Staff seeks commission comments on proposed Municipal Code changes for historic review, noticing and thresholds

At its Feb. 20 meeting staff asked the Cultural Heritage Commission for informal comments on proposed amendments to the South Pasadena Municipal Code that would affect historic review procedures, application materials and noticing.

Interim Deputy Director Liz Barrell told the commission the package is mainly “cleanup” to reflect department name changes and to clarify application requirements. Key proposed changes presented by staff include: raising the square‑foot threshold that distinguishes minor from major projects from 200 to 500 square feet for certain situations (staff said visibility and other factors would still be considered and the chair may refer items to the full commission), authorizing the director to determine when a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) is needed, and adding a requirement that application narratives provide a complete overview and available historical information. Staff also proposed aligning the Cultural Heritage Commission’s noticing rules with the zoning code and adding on‑site posting requirements; planning staff noted the planning commission favors an 11-by-17 on‑site sign for single‑family properties rather than a larger 2-by-2 sign.

Barrell said staff wants to reduce duplicated hearings and the number of times applicants must return to the commission when concurrent zoning entitlements and certificates of appropriateness expire or require separate processing. The zoning text amendment that accompanies these changes will include a separate design‑review reform package that, staff said, proposes to eliminate the city’s Design Review Board and reallocate review authority to staff and the planning commission under specified thresholds; that zoning‑code package is to be considered separately by the planning commission.

Commission discussion included practical questions about how the square‑foot thresholds would be applied (staff reiterated that visibility, contribution status and other factors remain relevant), requests for clearer narrative guidance (staff pointed to proposed sentence language requiring a “complete overview” and any available historical documentation), and general support for improved on‑site posting and clearer noticing. The commission did not take a formal vote on the code amendments at this meeting; staff said the materials would be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the broader zoning‑text amendment process.