Sacramento Preservation Commission Meeting - April 13, 2016
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Sacramento Preservation Commission Meeting – April 13, 2016
The Sacramento Preservation Commission met on April 13, 2016, at 5:30 p.m. in New City Hall. The meeting featured a public hearing on a proposed five-unit infill development at 2010 F Street in the Boulevard Park Historic District, and a staff report on the Historic City Cemetery’s pruning guidelines. The Commission voted 6:0:1 to forward a recommendation of approval for the F Street project with amended conditions, and heard extensive public testimony on the cemetery guidelines (no action taken).
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes (March 16, 2016): Moved, seconded, and carried (Marshack/Whitelam) on a 6:0:1 vote (Commissioner Fuller absent).
Public Hearing: P15-055 2010 F Street Tentative Map
- Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Elise Gumm presented a proposal to subdivide two parcels (0.245 acres) into five parcels for single-family homes – one facing F Street (traditional design) and four facing Fat Alley (contemporary, three-story townhouses). The project required deviations for lot size, width, and rear-yard setback. Staff recommended approval, citing infill density goals and compatibility with the historic district.
- Applicant Presentation: Architect Craig Houseman described three design iterations, including meetings with the neighborhood association, to address concerns about massing and compatibility. He emphasized the units are single-family homes, not duplexes, and that the project meets or exceeds zoning requirements.
- Public Testimony: 15 speakers (including William Burg, Whitney Leeman, Deborah Gondon, David Phillips, and others) raised concerns about:
- Environmental contamination: Whitney Leeman (PhD, environmental engineering) argued the site’s history as an auto repair garage warranted a full Phase II environmental assessment, not the limited Phase I provided. She cited potential lead, PAHs, and solvents.
- Design incompatibility: Speakers called the alley units “industrial,” “too tall” (38.5 feet), and argued they did not respect the unique character of Boulevard Park (a National Register Historic District). They urged the Commission to reject the current design.
- Privacy and massing: Neighbors worried about balconies overlooking yards and the overall bulk of the three-story units.
- Applicant Response: Environmental consultant James Grigsby defended the Phase I findings, noting lead levels were within background ranges and that the concrete slab minimized contamination risk.
- Commission Discussion: Commissioners agreed the context of Boulevard Park differed from previously approved alley projects. They focused on reducing massing (e.g., removing the “bonus room” on the ground floor, lowering ceiling heights, making the party wall less dominant) and improving material compatibility. Commissioner Marshack also lamented the lack of early neighborhood notification.
- Motion and Vote: Commissioner Marshack moved, seconded by Commissioner Whitelam, to forward a recommendation of approval of Items A and B to the Planning and Design Commission with amended conditions directing the applicant to:
- Reduce overall massing (including ceiling heights and programming).
- Remove the ground-floor bonus room (to address unit-count concerns).
- De-emphasize the party wall.
- Use materials and details more compatible with the historic district. The motion passed 6:0:1 (Fuller absent). Item C (tentative map) was received and filed.
Staff Report: M16-004 Historic City Cemetery Pruning Guidelines
- Presentation: Preservation Director Roberta Deering outlined the context: the cemetery is listed on the National Register (period of significance 1849–1962). The master plan calls for managing vegetation to protect grave markers. Draft pruning guidelines (February 2016) aimed to address plant growth damaging monuments, but volunteers and rose experts raised strong objections.
- Public Testimony: Over 30 speakers (including Rick Roberts, Anita Clevenger, Ann Garaghty, and representatives from the Heritage Rose Foundation) urged the Commission to reject the draft guidelines. Key points:
- The historic rose garden is a world-renowned collection; many roses are unique and irreplaceable.
- Guidelines requiring removal of trellises and pruning of climbing roses would destroy the garden.
- No evidence was presented that roses damage stones; irrigation system problems are a larger issue.
- Volunteers feel excluded from the process; they called for a collaborative, science-based approach.
- Several letters from national and international experts (e.g., Stephen Scaniello, Kelvin Trimper) were read, praising the garden and urging preservation.
- Commission Comments: Commissioners thanked the public for their expertise and passion. They acknowledged the need for balanced guidelines and supported the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review the guidelines with input from volunteers, horticulturists, and preservation experts. Commissioner Bowns suggested a cultural landscape study. No formal action was taken; the item was only for review and comment.
Public Comments – Matters Not on the Agenda
- No speakers.
Director’s Report
- Preservation Director Roberta Deering recognized Nancy Bennett and updated the Commission on the 40th Anniversary of Preservation celebrations (reception scheduled for May 21, 2016).
Member Comments
- Commissioner Whitelam requested a report back on the city’s early notification process for development projects.
- Commissioner Marshack asked about resurrecting the effort to update preservation guidelines for individual historic districts.
- Commissioner Huck reported on the 40th Anniversary banners and available tickets.
Key Outcomes
- 2010 F Street: The Commission voted 6:0:1 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning and Design Commission with specific conditions aimed at reducing massing and improving compatibility. The early notification process was flagged for improvement.
- Historic City Cemetery: The Commission endorsed formation of a Technical Advisory Committee to revise the pruning guidelines with broad stakeholder input; no formal action was taken.
- The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. Welcome to the April 13th, 2016 meeting of Sacramento's Preservation Commission. I hereby call the meeting to order. Before we start, I'd like to just go through a couple housekeeping items. Copies of tonight's agenda are uh included uh on the table just outside the door. Um we'll be taking uh items tonight as they appear on the agenda in order. Um so uh we'll refer to each item um as we open that item, so uh maybe helpful to have that to follow along. Um there are also speaker forms on the back table that are available. Um if you'd like to speak, we encourage you to fill out a form and note the number item um in which you're interested in speaking and bring it up to um staff and um and you'll be called at the appropriate time to speak. Um we do expect a lengthy meeting tonight. Uh a couple items on the agenda that we're anticipating um interest in uh uh public uh comments on. Um so um at between items two and three, we do plan on taking uh a short break. Um the height hearing items will be uh initiated by a brief staff presentation, followed by questions uh of uh uh followed by questions of staff by commission members. After that, we'll hear a presentation by the applicant um if they so choose to make a presentation. That'll be followed again by questions of the applicant by the commission. And finally, uh for each uh item we'll open it up for public testimony. Um again, you're welcome to encourage to uh fill out a pe a speaker slip. Um we want to remind people that uh only one person's uh uh permitted to speak at a time so that the commission can um hear all the comments that are being provided. Um we uh do uh uh limit our uh public testimony to three minutes per speaker. Um this is really in an effort to make sure that everyone present that uh would like to uh make comments has an opportunity to do so. Um so in in that light, depending on how many speaker slips we get, I would encourage um if you've had a speaker before you that has um you know made similar points, you're more than welcome to um reference that and and state that you agree with your previous speaker or summarize uh your comments. Um you don't have to take the full three minutes if you don't uh want to. So um with that, I'll just also remind people that if you can turn uh remember to turn off your cell phones or any other uh devices that uh make sounds and uh may interrupt tonight's meeting. Um finally uh members of the audience may also wish to address the commission on items not on the agenda, which is an item agenda item for public comments, uh matters not on the agenda. Um so if you're interested in that, uh make note of that um on your speaker slip. And with that, I'll proceed on to the agenda. Um Sher White White Lamb. Commissioner Piner. Here. Commissioner Huck? Here. Commissioner Fuller. Commissioner Bounds. Commissioner Marshak. Commissioner Moffat, here. You have a quorum. All right. Um agenda item one, which is our consent calendar. Um approval of minutes from uh last month, March 16th, 2016 meeting. A motion from commissioners unless there's any discussion or edits to the minutes. Meeting minutes. Commissioner Marchak. I propose we accept the minutes as written. Do I will second? All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries. All right. Next item public hearing portion of the meeting. Item uh agenda item number two.
openpublica.com