CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Tuesday, November 18, 2025

6:00 P.m. - 11:55 P.m.

Council Chambers

1315 Valley Drive

Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

Members Present:

• Chairperson Kate Hirsh, 
• Commissioner Peter Hoffman, 
• Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, 
• Commissioner Michael Flaherty, 
• and Commissioner McNally 

Staff Present:

• Associate Planner Jake Whitney, 
• Assistant Planner Johnny Case, 
• Community Development Director Alison Becker, 
• Assistant Planner DeDe Tran, 
• Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey, 
• and Interim City Attorney Sarah Locklin 

---

1.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Hirsh called the meeting to order at 7:55 p.m.

2.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairperson Izant.

3.

ROLL CALL

Associate Planner Jake Whitney announced a quorum. 

4.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

This is the time for Planning Commission to discuss any changes to the order of agenda items. 

Item 7d moved first on the agenda

Commissioner Hoffman motioned to approve the consent calendar, Seconded by Vice Chairperson Izant. Voice vote was taken. Motion carried unanimously.

5.

PUBLIC COMMENT

This is the time for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any items within the Commission's jurisdiction and on items where public comment will not be taken. The public is invited to attend and provide public comment. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker from those present in the Council Chambers and via the remote participation option(s) listed on the agenda. This time allotment may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Chair.

No action will be taken on matters raised in oral and written communications, except that the Planning Commission may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the Community Development Director or the Office of the City Manager. 

In-Person public comments:

• No public comments provided.

6.

CONSENT CALENDAR

The following matters will be acted upon collectively with a single motion and vote to approve with the majority consent of the Planning Commission. Commissioners may orally register a negative vote on any Consent Calendar item without pulling the item for separate consideration before the vote on the Consent Calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner removes an item from the Consent Calendar, either under Approval of the Agenda or under this item before the vote on the Consent Calendar. Items removed for separate discussion will be provided a separate public comment period.

• Moved by: Chairperson Kate Hirsh
  Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant

  To approve the consent calendar.

6.a

ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 2025 - 25-CDD-161

(Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza)

• Staff recommend Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of October 21, 2025.

7.

PUBLIC HEARING

7.a

PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 25-02), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 25-06), AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84794 FOR A NEW TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1035 LOMA DRIVE, WITHIN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY (R-3) ZONE - 25-CDD-150

Olivier Enders

Kate Hirsh, Chairperson Stephen Izant, Vice Chairperson Michael Flaherty, Commissioner Peter Hoff man, Commissioner Greg McNally, Commissioner Alison Becker, Community Development Director Dear Planning Commissioners, Please DO NOT approve PDP 25-02, CUP 25-6, or VTPM 84794 until the applicant has resolved a dispute that would be caused with his neighbor to the north by the Precise Development Plan. The PDP causes a dispute about shared access to the side yard needed for ingress and egress to the street by the neighbor. The proposed parcel map, page 77, shows access cut off by a new wall denoted by dark line next to the neighbor's stairs. I am that neighbor and am asking the applicant to give us an easement to continue to ingress and egress over the 3 foot set back that has been a shared walkway for as long as 102 years! The offensive wall can also be seen more clearly in the rendering of Unit B on page 49 of the meeting agenda. Not having this access would be serious economic damage to me and the tenants who live in my property. Since the dispute is being caused by a structure (i.e. fence or wall) shown in the development plan which is specifically being evaluated by the PDP, CUP, and VTPM neighborhood compatibility regulations, I do not think the city can legitimately make the claim that this is just a dispute between private party's and can be ignored in evaluating the neighborhood compatibility of the application. There has been no dispute on this boundary for at least 23 years in which I have owned the property next door, until this development plan came along. Having established that the boundary dispute is being caused by the PDP, it is fair to apply the City's own guidelines in regulating the applications for PDP, CUP, and VTPM. The pertinent regulations are found in the Nov 18 meeting agenda package on: Page 17: Review Considerations for a PDP 4. Height, materials, and design of fences, walls, and screen plantings; Page 21: Review Considerations for a CUP 3. The proposed use will not be averse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements; Page 23: Review Considerations for a VTPM 3. The proposed subdivision will in no way be inconsistent with the prevailing lot pattern or reduce property values in the surrounding neighborhood area; The proposed subdivision of airspace is consistent with the existing lot patterns along Loma Drive and the surrounding area and there are no unique characteristics about this subdivision which would indicate that surrounding property values would be negatively affected as a result of this subdivision. Page 33: 3. The proposed use will not be averse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements; Page 35: 3. The proposed subdivision will in no way be inconsistent with the prevailing lot pattern or reduce property values in the surrounding neighborhood area; The proposed subdivision of airspace is consistent with the existing lot patterns along Loma Drive and the surrounding area and there are no unique characteristics about this subdivision which would indicate that surrounding property values would be negatively affected as a result of this subdivision The quote from Page 23 is particularly pertinent and it would appear I have a reasonable objection. I do not want this matter to escalate to a full blown court summons. So far I have not even met the new neighbor who purchased 1035 Loma late in 2024. We have not known his identity until this meeting notice came up. My daughter, who is a licensed attorney, has now left messages with the architect Mr. Tomaro and with the voice mail of Mr. and Mrs. Bottene and not received any response. I think you could get their attention by not approving this application! Thank you for temporarily delaying approval of these plans. I don't feel too bad for delaying them, because the applicant should have had a conversation with me by now. The planning commission could set some conditions about the wall length or that the dispute be resolved before proceeding. By blindly approving the application, the city would be setting aside its own evaluation criteria and encourage the applicant to continue ignoring contact with me, the neighbor, until the attorneys get involved. Best Regards Olivier Enders

CEQA: Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
(Assistant Planner Johnny Case)

Assistant Planner Johnny Case provided a presentation.

Planning Commissioners asked questions and received answers from staff and Interim City Attorney Sarah Locklin.

Applicant's representative Stacy Straus spoke.

Public Comment was provided by:

• Olivier Enders (in-person)
• Francesca Enders (in-person)
• Rachel Enders Clark (virtual)

Applicant's representative Brandon Straus spoke.

Public Comment was provided by:

• Nancy Scwappach

Planning Commissioners deliberated.

• Moved by: Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant
  Seconded by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman

  Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

  1. Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to a Class 3 categorical exemption, as defined in section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines for new construction; and
  2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP 25-06), Precise Development Plan (25-02) and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 84794 allowing two new residential condominium buildings in the Multiple-Family Residential zone (R-3) subject to conditions.

  Ayes (5)

  Commissioner McNally, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, and Chairperson Kate Hirsh

  Motion Carried

7.b

PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP 25-07 and PDP 25-08), CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (CUP 25-09 and CUP 25-10), AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84793 FOR TWO NEW TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AT

714 AND 722 LOMA DRIVE IN THE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE - 25-CDD-162
CEQA: Determine that the projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Assistant Planner DeDe Tran)

Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from the item.

Assistant Planner DeDe Tran provided a presentation.

Applicant's architect Alex Ioda provided a presentation.

Public Comment was provided by:

• Larry Nakamura

Planning Commissioners deliberated.

• Moved by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty
  Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant

  Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

  1. Determine the projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to a Class 3 categorical exemption, as defined in section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines for new construction; and
  2. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Conditional Use Permits (CUP25-09 & CUP25-10), Precise Development Plans (PDP25-07 & PDP25-08), and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 84793 allowing two new two-unit residential condominium buildings in the Two-Family Residential Zone (R-2) subject to conditions.

  Ayes (4)	Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner McNally
  Recused (1)	Commissioner Peter Hoffman

  Motion Carried

7.c

CONVEX SLOPE DETERMINATION (CSD 25-01) AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 25-04) FOR A STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION, REMODEL, AND ADDITION TO A FOUR-UNIT

Brandon Straus

Please see the attached letter for the record.

APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 3232 HERMOSA AVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE - 25-CDD-165

CEQA: Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 
(Associate Planner Jake Whitney)  

Associate Planner Jake Whitney provided a presentation.

Planning Commissioners asked questions and received answers from staff.

Applicant's representative Brandon Straus spoke.

Applicant's representative Kit Bobko spoke.

Public Comment was provided by:

• Nancy Schwappach (virtual)

Applicant's representative Brandon Straus spoke.

Planning Commissioners deliberated. 

Community Development Director Alison Becker spoke.

Planning Commissioners deliberated.

• Moved by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty
  Seconded by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman

  Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 

  1. Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15302 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
  2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Convex Slope Determination (CSD 25-01) and Precise Development Plan 25-05 subject to conditions of approval as amended. Condition of Approval number 4 was modified to read " Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, if the owner does not provide evidence that none of the existing units are “Protected Units” under state law, the owner shall execute a covenant to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to make two (2) units available for rent to “Lower Income Households” as defined by California Health and Safety Code 50079.5 for a period of at least 55 years. Such units must be of an “equivalent size” as defined by California Government Code Section 65915. Enforcement of the terms of said covenant shall be the responsibility of the City of Hermosa Beach and its authorized agents. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded covenant to the Community Development Department for inclusion in this file." Additionally, Condition of Approval number 13 was modified to read "A Encroachment Permit is required for any new or existing non-conforming structures or uses located over or within the public right-of-way". 

  Ayes (5)

  Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner McNally

  Motion Carried

7.d

PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 23-06) FOR THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH SECOND FLOOR WORKSHOP INTO A 

RESIDENCE WITH FOUR GARAGE PARKING SPACES- 25-CDD-163

CEQA: Determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

(Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey)

Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey delivered a presentation.

Planning Commissioners posed questions and received answers.

Applicant's representative addressed the Planning Commission

• Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman
  Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty

  Staff recommends the Planning Commission:

  1. Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15301, Class 1;
  2. Adopt a Resolution approving Precise Development Plan (PDP 23-06) to remodel an existing two-story single-family residence and remodel of an existing two-car garage with second floor workshop into a residence with four garage parking spaces, subject to conditions of approval (Attachment 1)

      

  Ayes (5)

  Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner McNally

  Motion Carried

8.

STAFF ITEMS

8.a

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT

Community Development Director Alison Becker announced that at the December Planning Commission meeting there would be a rotation of chairperson role and that a schedule for the Planning Commission meetings for the following year would be provided.

9.

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS

Planning Commission members may briefly respond to public comments, may ask a question for clarification, or make a brief announcement or report on his or her own activities or meetings attended. 

Commissioner Flaherty and Commissioner Hoffman discussed issues regarding technical difficulties.

Commissioner Hoffman and Commissioner Flaherty discussed the timing of future special meetings.

Community Development Director Alison Becker responded.

Chairperson Hirsh provided comment.

10.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Questions from Planning Commission members regarding the status of future agenda items. No discussion or debate of these requests shall be undertaken.

10.a

PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA - 25-CDD-159

(Planning Manager Alexis Ororpeza)

• Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman
  Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty

  Staff recommend Planning Commission receive and file the tentative future agenda for the Planning Commission regular meeting of December 16, 2025.

  Ayes (5)

  Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, and Commissioner McNally

  Motion Carried

11.

PUBLIC COMMENT

This time is set aside for the public to address the Commission on any item of interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission that could not be heard under Item 4 during the first public participation item because there were too many prior public speakers and the thirty-minute maximum time limit was exhausted. 

No public comment provided.

12.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:46