HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcm_02242010 1 CITY OF UKIAH PLANNING COMMISSION
2 February 24, 2010
3 Minutes
4
5 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
6 Judy Pruden, Chair None
7 Anne Molgaard, Vice Chair
8 Linda Helland
9 Linda Sanders
10 Mike Whetzel
11
12 STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
13 Kim Jordan, Senior Planner Listed below, Respectively
14 Jennifer Faso, Associate Planner
15 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
16
17 1. CALL TO ORDER
18 The regular meeting of the City of Ukiah Planning Commission was called to order by
19 Chair Pruden at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue,
20 Ukiah, California.
21
22 2. ROLL CALL
23
24 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
25
26 4. SITE VISIT VERIFICATION
27
28 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— February 10, 2010- Deferred to next regular meeting.
29
30 6. COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS- None.
31
32 7. APPEAL PROCESS-There are no appealable items on this agenda.
33
34 8. VERIFICATION OF NOTICE- Item 9A was properly noticed in accordance with the UMC.
35
36 9. PUBLIC HEARING
37 9A. Downtown Zoning Code Workshop Review and Discussion of Revised Section 10: Tree
38 Standards and Tree Preservation and Section 11: Circulation
39
40 Additional written comments were received from Judy Pruden, Pinky Kushner, and Kerri Vau. Pinky
41 Kushner in her e-mails of December 1, 2009 and February 24, 2010.
42
43 Senior Planner Jordan presented a staff report.
44
45 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 6:09 p.m.
46
47 Section 11: Circulation Standards
48 Item E. Streets, E1- Required Street Extensions
49
50 Questions of Staff:
51 1. If the street extensions are allowed to go in, how much could the ability to attract anchor buildings
52 in these area be compromised even though anchor buildings the size of Wal-Mart are highly unlikely?
53 Are anchor buildings really important in the Downtown area?
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2010
Page 1
1 2. When considering the Hospital Drive Extension shown as a straight line on the Circulation Map,
2 how should the required acreage necessary for a new Courthouse in this area be factored into the
3 process?
4
5 Staff response:
6 1. The intent of this Code section is not to preclude larger developments and/or some kind of anchor
7 tenant, but rather conveys that a street(s) is required if these associated parcels are to be
8 redeveloped. If a developer does not want to comply with the required street extension standard or
9 any of the other DZC standards, an Exception to modify the standard can be requested. The Code is
10 essentially letting the developer know the community prefers smaller blocks in order to encourage
11 walkability and bicycling.
12 2. Review of circulation standards and street extensions is not related to the Courthouse project. The
13 Courthouse is a State project and not subject to City requirements. At this time, the State has not
14 approved this site for a new courthouse. Until the courthouse has been approved by the State and is
15 under construction, the DZC needs to address this site. The DZC is a long range planning document
16 and needs to address how the community would like to see this area develop.
17
18 John Lazaro, Railroad Center Property Owner:
19 ■ He and Kerry Vau own the property at the Railroad Center adjacent to the creek.
20 ■ The proposed pedestrian pathway being considered as depicted on the Circulation Map
21 shows the path going through the Railroad Center driveway and possibly a portion of the
22 building. The property is fully developed. The driveway is one lane, particularly where it
23 meets Mason Street.
24 ■ Is opposed to having a public path go through his parking lot. It creates a dangerous situation
25 with conflict between backing vehicles and bicycles and pedestrians using the driveway. Is
26 already experiencing trespass situations with pedestrians, bicyclists, and skateboarders in
27 the parking lot.
28 ■ The path could also negatively impact the existing landscape that was a condition of approval
29 for the building remodel that occurred in 2006/07.
30 ■ From a business perspective, he is concerned about property value in the event the property
31 is sold. Having a public pathway going through his property would reduce the property's
32 value.
33 ■ Would like to know what triggers the requirement for the path to be installed.
34 ■ Who will pay the cost of the pathway and the necessary street/sidewalk
35 improvements/infrastructure improvements? Depending on the location of the path, a
36 retaining wall may also be necessary, which would be costly.
37 ■ Recommends the pathway be constructed by the City on the west side of creek on Mason
38 Street.
39
40 Kerry Vau, Railroad Center Property Owner:
41 ■ Is also concerned with how the pathway would affect her property, property value, possible
42 future site/street improvements and corresponding costs to the property owner should the
43 property be sold, the use change whereby site improvements may be necessary to
44 accommodate the new use that could trigger infrastructure improvements.
45 ■ The project is essentially a 'taking' away of property value.
46 ■ Is opposed to a public pathway through her property. Supports construction of a pathway on
47 the west side of the Gibson Creek allowing for some kind of a nexus/link to a sidewalk
48 whereby such improvements would be necessary that could include a retaining wall.
49
50 Commission:
51 ■ Discussion that a pathway would be an aesthetic enhancement for the area and review of
52 alternative options/measures/possible reconfigurations to provide for pedestrian safety and
53 Creek protection. With regard to future improvements and costs, it was also pointed out that if
54 the Railroad Center property was sold and redeveloped that this would be the point where the
55 DZC circulation standards would be applicable.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2010
Page 2
1 ■ The DZC document essentially pertains to future planning and not what currently exists.
2 Having a pathway on the west side of the Creek with improved landscaping in the creek area
3 and a sidewalk would certainly be an asset to the community because the current situation is
4 an eyesore.
5
6 Staff:
7 ■ The path should not considered a legal 'taking' of the property, but rather viewed as a
8 planning requirement suggesting that in order to further the goals identified in the Charrettes
9 the community would like to see this particular circulation pattern. A taking is a legal
10 determination. The City already requires certain frontage improvements as part of the
11 development of property and the path may be considered similar to a frontage improvement.
12
13 ■ Commission needs to provide direction as to removing the path from the location shown on
14 the circulation plan or relocating the path to the opposite side of the creek as requested by
15 the property owners.
16
17 Commission:
18 ■ The pathway was not `casually' drawn on the Circulation Map. The community has expressed
19 an interest in having a pedestrian pathway in this area.
20 ■ Discussion about how improvements would get funded. Certain improvements are required
21 for projects as part of the street frontage improvement requirements for a new project.
22 ■ Look at what other types of funding options are available.
23
24 Staff:
25 ■ How the improvements are funded is a policy question for City Council. Planning Commission
26 can provide comment and recommendations on how the improvements could be funded.
27 ■ Currently, the Ukiah Municipal Code includes requirements for frontage improvements that
28 are triggered by a certain level of improvements to the property - more than 1/3 of the
29 appraised value of the property.
30 ■ The sale of the property with no improvements would not trigger street frontage
31 improvements. Additionally, if a property owner wanted to make some type of minor
32 improvement to property less than 1/3 of the appraised value of the property would not trigger
33 street frontage improvements. Improvements can be made to property that does not trigger
34 having to make street frontage improvements and paying the costs thereof.
35 ■ In many communities, street frontage improvements are typically considered part of the cost
36 of development.
37
38 Commission preference: The pathway should be located on the west side of Gibson Creek, provide
39 for increased landscaping and a sidewalk that would connect with the existing sidewalk on E. Perkins
40 Street.
41
42 Bruni Kobbe:
43 ■ Is concerned with preservation of the Creek in the event a retaining wall or other type of
44 restoration element is being considered that could disrupt the Creek.
45 ■ Gibson Creek in this location is good shape at this stage and that any improvement be
46 carefully considered to avoid damage to the creek.
47 ■ In terms of the Hospital Drive Extension, she is concerned that Gibson Creek could be
48 impacted with an extension of this street. Does not see the need for such an extension.
49 ■ How will the Creek be protected if the Courthouse project moves forward?
50 ■ If there was a need for an extension, would the street continue in a straight line or curve to
51 possibly connect with Leslie Street?
52
53 Commission: The Courthouse project is not under the purview of City requirements.
54
55 Staff:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2010
Page 3
1 ■ If the Hospital Drive Extension area is to be redeveloped, there has to be appropriate access
2 and circulation for the site, and street frontage for proposed development.
3 • From a safety and circulation standpoint, it is important to have street/street extensions
4 connecting with an existing intersection. Extending Stephenson Street or Church Street over
5 the railroad tracks to connect with Leslie Street is not an option because it is not possible to
6 obtain additional crossings of the railroad tracks from the PUC.
7 ■ The extension of Clay Street over the railroad tracks requires approval from the PUC, which
8 may or may not be possible. If the PUC does not approve the crossing of the railroad tracks,
9 Clay Street would become two separate segments. The west side of the railroad tracks
10 extending to Main Street would be an improved section of an existing street that would
11 include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. The extension from the east side of the
12 railroad tracks to connect with Leslie Street would be a new street. The improved street
13 section on the west side of the tracks would create pedestrian facilities in this area. The new
14 extension of Clay Street on the east side of the tracks would create improved circulation for
15 the area, provide an alternative to the intersection of Perkins and Orchard, provide pedestrian
16 and/or bike circulation in this area, and provide the street frontage necessary for development
17 and the desired grid block pattern.
18
19 Commission:
20 ■ Discussion about the Hospital Drive Extension to the extension of Clay Street as shown on
21 the Circulation Map with the understanding that an extension over the tracks may not be
22 possible.
23 ■ Discussion concerning possibilities that are available for the Hospital Drive Extension to
24 appropriately align with Hospital Drive so to comply with the circulation standards and still
25 provide for adequate access and circulation. The extension does not necessarily have to be a
26 straight line from the Hospital Drive intersection, but could curve in some fashion over the
27 creek provided it intersects with Clay Street to the west or somehow parallel closer to the
28 railroad tracks than what is depicted on the Circulation Map.
29 ■ Why not curve the extension toward Leslie Street located to the east allowing for sufficient
30 space for new development since the Railroad Depot is existing to the west as opposed to
31 dividing the parcel and have the extension extend in a straight line as shown on the
32 Circulation Map.
33 ■ It was pointed out that in addition to improving the circulation for motorists having more
34 streets actually encourage walkability and bicycling, and provides for the safety of
35 pedestrians.
36
37 Susan Knopf:
38 ■ Why is the Hospital Drive Extension necessary if it will not extend to Gobbi Street?Why does
39 the community need more streets? The community should support less traffic and encourage
40 walkability and bicycling.
41 ■ Preservation of the Gibson Creek is more important.
42
43 Staff: To address that streets and/or street extension not only improve circulation for motorists and
44 promote walkability, if a commercial or housing development or a mix of these uses were to occur on
45 the Hospital Drive Extension area, it is not feasible to have just a one-way access drive and a
46 pedestrian path. The building or housing units will need access and parking accommodations. If for
47 some reason, a developer does not want to comply with the circulation standards, he/she can apply
48 for an Exception to the requirement.
49
50 Commission: Generally in favor of the Hospital Drive Extension with the exception of Commissioner
51 Sanders so long as sensitivity consideration is given to the Creek.
52
53 Kerry Vau:
54 ■ Perkins Street is well-traveled; it would be worthwhile to alleviate some of the congestion,
55 particularly during peak hours by having the Hospital Drive extension exit on Leslie Street.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2010
Page 4
1 Staff: Alignment of streets in the Hospital Drive Extension/Clay Street Extension area is a topic for
2 discussion by the City Public Works Department to better address safety and effective circulation.
3 More discussion regarding options to the Hospital Drive Extension is necessary. It may be that by
4 then more will be known about the Courthouse project, which could change the scenarios discussed
5 above.
6
7 Commissioner Sanders: It may be important to include text in the document that Gibson Creek is
8 not necessarily an architectural amenity with regard to developments, but also a wildlife corridor
9 having endangered species that use it. The Creek is associated with environmental issues whereby
10 sensitivity should be given to protection of the creek, its banks, and its habitats.
11
12 Staff response: Asked if Commissioner Sanders would assist with crafting language that addresses
13 Gibson Creek in this regard.
14
15 Commission: The code does provide for daylighting of the creek wherever possible.
16
17 Commission recommended changes to text:
18 Page 57, item B. Applicability
19 Change first sentence to read: This section shall apply to the design and construction of a new or
20 reconstructed street, alley, or pedestrian/bike path within the Downtown Zoning Code boundaries
21 shown on the Circulation Map.
22
23 Paqe 60, Special Desiqnations, recommend a terminated vista at the south end of the Hospital Drive
24 extension that terminates at Clay Street.
25
26 Paqe 58, item 2, Recommended Path
27 There was a pedestrian path discussion relevant to the former version concerning pathways in Clay
28 Street, Perkins Street and Main Street areas.
29
30 It was noted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan provides for possible pathways along the
31 railroad right-of-ways.
32
33 Staff: There are sidewalks on Leslie Street and Perkins Street. Sidewalks would be provided for all
34 the street extensions so there would be pedestrian circulation for this area. If there are other
35 pedestrian circulation proposals the Commission would like to see in other areas, staff needs to be
36 informed. Pedestrian pathways should be encouraged where possible.
37
38 Commission Questions:
39 What about a designated pathway that that extends from the former Wendy's restaurant or entrance
40 to the parking lot to the Saving Bank of Mendocino County on E. Perkins Street that runs parallel to
41 the hospital complex on Hospital Drive?
42 ➢ There is a well-established foot path that people use on the back side of Lucky's grocery
43 store and other businesses in the Pear Tree Shopping Center that extends down the back
44 side of the hospital complex.
45
46 ➢ For purposes of future development and planning, the Commission expressed a preference
47 to provide for a pedestrian pathway(s) extending from Wendy's parking lot to connect with the
48 established path on the back side of Lucky's grocery store and continue to connect to the
49 medical complexes on Hospital Drive.
50
51 ➢ The Commission discussed other pathway options in the vicinity of Hospital Drive and E.
52 Perkins, such as the former Sizzler building, but due to constraints such as fencings, trees,
53 and/or issues, this would not be possible at this time for future development unless the
54 parcels change as a result of development. In reality, what is the most feasible area for a
55 pathway?
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2010
Page 5
1 ➢ If it is not feasible to provide for a pathway, why not require that if the parcels in this area are
2 developed/redeveloped a pedestrian path that connects with Hospital Drive be provided? In
3 this way, it would not limit the path to a specific property, but could be required of the property
4 that develops first.
5
6 Commission Preference:
7 Require a dedicated pedestrian pathway in the area of Hospital Drive behind Lucky's relevant to
8 some kind of future development project that changes the parcels and allows for a pathway as part of
9 the project.
10
11 Section 10: Tree Standards and Tree Preservation
12 Paqe 50, Table 18: Trees Required to be Preserved:
13 Chair Pruden for DC and UC Districts provided a list of trees she recommends for preservation and
14 retention since these trees are noted for their maturity, local prominence, aesthetic appeal and/or
15 environmental value and are located in the public right-of-way, Gibson Creek drainage, County
16 property and privately owned commercial areas. These trees are referred to as Landmark trees.
17
18 It was noted the tree list and corresponding criteria is subjective.
19
20 Commission:
21 ■ The City currently has a street ordinance that governs the cutting and care/maintenance of
22 street trees in the public right-of-way. There is a newer version that has not been adopted.
23 ■ Trees in City parking lots and other trees in the public right-of-way are overseen by the City
24 Public Works and/or Parks/Recreation Departments that follow protocol/policies for the care
25 and maintenance thereof.
26
27 Staff: Does the Commission have an interest in identifying trees of a certain species and size having
28 an undisclosed location to be protected? These trees may be too small to qualify at this point, but, for
29 instance, in five years if a development project was proposed, they would meet the criteria of a
30 protected tree.
31
32 Commissioner Molgaard: What is the difference between protected trees, landmark trees, and
33 heritage trees? It appears that landmark trees are protected trees, but that all protected trees are not
34 landmark trees. What if the community and Council agree on an ordinance that incorporates the
35 acceptable standards for protected trees, why would a landmark tree category be necessary?
36
37 Staff: A protected tree is a very general term that informs the community that a specific tree species
38 is to be protected and cannot be removed with going through some type of review process. If such
39 trees are on a particular site and there is a development project proposed, the developer is required
40 to show the location of these trees as part of the project on the site plan and the intent is to
41 incorporate the trees into the project.
42
43 Chair Pruden: Referred to her definition of what elements constitute a landmark tree, noting the trees
44 listed must meet the required criteria. A landmark tree by City standards would essentially require a
45 higher level of review.
46
47 Commission Question: Should protected trees be reviewed by Planning staff and landmark trees be
48 reviewed by the Planning Commission?
49
50 Staff: The criteria that define a landmark tree may differ from person to person unlike a protected tree
51 that identifies a tree according to size and species. Some communities have different categories for
52 protected trees, landmark trees and heritage trees each having a different designation process.
53
54 Commission Preference: The Planning Commission should have authority for some level of review
55 when it comes to decisions about landmark and/or protected trees.
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2010
Page 6
1 There was discussion regarding the protected trees examples from selected cities.
2
3 Bruni Kobbe: Supports a less complicated process.
4
5 Item 3, Replacement trees and item 4, Exceptions subsections A-C:
6 Commission recommendation: Add subsection D, Damage to the Foundation of a Building.
7
8 Staff response: If a site is chosen for development that has trees on the protected list where a site
9 plan indicates most trees would be removed, staff would recommend that the applicant submit a
10 preliminary review application for Planning Commission review and comment. It may be that the
11 project cannot be constructed without removing some or all of the trees. The Commission would have
12 an opportunity to weigh the merits of the project versus the retention of the trees, including the
13 possibility of providing replacement trees as part of the project or some other alternative as
14 determined by the Commission.
15
16 The Commission approved of the protected tree examples from the City of Petaluma with the
17 following modifications:
18 1. Change 4 inches DBH to 5 inches DBH for the Oak trees species.
19 2. Change 12 inch DBH to 8 inches DBH for the California Bay.
20 3. Change 18 inch DBH to 12 inches DBH for California or Coast Redwood.
21 4. Replace landmark tree for heritage trees as approved by City Council Resolution as per Title
22 of the Ukiah Municipal Code.
23 5. Add Cork Oak and White Oak species with 5 DBH inches.
24
25 Commission: Questioned the definition of what constitutes groves or strands of trees.
26
27 Staff response: Will conduct some research in this regard for Commission review.
28
29 Commission Question: To qualify as a landmark tree, it must comply with the five criteria. How will
30 landmark tree be treated in the City and on private property?
31
32 Commission preference: The City will designate all of its own landmark trees and such trees on
33 private property will be designated as voluntary for the City and DZC District boundaries. Property
34 owners can come forward and ask to have their trees designated as landmark.
35
36 Staff: To emphasize the importance of a landmark tree: There may be an important tree that is not
37 any of the protected tree species, but is very important in the community and located on private
38 property. Should a landmark tree be designated mandatory or voluntary?
39
40 Commission: It may beneficial to start at the voluntary level.
41
42 Staff: Do the trees in table 18 meet the definition of a landmark tree? For those that do, would the
43 Planning Commission have an interest in designating those trees as landmark trees as part of the
44 DZC process and if so, to identify those trees.
45
46 Commission:
47 ■ Table 18 contains some incorrect information. For example, there is no Holly Oak in front of
48 the Courthouse. The Courthouse has two grandiflora Magnolias that should be designated as
49 landmark trees and have been in existence since the late 1800s. These trees are located on
50 private property of the Courthouse. There are also two tulip Magnolias at the Courthouse.
51 ■ All trees on the Courthouse block should be designated as landmark trees.
52 ■ Eliminate Crape Myrtle from Table 18.
53 ■ Eliminate Camphor from Table 18.
54
55 Commissioner Sanders recommended adding the following trees to Table 18, most of which are
56 Redwood Trees and Oak Trees, provided they meet the tree preservation criteria:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2010
Page 7
1 1. E. Perkins Street — (1) Oak Tree — located between Dagon's Lair and the Wild West
2 barbeque restaurant next door(private property).
3 2. E. Perkins Street- (4) Redwood Trees- Former Wendy's site (private property).
4 3. E. Perkins Street- (2) Oak Trees- Rainbow Agriculture retail store (private property).
5 4. E. Perkins Street across from Wendy's— 1 (Elm)- Realty World (private property).
6 5. Main Street— 3 (Valley Oak) —one at 320 N. Main Street and two at 324 N. Main Street near
7 Gibson Creek (private property).
8 6. 220 Mason Street—(1) Giant Sequoia.
9 7. Oak Street area — (1) Cork Oak & (1) Redwood at the Saturday Afternoon Club and (1)
10 Redwood across the street.
11 8. Courthouse block—(2) Dawn Redwoods, not on the existing list.
12 9. There is a significant tree on Norton Street that could be included in the future in the event
13 the DZC boundaries are expanded.
14 10. 216 W. Henry Street, Foundation for Medical Care, (6) Redwood trees (private property).
15
16 Staff: Planning staff will revise Table 18 to incorporate Commissioner Sanders and Chair Pruden's
17 list of recommendations for the review by the Commission.
18
19 There may be situations where the requirements for tree preservation would conflict with the building
20 setback requirement since most zoning districts require a zero front lot line. Does the Commission
21 want to allow an increase in setbacks in order for a project to comply with the tree protection
22 requirements or would the Commission prefer to require a Minor or Major Exception from the setback
23 and/or tree preservation requirements?
24
25 Commission:
26 Table 7: Private Frontage Types that illustrates the various frontage types allowed by the DZC for the
27 GU, UC and DC zones. Item b, Forecourt is an allowed frontage type where it shows shifting of
28 landscaping to accommodate this frontage type. It may possible to shift the setback requirements to
29 accommodate the protected tree(s).
30
31 Staff: In my experience, forecourts are not that common a frontage type. The most common frontage
32 type is usually the shopfront/awning.
33
34 Commission preference: If there is a protected tree located in the setback and compliance with the
35 tree protected tree requirements would result in the building not complying with the setback
36 requirement, the process should be a Major Exception from Planning Commission so that the
37 Commission can determine the priority of preserving the tree or complying with the building setback
38 requirement.
39
40 Recommended changes to text:
41 Paqe 48. A. Purpose:
42 The last sentence to read: The City is committed to planting new trees as well as protecting existing
43 trees to the greatest extent "possible."
44
45 Paqe 48, Item C: Tree Preservation
46 Third sentence to read: These trees have been identified by the community as worthy of preservation
47 based on one or more of the following characteristics.
48
49 Paqe 48, Item C1: Development Proiects
50 Add language to C1a to address the posting of signs in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ).
51
52 Paqe 48. Item C1(c)
53 Strike redundant text, `shall meet.'
54
55 Paqe 48. Item 2, Tree Protection Requirements
56 2(a)1, include language about `TPZ signs posted.'
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2010
Page 8
1 Paqe 49. Item 4(a). Emerqencv Situations
2 Commission asked that the language be `tightened up' because they did not necessarily agree that
3 the City of Ukiah should not be notified prior to removal of a protected tree during an emergency
4 situation.
5
6 Page 56, Reauired Riparian Trees, Table 24
7 Add - California Bay
8
9 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:17 p.m.
10
11 10. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
12 Senior Planner Jordan reported on Commissioner Molgaard's inquiry about the trellises on the Rite
13 Aid building and why there are no vines growing on them. Staff's research indicates the trellises were
14 intended to be decorative in nature as part of the architectural design. Since Planning Commission
15 did not include a condition of approval that required vines to be planted and grow up the trellises and
16 the approved plans did not show any plants growing on/up the trellis, the applicant/owner cannot be
17 required to provide plantings to grow up/climb the trellises.
18
19 11. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
20 Brief discussion about whether to meet March 10.
21
22 12. ADJOURNMENT
23 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
24
25
26 Judy Pruden, Chair
27
28 Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2010
Page 9