Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 11/7/2000 * PLEASE NOTE: Since the Glendale City Council does not take formal action at the Workshops, Workshop minutes are not approved by the City Council. MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP November 7, 2000 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Scruggs, Vice Mayor Eggleston, and Councilmembers Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. ALSO PRESENT: Martin Vanacour,. City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Gary Verburg, Interim City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. 1. WESTERN AREA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Dean Svoboda, Planning Director; and Ms. Kathy Langford, Long Range Planner. On December 21, 1999, the City Council initiated an amendment to the City's General Plan for the Western Area of Glendale. This area includes about 10 square miles located between 83rd and 115th Avenues. from Northern Avenue to Camelback Road. The purpose of today's workshop session was to review the draft amendment prepared by the Planning Department and discuss the schedule for further review and adoption. This project was originally scheduled for completion by July of 2000, but was delayed due to the City Council's interest in a number of development issues in the area. This included the future of Hickman's Egg Ranch and its hog feeding operation, the proposed General Plan amendment by Glendale Media/Icon Studios, the annexation of 160 acres, and ongoing discussions with a variety of potential developers. The City Council previously held a series of workshops to discuss future land use and development in this area. The proposed update is intended to reflect the major goals identified by the Council during these workshops. This includes limiting residential densities, reserving land for future employment, and encouraging high quality development. The General Plan is required by State Statute and is the City's official policy regarding future land use and development. As such, it represents the collective vision of the community, it provides a foundation for the City's land use regulations, it serves as a guideline for rezonings and other land use decisions, it helps to coordinate more detailed planning for public infrastructure and facilities, it creates a basis for City cost 1 and revenue projections, and it provides a guide for ongoing public and private investment. The existing General Plan includes seven elements. They are: Land Use, Circulation, Urban Design, Character Areas, Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Public Facilities and Services. The proposed Western Area Update will amend the Land Use, Circulation, Urban Design, and Character Areas elements. Planning Department staff summarized the key elements of the proposed amendment and were available to answer related questions. The City Council needs to decide if the draft is ready for further public discussion. The procedure for adopting an amendment to the General Plan is established by State Statute. A 60-day review period is required prior to the adoption of a major amendment. The Planning Commission must hold two noticed public hearings prior to making a recommendation to City Council. Once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, the City Council must hold another public hearing before taking any final action. A public workshop is proposed prior to the first Planning Commission hearing. This will allow the public to become familiar with the proposed draft and provide additional comment. It will also complete the required citizen participation plan. It will take about four months to complete the public review process when Council directs staff to proceed. This includes a citizen participation workshop to be held in late November or early December. The Planning Commission would subsequently hold a workshop and two public hearings in January of 2001. A City Council workshop and separate public hearing would be held in February of 2001. On February 24, 1997, the City Council held a special workshop to review background information on the Western Area. 'Mr. Lance Decker of Decker and Associates facilitated the discussion and assisted the Council in identifying issues and questions that needed further study. On March 3, 1997, the City Council took a bus tour of the City's entire strip annexed area. The round trip was over 78 miles and provided an overview of the land uses in the area. Staff subsequently prepared an eight-minute video of the tour for the television audience. On March 31, 1997, the City Council held a second special workshop on the Western Area. This workshop was also facilitated by Mr. Decker. The Council decided to limit its study to the area east of 115th Avenue and discussed its vision for this area. The Planning 'Department was asked to prepare some basic land use alternatives to the existing General Plan for review at a future workshop. 2 On January 6, 1998, the City Council held a third workshop on the Western Area. This workshop was also facilitated by Mr. Decker. The Planning Department presented a report summarizing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and constraints in the area. The key land use issues and objectives discussed by the City Council at previous workshops were also included. The Planning Department presented two basic land use alternatives. Concept "B", which reduced overall residential density and increased the amount of land available for future employment uses, was preferred by Council. The discussion indicated Council's desire to reserve more land for employment uses than was indicated on the 1989 General Plan Land Use Map. On October 6, 1998, the City Council held a fourth workshop on the Western Area. The Council confirmed its desire to reduce residential densities and increase future employment opportunities in the area. The Council also decided to limit the eastern boundary of the study area to 83rd Avenue. The schedule for the General Plan Amendment was to be discussed at a future workshop. On December 21, 1999, the City Council held a workshop to review the General Plan Amendment process and policy issues related to the Western Area. The City Council initiated a formal General Plan amendment at this time. The Planning Department held two public open houses on March 22 and March 29, 2000. The first workshop was held at the Glendale Municipal Airport Terminal and the second meeting was held at the Desert Mirage Elementary School. A total of over 150 people attended. The purpose of these open houses was to share information on the existing General Plan and development trends, and obtain citizen comments on future land use in the area. The Economic Development Department and the Planning Department held a workshop on May 5, 2000 for major commercial real estate brokers and developers. The workshop was held at the Hey! Corp building in the Glendale Airpark (formerly Glen Harbor Business Park). A total of 44 people attended. The purpose of the workshop was to use the combined marketing and development experience of these professionals to assess the future development potential in the Western Area. Staff from the Planning and Economic Development Departments have met with several major property owners in the area to discuss their preliminary plans for future - development. The future costs and revenues associated with the development of the Western Area will depend on the type and intensity of future land use. The recommendation was to review the draft Western Area General Plan Update and direct staff to proceed with the citizen participation workshop and Planning Commission hearings. 3 Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if the Limited Office Corporate Commerce Center zoning is considered more or less intense than Business Park zoning. Mr. Svoboda said that it is difficult to talk in terms of intensity. He explained that the idea of the Corporate Commerce Center is that it would target Class A office uses. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked if development south of Camelback Road would match up with development north of Northern Avenue. Mr. Svoboda said the intent was for 95 Avenue to become a hard line, separating employment uses from the residential community. Ms. Langford said that the existing General Plan for Phoenix shows the area directly south of the freeway corridor and over to 83` Avenue as a mixture of medium and small-lot residential. She said that it also shows the area south of the airport as Business Park, a combination of large-lot and medium-density residential. Mayor Scruggs suggested informing everyone who would be reviewing the proposed General Plan that a development agreement was entered into in July of 2000, calling for very specific types of users. She explained that people should be aware of the agreement due to the fact that the property would have less flexibility for change. Councilmember Martinez complimented staff on the draft Western Area General Plan Update. He asked if staff was looking for direction as to which alternative the Council preferred. He said that he was leaning towards Alternative 2. Mr. Svoboda explained that the primary purpose of today's presentation was to decide whether they had something that could be released for further public participation. He said that they could proceed with multiple alternatives or narrow it down to a single alternative. He noted that the Council could also mix and match portions of both alternatives to create a third. Councilmember Martinez explained that he preferred Alternative 2 because it reduces density and has a greater potential for jobs. He asked why the plan does not include multi-housing. Mr. Svoboda stated that, based on previous direction from the . Council, they did not show locations for multi-housing. Councilmember Martinez mentioned previous conversations they had with regards to the need for housing for area employees. Mr. Svoboda agreed that it was a point of discussion for the Council to consider. He said that the only place they had built multi-housing into the proposal was within the Corporate Commerce Center. He noted that there are other sites within the plan that would be appropriate for that type of development. Councilmember Goulet said that he was not ready to recommend either alternative without knowing more about the potential jobs. Mr. Svoboda said that Alternative 1 does not include the Corporate Commerce Center, whereas Alternative 2 does. He said that the number of jobs goes up as they get into the Corporate Commerce Center. Ms. Langford noted that the Floor Area Ratio also increases for at least a portion of the Corporate Commerce Center, making a huge difference in employment potential. Councilmember Goulet asked what type of jobs they were referring to in each of the alternatives. Mr. Svoboda explained that the main difference between the alternatives was that Alternative 1 would reflect a very large land area devoted to traditional business parks with assembly, light manufacturing, back office and corporate office headquarters. He said that the Corporate Commerce Center would be completely different and could take on a couple of forms, such as a corporate campus or an urban village. Councilmember Goulet asked if there was a national trend which would indicate that one alternative was more appropriate than the other. He also asked what kind of time frame they were looking at in which buildout would occur for both alternatives. Mr. Svoboda said that they were looking at full absorption to occur in no sooner than 20 to 25 years. 4 Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Svoboda to list the type of business that would fit an urban village concept. Mr. Svoboda said that there are a number of developments, including Keirland in north Scottsdale and a major development around 44 and Van Buren Streets. He said that there are other existing and planned developments in the Deer Valley/I-17 corridor. He offered to prepare a list and photo survey for Council's review. Councilmember Lieberman said that he was in favor of forwarding both plans for citizen participation as rapidly as possible. Councilmember Martinez asked for more information on the schools that would be eliminated west of 91st Avenue and north of Camelback Road. Mr. Svoboda explained that the Tolleson School District has indicated that it no longer needs the high school and the Pendergast School District has relocated the elementary school. Mayor Scruggs asked Mr. Svoboda if they had talked with representatives of the Peoria School District. She noted that they had already spent school district funds to buy a high school site. Mr. Svoboda said that they had been unable to obtain anything definitive from that school district. He assured Mayor Scruggs that the Peoria high school parcel was in the plan. Councilmember Goulet asked what employment ratio they were aiming for in the future and what either alternative would do in achieving that ratio. Mr. Svoboda stated that they had never discussed a preferred ratio with the Council, but, to date, the Council's direction has been to take a long-term look and take the ratio as high as possible. Ms. Langford explained that the 2.9 ratio came from the 1995 special census data. She noted that the City of Phoenix has done some planning activities for the North Valley corridor that address population-to-job ratios. Councilmember Goulet stated that he would like to learn more about that ratio. Mr. Svoboda said that, even under the best circumstances, they would probably never have a one-to-one ratio because there would always be people who live in the City and have jobs elsewhere. He agreed, however, that the goal should be to get the ratio as close to one-to-one as possible. Ms. Langford explained that the 2.9 ratio is based on employable people, between the ages of 18 and 65, throughout the entire City. Councilmember Clark stated that, at the first citizen workshop regarding the Western Plan, citizens were asked to conceptualize the future, based on concepts contained in the existing 1989 General Plan. Mr. Svoboda agreed with Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Clark stated that the residents who would be impacted by the development goals had not had an opportunity to react to any kind of conceptual plan that in any way embodies the Council's goals with regard to greater employment and lower residential densities. Mr. Svoboda agreed. Councilmember Clark said that she hoped this would be a springboard for creating community dialog. She stated that, in terms of residential housing, high-end corporate housing has to be offered to encourage that type of development. She said that, currently, there are very limited opportunities in the West Valley for high-end executive housing and it should be a goal they strive towards. She expressed her opinion that, although the Corporate Commerce Center was an exciting concept, she did not like the idea of including apartments and townhomes. She suggested putting the Corporate Commerce Center and the Western Area Plan on separate tracks because, if for any reason the Corporate Commerce Center was delayed, it would further delay moving forward with the Western Area Plan. She reminded the Council that this was just a conceptual plan from which they could get community reaction. She encouraged the Council to agree to move forward. 5 Mayor Scruggs asked Councilmember Clark to explain further the two tracks she envisioned for the Corporate Commerce Center and Western Area Plan. Councilmember Clark used the big-box ordinance as an example. She stated that, if the Council gave direction to move forward with the Corporate Commerce Center, it should stand alone and not be tied to the future approval of the Western Area Plan. Mr. Svoboda clarified that if the Council agreed on the vision of the Corporate Commerce Center, it would need to be implemented through a zoning district or other regulations to ensure that the vision becomes reality. He said that an interim measure could be to create a brand new zoning district. He noted that the existing Planned Area Development District could be used to implement the concept as long as it was clearly defined. Councilmember Martinez clarified that he did not say they should not have high-end executive housing. He said he was only suggesting that they should also have adequate housing for people who will be working in the area. He said there that would be ample opportunities for the business community and the public to participate. Councilmember Goulet asked for additional information as to where the percentages of use which are outlined on Pages 20 and 21 of the Draft Western Area General Plan Update came from. He also asked if there was a likelihood that there could be some assemblage to do larger conceptual master plans. Mr. Svoboda explained that they had identified, through character area maps, portions of the area they believed should be reserved for a development master plan. He said that they saw some opportunity. If they did not plan on a larger scale, it would be difficult to establish a road system and the character of development. He said that the zoning process itself is the primary tool that the Council has to ensure that this happens. Mayor Scruggs asked what was the largest single section owned by a single entity. Ms. Langford said that some of the Long properties are close to 500 acres. Mayor Scruggs asked if streets, parks and public facilities make up the difference in percentages that do not add up to 100 percent. Mr. Svoboda said that this was correct. She noted that the percentages come from Table 1 on page 22 of the Draft Western Area General Plan Update. Councilmember Lieberman agreed with Councilmember Clark that all of the percentages are general and can still be amended. He stated that many of the roads in the area are already established, whereas in the case of the Arrowhead Ranch area, major streets had not yet existed. He said that the most important part is to get citizen input and see if a major developer indicates interest. He suggested that they have multiple citizen participation meetings so that they are not faced with the dilemmas they currently have on other smaller development areas. Mayor Scruggs referred to Tables 3 and 4 on pages 24 and 25 of the Draft Western Area General Plan Update. She asked what Limited Office was and why it was needed. Mr. Svoboda explained that a lot of negotiation with individual property owners took place when the 1989 General Plan was done and the Limited Office category was used as a substitute for General Commercial. He said that Limited Office was not really designed for corporate office or any type of multi-story office. He said that there had been a reduction in Limited Office because most of it had been converted, either to residential uses or a certain type of retail. Ms. Langford said that the major portion of the reduction was due to the Limited Office that originally appeared along Camelback 6 Road, but does not appear in either alternative. Mayor Scruggs said that it is not known what one gets with Limited Office. Mr. Svoboda explained that Limited Office is a very valuable and viable land use category, which is often used as a transition between retail commercial and single family neighborhoods. He said that it is such a small land use that it is almost not worth mentioning at this level of planning. Councilmember Clark said this concept plan meets Council goals as defined in 1997 and December of 1999. She stated that these may not end up being the ultimate form the goals take, but, at this point, both alternatives meet the goals. She said that it is now time to release the alternatives and get important community feedback. She acknowledged the fact that the alternatives do not embody everything she personally hoped to see, but said she was comfortable enough with them to turn them over to the community. Mayor Scruggs said that she had no doubt these alternatives would go forward to get the community's feedback. Councilmember Martinez agreed that they would send the alternatives forward to the public. He asked for an explanation of the Kiss and Ride site. Dr. Vanacour explained that it was an acronym for Park and Ride. Councilmember Clark stated it was her understanding, from Councilmember Martinez' previous comments, that he was interested in moving forward. She said it was also her understanding that Councilmember Lieberman was interested in moving forward. She noted that the support of four Councilmembers was necessary to move forward with public participation. Mayor Scruggs reminded Councilmember Clark that she had previously indicated she was willing to move forward with public participation, with the caveat that she had not as yet had a chance to read the entire draft of the Western Area General Plan Update. She noted that they did have the support of at least four Councilmembers. Mayor Scruggs asked how the upcoming holidays would affect the scheduling of public hearings on the Western Area Plan. Mr. Svoboda said that, if they were directed to proceed today, they hoped to have a major community level meeting scheduled by the end of November or the beginning of December. He stated that they would take a hiatus in December and begin the process with a Planning Commission workshop in January of 2001 . This would lead the way to Planning Commission hearings in January of 2001 and a Council workshop and hearing meetings in February of 2001. He noted that, although there was an opportunity to hold a Planning Commission workshop in early December, it may become too controversial and need to be delayed until the first part of January 2001. Mayor Scruggs stated that there had already been a lot of citizen input. She noted that citizen comments have been very specific. She asked if discussions on zoning would be included in the citizen meetings. Mr. Svoboda said that they always try to educate citizens and help them understand the Council's limits with regard to land use regulations. Mayor Scruggs suggested that the General Plan Update include an explanation of the government's role and its limitations. Mr. Svoboda offered to develop a preamble to the document. 7 Councilmember Frate said that he had read all of the material and was aware there had been a great deal of citizen participation. He said he felt comfortable in moving forward with the citizen meetings. • Councilmember Goulet clarified that he was willing to move forward, but was not willing to adopt a particular alternative at this point. Mayor Scruggs directed staff to move forward with the public participation meetings. 2. PROCESS FOR UPDATING THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM:. Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Jim Book, Transportation Director; and Mr. Terry Johnson, Transportation Planning Manager. OTHER PRESENTER: Mr. Michael O'Neil of O'Neil Associates. Transportation has emerged as a major issue across the Valley as communities attempt to address the needs of transit, freeways, pedestrian and bikeway facilities, trails and street infrastructure. The Growing Smarter legislation of 1999 requires cities to update their general plans by December of 2001 and to present those plans to the voters for approval. Transportation is one element of the General Plan update. Glendale's existing transportation plan is more than 10 years old. On October 24, 2000, the Council approved a professional services contract with BRW, Inc. to prepare a long-range transportation plan for the City of Glendale. At today's workshop staff presented a process for updating the Transportation Master Plan and discussed various steps in the process of updating the Plan, including presenting the summary results of a public opinion survey conducted by O'Neil Associates. Earlier this year, City of Phoenix voters approved a four tenths of one percent sales tax increase to provide for increased transit services, including increased bus services on weekdays and weekends, 24 miles of Light Rail Transit (LRT) to be constructed by the year 2016, and a variety of traffic mitigation measures for both arterial and residential streets. These expanded transit services will not connect into Glendale unless new funding sources can be identified for improvements to Glendale's existing services. Currently, some buses are stopping at the Glendale City limits on weekends and evenings. This problem will grow as Phoenix continues to expand its bus and Dial a Ride services. As the region grows, traffic will continue to increase in built-up areas. As a result, improvements are needed to existing streets such as additional lanes, turning lanes, bus pullouts, and advancements in traffic signal systems. Furthermore, increased traffic may create an impact on neighborhoods increasing the need for mitigation measures such as speed humps, noise walls and other measures. 8 During this current year, following Council direction, staff has conducted various outreach programs to increase awareness of the perceptions of the citizens of Glendale about the need for transportation improvements. Those programs began with informal focus groups held in the spring, which most of the Council observed. Information acquired from those focus groups was used to develop a City-wide survey to more extensively research the view of the citizens of Glendale regarding the adequacy of current transportation modes within the City. Transportation Department staff recommended the creation of a Transportation Citizens Advisory Committee to work with staff and BRW, Inc. in the development of a Transportation Master Plan. In addition, the Transportation Citizens Advisory Committee would be asked to identify new needs and their costs and to recommend whether a future ballot proposition should be offered for the voters to consider. In addition to a multi-modal transportation system plan, this study will address funding mechanisms and provide a circulation element for the General Plan. The Plan will be built on an extensive public outreach process, working with neighborhood groups, stakeholders and appointed City committees. If the transportation plan recommended by the Transportation Citizens Advisory Committee includes improvements that will require new funding sources, and if the Council agrees with those recommendations, an election could be held prior to voter adoption of the General Plan in order to determine the components of the City's transportation element. In order, to be in compliance with the Growing Smarter legislation, that election would have to take place in.November of 2001. After talking with and evaluating the experiences of other cities, staff has learned that consultants have been included as observers in their citizen committee deliberations to assist in identifying support levels for various services. Funding for this type of consulting service must come from a source other than City revenues. In September of 2000, the Mayor and City Manager followed up on an offer of assistance extendedby an Arizona Public Service (APS) representative earlier this year. The offer was to have funding available if Council decides to move forward with a Transportation Citizens Advisory Committee. At this time, APS has agreed to make the first contribution, which would be used to hire a consultant to observe the citizen committee process. After speaking with representatives of the City of Phoenix, staff recommended hiring the same consultant used by the City of Phoenix during its process. If the Mayor and Council agree to put this issue before the voters, other consultants can be interviewed for future phases. The citizens of the cities of Tempe and Phoenix have passed sales tax increases dedicated to funding improvements in the transportation systems for each community. At the October 24, 2000 City Council meeting, a professional services contract to complete a Transportation Master Plan for the City of Glendale was approved. The Plan will address transportation needs and funding opportunities. 9 The Transportation Plan update process will include substantial opportunities for the involvement of Glendale standing committees, stakeholders, neighborhood groups, and the general public. Planning efforts will be coordinated with the City of Phoenix, the City of Peoria, the Maricopa Association of Governments, the Arizona Department of Transportation, and the Regional Public Transportation Authority. Regional measures to secure sales tax funding for transit have failed. Therefore, the current approach is for individual cities to pursue sales tax measures for transit. The City of Phoenix passed a four-tenths of a cent sales tax for transit in March of 2000 and the City of Tempe passed a one-half cent sales tax for transit in 1996. Without a major new funding source, transit service cannot be significantly expanded in the City of Glendale. Recently expanded impact fees in the City of Glendale can help meet infrastructure needs in developing areas. However, Highway User Revenues Funds (HURF), which includes proceeds from fuel taxes, are used to maintain and improve roads in developed areas. Inflation and more efficient vehicles are slowly eroding this funding source. Because of limited HURF revenues, bonding authority approved by voters in the fall of 1999 must be applied over a 10 to 15 year period. New funding would allow the issuance of General Obligation Bonds that could accelerate projects and which could be re-paid with this new funding source. The recommendation was to review the information provided and provide staff with direction. Councilmember Martinez asked if the City of Phoenix, with its latest tax increase and improved services, was well covered in all areas. Mr. Book said that the City of Phoenix extended beyond its borders when it passed its initiative and had more transit funds than any other city. Mayor Scruggs noted that, because the City of Tempe's tax base is so high and its land base is so small, they did not know what to do with the extra funds. She doubted that any other city would be in that kind of enviable position. Councilmember Goulet asked Mr. O'Neil how consistent the percentage was on the second component. Mr. O'Neil said that the percentage reflects those people who are in the persuadable range. He said that they are typically more likely to shift than those who strongly agree or disagree. Councilmember Goulet asked how they swing the vote of people who are persuadable. Mr. O'Neil said that, since persuadable people react more strongly to negative than positive information, it is easier to persuade these people to vote no on anything. He agreed that education is important in gaining support, but said that it is difficult to accomplish. 10 Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. O'Neil how many questions were asked. Mr. O'Neil said that approximately 80 questions were asked, including demographics. He stated that it was a 20-minute interview. Councilmember Martinez stated that people get fatigued after 10 minutes and fail to give their full attention to the questions. Mr. O'Neil agreed with Councilmember Martinez. He stated that their biggest concern was obtaining quality responses. He said that, although it was not likely, the fatigue factor biases responses in favor of one item or another. Mayor Scruggs asked what people think will happen at the end of ten years. Mr. O'Neil said that, when people are led to believe they only have to pay for 10 years, they assume the expense ends at that time. Mayor Scruggs noted that the 1985 tax will end in 2005 and one of the options is to experience a $1.2 million reduction in transit service in the City of Glendale in as early as 2002. She stated that a system could not even be implemented in ten years and the City would have to determine how to extend it after only six years. She said that this was difficult to justify to people who were told it would be for a ten-year period. Mr. O'Neil agreed that it creates real dilemmas. Councilmember Goulet asked if full disclosure of the cost of the system would limit their ability to garner real support. Mr. O'Neil said that the question is whether it appears to prudently address a real problem, such as whether they want transit lines to end at the City's borders. Mayor Scruggs noted that people are sensitive about lines ending at the City's boundaries. She stated that anything which states that people would pay for a certain number of years does not work because the costs continue. Mr. O'Neil said that candor and honesty are the best policy and probably less risky over the long haul because it does not subject the Council to defending the indefensible. Councilmember Martinez asked if it would be best to state that the ten-year period cover building the system, but operational costs will be ongoing, or to leave off the number of years. Mr. O'Neil said that there is a lot of risk associated with a set number of years and it might only return a few percentage points at best. Mayor Scruggs stated it was important to note that the sales tax would never be solely for capital costs. She noted that, even in the best systems, the fare box only pays 20% of operational costs. She said that specifying a time frame leads people to believe that they built and paid for it and are now done. She said she hoped they would not go in that direction. She said that she was in favor of full disclosure. She pointed out the fact that the City of Tempe was able to gain support after making full disclosure. Councilmember Clark asked if the sample accurately reflects a sample of the current population. Mr. O'Neil explained that going to a sample of 700 slightly diminished the margin of error and increased their ability to look at subgroups of the population. Councilmember Clark asked if any of the subgroups were looked at more accurately. Mr. O'Neil said that they would look at them, but had not as yet done so. Councilmember Clark said that she was struck by the fact that the sample represents a. greater majority of the white, older, educated population. Mr. O'Neil explained that the sample was not designed to be representative of the City of Glendale, but of the voting population. Councilmember Clark noted that the City of Phoenix was very specific regarding the locations for light rail. She asked if that was an important component. Dr. Vanacour said that each city is different and this is the reason why it is beneficial to bring a consultant on board. 11 Dr. Vanacour said that they were asking permission to form a Citizens Transit Advisory Committee to help the Transportation Department carry out General Plan elements and to start looking at the details to see if they wanted to come back to the Council and recommend a vote of the people. He said that they would come back to the Council on November 21st to ask for names, thus enabling them to hold thefirst meeting before the end of the year. Councilmember Clark said that she would support creating the Citizens Advisory Committee because citizen input is very valuable. She said that she would also support bringing the consultant on board. In response to Mayor Scruggs' question, Dr. Vanacour explained he was recommending that the committee's work be completed within six months, at which time they would prepareto go to a vote of the people. Mayor Scruggs stated that the work had to be completed by the middle of May of 2001 in order to meet all of the deadlines for public information and publicity. She noted that other district meetings have contributed to the success of other issues. She directed staff to move forward and for the Council to consider names for the Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Ernster said, that they would come back to the Council in Executive Session on November 21st, with a list of potential committee members. 3. UPDATE OF CHOLLA WATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS CITY STAFF PRESENTING THIS ITEM: Mr. Tim Ernster, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Ken Ready, Deputy City Manager; and Mr. Grant Anderson, City Engineer. The Cholla Water Treatment Plant was constructed in the 1970's and came on line in 1979 with a capacity to treat 20 million gallons per day of drinking water. At today's workshop, staff updated the City Council on improvements made to the Cholla Water Treatment Plant and discussed the award of a professional services agreement for the design of a solids handling facility at the Cholla site. Since 1980, there have been a number of changes at the Cholla Water Treatment Plant, including the construction of several water booster pump stations, the construction of a 10 million gallon reservoir, an upgrade to allow the plant to treat up to 30 million gallons per day of drinking water, and the construction of an extensive piping system to connect all of these enhancements. The most recent addition to the Cholla Water Treatment Plant is the ultrafiltration demonstration project. This project is currently in operation, producing 500,000 gallons of drinking water per day. Glendale is the first city in the State of Arizona to use membrane technology to treat water for distribution to customers. The newest improvement to the Cholla Water Treatment Plant is the removal and treatment of solids produced as a result of treatment activities at the treatment plant that have been discharged to the Arizona Canal since the time of the plant's original construction. Approximately fifteen years ago, the Arizona Canal was designated as a 12 "Waters of the United States" and, as such, discharges of solids to the Canal must be stopped. This Federal mandate requires the City to have solids handling facilities designed by May of 2001 and constructed prior to the summer of 2003. Discharge of water treatment plant solids to the canal has also been the practice for the City of Phoenix water treatment plants that are on the Arizona Canal upstream of the Cholla Water Treatment Plant. The amount of water treatment plant solids discharged to the canal by the City of Phoenix water treatment plants is considerably more than the amount discharged by the Cholla Water Treatment Plant; therefore, until the City of Phoenix stops discharging solids, there is no point in stopping discharge of solids from the Cholla Water Treatment Plant. The Phoenix water treatment plants currently have solids handling facilities under construction that will allow them to stop discharging solids to the canal; therefore, it is appropriate now for the City of Glendale to construct a solids handling facility. The City of Peoria's water treatment plant, now under construction, will have solids handling facilities in place at the time of start-up. The Capital Improvement Program has included solids handling facilities for the Cholla Water Treatment Plant for a number of years. However, in recent years, these facilities have not been broken out separately. They have been included in the Cholla Water Treatment Plant Expansion account in the Utilities Fund. The City of Glendale has an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that requires the City of Glendale to have solids handling facilities in operation at the Cholla Water Treatment Plant no later than February of 2003. Solids handling facilities for the Cholla Water Treatment Plant are budgeted in the current Capital Improvements Program within the Cholla Water Treatment Plant Expansion account in the Utilities Fund. It is anticipated that additional staff will be required to operate and maintain the solids handling facilities when they are operational, but this is not expected to occur until 2003. There will be ongoing costs for power and chemicals, and for disposal of the treated solids. The recommendation was to provide staff with direction. Councilmember Lieberman asked for a definition of solid waste as it pertains to water treatment plants. Mr. Reedy explained that solid waste is predominantly dirt, with the addition of Alum to make the dirt settle more effectively. Councilmember Lieberman asked where the solid waste would be discharged. Mr. Reedy said they would take the solid waste to the landfill. Mr. Anderson explained they take the settled dirt and thicken it into dirt cakes, which are then taken to the landfill. Councilmember Lieberman asked if there was adequate room at that site. Mr. Anderson said there was. He noted that the 13 original master plan for the treatment plant indicated solids handling at some point in time. Councilmember Lieberman asked what was the cost of the membranes. Mr. Anderson said that the cost of the membranes for the demonstration project was approximately $1.5 million. He said that the major project was a piping and pump station improvement project, which cost approximately $6 million. Councilmember Clark asked if they could expect a similar mandate with regard to wastewater treatment plants. Mr. Anderson stated that this mandate was already in place. Mr. Reedy stated that they have a long-standing agreement with the Salt River Project to have sludge taken out of the canal. He noted that an update to that agreement was on Council's agenda for next week. Vice Mayor Eggleston inquired as to the size of the machine to be installed. Mr. Anderson said that it was a large facility, most of which would be placed underground. He said the machines would be enclosed in a building to prevent noise emission. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what he should tell people in the immediate area about the expected impact. Mr. Anderson said that the facility would be in a different location, away from the residents who were disrupted last time. He said that the equipment would be inside the building and would not have the same kind of impact. He stated that they would have numerous meetings with the neighborhood regarding the design. Vice Mayor Eggleston asked what would happen to the walking path to the school. Mr. Anderson said that they would re-route the path to the east side of the street to ensure there is separation between the plant activities and anyone using the path. Councilmember Lieberman asked if the solids could be scooped into dump trucks or if special trucks would be necessary. Mr. Anderson explained that the result of the centrifuge process produces a more solid product, which would be discharged into a specialized truck. He said that only one truck would be necessary every three or four days because of the volume it can carry. Mayor Scruggs asked for confirmation that there would be no impact on rates because the program has been part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for some time. Mr. Anderson agreed with Mayor Scruggs. He stated that they are reviewing the exact operating needs as they go through the budget process. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. 14