The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission narrowly approved a plan Dec. 16 to remodel an existing two‑story commercial building at 901 Hermosa Avenue and add a third story, after extended deliberation over floor‑area accounting, parking implications, and the enforceability of a proposed "decommissioned" interior area.

Contract planner Kanika Pompey told the commission the project proposes to decommission approximately 1,340 square feet on the second floor for structural reasons, add a 4,058‑square‑foot third story and thereby increase usable square footage by roughly 793 square feet. Staff recommended the commission find the project exempt from CEQA (Class 1 and Class 5 exemptions for minor alterations) and approve the precise development plan and lot line adjustment subject to updated resolution language reflecting corrected floor area figures.

Applicant representatives (Brandon Strauss for the applicant team and project partner Kyle Ransford) said they worked with staff to confirm floor‑area calculations and that the project preserves facade character while adding usable space and landscaping. Bruno Strauss also clarified that the city’s practice allows submittal for building plan check "at risk" prior to Coastal Commission approval if the applicant acknowledges the risk of nonrefund for plan‑check fees.

Public commenters and several commissioners expressed worry that the decommissioned space could be converted later to revenue‑producing use and that the city’s current enforcement tools may be insufficient to deter or remedy such a change. Nancy Schwaback, speaking online, said: "Consequences of a breach of a building or zoning code are minimal to nonexistent... I hope the city is willing to show up, step up, and enforce its codes." Commissioner Hoffman voiced similar concerns, saying he was reluctant to approve the scheme that effectively removes valuable commercial square footage from the counted total.

Staff and the city attorney explained potential enforcement options in the record, including code enforcement, administrative citations, fines, civil actions and, in extreme cases, revocation of the Precise Development Plan. City staff noted that fine schedules are generally set by the City Council and that the planning commission, as an advisory body, should evaluate the application on its merits while forwarding enforcement concerns to the council.

After debate commissioners voted to approve staff’s recommendation with an amendment allowing at‑risk submittal for building plan check while Coastal Commission approval is pending. The roll call was: Commissioner Hirsch Yes; Commissioner McNally Yes; Commissioner Hoffman No; Vice Chairperson Flaherty Yes; Chairperson Aizon Yes. The motion carried 4–1. Commissioners asked staff to memorialize in the minutes the commission’s concern that available enforcement remedies may be inadequate and recommended the City Council consider strengthening enforcement tools for future cases.