ft. In October 2000, Council initiated an
application to amend the zoning stipulations to the C-2 zoning; and, in December 2000,
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved those amendments. On December 19,
2000, the Council approved the zoning application that amended the stipulations that
had been granted on September 14, 1999. The approval had the effect of placing more
restrictive stipulations on the development of the property.
Hayscale, L.L.C. filed a lawsuit against the city on December 7, 2000. Hayscale
alleged that, based on the amended stipulations, the city restricted the uses of the
property and significantly reduced the property value. The agreement addresses the
desires of the city that the property be built so that it is an aesthetically pleasing,
neighborhood-friendly shopping center that meets all design criteria approval for the
property's current zoning.
The property is zoned C-2, which accommodates either integrated or
freestanding commercial uses that serve both neighborhood scale as well as
community level needs. Some of the permitted uses as set forth in Section 5.751 of the
Zoning Code include restaurants, retail stores, professional, administrative and
business offices and other business that are designated as personal services, i.e.,
barbershops, beauty supplies, dry-cleaning establishments and automotive services. It
would also allow indoor recreational facilities, veterinary clinics,
appliance/furniture/household equipment rentals, child care centers, medical or dental
clinics, churches, business schools and financial institutions.
The agreement sets forth higher standards for development of the property than
the current zoning requires.
The settlement agreement dismisses the lawsuit with prejudice, mandates a
quality commercial development for the property and provides economic benefits to the
25
city including increased sales tax revenue as well as the creation and retention of jobs
in Glendale.
The recommendation was to waive reading beyond the title and adopt a
resolution authorizing and directing the entering into of the Olive Marketplace — 518t
Avenue and Olive Settlement Agreement with Hayscale, L.L.C.; and directing that the
Settlement Agreement be recorded.
Verbatim Transcript of Item No. 15
Mayor Scruggs said Mr. Beasley, would you please introduce Item 15 for us.
Mr. Beasley said thank you Mayor. This is Olive Marketplace Settlement
Agreement with Hayscale, L.L.C.. Mr. Paladini, the City Attorney, will address this item.
Mr. Paladini said Mayor and Council, this is a request for the City Council to
approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Settlement Agreement
with Hayscale L.L.C. regarding the property located at the southwest corner of 51st and
Olive Avenues. The approval of the agreement would result in the dismissal with
prejudice of the pending lawsuit with Hayscale and provide for development of the
property consistent with or in excess of actually the current C-2 General Commercial
zoning. Some of the summary of the agreement for this is that it commits the property
to develop in compliance with Glendale's Big Box Ordinance for any single retailer over
75,000 square feet. Issues that are agreed to be considered for any big-box CUP
application not only include the Glendale Zoning Ordinance Section 3.900 which are the
standards, but also operational, traffic issues, landscape design, building design
elevations and related aesthetic standards. It also limits the size of a large single
retailer on the site to not more than 150,000 square feet in gross floor area unless the
City Council deems a larger store is preferred for the site. It commits any development
on the site to meet or exceed the standards set forth under current C-2 zoning
approvals. It sets the development standards and ordinances, rules and regulations for
development of the property as those in effect on the approval date of the agreement, it
prevents the development of automobile service and gasoline stations on the property,
it requires that all necessary public and onsite infrastructure be completed during the
first phase of site development, it provides for enhanced architectural and landscape
design standards applicable to the entire site, requires the installation of a significant
landscape buffer on all sides of the property during phase one of the project, including a
linear park on the south and west sides and a small park at the northwest corner of the
property at 53rd and Olive. It also applies the CSC District drive-thru standards which
would require a use permit for any drive-thru services on the property. So, generally
speaking, the agreement, if approved, would actually set a higher standard for
development of the property than currently mandated under C-2 zoning and the zoning
stipulations now in place for the property.
Mr. Paladini said I believe that the applicant representative is here tonight to
answer any questions Council may have. Staff's recommendation is to waive reading
26
beyond title and adopt a resolution authorizing and directing the entering into of the
Olive Marketplace 51st Avenue and Olive Settlement Agreement with Hayscale, L.L.C.
Mayor and Council that concludes my brief presentation, subject to your questions.
Mayor Scruggs said Councilmember Clark?
Councilmember Clark said yes, thank you Mr. Paladini. Just one question for the
general public. With prejudice? Explain that.
Mr. Paladini said with Prejudice means for good. Without any chance to bring
the lawsuit back.
Councilmember Clark said thank you.
Mayor Scruggs said a condition that was extremely important to all of us on the
City Council, and I believe you negotiated with the applicant and the applicant's
representative, was the one that says limits the size of a large single retailer on this site
to not more than 150,000 square feet of gross floor area unless the City Council deems
a larger store is appropriate on the site. I believe our intention was to limit it to 150,000
square feet, of course, recognizing that 10 years down the road maybe somebody
would want something different. But, the agreement itself, I was surprised at how that
particular criteria or condition that we were seeking actually came out in the settlement
agreement and...1 will apologize for not addressing this sooner, but as you know I've
been out of town since our last meeting and I got my books at nine o'clock last night.
So, if you look in Section 3.1, Page 2 of the Settlement Agreement, it says Glendale
reserves the right to deny any single retailer in excess of 150,000 square feet gross
floor area at its sole and absolute discretion. It's worded a little differently. I guess I
was looking for something that was more of an outright limitation. So, may I ask you
questions in terms of what the people on the other side, the property owners who are
signing this, how they interpret this. Does this mean that they can come with a proposal
for something that's 180,000 square feet and we have to go through that extensive
Conditional Use Permit process whereby we're required to only consider certain criteria
by law or does it mean that the proposal for 180,000 or 220,000 square feet comes into
our Planning Department and our Planning Department says no, that doesn't work on
this site, goodbye.
Mr. Paladini said Mayor and Council, good question. The...what it does is it...as
you've said and I think it's important to note that when any big-box application for use
were to come through the city, we have certain criteria we have to look at in terms of
mitigation and denial. So certain elements of what the impacts are going to be before a
denial can be done on a use permit for a big-box or a drive-thru or anything.
Mayor Scruggs said right.
Mr. Paladini said what this agreement says is that the city doesn't have to look at
any of that...any of those criteria and the city can say at really any level as it goes
27
through, staff could recommend or could tell a developer we're not going to accept that
application because the 185,000 square feet just doesn't' work for this property. To the
extent, however, that the Planning Commission desires to see it or the City Council
desires to see it, it could be brought forward at a request of say the majority of the
Commission or majority of the Council to look at it, but it really provides the city with all
of the alternatives whether or not to accept it or not accept it. But the process would
start with the Planning staff.
Mayor Scruggs said how would the Planning Commission know somebody was
asking to put a 200,000 square foot building on this site if the application was not then
forwarded to them? We have gone through...we and the citizens in the surrounding
areas have gone through a very disruptive time over the course of a couple of years
because of this one property and I believe...I'll speak for myself, but I believe the rest of
the Council had the same intention...we did not want to have to put the neighborhood
through the type of anxiety, the type of feeling of threat that they've gone through
before and, as you know, very often citizens come to us and say why are you allowing
them to do this and we say well, it's their right to ask. I think we were trying to avoid
that and I think we understood that the...1 don't know what to call them...the property
owner understood that and, therefore, the stipulation was we just aren't going to put
anything larger.
Mr. Paladini said Mayor and Council, that's the...I think what you said, though, is
that all this does is allow the property owner/developer to simply ask the question, you
know, and again, it would start at the staff level. Now, if the direction of the Council at
this point is absolute to the Planning Staff, do not bring forward anything over 150,000
square feet, than the direction's absolutely clear in terms of the agreement; however, it
simply provides an option in the future if there is a development that might work, but it's
strictly in the sole and absolute discretion of the city so ultimately it would start at the
Planning Staff in terms of denying...not even accepting the application. And that's
where it would stay at unless there was some other direction given down the road to
globally...by the Council...to say, you know, bring this forward. So it would have to
come from Council to say bring something forward that might be over 150,000, but
otherwise, the absolute discretion is at this point that it wouldn't even get to...beyond
the staff level.
Mayor Scruggs said perhaps this would be a good time to ask the representative
of the property owner what his understanding was of this item...this particular condition
and, more importantly, the property owners, who have already...one of them has signed
this already...If you would introduce yourself please.
Mr. Betts said sure. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Steve
Betts with Gallagher and Kennedy. I'm here on behalf of Gustine Properties who hopes
to be the developer of at least the Phase I development on this property. To answer
your question directly, I think that Mr. Paladini...1 would agree with the interpretation Mr.
Paladini gave...that the intent of this clause is that anything over 150 is not permissible
unless you all want to do something more than that. If you have a particular user years
28
from now that comes to Glendale that you would love to see come to Glendale because
they bring a certain amount of tax base or a certain kind of product to your community,
we didn't want to have to go back and amend the development agreement, go back and
go through the development agreement amendment process. So we wanted to put
some language in that says over 150 not allowed unless you all decide in your sole and
absolute discretion that you want to put some user in there that's above that.
Mayor Scruggs said did you also represent the Hurley family in this process and
what would their understanding be? In other words, my understanding...my
understanding is that we do not have to put the neighborhoods through a process that
is disruptive, rips them apart as it did before and so forth. At the same time I
understand a very desirable tenant might be 155,000 square feet and I assume what
you're doing is building in a factor that would allow for something like that. What I want
to get to is what does the Hurley family understand, what does the Gustine, is
it...Company understand, and what do we understand regarding whether there can be
a forced maneuver to take the Planning Commission through the whole process, the
neighborhoods through the process, the Council through the process or if it can be
closed down in the beginning.
Mr. Betts said Madam Mayor. I have briefed both the developer of this project
and the property owners of this project on the terms of the development agreement. I
think the way I say it is what they understand also. That any single user over 150 will
be prohibited unless the city, in its sole and absolute discretion, decided that they
wanted to put something there larger. And the only reason for that language in there
was to avoid having to go back and amend the development agreement. So I think our
understanding is the same as your understanding.
Mayor Scruggs said so the prohibition could begin at the Planning Director or
Economic Development Director level.
Mr. Betts said correct.
Mayor Scruggs said Councilmember Clark.
Councilmember Clark said well, I remember this whole topic very, very well and I
offered the idea of 150,000 square feet and I used the term cap. Flat out cap. Don't
come to us if you've got something larger than 150,000 square feet. What troubles me
is when I hear our City Attorney say you have the right to ask the question of more than
150,000 square feet. That puts us right back where we were previously on this whole
situation because you have the right to come and ask us for something larger than
150,000 square feet. That's not what I understood when this whole issue was
discussed. What I got from the representation was that your clients had agreed to the
cap of 150,000 square feet. Now I see something with wiggle room and I don't like the
wiggle room.
29
Mr. Betts said Madam Mayor, Councilmember Clark. It's not our intent, I don't
think it was the City Attorney's intent, to put wiggle room in. I think it clearly states that
you can say no for any reason whatsoever, just no to any use over 150. The only
reason it's written the way it is was to avoid the need to go back and amend the
development agreement if the city found a user that they wanted.
Councilmember Clark said listen.
Mr. Betts said and so I guess my point would be, if you want to direct us to...if
you want to come up with a quick sentence John, I think we'd be willing to change that.
We would have to go back and get the property owner to re-sign the development
agreement understand, but, as I said, I represent the Gustine Properties Development
Company that's going to be doing the development project.
Mayor Scruggs said but what you're saying is if we take the particular sentence
that I pointed out that was causing me concern and say something like, at it's sole and
absolute discretion, add a phrase, "at the point of submittal without processing the
proposal through the Planning Commission and City Council" you would be willing to
take that back?
Mr. Betts said that was a question to me? Madam Mayor, yes. At the point of
submittal I think would be probably a fine addition.
Mayor Scruggs said at the point of submittal. Okay. And what I'm trying to do
here is to understand that something might have, like I said, 155,000 square feet, but
without opening the door to having...
Mr. Betts said right.
Mayor Scruggs said ...Gustine or Hurley's or whoever put everybody through the
same turmoil that they've gone through before.
Mr. Paladini said Mayor and Council I think the intent of that language...and
even if there was an absolute cap that says you can't come and ask, you know,
somebody could still come ask and say hey can we amend the development
agreement. I mean it's almost impossible to say you can't ask any question. But, I
think that the intent was that, as Mr. Betts was saying, that if at some point the City
Council went to the developer and said, you know, we like this particular proposal and
its 155 or whatever it might be, you know, we're willing to do that, that allows the
Council to do that without having to go through a formal amendment. I think that was
really the intent. Yes, a developer can come ask the question, but the real intent was to
give us...give the city flexibility as opposed to the developer. And remember we did go
through quite an extensive list of the types of large retailers and very little comes close
to the 150,000 square feet. In fact, what comes closest is the Super Wal-Mart about a
mile-and-a-half away so that's not in any way, shape or form a viable, you know, retailer
for that location and so, for the most part...and I don't' know if that made it into this
30
packet, it made into the work session...many, many retailers are at the 50, 60,000
square foot. Again, even...and let me just clarify that...to the extent, and I'm not
suggesting that the Council would ever do it, that we were to seek something larger
than 150,000 it would still have to go through the whole use permit process with all the
operational, aesthetics, and all that other stuff. But this really provides the city with that
flexibility rather than the developer. And I think that if you enter the sentence, you
know, "at its sole and absolute discretion at the point of submittal to the Planning
Department", I think that's a fairly clear point. And to the extent the Council were to
direct the Planning Department to accept something beyond that then they would have
clear direction later on down the road.
Mayor Scruggs said and bearing in mind, of course, as many people like to point
out frequently, that Council's can change and maybe other Council members, other
elected officials, at another time, if this property's sitting vacant five, six years from now,
may have a different direction. But we just don't want these things flooding in the door
with no ability to stop them, at least those of us that are now in...seated here. Does
that seem reasonable, Mr. Betts? I think you're saying this is what you understood us
to be saying in the first place.
Mr. Betts said Mayor madam, members of the Council, yes. That was our intent
all along and to the extent this language makes it clear, and I think it does make it clear,
I would be happy to agree to that here that you're approval would be subject to that
change and then we would take the appropriate steps to modify this language in the
agreement.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said Mayor?
Mayor Scruggs said yes, Vice Mayor Eggleston.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said what are we asking, to make that a change in that
one sentence at the time of submittal...you want to make that change at the time of
submittal as you mentioned in this document and we would pass the resolution and
we'd be done and then if the Hayscale agrees to that they'll sign it again, if they don't
we'll come back again. Is that what you understood?
Mr. Betts said Madam Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor. Yes. That is what I would
understand that we would submit it to them for their re-execution.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said and that would be helpful down the road instead of
going back and writing a whole entire new agreement it would be...there still could be
no applications made without the Council's direction...application for a larger store. Is
that right?
Mr. Betts said again, Madam Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor. I would work this out with
Mr. Paladini, but it strikes me that we could probably add this in, initial the change, and
31
the agreement wouldn't be valid until they initialed that same change. So we would
have to go back, your right, and redo the whole agreement.
Mayor Scruggs said Councilmember Martinez, were you wanting to comment?
Councilmember Martinez said I don't necessarily have another question. When
we get to where this is.
Mayor Scruggs said okay. And your question...now's a good time. Is this for Mr.
Betts or should he go sit down.
Councilmember Martinez said I think this time with Mr. Paladini.
Mayor Scruggs said thank you.
Councilmember Martinez said on the Council or staff communication on the
second page it lists those businesses that are allowed. It says dry cleaning
establishments and automotive services. On your memorandum, Mr. Paladini, about
the middle it says that this prevents the development of automobile service/gasoline
stations on the property. To me, the gasoline station's pretty clear, but I was wondering
about the fact we have automobile service there that's not allowed, but over here it
says...as part of the zoning ordinance, it says that drying cleaning establishments and
automotive services is allowed.
Mr. Paladini said Mayor and Councilmember Martinez. The description in the
Council communication basically attempted to list general categories of all uses allowed
in the C-2 zoning. Now, when you go to the agreement, the point of listing all those is
that the agreement actually provides or allows for fewer uses than what the General C-
2 Zoning would normally allow. One, obviously, is the cap at 150,000 square feet, but
in the agreement, on page two...at the very end of page two, once you get there, it says
the developer and Glendale acknowledge and agree that development of the
property...
Councilmember Martinez said where? I'm sorry you lost me.
Mr. Paladini said the bottom of page two of the agreement itself.
Councilmember Martinez said oh, bottom of page two, okay. Okay.
Mr. Paladini said that development of the property shall not include an
automobile service or gasoline station and then goes on to say that all drive-thru
facilities require a Conditional Use Permit. So what the agreement actually limits is
more limiting than what the underlying zoning would allow.
Councilmember Martinez said I guess it's kind of contradictory.
32
Mr. Paladini said well, if this were strictly developed under the current C-2
zoning, then automobile service and gas stations could be built. By executing this
agreement, they cannot be built as part of this development. So the agreement actually
requires sort of a higher standard of development than would be under just the zoning
itself. And I think you can see that also from the exhibits, the quality of design and all
as well. That's another add-on that we get out of the agreement that wouldn't
necessarily be required under the C-2 zoning.
Councilmember Clark said Mayor?
Councilmember Martinez said just to follow up. Let's take a...
Mayor Scruggs said Checker Auto Parts.
Councilmember Martinez said ...Checker or Firestone or whatever. Would
that be allowed?
Mr. Paladini said well, let's see. Mayor and Councilmember Martinez, I think...
Councilmember Martinez said I'm thinking of...it might be changing tires and...
Mr. Paladini said see, that would not be allowed. That would be automobile
service. So, one of the quick oil change places wouldn't be allowed. A service station
wouldn't be allowed. To the extent you were to put in a NAPA auto parts store without
the service bays, just a retail outlet, that would fall under kind of retail, but no
mechanical work could be done. No tire changing places, no oil changing places, no
gas stations, no QT's. That kind of stuff.
Councilmember Martinez said okay. Thank you.
Mayor Scruggs said Councilmember Clark.
Councilmember Clark said I just wanted to follow up and say that my reading of
page two, where it says the property is zoned C-2, that lists currently what can be done
under C-2. That is not what would be applicable to this property. Those are current C-
2 zoning standards. Then if you look at Attachment 4, it indicates what would be
permissible and applicable for this property. So they're showing the difference between
what is current C-2, which is the property's currently zoned for, and what the future
holds for that piece of property under Attachment 4.
Mayor Scruggs said are there any other questions regarding this item?
Vice Mayor Eggleston said I have one.
Mayor Scruggs said yes, Vice Mayor Eggleston.
33
Vice Mayor Eggleston said Mayor and...I have to...I want to make it clear that
this agreement does no way limit the Conditional Use Permit needed for so-called big-
box stores.
Mr. Paladini said that's correct.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said that's any store over 75,000 square feet in gross floor
space has to receive a Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Paladini said that's correct.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said despite all this conversation about a maximum of
150, the neighborhood should not consider that we are foregoing or trading away
anything like that. It's just exactly like any other big-box use which we wrote for the
good reason that some neighborhoods can't stand a large business on their...adjacent
to the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods can't stand a large business operating and
so this doesn't limit that one bit, except that we want to put a top...a cap on that.
Mr. Paladini said Mayor and Vice Mayor...Mayor and Council. This also sort of
goes a little bit further and specifically calls out other areas that if somebody applies for
a Use Permit, we can look at things like operational issues, which are hours of
operation, in terms of limitations, hours of delivery limitations, traffic issues, landscape
design, building design elevations and related aesthetics. So it calls specifically those
things out to say these are things that we can look at to either impose a requirement to
make sure that if the city approves a use permit for a big box store of say 75,000
square feet, then we can make sure that even if the building goes in, that hours of
operation can be limited, and hours of delivery can be limited, those kinds of things, so
there's no dispute later on about what the city can and can't do. That's the intent of
that.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said exactly right. You anticipated my next question on
that.
Mr. Paladini said okay.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said that there's no...because that was another big
concern in the neighborhood, the hours of operation and many other things too. Thank
you.
Mayor Scruggs said are there any other questions from the Council? Mr. Clark, I
believe you said you wanted to speak on this.
Mr. Leonard Clark said thank you Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is
Leonard Clark. I live in the Barrel District of Glendale and I too remember very well, all
of these past proceedings that resulted in this settlement, or proposed
settlement...Hayscale settlement. I too have problems with the wiggle room. It's true
34
that the attorney has stated that, yes, any City Council who is sitting here years from
now could change with an amendment, you know, in building a larger store. But, we
never know. It's better safe to be sorry that when in a court of law, if something were to
happen, and they said that, well, the city gave a chance, you know, opened the door a
little bit to say that there might be a possibility of an exception to this limit, therefore,
there was some intention shown. I don't even think that that doubt should be placed
there because, as the attorney said, even if you don't put it in, later on, we could still
change it. So why give it more firm ground for the other party if this were to go to court
about something else down the road if something were to happen. I'm not saying it
would. Don't give any wiggle room. It wouldn't take very long just to rewrite that little
sentence out and not even permit it because you never know later on what a judge
might say. He says well, the official City Council people at that time allowed that to go
into place, that wiggle room. You shouldn't do that. Thank you.
Mayor Scruggs said okay. Ms. Hanna, if you would please read the resolution by
number and title.
Ms. Hanna read Resolution No. 3761 New Series was read by number and title
only, it being A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ENTERING
INTO OF THE OLIVE MARKETPLACE — 51ST AVENUE AND OLIVE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH HAYSCALE, L.L.C.; AND DIRECTING THAT THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BE RECORDED.
Mayor Scruggs said Vice Mayor Eggleston.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said Mayor. I move approval of Resolution Number 3761
New Series...
Councilmember Martinez said second.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said ...with this change in Page 2 of the agreement, II.
Development Rights, and the sentence which begins, "Glendale reserves the right to
deny any single retailer in excess of 150,000 square feet gross floor area at its sole and
absolute discretion." That sentence shall be changed to read in my motion
commencing...starting this way, "At the time of the submittal to the Planning
Department, Glendale reserves the right to deny any single retailer in excess of
150,000 square feet gross floor area, at its sole and absolute discretion."
Mayor Scruggs said I think this is supposed to come after that. It's supposed to
be at the end otherwise it doesn't...
Vice Mayor Eggleston said more correct grammar then, I'll change that. The
sentence will read this language, "Glendale reserves the right to deny any single retailer
in excess of 150,000 square feet gross floor area, at its sole and absolute discretion, at
the time of the submittal to the Planning Department." Did we get that all?
35
Mayor Scruggs said Mr. Paladini?
Mr. Paladini said I think what I would add is, "or any time thereafter."
Mayor Scruggs said or any time thereafter.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said or any time thereafter.
Mr. Paladini said see Mr. Betts shaking his head yes, so that's...
Vice Mayor Eggleston said should I read that again, or do you think you all...
Councilmember Clark said I'm confused. I need clarification.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said alright. The motion is...the motion is to add to the
sentence that is in concern about the 150,000 square feet, to add at the end of that
sentence, if you've found on the page, there, to add, "at the time of submittal to the
Planning Department or any time thereafter."
Mayor Scruggs said and, Councilmember Martinez was the second?
Councilmember Martinez said second. second.
Mayor Scruggs said okay. Any question.
Councilmember Clark said I need clarification.
Mayor Scruggs said clarification.
Councilmember Clark said thank you.
Mayor Scruggs said Mr. Paladini.
Councilmember Clark said Mr. Paladini, at the point of submittal to the Planning
Department or any time thereafter. What does that mean? Submittal to some other
agency within the city?
Mr. Paladini said no. It means that the sole and absolute...the ability to deny
with sole and absolute discretion applies at any time during the process. So...
Councilmember Clark said any time during what process?
Mr. Paladini said it broadens the ability...I want to make sure that for whatever
reason...I'll give you a for instance. If the Planning Department, with the amended
language, has the...can reject the submittal at its sole and absolute discretion.
36
Councilmember Clark said or it can accept the submittal.
Mr. Paladini said no. Well, it could, but sole and absolute discretion that would
be the direction of Management and Council and the direction we're hearing quite
clearly is don't accept it at this point. However, if at some point in the future the
Council...a Council were to say I'd like to see this, the Council would still have the right
to deny at its sole and absolute discretion.
Councilmember Clark said I got that part. I'm having problems with the "any time
hereafter." What that specifically refers to.
Mr. Paladini said that means that if, for whatever reason, the Council chooses to
hear that and asks the Planning Department to accept the submittal, any proposal for a
project over 150,000 square feet, that the city would have the right to reject it at any
time after that submittal time. So it broadens the timeframe. If at any time...we don't
have to apply the zoning ordinance...
Councilmember Clark said I understand what it means now.
Mayor Scruggs said okay. What it meant to me when you added that was
different. What it meant to me was somebody is in the Planning Department, they're
not even familiar with this whole case, they accept the project...
Mr. Paladini said right.
Mayor Scruggs said it comes in. A Planner looks at it and says, whoa, wait a
minute, this is not what we intended or the Traffic Department looks at it, or the Building
Safety Department looks at it...
Mr. Paladini said right.
Mayor Scruggs said ...and at any point says, you know, this just is not what was
intended or this isn't going to work. It doesn't even have to go to the Planning
Commission. That's what I was hearing, and that's what I think you're trying to say.
Mr. Paladini said that's correct. That is correct.
Mayor Scruggs said and then broadening it, if it gets further along, because
sometimes...and we have some very vivid remembrances of projects where staff had a
very positive feeling and favorable feeling toward a project and the Planning
Commission and/or Council didn't...that we do not have to stick to the very specific I
think it's four criteria of the Conditional Use Permit. It's sole and absolute discretion...
Mr. Paladini said correct.
Mayor Scruggs said ...at any time.
37
Mr. Paladini said correct. So it's at any time at the staff level or any time at the
policy level that we have that ability to deny or reject in sole and absolute discretion. So
we wanted to make sure it was broad enough that it wasn't a loop hole that said, it's too
late, it's past submittal.
Mayor Scruggs said so.. and then to give another example. We're down the
road and some new retailer that's the greatest thing in the world, or entertainment thing,
or something comes in and they're over 150, Mr. Vassey, our Economic Development
Director, has the right to present to the Council who can say no, go away, we don't want
to talk about it.
Mr. Paladini said exactly, exactly.
Mayor Scruggs said which is different from what we have now, which, with every
other proposal brought to the city, we're powerless to stop it from going through the
process. What you're building in is the power to stop it.
Mr. Paladini said at any time.
Mayor Scruggs said that's what I'm seeking.
Vice Mayor Eggleston said Mayor?
Mayor Scruggs said Councilmember Clark.
Councilmember Clark said I agree with that because that would be sort of a
"gotcha". If you don't...if it does get accidentally at the time the submittal is accepted
then they say you've done that. So this would add to it or any time thereafter. That's
the way I understood it too.
Mr. Paladini said that's correct.
Mayor Scruggs said Councilmember Clark.
Councilmember Clark said well, I don't agree. I liked it better when the whole
concept...I mean, we've talked this 150,000 square feet thing to death and everybody
has a different interpretation or at least slightly different interpretation of what it means.
You know, as far as I'm concerned, it should be a cap of 150,000 and if it requires an
amendment to the development agreement down the road, so be it. Then that's what
should be done with the approval of the neighborhood that's most intimately involved
and affected by this. You know, I was all in favor of this agreement because I thought it
was cut and dry and, as far as I'm concerned, it's not cut and dry anymore.
Mayor Scruggs said are there other comments or questions? Okay. The motion
and the second stands to approve the Resolution 3761 which relates to the settlement
38
agreement with the language added in Section 3.1(ii) after "sole and absolute
discretion" "at the point of submittal to the Planning Department or any time thereafter."
Is everybody ready to call the question? All those in favor, please vote aye.
Mayor Scruggs and Vice Mayor Eggleston; Councilmembers Goulet, Martinez
and Frate (in unison): Aye.
Mayor Scruggs said those opposed.
Councilmember Clark said no.
Mayor Scruggs said and I would recommend Ms. Hanna that in this particular
instance you may want to do...in fact, I think you should do verbatim minutes versus
shortening them so that at some point in the future if by any chance Mr. Betts is no
longer the attorney on this, we can go back and remember what was said.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE WORKSHOP AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Frate, to hold a City Council
Workshop at 1:30 p.m. in Room B-3 of the City Council Chambers on Tuesday,
June 1, 2004, to be followed by an Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. 38-
431.03 and hold a Special City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. in Room B-3 of the
City Council Chambers on Tuesday, June 1, 2004 due to the installation ceremony
scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 8, 2004. The motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER LIEBERMAN
It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Clark, to excuse
Councilmember Lieberman from the meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mr. Ed Sharpe, a resident of the City of Glendale, Barrel District, stated he is the
Director and Lead Archivist at the Southwest Museum of Engineering, Communications
and Computation. He said technology museums across the nation are attracting
increasing numbers of patrons everyday and represent a good, solid business to have
within a community. He said they welcome the opportunity to expand their facilities into
the old Baptist Church building.
Mr. Richard Rollier, a resident of the City of Glendale Ocotillo District, discussed
the needs of the disabled and elderly with regard to public transportation on Route 70
(Luke Link) and Route 60. He said Luke Link used to stop at Commissary Road,
providing easy access to the commissary, pharmacy and credit union. He said the stop
was eliminated after complaints were made about one of the drivers. He disputed
claims by the Transit Office that the stop was not safe, presents a security issue, and
39
that the stop did not have a posted sign. He said the stop is safe in that it is at a
signalized intersection, does not present a security issue because of the three armed
guards posted at the entrance to Luke Air Force Base and, at the time the stop was in
use, many stops were not posted. He noted the Director of Transportation suggested
he use Dial-A-Ride, despite the fact that Dial-A-Ride does not go beyond 110th Avenue.
He questioned why he or the city should have to pay the extra expense of using Dial-A-
Ride when a bus already goes to the area. He stated claims that there were complaints
about dust were taken out of context from a complaint he made concerning a particular
driver who drove the bus off the road and directly toward him. He said the Transit
Director also suggested he use the stops at Litchfield or LaLomi Roads; however, these
are t/a mile away from the commissary road entrance and are unsuitable for disabled or
elderly persons. He said he was also told the gate will be closed in the future; however,
he does not see any reason to prematurely eliminate a much needed bus stop.
Mayor Scruggs noted similar comments were made by a citizen at the Council's last
meeting and Mr. Beasley was directed to address the issue. She asked Mr. Beasley to
ensure Mr. Rollier is included in his discussions with interested parties.
Mr. Leonard Clark, a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, said he
strongly supports Mr. Rollier's position. He recommended the city establish a Veteran's
Commission, stating veterans deserve better than they currently receive from the city.
He thanked the Council for their comments concerning decisions being made in the City
of Phoenix regarding ASU West. He said he is concerned about the use of City of
Glendale transportation dollars on transportation projects in other cities. He urged the
Council and registered lobbyists to protect the rights of their constituents. He
suggested the city invite the Board of Regents to conduct a workshop for citizens to
discuss their plans for ASU West. Mr. Clark also spoke about the need for speed
humps in the neighborhood next to Independence High School, noting a boy was hit by
a motor home on 75th Avenue. He thanked the Fire Department for heroically saving a
boy who was trapped under an automobile.
Mr. Duke Wellington, a resident of the City of Glendale, asked the Council to
establish a Commission to research the use of cameras at intersections for traffic
control.
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Councilmember Clark noted a meeting will be held tomorrow night at Desert
Mirage Elementary School concerning landscaping beautification along the east side of
91St Avenue. She expressed her appreciation for the support she has received over the
past few weeks.
Councilmember Frate said he attended a ceremony on Saturday wherein a
medal for heroism was presented posthumously to Mr. Mike Williams who lost his life in
Iraq in 2003. He stated, while he did not know Mike Williams, his heart goes out to his
family. He said he also attended the vesture of Judge Marion Carol. He noted the first
40
Water Safety Walk of the summer will be held tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. He said Glendale
fire fighters, police officers, city employees, citizens and employees of Southwest
Ambulance will distribute flyers. He urged everyone to watch children around water.
Mayor Scruggs explained she has been in Tennessee for two weeks and has been
unable to participate in city events during that time. She encouraged everyone to
participate in the water walk. She noted members of the Mayor's Youth Advisory
Commission will be celebrating a year of accomplishment, community service,
volunteer hours and learning Thursday night.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Pamela Hanna - City Clerk
41