1987 02 18 CC7> AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LA QUINTA
A adjourned regular meeting of the City
Council to be held at City Hall, 78-105
Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.
February 18, 1987 7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Flag Salute.
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Council on
matters relating to City business. When addressing the Council,
please state your name and address. The proceedings of the
Council meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person
shall be limited to three 3) minutes.
Persons wishing to address the Council regarding an Agenda item
should use the form provided. Please complete one form for each
Agenda item you intend to address and return the form to the
Secretary prior to the beginning of the meeting. NOTE: Except
for hearings, comments relative to items on the Agenda are
hearings, comments relative to items on the Agenda are
limited to two 2) minutes. Your name will be called at
the appropriate time.
5. COMMENT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
6. HEARINGS
7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
8. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Data Processing Master Plan Proposal Arthur Young & Co.
1) Motion to authorize work and accept proposal.
B. Study Session Items decisions may be made on items from
yesterday's study session, which are):
1) Infrastructure Fee Program.
2) Community Services Commission.
a. Structure, goals & policies.
b. Community Service Grant program.
3) Citizen's Advisory Committee A Proposal.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>AGENDA City Council
February 18, 1987
Page Two.
C. Discussion Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Retreat.
1) Motion to set date for joint retreat.
D. Sphere of Influence Program-Status Report. Planning
Director)
1) Motion to authorize the City Manager to make
application on behalf of the City.
9. COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. Minutes or Reports)
A. Community Services Commission Minutes. 01-26-87)
B. Planning Commission Minutes. 02-09-87 Mtg. Cancelled)
10. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes, City Council. February 3, 1987)
B. RESOLUTION NO. 87-9. APPROVING DEMANDS.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 87-10. ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY NO-PARKING
ZONES. L.Q. ARTS FESTIVAL)
1) Motion to adopt Consent Calendar. ROLL CALL)
11. REPORT OF OFFICERS
A. City Manager
B. City Attorney
1) Regulation of pit bull dogs.
2) Resolution 87-11. Adopting Rules of Procedure for
Council Meetings and Related Functions and
Activities.
C. Administrative Services Director.
1) Senior Center Activity Report January, 1987.
D. Community Safety Director
1) Update Traffic Enforcement/Miles Avenue.
2) Community Safety Activity Report Jan., 1987.
E. Finance Director
1) Financial Report January, 1987.
F. Planning Director
Possible Executive Session)
12. ADJOURNMENT
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> *.A.
DATE AGENDAITEM#
MEMORANDUM /APP*OvED DEt*1ED
CITY OF LA QUINTA oCONTINUED TO
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
From: RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER**
Date: February 12, 1987
Subject: DATA PROCESSING MASTER PLAN
One of the recommendations of the Ralph Anderson Management
Study was that the City implement a master plan of its Data
Processing needs and utilization.
The staff has reviewed several firms which provide this service
and selected a firm to submit a proposal to the City which has an
outstanding reputation for a quality product. The firm, Arthur
Young, has the resources to blend the various knowledges and skills
to bring a plan for fully utilizing our current information system
and to bring recommendations for enhancing the system's capability to
the City.
The project work plan on pages two and three of the attached
proposal defines the scope of work which we have agreed should be
accomplished during the project. Specific recommendations and an
action plan will be the result of this project.
Arthur Young proposes a fee of between $11,000. and $13,600. for
their fees and expenses for this service.
The staff recommends that the Council authorize the work and
accept Arthur Young's proposal.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> RESOLUTION NO. 87-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-26 RELATING TO COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE FEES.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta,
California, adopted Resolution No. 85-26, establishing a community
infrastructure fee policy; and
WHEREAS, said policy approved the infrastructure fee study;
and;
WHEREAS, the infrastructure fee study recommended fees on new
development; and
WHEREAS, the current analysis of the infrastructure fee
revenues indicate that sufficient revenues to implement the
program are not being generated; and
WHEREAS, the infrastructure fee currently charged is less
than the recommended fee in the 1985 report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and desirable to
annually review and revise its infrastructure fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of La Quinta, California, to hereby amend and revise Section
2 of Resolution No. 85-26 to read as follows:
2. Community Infrastructure Fee olicy. Amount. Prior to
approval of any zoning, rezoning, subdivision, or development
proposal, the applicant shall pay or agree to pay a Community
Infrastructure Fee in the following amount for the following
type development:
a. Residential
b. Commercial, Industrial and all other non-residential.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>RESOLUTION NO. 87-8
The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building or other
similar permits and shall be based on the permit valuation at that
time.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1987.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY MANAGER/CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
I'
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> EXHIBIT *A'*
INFRASTRUCTURE FEE POLICY AMENDMENT OPTIONS
OPTION NO. 1
A. Residential An amount equal to 1 1/2% of the
building permit valuation for each dwelling or
structure with a maximum fee of $2,000.00.
This fee to be increased based upon the following
schedule:
1) On July 1, 1987, fee to be 2.0% with a $4,000
maximum.
2) On Jan. 1, 1988, fee to be 2.5% with a $5,000
maximum.
3) On July 1, 1988, fee to be 3.0% with a $6,000
maximum.
OPTION NO. 2
1) On July 1, 1987, fee to be 2.25% with a $4,000
maximum.
2) On Jan. 1, 1988, fee to be 2.75% with a $5,000
maximum.
3) On July 1, 1988, fee to be 3.0% with a $6,000
maximum.
OPTION NO. 3
1) On July 1, 1987, fee to be 2.25% with a $4,000
maximum.
2) On Jan. 1, 1988, fee to be 3.0% with a $6,000
maximum.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> *. *. 5)
DATE AGENDA ITEM #
*PPROVED DEl*iED
oCONTINUED TO______________
I
I.. I:J i F:5L 1 i * L I t: j t;i.
t t**L'*: * * j *t: t rj * I iT
Fl 3. i*;t, ic *. * I * I ICC: C2(...,:-i*'.i 3
f I I I.i***;.:... *cI I I *Tl*i 3. i I I I I \*#;Ii.;:' I:C,:yi I
Fl. i iI i C.. I: 1;. 3 1; 1 CYC.:' U:. I i.- C' U C 1.-il t*..........1 1
C
I I I ii l I*.*' C.....
I I * I I i I I............(.1(1 I: I I
iii I * I I F I
I; I I r*I I * F I I-*.............................II......i(
t
f iC..;-3C* s-cl--F ff1111 I I Ill.-. U CC I.: CC CC 11-C
j.....................C...........................................................................F
CII................CCI i* I I- I L*CFC Cf I.: C fl CU I: I I I ilUl...
I jC 1.-ICCI- I*Ii CfICI; I I
I I I( l I IC ff C. I I-i* 3 I I C;::. f-C 4.3 I. CC 7
C*I..(iYIlI A..: 3 A..................I 1f1*(*C C;.............I I F I I I
1; I-. C:.:' 3 i* i*.C II I iii I ii V* A.........................V
I... c:C(TfC(.IC.*.1I.L A I * CII'III I I III I C*'C*.' C ICC I; l I t * * ICC 1 C*1;.YII.1*1.1V*
1.. IC. f*CC I. I CI 3 I*I If I* * * III II I A + I I +
ill I 1::..3. CCi lUCY
I III ICC cIc;,*CU,CC LI-f C.......3. 1 1;:.(I;:; AU I-Il CC 1 * 1 C.'
I * C I.:C.CY*\i
Ii
*iiUU, t*CC 1 I liii i13 Ci U*'I FUC:, 1 c*c..-:. I.: I I 3.1771 CI.: 71 1. I*.1 Ci CYCYC.U.U'CUI IC. A A; I*i is- f.'.C*
I: CC CIi.CiI..I CI 3 I
I f If 3 1;.
1 l * I 13. c* I.
Ii IUC(-C%CI(LI.I...I 3. 1.:*C I-i CC C
CU: I * I; i
C C
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>t h ** * 4; **5**:-; *J 1- b *.- i- n * C c U nc j.1----- *i *y-f ** t 1 s 1 4 *--- C' b- *
1 1 * *-
CIV-*'*C; 1npi**' 1 *-*: *ni-
z.5 * 1 * n * I * C' *v-'*' 1 nI'-- * * I t 17-I: I
tC' th* I j$
I I i I I 1 * 1; 1 1 * I- I* vt I I * I I * I 1 l I I-------
1?*IIi I * I I I I IC * I I I 11 I I I" l*1 I II I I * I. I
1.1 I I III I I r- 1 j 4 I IllifI I L I 1 1 1' * I I. I I i I t l II
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> AGENDA ITEM
MEMORANDUM *IT:OVED D*ED
oCONTINUED TO___________
CITY OF LA QUINTA
I*-*
REPORT
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
FROM: Murrel Crump, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence Program; Status Report
BACKGROUND
In May of 1985, an agreement was reached with the City of Indio
regarding common boundary lines for future Spheres of Influence. One
year later, a formal document signing took place.
In February of 1986, the Coachella City Council adopted, by
Resolution, a similar agreement for boundaries with La Quinta. The
La Quinta City Council reciprocated on September 2, 1986, by adoption
of Resolution No. 86-73, setting forth future boundaries and a
holding area for future planning purposes) between the two Cities.
The Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission LAFCO) is the
agency empowered by State Statute to officially recognize and
establish future planning areas and lands for logical ultimate
annexation between Cities. An application to this agency is required
to begin this adoptive process.
PURSUIT OF OFFICIAL SPHERE DESIGNATION
Implied by the attainment of these agreements with neighboring
eastern communities, was a desire on the part of the City to have
this future planning area formally recognized. Staff has assembled
much of the information required for the LAFCO application, and
subject to Council confirmation, will finalize the submittal package.
The next task for Staff would be to distribute an opinion survey to
some 61 effected property owners and to begin an environmental review
and comment period. A completed application could be delivered to
LAFCO the second week of March.
I
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>REPORT CITY COUNCIL
February 12, 1983
Page 2.
COUNCIL ACTION
Should the City Council wish Staff to proceed with this matter, the
City Manager should be 50 instructed, by minute motion, and
authorized to make application on behalf of the City.
Atch: Map of Proposed Sphere Area
CCMEMO7
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> *.A.
DATE AGENDAITEM*
N I N UT ES A*PROVED DE*flED
oCONTINUED TO
LA QUINTA COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
A regular meeting of the La Quinta Community
Community Services Commission held at City
Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California.
January 26, 1987 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Moran called the La Quinta Community Services
Commission meeting to order at 7:06 p.m., and led the Commission
in the salute to the flag.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Commission Members Barrows, Beck, Rothschild, Jaf fy,
Pina and Chairman Moran.
Absent: Commission Member Griffiths.
Also Present:City Manager Kiedrowski, Mayor Hoyle, Administrative
Services Director Jennings and Community Services
Specialist Gilstrap.
Moved by Council Member Pina, seconded by Council Member
Beck, to excuse Commission Member Griffiths. Unanimously
adopted.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Andy Vossler, President of the La Quinta Chamber of
Commerce, addressed the Commission regarding 1987-88
Community Service Grants. Mr. Vossler indicated that
the Chamber would be submitting a grant proposal for
Fiscal Year 1987-88 for the same amount as their 1986-87
grant $35,000), and stated that he was present to
answer questions fr6m the Commission.
Commissioner Griffith arrived at 7:13 p.in.
B. Bill Hoyle, Mayor, addressed the Commission and reported
that members of the Council had recently attended a
League of California Cities conference and obtained
ideas relative to formation of a City Special Events
Committee". Mr. Hoyle said the Council had asked him
to present the idea to the Commission, and invited the
Commission to actively pursue special events for
La Quinta.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>MINUTES Community Services Commission
January 26, 1987
Page Two.
Mayor Hoyle indicated that this would involve writing
letters, contacting people, etc., regarding special
events which could be held in La Quinta.
Commissioner Moran indicated that the Commission would
discuss the request, but felt that since the Commission
had not yet determined its own goals, it might be
a procedural concern at this point.
5. COMMISSION/CoMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Commissioners reviewed Council minutes of December 2 and
16, 1986, and January 6, 1987, and the Community
Services Office Report for December, 1986.
6. OLD BUSINESS
A. Moved by Commissioner Rothschild, seconded by Commissioner
Barrows, to approve Commission Minutes of December 15,
1986, as submitted. Unanimously adopted.
B. Commissioner Pina reported that he had not met with the
Sports & Youth Association regarding their prior year 5
request for a $45,000 community services grant. It was
the consensus of the Commission to table this item
until the February 23, 1987, Commission meeting.
C. Commission Reorganization Selection of Vice Chairman.
Chairman Moran opened nominations for Vice-Chairman.
Commissioner Jaf fy nominated Commissioner Rothschild.
Commissioner Beck nominated Commissioner Jaf fy. Ms.
Jaf fy declined, and explained that her schedule does not
permit her to accept further commitments at this time.
There being no further nominations, Chairman Moran closed
the nominations for Vice-Chairman. Vote for Commissioner
Rothschild as Vice-Chairman unanimous.
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. City Manager Ron Kiedrowski presented a report regarding
the City's infrastructure fee program, future capital
improvements and need to reanalyze the current fee program.
Mr. Kiedrowski explained that this issue would be presented
to the City Council in the very near future.
B. Moved by Commissioner Jaf fy, seconded by Commissioner Beck,
to nominate Chairman Moran and Commissioner Rothschild as
the Commission's representatives on the planning committee
for the City's 5th Birthday Celebration. Unanimously
adopted.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>MINUTES Community Services Commission
January 26, 1987
Page Three.
C. Chairman Moran explained that he would invite Mr. Dave
Skeffington, District Manager, and Jacques Abels, member
of the Board of Director of the C.V. Recreation & Park
District, to attend the February meeting and present a
report on park planning and new park development in
La Quinta.
D. The Commission reviewed their goals and priorities for
1987. After discussion, it was the consensus of the
Commission, acting upon a recommendation from Commissioner
Jaf fy, that Staff be directed to obtain community services
commission ordinances from the League of California Cities
and SCAG for Commission review at their February meeting.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Jaffy, seconded by Commissioner Rothschild,
to adjourn. Unanimously adopted.
The regular meeting of the La Quinta Community Services Commission
was adjourned at 9:33 p.m., Monday, January 26, 1987, at City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.
Prepared by: Ann Jennings
Administrative Services Director
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> *,/g1&7
DATE AGENDAIT*M#
APPROVED DEN!ED
oCONTINUED TO
RESOLUTION NO. 87-9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEMANDS.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta,
California, to approve demands as shown on the Demand/Warrant
Register dated February 18, 1987.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of February, 1987.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> /o.c.
D*TE AGENDAITEM*
APPROVED oDENlED
MEMORANDUM CONTINUEDTO_________
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
From.. Roger Hirdler, Community Safety Director
Dale: February 11, 1987
Subject: Adoption of Resolution for Temporary No Parking
The attached resolution is necessary for the Sheriffs Department
to enforce the temporary no parking signs that will be needed for
the La Quinta Arts Festival, March 6, 7, and 8, 1987.
Staff respectfully requests adoption of this resolution.
4
RH:es
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> RESOLUTION NO. 87-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ThE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
CERTAIN TEMPORARY NO-PARKING ZONES ON
AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND 52ND AVENUE
DURING A SPECIAL EVENT TO BE HELD
MARCH 6, 1987, THROUGH MARCH 8, 1987
INCLUSIVE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
La Quinta that pursuant to Section 22507 of the California
Vehicle Code and Section 12.32.010 of the La Quinta Municipal
Code, the following temporary no-parking zones hereby are
established, to be effective during the period of a special event
to be held March 6, 1987, through March 8, 1987,
inclusive:
1. On both sides of Avenida Bermudas, between
52nd Avenue and Calle Barcelona.
2. On both sides of 52nd Avenue, between
Avenida Bermudas and the extension of
Desert Club Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above parking
prohibition shall be in effect at all times during the day or
night when authorized signs are in place giving notice thereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 22651
of the California Vehicle Code and Subsection n) of said
Section 22651, the removal and 1tow away" of vehicles parked or
left standing in violation of the above parking prohibitions,
hereby is authorized, provided that signs shall have been posted
giving notice of the removal.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of March, 1987.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY MANAGER/CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>! DATE AGENDAITEM#
MEMORANDUNI APPROVED oDEMED
CITY OF LA QUINTA oCONTiNUED TO
To: Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council
From: James Longtin, City Attorney
Date: February 4, 1987
Subject: Regulation of Pit Bull Dogs
At its meeting of January 6th, the city council considered a letter
from Mrs. Audrey Marshman requesting legislation banning ownership of
pit bull dogs in the City of La Quinta. In response to this request,
the Council ordered increased patrols by the city' 5 animal control
officer; and directed the city attorney to research and report back
relative to pit bull regulations by other communities. This report
responds to the city council's request.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM.
Mrs. Audrey Marshman, in her letter of December, 1986, states
that she has observed an inordinate number of pit bull dogs in the
city and that she was recently attacked by two pit bulls. Both Mrs.
Marshman and Ron Vreeken, our animal control officer, have observed
pit bulls with weights padlocked around their necks, apparently for
the purpose of strengthening neck muscles for fighting. In 1984, a
child, Warren Miller, was severely bitten by a pit bull in La Quinta,
which is now the subject of personal injury litigation against the
owner. Other than these two incidents, the city is unaware of any
further specific attacks by pit bulls on humans in the city.
Many communities have considered the enactment of legislation
specifically directed at pit bulls, although few have actually passed
such legislation. This issue constitutes a continuing controversy
regarding both 1) the in-bred nature of the pit bull; and 2) the
macho reasons why some owners choose and train pit bulls. According
to the literature, pit bulls have certain tendencies not shared by
dogs in general. These include a) a propensity to bite without the
normal warning of most dogs, such as snarling and baring of teeth;
and b) the propensity to continue the attack by holding on and
clenching the jaws and teeth harder and deeper. The literature also
indicates that persons frequently select pit bull dogs for their
propensities as a fighter and train them as such. Although it is
generally agreed that the above propensities of the animal and the
owners exist, the statistics on the frequency and severity of bites
on humans is inconclusive.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>"Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
Regulation of Pit Bull Dogs
February 4, 1987
Page Two
2. INFORMATION INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES.
I have made letter and telephone inquiries to the Cities of
Cincinnati1 Denver, Riverside, Pomona and Santa Monica and to the
League of California Cities. I have received information from Pomona
and Santa Monica and have had a discussion with the Staff Attorney
for the League of Cities. Additionally, I have received and reviewed
two papers on the subject presented at the National City *
Conference in October, 1986. Also, I have reviewed an article in the
Cincinnati Law Review 1984) and the only reported federal case on
this issue, Starkey v. Township of Chester, PA 1986). Further, I
contacted Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine which
conducted a seminar in July, 1986 regarding propensities of pit
bulls. Apparently, the experts who were present at the seminar were
unanimous in the opinion that, based upon reasonable probability and
the standards of veterinary medicine, one could neither define nor
condemn the entire breed of pit bull dogs. A report of the seminar
is being prepared and the City will be informed when it is ready and
its cost.
3. LEGAL ASPECTS OF REGULATING PIT BULLS OR OTHER SPECIFIC BREEDS
OF DOGS.
Several communities in the U.S. have enacted laws directed
specifically at controlling pit bulls as a breed of dog. No city has
completely prohibited the keeping of pit bulls within city limits,
and one city, San Diego, has concluded that a city cannot totally ban
the mere ownership and possession of pit bulls within its limits.
The communities that have enacted stricter regulations on pit bulls
have included, within their definition of a vicious dog, the pit bull
as a breed of dog without regard to specific past conduct and
tendencies of the particular dog. That is, although most ordinances
define a vicious dog as a dog that has previously displayed vicious
propensities, such as biting, such an ordinance includes pit bulls to
be a vicious dog by their very breed and nature, without evidence of
further vicious propensities. Once a dog is determined vicious,
certain requirements apply, including the requirement that it be kept
in a safe enclosure; that it not be allowed outside of the enclosure
unless muzzled or closely held under leash, and that the owner meet
certain liability insurance requirements.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>#Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
Regulation of Pit Bull Dogs
February 4, 1987
Page Three
Various dog owners associations, including the American Kennel
Club and the American Dog Cwners Association, have been both vocal
and litigation minded in opposing legislation directed at certain
breeds of dogs. We have already received a communication from the
American Dog Cwners Association advising us of their concern
regarding anti-breed legislation and telling us of the favorable
decisions they have won. My research of the law in this regard
reveals the following types of attacks on specific breed legislation.
a. Substantive Due Process. Although a city has the police
power authority to enact regulations to protect the health and
well-being of the community, such regulations must be reasonably
related to a legitimate public purpose objective. If such
regulations are not reasonably related to a legitimate public
objective, they may infringe upon a person's constitutional right
to liberty or property without due process of law. The pit bull
owners argue that there is no reasonable evidence demonstrating
that pit bulls are more dangerous to humans than are other
breeds, such as doberman pinschers and german shepherds, and,
therefore, legislation aimed specifically at pit bulls is not
reasonably related to promoting the safety of the community. In
this regard, to best protect the city from such a legal attack,
it would be necessary for the city council to take evidence from
individual citizens, veterinarians1 animal control officers, and
others expert in the field of the propensity of specific breeds
of dogs, to the effect that pit bulls have more dangerous
propensities than dogs generally and should be so regulated.
Thereafter, the council should make specific findings in this
regard which would be incorporated in the regulatory ordinance.
b. Unconstitutionally Vague. An ordinance is
unconstitutionally vague when it fails to afford adequate notice
to persons to whom it might be deemed to apply. It is apparently
difficult to determine just what is a pit bull". Most such
ordinances define a pit bull as any american staffordshire
terrior or staffordshire bull terrior or american bull
terrior. The breeding associations themselves do not define a
pit bull as a breed. A further problem involves mixed breeds as
most dogs are. To what extent does a mixed breed constitute a
pit bull? Most ordinances require at least one-eighth of the
above named breeds to be a pit bull. How does one determine at
what point that a dog is one-eighth pit bull? The Broward
county, Florida, ordinance was struck down as being void for
vagueness. See attached excerpt of proceedings.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>$Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
Regulation of Pit Bull Dogs
February 4, 1987
Page Four
C. Equal Protection Pit bull owners argue that to single
out pit bulls, and not other breeds of dogs, as being vicious or
dangerous without further delineation, violates the owners
rights to equal protection of the laws. That is, they argue
that to discriminate against pit bulls without including other
breeds such as doberman pinschers and german shepherds, is
unconstitutionally discriminatory in that the classification is
under-inclusive. The one reported case on this issue, Starkey
V. Chester Township, PA. 1986) 628 Fed. Supp. 196, upheld the
Chester Township ordinance determining that the township could
reasonably determine, as it did, that pit bulls are dangerous and
that the township could single them out; and they did not have to
regulate every dangerous animal at the same time in the same way
to pass constitutional muster.
d. Ex Post Facto Law. Taking Issue. It is one thing to
enact a regulation that is prospective in nature and would apply
to all future pit bulls brought into the city. It is another
thing to enact a regulation that applies to existing pit bulls.
Cities do have the authority to enact ex post facto laws that
apply to existing property and property rights in cases of health
and safety. However, they may have to pass a stricter form of
constitutional muster. The ownership of dogs is a form of
property ownership. It can be expected that the owners of dogs
that existed in the city prior to specific pit bull regulations
would argue that such regulations amount to a taking of property
without payment of just compensation in violation of the fourth
amendment to the constitution.
It is my opinion that if the city council considers sufficient
specific evidence and makes specific findings demonstrating that pit
bulls, as a breed, are more dangerous than any other breed of dog,
such findings would justify the enactment of regulations defining the
breed of pit bull as a vicious dog and thus subject to the
regulations applicable to vicious dogs, without further demonstration
of the propensities of viciousness of any particular dog. I believe
such an ordinance would pass constitutional muster and could be
enforced within the city. In this regard, it is my further opinion
that the ordinance would be challenged by a dog breeders'
association. I also feel that the city may have some difficulty in
obtaining legally sufficient and adequate evidence to make the
required findings to regulate pit bulls by breed.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>%Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
Regulation of Pit Bull Dogs
February Ag 1987
Page Five
4. ALTERNATIVE APPROACH REDEFINE VICIOUS DOG AND IMPOSE MORE
STRINGENT CONTROLS
Perhaps a better method of dealing with the pit bull problem is
to draft an ordinance that does not selectively attempt to legislate
against the specific breed of pit bulls, but rather, attempts to
redefine and place more stringent controls on all vicious and
dangerous dogs, whatever their breed. My research generally reveals
that it is probably best to regulate vicious dogs at the source, to
wit: the individual dogs' owners. Dogs are generally the product
of their past and present masters. There is no strong evidence that
one breed is inherently good or evil, vicious or docile, harmful or
helpful. Individual dogs can be selectively in-bred and trained to
be aggressive, and, currently, it appears that many pit bulls are
being abused in this way. It is generally the master that determines
whether the dog will be a peaceful inhabitant of the community or a
dangerous nuisance. It is ultimately the person who breeds and
fosters viciousness in dogs which the legislation must control.
Presently, the La Quinta Municipal Code defines a vicious dog as
tta dog which has bitten a person or other animal without provocation
or which has a propensity to attack or bite any person or animal
without provocation." Section 10.04.060. Biting animals are subject
to quarantine Section 10.16.010.) and, in the case of a vicious
animal, the city manager has the power to order the owner to keep the
animal within a substantial enclosure or securely attached to a chain
or other type of control. Section 10.20.090).
It may be appropriate to redefine a vicious dog to include, in
addition to the current provisions of 10.04.060, the following:
a) A dog which has behaved in such a manner that the owner
thereof knows or should reasonably know that the dog is possessed
of tendencies to attack or bite human beings.
b) Any dog certified by a doctor of veterinary medicine, after
observation thereof, as posing a danger to human life or property
if not enclosed or muzzled.
c) Any dog which has been trained for fighting or as an attack
dog except such dogs which are employed by the police department
or the city.
d) Any dog which is outfitted with a training device for
fighting or attack, such as a weighted collar around the neck of
the dog, shall be rebuttably presumed to be a dog trained as a
fighting or attack dog.
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>&Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
Regulation of Pit Bull Dogs
February 4, 1987
Page Six
Once a dog falls within the category of a vicious animal, it
could then be required to be confined in a secure enclosure; and when
it out of the enclosure to be muzzled and restrained with a chain
having a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds and not exceeding
three feet in length. Further, the ordinance could include a
provision against selling or buying vicious animals and a requirement
that the owner maintain liability insurance for the protection of
members of the public injured by such vicious animals.
5. RECOMMENDATION.
Based upon the foregoing, it is my recommendation that the city
council first consider the enactment of an ordinance amending our
present regulations by redefining vicious dogs and enacting more
stringent regulations relative to the keeping of a vicious dog within
the city. If this does not handle the pit bull problem, the city
council could then consider enacting regulations directed
specifically at the keeping of pit bulls. This, of course, would
require taking evidence and making findings as previously discussed.
If council desires to follow this recommendation, it is suggested
that the matter be set for public hearing at a future council meeting
and that the city attorney be directed to draft an ordinance for
consideration by the city council. Such an ordinance may also
provide for further amendments of the animal control ordinance
including the schedule of dog license fees and an amendment of the
limitation on the number of dogs kept at a single residence.
Respectfully submitted,
James Longtin,
City Attorney
JL/jan
Enclosure
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>' NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>( NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>) NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>* NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>+ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>, NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>- NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>. NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>/ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>0 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>1 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>2 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>3 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>4 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>5 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>6 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>7 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>8 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>9 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>: NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>; NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>< NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>= NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>? NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>@ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>A NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>B NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>C NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>D NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>E NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>F NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>G NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>H NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>I NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>J NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>K NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>L NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>M NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>N NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>O NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>P NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>Q NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>R NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>S NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>T NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>U NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>V NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>W NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>X NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>Y NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>Z NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>[ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>\ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>] NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>^ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>_ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>` NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>a NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>b NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>c NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>d NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>e NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>f NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>g NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>h NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>i NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>j NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>k NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>l NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>m NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>n NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>o NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>p NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>q NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>r NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>s NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>t NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>u NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>v NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>w NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>x NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>y NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7>z NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02
7> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
10-21-1998-U01
09:25:34AM-U01
ADMIN-U01
CC-U02
02-U02
18-U02
1987-U02