Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Easement Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves 1035 Loma Drive condominium project amid neighbor easement dispute
Summary
The Planning Commission approved a two‑unit condominium and tentative parcel map at 1035 Loma Drive, while neighbors objected that a proposed wall and grading would block a long‑used side access. Staff said surveys and title reports do not validate the neighbor’s easement claims and urged negotiation between parties.
The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission voted Nov. 18 to approve a two‑unit attached condominium and tentative parcel map for 1035 Loma Drive, finding the project consistent with municipal code and categorically exempt from CEQA. The decision followed an extended public hearing in which adjacent property owners said the project’s proposed wall would extinguish a century‑old side access they say has been used openly for decades.
Johnny Case, the city planner for the item, told commissioners the site is zoned R3 and the proposed two attached condominium units meet all condominium and zoning standards, including minimum unit size, setbacks and parking. "Approval of this project would result in no net change of unit count," Case said, and staff recommended adoption of the draft resolution approving Precise Development Plan 25‑02, Conditional Use Permit 25‑06 and Tentative Parcel Map 84794.
At the podium, Stacy Strauss of Sirona Associates, representing applicants Alberto and Monique Botein, said the plans bring a legal nonconforming structure into compliance, improve on‑site parking, add public‑realm improvements (including sidewalk work) and locate a proposed dividing wall wholly on the applicant’s property according to the title report and survey. "The wall will be fully contained on 1035 Loma," Strauss said.
Neighbors Oliver and Francesca Enders testified that the proposed wall would block a historically used three‑foot side path providing access to a kitchen door, water‑heater closet and shared storage areas. Oliver Enders showed photos and said the access had been used continuously since the 1920s, asking the commission either to withhold approval or condition it on a recorded shared easement. "Please don't approve this until we're able to agree on a shared easement," he said.
Rachel Enders Clark, the Enders’ attorney, said long‑standing access rights may amount to prescriptive or implied easements and urged a cooperative resolution rather than litigation; she warned that blocking access could create safety and maintenance problems for adjacent properties.
Applicant counsel Brandon Strauss responded that staff had reviewed the survey and title documents and that the neighbors’ claims were not validated by title evidence; he said the commission cannot require the applicant to give up property rights and that legal remedies are available to the neighbor if they believe rights exist.
Commissioners said the project appears to comply with code but encouraged the parties to negotiate. Vice Chair Aizon suggested a gate or a pulled‑back portion of the wall to preserve limited access; several commissioners asked staff and the applicant to continue outreach to the neighbor. The commission approved the project (ayes recorded), while noting the easement dispute is a civil matter potentially resolvable outside the commission’s action.
Next steps: staff will finalize conditions of approval and the applicant may pursue building permits; if neighbors raise validated title or encroachment issues, these can be litigated or handled through negotiated easements outside the commission’s approval.
