Sacramento Preservation Commission Meeting – October 18, 2017
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Sacramento Preservation Commission Meeting – October 18, 2017
The Sacramento Preservation Commission met at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers on October 18, 2017. The meeting covered a consent calendar, updates on preservation work plans, review of proposed code amendments affecting historic districts, and a detailed presentation on the Draft Downtown Specific Plan. Commissioners grappled with concerns over staff-level delegation, the adequacy of historic resource surveys, and the need for clear design guidelines before procedural changes. Public testimony highlighted transparency issues and flaws in historic district evaluations.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Minutes (September 20, 2017): Moved (Abrahams/Moffett), passed 7-0 with Commissioner Fuller abstaining.
Public Comments & Testimony
- William Burg (Central City resident): Opposed the proposed removal of director-level review for new construction in historic districts, arguing it would reduce public notification and transparency. He questioned why the Preservation Commission is not making final decisions on preservation policy.
- Vivian Gerlach (Midtown resident): Echoed concerns about removing director-level review, citing lack of codified infill standards. She noted that without guidelines, staff-level review reduces public input and appeal opportunities.
- Thomas Plumb (Midtown resident): Supported previous public comments, emphasizing the difficulty for citizens to monitor projects under a seven-day reconsideration period. He requested access to infill development principles.
- Margaret Buss (Boulevard Park resident): Praised staff for their work on the Downtown Specific Plan but objected to the name "Downtown Specific Plan," suggesting it be called "Downtown/Central City Specific Plan." She also urged linking alley activation guidelines to the plan.
Discussion Items
- Item 2: Mid-Century Modern Historic Resources Survey Report / Historic Context Statement – Continued to a future meeting at the request of SAC Mod and the consultant.
- Item 3: Draft Workplan - Certified Local Government FY 2016-2017 Annual Report – Commissioners reviewed and commented, with suggestions to reorder priorities. Commissioner Whitelam proposed a reorganization of goals; Commissioner Moffett recommended broadening language around preservation standards. Commissioner Bowns suggested organizing mid-century modern data by neighborhood or council district for public access. Staff accepted the comments.
- Item 4: Monthly Update - Ad Hoc Committee on Infill Development Within Historic Districts – Received and filed. Staff reported that legal review is underway to advance the approved infill development principles. The ad hoc committee also provided written comments on agenda items 5 and 6.
- Item 5: Ordinance M17-016 – Amendments to Title 17 (Planning and Development Code) – No action required; commission review and comment. The proposal would remove automatic director-level site plan and design review for new construction in historic districts and allow the design director to approve deviations for one- and two-unit projects. Commissioners and public speakers opposed these changes as premature without finalized infill guidelines. The ad hoc committee recommended against delegation to staff due to lack of preservation development standards and limited preservation staff expertise. Commissioners urged staff to remove the two provisions relating to director-level review from the ordinance.
- Item 6: Presentation on Draft Downtown Specific Plan (LR16-006) – Greg Sandlund presented the plan, which includes increased heights in certain zones, private open space requirements, parking maximums, and an R Street Corridor Historic District Survey. Public comments criticized the historic survey for using overly strict interpretations and failing to evaluate key properties. Commissioner Whitelam raised concerns about the plan's title, lack of a dedicated affordable housing fund, and the need for clearer references to interim infill design principles. The ad hoc committee provided extensive written recommendations, including retaining detailed guidelines in the Central City Neighborhood Design Guidelines and ensuring historic district protections are explicit. Commissioner Fuller noted the removal of specific design language and suggested wording improvements. Commissioner Bowns requested time to submit additional written comments. A subcommittee meeting was suggested to resolve guideline conflicts.
- Director’s Report: Announced the first meeting of the Historic City Cemetery Technical Advisory Committee on October 25, 2017, with a transparent and open process.
- Member Comments: Commissioner Bowns appointed to the Cemetery Technical Advisory Committee; Commissioner Whitelam appointed to the Sacramento Heritage Board.
Key Outcomes
- Approval of Minutes: Consent calendar item passed 7-0 with one abstention.
- Workplan and Annual Report: Reviewed and commented; staff will incorporate suggestions.
- Infill Development Committee Update: Staff will continue advancing infill guidelines; committee comments transmitted for items 5 and 6.
- Code Amendments (Item 5): Commissioners expressed opposition to removing director-level review for historic districts and recommended removing those provisions. Staff will take comments to the Planning and Design Commission.
- Downtown Specific Plan (Item 6): Commissioners provided extensive comments on design guidelines, historic resource surveys, and the need for interim protections. Staff will consider revisions before Law and Legislation Committee (November 14) and public hearings in January 2018. Some commissioners plan to submit additional written feedback by early November.
- Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations: The committee's three-page document will be incorporated into the record for both items 5 and 6.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Meeting of the City of Sacramento's Preservation Commission is called to order. Before we start, I'll review our procedures. Copies of the agenda for tonight's meeting are in the kiosk outside the door. Commissioners will refer to each item according to the order provided on the agenda. And we do have one change to the agenda. Item two on mid-century modern historic research survey report and context statement. It will be continued to a future meeting at the request of SAC Mod. They wanted to be able to be here as well as the consultant, and neither were able to attend tonight. Then presentation by the applicant if there is one, followed by questions of the applicant by the commission, and then opportunity for public comments. Members of the audience may also address the commission on items not on the agenda. And that is item number seven on our agenda. So if you wish to speak on items not on the agenda, please spill uh fill out a speaker slip and note item number seven on that speaker slip. At this time I ask that we turn off all uh cell phones and other noise making devices, and uh we'll proceed with the agenda. Roll call. Commissioner Abrahams. Commissioner Bowns, Commissioner Fuller, present, Commissioner Moffitt. Here Commissioner Vellania, Commissioner Whitlam and Chair Marshak. Here. Okay. Quorum attained. Thank you. First item on the agenda is the consent calendar, and that includes just one item approval of the minutes from the September 20th, 2017 meeting. Do we have any comments or changes to a set of minutes? Hearing none, do we have a motion for approval? Okay, we have uh motion to approve by Commissioner Abrahams. We have a second. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Moffat. Any discussion. Hearing none. Uh all those in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed. Any abstentions. Commissioner Fuller has abstained. Okay. The item passes. Skipping item two to a future meeting. We uh move on to item three draft work plan for the certified local government fiscal year 2016-2017 annual report. Director Anderson. Bear with me a second as I shuffle through my papers here on the day as so uh this is a follow-up report to you. Um we had a discussion at the September meeting about some of the ideas for the work plan for this coming year. This is information that gets reported out at the end of the year as part of our annual report. Um in the previous iteration there were three categories of things sort of uh ranked according to how likely it was that we'd be able to get to and implement those things, and that was based on staffing commitments, budget, other commitments from the city manager's office that assured us that we'd be able to move ahead with those items. So I went ahead based on our discussion at the last meeting and produced a list for you. Um if there are questions we can talk about the items that are on the list. And then the next component of this was uh in preparing for the annual report that we submit to the Office of Historic Preservation at the end of the year. There were a few other items in terms of goals, um things that the focus would be, what what the most important uh accomplishment was during this last fiscal year, uh some of the things that we met with success on.
openpublica.com