Loading...
PC MINS 19930413MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 13, 1993 The meeting was'called to order at 7:30 by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT: Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, and Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT: Commissioner Lorenzen (Excused). Also present were Acting Director Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman and Associate Planner Donna Jerex. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Minutes of March 23 1993. Page three was corrected to indicate that Commission Clark, not Commissioner Mowlds, suggested moss for the driveway. Page three, second sentence was changed to read "... would like to have had..." Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve the Minutes of March 23, 1993 as corrected. Motion carried without objection. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 171 - TIME EXTENSION; Eugene Muntean and Vessel -Assist Association of America, 30057 Matisse Drive. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 131, VARIANCE NO. 1.8_21 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1066 - TIME EXTENSION; Marriott, northwest corner of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. Elizabeth Kelly, 6611 Vallon Drive, requested that Item C. be removed from the Consent Calendar. She stated that it was a very significant project and since the public had not heard anything about it since 1989, it would be appropriate to review the project again before the time extension was granted. The Commissioners agreed that due to the litigation, the applicant had not had a fair opportunity to utilize their ; Conditional Use Permit and, therefore, the time extension should be granted. D. P.C. Resolution No. 93- ; denying Variance No. 352 at 2 Mustang Road (Kenneth Vukov). In response to Commissioner Clark's query, Associate Planner Jerex advised that Mr. McNulty had excused himself from the discussion and the vote on the lot split when he was a member of the Planning Commission. Chairman Katherman advised that he had directed Staff to bring back both a resolution to deny and a resolution to approve the Variance as he believed Mr. McNulty had presented misinformation at the last hearing: (a) he did not indicate that he had excused himself from discussing or voting on the lot split, and (b) he indicated that the site plan that the applicant presented was conditioned as part of the parcel map approval which it was not, but was instead an exhibit to show that the site had 3,000 sq. ft. of buildable area. Chairman Katherman noted that the applicant's architect had submitted a letter to the Commission requesting reconsideration. No Commissioner who had voted for denial at the last hearing requested reconsideration of the item, therefore, there was no further discussion. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by commissioner Mowlds, to approve Consent Calendar Items B, C, and D. Notion carried by acclamation. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 19, ZONE CHANGE NO. 20, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 647; Shafigh Zadeh, 29941 Hawthorne Boulevard. Associate Planner Silverman presented the staff report advising that (1) the applicant had decided to not submit a Conditional Use Permit application to be reviewed concurrently with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change because of the significant cost and time required, (2) it was not appropriate for the City to require such an application until a decision was made regarding the most appropriate use of the land and (3) the City Attorney had expressed concerns that the mitigation measures provided in the Revised Initial Study were not adequate. Staff recommended that the commission accept public testimony on the Revised Initial Study, General Plan amendment, and Zone Change and consider recommending one of the three alternatives (specific Plan District, a Development Agreement between the City and the landowner, or denial of the project to the City Council). In response to the commissioners' questions, Associate Planner Silverman advised that a Specific Plan District is a zoning designation which would supersede any other zoning designation on the property; would allow the City to create specific development standards including requirements for geology and biology to be resolved; would require an environmental review; would require PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 2 establishment of specific height of structures and view corridors to be maintained; is not a negotiated agreement, but is imposed by the City; and is done simultaneously with a General Plan Amendment with preparation of the Specific Plan to be completed at a later date and would allow the General Plan amendment to proceed before the details of the Specific Plan were determined. Ms. Silverman explained that the Development Agreement is a negotiated agreement between the City and the landowner; would also address specific development standards and design standards; would have to be agreed to prior to any General Plan amendment or Zone Change, however, if the landowner does not want to accept height limitations, etc., the City has the option of denying the zoning change and General Plan Amendment; is binding to any landowner and would run with the land and could be written to require that it would only be valid for one year with one, one- year extension. Ms. Silverman explained that the Planning Commission has the option to initiate a zoning change to revert back to the original zoning if the Development Agreement expires before the property is developed. She advised that in either case the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration would have to be revised and recirculated, and would include a discussion of the fiscal impacts involved with preparation of either a Specific Plan or a Development Agreement; the City would have control over the height and the mitigation factors through environmental review; the geology problems on the property have to be resolved regardless of the type of development and the typical procedure of the City is to resolve those problems prior to issuance of building permits; the City can include language -in the Specific Plan or Development Agreement that there is no guarantee that development can occur if the geology is not resolved, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for any type of development be it multi- family or commercial. Ms. Silverman stated that she would have to consult with the City Attorney to determine if the City could require that geology information be provided as part of the Initial Study for either the Specific Plan District or the Development Agreement. Associate Planner Silverman advised that the City Attorney had stated a preference for the Specific Plan District. Ms. Silverman reported that the only Development Agreement in the City was at the 7-11 property at Granvia Altamira and Hawthorne. She advised that there were several Specific Plan Districts within the City, primarily the Coastal Specific Plan, and there are several Specific Plan districts along the commercial strip on Western Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 3 Acting Director Petru advised that her preference would be for a Specific Plan District because it gives the City more ability to impose conditions. Commissioner Clark opined that if the City imposes conditions through a Specific Plan, the City will have more prerogatives then they would with a negotiated Development Agreement. Commissioner Alberio thought the Specific Plan Agreement gave the City more flexibility and the City could ask more of the developer. Commissioner Alberio stated that he had been told by Bob Benard, former Director of Environmental Services, that there was a considerable amount of geological information available on this site. Commissioner Mowlds stated that former commissioners who had reviewed this same site had informed him that at one time the geology report had indicated 110 feet of uncompacted fill, and then the next developer's geology report said the site had 90 feet of uncompacted fill. He asked why the City could not provide the Planning Commission with that same information. Ms. Silverman advised that information may have been provided during a presentation at a public hearing, the information that was taken from previous staff reports indicated a minimum of 40 feet of uncompacted fill on the site, and that in 1989 geology studies were initiated and additional information was requested by the City geologist which was never submitted by the landowner. Vice chairman Byrd said the City had to be absolutely sure all requirements were included in either alternative and that the City had absolute control. He said he would not want to see a Development Agreement made with the developer and then have changes requested in the future. Associate Planner Silverman advised that a Specific Plan District can also be amended. Commissioner Hayes expressed her concern that the Development Code needed to be updated for condominiums and townhome developments, but that with a Development Agreement, the Development Code provided the developer with the assurance that the necessary development permits would be issued regardless of changes in regulations. Phil Freeland, Pacific Development Consultants, (representing the applicant) 3205 Manhattan, Manhattan Beach, stated that they would do what the City wants as long as it is reasonable, practicable, and acceptable in all respects; he did not want the Planning Commission to think they were not willing to do what was being asked, but the City Attorney and the applicant's attorney had advised that the CUP was inappropriate at this time; he had not represented that the 1989 geology reports they had were final; under state law, a Development Agreement is a mutually acceptable agreement, as is the Specific Plan which has to be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 4 reasonable and has to allow for certain development; either agreement is acceptable to them but they prefer the Development Agreement; both agreements guarantee that if the applicant goes ahead and spends time and money he will be able to develop the site residential; they were willing to discuss details such as height and parking spaces, but thought they were issues that would come up as part of a Specific Plan or Development Agreement; they were prepared to assume the cost of either the Specific Plan District or Development Agreement process; they had not presented a specific development plan but had rather indicated some of the things they would want to see; and if the City did not think the zone change and General Plan Amendment were in the City's interest, they would prefer that the Commission forward a recommendation to deny rather than continue it. Shafigh Zadeh, (applicant) 29620 Island View Drive, stated that he lives close to the site and he values the neighborhood and the City's goals. Mr. Zadeh said it would be ironic for him to do anything contrary to those goals or the neighbors' desires, and he did not want the neighbors to view this project or himself as an adversary. Robert Earl, (applicant's architect) 8500 Melrose, Los Angeles, stated that if a Specific Plan District was dictated with a maximum 16 foot height limit, he could spread the project out and possibly open up a view corridor above the 16 feet, but that would cut off valuable view corridors between the buildings with their present design. He advised that they are designing this project to all current codes that serve most California major cities which may be more restrictive than the City's current Development Code. Because of the geological conditions on the property, they are proposing subterranean parking and are proposing to remove 20 feet of dirt, thus minimizing the depth of the caissons. He said he knew geology was a problem and that no building permit could be obtained without approval by the City geologist. In response to questions from Commissioners Alberio and Mowlds, Mr. Earl stated that the present plan was not substantially different from the plan previously distributed to the Commissioners and advised that their present development plans included seven units of 2,000 sq. ft. each with three parking spaces for each unit. He said they were proposing units to be done in separate buildings very similar to single family homes with side yards between the buildings, and that the peak of the roof would be at 24 feet, but would slope down approximately ten feet at various areas and allow view corridors between the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 5 buildings of ten to twenty feet. He noted that all resident and guest parking would be under grade. 0 Commissioner Mowlds asked Mr. Earl to indicate on the plans how he would revise the floor plan to allow a view corridor for the residents at the Seagate Townhomes who have a protected view of Catalina and the isthmus. Mr. Earl said they took the photograph of the property from the high part of the hill and designed a silhouette of the buildings, and the roof pitch and the maximum roof height based on those photographs. Chairman Katherman and Commissioner Mowlds said that view was looking along Crest Road and did not show all impacted views. Commissioner Mowlds also discussed the problem of geology issues on approved projects becoming a contest between the City geologist and the developer. Mr. Earl advised that he had worked in the area for 14 years and had designed Island View, The Ranch, and other developments within the City all of which had serious geological considerations and, therefore, he knew how and in what order to approach the geological situation. Chairman Katherman advised that the Commission was dealing with the issue of the uncompacted fill on this site, which is not a typical condition on the Peninsula. Chuck McCormick, President, Seagate Homeowners Association, stated that the most significant missing part of this project is the geological study. He could not understand why the commission was not being very specific and placing the burden on the owner or developer to prove that there was not going to be a problem with this site and that the City would not end up in court. He advised that the Seagate units are the ones that have the most view impact and that the developer had provided photographs that do not show the view impact on the Seagate residents. Mr. McCormick said it was not necessary for the Commission to discuss whether they do a Development Agreement or a Specific Plan District because the project was wrong. Mr. McCormick advised that 620 of the residents in the 167 units had signed petitions opposing the project. Vice Chairman Byrd advised that under a specific Plan or Development Agreement, the City could identify and ask for view corridors that were absolute which might offer more view protection than Seagate residents now have as they can be specified in more detail than what is in the General Plan. Mr. McCormick advised that the Seagate Homeowners had not discussed the merits of a Specific Plan District or a Development Agreement and that their discussions had focused on the fact that a building height of 30 feet or 24 feet was outrageous because of the impact on views. He stated, however, that they were more PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 6 concerned with the basic issue of geology and finding out what can be built on the site before worrying about view corridors. Victor N. Cabas,(representing the Monaco Homeowners Association) 31021 Marne Drive, testified against the zone change and said that the Homeowners Association had never received formal notice about this project. He expressed his concern about the view impact and asked if the developer had taken into consideration view corridors for their area. He said the Monaco residents were also concerned about an ETR and a geological survey, safety, traffic and additional costs to the City. He stated that although the owner had a right to build on the site, people who live in the area have a right to make sure that the development is in accordance with the General Plan. In response to Commissioner Clark's question, Mr. Cabas advised that there are 272 homes in Monaco but no polling had been done of the homeowners. Frank Sesno, (representing Cresta Verdes Homeowners Association), 97 Cresta Verdes stated that they could live with the 16 foot commercial height limit but that the proposed project created significant view impairment and would affect property values. He advised that 65% of the residents had signed a petition opposing the Zone Change and that views would be impacted in approximately 20 of the 104 units. Dawn Henry, 6525 Via Colinita, President, Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Home Owners Associations, advised that they had discussed the project at their February meeting and had voted unanimously to oppose any zoning change. She said they wanted the site to be consistent with the General Plan and they were very concerned about view impairment, increased density, and geology. Ms. Henry stated that it was very important to have plans and a full understanding of the geological conditions before any approval was given. She thought the Specific Plan and Development Agreement allowed considerable leeway between the City and the developer and asked how much allowance there was for citizen input. Ms. Henry advised that the Council of Homeowners Associations was requesting that a full EIR be done rather than a Negative Declaration, that any construction be done in compliance with the General Plan and that there be full mitigation of any adverse impacts. She stated that they recommend that the Commission deny this project and said they do not want a precedent to be set for this area. She advised that no polling was done of the Associations, but that all of the 20 Homeowner Association representatives who attended the meeting (out of a total 30 ) were against the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 7 RECESS AND RECONVENE The meeting recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30. John Sharkey, 30320 Avendia de Calma, voiced his concern that he was left off the notice mailing list. He asked why the Commission was doing anything at all to change the General Plan or Zoning since there was nothing in it for the citizens. He advised that other projects had granted such things as 30% common open space and they still had to adhere to the Development Code, whereas this developer wants approval for a 24 foot building upfront with a tentative Development Agreement and units with 2,000 sq. ft. which is below that required by the Development Code. He said the developer was also proposing a subterranean garage with caissons and since Jonathan Atwood has discovered a pair of nesting gnatcatchers on the site, they can't go down 40 feet to 100 feet. Mr. Sharkey said there are also the issues of view impact and geology. He stated that the General Plan is always the controlling document whether talking about a specific Plan District or a Development Agreement and this proposal is in many ways against the City's General Plan. He noted that the Negative Declaration is illegal According to the City Attorney because they have not significantly reduced the view obstruction. Robin Rushmore, 6542 ocean crest Drive, stated that the project will obstruct her view and her property values will go down. David Bray, 6661 Crest Road, stated that the Planning Commission is under no obligation to grant a zone change. He said he had seven years of experience, including President, on the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association of Rolling Hills and had dealt many times with borderline property because that is all that is left in Rolling Hills. He advised that the time to stop a bad project is at the very beginning because the longer you go into a project, the more difficult it becomes to deny. He thought the Commission should not consider a Specific Plan or a Development Agreement and urged a no vote on the Zone Change. Kim Zaslow, 6526 Ocean Crest Drive, Seagate Villas, said she purchased her condo because of the view and serenity, for which she paid a good price because it sure was not for the square footage. She stated that she was opposed to the zoning change and would like to keep the site commercial, but that she really thought the site was unbuildable. Ms. Zaslow suggested a one story, beautiful restaurant be put on the site. Maria Kowalski, 6542 ocean crest Drive, advised that 62% of the Seagate residents had signed a petition opposing the project and that this did not mean that 38% of the people were for the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 8 project, just that they did not respond. She said that the residents were still trying to figure out the Specific Plan and Development Agreement alternatives. She informed the commission that many of the residents were not notified of the meeting. Steven Kowalski, 6542 Ocean Crest Drive, testified against the project and advised that there is no tax benefit to the City from the General Plan Amendment as the tax revenue would be trivial and would be offset by increased service costs; there is no low to moderate income housing benefit and, in fact, the City Council thinks the housing requirement has already been met; there is no public support and most residents are against it; it appears that the Staff and Planning Commission are not following CEQA and the Development code requirements and the developer is attempting to circumvent these regulations; it appears that the staff report was written by and included the developer's demands; creative zoning is being done since rather than following the General Plan and Development Code, two alternatives were suggested which would allow custom zoning of the lot; he was upset that their tax dollars are being used to find any way possible to get the project approved; the developer has provided very little information about the project and each request by the Planning Commission has been refused as they did not get a silhouette of the full envelope and did not get any more information about the geology or any specifics about the project; the Specific Plan District and Development Agreement should follow the Development Code not contradict it and they should not ease constraints, but should make them more restrictive; by law, the Specific Plan and Development Agreement must be consistent with the General Plan and should not be used as a mechanism to amend it; and Staff had informed him that it was proposed that the Development Agreement include a condition that the City will agree to a General Plan amendment which is not an appropriate use of the Development Agreement as it should be consistent with the General Plan; anything over 16 feet is unacceptable; this is not a situation that requires a compromise since when the applicant bought the property he knew he could only build a 16 foot commercial structure; the developer is proposing to reduce the minimum floor space per unit to 2,000 sq. ft. from the 3,600 sq. ft. required by the Development Code; the traffic impact has not been adequately addressed and a custom zone change should not be considered until they have more information about geological and environmental impacts. He questioned the history of the site and asked if it had been zoned commercial just to allow the previous trailer on the site. Mr. Kowalski asked why did the last owner not build here; what happens to the Development Agreement after it is cancelled or expires and how is it enforced; and was the applicant asking for a ten year agreement rather than the allowed five years so he could sell the site rather than develop it. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 9 Associate Planner Silverman advised that an amendment to the General Plan would not be a condition of a Development Agreement, and her discussion with Mr. Kowalski was actually a reference to timing and how the procedure would work and she had responded to him that it could be part of the preamble that a Development Agreement was being created as part of a General Plan Amendment or in association with the General Plan Amendment and would not be a requirement of the Development Agreement. Vice Chairman Byrd said he thought the language in the Staff report was quite clear that a Development Agreement meant that they make a zoning change and a General Plan Amendment and also create an agreement with the applicant and it would all be done at the same time. Ms. Silverman also explained that the Development Code requires a minimum lot area per unit of 3,600 sq. ft. and does not establish a minimum unit size. Bob Shaftel, 6526 Ocean Crest Drive, stated that he could see no benefit to the alternatives presented by staff other than to reduce the risks and expense to the developer. He advised that if the Planning Commission recommended either the Development Agreement or Specific Plan District, they would be party to bypassing the guarantee protecting his views that the City afforded him when he bought his home and would allow that view to be degraded and his and his neighbor's property values to suffer. He was concerned about the ability of the City to adequately define the conditions and constraints and then to hold the line with the developer or subsequent developer as something always falls through the cracks. He opined that it was usually possible over time to get a deviation from a specific requirement. Mr. Shaftel advised that even with a 16 foot building his view would be degraded. Sharon Creighton, 6526 Ocean Crest Drive, testified in opposition to the project because it would completely block her view of Catalina Island and she bought her unit because she understood the view was protected; there are geological problems with the site for which all the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes will ultimately bear the financial brunt of future lawsuits against the City for allowing development on a site consisting of uncompacted fill; there is a potential for damage to wild life; and she is concerned about the forthrightness of the developer and property owner and thought the community was not getting full disclosure of what will be done on the site. In response to Mr. Zadeh's statement that he did not want to do anything that was adversary to his neighbors, she said she thought taking away her view and that of her neighbors was clearly adversarial and risking a potential lawsuit against the City was clearly not in the interest of his neighbors or the City as a whole. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 10 Shell Kaplan, 6542 Ocean Crest Drive, testified against the project and asked why the Commission and Staff were expending all this time without knowing if the geology would permit the proposed project and he recommended that the geology study be done before anything else was considered. Acting Director Petru explained that in a case where the land use change that was being requested was going from a non -buildable or low density site to something higher where intensification of land use is being proposed, it is reasonable and necessary to require geology studies first. However, the project before the Commission is currently zoned for commercial development and the requested Zone Change is moving to an equivalent and maybe even a smaller size building and gross area with a multi -residential project. The geology will be an issue in either case and staff felt there was no change in impacts expected and that they will have to go through full geology before a building permit is issued, but changing the land use does not result in an impact to geology that was not there before. Acting Director Petru advised that the General Plan identifies the public view corridors over this site as one heading down Crest towards Hughes Market and one heading south on Hawthorne Boulevard and because those view corridors are at risk with this project, the City has the ability to look at the impact on public views. If the private view that is being enjoyed over this property would be blocked at 16 feet, it would not be a protected view under the Development Code because the City has to provide a minimum development right to a piece of property that has a developable zoning district on it. Ms. Petru advised that the General Plan public view corridors have more stringent requirements than views from private property simply because one is at a lower elevation in a car than standing in a unit overlooking the site. The General Plan protects the views here not because of the private view, but because of the view corridors from the public right of ways on Crest and Hawthorne. Commissioner Alberio said he would not want to grant a zone change on property that a subsequent geology report might reveal that the site could not be built on. In his rebuttal, Mr. Freeland stated that they were not trying to hide anything and had gone to the City Council with an honest proposal to develop the property as residential since there is absolutely no potential for commercial development on the site; it is the Planning Commission's right, obligation and responsi- bility to consider the land use issue; they have made commitments to the City that they would take care of the issues of view impairment, etc.; there is no basis for the statements that all PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 11 views would be lost because of a land use change; a commercial project would be more detrimental than a residential project; either a Development Agreement or Specific Plan District will cover the issues the Commission wanted to address in a CUP; and they had not dictated anything to the City but had suggested ideas as to where they would like to go with a development plan. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if they would accept a 16 foot maximum height on a residential project. Mr. Freeland said that would be difficult and they were aware that a previous planning commission had approved a 21 foot project on the site. He said that 16 feet would mean a one-story building. He stated that they could move the project down and accommodate a project that would not impact any views but that they probably would not accept a commercial or a residential project at 16 feet. Commissioner Mowlds said it was difficult to believe that the property was not viable as a commercial site because Pacific Sales was opening a retail outlet across the street. Mr. Freeland said there was no similarity between office building and retail commercial developments and they don't know if that development will be successful. Commissioner Mowlds said there would be tag along possibilities if the commercial development across the street was successful and then the site would become viable for commercial development. Commissioner Hayes thought that because of the current market for office space, residential might be better than office buildings, but there were problems with mitigation and control and also, the proposed height of 24 feet was not acceptable because it would block views. Mr. Freeland stated that a final view corridor analysis had not been done and would be done much more thoroughly as part of the process, but they are not going to put $150,000 on the line not knowing if they may do a residential development to prove to the City that, in fact, they can. Vice Chairman Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes, to close the public hearing. motion carried 6-0. Vice chairman Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to take no action on the Negative Declaration and to deny the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Vice Chairman Byrd said that there might be advantages with a Specific Plan District as it could define the requirements more specifically than the General Plan, but he would require a 16 foot height limit which was not acceptable to the applicant; so in order to save the City time and money, he moved to deny the application. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 12 I r . The Commissioners restated their concerns about view impairment, habitat destruction, traffic, geological conditions and possible lawsuits because of the geological problems. They concluded that they did not have enough information about these issues or the physical components of the project. Chairman Katherman recommended that an EIR be done for a conceptual development plan before they move ahead on the project. The motion carried 6-0 on a roll call vote. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF 1. Acting Director Petru advised that the Ocean Trails - project will be heard by the Coastal Commission on April 15, 1993. 2. Acting Director Petru announced that the new Director of Environmental Services, Bret B. Bernard, would start April 19, 1993. 3. Acting Director Petru advised that the City Manager had requested that the View Restoration Ordinance be reagendized for City Council. The subcommittee is to meet with Staff to prepare P a report on the proposed changes. B. COMMISSION 1. Vice Chairman Byrd advised that he and Associate Planner Silverman visited the site and obtained new information on Variance No. 347, 5561 Graylog (Panah). He will make the presentation to City Council on behalf of the Planning Commission. 2. Acting Director Petru, Commissioner Alberio and Chairman Katherman will plan a luncheon for former Director of Environmental Services, Dudley Onderdonk. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes to adjourn. Motion carried and the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:55 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 1993 PAGE 13