Sierra Madre planning panel approves rewrite of discretionary demolition rules, adds "like-for-like" standard for fire hardening

Sierra Madre Planning Commission on Aug. 21 unanimously approved sending Municipal Code Text Amendment 25-02 to City Council with two amendments: striking language that would have triggered discretionary review based on a "distinguished architectural style" and adding a requirement that replacement materials used for wildfire hardening be "similar in appearance" to the materials they replace.

The change updates section 17.60.056 of the Sierra Madre Municipal Code, reorganizing the discretionary demolition permit process so objective exemptions (handled at pre-application) are distinguished from exceptions that require discretionary review. Senior Planner Wolf said the draft references a handbook of materials published by the State Fire Marshal and that staff will prepare a homeowner-focused guidance document to help translate the handbook.

City Attorney (name not specified) told the commission he had streamlined the draft ordinance, standardized internal code cross-references and incorporated the Fire Marshal's guidance into the draft. "This was a pretty dense ordinance and it was fairly wordy. So every opportunity I had, I tried to substitute fewer words where I thought there were too many," he said, summarizing the legal edits and the effort to sync the new section with other parts of the code.

Under the revised structure, exemptions are intended to be objective and ministerial, such as work not visible from public view or interior-only demolition; exceptions remain discretionary and may require photographs, site observations or research of permit records. Senior Planner Wolf told commissioners exemptions would be determined during a pre-application review at the counter and that exceptions would be evaluated only after a full application is submitted.

A key focus of the discussion was how to handle fire-hardening work on older homes. Staff proposed a staff-maintained, updateable list of approved replacement materials (drawn from the State Fire Marshal handbook) so routine like-for-like hardening could proceed quickly without a Planning Commission hearing. Several commissioners expressed concern that an "exemption" label implies no oversight; they favored tightly worded guidance or an objective chart that staff would apply ministerially. Commissioner Moran said he wanted to avoid creating extra administrative burden for routine, minor remodels.

Commissioners also discussed the ordinance's definition of a "preservation candidate," which the draft tied to structures 75 years or older or to properties of a "distinguished architectural style." Staff explained that the phrase was intended to capture notable midcentury-modern properties that are not yet 75 years old, and that a National Park Service reconnaissance survey (covering buildings constructed before 1970) could inform staff screening. After deliberation the commission voted to remove the "distinguished architectural style" trigger to reduce uncertainty and administrative overhead.

The draft moves certificates of economic hardship to the director level so an applicant claiming insufficient funds would receive a quicker ministerial determination rather than a protracted public hearing; the commission and City Council would retain authority for certificates tied to designated landmarks. Senior Planner Wolf said the proposed test would compare the cost of stabilizing or replacing elements to the property's appraised value to determine eligibility.

The commission's motion approved the Municipal Code Text Amendment per Resolution 25-12 with two edits: strike the language regarding distinct architectural style and add language directing staff to require replacement materials used for fire hardening to be similar in appearance to the materials they replace. The motion carried unanimously; four commissioners voted yes and one commissioner (Brennan) had been excused from the meeting. The item will be forwarded to the City Council for review and final action.

Staff also noted that one written public comment had been received and provided to commissioners; no speakers addressed the commission during the public comment period for this item. The commission then approved minutes from May 15 and Aug. 7 and heard that the next meeting will include a sign ordinance cleanup discussion. The meeting was adjourned to the next regular meeting on Sept. 4.