1982 09 21 CCV NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
W NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
X NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
Y NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
Z NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
[ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
\ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
] NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
^ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
_ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
` NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
a NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
b NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
c NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
d NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
e NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
f NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
g NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
h NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
i NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
j NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
k NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
l NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
m NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
n NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
o NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
p NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
q NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
r NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
s NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
t NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
u NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
v MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Frank M. Usher, City Clerk
Date: September 7, 1982
Subject: Possible Establishment of City Council Chambers at
78-105 Calle Estado
I h?ve been requested to obtain information regarding the cost of
possible establishment of a permanent City Council Chamber adjacent
to City offices. If this were to be done, I would allocate the
space as follows: Unit B Community Development Planning, and
Building & Safety); Unit C Administration; Unit D City Council
Chamber; Unit E Conference Room, Office for ayor and Council
Members, Office for City Attorney, Office for Community Safety
Coordinator the Conference Room would also serve for personnel or
litigation me.eting? during Council meetings and for audience
overflow during public hearings).
The expected cost in establishing a Council Chamber would be as
follows
Remove bathroom 500.00
Electrical, including box reloca-
tion 850.00
Platform 450.00
Council Table i 65o 00
Carpet 800.00
Council & Staff Chairs 8) 1,764.00
Podium 00 00
Sound System 9 mikes) 2,000.00
Tape Recorder 593.00
Audience Chairs 50) 1,250.00
Miscellaneous 500.00
SUB-TOTAL 10,657.00
This amount includes opening two doors from Unit D to Unit E. If
the Fire Department requires the establishment of an emergency exit
through the south wall from Unit E, the additional cost would be:
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
wMemo t? City Council
Re. Establishment of Council Chambers
Page 2.
Cut and framing $ 600.00
Steel Door & panic hardware 800.00
SUB-TOTAL $i oo.oo
The total cost would be $i2,057.00.
Mr. Brennan has indicated to me that he would prefer to maintain
the monthly rental at a per unit cost of $300.00. However, he has
indicated a willingness to participate in some way in the changes
indicated above.
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
x RESOLUTION NO.82-48
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROPRIATING FUNDS,
TRANSFERRING $2,100.00 TO ACCOUNT NO. 01-4190-160,
RENT-OFFICES, AND TRANSFERRING $4,250.00 TO
ACCOUNT NO. 01-4190-410, BUILDING REMODELLING,
AND TRANSFERRING $5,850.00 TO ACCOUNT NO. 01-4190-
431, EQUIPMENT-COUNCIL CHAMBER FROM THE UNAPPRO-
PRIATED SURPLUS, GENERAL FUND.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. $2,100.00 is hereby transferred ta Account
No. O1?4i9O-16O, Rent-Offices, from the
unappropriated surplus, General Fund.
SECTION 2. $4,250.00 is hereby transferred to Account
No. Ol?419O-41O, Buildjn? Remodelling, from
the unappropriated s?rplus, General Fund.
SECTION 3. $5,850.00 is hereby transferred to Account
No. 01-4190-431, Equipment-Council chamber?,
from the unappropriated surplus, General
Fund.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of September 192.
MAYOR
ATTEST
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FOR?: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CI?Y ANAQER
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
y RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP
THE CITY OF LA UINTA, CALIFORNIA,
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR PROPOSITION ii
RELATIVE TO BEVERAGE COI?AINER DEPOSITS.
WHEREAS, roadside litter consisting of disposable bottles
and cans is a visual blight in the City of a Quinta; and
WHEREAS, the cost of rernoval of such litter is a burden
on the people of La Quinta.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by tbe City Council of the
City of La Quinta, California, to express its support of
Proposition 11, hich ill require a deposit on all beverage
containers sold or offered for sale on or after iviarch 1, 198?.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1982.
MAYOR
ATTESm:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT.
YATTOR? CITY MANAGER
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
z fr-A
RESOLUTION NO. 82-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
TI? CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS, TRANSFERRING
$850.00 TO ACCOUNT NO. O1-?20O-?3O,
PUBLIC SAFETY-EQUIP?equipment, FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS, GENERAL FUND.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. $850.00 is hereby transferred to Account
No. Oi-42OO-?3O, Public Safety-Equipment,
from the unapproppiated surplus, General
Fund.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of Se?september 1982.
rv'AYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
TOR?1? CITY MANAGER
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
RESOLUTION NO. 82-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
REGARDING SMOKING IN PUBLIC MEETINGS AND IN
OTHER PLACES IN THE MUNICIPAL OFFICES.
BE IT RESOLVED by tb? City Council of the City of L? Q?inta, California,
as follows:
SECTION' 1. There shall be DO smokiNg or carrying of a lighted cigarette,
cigar or pipe while a meeting is being held of the City Council or any other
commission, board, committee or officially appointed group of the City. The
presiding officer at any such meeting shall consider the need for periodic
recesses to accommodate the smoking habits of members, or of other persons
whose presence is necessary to the conduct of the meeting. The City Manager
shall post, place or provide appropriate No Smoking" signs needed to
communicate this policy to all concerned.
SECTION'; 2. The City Manager shall have the authority to prohibit or
restrict smoking?king in other places in the City Hall and municipal office
facilities or public buildings owned, operated or under the control of the
City, where, in his opinion, smoking would be dangerous or would infringe
upon the ri?hts of others to be free from exposure to other persons side
smoke." appropriate signs shall be posted, placed or provided in order to
cemmunicate any such prohibition o? restriction to all concerned.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1982.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
C TY CLERK
APPROVED A? TO FORM APPROVED AS TO CONTEN
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
P? ND U
r OF LA OUINTA
To: Honop?b1e IV?yor and ernbers of Council
From: Frani' W. Usher City r?ana?er
September 21, 1982
Requirements for Development of Residences in the R-1 Zone
At ts st?dy ieetjn? of Se?tc!ber 20, 195-2, t?e Ci?v Coupc?l
j-a? c;?ted reevr&nt to adopt t?e fol o?-irs< LwC-6?J] r&rflt? for
C-V9JO fl? o? reS?C0nCe? in ne P?1 ZOflC.
1 200 D?L-?re feet
cx-
1/?2
L C r? ore Cr v-C
r-?- b? cxn 1 baube yfl O?CS \`itY tLree
or C?-
33 F--? C 1_ be C Co U?fl3FV-jTh clear C-2Lc-flS2 On in bedrCCTLS.
I i a11 be a C c?r raE-e?
rcx all be a separate ec-e?tri an c-oCr F'Ln to a a ra?e?
ave C-?ernan?? and parapets sb?l1 be at least 1? inebos.
efus& conTai??rs and bottled ras cCn-?ainers ball be conceal PC
A min?IT??ff- of tbree ot?t52 CC yater STh2 EOtS sbal l be recuireC
33 iben bC?ee? are dcvelo? d on tv?o lots, a zero foo
side varc se? back sbCt]lO Ccx rOCUrLea in order to p??i C:- 2-2-
a usef?1 eiCcx \arc on e silde of the struct?re.
\-aro of all lo?z and
A 1and? 2;
r-d O# C C I 2 0 C 00-- 0 or-C-v C C Cv a
1 1 c C A' 0- 2 0 ries or 10??e-r-1 0 0
I 0 V I C 0 C- US
F-' oL- V. x?><??-? 20 Cr-:- 2
3 o?- r S C-.L'P F> F- ve or jrC r- et l an a-
V p 0 0 fli-?- L-??C?2--L< I C cx a C- C
on
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
C
*1 st-h
C 4,.
C 21
Page
The fo?egoing shall be conside?ed as general reo\1irernents in
all cases, provided t?at ivers of individual reau?reInents
iav be g?ranted by the planning Co?rn?ss1on or by the City Counc?l
in the event of appeal) in cases here it is 5ho?fl 5at?sfactorily
4?Y,at bccause of special circumstances in a partic?lar case, the
p;?',-ct iJr13caii on of such individua? eqUirerrients o?ld iITpose
4?r'c?b?p or ot???r?s Se d be unreasor?,?ble
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting to be held at
the La Quinta Communitv Center,
77-861 Avenida Montezuma,
La Quinta, California.
September 21, 1982 7:?5 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Flag Salute
2. ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the City
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.
WRITTEN CO??NICATIONS
A. Communication from the League of California Cities and
the California Fire Chiefs' Association regarding SB 999
Campbell), prohibiting local bans on the sale of fire?works.
1. Resolution for adoption.
5. CCMI?NT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
6. HEARINGS
A. Continued Public Hearing regarding? revision of Specific
Plan No. 121-E, Landmark Land Company, Applicant.
1. Report from the Count--: Cc.??is?icn.
2 Report from J.F. Davidson Associates.
Motion feL adoption.
B. Continued Public Hearing regarding Change of Zone, Case
No. L?91, Landmark.- Land Company-;, Applicant
1. Report from the Planning? omiSSiOn,
2. Motion for ado?tjon.
7. CONSENT CALS?NDAR
A. Approval of the minutes of ths seting of September 7, 982.
8. BUSINES? vSSION.
A. Proposed Cr51 nance AN OF- T;irA: F CF HE CITY COUNCIL
OF. Tm fL-Y OF LA QUIT A, CALIFORNIA,
I
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
D. Proposed Resolution. A RESOLUTION OF TEE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALl-
FORNIA, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR PROPOSITION 11 RELATIVE TO
BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSITS.
1. Resolution for adoption.
E. Proposed Resolution. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALI-
FORNIA, APPROPRIATING FUNDS, TRANSFERRING $850.00 TO
ACCOUNT NO. O1-?2OO-?3O, PUBLIC SAFETY-EQUIPMENT, FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS, GENERAL FUND.
1. Resolution for adoption.
F. Proposed Resolution. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF TEE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALI-
FORNIA, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS REGARDING SMOKING IN PUBLIC
MEETINGS AND IN OTHER PLACES IN TEE MUNICIPAL OFFICES.
i. Resol?tion for adoption.
G. Other.
9. ADJOURNMENT
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
uv
E.?E League of aIIfornIa Pira hIafs Amuociation
IIEI Caifbrnia Ciues 1400 K Street, Suite Sacramento, California 95814 1
U EU? 14OC) K sTT?ET
UE?? SAC?A??NTO CA 95814
Sacramento, CA 95814
September 8, 1982
To. All Fire Chiefs City b?1anagers and City Clerks in Non-Manager Cities
Re. Update on campaign to secure veto of SB 999 Campbell) prohibits
local bans on sale of fireworks)
Our effort at publicizing this dangerous piece of legislation is beginning to succeed.
While we have no commitment whatsoever from the Governor, we have talked with his
Chief of Staff and his Legislative Analyst and a meeting with the Governor is scheduled
for later this week. The indication we have is that the Governor is waiting to see
the public response to the passage of SB 999. We believe that he will allow it to
become law by not vetoing it before September 30) if there is little negative reaction.
Clearly, the burden is on the fire service and local government officials to raise a
chorus of complaint and objection immediately?
Press conferences called by Fire Chiefs and Mayors have already been conducted in Santa
Clara County, Fresno and Sacramento. After writing the Governor, we need each of you
to organize similar press conferences with neighboring chiefs to tell our story to the
public and to ask for a veto. Such press conferences should be either countywide or
regional and should be a show of unity" by all Fire Chiefs.
The League and the California Fire Chiefs Association will be telephoning chiefs in
each of the 12 regions of the state this week and will be supplying them with copies of
the press conference packet we used in Sacramento. We will also supply a complete list
of newspapers in your county or region as well as suggestions for conducting a press
conference of this type..
To show you the attention this issue has received go far, we are enclosing copies of
clippings from newspapers around the state.
Please call our Sacramento office staff if we can be helpful in any additional way.
Tot, Clark, Mayor Bill Patchell Mike Turnick
Long Beach and Fire Chief, vallejo Fire Chief, Santa Rosa
President, League and P?esident, and member. of the Board
of California Cities California Fire of Directors, League
Chiefs Association of California Cities.
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
RESOLUTION o.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE GOVERNOR
TO VETO SB 999 CAr?CAMPBELL) PROHIBITING? LOCAL
BANS ON SALE O? FIREWORKS.
WHEREAS, SB 999 Campbell) has been approved by the
California Legislature; and
WHEREAS, such legislation ould have a terribly adverse
impact on the safety of people and property through injury and
fire damage; and
WHEREAS, enforcerrient of bans on the sale of fire?works is
the only feasible and economical means of prohibiting their
use; and
WJEREAS, this measure did not receive the normal legislative
revie?, but as pressed through in the closing hours of the
legislative session.
cW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of La Quinta, California, to express its strongest opposition
to the enactment of SB 999 Campbell) into la?, and to urge the
Governor of the State of California to veto this legislation in
the interest of the safety of persons and property in the
State.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 19S2.
AYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FOR?1: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
CITY ATTORNEY R
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Frank M. Usher, City Manager
Date: September 17, 1982
Subject: Review of Specific Plan No. 121-B and Change of Zone,
Case No.
Mr. Ed Studor of the County Road Department will be in
attendance at the Study session on Monday to explain
the Road Department's policy regarding payment of
funds for street improvement purposes.
Mr. Tom Levy, and Mr. Keith Ainsworth will be in
attendance to discuss sewage treatment and disposal.
Also, Mr. Jeff Mann will attend the study session to
respond to other questions.
f;?AL-
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
TO: L? QUINTA CITY COUNCIL?
FkOM: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNINC? DEPARTMENT
DA?E. June 10, 1982
SUBJECT: Revised Specific Plan #121-E La Quinta District
Landmark Land Company Fourth Supervisorial Distr,ct
641.23+ Acres Negative Declaration EA#15626
BACKGROUND:
The original Specific Plan #121-E in conjunction with EIR #41 fdr the La Quinta
Hotel and related condominium developments was approved by the Board of Supervisors
in April, 1975. A revised Specific Plan as submitted because of the addition of
19.23+ Acres and a desire to make changes in the land use plan previously approved.
A total of 279 additional condominium units and 146 additional hotel rooms would
be permitted by the revised specific plan as proposed.
The following is a summary and comparison of the changes proposed by the Revised
Specific Plan #121-E.
Original Revised Net Original Revised Net
Land Use Acreage Change Units Change
Condominiums 132.8 Ac. 161.86 Ac. +29.06 637 916 +279
Hotel Complex 43.2 Ac. 43.2 Ac. 0 496 642 +146
Mountains 211.4 Ac. 211.4 Ac. 0 Not applicable
Golf Course 191.5 Ac. 185.2 Ac. 6.3 Twenty-seven holes)
Open Area 30.8 Ac. 27.27 Ac. 3.53 Not applicable
Club House 5.8 Ac. 5.8 Ac. C Not applicable
Service Facilities 3.5 Ac. 3.5 Ac. 0 Not a?plicable
Totals 619.0 Ac. 638.23 Ac. +19.23 Ac. 1,133 1,558 +425
RECOMMENDATION: The Riverside County Planning Commission recommends to the City of La Quinta
City Council ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for EA#15626; and ADOPTION of the
Planning Commission Resolution recommending APPROVAL of the Revised Specific Plan #121-E.
aip
Jeffrev D. Mann?'?upervisin? Planner
Pre?a?ed by
Ulrector
I
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
Specific Plan #?2l-E Revised
Staff Report
Pg. 6
j) To offset initial maintenance and energy costs incurred by the County due
to signal installations, fees shall be payable at the same time as the
signal contributions. These fees total $31,250. based on a 100% contri-
bution rate of $25,000 per signal. The developer will be required to
contribute at the percentage rates outlined in.#Z above.
4) Prior to the issuance of any building or development permits for any
dwelling units exceeding 1,000 including hotel units, the project pro-
ponent shall contribute 15% toward the total cost of the following off-
road improvements:
a. Widen Eisenhower Drive to ultimate width from Avenida Fernando
to Washington Street
b. Widen Washington Street to ultimate width from 50th Avenue to
Highway ill.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Expanding on the existing resort hotelcomplex? the proposed project closely compli-
ments the existing development in the immediate area. Significant open space areas
are provided; including the maintenance of the mountainous areas and in many areas
are adjacent open space acreage golf course) at the foot of the mountains. The
open space, natural mountain backdrop, and recreational facilities further enhance
the existing resort atmosphere of the La Quinta Hotel and La Quinta Country Club area.
On a larger scale, this project is a continuation of the recent trend in La Quinta
towards a more urbanized character. The unique setting of the La Quinta area
established by the geographical features of the Santa Rosa Mountains will result
in a continued demand for additional housing in the community; thereby continuing
the trend towards a more urban character in La Quinta. In the past, many people
were attracted to La Quinta by its rural character, which will inevitably gradually
diminish as further growth occurs in the area.
Although the project unquestionably lessens the rural characters of the area which
is cherished by many local residents, substantial acreage of open space is provided.
Offsetting the disadvantage of urbanizing the area are the economic benefits parti
cularly in light of the potential incorporation of La Quinta) and the enhancement
of the resort image of La Quinta. In any event, further development in one form
or another can be anticipated with certainty because of the areas unique assets
and desirability which were previously discussed.
A resort type development such as that proposed versus a conventional residential
development clearly has some advantages in terms of preservation of the rural atmos-
phere. Resort developments not on?y provide much greater open space and recreational
facilities, but they also have much smaller permanent residential populations. Urban
services required by resort residents and visitors also tend to be minimal.
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
Specific Plan #121-E Revised
Staff Peport
Pg. 7.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Specific Plan #121-E was approved and the associated Final Environmental Impact
Report #41 was certified in April 1975 by the 3oard of Supervisors.
2. The revised Specific Plan #121-E will result in a development similar in nature
and scale to the original Specific Plan #121E.
3. A large majority of the residents would utilize their dwellings as a second or
retirement home. This would result in minimal impacts on the schools and the
lack of a heavy concentration of peak' hour traffic to and from work.
4. Revised Specific Plan #121-E represents an expansion of existing facilities
and developments associated with the existing La Quinta Hotel.
5. Environmental impacts and urban service demands of this project will be minimized
by the nature of the development second and retirement home). These impacts can
be mitigated and services can be provided by incorporating the measures outlined
in previous sections of this report and in Final Environmental Impact Report #41.
RECOMMENDATION
Therefore? staff recommends ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental
Assessment #15626; and APPROVAL of Specific Plan #121-E Revised? in accordance with
Exhibit A' and subject to the attached conditions.
DM:ajp
3/30/82
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
! NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
" NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
# NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
$ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
% NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
& NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
' NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
( NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
) NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
* NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
+ NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
, NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
- LA?ulJJ A C1? c>A.!;.....I TF?L
LA QUINTA CTTY COUrCIL
F PO?' RI VL PSI DL jU??TY P I D[AP.T?1F
D?E: June 4, 1982
SUBJ[CT Change of Zone Case No. 3491 La Quinta District
J. F. Davidson Associates Fourth Supervisorial District
R-5 to R-2 and W-l, R-2 to R-5, Negative Declaration EA#15145
W-l to R-2, R-l to R-3
L?AC KC?POUND:
Pursuant to Ordinance 348 and Riverside County Rules to implement the California
Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission on May 13, 1982 conducted a public
hearing on the subject change of zone application and environmental assessment. En-
vironmental Assessment #15145 was submitted by the applicant. An initial study was
prepared by the Planning staff. Written comments were not received during the 21 day
comment period. Public notification and advertisement for the application and environ-
mental negative declaration hearing were performed pursuant to effective county rules.
Several zone changes are requested by the applicant in order to pursue the development
of the property around the La Quinta Hotel in accordance with Revised Specific Plan
#121-E. The resolution for Revised Specific Plan #121-E was adopted by the Planning
Commission at the May 13, 1982 hearing.
Revised Specific Plan #121-E along with the associated Change of Zone Case #3491 would
result in an increase of 279 condominium units and 146 hotel units to the existing La
Quinta Hotel and resort community. Change of Zone Case No. 3491 would be consistent
with the Coachella-Thermal-Indio r?general Plan and the development fl.lans as proposed
and approved Revised Specific Plan #121-[.
P?C The Planning Commission and staff recommend ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for EA#15145; and APPROVAL of Change of Zone Case No. 3491 from R-5 to R-2
and W-l, R-2 to R-5, W-l to R-2, R-l to R-3 as shown on Exhibit 2
Jeffrey D_ Mann???<e?is,ng Planner
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
. La Quinta District Change of Zone Case No. 3491
Fourth Supervisorial District EA#15145
Related Files: SP#121-E Revised PC Hearing Date: 5/13/82 Contd.
Agenda Item: from 1/27/, 2/17 & 4/14/82)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
1. Applicant: J. F. Davidson Associates
2. Type of Request: Change of Zone R-5 to R-2 and W?l, R-2 to R-5,
W-l to R-2, R-l to R-3
3. Location: Southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue,
and west of Ei?enhower Drive? northerly of Avenida
Fernando adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains.
4. Parcel Size: Total of 36.97+ Acres
5. Existing Roads: Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue
6. Existing Land Use: Vacant
7. Surrounding Land Use: Golf Course and Vacant
8. Existing Zoning: R-5 and R-2.,' W-l, R-l
9. Surrounding Zoning: R-l, R-2-8000, W-l
10. General Plan Elements: Land Use: See Specific Plan #121-E Revised
Cove Communities Open Space & Conservation: Urban Area
Circulation: 50th and Eisenhower Dr. Major 100, R/W
11. Sphere of Influence: None
12. Letters: None in support/opposition
ANALYSIS:
Change of Zone Case #3491 was continued from the April 14, 1982 Planning Commission
hearing to revise the original zone change request. An additional 19.24i acres with
a requested change from R-l Single Family Residential) to R-3 r?general Residential)
zoning being added to the request.
Change of Zone Case #3491 is proposed as an implementation of Specific Plan #121-E
Revised, tentatively approved by the Planning Commission on April 14, 1982. Specific
Plan #121-E Revised proposed an expansion of the La Quinta Hotel and related recreational
and condominium facilities. A total of 36.97+ acres is involved in the subject zone
change.
The property easterly of Eisenhower Drive and southerly of 50th Avenue is being changed
for three basic reasons. The O.72i acre parcel where a change of zone from R-5 to W-l
is being requested reflects the conveyance of this property to the Coachella Valley
Flood Control District for flood control purposes. The property is still being pro-
posed for golf course usage. The two parcels of l.76+.and l.59i acres respectively
where a change of zone from R-2 to R-5 is requested were formerly proposed for use
as horse stables and a temporary sewage treatment plant. These uses are no longer
proposed, and this acreage would be a portion of the golf course. The other parcels
of 4.58i and 5.09* acres respectively where a change of zone from R-5 to R-2 is re-
quested reflect the changes necessary to implement the proposed pattern of golf course
and condominium land uses. This area is anticipated for development of 110 condominium
units.
Pg. 1
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
/Change of Zone Case No. 3491
Staff Report
Pg. 2.
Immediately west of Eisenhower Drive, the parcel of 0.51i net acres has a change of
zone from W-l to R-2 being requested. This request is to allow for space for the
expansion of the condominiums already approved under Tentative Tract #14496 Phase 1.
No changes in the number of condominium units are proposed.
The 3.31* acre parcel west of Eisenhower Drive and at the base of the mountains has
a change of zone from R-5 to R-2 being requested. This request is to allow for a more
flexible design in terms of siting for the 55 condominiums already approved under the
original Specific Plan #121-E Revised and Tentative Tract #14496 Phase 7). No addi-
tional units over those previously approved are being proposed. Also, a five to Six
foot high block wall is proposed along the northern boundary of the 3.31* acre parcel
for flood control purposes per the request of the Coachella Valley Water District.
A l9.24?.acre parcel located immediately to the west of the existing La quinta Hotel
has been added to the change of zone request. Existing zoning on the parcel is R-l
Single Family Residential), and the requested zoning is R-3 General Residential).
The proposed R-3 zoning would be appropriate for the proposed complex of tennis
courts and a maximum of 200 condominiums.
FINDINGS:
1. Implementation of previously adopted Specific Plan #121-E as amended by Specific
Plan #121-E Revised requires the adoption of the requested zone changes.
2. Environmental impacts of the proposed developments will be adequately mitigated
per the provisions of Specific Plan #121-E, the related EIR #41, and Specific
Plan #121-E Revised.
3. Development pursuant to the proposed zone changes is similar in scale and nature
to surrounding developments.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed zone changes would be in conformance with Specific Plan #121-E and
Specific Plan #121-E Revised.
2. Environmental impacts resulting from the subject zone changes and pursuant de-
velopment will not adversely affect the immediate or nearby environment.
3. Developments associated with the proposed zone changes would be compatible with
existing neighborhood land uses.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
#15145 and APPROVAL of Change of Zone Case No. 3491, as shown on Exhibit 2.
a3p
4/27/?2
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
0 CHANGE OF ZONE # 3491
R 5 to W-l 0.72 acres ref?ect the conveyance of land to CVWD?
R?2 to R-5 1.76 acres change in land use from horse stables and a
temporary se?age plant to golf course
R-2 to R-5 1.59 acres same as above
R-5 to R-2 4.58 acres reflect planned pattern of condo/golf development
R?5 to R-2 5.09 acres same as above
W-l to R-2 0.51 acres more space for TR 14496-Phase 1 NO additional nits)
R-5 to R-2 3.31 acres more space for TR 14496-Phase 7 NO additional units)
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
1 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
2 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
3 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
4 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
5 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
6 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
7 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
8 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
9 NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
: NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
; NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
< NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
= NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
> NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
? NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
@ 4
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Frank M. Usher, City Manager
Date: September 7, 1982
Subject.. Fire Flow requirements
Because the City CoUncil has adopted by reference the Uniform Fire Code,
a Citywide fire flow requirement of 1,500 gpm is now in existence. We
have been informed that because of the size of the water pipes and
facilities in the Cove area, this flow cannot be achieved without recon-
struction of the water distribution system. The County Fire Department
recommends that the fire flow requirement which previously existed of
500 gpm is adequate for fire suppression needs in the Cove. The
information which I have received indicates that the higher fire flow
standard may be achieved in areas of new, large scale development through
the installation of new infrastructure. However, all development would
cease in the Cove without reconstruction of the water system.
The accompanying Ordinance would allow development with the lower fire
flow requirement in any situation where a tract map would not be required.
Introduction of the proposed Ordinance is respectfully recommended.
4
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
A ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORD:NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION
10.301(c) OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE RELATING
TO REQUIRED FIRE FLOWS IN NEW DEVELOP?NTS.
The city council of the City of La Quinta, California, does
ordain as follo?s:
SECTION 1. The Uniform Fire Code adopted by Ordinance No. 7
and by Section 11.02.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code is hereby
amended as follo?s:
Amend the second para?raph of Subsection 10.?Qi(c)
Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks,
elevator tanks, ater mains or other fixed system
capable of supplying their required fire flo?. In
setting the requirements for fire flo? in connection
ith ne? developments involving industrial or
commercial projects, or involving residential sub-
divisions hereby five or more lots or parcels of
land are created, the chief may be guided by the
current standard published by the Insurance Services
Office, Guide for Determination of Required Fire Flo?."
In setting such requirements in connection wIth other
new residential developments in which less than five
parcels of land or dwelling units are created, the
chief may be guided by the 1972 edition of the said
Guide for Determination of Required Fire Flow?."
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full
force and effect thirty 30) days after passage.
SECTION 3. POSTING. The city clerk shall within 15 days
after the passage of this ordinance, cause it to be posted in at
least the 3 public places designated by resolution of the city
council; shall certify to the adoption and posting of this ordinance;
and shall cause this ordinance and its certification, together with
proof of posting, to be entered in the book of ordinances of this
City.
The foregoing ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting
of the city council held 1982, by the
following vote.'
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent
MAYOR
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
BATTEST:
CITY CLE?K
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APP?OVED AS TO CONTENT
TY ATTOPNEY CqTYMA?Ac?p
I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City
Council of the City of La Quinta, California, at a meeting held
1982, and that the Ordinance was posted in at least the three public places
specified fc? such postings by the City Council.
FI?ANK M. ER, CITY CLERK
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
C MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: onorable Mayor and Members of the City Couflcil
From: Frank M. Usher, City Manager
Dale: September 2, 1982
Subject: Business License regulations
I am presenting for Council review a copy of three sets of business license
regulations. The first is from the City of Cudahay. It features a gross
annual receipts schedule with a minimum annual fee of $50.00 and a maximum
of $2,000. It also features a provision for guarterly payments, which
include a processing premium. As with many business licenses, it also
includes special fees relative to businesses which require particular
types of regulation.
The second ordinance is the ordinance currently being proposed in the City
of Cathedral City. It features a gross receipts fee schedule with a min?.mum
annual fee of $15.00 and a maximum fee of $2,250. It also describes businesses
generally in three classification categories.
The third ordinance is from the City of Indio. It features a gross receipts
schedule with a minimum annual fee of $60.00. It does not have a maximum
fee. It also establishes certain fees for special businesses.
It is not possible at the present time to closely indicate the revenues
that any of these ordinances would derive. however, the fees established
should generally be similar to those of communities in the area. I would
suggest that the Council review these ordinances for a couple of weeks. A
work session might then be in order to obtain guidance as to the type of
ordinance the Council wishes to establish.
4
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
D 78-100 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA CALIFORNIA 92253 714)564-2246 714) 340-5445
August 27, 1982
TO: Fellow? City COUNCIL? embers
City Manager
City Attorney
FROM: Fred 0wolff;?";<'.> L(
SUBJECT: Business License Fee
e h?ve discussed this subject several times, and I suggest
the tirne has corne for us to act on this, if e ant to irnple-
ment it the first of the year. On the basis of various dis-
cussions, I ould propose the follo?ing:
I All businesses operating in La Quinta, temporarily or
perm?nent1y, be assessed an annual fee to be p?id the first
of each year January 1st).
1.1. The exception would be businesses such as construction
subcontractors) ho operate in. La Quinta less than a
year. These shall pay at the completion of operations.
2. The annual fee shah be one tenth of one percent 0.1%) of
gross revenues.
2.1. The minimum fee shall be $25.00 and the maximum fee
shall be $500.00. Thus all businesses ith gross
revenues during the preceeding year of $25,000 or
less would pay $25.00 for that year; businesses with
total revenues of $500,000 or rnore during the pre-
ceeding year ould pay $500.00 for that year. All
those in-bet?een pay 0.1%.-
3. The basis for determination of gross sales shall be the
federal income ta? report submitted by the business during
the proceeding year. These dates ill vary according to
the fiscal year of the business.
Temporary businesses shall be those ho spend at least one
full day operating in La Quinta. These would largely
consist of construction sub-contractors.
I would recomn,end the, fee to temporary businesses
be. a minimum of $25. Before the City ill sign
of a completion of a construction project, evidence
must be submitted that all business license fees
have been paid.
MAILING ADDRESS P.O OX 1504 LA OUINTA. CALIFORNIA 9225?
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
E NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
F NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
G NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
H NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
I NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
J NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
K NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
L NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
M NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
N NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
O NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
P NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
Q NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
R NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
S NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
T NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02
U NOTEXTPAGE
BIB]
07-25-1996-U01
09:27:41AM-U01
CC-U02
09-U02
21-U02
1982-U02