5/26/1987W
MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
May 26, 1987
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Rolling Hills was called to order at the Administration
Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California by
Mayor Swanson at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Councilmembers Heinsheimer,
Pernell, Mayor Swanson
Councilmember Leeuwenburgh
Terrence L. Belanger
Michael Jenkins
L. D. Courtright
Kathy Uros
Dr. Maurice Lam
Mrs. Maurice Lam
Dr. Mark Minkes
Dr. Mehdi Hemmat
Mrs. Shalah Hemmat
Mrs. Carole LaCaze
Mr. Norman LaCaze
Mr. James Hansen
Mr. Richard Linde
Mr. Terrence Carroll
Murdock,
City Manager
City Attorney
City Treasurer
Secretary
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Architect,
Linde & Associates
Councilman Heinsheimer moved that the items on the
Consent Calendar be approved. The motion was seconded by
Councilwoman Murdock and carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of a meeting on May 11, 1987 were approved
and accepted as presented.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Demands No. 2082 through 2116 in the amount of
$20,914.54 were approved for payment from the General Fund, and
Demand No. 2084 was voided.
STATUS OF FLYING TRIANGLE
Mayor Swanson reported that a joint meeting was held
between the representatives of the City of Rolling Hills and
the representatives of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
regarding HR -6. The basic points of agreement during that
meeting were: (1) that the two cities will work cooperatively
in seeking funding for the reconnaissance study of the
Peninsula Landslide, and (2) that the Technical Committee
(Staff) and the Policy Committee will meet on a regular basis
monthly, and (3) that the two cities agree to share in lobbying
expenses for the reconnaissance study that the representatives
from the City of Mr. Heinsheimer and the City Manager were
asked if there was anything they wished to add to the report;
both concurred with Mayor Swanson's statements and the
information was ordered filed. The Mayor then asked whether
any efforts should be taken regarding our lobbyists. The City
Manager stated that his recommendation would be to not only
429
enter into negotiations with the lobbyist, but also to set a
"not -to -exceed" figure in terms of the negotiations.
Councilman Heinsheimer agreed that negotiations should proceed
but expressed desire that we take;cognizance of the letter that
we received from the Rolling Hills Community Association
and make sure that no contract that we enter into is not in the
best interest of the Community at large. Councilman Heinsheimer
asked the Council to get in touch with the Community Association
attorney and make sure that the action the Council is about to
take is in the best overall spirit of the Community's best
interest. Mayor Swanson . agreed, stating that she had spoken
with the Association President and attourney about this matter,
and that once they were assured that this was a study only, they
were satisfied, but that they would like to hear from the
Council in writing. Mayor Swanson inquired if there was a
not -to -exceed figure recommended. The City Manager recommended
a not -to -exceed figure of $5,000. Councilman Heinsheimer moved
that a not -to -exceed figure of $5,000 be approved. The motion
was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and with no further
discussions or objections was so ordered.
CONTRACT AMENDMENT: ASL CONSULTING ENGINEERS RE: AERIAL MAPPING
LO SERVICES
0)
LL The City Manager presented a recommended agreement between the
m City of Rolling Hills and ASL Consulting Engineers. ASL was
Q retained by the City in April to perform a feasibility study in
regards to sanitary sewers and other alternative methods of
waste water disposal. Subsequent to that approval, aerial
mapping of the City was pursued through proposals to aerial
mapping firms. At that time, ASL contacted the City that they
had a preexisting quote regarding aerial mapping that was in
fact less than any of the bids that the City had received from
the other firms. As a result we entered into a short
negotiation with ASL regarding their amending of their
agreement, assigning them the responsibility to do the aerial
mapping. ASL has agreed to this amendment, and has begun that
process. City Manager recommended that the City Council approve
the amendment to the agreement in the amount of $20,000 for the
purpose of being provided aerial photographic base maps by ASL
Consulting Engineers.
Related to
the aerial maps, the
Rolling
Hills Community
Association
took action approximately
a month
ago to share in
the cost of
those aerial maps, up to
$10,000
or 50%, whichever
is lesser.
Councilwoman Murdock moved that the Council accept
the amendment to the agreement.
Motion
was seconded by
Councilman
Heinsheimer; with no
further
discussions or
objections the motion was so ordered.
LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM S. D. WEIMAN
City Manager stated that Mr. S. D. Weiman, a member of the
City's Traffic Commission, has submitted his letter resignation,
indicating that he would like to continue public service to the
community of Rolling Hills, but that his preference would be to
serve in a different capacity. Mr. Weiman indicated that he
would continue to serve on the Traffic Commission until he is
replaced. City Manager recommended that the City Council
solicit applications from interested residents and go through a
similar process that the Council implemented in replacing the
member -at -large of the Environmental Quality Board. There being
no objections from the Council, the Mayor so ordered, requesting
that the file of past applications for the Traffic Commission
positions be researched so that when the final number of
applicants are considered all are looked at. Mayor requested
preparation of a letter for her signature to Mr. Weiman thanking
him for his service and that we would like for him to continue
until a replacement is found.
-2-
430
CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mayor Swanson stated that everyone's input was sought
regarding City Council appointments; but since not all input was
received, and with Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh and Pernell
absent, asked if this subject should be retained on the agenda
for one additional term. It was decided to retain subject of
council appointments on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zonincr Case No. 340, James Hansen, 41 Eastfield Drive
Prior to discussion of the first zoning case, Councilman
Heinsheimer questioned whether Zoning Case 340 and Case 341 were
public hearings, but rather actions that were taken by the
Planning Commission which are routinely before the Council. It
was stated that the Council had taken jurisdiction on these two
cases. They are so listed without any constraints on freedom of
action for the Council.
The City Manager stated that Zoning Case No. 340 is an
application for a zoning variance to the established front
yard. The Hansens have asked that they be able to encroach into
the front yard at this location at 41 Eastfield for the purpose
of building a pool, spa and deck. The encroachment is
approximately 26 feet from the corner of the house into the
front yard, which would leave a remaining front yard setback
from the roadway easement of 68 feet. The Findings and Report
lists the conditions that were placed on this particular
variance. The City Council called this matter up to discuss the
issue of easement clearance. Mayor Swanson explained that the
concern of the Council was that there is a possible easement
obstruction around the Hansen property and view obstruction
caused by some of the trees in the area where the swimming pool
is proposed to be put in. The Council asked Mr. Hansen whether
he would have any objection to working with his neighbors
regarding view obstruction. Mr. Hansen did not feel that his
easements needed clearing. The Mayor answered that that could
only be determined upon viewing the property.
Councilman Heinsheimer indicated the Council was
concerned with just the view obstruction; leaving the issue of
the condition of the easements to the Association. Councilwoman
Murdock said that the conditions of approval established by the
Planning Commission includes Condition No. 5 which says that
"the improvements as set forth in Exhibit A shall respect,
preserve and reinstate if necessary the existing topography,
natural landscaping and Rolling Hills Community Association
easements." The matter of the clearing of the easements has
already been addressed by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Swanson asked whether any member of the Council had
any problems with the manner in which the Planning Commission
stated their findings. Councilman Heinsheimer stated that the
Council should consider putting broader conditions on the view
obstruction part of the findings because view obstruction has to
do with the entire property. Councilwoman Murdock said that
this subject had been discussed in general and not in detail.
Her inclination would be to address view obstruction throughout
the City and with a general examination of the problem; rather
than, specifically addressing it now. Councilwoman Murdock
indicated that view obstruction is a problem that is very
commonplace in the City and it should be addressed, but not
through this method. Councilman Heinsheimer said that one of
the advantages of doing it this way was that when residents
apply for variances or conditional use permits, they are
requesting something of the City and their neighbors, therefore
the City is in a stronger position to request something back.
-3-
Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that the Council modify
the condition of No. 2, Paragraph 3 where it refers to the
landscaping plan to include , appropriate wording on the
elimination of view obstructions on the property. Staff would
be requested to give Council exact wording. Councilwoman
Murdock asked the City Attorney's opinion as to the propriety of
proceeding this way. The City Attorney stated that his opinion
has not changed regarding a certain element of ambiguity in the
process due to the fact that there is not anything in the Zoning
ordinance that deals with that issue. Mr. Jenkins stated that
he did not feel that this was an unreasonable condition to add
to a discretionary permit issued by the City for this . type of
improvement. Hence, with respect to the proprietary of the
issue, he did not have a problem. As regards the clarity of the
condition, he agreed that something more comprehensive and more
definite should be looked at for future use. Councilman
Heinsheimer stated that the current condition was that a
landscaping plan be approved, but that the landscaping plan did
not have any criteria with it of what should be in the plan. He
suggested that standards for landscaping could include view
(D obstruction.
LD To clarify the issue, Mayor Swanson said that when a
(3) variance case such as this is before the Council, it is a time
LL when the Council is being asked to do something unusual and that
CO if view obstruction is creating a problem for some of the
Q neighbors, that it only stands to reason that is when the
problem be taken care of.
Mayor Swanson invited testimony from Mr. Hansen. Mr.
Hansen asked who complained of the problem with the view. Dr.
Basque attended the last Council meeting, stating the problem
with the view. Councilman Heinsheimer responded that his
reaction is not in response to any particular complaint, but
rather to deal in general with the problem of view obstruction.
Mr. Hansen stated that one of the trees causing the
complaint was going to have to be removed for the pool
installation and that he would trim the other tree down to
whatever height is deemed appropriate. Mayor Swanson said that
the City Manager would be instructed to make a determination of
the obstruction. Councilman Heinsheimer clarified that view
obstruction pertained to all of the property and not just the
variance area. Landscape planning usually deals with the
landscaping of the improvement itself. The attempt here is to
eliminate any view obstruction that any of the overall property
may have. Mr. Hansen mentioned that he had some view
obstruction from his neighbors, to which the Council responded
that they are trying to handle this situation. Reference was
made to Councilman Heinsheimer to the ordinance that Rolling
Hills Estates is considering on view obstruction.
Records were noted that Councilman Pernell joined the meeting at
8:00 p.m.
Mayor Swanson expressed appreciation of Mr. Hansen's
cooperation and stated that his variance would be processed as
expeditiously as possible. Councilman Heinsheimer moved for
approval of the variance with the modification of Paragraph 2 to
read:
"Landscaping Plan, including the elimination of view
obstruction, if any, on the property, be approved by the
Planning Commission."
. . . as written, be approved by the Planning Commission. . .
for the cost of "insert" installation and maintenance of such
landscapinq . . . (remainder of the paragraph as is) ."
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried by the
following roll -call vote:
-4-
ig
431
43.2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers
Swanson
None
Heinsheimer, Murdock, Mayor
Councilman Pernell
ABSENT: Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh
Zoninci Case No. 341. Alan Johnson, 7 Crest Road East
The City Manager stated that Zoning Case No. 341 would
allow for a guest house to be constructed at 7 Crest Road East.
Reference was made to a list of conditions relating to this
proposal. Conditions had been set forth in a report finding
approved by the City Planning Commission. Case No. 341 was
brought into Council jurisdiction to consider the placement of
an additional condition on this application regarding viewscape.
Mr. Richard Linde, the project architect, of 200 Alma
Porto Court, Torrance, California represented the subject
property for Mr. Johnson. Mr. Linde felt that Mr. Johnson would
be very cooperative regarding the viewscape problems. The trees
on the property were brought up at the Planning Commission and
Mr. Johnson expressed his desire to cooperate. Councilman
Pernell inquired if compliance would be needed regarding a
draining system. Mr. Linde stated that there would be no
problem, as discussed with the Planning Commission.
Condition No. 11 regarding the drainage of water from the
pool was discussed since the conditions listed require that all
drainage of water from the pool would be accomplished by pumping
the water into a tank truck and disposed of outside the City of
Rolling Hills. Concern was expressed over where the water would
be deposited. Staff commented that an extension of this
condition would be the development of a plan of disposal along
with a precise method of disposal. Mr. Johnson would need to
agree with subject arrangement.
Councilman Pernell posed the question of the City's
liability due to inability to enforce this condition of proper
drainage. The City Attorney said that under this theory the
City was not liable. If this is warranted as a water problem,
then an ordinance should be adopted that would essentially
supersede a condition such as this; one that would deal with
pool drainage under similar circumstances.
It was suggested that the Council may want to direct Staff to
consider a proposal for pool drainage in general in sensitive
areas.
Councilman Heinsheimer moved for approval of the
modification of condition 8, Landscaping, to add the words
including the elimination of view obstruction, if any, on the
property, all the . . . cost of and include installation and
maintenance of the landscapinct. plus 15% for a period not less
than two vears. . .
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock.
The City Attorney suggested that the sentence at the end
of Paragraph 11 should read "water disposal plan should be
submitted by the City with any application submitted for a
building permit for a swimming pool."
Councilmembers Heinsheimer and Murdock moved and seconded
this plan, and motion was carried unanimously.
Staff was directed to have at the next meeting a
recommendation on how to handle inclusion of conditions
regarding pool drainage in fragile areas on pending applications
before the Planning Commission.
-5-
433
OPEN AGENDA
Mayor Swanson invited members of the audience to address
the City Council on any items which were not on the agenda.
There was no input from the audience, and the meeting proceeded
according to the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Tennis Court Moratorium
The City Manager discussed the Planning Commission report
regarding the construction of tennis courts within the City of
Rolling Hills. Tennis court construction has. been in moratorium
since July 28, 1986. The Planning Commission also forwarded to
the Council recommended language which would amend the Zoning
Ordinance section that addresses the conditional use permit for
tennis courts. The Ordinance was set for hearing at the Council
(D meeting of May 11, 1987 and is on the agenda for the purpose of
Lo receiving testimony. Before review, the City Manager pointed
(T) out one change to the draft ordinance:
LL No. 11 of the draft reads: "All retaining walls, whether
CO interior or exterior, incorporated into the court shall not be
Q greater than four feet in height."
Revision: Eliminate "whether interior or exterior". Add
a second sentence: "Exposed exterior retaining walls are not
permitted."
No. 11 will now read: "All retaining walls incorporated
into the court shall not be greater than four feet in height at
any point. Exposed exterior retaining walls are not permitted.
Councilman Pernell addressed the issue of clarifcation
that was needed regarding "viewscape" and "easement
obstruction". The City Attorney concurred with the necessity
for clarification so that there would be no question that the
clause "owners of the property" relates to owners of the
property in close proximity to the proposed court. The words
"close proximity" and "adjacent" (properties) were questioned.
Mayor Swanson requsted to keep the wording general until after
public testimony is heard.
At this point the meeting was recessed to give the residents
time to acquaint themselves with the ordinance.
The Council Meeting reconvened at 8:59 p.m. with Councilman
Heinsheimer absent.
Mayor Swanson invited the audience to step forward for
comment.
Dr. Maurice Lam, •-68 Saddleback: Dr. Lam stated that they
already have a conditional use permit for tennis court
construction that was filed prior to the moratorium. He
questioned that if the requirements differ in this ordinance
from the requirements used to approve his current permit, how
does this impact on his proceeding with construction when the
moratorium is lifted?
The City Attorney responded that this is a matter
entirely within the discretion of the City Council and is not
addressed in the ordinance. The permit would have to be
reopened and modified as long as construction had not commenced
on the tennis courts and was not substantially in progress;
unless the Council decides to "grandfather" it.
RM
Mayor Swansn confirmed that the Council can, if they so
desisre, include the requirements in the permit. Mr. Lam noted
that when the moratorium issue is resolved he may need to
consult with . his engineer and construction personnel to see if
he is in compliance with the new ordinance.
Dr. Mark Minkes, 44 Chuckwagon Road: Dr. Minkes first
noted that Paragraph E of the proposed ordinance was not
grammatically correct. The City Attorney responded that the
paragraph is in order, that the paragraphs preceding and
following Paragraph 5 give explanation to the sentence.
Dr. Minkes, in comparing the ordinance draft with the
previous zoning code, asked if the reference made to standards
for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto is a
correct reference, or a change from current zoning.
Councilwoman Murdock explained that the reference is the same
as stated in the current zoning code.
Dr. Minkes asked whether the proposed ordinance deals
with lights and noise pollution?
Mayor Swanson stated that lights are not allowed in the
City at all. The City Manager stated that they are not
included in the existing ordinance; lights, as a matter of
policy, are proscribed. Noise is dealt with on a case-by-case
basis. Essentially the stated 11 conditions must be met
before the application can proceed. Noise generation or
abatement is not part of the conditions, primarily because the
City doesn't have an ordinance that sets forth the appropriate
criteria. Mayor Swanson inquired if Dr. Minkes felt there
should be something relating to lights and noiss. Dr. Minkes
said that although he had no plans of building a tennis court,
he was interested in allowing his neighbors enjoy their
property. He expressed favor in allowing tennis courts to be
constructed, but reiterated his concern over noise pollution
and lights.
Councilman Pernell explained that there are certain
almost amphitheater -like sites that amplify and direct noise so
that there is potential for annoyance to other properties. In
the past, the Council has asked for environmental impact
reports so that matters could be addressed at the correct
level. The City Attorney saw no reason why noise and lights
should not be included. The City Manager recommended that a
discussion of noise and lights be dealt with separately from
this ordinance. In order to address it separately the issue
would have to revert back to the Planning Commission. The City
Attorney, in response to an inquiry from Mayor Swanson stated
that in this instance the City Council would have the right to
make such amendments without returning it to the Planning
Commission.
Dr. Minkes summarized by saying that as a resident of
this community he was very much in favor of allowing his
neighbors to build tennis courts; and after reading this
ordinance, feels that it is very constructive.
Mr. Norman LaCaze, 24 Portuguese Bend: Mr. LaCaze
stated that he bought property in the City almost a year ago
with the specific intention of building a tennis court, but
unfortunately was caught in the moratorium.He stated that he
had had a sound engineer on his property and the decibels of
noise taken registered lower than those of a barking dog.
One of Mr. LaCaze's concerns regarded retaining walls.
He said that it was stated that retaining walls could not be
visible and said that if you do a cut, you can fill the bottom
side but you cannot put dirt back in a court. How do you not
show a slight cut in a retaining wall. City Manager responded
that the inside cut would essentially be the interior wall and
that that can be exposed. Mr. LaCaze expressed his hope for
expeditious processing of this ordinance so that the moratorium
will be lifted.
-7-
435
Dr. Mehdi Hemmat, 64 Eastfield: Dr. Mehdi agreed with the
previous speaker and personally hopes that the moratorium will end.
He has personally been waiting;,fo.,r-.landscaping and plans for over a
year. He mentioned that there are always items in a resdential area
that neighbors have to cope with; and that if, perhaps, noise is to
be an issue, a time frame for tennis playing could be established.
Mrs. Shalah Hemmat, 64 Eastfield: Mrs. Hemmat mentioned that
they have lived in the City for five months; that her neighbors have
a tennis, court and that she has never heard any noise from the
court. She felt that there were other sources of concern (such as
dogs, swimming pools), and confirmed her husband's suggestion of a
time restriction being placed on tennis playing.
Mayor Swanson recommended continuing the public hearing.
After discussion among the Council members the ordinance is to be
returned to Staff for final draft, being brought back to Council at
the next meeting.
Councilman Pernell asked Staff if No. 9 of the ordinance would
(� be the proper place to address the volume issue, since this is the
L) section that covers areas and slope, as far as number of cubic feet
that could be moved. The City Manager stated that our grading
ordinance addresses size of slope, but not volume. A figure was not
LL listed in the ordinance because it was much easier to work with the
square footage and thereby limit the amount of filling that would
Q take place. Councilman Pernell requested that the area _of volume be
explored. The City Manager stated that the volume, along with noise
and light matters would be reviewed. Mayor Swanson requested that
the hours of use be incorporated into the ordinance. The City
Manager responded that the hours would not be included in the
ordinance but that they could be on the application.
The City Attorney said that there were a number of
alternatives: (1) a statement that the Planning Commission shall in
its considerations be aware of potential noise and leave it to the
discretion of the Commission in any given case of what needs to be
done, (2) to establish a decibel level from the property line, (3) to
establish your basic nuisance standard with minimum condition that
"noise shall not disturb neighbors in the ordinary use and enjoyment
of their property. An hour limitation might be hard to enforce.
Councilwoman Murdock asked if the ordinance could still be
completed in the time frame that we had originally set. The City
Manager said that the date of passage would be the second week of
June instead of the first week.
Mayor Swanson addressed the item that Dr. Heinsheimer asked
her to present in his absence. Comments pertain to Section 1,
Article 5. ". . . providing for adequate screening of the court. . .
(add) "and for the elimination of view obstruction created by
landscaping anywhere on the property." Conditions shall. . .and
perpetual maintenance of the (insert) "tennis court" landscaping
(strike the words "and to") (add) "anywhere" elimination of view
obstruction.
Revised Article shall read: "The application for a tennis
court conditional use permit shall be accompanied by a landscape
plan, providing for adequate screening of the court, and for the
elimination of view obstruction created by tennis court landscaping
anywhere on the property. The court shall have an area adequate in
width on all sides for the planting of landscaping;"
Councilman Pernell commented that rather than putting view
impairment into every one of our ordinances, would it not be
appropriate to have it as an overriding consideration; that the
Planning Commission shall consider in every case where there is a
variance or a conditional use permit applying to all applications.
10
436
Councilwoman Murdock noted that at the last City Council
meeting it was addressed that view impairment should apply to all
properties, regardless of whether they are asking for a conditional
use permit or a variance. Staff was directed to look into this. In
response to Dr. Pernell's inquiry, the City Manager stated that
specific instructions were given to look into applying view
obstruction of all properties, and to recommend ways of implementing
this. The City Attorney said that if handling these matters on a
case-by-case basis as they arise, perhaps they should be excluded,
here and dealt with on a separate, independent ordinance.
Further discussions by the residents ensued with the primary
concerns being:
Expeditious moving forward of the lifting of the moratorium.
Mayor Swanson noted that this is the intent, but that since
the Council had received so many suggestions both from the
public and members of the City Council, it is only fair that
the Council see it in a final written form prior to adopting
it. And the Council will still treat each case on its own
merits.
One of Mrs. Hemmat's reasons for expeditious processing was so
that landscaping could begin on her yards. It was explained
by the Council and by the City Manager that only grading as it
pertains to tennis courts is affected. If the grading plan
in any way depends upon the incorporation of the tennis court
into the total plan, then that could delay the approval of
your grading.
Dr. Minkes stated that he felt the noise issue should not
encompass the concept of a decibel or an hour, he supported it
being considered a nuisance issue. Dr. Minkes also asked if
the ordinance addressed the distance of a tennis court to a
neighbor's actual residence. City Manager commented that
distance is governed by another ordinance. Currently the
closest distance is designated as 40' minimum in a one -acre
zone and 70' minimum in a two -acre zone.
The Council continued the matter of the zoning ordinance
amendments regarding tennis courts to the June 8, 1987 City Council
Meeting.
SUPPORT OF BILL 1158
Mayor Swanson presented correspondence
Block requesting support on Bill 1158. This bill
those who have been sexually assaulted (who we
assault); that legislation would allow the cou
cause, to order the County health officer to
charged with the commission of certain sexual
transmitted diseases. Sheriff Block is asking
the author of the Bill in support of it. It
letter be prepared for Mayor's signature on beha
FISCAL YEAR 1987-1988 BUDGET
from Sheriff Sherman
addresses testing of
re victims of a sexual
rt, upon showing good
test the defendant
offenses for sexually
the cities to write
was directed that a
Lf of the Council.
Presentation of Budget postponed. Staff still
first public hearing for budget be set for June
Swanson so ordered.
recommends that
8, 1987. Mayor
CLOSED SESSION
The Council went into closed session for discussion of
potential litigation. Meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. The
City Attorney reported that the City Council discussed matters
of pending litigation.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Swanson adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. to 7:30
p.m. Monday, June 8, 1987.
LO
0)
LL
m
Q
APPROVED-;.:
Mayor
-10-
City Clerk
437