Sacramento Preservation Commission Meeting - June 15, 2016
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Sacramento Preservation Commission Meeting - June 15, 2016
The Sacramento Preservation Commission met on June 15, 2016, at 5:30 PM in the New City Hall Council Chambers. All commissioners were present except for Commissioner Eric Fuller. The meeting included approval of previous minutes, a public hearing on temporary bracing for the Sacramento Zoo's historic Discovery Building, and a staff report on the proposed Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the Historic City Cemetery. The meeting adjourned at 6:59 PM.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes (May 18, 2016): Moved, seconded, and carried (Huck/Marshack) 6:0:1 to approve the minutes. Commissioner Whitelam requested a clarification on wording regarding concept review and final action, which was noted.
Public Hearing: PB16-038 Sacramento Zoo Discovery Building Entry Complex
- Location: 3930 W Land Park Drive.
- Proposal: Temporary bracing to stabilize the Discovery Room roof, part of the zoo entry structures (eligible for the Sacramento Register of Historic Resources). The structures are rare mid-century modern hyperbolic paraboloid roofs (circa 1961, designed by Ricky and Brooks).
- Staff Presentation: Preservation Director Roberta Deering explained that the work was elevated to the commission due to the significant and unusual nature of the roofs. The temporary bracing is needed to stabilize the roof for a 3–5 year period while a long-term master plan is developed.
- Applicant Presentation: Kyle Burks, Executive Director of the Sacramento Zoological Society, described the need for indoor air-conditioned space for summer camps and events. The bracing, designed by structural engineer Todd Thorpe, will allow safe reuse of the building. The zoo plans to begin a master planning process to address the structures' long-term future.
- Commission Questions:
- Commissioner Marshak asked about listing the structures on the Sacramento Register. The applicant noted ongoing discussions with the city.
- Commissioner Huck questioned why the roof could not be repaired immediately; the applicant explained cost and contractual responsibilities between the zoo and city.
- Commissioner Bowns raised pedestrian safety concerns about the 18-inch-high footings; the applicant proposed adding temporary planters to prevent tripping and improve aesthetics.
- Commissioner Whitelam asked about the relationship between the master plan and historic resource review; staff noted that if the buildings are removed, it would trigger CEQA review.
- Commissioner Piner asked about water intrusion; the applicant confirmed leaks have been repaired.
- Public Comments: None.
- Action: Moved, seconded, and carried (Marshack/Piner) 6:0:1 to approve the staff recommendation with conditions.
Discussion Items: Report Back – Status of TAC for Historic City Cemetery
- Location: 1000 Broadway.
- Staff Presentation: Parks and Recreation Director Christopher Conlin presented a draft concept for a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide expert advice on landscape management of the Historic City Cemetery. The TAC would include experts in archaeology, cemetery management, historic preservation, ornamental horticulture, cultural landscapes, arboriculture, conservation, and volunteer organizations. It would meet at least biannually, be open to the public, and provide recommendations on maintenance, planting, and master plan amendments.
- Public Comments: Nine speakers addressed the commission:
- Anita Clevevyn expressed support for the TAC and emphasized the need for heritage rose expertise.
- William Burg clarified that National Register listing does not impose additional management requirements; the city's choice of restoration versus rehabilitation standards has caused concerns.
- Judy Eitzen, a longtime volunteer, urged inclusion of pioneer cemetery management expertise and equal treatment of all elements.
- Margaret Buss praised the transparency but requested wording to recognize that historic rose gardens are intrinsic features, not merely complementary.
- Kathryn Tobias (Capitol City Preservation Trust) supported the concept and suggested a kick-off charette to gather input.
- Jennifer Holden asked if there is a larger plan for the cemetery and about the status of pruning guidelines.
- Jan Wooley (former California State Parks historian) recommended a cemetery management plan as a technical document and suggested seeking Certified Local Government (CLG) funding.
- Vicki Contente (descendant of 13 family members) emphasized including descendant groups and improving communication (e.g., email lists).
- Ann Mansker asked who the TAC would report to.
- Commission Discussion: Commissioners thanked Mr. Conlin and noted the public's passion. Commissioner Piner suggested adding descendant representatives and a cemetery management plan. Commissioner Whitelam asked about CLG funding cycles (applications due in March/April). The item was received and filed.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar: Approved minutes 6:0:1.
- Zoo Temporary Bracing: Approved 6:0:1. The applicant was encouraged to consider listing the structures on the Sacramento Register during the master planning process.
- Cemetery TAC: Received and filed. Staff will finalize the concept with the city manager and aim to present a council vote by late summer 2016. The commission will appoint a liaison to the TAC.
- Member Comments: Commissioner Whitelam noted the public comment period for the rail yards Subsequent EIR (June 10–July 27) and a joint workshop with the Planning Commission is pending. Commissioner Marshak requested copies of commission recommendations forwarded to other bodies.
Meeting Transcript
Uh to the um June 15th 2016 meeting of the Sacramento is historic preserved uh Sacramento's Preservation Commission. Um I hereby call this meeting to order. Uh before we start, I'd like to just uh review some uh procedures or housekeeping items. Um copies of the agenda for tonight's meeting are on the table outside the door. Um in the back, I'm sorry. And um as we move through here, um I'll refer to items on the agenda as we're introducing them. Um we don't have any changes to the agenda tonight, so we'll be taking everything in order. Hearing items will be initiated by a staff presentation, uh, followed by questions of staff from the commission. After that, we'll hear a presentation by the applicant if they so choose to make an uh presentation as followed by questions of the applicant uh by the commission members, and then that's followed by public comments related to that particular uh agenda item. Uh members of the audience uh may also address the commission on items that are not on the agenda. Um item five, public comments, matters not on the agenda uh is uh is listed. Speaker forms are in the back of the the table uh in the room here. If you'd like to speak, please uh we encourage you to fill out a form, note the number uh of the agenda item in which you'd like to speak or the topic, and uh bring it up to the staff member here on the um left side of the the dais, and then we'll call you to speak at the appropriate time. There'll be a three-minute limit to public comments. Um so at this time uh we'll ask you to turn off any cell phones or any other electronic devices that uh may interrupt uh the meeting, and uh we will follow with the agenda with roll call commissioner bounds, commissioner Fuller Absent. Commissioner Huck. Here, Commissioner Whitelam. Here commissioner Marshak. Here, Commissioner Piner? Here, Commissioner Moffat. Here we have a quorum. Excellent. Um the first uh second item on the agenda here is the consent calendar. Um commission can approve these items without a discussion unless there are any corrections or edits. Um hearing none, I need a motion to approve the consent items. Do I hear a sec uh second? Oh Commissioner Whitelamb? Yeah, um I had a question concerning the end of the um on the minutes on item eight um about Commissioner Marshak's request. I didn't I I then item number two, when it says there'll be review and comment for projects and concept form and return to the commission for final action when design proposals are ready for decision. I just don't know it that doesn't mean that we're going to be like every time there's a project, we're gonna have two steps like review and comment, and then the final proposal. Uh Commissioner Marshak, you want to clarify? My intent was that there can be review and comment on projects in concept form, but that they should not return to the commission for final action until the proposal is ready for a decision. That's that's the way I I remember so noted. All right, so I have a motion by Commissioner Huck to accept the consent calendar. And do I hear a second with with the uh with the noted changes? Commissioner uh Marshak seconds. Um all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Um any opposed motion carries. Um we'll now move on to the public hearing portion uh of tonight's uh meeting. And um uh before we get into that, I guess I'll ask if there are any commissioners uh that wish to provide any disclosures related to items uh that are on the agenda. And for that I'll start um item two on the agenda of the Sacramento School uh zoo. Um one of the attachments to the the materials uh is a where it is here, the name of a cultural landscape study of William Land Park, which was provided as reference. The name of a cultural landscape study of William Land Park, which was provided as reference. And I was one of the primary authors of that in 2012. I've spoken to city I've spoken to council, and we've determined that's not a conflict of interest, but uh wanted to disclose that. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Whitelamb. Yeah, do you want disclosures on any of the items on the agenda or just number two?
openpublica.com