CC - Item 9A - Minutes 4-27-10Minutes of the
JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 27, 2010
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Community
order by Mayor Taylor at 6:03 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council C
Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member/Commissioner Sandra
INVOCATION
PRESENT: Mayor/Chairwoman Clark, Mayor Pro
Armenta, Council Member/Commissioner Low; ar
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City All
Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and
Administrator Ramirez, Public Affairs Manager FI
Clerk Molleda ZM7, a'-.
None
2.
Commission was called to
d at 8838 East Valley
, Council Member/Commissioner
Development Director Wong,
:ott, Economic Development
Director Marcarello, and City
on: Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -13 for payment of Commission
the amount of $59,957.93 demand nos. 10081 through 10082 and 11253
B. March 31, 2010 Treasurer's Report
The Rosemead Community Development Commission's Treasurer's Report of cash and
investment balances for the month ended March 31, 2010 are included for Council's review.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April27, 2010
Page 1 of 24
ITEM NO. q ~s
Recommendation: That the Community Development Commission receive and file the
Treasurer's Report for the month ended March 31, 2010.
Mayor Pro Tern Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Armenta to approve the
Commission Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None f'^
Absent: None r\
City Council recessed to closed session at 6:03 pm
3. CLOSED SESSION
A. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Government Code Section 54957; Council Appointed Officials (City Manager and City
Clerk)
B. Conference with Labor Negotiator~-~ -
Government Code Section 54957.6-:
Negotiators for the City: Jeff Allred,and,Su Tan
Employee Unit:.,Rosemead EmployeeAssociation),,'
city council
` - mbeting.Agenda
The regularmeetmgnof the Rosemead',City,Council was called to order by Mayor Taylor at 7:00 p.m. in the
Rosemead•City Council Chamber, located,at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
FLAG SALUTE:'Council Member/Commissioner Sandra Armenta
INVOCATION: Commissioner/Council Member Margaret Clark
4. PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation of Recognition for Sergeant Mark Flores
City Council presented a Proclamation to Sergeant Mark Flores in recognition for his service to the City of
Rosemead.
Sergeant Mark Flores thanked Council Members and expressed appreciation to the community and staff.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 2 of 24
Cal American Water Presentation
Park Superintendent John Scott introduced Cal American Water who donated $5,000 to the City of
Rosemead for beatification projects.
Brian Barreto - Cal American Water External Affairs Manager expressed gratitude for being able to partner
with the City of Rosemead in regards to conservations and wise water practices. Also, Cal American Water
will partner with the Chamber of Commerce to install a conservation garden in front of their building.
• Public Works Week Proclamation
City Council presented a Proclamation in honor of Public Works Weeklol Public'Services staff.
Deputy Public Works Director Chris Marcarello invited Councitand the community to anropen house that will
be hosted by Public Works on May 19, 2010.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE w r r' 4?
None ,
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on the Five-Year` Consolidated Plan -ari
cl Fiscal Year 2010.11 Annual
Action Plan.Subrriission
,ray
The City-,Council will consider review and~approval of the City's Five Year Consolidated Plan
covering the,period July(1, 2010 through``June 30, 2015 which includes the FY 2010-11
Annual Action Plan..a,The City of Rosemead is a federal entitlement grant recipient of
"Community Development Block Gra4and HOME Investment Partnership funds from the
U. S. Department of'Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As part of the process to
receive funding;•the City ,must-undertake development of a Consolidated Plan every five (5)
years and ari`Action Plan must be completed annually. It is called a Consolidated Plan
because it consolidates the application process for HUD's four (4) entitlement grants into one
`consolidated plan and application : The four grants are: Community Development Block
Grant(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), Housing Opportunities for
Persons~with AIDS (HOPWA), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). All four grants are
driven 6yan entitlement formula process set by the federal government. The City is eligible
to participate in two (2) of these programs: CDBG and HOME. The City's current
Consolidated Plan is set to expire on June 30, 2010.
The Annual Action Plan includes a list of the activities the City will undertake to address
priority needs and local objectives with anticipated program income and funds received
during the next program year for meeting housing and community development objectives.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 3 of 24
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions:
1. Open the public hearing and take public testimony on the Five Year
Consolidated Plan covering the period July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2015
which includes the FY 2010-11 Annual Action Plan.
2. Approve the CDBG and HOME funding recommendations and authorize
submittal of the City's Five Year Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development;
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute all appropriate,and necessary documents
to receive funding and implement approved use/
4. Award $27,361 (5%) of HOME funds to the Rio'Hondo'Community Development
Commission to defray certain costs for the operation"-as`the City's Community
Housing Development Organization (CHDO) and authorzed"the City Manager to
execute the necessary service agreements; and
5. Award the following public services'agencies,with CDBG funds,and,authorized
the City Manager to execute service agreements: r'
• Family Counseling Services`-340,000,
• Morrison Health Care (Senior Nutrition Provider) - $82,369
• People for People - $27,600
• Rosemead School' District-$11,698
• Rosemead High;Schod'-$13,650
• The Southern California Housing•Rights Center - $25,000
Economic Development Manager. Ramirez reviewed sta
6.
Mayor Taylor opened Public Hearing at 7.'16 p.m. There
closed at 7:16 p.m. \ .
Council Member Clari `made a motion, seconded't y
recommendations. Vote resulted in:\
, Yes: Armenta, Cfark, Lowv' Taylor
No: None ;
`'Abstain: None
report.
public comments the Public Hearing was
Mayor Pro Tem Ly, to approve staff's
Development Standards for Mixed-Use and C-4 Regional Commercial Zones, and
Compreliensive Zoning Map Update- Municipal Code Amendments 10.02, Municipal
Code Amendments 10.03, Zone Change 10.02
These are City initiated amendments to the Rosemead Municipal Code for the purpose of
establishing residential/commercial mixed-use development standards for a new
Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development Overlay (RCMUDO) zone and regional
commercial development standards for a new C-4 Regional Commercial zone. The new
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 4 of 24
development standards reflect the new planning goals and policies detailed in the City's
recently approved General Plan Amendment. The proposal also includes an amendment to
the existing Mixed-Use Development Guidelines to reflect the proposed mixed-use
development standards. Lastly, Zone Change 10-02 proposes a comprehensive zoning map
update, which will bring all zoning "designations on the City of Rosemead Zoning Map into
consistency with the City's General Plan Land Use Map.
On April 5, 2010, the Planning Commission was presented
Resolution No. 10-10, Resolution 10-11, and Resolution 1C
MCA 10-02, MCA 10-03, and ZC 10-02 to the City Council'
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 889, amending 1
incorporate Chapter 17.74 Residential/C
zone regulations and modifyirig theWig
2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 890, amending i
incorporate Chapter 17.46.C-4 Regional
matter and adopted
amending approval of
Code to
Guidelines.
Rosemead Municipal Code to
zone regulations.
3. ADOPT Ordinance No. 891~'~amending.the City of R6
purpose of bringing the map into consistency,with the
Principal Planner Sheri
Council Member
Mrs. Bermejo stated that
ever was greater '?t
clarified the
the Edison
listed as I
Zoning Map for the
I Plan.
required or eight parking spaces which
question are for bicycles. Mr. Taylor asked for an
wt Grove and Rush; he stated Rice Elementary School is
Mrs. Bermejo explained that the General Plan was.approved 2009 and that there had been a comprehensive
General Plan update in 2008. She explained that in order to implement the zone in 2008, that General Plan
Amendment had designate ,that parcel as light manufacturing.
Mayor Taylor asked why it is the only school site zoned for light manufacturing
Mrs. Bermejo stated that when the General Plan in 2008 was adopted in order to bring that parcel into
compliance it had to be light manufacturing. She added that the recent General Plan amendment had not
looked at the designation for that parcel, but should be done for in the future. Mrs. Bermejo stated that if this
is brought back at another General Plan amendment, staff can then select all the schools and make them a
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 5 of 24
the staff
for clarification on parki
separate designation on the General Plan. It is not going to affect the use of those properties unless the
school closes and somehow it no longer continues to be utilized as a school.
Mayor Taylor asked why it could not be corrected now.
City Attorney Montes stated that in order to correct it now, Council would have to go back and amend the
General Plan because right now they were dealing with a zoning map; and a zoning map under State law has
to be consistent with the General Plan. Council cannot approve a zoning map that•makes it a public school
right now because that's not what is on the General Plan. What staff is trying to.do with the zoning map is to
make it comply with the City's General Plan. If there are parcels that are designated incorrectly or should be
e..:pc
changed, that should probably be cleaned up comprehensively. But right now`what staff is trying to do is to
update the zoning map to conform with the most recent General Plamadopted and_to,pick up those portions
of the 2008 General Plan that were never updated in zoning. ` N:;N
Mayor Taylor stated he did not agree with that.
City Manager Jeff Allred stated that at the earliest
the General Plan has other amendments.
clean up this,problem when
Council Member Clark asked if staff would
designation.
City Attorney Montes explained that if Council chan
be consistent, you have to go;Yback'and,change the
Council Member Clark=asked what the dangers for
the GeneralRlan, again for parcels that need re-
t;-parcel, unless the zoning is going to
an, even if its for one parcel.
is" were.
City Attorney Motes stated th6t4tRere are.miniinal,dangers6 because it's a school site and unless the school
district stops,operating i6'as a school'and declares ttie~'school site as surplus property and decides to sell it, at
that point iould be only usa le as Iight'industrial. Alternatively, if Council goes back and changes them all
to government use or publicsc , I use, under. tate law, it takes on the zoning of surrounding property.
Council`might,want to look at r"eYzonmg and4a' ke a comprehensive look at all of the school sites to see how
the city would like to address them.
N'}\
Council Member Clack asked what the zone for Duff School was now that they stop using it as a school site.
Community DevelopmentDire'ctor Stan Wong stated that typically public schools in the General Plan are
designated as public schools or even open spaces. With the implementing zone Mr. Bermejo indicated that a
number of General Plan zoning maps will come back to Council in the future. He added that this was part of
housekeeping and there were a number of parcels that would come for consideration of other parcels.
Mayor Taylor reiterated that this has been going on for three years and he cannot figure out how it got
through the Planning Commission. Mr. Taylor indicated on the map that the zoning map showed City Hall and
the Library zoning designation were not clear to him.
City Manager Allred stated that it was mixed used mode.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 6 of 24
Mayor Taylor referred to a map where the C-4 regional commercial, which tie-in with Garvey Avenue (such
as the Auto Auction Lot and Barr Lumber on Valley and Walnut Grove) the shades are fairly close. Mr. Taylor
asked why changing the General Plan changed City Hall and the Public Library are designated as Mixed-
Used Commercial and Residential if they are both public facilities.
Principal Planner Bermejo explained that when thesub-committee started announcing where they wanted to
designate Mixed-Use in the city, they chose four locations. One of the locations wa City Hall and the Library
facility; the idea is that in the future there may be the opportunity to allow this,area to develop as Mixed-Use
Development. It wasn't the sub-committee's immediate thought that it was going to happen now but rather for
a 20 year plan; if someday the City wanted a new facility it would allow,th'e residential part to be a component
or to be next to it.
Mayor Taylor stated something like this he could see happening in 20'or 25 years if someone proposes it.
However, the City would be laying the ground work saying•this is what you can do.
Principal Planner Bermejo replied the area was not going to tie;
mode because there is an overlay. It actually gives the property
zoning, which will be under central district; but in the future if an
they have that second opportunity to do that.
Mayor Taylor expressed that the rest of the City is
However. he is concern about why the city designe
if they want to bring in a
Mr. Wong stated that
Center and the land r
revised.
Council
Mr.
be presented in
staff is to come
iked-Use Development in that
options to develop under the base
to do Mixed-Use Development
is an dverlay, if they choose to do it.
ie-Library and inferring to the public that
d the General Plan regarding the Civic
that staff was referring to that will be
be "it would be revised".
I that staff will~change the'Civic Center to a public facility so the land use will be
map. Any futures changes that the Council decides to make regarding the land use can
future. Because of a previous comment made on the last meeting of the General Plan,
O someday aridrehange the land use.
City Attorney Montes stal
(Regional Housing Need!
RHNA housing numbers.
high rise with it, th
:etingwhen Council
of the house keenii
staff would have to discuss this matter because there might be RHNA
sment) concern. If Council eliminates that site the City may not meet its
Council Member Clark stated that Council Member Low and she were talking about the same issue in the
sub-committee. The RHNA is mandated by the State and you have to have so many units provided that could
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 7 or 24
be developing in your zoning. We wanted to pick those that were not impacting residential at least not as
much as other areas. So we chose certain areas to provide for RHNA needs; if you don't your housing
element won't be accepted and the SCAG region has so many units that are allocated that our city has to
provide about 750. It doesn't mean you build them; you have to provide it, and allow it in your General Plan
and zoning.
Council Member Low reiterated it did not mean that someone was going to come in and built it right away. It
just meant that in the future 20 to 30 years from now it could be possible or it's possible it might never get
built. It makes sense to have Mixed-Used to make'this area look like a little down town.
Mayor Taylor stated that the map was intermix and was looking at the.. raft'of bal zoning map.
114 Council Member Low clarified there were two maps; one is the o~cial'ioning map,and the other one had
the new changes. N\
Mayor Taylor asked for clarification of the official zoning map'because it'mention about housing on Exhibit A;
there will be potential housing requirements on all of Valley Boulevard,from Temple City Boulevard to the
westerly city limits that has a design overlay.
Mrs. Bermejo confirm the design overlay is all along Valley Boulevard
Mayor Taylor stated that within that area there
density of Valley Boulevard and Temple City Bt
and hd'did not know, what was the
Mrs. Bermejo replied that the high`density areas which'were adopted in the General Plan on April 13th, had
60 dwellings units per acre
41 Mayor Taylor asked how many acres~was staff, talkingb out.
Mrs. Bermelo'stated the-zoning doesnot talk about density nor sets a density, it's only going to enforce what
the General Plan adopted;'it's going to set aside~a site area of 30,000 square feet. You are not going to get
60 units,om30 000 square feet Soif someone proposed a Mixed-Used Development on that area they would
have to ha 'a\site area or land'area with,a minimum of 30,000 square feet to be able to start talking with the
city about proposing a mixed-used,project. Mrs. Bermejo added that on the east of Edison right around
Garvey Avenue, that as going 6be 30 units per the acre in the General Plan designation and towards River
on Garvey Avenue that was another 60 units to the acre.
Mayor Taylor stated that;was near the senior citizen housing; reiterating what Ms. Clark referred to as the
750 housing units, there is potential across the street; that shopping center is proposed to go to mixed-
commercial business and housing on the top. Mr..Taylor asked if somewhere along there the City was
getting the 750 housing units with out the City Hall and the Library.
Mrs. Bermejo stated that when the city did its initial review with the sub-committee, they had a land use
specialist look at the proposed land uses and determine if implementation of these areas would achieve the
City's RHNA numbers; by eliminating all the mixed use on the City's corridor and only place them on four key
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 8 of 24
notes we came very close in achieving our number. The subcommittee ran several scenarios and played
with numbers to make sure the City was not under that RHNA number goal and we needed that fourth note to
accomplish that replacement for that residential.
City Attorney Montes stated that there were a couple of corrections that needed to be made on the
ordinances. Ordinance No. 889, on page 17, under section 12A "A photometric survey shall be approved by
the Planning Commission for each mixed-used development". Planning Commission should be replace with
City Council and should be consistent with the entitlement process. Also, page 25p`tarting with General
Requirements, Section 17.74.060 Public Art Requirements, should reference.City"Council and not Planning
Commission approving those requirements. Under Section 7, if Council wisti ss to add any future
amendments for the Mixed-Used Design Guidelines.they should do it by resolution. Ordinance 890 has
exactly the same changes, regarding C-4 zone; there is mention of ptiotometricahd ublic art, and it should
be City Council and not Planning Commission approving those requI nts. There e no changes to be
made for Ordinance 891; Council may introduce those ordinances as first reading i6 :new changes.
Mayor Taylor stated he had questions on the previous;presentation; yoU.had a building height that you had
45 feet and 50 feet; but there is no height on the C-4, which ssgoing to be`75:feet high.
Mrs. Bermejo explained that staff was proposing a building height of•75:feet for those high density areas that
are consistent with zoning with either side of the"Pbrcels; but built into th'atis,also a variable height
requirement which is going to enforce rural heightsAadj ca ent to residential` use`s.
Mayor Taylor stated that the first floor of that building an~dd7the hnext4n it represented a residence that is
one story. But a project that has"fueistories and two additional stories?even though it has set backs, I still
have the apprehension of seven floors up adjoining residential and has the set back from the ground level
from the first floor; there ;is a reference toga six foot height}lw`all at the property line and then you go up 20
degrees. re ~ to
y>
Mrs. Bermejo replied'that.the variabl&height froffi't property line would be measured at the property line six
feet from the,ground up•ahd'then you,would project a twenty degree angle; the building can never intersect
that angle and that's actually the ght requirement into the C -3 zone that is consistent with the area along
the bouleva , rd., Mayor Taylor ed he can go with the C-3; we have to allow something three or four stories high. When
you go up seven stories up on Garvey Avenue and if you look at the map of the Auto Center it backs up to a
continuance road of R=1}housina/
Mrs. Bermejo stated that~this was mixed-used, the high intensity commercial is going to be a little more
intense than the C-3 zone but we kept the building height comparable to what actually is proposed in the C-3
zone; another thing that will help is that you don't have multi-story buildings in those areas; the F.A.R. that
was adopted in the General Plan for those sites is at .35 and keep the buildings low.
Mayor Taylor stated that he was concerned that once a building goes up there, there is no turning back.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked what the height was for Wal-Mart and Target buildings.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 9 of 24
Mrs. Bermejo stated she did not know what their height was but knew that they followed the variable height
set back because they are adjacent to residential housing along Delta. Each application is going to come
before Council as a design review application; each project is going to have to stand on their own merit and
prove to the City Council that it's going to be sensible to those residential uses.
Mayor Taylor stated that we are trying to look out and protect residential but once that seven story building
goes up it's too late and nobody can speculate, we.don't have another seven sto y,,g,Mr. Taylor asked what
the height of the Double Tree Hotel building was; it's so isolated that it's not in any R=1.. I guess we are going
to have to review each one as they come in; I know I would feel bad if I was right next to a seven story that
can look out over two city blocks even though its stepped back. The othe'r'ilem Mr. Montes brought up was
the arts program, if you look at page 2-3 of the guidelines, 5m paragraphs down it-says appropriate pedestrian
amenities should be provided etc" next paragraph "public art shourftee incorporated into,the public realm
where ever practical and possible to promote a heighten esthetics to provoke interest"•that,word should is
permissive. A -
Mrs. Bermejo replied that it was correct; the public art in the
should be in public right away it can actually be in private pr
City Attorney Montes stated that you have two'diffi
should try to incorporate public art into the portion;
you are mandating a minimum level of public art t'h
public art it can follow these guidelines or in terms
the guidelines. But there are two, separate requirer
Council and Planning Commission evaluate the pr
not necessarily mean it
quirements. The guidelines are suggesting that you
development where possible. But in the ordinance
bei`hcluded; so if1,66re is going to be additional
fou might laceahe public art, that would adhere to
iie guidelines are mostly advisory and to help the
terms of what it should look like.
Mayor Taylor inquired about public realm, if you go to page,25 of the ordinance itself. Under public art
requirement, "a freely accessible on.site`•public•art,work. ll be integrated" that's mandatory. The guidelines
are referring to should ,then when,we get into the ordinance it says, "it shall be mandatory" and number two
says, " the following wordsw ,or,phrases,shall have the following meanings"What I am concern with that is,
once it becomes mandatory,and,it says that it shall,be included. On page 26, additional requirements for
public'art•okonsite installationttier~e is to by a`plaque under 5A. Under 6B, ownership and maintenance of
the art work ~all,onsite public art, work shall remain the property of the property owner and his or hers
successors and 'interest". On pae 27 on item C, location and relocation of onsite public art, "when and if the
developer project'issold at any time in the future, the public art must remain at the development at which it
was created and maymotbec claimed as the property of the seller", that just contradicted itself, to me is like
taking property with out compensation. You are required to put in art, and I don't know what the value of the
art is, you say it's mandatory to put it in, and it remains in the ownership of the building.
City Attorney Montes stated that the art goes with the building; it becomes like a fixture.
Mayor Taylor expressed concern with what the value of the art would be and the taking of works of art. If
they are fully aware of the fact that they no longer own that art; say they own it but if you move you cannot
take your art with you. It's a very good question because we don't know what the value is.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 10 of 24
Council Member Low stated when they build a project; we are saying they need to design a public art. Once
the project is built, that piece of art stays there whether the business closes or opens that piece of art stays
with the building; its' part of the structure.
Mayor Taylor stated it makes sense how you word it but I am not going to put a penny worth while of art,
knowing that I am going to forfeit it. Mr. Taylor asked if they really knew they were forfeiting that art
permanently.
Council Member Low replied that she did not think they were forfeiting the
public art as part of the project.
Mayor Taylor stated he agreed with that part of the concept, that's part:of the
what you put in there, let the buyer beware. I don't feel comfortable with that. I
in something of real value as artwork. f~
Council Member Low stated that she did not
kind of artwork like a sculpture.
Mayor Taylor stated that in many cases people.) ke
ever they might have in there. Mr. Taylor reiterated'i
beautify statue of some type of a bronze statue. l jug
and that he is fully aware that he will be forfeiting wt
the building. A statue is not part of the build but it c<
f X.<17
Council MemberArmenta commented that it's lust
bushes they are not going`to'be able to take it with t
Mayor Taylor replied that
Mayor Pro din Ly statedatiattit cowl(
statina,th'at we have this paragraph in
Council Member Low asked
be
the project is to have
you better be careful
ebody does not put
be any
t ,
to display their art. If-it's a professional business or what
iat depending on the clarification on what the art is, if its
t•want to, make sure that the owner has the protection
atever he puts, In there even though you say its part of
n be~mterpreted,thahway.
I kellandscaping, if they put in expensive flowers or
practicing.
that we make clear in some sort of planning application
practice to have it put in the ordinance.
City Attorney Mont stated that,city staff will be coming forward with development fee updates and they will
be submitting to the Counciiforconsideration an in-lieu fee for public art. It's typical for city's to have public
art requirements, or in lieubari alternative option where instead of building a piece of public art as part of your
project and having to mainf in it, you can contribute in lieu fee. The fee goes towards the purchase of public
art for the city and can be display in various parts and locations. I think that effort will help quantify the value
of art that is being sought by the city in connection with these public art requirements.
Mayor Taylor opened the Public Hearing at 8:03 pm.
Brian Lewin - indicated that on page 12 item no. 513, he suggested that council consider increasing parking
in commercial uses specifically in Mixed-Used facilities and or high intensity C4 as well.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 11 of 24
Mayor Taylor asked for clarification regarding the requirements under A, subsection 3, that residential
parking shall be separate.
Mr. Lewin expressed concern with the parking requirement for Mixed-Used facilities and the spill over that
could happen onto residential areas.
Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Lewin what was his thought on how many more parking:spaces in the commercial
lot should be; it is governed by our parking ordinance. v>
Mr. Lewin replied that he was suggesting that it might be a good idea,tg hav6%taff,look at the numbers for
what is standard and what might be an appropriate adjustment to make
Mayor Tayloradded how successful a commercial businesswill be, how many guest are going to come to
visit and then it becomes speculative, it's an unknown number. We have the existing ordinance.as'guidelini
and I can see a potential of an occasional, we don't have enough parking whether it's the commercial or
Nkl
residential parking. thy?
Mr. Lewin suggests that clarification be put in`-the:ordinance becau
reduce the parking requirement if it felt that there;,is more than nec
cover; it would provide for the extra parking as a tiuffer'for the resi
use.
Mayor Taylor stated that
City Manager Allred
is going to waht less
also have the discretion to
ould act as some sort of a
re successful commercial
is asking that
Mr. Lewin
Mayor-P,ro'~Tem ly stated
that staff is=setting these si
specific. Whiclijr :theory, it
projects. On the'previc
theory there was goinc
guideline based on the
parking. If a developer
would not affect the ne
ng Commission review 17.84 in the code.
for commercial use in mixed-used
thre theory'on mined-usd is that you are taking cars off the streets. The way
trddfor parking requirements is making residential specific and commercial
-use works there should be more than enough parking available in these
rakPlan we had the main arterial corridors, mixed-use proposals and the
of Tess cars in the streets and reduction of cars. If we follow the current
ialysis and parking requirements, if the theory holds, there should be enough
to take a density bonus, one to pick is the reduction of parking, and felt that it
parking that much.
Mayor Taylor directed staff to review the parking requirements to see what can be done.
City Manager Allred stated that it will be done as part of the zoning code review for the next fiscal year.
Mayor Taylor closed Public Hearing at 8:28 p.m.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 12 of 24
Edward Randolph - resides on McGill Drive and his property has been changed from M-1 property to C-3,
and now the building seems to be un-rentable. Mr. Randolph stated that he had different tenants that wanted
to come in as different things and were unable to operate in the facility because of the zone designation.
Mayor Taylor asked for clarification of the location of the property.
Mr. Randolph stated it's about 700 feet west of Temple City Boulevard, on the south side, which is north MC
Gill Drive. On the north side it's the City of El Monte; on the south side it's Rosemead. There are different
types of business and now you wan to change the zoning and he does not ha~v~e`tlie parking requirements to
begin with. Jfir
Mayor Taylor asked if there are other commercial businesses
Mr. Randolph replied they are all M zoned on that side and
M-1 zone so he may have tenants rent there. 14
Council Member Clark asked if the tenants are having trou
Mr. Randolph replied that most of his tenants+want to use it as an
Mrs. Bermejo stated that it's currently zoned at
Mayor Taylor stated that on the south side of the
pulling out a single property,and;spotzoning it.
south
the council to
it back to
from the
there would be a dilemma in
Mr. Randolph suggested'dhat.the zoning from that area bd,change back to M-1 because some of the stores
are M-1 property already.' f r 1
Mayor Taylor4ked staff•to review and look iiito•the,bu"sinesses, if they are not commercial and also maybe
some properties have been,grand fathered or if the businesses have been there for years before it was
City Managdr,AA, ced suggested that;Mr. Randolph meet with Mrs. Bermejo and Mr. Wong and talk about it.
Mayor Pro Tern Ly,;asked how long this area been zone as C-3.
Community DevelopmentuDirector Wong stated that it had been zone C-3 probably since the late 1980's.
Mayor Pro Tern Ly stated that the General Plan was approved two years back and that zoned area was
going to be high density mixed-used and when Council decided to do it in the four notes; everything else
revered back to C-3; since what it was, since 1987 which was the last time the General Plan was adopted
until two years ago.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 13 or 24
Mayor Taylor closed the Public Hearing 8:39 p.m.
Council Member Low made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ly, to introduce for first readings
Ordinance Nos. 889, 890, and 891. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Amenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
C. Municipal Code Amendment 10.01, Amending the. Zoning, Code to Establish
Regulations for the Development of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities in the City
of Rosemead
This is a City initiated amendment that proposes to amend the Zoning Ordinance to-provide a
comprehensive set of development staridards for the installation and operation of Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs).
This item was presented to the.Planning Commission for consideration on April 5, 2010. At
that hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed WTF regulations and received
testimony from members of the" 'ubI c,.regarding the proposed'standards to regulate height,
setbacks, grounds for denial of applications; the adoption of,preapproved sites, and legal
nonconforming facilities.
In response to this testimony, the Planning Commission made several revisions to the draft
regulations,that were prepared by staff Anstead of an initial two (2) year term for the approval
of a Coordinated Antenna Plan, the Commission voted to grant an initial one (1) year term to
such requestsjhe,Commission.added,language to Section 12.82.080 A.2. of the Ordinance
,'to clarify-that WTFs lawfully existing atfhe time of adoption of this Ordinance would not be
considered.non-confor6gg for the purposes of Administrative co-location. The Planning
Commission also clarifiedlanguage in the Ordinance to make it clear that WTFs are not
exempt from`the height requirements applicable to the zone. With these revisions, the
;Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-09, recommending that the City Council
;ADOPT OrdinanceNo. 892. The Planning Commission staff report, meeting minutes and
Resolution No. lb-69 are attached as Exhibits B, C, and D, respectively.
Subsequent t the public hearing,, Planning staff received a suggestion that the City Council
should consider reducing the length of time that may be granted for an extension of an
approved Coordinated Antenna Plan from the proposed two (2) years to six (6) months.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 892, amending Title 17 of the
Rosemead Municipal Code to incorporate Chapter 17.82 "Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities" zone regulations.
Senior Planner Garry reviewed the staff report
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of Apnl 27, 2010
Page 14 of 24
Mayor Taylor opened Public Hearing at 8:47 p.m.
Brian Lewin - suggested that the terminology be change to Wireless Communication Facility with the
abbreviation WCF; for the reason that the abbreviation of WTF has become a pervasive abbreviation for
profanity in electronics communications.
City Attorney Montes explained that the reason for wireless telecommun
because that term is used in the government code. So when staff makes
staff is trying to comply with some of the expedited code locations; if you
telecommunication facilities shall have the same meaning as set forth in'
government code; those are defined and that is why we elected to use tt
Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that the FCC, FAA and FTC
under that acronym.
Council Member Clark stated that she would like a change
months as stated in the ordinance.
C\
Mayor Taylor closed the Public Hearing at 8:51. p.m>_
Mayor Pro Tem Lyclarified that the Planning Commission .r
extended term be capped up to six additional monih's, no cal
Council Member Clark made a motion; seconded liy,aCOL
Code Amendment 10-07; Amendin6Ahe Zoning Code to
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Vote resulted iri;
,r
,,-Yes 'Armenta, Clark,Low, Cy,•Taylor
' No None '
/ ~ Abstain: None,
\ Absent: None
;ations.facility was chosen was
reference to the government code,
loo`k~at the definition of wireless
;ection'65850.6 of the California
sm. NN
reless telecommunications facilities
of the
3y at its discretion after written request for
shall continue`longer than eighteen months.
cil Member Armenta, to approve Municipal
stablish Regulations for the Development of
City Council recessed for a short break at 8:52 p.m. and reconvened back at 9:00 p.m.
7. CITY COUNCIL
A.
March 9, 2010 - Regular Meeting
March 23, 2010 - Regular Meeting
Mayor Taylor made a correction to the minutes of March 9, page 14. VLF should be VMF, Vehicle Mileage
Fee.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 15 of 24
B. Claims and Demands
Resolution No. 2010 - 25
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2010 - 25, for payment of City expenditures in the
amount of $829,143.94 numbered 100779 through 100816 and 69369 and 69526,
inclusively.
C. Ordinance 893 - Second Reading: Guidelines for the Display and Maintenance of
Newsracks - Rosemead Municipal Code Section 12.12'
On April 13, 2010, the City Council reviewed Ordinance No. 893, which approved amending
Section 12.12 of the Rosemead Municipal Code regarding the installation and maintenance
of newsracks. The City Council also asked thatlwo sections of the code be removed,
clarifying the description of "offensive material" in section 12.12.030, subsection C.
Ordinance No. 893 is now before the City Council at the required second reading for
adoption.
Recommendation: That theCity Council adopt Ordinance No. 893 at its second reading.
D. Quarterly Interim Financial Update.for the Quarterly Ended;March 31, 2010
The City of Rosemead Quarterly Interim Financial,Update for the Quarter Ended March 31,
2010 is before City Council for reviewYAlso included in"the Quarterly Financial Update is the
Treasurer's.Report of cash and investment balances at March 31, 2010.
Recommendation: That the City Councilir"eceive and file the Quarterly Interim Financial
Update repot and" theJreasurer•'s.Report'
E Quitclaim`Deed to Manheim Investments, Inc. for City Property Adjacent to Previously
E
Vacated Streetat Denton`Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Virginia
On August 14, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2007-27, vacating Denton
,;.Avenue between', Garvey Avenue and Virginia Street. This vacation was completed and
recorded at the request of the Los Angeles Dealer Auto Auction (LADAA) in order to allow
the LADDA to,consolidate operations and secure its main parking lot at this location.
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. Approve Resolution No. 2010-27, determined that he value of the parcel described is of
nominal value and authorizing the quitclaim deed to Manheim Investments, Inc,;
2. Authorize the City Manager to,sign the quitclaim deed for the parcel.
Request for Traffic Access Improvements at 8930 Mission Drive
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes ofApn127, 2010
Page 16 of 24
The Traffic Commission revieweda request to review traffic conditions and make access .
improvements at 8930 Mission Drive. The Commission was concerned that left turn access
to the development at this location impacts traffic flow and safety on Mission Drive. After
visiting the site, staff recommended that a "Keep Clear" pavement marking be added in
eastbound lanes directly in front of the driveway to 8930 Mission Drive. Based on these
observations, the Traffic Commission approved the recommendation to make traffic access
improvements.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the
and authorize staff to take necessary steps to install " N
eastbound lanes directly in front of the driveway to 89:
Council Member Low made a motion, seconded by C
Calendar with corrections to the minutes of March 9,
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly,
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
\ `vN
G. City Street Sweeping Services.=Award
At its February
staff to solicit 6
of residential and
aesthetical
0 meeting, the,C
for street swee
nercial City streE
g,services are c
and safe for both
;ommission's recommendation
;ar" pavement markings in
in:
Consent
0
bd specifications and authorized
ng services;: The services include street sweeping
at least once weekly, Monday through Friday.
ical in ensuring that City streets are kept clean,
ie m`otoring and pedestrian public. On March 16,
r.,,
2010 the City received four (4) co n tractor p ropos a Is for completeness, understanding of
scope of work, methodology, experience and proposed cost.
Recommendation: That;the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract
with Athens Services for street sweeping services at an annual cost of $167,910.08 for the
first three (3) years, with an annual option to renew for the following two (2) years. The new
contact would take!effect on July 1, 2010.
1 ,
Julie Gentry - expressed,sup" of the new street.sweeping contract with Athens Service.
Mayor Pro Tern Ly made'a motion, seconded by Council Member Low, to authorize City Manager to
enter into a contract with Athens Services for Street sweeping services. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 17 of 24
Council Member Clark insisted that any employee from Clean Street that may lose their job may want to
consider applying with Athens Services.
H. Bridge Painting Project at Interstate 10/San Bernardino Freeway Underpass Locations
- Authorization to Solicit Bids
As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2009-10 Capital Impro
approved funding to enhance the aesthetic look of City
Freeway 10. This project is ihcluded in these efforts at
remaining freeway bridges at Rosemead Boulevard., ,S
Avenue. The City of San Gabriel has tentatively expre:
the northern side of the San Gabriel Boulevard.and'De
bridges are listed as alternates in the bid specifications
does not grant final approval. In addition; the City of El
painting the southern side Rosemead Boulevard bridgE
,ementP,rogram, the City Council
entry-pointsfirom the San Bernardino
d consists of painting the three (3)
an Gabriel Boulevard and Del Mar
sed interestin funding the painting of
Mar Avenue bridges. These two
in the event the'City'of San Gabriel
Monte will be contacted, regarding
The project consists of initially water blasting, sealing and priming all surfaces, followed by
applying graffiti-resistant paint to, ensure quick and easy removal if surfaces are tagged. In
addition, the project calls for the installation of large City.logo on the bridge walls, indicating
entry into City of Rosemead, as appropriate.., The color and logd"design will be similar to the
one the City recently painted on the, Walnut Grove. Avenue, bridge.
Recommendat'iorii.That the City Council:
1. 4 r' Approve the plans and specifications for the above listed project.
2 Authorize staff to adv'ertise.this,pir oject and solicit bids to complete the improvement
....,,:protect
Mayor,Taylor stated that he would voteno on-this item;because of the bond issue; there have been several
proposalsJor a need of $19 millio'Jor other,city expenses such as Parks & Recreations, new swimming
pools, and otherstreet repairs that have to'be done. There are a half a dozen streets that are starting to show
some real waretHe stated that he' is not against painting the bridge but believed that the City should not be
spending the funds at this time, it could be done it next year or the following year.
Council Member Clark asked if the project had to cost that much.
Mayor Taylor replied that he did not know; however, El Monte and San Gabriel said they would share the
cost but that is just a tentative statement. They have not proposed to share any amount.
Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello stated that this was just the authorization to solicit bids, what staff is
planning to do is to go out and bid. When we painted Walnut Grove the engineers estimated $45,000 and we
were able to get the contract for $24,000. It is our understanding that the contractor cut it close and didn't
make enough money. This is a conservative estimate, but at least it would be staff's recommendation to go
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 18 of 24
through the process and see what types of bids we can get and see if San Gabriel and El Monte are willing to
participate; then we will bring that back for recommendations for a contract in about a month.
Council Member Low stated that she supported staff to at least do the RFP to find out what the cost is and
see what the right thing to do is.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked what funds were being utilized to fund the project.
Mr. Marcarello stated this was part of the beautification project that was appro6eNf v Council and
Commission back in October to use RDA tax increment monies or bond proceeds.
Mayor Pro Tern Ly asked if there was any way to shift this to any
City Manager Allred stated the obtained bids that comeback fof~an award we would make`it very clear as to
what funding source we would recommend at that time. Some issues are relatively to theprolect area
proximity. Mayor Taylorstated that at this time it was redevelopment
Mr. Director Marcarello replied that was what the';Commission and
Mayor Taylor stated that $5.7 million could be u
support it.
Council Member
over pass and are
Mayor Taylor stated that Walnu
items that staff nJ q d;,t0 Coun
CouncibMember Clark stated tl
Mayor Taylorreplied its $11 mil
items to be doneimphase one. I
it's claimed that we;don't have tf
ing newlpools. At this time he cannot
t residents'tave complemented positively on the Walnut Grove
the City,,of Rosemead. The benefits outweigh the negatives.
far nobody has come up with $19 million for
3ment that are in the parks.
that it was going to cost to fix the park.
to fix tfie two pools and when you go through the list 12-14 priority
't know of some of the things that were proposed to be done right now
City Manager Allred stated'that staff will be bringing some of those matters back to the Council when they do
the budget process.
Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott stated that staff has received proposals for all the things
that were identified immediately as the most hazardous: Those are coming to council as the CIP list for fiscal
year 2010-2011; if its Council's desire to have those come in more quickly staff can do that.
Mayor Taylorcommented that staff said they were dangerous things that are in the parks
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes ofApril 27, 2010
Page 19 of 24
Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott replied yes, that's why those items were moved up to
phase 1 at the top of the list.
Mayor Taylor stated that they are not that dangerous if we are postponing them for six months and we have
the money to fix them. That is something that I cannot agree with. We should fix them but if we get staff
reports that are stating to the public that we have dangerous unsafe play equipment then they should be fixed
and we shouldn't have to play by the fact that we should do it by the budget if we;have the money right now.
There are bbq's that are full of rust and it would take a few hundred bucks to,~gplace,them.
Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott stated we do have to go out,~to b d but if Council wants staff
to come forward quickly we can do that in regards to playground equipment. The.report came in March to
look ahead to July 151, that's a four month process.
Mayor Taylor asked what report said to look into July 1st
Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott replied staff l%ugthfcouncil the concerns regarding the
playground in March with the list that address the sever nature of the playgrounds. In additional we've had
our own manufacturing company come out and;inspect those, and they express some concerns that need to
be change out as quickly and if monetarily feasryble In.regards to bbq's7a`nd;smaller amenities, are already on
order and will be replaced as soon as they arrive C4menities.such as picnic,tables, bbq's, benches, those will
be part of the regular ongoing budget so that every. yearwe,are evaluating different park sites and replacing
those specific amenities and that will be part of an annual,plan to do tth
Council Member Low asked rf staff camlook into the 1 (ton n the items that are dangerous and that are of
safety issue; also to come up,with an estimated cost to see how we can fund that.
Council Member Low made
I Member Armenta, to approve plans and
Yes: Armenta Clark,
No: Taylor
None
8. MATTERS FROM CITY`MANAGER & STAFF
A. . Alignment for the California High Speed Rail
On March 9, 2010, the City Council was provided with a presentation from the High Speed
Rail Authority (HSRA) regarding the proposed California High Speed Rail that would enable
riders to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in approximately 2 hours and 38 minutes.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 20 of 24
The HSRA is considering two alternating routes through the San Gabriel Valley: a rail
alignment along the 10 freeway or,the 60 freeway. During the presentation, Council
Members expressed their support to the California High Speed Rail project; however, no
official action was taken as to which alignment the City Council would support.
Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction on the preferred alignment for the
California High Speed Rail project.
Brian Lewin - expressed support in the Alignment for the CA High Speed Rail?--'N
2
Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he had been working with the SR60 Coalitiomand,with Mrs. Flores and Mr.
Marcarello along with cities of South El Monte, Monterey Park, El Monte, and Monlbbello. Their concern with
the SR60 route potentially is that it might conflict with the light rails racl~that is being.proposed for the SR60
route. If that is the case it would eliminate our ability to get light%ail going on the SR60goute. My personal
k
feeling is that the 10 freeway route would be a better choice".if it's along the median; if theyxget access to the
metro link line. Otherwise, they would be force to do it on the north orsouth side and it would be•a significant
impact on our community; such as taking part of Ramona Boulevard. If•it's-on,the median it will have a
minimal impact and it would provide great transportation for the community.
11 -
Mayor Taylor stated that as the median goes`he was not sure what the rail.system is going to put up;
because they did say this was going to be a two'track.system. ,
Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that is was a big concem'for theWright now; they are still trying to figure out all the
schematics; it's very conceptualright now. His concer'n;,is,that it does not run along the south and north side
of the 10 freeway because46r s where it,would have a,Iot of impact.
Mayor Taylor agreed"wittf'Mr:-Ly but stated that the bureaucracy moves in a strange way when you get into
the rail road that actually controlls that Ime portion there. (.don't know; who will end up with the ultimate
authority. 'gg^Z,... c,
Ly stated'thafhe just wants•to.show the support of the 10 freeway alignment because it
y aligning the median andlhave a lesser impact on the community.
,a 1 1.
Council Mernli'e~bLow asked MAC Ly how Council can influence that decision.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly replied` hat there is a High Speed Authority Committee and the chairman is the mayor of
Anaheim, Kurt Cringle. It's his agency that deals with all these types of matters and they'll most likely make
the final decisions.
Council Member Armenta made a motion, seconded by Council Member Clark, to support the
alignment on the 10 freeway route on the condition it goes along the median for the California High
Speed Rail project. Vote resulted in:
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 21 of 24
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly
No: None
Abstain: Taylor
Absent: None
Mayor Taylor stated that he wants to see what they come back with and what rights we really have.
9. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
A. Mayor's Appointments for 2010.2011
Each Year, a listing of City Council Member appoi
committees and boards is prepared and sub itt4,
To assist the Mayor, members of the City~Co it h
"Mayor's Appointments for 2010-2011aform listing
particular committees and boards..
Recommendation: That the;Gity Council approved
Mayor Taylor stated that there was need to go
committee appointments. The following appoint
Delegate: Sandra Armenta f ~ 4Ev
Alternate: Steven Ly
California Contract Cities Aiio'
Delegate: Sa draArmenta~
Alternate/ ,Steven L `
Delegate:
Alternate:
Delegate: Margaret Clark
Alternate: Steven Ly
So. California JPIA
Delegate: Gary Taylor
Alternate: Polly Low
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 22 of 24
:s to a variety of regional and state
Mayor.
opportunity to completethe
dividual's preferenceRfor the
Appointments for 2010-2011.
out some discrepancies on some of the
Coalition for Practical Regulation
Delegate: Margaret Clark
Alternate: Polly Low
City Selection Committee
Delegate: Steven Ly
Alternate: Margaret Clark
So. California of Government
,r
Delegate: Margaret Clark
Alternate: Sandra Amenta
Upper San Gabriel Water District
Delegate: Gary Taylor
Alternate: Steven Ly
Public Safety Connections
Delegate: Polly Low
Alternate: Sandra Armenta
City Council directed staff to
ones are still active.
i
,eport back and research,the,committee's
ark
of meetings and which
10. COMMENTS FROM MAYOR-&, CITY COUNCIL\4`
Council Member Armenta invited the community to Rosemead's Open House that will present on the new
aquatics proposal and obtain more information and news on-city projects and events.
Council Member Clark"was approached by Ms:-Nancq;,Eng to remind everyone that the Planning Commission
applications.ar6 due May 11,-2010.
41
Council Member Armenta suggested that the:meeting should be adjourned in Memory of the two 19 year old
teenagers who passed away inIatrain accident.
11. ADJOURNMENT/
The meeting adjourned 'af936 p.m. in memory of Aaron Philip Gallardo and Richard Gallardo Haro. The next
joint Community Development Commission and City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on May 11,
2010 at 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., respectively.
Gary Taylor
Mayor
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 23 of 24
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes ofApnl27, 2010
Page 24 of 24
l
X el., .~i-