CC - Item 8A - 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: Commissioner/Council Member
PRESENT: Mayor/Chairwoman Clark, Mayor Pro TemNice
Armenta. Council Member/Commissioner Lowz-and Council
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City At
Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and
Administrator Ramirez, Public Affairs Manager F
Clerk Molleda 11
1. PUBLIC COMMENT&FROM THE AUDIENCE
Y~ tT as
'c
None
2. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
A. _ Claims and Demands
Resolution No. 2010 -13
Commission was called to
at 8838 East Valley
r, Council Member/Commissioner
issioner Ly.
Community;Development Director Wong,
ntgomery-Scott, Economic Development
ublic,Works Director Marcarello, and City
ion: Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -13 for payment of Commission
the amount of $59,957.93 demand nos. 10081 through 10082 and 11253
through
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 April 27, 2010
Page 1 of 23 ITEM NO.
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 i
Absent: None
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 Negotiato
Government Code Section 54957.6•-. \ ?
Negotiators for the City: Jeff Allretl;and Su Tan,
Employee Unit: Rosemead EmployeeAssociationi,,'
City Council'
Meeting Agenda
The regular meeting of 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 23
Cal American Water Presentation
Park Superintendent John Scoff introduced Cal American Water who donated $5,000 to the City of
Rosemead for beautification 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
Deputy Public Works Director Chris Marcarello invited Cour
be hosted by Public Works on May 19, 2010.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
and the
,to Public Services staff.
community to an;,open house that will
None
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on the Five-Year. Consolidated Plan and Fiscal Year 2010.11 Annual
Action Plan Submission
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 Plah. The.Citftf Rosemead is a federal entitlement grant recipient of
- Community Development Block Grant and 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 an 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 by, an 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 23
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; 1, 11,
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,Hdndo Community Development
Commission to defray certain costs for the operation °as the City's Community
Housing Development Organization (CHDO) and authorized the City Manager to
execute the necessary service agreements; and X
5. Award the following public services"agencies with CDBG funds,and,authorized
the City Manager to execute service agreements:.
• Family Counseling Services'-,$40,000
• Morrison Health Care (Senior Nutrition Provider) - $82,369
• People for People - $27,600
• Rosemead School, District - $11,698
• Rosemead High'School - $13,650 ,
• The Southern California Housing Rights Center - $25,000
Economic Development Manager. Ramirez reviewed staff report.
Mayor Taylor opened.Public Hearing at 7;16 p.m. There being,no public comments the Public Hearing was
closed at 7:16 p.m. -
Council Member Clark made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ly, to approve staff's
recommendations. Vote resulted
Yes: Armenta Clark, Low; Ly, Taylor
No: None }
,Abstain: None !
Absent:.,None,,~`
B. Development Standards for Mixed-Use and C-4 Regional Commercial Zones, and
Comprehensive 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 Apol 27, 2010
Page 4 of 23
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 with,this matter and adopted
Resolution No. 10-10, Resolution 10-11, and Resolution 10-12 recdmmending approval of
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 Title 17 of the Rosemeeaad'MMunicipal Code to
incorporate Chapter 17.74 Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development Overlay
zone regulations and modifying the'Mixed Use Design Guidelines. 'p
2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 890, amending Title-17'6f the Rosemead Municipal Code to
incorporate Chapter 17.46.0-4 Regional Commercial zone regulations.
3. ADOPT Ordinance No. 8911 amending,the City of Rosemead Zoning Map for the
purpose of bringing the map into consistency,with the General Plan.
Principal Planner Sheri
Council Member Clark'asked for
Mrs. Bermejo stated that
ever was greater
;larified tha
the Edison
listed as
on
ng required or eight parking spaces which
question are for bicycles. Mr. Taylor asked for an
tut 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 Sh'e explained that in order to implement the zone in 2008, that General Plan
Amendment had designated"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 23
the staff
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 desliir ated incorrectly or should be
changed, that should probably be cleaned up comprehensively. But rightW d ,.h, t staff is trying to do is to
update the zoning map to conform with the most recent General Plarnadopted and to,pick up those portions
of the 2008 General Plan that were never updated in zoning., 1
Mayor Taylor stated he did not agree with that.
City Manager Jeff Allred stated that at the earliest o
the General Plan has other amendments.
Council Member Clark asked if staff would have to change the
designation.
City Attorney Montes explained that if Council chang
be consistent, you have to go bac&7and change the i
Council Member Clark:asked what the dangers for.
clean up this:problem when
for parcels that need re-
parcel, unless the zoning is going to
an, even if its for one parcel,
is" were.
City Attorney Montes stated that. there•are.miriimal dangers because it's a school site and unless the school
district stops opera g it as a school and declares theschool site as surplus property and decides to sell it, at
that point it would be ohl y uskle as light 'industrial. Alternatively, if Council goes back and changes them all
to government use or public--school use, under--State law, it takes on the zoning of surrounding property.
Council might.want to look at re-zoning and take a comprehensive look at all of the school sites to see how
the city would Ike to address them.
Council Member Clark asked what the zone for Duff School was now that they stop using it as a school site.
Community Development irector Stan Wong stated that typically public schools in the General Plan are
designated as public schools or even open spaces. With the implementing zone Mrs. 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.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 6 of 23
City Manager Allred stated that it was mixed used mode.
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 the sub-committee started announcing where they wanted to
designate Mixed-Use in the city, they chose four locations. One of the locations was City Hall and the Library
facility; the idea is that in the future there may be the opportunity to allow~thst rea 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 the residential part to be a component
or to be next to it. J 4
Mayor Taylor stated something like this he could see happening in 20 or 25 years if
However, the City would be laying the ground work saying is is what you,can do.
Principal Planner Bermejo replied the area was not going to be forcedfas Mixed-Use Development in that
node because there is an overlaY. It actually gives the property owner two options to develop under the base
zoning, which will be under central district; but in,the future if anyone wants to do Mixed-Use Development
they have that second opportunity to do that.
Mayor Taylorexpressed that the rest of the City is great where there,is~an overlay, if they choose to do it.
However, he is concerned about itiy the city designaleed City Hall andAhe Library and inferring to the public
that if they want to bring m-a,plan to'gg iigh rise with it; they can. 41
Mr. Wong stated that on the,lak,meeting(when Council di's{us"sed the General Plan regarding the Civic
Center and the land use, this is.one.of,the:house keepingsissues that staff was referring to that will be
revised. - \ 11\,
Clark asked what he meant be "it would be revised".
Mr. Wong explained that staff will change the Civic Center to a public facility so the land use will be
represented omth~e'map. Any futures changes that the Council decides to make regarding the land use can
be presented in the.future. Because of a previous comment made on the last meeting of the General Plan,
staff is to come back"somedafrid change the land use.
City Attorney Montes stated that staff would have to;discuss this matter because there might be RHNA
(Regional Housing Needs Assessment) concern. If Council eliminates that site the City may not meet its
RHNA housing numbers.
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
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
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 7 of 23
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 build 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 draft offcial'ioning map.
Council Member Low clarified there were two maps; one is the
the new changes.
Mayor Taylor asked for clarification of the official zoning
there will be potential housing requirements on all of Vail
westerly city limits that has a design overlay. . o"4'
Z omng.map and the other one had
it mention about housing on Exhibit A;
rom Temple City Boulevard to the
Mrs. Bermejo confirmed the design overlay is all along Valley Boulevard
Mayor Taylor stated that within that area there si a!high density area an
density of Valley Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard supposed to be.
Mrs. Bermejo replied that the high density areas,
60 dwellings units per acre. Z'
Mayor Taylor asked hc
o
Mrs. Bermejo stated the
the General Plan -kdO_1)tE
60 units om30;000 squa,
have tof aye a site area
city abouYproposing a m
around Garvey'Avenue,
towards River on Garvey
staff talking
did not know, what was the
General Plan on April 13th, had
sets a density, it's only going to enforce what
dJt's going.to set aside a,site area of 30,000 square feet. You are not going to get
e feet, So if someone proposed a Mixed-Used Development on that area they would
or'land'area with 'N
minimum of 30,000 square feet to be able to start talking with the
fixed us(id,projeci)Ws. Bermejo added that on the east of Edison right of way
that was.going to,be 30 units per the acre in the General Plan designation and
Avenue tl'at was another 60 units to the acre.
Mayor Taylor stated'ttiat,was near the senior citizen housing; reiterating what Ms. Clark referred to as the
.sr
750 housing units, there is.potential across the street; that shopping center is proposed to go to mixed-
commercial business andlhousing 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
nodes we came very close in achieving our number. The subcommittee ran several scenarios and played
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 8 of 23
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 replaced with
City Council and should be consistent with the entitlement process. Also, page 25, starting 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 wishhes=to add_any future
amendments for the Mixed-Used Design Guidelines they should do it by resolution. Ordinance 890 has
I el-IN
exactly the same changes, regarding C-4 zone; there is mention of photbmethcand public art, and it should
be City Council and not Planning Commission approving those requirements. There^are no changes to be
made for Ordinance 891; Council may introduce those ordinances as.fiirs`t reading witl~ the new changes.
I - \
Mayor Taylor stated he had questions on the previous
45 feet and 50 feet; but there is no height on the C-4, w
Mrs. Bermejo explained that staff was proposing a'building heigfit i
are consistent with zoning with either side of the.parcels; but built ii
requirement which is going to enforce rural heights adjacent to resi
Mayor Taylorstated that the first floor of that building an -the hou
one story. But a project that has five stories and lwoadditional stor
have the apprehension of seven:floors.up adjoining residential and
from the first floor, there is a reference to a six foot height wall at tt
degrees.
you had a building height t at you had
to be =75 feet high. Z-V
feet for those high density areas that
iat is also a variable height
next tdif represented a residence that is
i though it has set backs, I still
set back from the ground level
ty line and then you go up 20
Mrs. Bermejo replied that the variable:height from the.property line would be measured at the property line six
feet from theground up and then you`would ppmject•a twenty degree angle; the building can never intersect
that angle and that's actualythe height requirement into the C -3 zone that is consistent with the area along
the boulevard.
Mayor Taylorstated 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 housinQV
Mrs. Bermejo stated thafthis.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 23
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 story:,, Mr. Taylor asked what
the height of the Double Tree Hotel building was; it's so isolated that it's not many 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 Yight next to a seven story that
can look out over two city blocks even though its stepped back. The othet iter~Mr. Montes brought up was
the arts program, if you look at page 2-3 of the guidelines, 5th paragraph down it says "appropriate pedestrian
amenities should be provided etc" next paragraph "public art should be incorporated,into the public realm
where ever practical and possible to promote a heighten esthetics to provoke interest"'that-word should is
permissive. A -1.
Mrs. Bermejo replied that it was correct; the public art in the Municipal Code'does not necessarily mean it
should be in public right of way it can actually be in private property
City Attorney Montes stated that you have two d ent requirements. The guidelines are suggesting that you
should try to incorporate public art into the portions of.the development where possible. But in the ordinance
you are mandating a minimum level of public art that must bencluded, so iff,,6ere is going to be additional
public art it can follow these guidelines or in terms where you migl t;place~the public art, that would adhere to
the guidelines. But there are twgse ate requirements; the guidelines are mostly advisory and to help the
~5, a,„._.,.,,;~
Council and Planning Commission evaluate ,~the project+in terms of what it should look like.
Mayor Taylor inquired about.public realm, if you go to page25 of the ordinance itself. Under public art
requirement, "a freely accessible on,site'pi bblic'art•work.shall 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 followin g words or:phrases,shall have the following meanings" What I am concern with that is,
once t,becomes mandatoryiandat says thafitshall be included. On page 26, additional requirements for
public art•oronsite installation, ere is to 6e a plaque under 5A. Under 6B; ownership and maintenance of
the art work;,; all onsite public artiwbrk shall remain the property of the property owner and his or hers
successors and interest'. On page 27 on item C, location and relocation of onsite public art, "when and if the
developer project is'sold et anytime in the future, the public art must remain at the development at which it
was created and maynot;be clairned 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.
d'
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 23
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. f N11 I
Mayor Taylor stated he agreed with that part of the concept, that's part of the pr
what you put in there, let the buyer beware. I don't feel comfortable wit6hat. I Inc
in something of real value as artwork. Council Member Low stated that she did not
kind of artwork like a sculpture.
Mayor Taylor stated that in many cases people.) ke to display their
ever they might have in there. Mr. Taylor reiterated4hat depending
beautify statue of some type of a bronze statue. I justmantAo make
and that he is fully aware that he will be forfeiting 'Whatever'. 'el uts
the building. A statue is not part of the building but.itcan be'interpr
Council Member Armentatcommehted'that it's just
bushes they are not going to be able totake it with tl
Mayor Taylor
1-1
Mayor Pro7d
stating,that we
r >
Council Meml
-eplied that was,uhder!
~s
n Ly stated that it coul
have this paragraph in
+'f'4
ier, Low asked if that is
be
the project is to have
you better be careful
zbody does not put
be any
art~lf,it's a professional business or what
on'the clarification on what the art is, if its
sure that=the owner has the protection
there even though you say its part of
etb -that way.
g, 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 Morites°stated that.city staff will be coming forward with development fee updates and they will
be submitting to the Council forrvconsideration an in-lieu fee for public art. It's typical for cities to have public
anilternative option where instead of building a piece of public art as part of your
art requirements, or in lieu, Y
project and having to maintain it, you can contribute in lieu fee. The fee goes towards the purchase of public
art for the city and can be displayed 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. 5B, he suggested that council consider increasing parking
in commercial uses specifically in Mixed-Used facilities and or high intensity C-4 as well.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 11 of 23
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 Taylorasked 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. AIN.
Mr. Lewin replied that he was suggesting that it might be a good idea to have staff look at the numbers for
what is standard and what might be an appropriate adjustment to make
Mayor Taylor added how successful a commercial business will'be,:how many guest arezgoing to come to
visit and then it becomes speculative, it's an unknown numbereW'e have the existing ordinance as guidelines
and I can see a potential of an occasional, we don't have;e`nough parking whether it's the commercial or
residential parking. J"
Mr. Lewin suggests that clarification be put in the ordinance because%kaff would also have the discretion to
reduce the parking requirement if it felt that Are ,is more than necessaryNThis would act as some sort of a
cover; it would provide for the extra parking as a buffer,f;:or the residenfikor amore successful commercial
,
use.
Mayor Taylor stated that
City Manager Allred
Mr. Lewin reiterated to
Mayor,P,rdlem Ly stated4hai
that stkis setting these stand
specific. Wich,in theory, if mi)
projects. On the previous Gen
theory there was~going to be a
guideline based on the'traffic a
parking. If a developer decide;
would not affect the need pfipE
is going
Mr. Lewin,is asking that the Planning Commission review 17.84 in the code.
for commercial use in mixed-used
the thdory.on mixed-use is that you are taking cars off the streets. The way
aids for parking;requirements is making residential specific and commercial
id -use work there should be more than enough parking available in these
,ral Plan we had the main arterial corridors, mixed-use proposals and the
lot less cars in the streets and reduction of cars. If we follow the current
nalysis 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
rkina that much.
Mayor Taylordirected 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 23
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 want to change the zoning and he does not
begin with.
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.
Council Member Clark asked if the tenants are having
Mr. Randolph replied that most of his tenantsVant 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 prd pot zoning it.
Mr. Randolph suggested.tt
are M-1 property already.
Mayor Taylor-asked sstaff-
some properties have beei
City Manager,Allre.d suggested
Mayor Pro Tem L'jy,~sked how
Community
meet with Mrs. Bermejo and Mr. Wong and talk about it.
this area has been zone as C-3.
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 nodes; 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.
Mayor Taylor closed the Public Hearing 8:39 p.m.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 13 of 23
from the
requirements to
it back to
there would be a dilemma in
that area be,changed back to M-1 because some of the stores
nto the,bdsinesses, if they are not commercial and also maybe
if the businesses have been there for years before it was
the council to
Council Member Low made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern 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 standards 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.public 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 Plan ning',Commission made several revisions to the draft
regulations that were prepared by stkInstead 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 requests. The Commission added language to Section 12.82.080 A.2. of the Ordinance
to clarify that WTFs lawfully existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance would not be
considered non-donformirig forthe.purposes of Administrative co-location. The Planning
y Commission also.ciarified language:in the Ordinance to make it clear that WTFs are not
exempt from the height requirements applicable to the zone. With these revisions, the
f Planning Commission adoptedRe.solution No. 10-09, recommending that the City Council
ADOPT Ordinance No. 892-The Planning Commission staff report, meeting minutes and
Resolution No. 10=09 are attached as Exhibits B, C, and D, respectively.
Subsequent to 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.
Mayor Taylor opened Public Hearing at 8:47 p.m
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 14 of 23
Brian Lewin - suggested that the terminology be changed 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 telecommunications facility was chosen was
because that term is used in the government code. So when staff makes reference to the government code,
staff is trying to comply with some of the expedited code locations; if you look at the definition of wireless
telecommunication facilities shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 65850.6 of the California
government code; those are defined and that is why we elected to use them..
Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that the FCC, FAA and FTC .both reference Wireless telecommunications facilities
under that acronym.
Council Member Clark stated that she would like a change to 'bb six months instead of, the twenty-four
months as stated in the ordinance.
Mayor Taylor closed the Public Hearing at 8:51 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly clarified that the Planning Commission may at its,discretion after written request for
extended term be capped up to six additional months,.no cap shall continue longer than eighteen months.
Council Member Clark made a motion, seconded by Council Member Alrmenta, to approve Municipal
Code Amendment 10.01; Amending the Zoning Code to Establish: Regulations for the Development of
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark; Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None %
Abstain: None
r"Absent:•None
City Council recessed for a short. break 4~8:52. p:m. and reconvened back at 9:00 p.m.
7. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT•,CALENDAR
A. Minutes / ;
\ '
March 8,2010 - 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.
B. Claims and Demands
Resolution No. 2010 - 25
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of Apnl 27, 2010
Page 15 of 23
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 that two secfions,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 the City 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 review., Also included in the,Quarterly Financial Update is the
Treasurer's Report of cash and investment balances at March 31, 2010.
Recommendatior: That the City Co6ncil'receive and file the Quarterly Interim Financial
Update report and the Treasurer's Report.
E. Quitclaim Deed to Manheim Investments; lnc. for City Property Adjacent to Previously
Vacated Street at,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.
F. Request for Traffic Access Improvements at 8930 Mission Drive
The Traffic Commission reviewed a 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
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 16 of 23
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 Traffic Commission's recommendation
and authorize staff to take necessary steps to install "Keep Clear" pavement markings in
eastbound lanes directly in front of the driveway to 8930 Mission'Drive.
Council Member Low made a motion, seconded by Council Member Clark, to approve Consent
Calendar with corrections to the minutes of March 9, 2010. Vote resulted, in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
.4'
Absent: None
G. City Street Sweeping Services -Award Contract
At its February 23, 2010 meeting, th&C.ity Council app rovedspecifcations and authorized
staff to solicit proposals for street`sweeping services. The services include street sweeping
of residential and commercial City'streets'"at least once weekly, Monday through Friday.
Regular street sweeping services are critical in ensuring that City streets are kept clean,
aesthetically, pleasing and safe for: boi0he motoring and pedestrian public. On March 16,
2010 the City received four (4) contractor proposals 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.
Julie Gent pressed support 'of the new street sweeping contract with Athens Service.
Mayor Pro Tern Lymade 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
Council Member Clark insisted that any employee from Clean Street that may lose their job be given the
opportunity to apply with Athens Services.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 17 of 23
Representative from Athens agreed from the audience.
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 Improvement Program, the City Council
approved funding to enhance the aesthetic look of City entry-points from the San Bernardino
Freeway 10. This project is included in these efforts and consists of painting the three (3)
remaining freeway bridges at Rosemead Boulevard., San Gabriel Boulevard and Del Mar
Avenue. The City of San Gabriel has tentatively expressed interest in funding the painting of
the northern side of the San Gabriel Boulevard and Del Mar Avenue bridges. These two
bridges are listed as alternates in the bid specifications in the event the City of San Gabriel
does not grant final approval. In addition, the City of.El Monte will be, contacted regarding
painting the southern side Rosemead Boulevard bridge.
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 logo design will be similar to the
one the City recently painted on the Walnut Grove Avenue`bridge.
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. Approve the plans and specifications for the above listed project.
2. Authorize staff to advertise this'project and solicit bids to complete the'improvement
project:,
Mayor Taylorstated that he would;vote no on this item because of the bond issue; there have been several
proposals for a need of $19 million for. p, ther city expenses such as Parks & Recreations, new swimming
pools,, arid:other street repairs that have to be done. There are a half a dozen streets that are starting to show
some real wear. He 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 next year or the following year.
Council Member Clark asked if,the project had to cost that much.
Mayor Taylor replied that, hedid 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
through the process and see what types of bids we can get and see if San Gabriel and El Monte are willing to
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of Apol 27, 2010
Page 18 of 23
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
Commission back in October to use RDA tax increment'monies or bond
Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked if there was any way to shift this to any
City Manager Allred stated the obtained bids that comeback for
what funding source we would recommend at that time. So,m~e'il
proximity.;':
Mayor Taylor stated that at this time it was redevelopment
Mr. Director Marcarello replied that was wh
Mayor Taylor stated that $5.7 million could be
support it.
look nice but
Council Member Armenta comm`ehted that resident:
over pass and are proud of the changes in the City; of
t ct nl
Mayor Taylor stated that
items that staff reported to
Council
items to be
it's claimed
,d its $11 r
phase one
don't have
City Manager Allred
the budget process.
Commission and
at'aside,funds.
we would,mak
relative to the'
it approved
Council and
it very clear as to
oiect area
At this time he cannot
ted positively on the Walnut Grove
benefits outweigh the negatives.
nobody has come up with $19 million for
-nt that are in the parks.
$19 million that it was going to cost to fix the park.
to fix the-two pools and when you go through the list 12-14 priority
i't know of some of the things that were proposed to be done right now, if
staff will be bringing some of those matters back to the Council when they do
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 of April 27, 2010
Page 19 of 23
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 replace them.
Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott stated we do have to goout,to bid but if Council wants staff
to come forward quickly we can do that in regards to playground egwprn nt. The~report came in March to
look ahead to July 15r, that's a four month process. A
Mayor Taylor asked what report said to look into July 15t.
Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott replied staff'brought council the concerns'regaMing the
playground in March with the list that address the severe nature of lthe playgrounds. In addition we've had our
own manufacturing company come out and inspect those, and theyexpress some concerns that need to be
changed out as quickly and if monetarily feasible. In regards to bbq's ahdsmaller amenities, are already on
order and will be replaced as soon as they arrive,, Amenities such as picnic tables, bbq's, benches, those will
be part of the regular ongoing budget so that every year we;are evaluating'diffe`rent park sites and replacing
those specific amenities and that will be part of an+annual plan.to do that.
Council Member Low asked,ifstaff;can look into the`~Iist-on the items that are dangerous and that are of
safety issue; also to come up with an estimated cost td,see how we can fund that.
t
Council Member Low ade a motion, seconded by Council Member Armenta, to approve plans and
specification and to solicit bids 'Vote resulted-in:~
Yes Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly
No: Taylor. .
Abstain: None,
~
Absent: 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.
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
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 20 of 23
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.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he had been working with the SR60 Coalition,and with,Mrs. Flores and Mr.
Marcarello along with cities of South El Monte, Monterey Park, El Monte, arid`Montebello. Their concern with
the SR60 route potentially is that it might conflict with the light rail track=that is being proposed for the SR60
route. If that is the case it would eliminate our ability to get light rail going on the,SR60 route. My personal
feeling is that the 10 freeway route would be a better choice if it'si"along the medianif they get access to the
metro link line. Otherwise, they would be forced to do it on the;north Wsouth 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 transPo`rtation for the communitY.`
~ t
Mayor Taylor stated that as the median goes, he was not sure
because they did say this was going to be a two track system.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that it was a big concern for i
^
schematics; it's very conceptual right now. His concern i
the 10 freeway because that's where it would have allot
Mayor Taylor agreed with Mr Ly but stated that the bur
the rail road that actually controls that line portion there.
authority. ~ \
Mayor Pro
does worka
Low
Mayor Pro Tem;Cy.replied that
mayor of Anaheim` Curt Pringle
likely make the final decisions..
iat the rail system is going to put up;
now, they\are'sill trying to figure out all the
Des not run.alono the south or north side of
acy moves in a strange way when you get into
't know; who will end up with the ultimate
s to show,the support of the 10 freeway alignment because it
have a lesser impact on the community.
how Council can influence that decision.
e is a High Speed Rail Authority Committee and the chairman is the
his agency that deals with all these types of matters and they'll most
Council Member Armenia" 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:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly
No: None
Abstain: Taylor
Absent: None
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 21 of 23
Mayor Taylor stated that he wants to see what they comeback 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 appointments to a variety of regional and state
committees and boards is prepared and submitted by the Mayor:
To assist the Mayor, members of the City Council had
"Mayor's Appointments for 2010-2011" form listing ea
particular committees and boards.,
Recommendation: That the City Council
Mayor Taylor stated that there was need to go back and st
committee appointments. The following appointments were
League of California Cities:
Delegate: Sandra Armenta
Alternate: Steven Ly
California Contract Cities Association
Delegate: Sandra Armenta `
Alternate: Steven Ly
Delegate:
Alternate:
Delegate~Margaret Clark
Alternate: Steven Ly
Delegate: Gary Tayl
Alternate: Polly Low
Coalition for Practical Regulation
Delegate: Margaret Clark
Alternate: Polly Low
City Selection Committee
Delegate: Steven Ly
Alternate: Margaret Clark
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 22 of 23
nity to complete the
's preference for the
for 2010-2011.
of the
So. California of Government
Delegate: Margaret Clark
Alternate: Sandra Armenta
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 report back and research the
ones are still active.
10. COMMENTS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Council Member Armenta invited the community to Rosemead's
aquatics proposal and obtain more information and hews on city
Council Member Clark was approached by Ms. Nancy;,Eng to remind e
applications are due May 11, 2010. ' W
Council Member Armenta suggestedAh'at the meetmg,,should be adjou
teenagers who passed awayin a tram accident. v
11. ADJOURNMENT
f ~
The meeting adjourned at.9:36 p:m
Development Commission'and City
and 7:00~p.,m., respectively
,.L
4 x-a, 5 +~.n
th
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, City Clerk
ie and dates of meetings and which
use that will present on the new
and events.
the Planning Commission
in Memory of the two 19 year old
ory of Mr3„Gallardo and Mr. Haro. The next joint Community
meeting is scheduled to take place on May 11, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
Gary Taylor
Mayor
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of April 27, 2010
Page 23 of 23