CITY OF HERMOSA BEACHCITY COUNCILRegular Meeting Agenda - AddendumTuesday, January 27, 2026Closed Session at 5:00 PM and Open Session at 6:00 PMCouncil Chambers1315 Valley DriveHermosa Beach, CA 90254CITY COUNCILRob Saemann, Mayor Mike Detoy, Mayor Pro TemRay Jackson, Councilmember Michael D. Keegan, CouncilmemberDean Francois, CouncilmemberDavid Pedersen, City Treasurer APPOINTED OFFICIALSSteve Napolitano, City ManagerJason Baltimore, Interim City Attorney EXECUTIVE TEAMBrandon Walker, Administrative Services DirectorReanna Guzman, Interim City ClerkAlison Becker, Community Development DirectorLisa Nichols, Parks & Recreation DirectorLandon Phillips, Police Chief Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 - To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at [email protected] at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach City Council meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate via the following: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89968207828? pwd=bXZmWS83dmxHWDZLbWRTK2RVaUxaUT092 Phone: Toll Free: (833) 548 0276; Meeting ID: 899 6820 7828, then #; Passcode: 472825 eComment: Submit an eComment no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Supplemental Email: Submit a supplemental email for agenda items only to [email protected]. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item and meeting date in the subject line and must be received no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Writings distributed to all, or majority of all, of the City Council after the agenda has been posted shall be available for inspection at the City Clerk's Office located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 during regular business hours. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV: Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 Live Stream: www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda Cablecast App: Available on supported devices and smart TVs If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. 16.PUBLIC HEARINGS—TO COMMENCE AT 6:30 P.M Public Comments: *Attachment 11. "SUPPLEMENTAL Public Comments from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 21, 2025" was added to item 16.b16.bADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO REMODEL AND ADD A THIRD STORY TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 901 HERMOSA AVENUE IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE AND COASTAL ZONE - 26-CDD-011 Attachments | Public Comments1.STAFF REPORT - 901 HERMOSA AVENUE - 26-CDD-011.pdf2.Attachment 1. Resolution - 901 Hermosa Avenue.pdf3.Attachment 2. CC - 901 Hermosa Ave - Zoning Map.pdf4.Attachment 3. Project Plans.pdf5.Attachment 4. 3D Sections and Views.pdf6.Attachment 5. Structural Engineer Letter.pdf7.Attachment 6. Lot Line Adjustment.pdf8.Attachment 7. Historic Resource Assessment.pdf9.Attachment 8. October 21, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments.pdf10.Attachment 9. December 16, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments.pdf11.Attachment 10. Public Notification Package.pdf12.Attachment 11. SUPPLEMENTAL Public Comments from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 21, 2025.pdfHoward Lee month correctionIn my following eComment/letter to Director Becker, submitted earlier, I mistakenly indicated the November Planning Commission meeting. I meant the October 21st Planning Commission meeting, when the 901 Hermosa Avenue application was first heard, prior to the commission continuing the matter to a date uncertain, which became December 16 in their commission. Howard LeeMonday, Jan 26, 2027 Re: Missing Testimony from the 901 Hermosa Ave re-hearing to be in Council Jan 27, 2024 To: Hermosa Beach Community Development Director Allison, Dear Director: Not necessarily of your making Ms Allison, however during the City Manager Suja Lowenthal era of the prior ~7 years, imv the Community Development Department since what I view as the unintended early retirement of former director Ken Robertson and the departure of many former employees of the department, and then the former City Clerk's imposition of imv the disastrous and amateurish eScribe agenda/minutes system in July of 2024, many staff reports of continued matters both from the Planning Commission to a future Planning Commission meeting, and then when reheard at the Council as in the case of the 901 Hermosa Avenue proposed-project (in both cases) FAILED to include all prior public testimony, both oral and via eComments, in some manner. Only a couple of emails seem to be included with the prior Staff report of the 901 Hermosa Avenue matter which are included only in its PDF. The prior eScribe links to the full item with also eScribe’s convoluted system of attachments and eComments are not present and it's probably because of the fact that eScribe provides no means to extract a direct link to an agenda's particular item, a MAJOR DEFICIENCY OF eScribe. You can only include a direct link to an eScribe full meeting’s agenda and then you must reference the item # within same. With regard to the 901 Hermosa Avenue application’s Public Hearing, I and Laura Pena had submitted eComments for the November Planning Commission meeting on the matter, with and without attachments. Those comments were not included, as prior to eScribe they always had been in the Granicus days, for both the December continuation of that item in the Planning Commission, nor for tomorrow's January 27 re-hearing at the Council. Only a couple email comments were as mentioned. Would you review same and be sure to add as supplemental attachments the eComments of Laura Pena, and Howard Lee (with attachments) as made in the November meeting for the 901 Hermosa Avenue application that’s being re-heard by the Council January 27, 2026. Also the link to the full eScribe videos should be included for review by the Council as to what went down in the two Planning Commission meetings on the matter, including what the applicant and his representatives stated during same. I'm sorry that, in my view, you had to pick up all of the mess of the Community Development Department which in my view was entirely created by the absentee and arrogant/ignorant operation of Suja Lowenthal, the prior disastrous HB City Manager, again imv. Most Respectfully, Resident Howard LeeCEQA: Determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.(Community Development Director Alison Becker)Recommended Action:Staff recommends City Council: Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301, class 1 and section 15305, class 5 of the CEQA guidelines;Adopt a Resolution approving Precise Development Plan (PDP23-04) and Lot Line Adjustment (LLA 23-03) to remodel and add to an existing two-story commercial building that measures 12,012 square feet located at 901 Hermosa Avenue. The lot line adjustment consolidates three existing parcels into a single lot, subject to conditions of approval (Attachment 1).No Item Selected Attachments (0) | Public Comments (0)This item has no attachments.1.STAFF REPORT - 901 HERMOSA AVENUE - 26-CDD-011.pdf2.Attachment 1. Resolution - 901 Hermosa Avenue.pdf3.Attachment 2. CC - 901 Hermosa Ave - Zoning Map.pdf4.Attachment 3. Project Plans.pdf5.Attachment 4. 3D Sections and Views.pdf6.Attachment 5. Structural Engineer Letter.pdf7.Attachment 6. Lot Line Adjustment.pdf8.Attachment 7. Historic Resource Assessment.pdf9.Attachment 8. October 21, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments.pdf10.Attachment 9. December 16, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments.pdf11.Attachment 10. Public Notification Package.pdf12.Attachment 11. SUPPLEMENTAL Public Comments from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 21, 2025.pdfThis item has no public commentIra Ellman (For)I favor the City subsidizing the St. Patricks' Day Parade due to increasing security costs. Any incremental sponsor money received should be used to cover the city's share first. In addition, I am against a second Fiesta (Labor Day Weekend). It has been excellent having this three day weekend free of the Fiesta takeover of downtown. One each year is enough.Cammie Herbert (For)Mayor and Councilmembers, The City, its businesses and its residents have said businesses need help. I think Special Events bring a large group of people to town. And we hope it will bring them back when they see how awesome it is. With the rising costs of running an event, The City cannot do these events alone, just as the Chamber cannot. Thanks for helping businesses!Carolyn Petty (Against)The purpose of a Chamber of Commerce is to advocate for businesses. Unfortunately, our Chamber is really just a Chamber of Events – and now they cannot even run events. At this point, it is time to do the chamber (and its members) a favor and not renew the contract for events. The city can put the Fiesta out to bid, and that money can fund other city events. How many times has the council seen chamber board member(s) show up at a council meeting and provide thoughtful input? I don’t believe I have ever seen board members take the time to attend meetings – unless it was pertaining to their own business. Therein lies the problem. As long as the chamber has contractually obligated events as a continued distraction, they will never fulfill their mission and purpose. This is why you should not renew the contract – not as a punishment, but to recognize that they need to focus on their mission. However – if you waiver in this belief, please recognize that if an entity behaves irresponsible and reckless with their finances, the last thing a municipality should do is hand over taxpayer money to that entity, thus getting intertwined. You should already be aware of the chamber’s financial negligence, but for the benefit of everyone reading this, below is a brief listing of their problems: Since 2019 the chamber has been financially negligent and reckless in their decision making. The chamber has burned through nearly all of its working capital – because the board and chamber president continue to assume that the city will serve as a financial backstop. The chamber had a significant cash balance at the beginning of 2019, but that money has been methodically drained. Chamber staff have been paid high salaries while at the same time, most of them had (have) other jobs – leading most of us to question how much of their time is even dedicated to the chamber. That question is also easily answered by simply looking at how much contract labor has skyrocketed since 2019 – because chamber staff no longer does this work, they merely pay someone else to do their work. Not only was staff given bonuses as the chamber lost money – but money that should have accrued to the chamber was instead handed over to board members. It is well known that various board members have financially profited from their position on the board (beer garden at the fiesta), so again, it is no surprise that the chamber is running out of money and asking the city for financial support. The chamber even ended the program that funded non profits who worked the beer garden at the Fiesta – with that money going into the pocket of a board member. How can the city council disregard this? It is an affront to everyone who understands the importance of those non profits in our community. However, the board seems to have no concern about the impropriety of their actions. It is also important to note that lower sponsorship money has been the direct result of the ineptitude of the chamber staff. One of the long time /sponsors was personally insulted and walked away. How many other sponsors left due to the attitude of chamber staff? Shouldn’t they be held accountable for lost revenues – not use this poor performance metric as a sympathy play to get money from the taxpayers? When former board members / community members have expressed concerns – which has happened numerous times over the years, those people have been ignored or silenced via threats. When a community member expressed concern about the actions of chamber board and staff, the board then used $10,000 of member funds to fund a personal lawsuit by the chamber president against that community member. How is that not a clear warning to anyone who dares to criticize the chamber? Not only is this an inappropriate use of member funds, but it also demonstrates their complete lack of concern for governance. Another reason why no taxpayer funds should go this chamber. The chamber has had an entire year to address the parade, and instead waited until the last minute, backing the council into a corner. Do not let them box you in – please be the leaders that you are, force them to get back to their mission of advocacy. This is not a punishment, it is something that needs to be done. Steve Sanders (Against)Tax Form 3 of 3Steve Sanders (Against)Tax Form 2 of 3Steve Sanders (Against)The Hb Chamber of Commerce continues to bleed money while at the same time giving themselves a raise. In the old days, the Hb Chamber of Commerce was so flush with cash they could loan out funds to help local businesses but now they're repeatedly asking the City of Hermosa for financial assistance. The recently released Tax Year 20204 IRS filings show that assets have declined by $150k in a single year. They have a net loss of $125k on operating activities & yet they paid themselves $60k more than in 2023! A 31% pay increase from $189k to $249k! By all accounts, the Hb Chamber of Commerce is a financial failure. The Hb Chamber of Commerce VP of Finance recently resigned & now the past President/CEO is resigning. This year the Chamber asked the City for funds to assist with the St. Patrick's Day Parade & most likely next year they'll ask too. In FEB 2025, shortly after they signed a contract to conduct the St. Patrick's Parade, they asked the city for $15,000. The city generously obliged offering a 0% loan but that wasn't good enough so they set up a GoFund type account as they wanted free money & not money they had to pay back. Also, at that meeting the President of the Chamber presented their 2025 schedule of events but there was not one number mentioned: nothing about increase or decrease in spectators, attendee's, etc from 2023 to 2024. The presentation was Middle School level at best. In the back of the room was a representative of a major business from an adjacent city who had a $20,000 check & was prepared to present to the Chamber to cover the additional costs of the St. Patrick's Day Parade + $5,000 more for promoting their business. But after hearing the poor presentation that Chamber made to the Council he said he didn't feel the Chamber was a worthy cause to donate $20,000. I've attached 1 of 3 Tax forms as this system appears you can only attach 1 at a time. Thank you. tony (No Position)Dear City Council Hermosa Beach's per capita police costs appear to be several times higher than the median California city and substantially above the state average. This needs to be considered. I welcome corrections but my understanding is that based on recent budget discussions and general fund allocations, Hermosa Beach dedicates approximately 50% to 60% of its general fund to police services. With a population around 19,500 residents and a total city operating budget of approximately $53.6 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year, the per capita police spending can be estimated at roughly $1,300 to $1,600 per resident annually. I believe the california average police cost per capita is around $700. If our costs are nearly double the statewide average we need to be clear on why. If it's in good-part because we are a tourist and bar town then a fair argument might be made that those that financially benefit from the most tourism and bar traffic should pay more for police services. More business funded downtown private security might be a fair tradeoff. If its because we have too many chiefs and not enough indians perhaps the city should look at partnering with Manhattan and/or Redondo. Care needs to be taken to ensure the downtown business district bars and tourism doesn't leave police enforcement in residential neighborhoods paying more & more for a shorter & shorter end of the stick. To that end the last comprehensive city business district(s) costs vs revenue analysis was in 2015 and it concluded that AT BEST it was a just breakeven on balance sheet. Thats worthy of consideration and that makes it all the more important that the businesses-mix add not detract from what makes hermosa special for our residents, our quality of life. And as we approach the city forecasted fiscal challenges ($14 million in cumulative operating budget deficits by 2031 and $150 million in unfunded capital projects by the same date its high time we clearly understand whether the business district is a revenue or cost center for the city. 2centtonytonyhiggins (No Position)Interesting article on Mb employee salaries. It mentions City Manager Napolitano and looks at city salaries & total compensation in ways we might consider for a public hearing It also offers some interesting insights &recommendations. escribe requires cut & paste of the url below. https://mbweekly.net/mb-weekly-01-22-2026/ Randy Balik (-)Hello City Council, I am a 30-year Hermosa Beach resident who cares deeply about preserving the character of our City, and this character we all speak of can be preserved even with some thoughtful, small scale mixed-use development in our commercial zones. Some seem to continue to be opposed to this even though such projects can add a few homes above shops, which would both strengthen local businesses, and be incremental in terms of well-designed growth to our downtown without overwhelming it. The Land Value Recapture (LVR) program, as currently structured, is discouraging what many of us residents support. The LVR program is literally stalling projects on small commercial lots and creating pressure for larger developments or future density shifts into residential neighborhoods. Such developments are the antithesis of "preserving" our Hb character. HB should focus housing growth where it makes the most sense, which does include the commercial areas, though small, incremental mixed-use, not large or disruptive projects For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to remove 1–2 unit projects from the LVR program, eliminate fees on small mixed-use projects, and create incentives, not punitive fees that make projects infeasible. Thoughtful mixed-use in our commercial districts can strengthen downtown, add housing gradually, and help protect the character of our neighborhoods. I urge you to course correct the LVR program so that the outcome remains possible. This balanced approach reflects how many residents feel. Thank you. adam malovani (For)Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am a Hermosa Beach resident who cares deeply about preserving the character of our City. I do support thoughtful, small scale mixed-use development in our commercial zones, projects that add a few homes above shops, strengthen local businesses, and bring incremental, well-designed growth to our downtown without overwhelming it. I am concerned that the Land Value Recapture (LVR) program, as currently structured, is discouraging exactly the kind of modest mixed-use projects many residents support. Instead of producing housing, it appears to be stalling projects on small commercial lots and creating pressure for larger developments or future density shifts into residential neighborhoods. I believe our City should focus housing growth where it makes the most sense: In commercial areas Through small, incremental mixed-use, not large or disruptive projects For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to: Remove 1–2 unit projects from the LVR program Eliminate fees on small mixed-use projects Create incentives, not punitive fees that make projects infeasible Thoughtful mixed-use in our commercial districts can strengthen downtown, add housing gradually, and help protect the character of our neighborhoods. I urge you to course correct the LVR program so that the outcome remains possible. Thank you for listening and for considering a balanced approach that reflects how many residents feel.Michelle Crispin (Against)See attached Laura Pena (Against)Dear Mayor & City Council - After reviewing all the reports, data, and policy plan documents; I recommend an exemption for small downtown lots from our Land Value Recapture (LVR) Program. The evidence we now have from an economic, legal, and market based perspective shows that continuing to apply LVR to these parcels is no longer aligned with feasibility, and in fact has become a government imposed constraint under state housing law. I want to highlight guidance from the City’s own consultant that is especially relevant today. In October 2023, Kosmont advised that “the City should plan on revisiting the fee based on both market response relative to the intent of the LVR program.” That guidance is difficult to ignore because the inputs underlying their analysis have shifted dramatically: construction costs are higher, financing is far more expensive, lender risk tolerance has declined, return expectations have increased, and broader economic uncertainty continues. Most importantly, the market response has been unequivocal. Since LVR was introduced, analyzed, adopted, and implemented, the City has seen zero applications, zero inquiries, and zero interest on small lots, the very properties relied upon in the Housing Element. When a consultant advises that fees should be revisited based on market response, and that response is complete silence, the conclusion is not ambiguous. The market has rejected the program. Under state housing law, a city may not maintain policies that render its Housing Element sites infeasible to develop. Doing so constitutes a government imposed constraint and is now among the clearest triggers for legal challenge under both HCD review and recent case law. The Redondo Beach appellate ruling reinforced this principle, making clear that cities may not rely on theoretical capacity or paper zoning where actual feasibility is blocked by local policy. Small commercial lots in our City, typically 3,000 to 5,000 square feet with 30-foot height limits are already difficult to develop. The addition of a significant fee did not capture value; it eliminated interest altogether. Because these parcels represent a meaningful share of our Housing Element inventory, the LVR fee is now impairing our compliance. A fee that produces zero projects, zero interest, and zero applications is not an incentive, it is a barrier. And under state law, that barrier constitutes a governmental constraint. For these reasons, I respectfully recommend exempting small downtown lots from the Land Value Recapture fee and seriously considering removal of the program in its entirety. This approach aligns with current economic conditions, the Housing Element’s requirement to avoid government imposed constraints, and the clear market evidence from the past several years. If there is concern that LVR has not been in effect long enough to evaluate, that view overlooks the City’s own Housing Element history. LVR was adopted in December 2021 and included from the outset of Housing Element discussions, long before the ordinance took effect in 2024. For nearly three years, property owners, architects, and lenders have been evaluating its feasibility impacts. The policy signal has been clear and the response has been consistent. The LVR program now sits at the intersection of rapidly evolving state housing law, including changes that explicitly protect small scale infill and mixed income development. When a local ordinance appears to conflict with that framework, and when the City’s own analysis shows widespread infeasibility on small sites, the legal risk is no longer theoretical. I encourage the Council to view reform of the LVR program not as a retreat from values, but as an act of responsible governance one that aligns local policy with state law, protects taxpayers, and reduces avoidable legal exposure while still advancing thoughtful, incremental housing in our commercial corridors. I believe this Council wants to leave our City stronger, more resilient, and better aligned with the laws that govern us. Thoughtful reform is an opportunity to demonstrate stewardship, rebuild trust with small property owners, and direct staff to work collaboratively on incentives that genuinely support incremental, small-scale infill development. I am hopeful you will choose a path forward that reflects both our shared values and sound governance. Thank you for your consideration. Laura Pena Elka Worner (No Position)Staff has spent hundreds of hours developing the city’s Land Value Recapture Program, a policy designed to incentivize affordable housing. But since the ordinance went into effect in 2024, no one has submitted an affordable housing project or paid the LVR fee. Zero applications. Smart development in our commercial areas makes sense, especially for our Housing Element. I agree with the proposal set forth by the Planning Commission and am confident you will also take into consideration the position of the local property owners. Thank you.Cammie Herbert (Against)Mayor and Councilmembers, I know we are required to bring in housing. I support small scale mixed use development in our commercial zones. I’ve even thought the city could consider having residential at its city yard and encouraging the Hermosa Pavilion to convert their empty spaces to some studios. However I do not support the Land Value Recapture program. There are no applications so It seems that the LVR is not only not creating housing, but stalling projects on small commercial lots. Which in turn seems to keep bringing us to higher density developments in residential neighborhoods. I hope you will consider: - removing 1-2 unit projects from the program -eliminating fees on small mixed use projects. Thank you for your time and consideration.Jonathan Edward David (Against)Please find aletter from Upper Pier Property Owners, who want to see the program eliminated from all downtown lots - past planning commissions recommendation of only the 1-2 unit exemption.MC Guerry (Against)I do not object to you taking this action, but what I really want is for you to eliminate the Land Value Recapture Fee everywhere. We need more housing units and this fee discourages new development. Howard Lee month correction (Against)In my following eComment/letter to Director Becker, submitted earlier, I mistakenly indicated the November Planning Commission meeting. I meant the October 21st Planning Commission meeting, when the 901 Hermosa Avenue application was first heard, prior to the commission continuing the matter to a date uncertain, which became December 16 in their commission. Howard Lee (Against)Monday, Jan 26, 2027 Re: Missing Testimony from the 901 Hermosa Ave re-hearing to be in Council Jan 27, 2024 To: Hermosa Beach Community Development Director Allison, Dear Director: Not necessarily of your making Ms Allison, however during the City Manager Suja Lowenthal era of the prior ~7 years, imv the Community Development Department since what I view as the unintended early retirement of former director Ken Robertson and the departure of many former employees of the department, and then the former City Clerk's imposition of imv the disastrous and amateurish eScribe agenda/minutes system in July of 2024, many staff reports of continued matters both from the Planning Commission to a future Planning Commission meeting, and then when reheard at the Council as in the case of the 901 Hermosa Avenue proposed-project (in both cases) FAILED to include all prior public testimony, both oral and via eComments, in some manner. Only a couple of emails seem to be included with the prior Staff report of the 901 Hermosa Avenue matter which are included only in its PDF. The prior eScribe links to the full item with also eScribe’s convoluted system of attachments and eComments are not present and it's probably because of the fact that eScribe provides no means to extract a direct link to an agenda's particular item, a MAJOR DEFICIENCY OF eScribe. You can only include a direct link to an eScribe full meeting’s agenda and then you must reference the item # within same. With regard to the 901 Hermosa Avenue application’s Public Hearing, I and Laura Pena had submitted eComments for the November Planning Commission meeting on the matter, with and without attachments. Those comments were not included, as prior to eScribe they always had been in the Granicus days, for both the December continuation of that item in the Planning Commission, nor for tomorrow's January 27 re-hearing at the Council. Only a couple email comments were as mentioned. Would you review same and be sure to add as supplemental attachments the eComments of Laura Pena, and Howard Lee (with attachments) as made in the November meeting for the 901 Hermosa Avenue application that’s being re-heard by the Council January 27, 2026. Also the link to the full eScribe videos should be included for review by the Council as to what went down in the two Planning Commission meetings on the matter, including what the applicant and his representatives stated during same. I'm sorry that, in my view, you had to pick up all of the mess of the Community Development Department which in my view was entirely created by the absentee and arrogant/ignorant operation of Suja Lowenthal, the prior disastrous HB City Manager, again imv. Most Respectfully, Resident Howard Lee