JANUARY 24, 2006


The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:06 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.


Commissioner Perestam led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.


Present: Commissioners Karp, Perestam, Gerstner, Vice Chairman Knight, and Chairman Tetreault

Absent: Commissioner Mueller was excused

Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Senior Planner Schonborn, and Associate Planner Fox.


The agenda was unanimously approved as presented.


Staff distributed correspondence for Agenda Item No. 2, information on the upcoming Monterey conference, and the Initial Study for the Crestridge Senior Condominium project whose scoping meeting will be held at the February 14th Planning Commission meeting. Staff also reported that on January 17th the City Council approved the Height Variation on Ocean Terrace Drive.




1. Proposed View Restoration and Preservation Guideline amendments

Director/Secretary Rojas presented a brief staff report, noting that staff was recommending this item be continued to the February 14th Planning Commission meeting to allow more time at tonight’s meeting to hear the applications on this agenda.

The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the item to the February 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

2. Revision to Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00439): Seabreeze HOA

Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the proposed project. He noted that because of issues raised by the public of potential view impairment, staff asked the applicant to stake and flag the location and height of the proposed pilasters and fencing west of Sea Terrace Drive to allow the public and staff the opportunity to view the potential impacts that may result. He explained that staff has looked at the potential impact of the project, acknowledging there is some encroachment into the ocean view, however not much more than what currently exists at some of the other local tracts within the City, showing many pictures of the proposed project as well as similar fencing at other tracts. He stated that staff concluded the proposed fencing would not create a significant view impairment and was recommending the Planning Commission approve the revision to the Conditional Use Permit.

Vice Chairman Knight asked if staff had taken any pictures from the far western portion of Crest Road, as he felt that section of proposed fencing would eliminate the Catalina Island view.

Senior Planner Schonborn acknowledged the section of fencing, however noted that at that portion of Crest Road the road begins to curve and staff felt that at that portion of the road the drivers attention would not be focused on the road rather than Catalina Island, and therefore was not a significant view impairment.

Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify the statement in the Conditions of Approval which states that no foliage will exceed the height of the trail easement.

Senior Planner Schonborn explained that directly behind the easement there is a transitional slope, and the purpose of the condition is to ensure no foliage planted will exceed the height of the trail easement and encroach into the view. He noted that foliage will therefore be flush with the ground.

Commissioner Perestam asked who would be responsible for the foliage along the fence if it were to grow above the allowed height.

Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the HOA or the individual property owner would be responsible for maintaining the foliage at the required height.

Commissioner Gerstner asked staff what is different now from when the tract was originally approved that makes a fence appropriate in this location.

Senior Planner Schonborn explained that it has always been the desire of the HOA to have the fence at this location.

Director/Secretary Rojas added that there were discussions about a fence when the tract was initially being discussed. He stated there were concerns about the height of the fence and safety issues however nothing was approved. He explained that while the tract conditions do not specifically prohibit a fence in this location, a fence was not approved there. He noted that he has been having discussions with the HOA for many years about installing a fence at this location.

Chairman Tetreault asked staff to clarify if a fence is specifically prohibited at this location by the Conditional Use Permit, of if a fence is allowed at this location.

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that there is a landscaping and fencing plan for the tract that has been approved the City, and there is no fence in this location included in the approval. Furthermore, the Conditional Use Permit does not discuss a fence at this location. Therefore, staff felt that for a fence to be constructed along Crest Road a revision to the Conditional Use Permit would be required to ensure that the intent of the approved Conditional Use Permit is maintained.

Chairman Tetreault noted that the staff report did not include a copy of the original Conditional Use Permit, and therefore he was not sure what he was being asked to amend.

Chairman Tetreault referred to the plan submitted by the applicant, noting the plan calls for the spaces between the wrought iron bars to be 4 inches. He asked if there were any code requirements regulating the distance between the bars and if the spacing could be increased.

Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the Development Code does not address spacing between vertical members of a fence, only that the area between the vertical structures allow for 80 percent light and air.

Vice Chairman Knight asked if the original CUP had restrictions about foliage growing into the view corridor from Crest Road, noting on a photograph the existing foliage that has grown into that corridor.

Senior Planner Schonborn answered that there were no restrictions in the CUP that the foliage could not grow into the view corridor, however there are conditions that the trees be of a species that can be maintained at 16 feet.

Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing.

Donna Coogan-Segal 37 Sailview Ave (representing the Seabreeze HOA) stated that she has received 85 signatures from residents inside the Seabreeze Tract and outside of the tract in support of the construction of this fence. She stated that many people feel this proposed fence will enhance the aesthetics of the view corridor. She felt that, more importantly, this fence is a safety issue. She explained there are many children in this neighborhood and the steepness of the slope is very dangerous for these children. She explained that she has measured the fence constructed at the Oceanfront Estates and this proposal emulates their fence plan exactly. She explained the HOA chose Oceanfront Estates because that tract is very similar to the Seabreeze Tract in that it has low lying home sites and view corridor constraints. She emphasized that the proposed fence at Seabreeze is needed more for a safety barrier for pedestrian and equestrian traffic along Crest Road. She also noted that the fence will enhance the Seabreeze community identification and neighborhood ambiance.

Commissioner Karp asked who would maintain this fence and keep it from becoming an eyesore.

Ms. Coogan-Segal answered that the HOA would maintain the fence. She noted that the proposed fence would be made of galvanized steel and powder coating to prevent rust.

Tom Alley 6304 Sattes Drive explained that when the Seabreeze Tract was developed there was a lot of thought and work put in to preserving the ocean and Catalina Island views. He noted that already there is foliage that has been planted that is in this view corridor that needs to be trimmed. He felt that the proposed fence and pilasters along Crest Road will not add to the privacy of the Seabreeze homes and will block some views from Crest Road, therefore he felt the fence has some negative impact without any apparent benefit. He requested the City deny the application and closely monitor the foliage along Crest Road in order to preserve the views that were intended when Seabreeze was approved. He disagreed with the staff report, and felt that the fence would cause a significant view impairment, specifically to eastbound traffic approaching the project. He also felt that the rest of the project should have been staked, as it is just an assumption the fence in that area will not cause view impairment.

Ms. Coogan-Segal (in rebuttal) stated that the HOA will be sending out letters regarding the foliage to its members, reminding them that the foliage must be trimmed. She also noted that much of the foliage that has grown into the view is from homes on Ocean Terrace Drive. She also noted that trees and foliage planted along the center median has begun to grow into the view.

Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing.

Vice Chairman Knight asked staff what the elevation drop is from the trail area down to the level part of the pad of the residences.

Senior Planner Schonborn answered that it varies, but averages approximately 10 feet.

Vice Chairman Knight stated that one could plant a tree in the backyard and it could potentially grow 6 feet above the trail easement and potentially into someone’s view.

Senior Planner Schonborn stated that was correct.

Chairman Tetreault discussed the homes and the way the tract was designed with the intent of reducing view impairment, especially with the flat roof design of the homes. He stated that he reviewed the minutes from 1991 when the tract was being proposed and it is very clear the Planning Commission was very concerned about view impairment.

Director/Secretary Rojas agreed, adding that in reviewing the 1991 minutes, it was clear that there was an intent to design and lay out the tract in a manner that one could see over the homes and avoid significant impairment of the ocean and Catalina. Therefore, staff felt that this request warranted a revision to the CUP to ensure this request is consistent with the original approval.

Chairman Tetreault felt that views were important enough to engineer this entire tract to preserve as much view as possible from Crest Road and the surrounding neighborhoods. He felt this warrants serious consideration when discussing this fence. Secondly, he discussed the safety issue, noting that he understood the safety concerns. However, he did not feel this proposed fence would stop any car from going over the side, nor would it impede its progress down the slope. Regarding pedestrians, he noted that there is a concrete sidewalk and a wide stretch of dirt before reaching the slope, and did not feel there was any danger of falling down the slope when walking along the sidewalk. He recalled a recent City Council discussion regarding a similar fence on Palos Verdes Drive South. He stated that during that discussion it was noted that when looking straight on at the wrought iron fence and pilasters it was fairly transparent, however when at an angle looking down the row or off in the distance, the fence becomes more of a solid wall. He felt this should also be a consideration when discussing this application, suggesting increasing the space between the wrought iron stakes.

Commissioner Karp stated that safety was not an issue for him, as he agreed with the Chairman’s comments about the sidewalk. He stated he was more interested in the issue of the ocean and Catalina Island view. He stated that he drove up and down Crest Road many times over the weekend, and felt that the proposed fence will diminish the view. He therefore could not support the proposal.

Vice Chairman Knight agreed that the street was more of a safety issue than the slope. He too felt that the western portion of the fence would block the view of the ocean and Catalina Island. He stated that he understood the residents desire for the fence, noting that there are many sections of the fence have no impact on the views. He therefore was unsure of what the solution should be.

Commissioner Perestam agreed. He stated he was interested in the Chairman’s suggestion of increasing the distance between the stakes, however he noted there might then be a safety issue. He explained that increasing the distance between stakes from 4 inches to 6 or 7 inches would then open up the possibility of one getting a head, leg, or arm stuck between stakes. He stated he was struggling with the health and safety issue and with the view issue, and was struggling with the project as a whole.

Commissioner Gerstner recognized the concern for safety, but felt this fence was more about security than safety. He stated he wouldn’t object to the fence, however felt the proposal was less than 80 percent open.

Director/Secretary Rojas explained that this fence has not been conditioned to be 80 percent light and air. He explained that staff analyzed the proposal on what it looked like based on height and the plan. He stated that the Planning Commission has the ability to condition the fence be 80 percent light and air.

Chairman Tetreault stated that, as proposed, he is not in favor of approving the fence. He felt that the proposed fence will have an impact on an important view, and did not think it had to. He felt that the desires for the aesthetics for the community could be accomplished in some fashion without this end result.

Vice Chairman Knight questioned whether the fence had to be as high as currently proposed, and if lowering the fence would make a significant difference. He stated that there are a few places in the City where there is a spectacular view of the ocean and Catalina Island, and this is one of them.

Chairman Tetreault noted that there have been many comparisons between this proposed fence and the fence at Oceanfront Estates. He stated that he did not think about going to Oceanfront Estates and looking at the impact of that fence on the view.

Commissioner Karp moved to deny the revision to the Conditional Use Permit without prejudice, seconded by Chairman Tetreault for the purposes of discussion.

Vice Chairman Knight felt one of two things could be done by the Planning Commission; deny the application without prejudice to allow the applicants to come back with a new proposal, or the Planning Commission can suggest the applicant address the concerns and continue the public hearing to a future meeting.

Commissioner Perestam did not feel the Commissioners necessarily agreed on what needs to be done to the proposal to make it acceptable, and unless there is some agreement amongst the Commission it may be necessary to deny the application without prejudice.

Commissioner Gerstner stated his inclination would be to deny without prejudice, as he cannot come up with a suggestion that would make the fence more palatable. He felt that it may be helpful to look at some of the similar fencing in the community with a more critical eye and possibly come up with a different conclusion. He agreed that there is a very unique view from Crest Road, and he is very hesitant to change that.

Chairman Tetreault re-opened the public hearing.

Chairman Tetreault stated that the applicant has heard what the Planning Commission has to say and what the concerns are, and asked for a response.

Donna Coogan-Segal stated that she was perplexed because there are lovely home developments throughout the City with lovely pilaster fences. She noted several tracts with wrought iron fences where vegetation has overgrown the fence and block spectacular views. She noted that vegetation would not be allowed to grow over the fence at the Seaview Tract. She also discussed safety, noting that at the western portion of the fence the road curves and the drivers should be giving all of their attention to driving rather than looking at the view. She felt the proposed fence will delineate a neighborhood and creating an aesthetic corridor. She felt that drivers will not be looking through the fence, but over the fence, and will be able to see the ocean and Catalina Island.

Commissioner Perestam asked Ms. Coogan-Segal if she would be receptive to an alternate design.

Ms. Coogan-Segal answered she, as a homeowner, would be receptive to an alternate design, specifically the space between pillars. She was not as receptive to lowering the height of the wall, except on the western end where the curve is. She stated she would rather work with the City to achieve a compromise than be left with nothing.

Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing.

Chairman Tetreault stated he was not ready to vote on this issue one way or the other and needed more time to look at other tracts in the City and to allow the applicant to discuss with the HOA any modifications they felt they could make on the fence.

Vice Chairman Knight stated that there is quite a bit of difference between what exists in the City and what applications are before the Planning Commission. He stated that this application is before the Commission and this is the application the Commission is hearing the merits on. He agreed that he would like to give the applicant time to consider the concerns of the Commission before making a decision.

Commissioner Karp moved to table the current motion to March 14, 2006 to allow the applicant to consider the concerns of the Planning Commissioners and to allow the Commissioners time to view the fencing of some of the similar tracts in the City, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (5-1) with Chairman Tetreault dissenting.

Chairman Tetreault asked that staff provide the Commission with some background information on the Oceanfront Estates fence along Palos Verdes Drive West and Vice Chairman Knight requested additional pictures taken from the westerly section of Crest Road.

Commissioner Perestam requested the applicant look at variable heights for the wall at different locations and also look at multiple locations for the wall going down the slope


At 8:35 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:45 p.m. at which time they reconvened.


3. Height Variation, Grading Permit and Variance (Case No. ZON2003-00620): 6010 Ocean Terrace Drive

Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant has requested a continuance of his application to March 14, 2006 to allow time to revise the project to address concerns of the neighbors and Planning Commission. He noted that the applicant has granted the City a 90-day extension of the decision deadline. Therefore, staff is recommending the Planning Commission continue the item to March 14, 2006.

Without objection, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 14 2006.


4. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00149): 28045 Ella Road

Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Height Variation. He stated that staff has received several comments from the neighbors regarding neighborhood compatibility and view impairment, therefore staff conducted an assessment of these issues. Regarding view impairment, staff displayed pictures taken from the three residences expressing concern, noting that staff determined there was not a significant view impairment from any of the three residences. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he explained that because of the architectural style and bulk and mass, staff was not able to make the necessary finding in a positive manner. Therefore, staff was recommending denial of the application.

Vice Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify the privacy infringement issue from the proposed second story deck in the rear.

Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the proposed second story deck would allow for direct observation to the adjacent property.

Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing.

Ted Powell 110 Vista del Mar, Redondo Beach (architect) stated that, in terms of neighborhood compatibility, within the 500-foot radius there are 13 two-story houses. He showed photographs of these two-story homes, noting the variety of architectural styles. He explained that the proposed addition will be set back behind the existing garage and the mass and bulk has been mitigated by articulating the first and second floor walls with sloped and curved walls. He therefore did not feel neighborhood compatibility was an issue. In terms of view, he noted that if the house were to be developed at the 16-foot height level, there would still be no view of the ocean from the neighboring property. He explained that the architectural style is important to the owners, noting this is not a situation where one is trying to develop a house and sell, as the house is very meaningful to the owners. He noted that two of the objections were from absentee landlords.

Glenda Urmacher 28039 Ella Road stated she was never notified of this project or hearing, and therefore has not even seen the plans. She stated that she is vehemently opposed to the project, noting the deck will look directly into her property. She was very concerned about the geology of the area, noting that there has been slippage on her rear slope. She requested that a geologic report be prepared to ensure the construction will be geologically sound. She did not feel the house will be compatible with the neighborhood.

Lindley Ruddick 28042 Acana Road stated that he too did not receive any notification of the project. He stated that he was in support of the Planning Department recommendation to deny the project. He felt that this proposed residence will be approximately twice the size of any other home in the neighborhood and the size, as well as the architectural style, does not lend itself to maintaining the neighborhood character of single-story ranch style homes.

Louise Lalande 28031 Acana Road stated the proposed project will block her sunset and ocean views that she has viewed for 43 years and therefore her property value will be lowered. She stated that she opposes the proposed development.

Ted Powell (in rebuttal) displayed the original mailing list and certified mail receipts showing the first speaker was notified. He addressed the issue of privacy, noting that currently the applicant can look directly into both neighboring yards. He stated that even with the second story deck there will be no possibility of looking in the neighboring houses. He again showed pictures of all of the two-story homes that are located within the 500-foot radius, noting the different architectural styles. He also showed the current views from the applicant’s home into the neighboring side yards.

Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Powell if there had been any discussions with the neighbors during the course of designing this project.

Mr. Powell answered that last summer he walked through the neighborhood, speaking to approximately 80 of the neighbors. He stated that there is a frustration inherent in this neighborhood, noting there are 19 absentee landlords.

Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing.

Vice Chairman Knight felt that, in driving the neighborhood, the silhouette seemed to really stick out. After looking at the plans, he agreed with staff’s recommendation that the house will not be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of style, bulk, and mass. He also agreed that there is no view impairment. He stated that, at this time, he supported staff’s recommendation to deny the project.

Commissioner Karp felt the comments regarding absentee landlords and lack of notification should be dismissed, as they are not relevant to what the Planning Commission must consider. He felt the issues that should be focused on are mass and bulk, and in this situation he felt the house will be too big and stand out too much in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Perestam agreed, noting this proposed residence has different architecture than other homes in the neighborhood and is out of scale with the homes in the neighborhood. He felt that the proposed residence will also impact views in the neighborhood, noting that there is already a lot of foliage throughout the neighborhood that is obstructing views. He felt that the future of the neighborhood will be in restoring views that are currently blocked by overgrown vegetation, whether on private property or City property.

Commissioner Gerstner referred to a photograph of the silhouette, stating that looking at that alone compels him to agree with staff’s recommendation.

Chairman Tetreault agreed with the comments made by the Commissioners, noting that this neighborhood does not seem to be very much in transition, as many other neighborhoods in the City are. He stated that he was in agreement with staff’s recommendation.

Vice Chairman Knight moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2006-05 thereby denying, without prejudice, the Height Variation. Approved, (5-0).

5. Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2004-00638): 3764 Coolheights Dr

Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. He noted that there are two ridgelines on the silhouette, explaining the original project was proposed at 2 feet higher than the current submittal. He stated that while many of the required findings can be made, there are three findings staff feels cannot be made. He displayed photographs taken from three neighboring homes, noting that staff determined there would be significant view impairment to the house at 3767 Coolheights Drive. He then displayed photographs of different homes in the neighborhood and discussed neighborhood compatibility. He explained that with the proposed additions the subject home would be approximately 88 percent larger than the average home in the neighborhood and 65 percent larger than the next largest home in the neighborhood. Therefore, staff determined that the house is not consistent with neighborhood compatibility in terms of size, scale, bulk, and mass, the proposal created a significant view impairment, and there is a potential for privacy infringement to the neighboring property and was recommending denial of the project without prejudice.

Commissioner Karp asked if it would be possible to grade the lot down slightly and create more of a split-level home on this property.

Associate Planner Fox answered that it may be possible, however staff would be very concerned about proper drainage on the lot.

Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing.

Karel Bujok 3764 Coolheights Drive stated that this addition was designed to be as low as possible and not affect his neighbors. He stated that he was not fully prepared at this time to discuss the recommendations in the staff report and was hoping the item could be continued to a later meeting. He stated he would also like the extra time to take additional photographs for the Commissioners. Regarding the issue of privacy, he stated that could easily be fixed by removing the proposed window in the bedroom. He felt that when discussing view, consideration should be given to what type of view there is, and did not feel that losing 40 percent of a very, very marginal view of Catalina should be considered significant.

Dan Rodriguez 3767 Coolheights Drive stated that the main living area in his home is on the second floor of the residence, noting the lower level contains only two bedrooms and den. He stated that the entire upstairs has windows across the entire wall and from every room there is a view of Catalina Island. He felt this proposed project will take away his view of Catalina Island. He realized and understood his neighbor is trying to improve the value of his home, however he did not think that should be done at the detriment to his home. He passed photos to the Planning Commission that he took showing the view from his home.

Muhammad Farooq 3777 Coolheights Drive explained that he has trimmed most of the trees in front of his house and displayed pictures showing the view from his home. He explained he has already lost a portion of his view due to the home being constructed on the west side of his residence and now he is facing the loss of his Catalina view from his bedroom and living room because of this proposed construction. He stated that he supports staff recommendation to deny the proposed project.

Karel Bujok (in rebuttal) stated that he does not want to do anything that will be detrimental to his neighbors, however he questioned what would be considered a significant view, and just because a real estate agent says a house has a view does not mean it is a significant view. He also questioned where his neighbor’s photographs were taken from, as a different view will be seen when standing directly in front of the window as opposed to a view when seated at the dining room table.

Commissioner Gerstner asked Mr. Bujok if he has visited his neighbor’s homes to look at the silhouette from their viewing area. He felt it was very important to look at what is being proposed from the neighbor’s view.

Mr. Bujok answered that he has not, and was not invited to do so. He asked for guidance from the Planning Commission on what he could do to make the project more compatible. He stated that he would be willing to reduce the square footage of the project.

Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Perestam stated that with the trees now trimmed at 3777 Coolheights Drive it is apparent that there is a significant view impact from this residence. He felt that if this item is to be continued, staff should reassess the view impact from that residence.

Associate Planner Fox stated that he understood the Farooq’s concerns about the view from the bedroom and office area, however he noted that the viewing area for this residence has been defined as the living room and those rooms cannot be considered in the view analysis.

Commissioner Karp stated he would like to see some type of analysis done on lowering the garage and making the house a split-level. He felt that this would lower the entire height of the house, possibly 4 to 6 feet. He also requested a topographical survey be included in future packets for the Planning Commission.

Vice Chairman Knight stated he could not make two of the findings, as he felt there is a significant view impact. Therefore, as the project stands, he cannot support the project.

Commissioner Gerstner agreed there will be a view impact, and that view impact needs to be significantly reduced or eliminated. He strongly recommended the applicant to visit the neighbor’s homes to see what that view impact is. He stated that as currently designed, he cannot support the project.

Commissioner Perestam noted that views are very important to the residents in this City, as noted by the overwhelming passage of Prop M. He encouraged Mr. Bujok to keep this in mind and understand that even a small view is a very important view.

Chairman Tetreault agreed that this project creates a view impact. He noted that Mr. Bujok’s home is surrounded by two-story homes that most likely would not be allowed if proposed today because of the view ordinance. He felt that the Rodriguez house across the street was designed to have a Catalina and ocean view, and he was able to see that view from every room. He felt that the Planning Commission is compelled by City Ordinance to protect that view. He therefore was inclined to agree with the staff’s recommendations of denial.

Commissioner Perestam moved to deny the application without prejudice, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight.

Chairman Tetreault noted that the applicant had requested continuing the item to allow him time to redesign the project, and asked the Commission to consider that request. He noted that the applicant will have to grant the City a 90-day extension on the decision deadline.

Commissioner Perestam questioned whether the applicant can redesign the project in a timely manner so that a decision can be reached in 90 days.

Commissioner Perestam withdrew his motion to deny the application without prejudice and Vice Chairman Knight agreed.

Chairman Tetreault re-opened the public hearing.

Mr. Bujok stated that he was willing to grant the 90-day extension and consider re-designs.

Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Perestam moved to continue the public hearing to March 28th to allow an opportunity for the applicant to re-design the project, seconded by Vice Chairman Knight. Approved, (5-0).


6. Minutes of January 10, 2006

In reviewing the minutes of the regular meeting, Vice Chairman Knight noted a clarification on Page 8 of the minutes.

Vice Chairman Knight moved to adopt the minutes of the regular meeting as amended, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (5-0) with Commissioner Gerstner and Vice Chairman Knight recused from voting on Item 1 as they were not present for that item.

Commissioner Perestam moved to adopt the minutes of the joint meeting as presented, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved, (5-0-1) with Commissioner Karp recused.


7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of February 14, 2006

The Commission reviewed and approved the Pre-Agenda for February 14, 2006.


At 10:45 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to January 31, 2006.