Council Moves to Repeal Its Own Ban on Denser Rebuilding in Eaton Fire Burn Zone

Pasadena is moving to lift its own post-Eaton Fire ban on denser rebuilding — clearing the way for lot splits and multiple homes on parcels in a zone rated with the highest fire risk.

At its July 20 meeting, the City Council voted to advance the repeal of two interim urgency ordinances, Nos. 7455 and 7457, that had prohibited Senate Bill 9 applications within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones inside the boundary of the Eaton Fire. SB 9 applications cover urban lot splits and the construction of multiple dwellings.

The action reverses restrictions the city had imposed on those parcels, reopening them to urban lot splits and construction of multiple dwellings.

The council took up the matter as two linked items — a public hearing on the repeal (Item 15) and a first reading of the repealing ordinance (Item 17) — considered concurrently.

Vice Mayor Jess Rivas, who presided, said the council was well briefed and no staff presentation was requested.

No members of the public spoke at the hearing, and the city clerk’s office reported it received no correspondence on the item.

The council closed the hearing and approved the staff recommendation on a unanimous voice vote, then conducted the first reading of the repealing ordinance, which was offered by Councilmember Rick Cole.

On the first reading, Cole, Councilmembers Tyron Hampton, Jason Lyon, Steve Madison and Gene Masuda, and Vice Mayor Rivas voted yes, with Councilmember Justin Jones and Mayor Victor Gordo absent.

A second reading is required before final adoption.

The city clerk noted a correction during the hearing: although the agenda described the measure as an uncodified ordinance, it is in fact a codified ordinance. The clerk said the change applied to the agenda report but not to the ordinance itself.

The Planning Commission recommended the repeal at a noticed public hearing on June 24, endorsing both the ordinance and its environmental determination as presented by staff.

The city found the action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act under Executive Order N-32-25.