Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-1987 Minutes City of San Bernardino, California April 22, 1987 This is the time and place set for an Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at their Regular Meeting held 9:05 a.m., Monday, April 20,1987, which was recessed to 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 21, 1987, and all members being absent therefrom, the meeting was declared to be adjourned to 9: 00 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, 1987, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernar- dino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the Notice of Adjournment of said meeting held 9:05 a.m., Monday, April 20, 1987, which was recessed to 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 21, 1987, and all members being absent therefrom, the meeting was declared to be adjourned to 9:00 a.m., Wednes- day, April 22, 1987, and has on file in the Office of the City Clerk an Affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said Order which was posted at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 21,1987, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor wilcox at 9:10 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, 1987, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. INVOCATION The Invocation was given by Richard Bennecke, Execu- tive Assistant to the Mayor. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Maudsley. ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by Ci ty Clerk Clark with the following being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members Estrada, Flores, Maudsley, Quiel, Strickler; City Attorney Prince, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Schweitzer. Absent: Council Members Reilly, Frazier. GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT EXTENSION - APPLICATION TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH This is the time and place set for a public hearing on the request for a General Plan Element Extension. The document contains interim policies and procedures that will govern Planning applications during the effective period of the extension and also includes a work program. (1) The General Plan will be revised in five stages as follows: 1. Collecting and analyzing information 2. Identifying issues/selecting goals and objectives 3. Developing and testing alternatives 4. Detailing the Plan 5. Reviewing and Adopting the Plan The General Plan Element Extension document was first presented at a Council Meeting held at 4:10 p.m., Monday, April 13, 1987, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. At that meeting, the Mayor and Council granted a continuance to this date, and allowed anyone to submit written comments on the extension document. Letters were received from the following: Marguerite P. Battersby Pyle, Attorneys for Jay decke and Barbara L. Sky of Brunick Christopher and Sal- Bruce D. Varner of Gresham, Varner, Savage, Nolan and Tilden, on behalf of Block Bros. Industries, Inc. James L. Mulvihill, Ph.D., Associate Pro- fessor and Urban Planning Coordinator, Department of Geography, California State University, San Bernardino Darlene Fischer of Hill, Farrer representing several property the City of San Bernardino & Burrill, owners in James M. Cowan, a concerned citizen Cynthia Ludvigsen, Attorney, representing a group of property owners in Highland near city land and surrounding the area covered by the Highland Hills Specific Plan. Mayor Wilcox opened the hearing and invited comments first from the Council and then from members of the pub- lic. Darlene Fischer of the law firm of Hill, Farrer & Burill, stated she was present to represent the following owners of property within the City of San Bernardino: John Markley, Myrna Overman Enterprises, Inc., John C. Heers, Forecast Corp., Baker Enterprises, Frank Tracadas and Associ- ates, Cole Properties, Palm Avenue Inves- tors, Highland Town Shop, Edith and Mel Harrison, Jack Vegg, C and B Enterprises, W. J. McKeever, Inc., Cessa Corporation, Stewart Sterns, Stubblefield Companies, Jenell Company, and Monick Development Inc. Ms. Fischer explained that her clients oppose the Request for General Plan Extension proposed, and asked the Council to consider the strongly as it is following: Is OPR less likely to approve interim guidelines if the CUP requirement is removed, or if the CUP requirement in- cludes some standards for indicating when that CUP will be granted or denied? will OPR reject the interim guidelines if Public Works and downtown developments are required to meet the same standards as the foothills? 2 4/22/87 Does OPR require certain areas of the City to be treated differently from other areas of the City? Does OPR require ministerial approvals to go through a CUP process? Does OPR require applicants to comply with pol icies and programs of a proposed General Plan, which does not exist and may not exist for perhaps two years? Does OPR ments on types of mandate more stringent residential housing than development? require- on other Can the consultant assure the Council that OPR will accept these guidelines as pro- posed? Can the consultant say that reject standards that are less uncertain? OPR would vague and Aren't these guidel ines as proposed only one approach to interim planning? Ms. Fischer asked the City to re-examine its policies and procedures and at a minimum do the following: 1. Treat all those properties simi lar ly situated in like manner. 2. Do away with the CUP requirement en- tirely, unless the City is willing to adopt specific identifiable standards for granting denial of the CUP in order to tell the community what they must do to have a project approved. If the Council persists in requiring a CUP at all, Ms. Fischer requested that the CUP requirement not apply to ministerial approvals, and that the following standards be utilized to determine whether or not a CUP should be granted: 1. Does the project conform to existing land use designations? 2. At such time as goals and objectives are formulated, is the project consistent with those goals and objectives. Ms. Fischer explained that in the proposed timeline for development of a revised plan, the goals and objec- tives are designed to be prepared in Phase Two; yet it is not until Phase Four that specific policies and programs would be drafted for consideration. It is unrealistic to expect a proposed project to comply with pOlicies and programs that are a couple of years off. AS a third standard to granting of a CUP, Ms. Fischer recommended that the Council find that a project would not adversely impact the City's ability to develop and adopt a valid General Plan. 3 4/22/87 Ms: Fischer also recommended that if there are speci- fic hazards, that the City designate what specific studies are required in that zone, that Public Works projects and central ci ty development be treated the same as other projects, and that the Council replace the standards for conformance with non-existent goals, policies, diagrams and programs of a future General Plan with a realistic text that is linked to existing land use as suggested or the ability of the City to adopt a valid General Plan. Ms. Fischer lodged her objections to the replacement of the previous "Exhibit A Map" with a map on the board known as the Greenbel t Map, as the Greenbel t Map has never been the subject of public hearings, has never been formally adopted by the City, and there was no indication until today that the map was even being considered. Ernest Riffenburg of Gresham, Varner, Savage, Nolan and Tilden, representing Block Bros. Industries, requested that additional burdens for Planning approvals not be placed during the interim period. The Conditional Use permi ts appear to be the pr imary problem and cause of duplicative approvals. Cynthia Ludvigsen, representing Dennis and Nancy Johnson, and other property owners in the area surrounding Highland Hills, spoke regarding the Highland Hills Speci- fic Plan. She stated that the Plan was never properly adopted by the City, but CUP and development proposals have been approved based upon this plan. Ms. Ludvigsen agreed with many of the points raised by Darlene Fischer, but did not agree that existing land use patterns should be the standard until there are other goals or objectives because existing land use standards are precisely the problem. The interim period should not be a period of business as usual. COUNCIL MEMBER FRAZIER ARRIVED At 9: 30 A.M., Council Member Frazier arrived at the Council Meeting and took his place at the Council Table. Ms. Ludvigsen explained why she felt there valid reason for focusing on the foothill areas. are the largest open space areas remaining. is a These Marguerite Battersby of Brunick and Pyle, represent- ing Saldecke and Sky, the plaintiffs in the General Plan lawsui t, spoke regard ing a discrepancy between the two draft Requests for General Plan Extension, and endorsed the comments of Cynthia Ludvigsen and the comments of Darlene Fischer in part. Joy Kolstadt, 1542 Indian Trail, requested that more public input be given to the General Plan revision and that notice be given in the newspaper. Cynthia Grace, Deputy City Attorney, responded to the written comments of Gresham and Varner, et al, that it is not the intent of the City to require duplicative appro- vals and gave an example of how the process would work. Only one discretionary permit will be required of any project, and this is also true of any successive permits as they come down the pipeline. Ms. Grace suggested that on Figure 1 of Exhibit C that the following be added to Item 14: "...building per- mits for single family dwellings where tentative maps have been approved and recorded outside of the hazard zones...", and add an "x" in the ministerial box. 4 4/22/87 Ms. Grace suggested that "any applications" in Number 2 be clarified to exclude grading permits, water hook up permits, and street improvement plans. There is no in- tent to require additional successive discretionary re- views. "and time with respect to Item No.8, Ms. Grace added the words time extensions" to indicate that subdivisions and extensions are discretionary. It was agreed that the following footnote would be added: "Only one discretionary hearing will be required for each application". Ms. Grace stated that to clarify that it is not the Council's intent to re-enact the urgency ordinance, that the Council delete the reference to the map adopted on April 6, 1987, and substitute in its stead the map on the wall identified as Foothill Fire Hazard Zone. In response to Ms. Fischer's comments, Ms. Grace stated there were extensive public hearings on the docu- ment entitled: "Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Program" also known as the "Greenbelt Study", and explained that the southern boundary of Foothill Fire Zone C is almost identical to the diamond line which was adopted on April 6, 1987, with the exception of the detour around the north face of Little Mountain. The purpose of this is to protect development within the sensitive foothill area, and to have the City require the same development standards for all identified hazard areas throughout the City. Also in response to Ms. Fischer, Ms. Grace explained that the Municipal Code contains standards for development and required findings. Other standards that apply depend on the location of the property. In the Greenbelt Area, the Greenbel t Standards would apply and in the Verdemont Area the Verdemont Standards would apply, etc. This is no more than a restatement of existing policy. Cynthia Grace explained the purpose of "preferred land use alternative" and answered questions of the Coun- cil. Prior to adoption of the "preferred land use alter- native", the City would abide by the existing land use diagrams that have already been adopted. She offered that where the Interim Policies say after "proposed general plan elements", that the following should be added: "No proposed land use al terna ti ve will have any leg al effect until officially adopted by the Mayor and Council". It was agreed by the Council tence would be added to Nos. 1, Policies and Procedures. that the foregoing sen- 2 and 4 of the Interim Darlene Fischer presented a letter from the City Clerk stating that her office has researched the records, and finds no resolution or ordinance adopting the Green- belt Study. She Objected to the adoption of a map which was not adopted by the City. She again objected to selecting a certain area of the City for disparate treat- ment. For example, though the San Andreas fault is in- cluded in the Greenbelt Study, there is no mention of the San Jacinto fault. 5 4/22/87 Ms. Fischer suggested that the various standards for development be spelled out for each specific area such as a hazard area so that developers and the public are aware of the specific requirements for an area. She also stated that it is not clear that the existing land use desig- nations will be operative until the preferred land use alternative is adopted. Ms. Grace disagreed that the matter needed further clarification. Ms. Fischer objected to the requirement in the In- terim Policies and Procedures that states that no discre- tionary development application shall be approved unless the decision making body makes formal findings that the project is consistent with the goals, objectives, poli- cies, diagrams and programs of the City's existing and (on the basis of available information) proposed General Plan elements. The City will have a situation where goals and objectives are adopted prior to the ultimate land use designations in Phase 4 and the City will have a conflict- ing situation. To simplify this, the City should only require the development to meet the land use designations. Ms. Grace explained why the City must look at the document as a comprehensive plan and not just the land use element. When the preferred land use alternative is adopted in Phase 4, the City will have revised the goals and objectives, and at that time the new goals, policies and objectives will override the old ones. The Mayor and Council discussed the language in Part 4 of the Interim Policies and Procedures. Ms. Grace read the modified wording in Part 4. Ms. Fischer requested further clarification to Part 4 to clarify what would be operative until the preferred land use alternative is adopted. Ms. Grace explained that the Ci ty does not want to limit the determination of consistency to just the land use element. The City needs to make that determination in light of all of the elements and area plans. Her con- cern was deleting the language of the goals and objectives and limiting it to diagrams. Bill Abbott, Special Counsel to the City, stated that the Office of Planning and Research is unlikely to approve a set of conditions that basically waive the existing General Plan and rely solely on a document that is a pre- ferred alternative. The Office of Planning and Research is more likely to take the position that during the course of the General Plan revision, the City must not only have consistency with existing General Plan documents, but at that point in time, whether it be the point in time that the preferred alternative is approved by the City Council or by the Planning Commission, then a project must also be consistent with that document, so there will be two tests of consistency. Prior to the adoption of the preferred alternative, the only cr iter ia used to judge documents wi 11 be the existing General Plan. The preferred alternative will not be a basis for denying a project until such time as the Council approves it. 6 4/22/87 r Mr. Abbott explained that when a project has a land use designation that is inconsistent with the General Plan, the project cannot go forward. Findings of consis- tency must be made for development during this revision process. The whole purpose of the General Plan extension is to preserve planning options while the City is doing the General Plan. Ms. Fischer made her concluding remarks and reiter- ated her objections to Part 4 of the Interim Policies and Procedures, in summary: the lack of standards, substi tu- tion of the Greenbelt map, and disparate treatment of areas. Deputy City Attorney Grace answered Ms. Fischer's concerns, and explained that all hazard zones will be treated the same under the OPR application and that Ex- hibit E of the extension document will include all exist- ing planning policies for OPR review. Ms. Grace stated that the Foothill Fire Zone map has been used as part of the data base in processing every application through the Development Rev iew Commi ttee to determine whether there is or is not a fire hazard atten- dant to the project. Ms. Grace explained that there is no exception for infill housing if it falls within a designated hazard zone on Figure 1. The only exception for infill housing would come in Section 3 of Figure 1 where there are less than twenty units. She explained why the standards are differ- ent for a house on a collector street. Dave Anderson, Acting Planning Director, recommended as a solution, that a traffic study be required through the planning process for infill housing, and that with permission of the Traffic Engineer, an existing traffic study could be used. Bill Abbott stated that there is a rational basis for requiring additional review, even for a single family home, but this is basically a policy matter and the Coun- cil may not want to adopt such a condition. The Council presented their concerns that someone coming in for an accessory use, such as a patio, would have to go through a CUP process. Deputy City Attorney Grace recommended that the docu- ment be revised in Item No.9 to read: "...other building permi ts including accessory structures and uses". This will make it clear that the intent is to handle these types of permi ts exactly as the Ci ty always has: to treat them as ministerial, basically as an over-the-counter type of process. Ms. Grace also recommended that Item No.3 be revised to state that any infill housing shall be treated as mini- sterial whether or not it is in a hazard zone. The Council discussed the need to extend the above exception to include small commercial development. Dave Anderson, Acting Planning Director, recommended that infill housing be excluded from Item 2, rather than from Item 3. Ci ty Attorney Prince spoke regard ing standards for commercial as opposed to residential development. 7 4/22/87 Arnold Stubblefield of Stubblefield Properties, spoke regarding the CUP process, and asked if it is absolutely necessary to OPR that a CUP be required in any place that it is not required today? He also emphasized that the General Plan is defective in the whole city, not just in Highland and Verdemont, and that he strenuously resents the discriminatory nature of this document. Special Counsel Abbott responded that there is no legal requirement that the City has to submit a CUP pro- cess to the Office of Planning and Research. There are an infinite number of policies and procedures that the Coun- c i 1 could choose to adopt. However, thi s CUP process gives the City a regulatory tool to make up for the age of the existing General Plan document. Mr. Abbott also stated that the City is entirely justified in making geographic designations and setting forth different procedural requirements in different parts of the City. Deputy City Attorney Grace stated that the City can anticipate that OPR will impose some limitations on what the City can approve during the interim period, whether we volunteer such a condition or not. Resolving these issues up front will put the Ci ty' s appl ica tion on more sol id ground. Mr. Stubblefield pointed out that the City's green- belt study was found to be extremely defective and contra- dictory, and was changed extensively by the County when it was adopted by the County. It was originally the desire of the City and County that the adopted greenbelt study be substantially the same for each, but that is not the case. David Mularski, a concerned citizen, expressed con- cerns regarding Item 7 as far as a preferred land use plan being developed some ten or twelve months down the road because a developer could be near completion on approval of a project and have made substantive financial commit- ment to the property, but if the proj ect is loca ted in a hazard area and the developer has not yet pulled the building permits, then the developer must file a CUP for this ministerial application. If the developer is then faced with a preferred land use plan which says the den- sity should be lowered or the land use should be changed, there cannot be a finding of consistency for the condi- tional use permit application. Mr. Mular ski al so suggested tha tare-study of the high fire hazard is in order due to the amount of develop- ment that has taken place in the foothills. Helen Kopcynski of 8150 Cable Canyon Road, complained about the continued use of CUPs giving the City Council a lot of leeway in approving development. She opposed stan- dards under the R3 ordinance, which allow discretionary approval of 100 units or less, and also opposed exemption of commercial and industrial under the extension document. Ms. Kopcynski spoke regarding the need to set stan- dards for development in hazard areas and opposed the extension document, stating she would lobby the Office of Planning and Research. 8 4/22/87 l Darlene Fischer spoke regarding different treatment in different parts of the City and referred to the dif- ferences in Item 4 and Item 7 to make her point. Item 7 requires a CUP only for development in the foothill areas and uses a map (the Greenbelt Map) that has not been approved as an official document. If the Council insists on requiring a CUP for development, let this requirement apply citywide. If the differentiation is for the purpose of dealing with hazard zones, then set standards that developers must meet before building in the hazard zones. Ms. Fischer recommended that Item No.5 be revised to explain that the term "cumulative impact" be defined as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. Attorney Cynthia Ludvigsen objected to the revised extension document allowing General Plan amendments and zone changes during the extension period, as this would leave too much discretion. She agreed that requirements for hazard studies should be set forth clearly in the extension document and that too much discretion has been left in the document. Deputy City Attorney Cynthia Grace answered questions of the Council about the infill housing exemption, and explained how it would be presented in the extension application. She recommended that Figure 1, 2f, where it says: .....adjacent to major, secondary or collector streets or highways..... be amended to include: "(excepting infill housing)", meaning one dwelling on an existing lot of record. It was agreed that Item 3c: less than 50,000 square feet, non-residential, would be exempt from Item 2f. (same as infill housing). Ms. Grace stated that Item 8 of Figure 1 was revised to read: .....subdivisions plus time extensions..... and 9 was revised to read: .....other building permits including permits for accessory structures and uses". A discussion ensued regarding the use of the Foot- hill Communities Protective Greenbelt Study and whether or not a document never officially adopted by the Council can be used and referred to in the General Plan Extension Application. The City Attorney and Deputy Ci ty Attorney explained how the Greenbelt Study can be used in the ex- tension document. The boundary lines are being referenced as the boundary lines that relate to the extension appli- cation; the Council is not adopting the Greenbelt Plan at this time. It was agreed that "Foothill Fire Zonel1 in Greenbelt Study. the boundaries would be renamed order to avoid reference to the Attorney Darlene Fischer pointed out that Item 7 states the City shall use the Foothill Communities Pro- tective Greenbelt Program to help evaluate projects within the foothill areas, and asked clarification as to whether or not it is the Council's intent to retain that program to help evaluate the projects; if so, what does "evaluate" mean? 9 4/22/87 Ms. Grace replied that the development standards set forth in the Foothill Communities Protective Greenbelt Program are incorporated verbatim in the Verdemont Area Plan. So, as far as Verdemont is concerned, the standards are the same. Ms. Fischer stated that there was need to clarify whether the Greenbelt Study was being used for boundaries only or to evaluate projects in that area. It was agreed by the Mayor and Council that the re- visions would be completed by the City Attorney's staff by 2: 30 p.m., this date and the Council would reconvene at 4:00 p.m. Council Member Flores stated he could not be present at 4:00 p.m. RECESS MEETING At 11:40 a.m., Council Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Council Member Frazier, that the Adjourned Regular meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino recess until 4:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Maudsley, Quiel, Frazier, Strick- ler. Noes: Council Member Flores. Absent: Council Member Reilly. RECONVENE MEETING At 4: 15 p.m. the Adjourned Regular Mayor and Common Counci 1 of the Ci ty of reconvened in the Council Chambers of City "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. Meeting of the San Bernardino Hall, 300 North ROLL CALL Roll Call was taken by the Ci ty Clerk wi th the fol- lowing being present: Mayor Wilcox; Council Members: Estrada, Maudsley, Quiel, Strickler; City Attorney Prince, City Clerk Clark, City Administrator Schweitzer. Absent: Council Members: Reilly, Flores, Frazier. GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT REVISION - CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN MEETING This is the time and place continued deration of a General Plan Element Revision of San Bernardino. to for consi- for the Ci ty (I) Copies of revised pages as discussed earlier in the meeting were distributed. City Attorney Prince answered questions stating that even though it is not specified in the General Plan Ele- ment Revision, that the general policy of applicants having the right to appeal to the Mayor and Common Council concerning requirements in the revision, would still hold true, as this document does not address zoning and plan- ning procedures. He further stated that a note could be added to the General Plan Element Revision that all of the Ci ty' s zoni ng and other ord inances are appl icable to the interim policies. Cynthia Grace, Deputy City Attorney, stated that copies of all of the City's existing procedures, ordi- nances, resolutions and plans relating to the planning process are being transmitted to Sacramento under separate cover, so it is unnecessary to restate existing law in the application. 10 4/22/87 Special Counsel Abbott stated that normal assumption at OPR is that all of the existing rules and procedures will continue to be in force, and that is why OPR requests copies of all regulations, as the General Plan Extension or the extension conditions, act in conjunction and in addition to the General and Area Plans, etc. The addition of a period after "recorded" and the striking of the words "outside of areas identified in 2a through f above", Page 4, Figure 1, Item 14, was discussed as having the effect that all building permits for single family dwellings be made ministerial, irrespective of whether they are inside or outside of hazard areas. They would have already had discretionary approval in the form of a tentative map, and would not require another discre- tionary approval. Darlene Fisher, Attorney representing area property owners, requested the inclusion of standards in the draft references on Page 3, Exhi bit 3, in order to precl ude confusion as to their definition. Cynthia Grace, standards will be transmitted to OPR. Deputy City Attorney, stated that the a part of Exhibit E, which will be Attorney Fisher requested that the language in Poli- cies 1, 2, & 4 regarding the use of the existing General Plan vs. proposed land use alternative be modified to clarify that it is the intent of the Common Council that until the preferred land use alternative is adopted that the project will be required to be consistent with the existing General Plan. Special Counsel Abbott outlined the planning process that the City will go through. The City Planning Consul- tants will generate alternatives for consideration. During Phase 3, the Council will identify what they view as a preferred alternative among four. That action is separate and distinct from the ultimate adoption of the General Plan. The underlying language takes effect at the time the Council identifies its preferred alternative. Marguerite Battersby, Attorney representing Saldecke and Sky, expressed a different interpretation from that of Ms. Fisher of Mr. Abbott's earlier statements. Concern was expressed over giving the Council and the City the discretion to continue approving projects and developments based entirely on the existing General Plan, when the existing General Plan does not contain any of the neces- sary and mandatory elements. She requested that any pro- ject that could be affected by a change in an element or which contains aspects which would be addressed by an element, which may not exist in the General Plan now, be put on hold until Phase 3. For a 10 month period, any project which could foreseeably jeopardize the ability of the City to adopt a valid General Plan, would be put on hold until such time as the land use alternative is adopted, in order to preclude a flurry of development applications coming through in anticipation of free license for the next ten months, until stricter standards are imposed. Special Counsel Abbott stated that if the legislature had intended development to halt during the period of time that the General Plan was being revised, they would not have provided this type of remedy. The application to OPR is to permit types of development to occur at the same 11 4/22/87 l time that the reV1Slon of the General Plan is going for- ward. In view of the requested changes to Policies 1, 2, and 4, he suggested that the following be the concluding sentence of paragraphs 1, 2 and 4: "Findings of consis- tency with the preferred land use alternative shall not be required until the preferred land use alternative is approved by the Mayor and Common Council." The Mayor and Common Counc il agreed wi th the recom- mendation of Special Counsel Abbott. Mayor Wilcox asked for any further comments of the public, staff or Council. RES. 87-135 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUPPORTING THE REQUEST OF THE STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH FOR A TIME EXTENSION TO COMPLETE THE GENERAL PLAN. City Clerk Clark read the title of the resolution. Council Member Strickler made a motion, seconded by Council Member Quiel and unanimously carried, that further reading of the resolution be waived and that said resolu- tion be adopted as amended by interdelineation. Resolution No. 87-135 was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members Estrada, Maudsley, Quiel, Strickler. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Reilly, Flores, Frazier. ADJOURNMENT At 4: 50 p.m., Council Member Quiel made a motion, seconded by Council Member Strickler and unanimously car- ried, that the meeting be adjourned. ~//ff4 ~ff /' City Clerk 12 4/22/87