Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development Historic Adaptive Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission pauses vote on 901 Hermosa Avenue third‑story addition after questions about floor‑area calculations
Summary
After extended discussion and public testimony, the Planning Commission continued action on a precise development plan and lot consolidation for 901 Hermosa Avenue to allow staff and the applicant to reconcile differing floor‑area figures and provide clearer documentation.
The Planning Commission on Oct. 21 continued a hearing on a proposal to remodel and add a third story to the two‑story multi‑tenant commercial building at 901 Hermosa Avenue, asking staff and the applicant to supply clearer documentation of existing and proposed floor area before taking a final vote.
Planner Kanika Pompeo presented the proposal to preserve and renovate the 1928 building, merge three parcels into one, decommission approximately 1,340 square feet of second‑floor usable area and add a 3,654‑square‑foot third story. Pompeo said a structural engineer concluded that proposed modifications would meet current building code performance objectives and that because the net usable floor area would not increase, no additional parking is required. The staff report also noted review under the Downtown Commercial zoning standards and that the project qualified for a CEQA Class 1 exemption for minor alterations to an existing facility.
Applicant representatives—including Brandon Strauss of Saror and Associates and property owner Kyle Rainsford—said the design preserves the existing historic facade, adds modern building systems, and addresses unusual as‑built conditions. Strauss explained the project relies on existing permit history and on a determination that portions of the upper level count as gross floor area in the city’s records; he said the applicant is proposing to decommission some previously counted usable area and offset new third‑floor area so the net usable area would decline slightly.
Several commissioners and members of the public questioned the arithmetic and documentation. Commissioners raised a discrepancy between staff’s figure for existing building usable area (staff cited an existing total of about 14,021 square feet in the file) and county assessor or other public records that list the building at roughly 7,708–8,000 square feet. Commissioner Hoffman said the plans show “movable” or stacked storage flooring that staff and the applicant counted as usable area, and asked for a simple, transparent accounting that distinguishes currently accessible, permitted floor area from storage mezzanines and voids.
City staff said historical records are incomplete and that the current planning staff had reviewed prior permits and plan sheets, but that some ambiguity remained. Commissioners also asked for clearer notes on stairs and egress and for confirmation that decommissioned areas are not readily convertible to habitable floor area.
After discussion, the commission voted 5‑0 to continue the matter and directed staff to return with a supplemental report that provides a clear line‑by‑line accounting of existing and proposed gross and usable floor area, documents used to derive those figures, and a summary of any meetings between staff and the applicant about counting rules. Commissioners indicated they would prefer a date‑certain continuation; staff will coordinate scheduling and return to the commission with the supplemental material.
