The Imminent-Threat Carve-Out

Article IVH includes a narrow public-safety carve-out at SPMC 2.66, separate from the standard Certificate of Appropriateness procedure under SPMC 2.65. The carve-out addresses cases where a building official determines that a structure regulated by the California Building Code may pose an imminent threat to life, limb, or property. Where that determination is made, the section authorizes a procedural path to abate the threat that does not begin with the full Major Project Review process.

The path is narrow, multi-stakeholder, and structured around the least-invasive corrective measure. SPMC 2.66 is not a substitute for the CoA process and not an emergency override of the broader Article IVH framework. It is a public-safety procedure with built-in preservation guardrails.

The carve-out begins with the building official’s determination — not the owner’s preference, and not a contractor’s recommendation. The building official must determine that the structure may pose an imminent threat to life, limb, or property under the California Building Code. The determination is documented and is the procedural trigger for the section’s mechanics. Without the building official’s documented determination, SPMC 2.66 is not in play.

Even after the building official’s determination, demolition is not the first response. SPMC 2.66 requires the building official to consider feasible alternatives to demolition before issuing an order to abate the threat. The named alternatives include securing the building, securing the property, bracing, shoring, or equivalent action. The provision is structured to keep cultural resources standing whenever a non-demolition alternative is feasible, even when an imminent threat has been identified.

If the building official identifies the need to permit demolition (or partial demolition) of a cultural resource after considering alternatives, the building official must notify the Director at the earliest feasible opportunity. The Director then notifies the Commission’s chair (or designee) for the purpose of discussing conditions and alternatives.

Three roles are involved before any demolition is approved under the carve-out: the building official (who carries the public-safety authority), the Director (who carries the Article IVH responsibility), and the Commission’s chair or designee (who carries the Commission’s institutional perspective). Consultation among these three is part of the procedure, not a courtesy step.

If the Director determines, following consultation with the building official and the chair, that demolition (or partial demolition) is necessary to abate the imminent threat, the Director is authorized to approve only the least-invasive corrective measure identified during the consultation. “Least-invasive” is the operative standard. The carve-out does not authorize complete demolition where partial demolition would abate the threat, and it does not authorize demolition of more of the resource than is necessary to make the property safe.

After any action taken under the carve-out, the Director must subsequently present a summary of the actions to the full Commission. The reporting requirement is part of the procedural design. The carve-out is not a unilateral authority of the Director; it is a constrained authority that operates with after-the-fact Commission visibility.

If the imminent threat is later abated and the structure remains in disrepair, the substandard condition must be addressed through the standard Certificate of Appropriateness process under SPMC 2.65. The carve-out resolves the imminent safety issue; it does not resolve the underlying preservation question. Repair, rehabilitation, or further alteration of the resource after the threat is abated proceeds through the regular CoA framework, with the standard application package and the standard findings architecture.

SPMC 2.66 is not an alternative path for an owner who would prefer to skip the CoA process. The trigger is the building official’s determination — not the owner’s. The decision-making is the Director’s after consultation — not the owner’s. The standard for demolition is least-invasive — not what the owner planned. The post-threat work returns to the CoA framework. Owners who attempt to invoke imminent-threat language to accelerate a project that does not actually pose an imminent safety threat may find the section’s procedural design does not accommodate that approach.

The relationship between SPMC 2.66 and Finding (xii) — the imminent-threat finding within the standard CoA process under SPMC 2.65(e)(10)(B)(xii) — is worth noting. Finding (xii) is what the Commission may make on a CoA application where the owner is seeking demolition through the standard framework on the grounds that the building is unsafe to occupy. SPMC 2.66 is the building-official-driven safety procedure. Both involve imminent threat as a concept; they sit in different sections and operate through different actors.

Source: South Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 2, Article IVH (Cultural Heritage Ordinance, Ord. No. 2315 § 2, 2017, amended Ord. No. 2400, 2025), §§ 2.66, 2.65, 2.65(e)(10)(B)(xii). California Building Code (referenced for the imminent-threat-determination standard).