Loading...
CC - Minutes 04-27-10Minutes of the JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 27, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor Taylor at 6:03 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 PRESENT: Mayor/Chairwoman Clark, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chairman Taylor, Council Member/Commissioner Armenta, Council Member/Commissioner Low, and Council Member/Commissioner Ly. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Montes, Community Development Director Wong, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Administrator Ramirez, Public Affairs Manager Flores, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 2. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2010 -13 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -13 for payment of Commission expenditures in the amount of $59,957.93 demand nos. 10081 through 10082 and 11253 through 11259. 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 Recommendation: That the Community Development Commission receive and file the Treasurer's Report for the month ended March 31, 2010. Mayor Pro Tem 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 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 Negotiator Government Code Section 54957.6 Negotiators for the City: Jeff Allred and Su Tan Employee Unit: Rosemead Employee Association 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 Scott 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 Week to Public Services staff. Deputy Public Works Director Chris Marcarello invited Council and the community to an open house that will be hosted by Public Works on May 19, 2010. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE 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 Plan. The City of 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 or 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; 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 authorized 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: • 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 in: 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 April 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 recommending 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 Rosemead Municipal Code to incorporate Chapter 17.74 Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development Overlay zone regulations and modifying the Mixed-Use Design Guidelines. 2. ADOPT Ordinance No. 890, amending Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to incorporate Chapter 17.46 C-4 Regional Commercial zone regulations. 3. ADOPT Ordinance No. 891, amending the City of Rosemead Zoning Map for the purpose of bringing the map into consistency with the General Plan. Principal Planner Sheri Bermejo reviewed the staff report. Council Member Clark asked for clarification on parking spaces Mrs. Bermejo stated that there would be ten percent of the parking required or eight parking spaces which ever was greater. Mayor Taylor clarified that the parking spaces in question are for bicycles. Mr. Taylor asked for an explanation on the Edison property between Walnut Grove and Rush; he stated Rice Elementary School is listed as light manufacturing zone. 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 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 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 Monies 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 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 Plan adopted and to pick up those portions of the 2008 General Plan that were never updated in zoning. Mayor Taylor stated he did not agree with that. City Manager Jeff Allred stated that at the earliest opportunity staff would try to clean up this problem when the General Plan has other amendments. Council Member Clark asked if staff would have to change the General Plan again for parcels that need re- designation. City Attorney Montes explained that if Council changes the zoning of that parcel, unless the zoning is going to be consistent, you have to go back and change the underlying General Plan, even if its for one parcel. Council Member Clark asked what the dangers for leaving it "as is" were. City Attorney Montes stated that there are minimal dangers because it's a school site and unless the school district stops operating it as a school and declares the school site as surplus property and decides to sell it, at that point it would be only usable 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 like 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 Director 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. 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 23 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 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 the 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 be forced as 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 Taylor expressed that the rest of the City is great where there is an overlay, if they choose to do it. However, he is concerned about why the city designated City Hall and the Library and inferring to the public that if they want to bring in a plan to go high rise with it, they can. Mr. Wong stated that on the last meeting when Council discussed the General Plan.regarding the Civic Center and the land use, this is one of the house keeping issues that staff was referring to that will be revised. Council Member 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 on the 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 someday and 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 element won't be accepted and the SCAG region has so many units that are allocated that our city has to Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2010 Page 7 of 23 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 official zoning map. Council Member Low clarified there were two maps; one is the official zoning map and the other one had the new changes. 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 confirmed the design overlay is all along Valley Boulevard. Mayor Taylor stated that within that area there is a high density area and he did not know, what was the density of Valley Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard supposed to be. Mrs. Bermejo replied that the high density areas, which were adopted in the General Plan on April 13th, had 60 dwellings units per acre. Mayor Taylor asked how many acres was staff talking about. Mrs. Bermejo stated the zoning does not 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 on 30,000 square feet. So if someone proposed a Mixed-Used Development on that area they would have to have 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 of way around Garvey Avenue, that was going to be 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 nodes 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. Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2010 Page 8 of 23 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 wishes 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 photometric and 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 first reading with the 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 is going 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 parcels; but built into that is also a variable height requirement which is going to enforce rural heights adjacent to residential uses. Mayor Taylor stated that the first floor of that building and the house next to it represented a residence that is one story. But a project that has five stories 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 to a six foot height wall at the property line and then you go up 20 degrees. Mrs. Bermejo replied that the variable height from the property line would be measured at the property line six feet from the ground up and then you would project a twenty degree angle; the building can never intersect that angle and that's actually the height requirement into the C -3 zone that is consistent with the area along the boulevard. Mayor Taylor stated 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 housing. 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 Taylorstated 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 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 other item 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. 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 different 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 be included; so if there is going to be additional public art it can follow these guidelines or in terms where you might place the public art, that would adhere to the guidelines. But there are two separate requirements, the guidelines are mostly advisory and to help the 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 page 25 of the ordinance itself. Under public art requirement, "a freely accessible on site public 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 following words 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 or onsite installation, there is to be 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 page 27 on item C, location and relocation of onsite public art, "when and if the developer project is sold at any time in the future, the public art must remain at the development at which it was created and may not be 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 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 art; part of the project is to have public art as part of the project. Mayor Taylor stated he agreed with that part of the concept, that's part of the project so you better be careful what you put in there, let the buyer beware. I don't feel comfortable with that. I hope somebody does not put in something of real value as art work. Council Member Low stated that she did not considerer the art to be an expensive painting. It could be any kind of art work like a sculpture. Mayor Taylor stated that in many cases people like to display their art. If it's a professional business or what ever they might have in there. Mr. Taylor reiterated that depending on the clarification on what the art is, if its beautify statue of some type of a bronze statue. I just want to make sure that the owner has the protection and that he is fully aware that he will be forfeiting whatever he puts in there even though you say its part of the building. A statue is not part of the building but it can be interpreted that way. Council Member Armenta commented that it's just like landscaping, if they put in expensive flowers or bushes they are not going to be able to take it with them. Mayor Taylor replied that was understandable its real estate practicing. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that it could be something that we make clear in some sort of planning application stating that we have this paragraph in there. Council Member Low asked if that is common practice to have it put in the ordinance. City Attorney Montes stated that city staff will be coming forward with development fee updates and they will be submitting to the Council for consideration an in-lieu fee for public art. It's typical for cities to have public art requirements, or in lieu an alternative option where instead of building a piece of public art as part of your 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 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. 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 are going to come to visit and then it becomes speculative, it's an unknown number. We have the existing ordinance as guidelines and I can see a potential of an occasional, we don't have enough parking whether it's the commercial or residential parking. Mr. Lewin suggests that clarification be put in the ordinance because staff would also have the discretion to reduce the parking requirement if it felt that there is more than necessary. This would act as some sort of a cover; it would provide for the extra parking as a buffer for the residential or a more successful commercial use. Mayor Taylor stated that every developer is going to want less parking. City Manager Allred stated that Mr. Lewin is asking that the Planning Commission review 17.84 in the code. Mr. Lewin reiterated to consider having modified parking requirement for commercial use in mixed-used developments. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that the theory on mixed-use is that you are taking cars off the streets. The way that staff is setting these standards for parking requirements is making residential specific and commercial specific. Which in theory, if mixed-use works there should be more than enough parking available in these projects. On the previous General Plan we had the main arterial corridors, mixed-use proposals and the theory there was going to be a lot less cars in the streets and reduction of cars. If we follow the current guideline based on the traffic analysis and parking requirements, if the theory holds, there should be enough parking. If a developer decides to take a density bonus, one to pick is the reduction of parking, and felt that it would not affect the need of 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 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 have the parking requirements to begin with. Mayor Taylor asked if there are other commercial businesses along that south side. Mr. Randolph replied they are all M zoned on that side and asked the council to consider changing it back to M-1 zone so he may have tenants rent there. Council Member Clark asked if the tenants are having trouble getting permits from the city. Mr. Randolph replied that most of his tenants want to use it as an auto shop. Mrs. Bermejo stated that it's currently zoned at C-3 medium commercial. Mayor Taylor stated that on the south side of the area it's zoned as C-3 and there would be a dilemma in pulling out a single property and spot zoning it. Mr. Randolph suggested that the zoning from that area be changed back to M-1 because some of the stores are M-1 property already. Mayor Taylor asked staff to review and look into the businesses, if they are not commercial and also maybe some properties have been grandfathered or if the businesses have been there for years before it was changed to C-3. City Manager Allred suggested that Mr. Randolph meet with Mrs. Bermejo and Mr. Wong and talk about it. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked how long this area has been zone as C-3. Community Development Director Wong stated that it had been zone C-3 probably since the late 1980's. Mayor Pro Tem 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 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 Planning Commission made several revisions to the draft regulations that were prepared by staff. Instead 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-conforming for the purposes of Administrative co-location. The Planning Commission also clarified 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 Planning Commission adopted Resolution 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 be 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 Armenta, 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 Absent: None City Council recessed for a short break at 8:52 p.m. and reconvened back at 9:00 p.m. 7. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes 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. B. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2010 - 25 Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of April 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 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 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. Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the Quarterly Interim Financial Update report and the Treasurer's Report. E. Quitclaim Deed to Manheim Investments, Inc. 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: 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,; Authorize the City Manager to sign the quitclaim deed for the parcel. Request for Traff ic 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 Apri127, 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 Absent: None G. City Street Sweeping Services - Award Contract At its February 23, 2010 meeting, the City Council approved specifications 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 both the 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 Gentry - expressed support 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 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. 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 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: 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 Taylor stated 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 other city expenses such as Parks & Recreations, new swimming pools, and 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 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 staffs 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 April 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 approved by Council and Commission back in October to use RDA tax increment monies or bond proceeds. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked if there was any way to shift this to any other set aside funds. City Manager Allred stated the obtained bids that comeback for an award we would make it very clear as to what funding source we would recommend at that time. Some issues are relative to the project area proximity. , Mayor Taylor stated that at this time it was redevelopment money. Mr. Director Marcarello replied that was what the Commission and Council approved. Mayor Taylor stated that $5.7 million could be used towards rebuilding new pools. At this time he cannot support it. Council Member Armenta commented that residents have complimented positively on the Walnut Grove over pass and are proud of the changes in the City of Rosemead. The benefits outweigh the negatives. Mayor Taylor stated that Walnut Grove did look nice but so far nobody has come up with $19 million for items that staff reported to Council; or some of the play equipment that are in the parks. Council Member Clark stated that it wasn't $19 million that it was going to cost to fix the park. Mayor Taylor replied its $11 million to fix the two pools and when you go through the list 12-14 priority items to be done in phase one. I don't know of some of the things that were proposed to be done right now, if it's claimed that we don't have the money. 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 Taylor commented 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 go out to bid 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 15t, that's a four month process. Mayor Taylor asked what report said to look into July 15t. Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott replied staff brought council the concerns regarding the playground in March with the list that address the severe nature of the playgrounds. In addition we've had our own manufacturing company come out and inspect those, and they express some concerns that need to be changed out as quickly and if monetarily feasible. In regards to bbq's and smaller 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 different park sites and replacing those specific amenities and that will be part of an annual plan to do that. Council Member Low asked if staff can look into the list on 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 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, and 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's along the median; if they get access to the metro link line. Otherwise, they would be forced to do it on the north or south 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. 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 Tern Ly stated that it was a big concern for them right now, they are still trying to figure out all the schematics; it's very conceptual right now. His concern is that it does not run along the south or north side of the 10 freeway because that's where it would have a lot of impact. Mayor Taylor agreed with Mr. Ly but stated that the bureaucracy moves in a strange way when you get into the rail road that actually controls that line portion there. I don't know; who will end up with the ultimate authority. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he just wants to show the support of the 10 freeway alignment because it does work by only aligning the median and have a lesser impact on the community. Council Member Low asked Mr. Ly how Council can influence that decision. Mayor Pro Tem Ly replied that there is a High Speed Rail Authority Committee and the chairman is the mayor of Anaheim, Curt Pringle. 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: 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 the opportunity to complete the "Mayor's Appointments for 2010-2011" form listing each individual's preference for the particular committees and boards. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Mayor's Appointments for 2010-2011. Mayor Taylor stated that there was need to go back and straighten out some discrepancies on some of the committee appointments. The following appointments were made: League of California Cities: Delegate: Sandra Armenta Alternate: Steven Ly California Contract Cities Association Delegate: Sandra Armenta Alternate: Steven Ly LA County Sanitation District Delegate: Gary Taylor Alternate: Margaret Clark SGV Council of Governments Delegate: Margaret Clark Alternate: Steven Ly So. California JPIA Delegate: Gary Taylor 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 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 committee's time and dates of meetings and which ones are still active. 10. COMMENTS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL 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. Nancy Eng to remind everyone that the Planning Commission applications are due May 11, 2010. Council Member Armenta suggested that the meeting should be adjourned in Memory of the two 19 year old teenagers who passed away in a train accident. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m. in memory of Mr. Gallardo and Mr. 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 ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2010 Page 23 of 23 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the minutes of April 27, 2010 were duly and regularly approved by the Rosemead City Council on the 8m of June 2010, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Armenta, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: Clark ~ CA Gloria Molleda City Clerk