Preservation Commission Meeting – April 18, 2018

The Sacramento Preservation Commission convened on Wednesday, April 18, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. (despite the agenda noting a 1:30 p.m. start) in City Hall Council Chamber. Commissioners reviewed the draft scope of the General Plan five-year update, discussed alternative approaches to the historic plaque program, and received updates on the City Cemetery Technical Advisory Committee and staffing changes. The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m.

Consent Calendar

• Item 1 – Approval of Minutes (March 21, 2018): The minutes were approved 7–0–0 (Moffett/Valania) with an amendment to clarify that the continuation of an item from the March meeting was by commission consensus, not a formal motion.
• Item 2 – City Cemetery Technical Advisory Committee (October 2017) Meeting Summary and Update: Received and filed. Staff reported that the Technical Advisory Committee met the previous day (April 17) and introduced a consultant team (father-and-son firm) with extensive experience in historic cemetery management. Public speakers Anita Clevenger (cemetery volunteer and rose garden curator) and Jan Wooley (TAC member) expressed appreciation for the consultants’ expertise but urged that the scope of work includes a cultural landscape treatment plan, not just operations and mapping. Jan Wooley suggested pursuing funding through Save America’s Treasures and Certified Local Government grants for a treatment plan.

Public Comments & Testimony – Matters Not on the Agenda

• William Burg, president of Sacramento Heritage Inc., announced upcoming walking tours: a Jane Jacobs walk on May 4 (Poverty Ridge neighborhood) and a ticketed J Street Streetcar walking tour on May 12 (partnering with Midtown Association), and a Lavender Heights tour planned for June.

Discussion Items

• Item 4 – Draft Scope of Work for the General Plan Five-Year Update (LR18-007): Staff (Remi Mendoza and Jim McDonald) presented five key components: a new Master Environmental Impact Report, incorporation of environmental justice, a new Climate Action Plan, a major revisit of the Mobility Element (including vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a metric), and steps toward AARP age-friendly community designation. The land use and historic preservation policies of the current 2035 General Plan are not expected to change. Commissioners and the public provided comments:
  • Commissioner Whitelam urged that floor area ratio (FAR) and community benefits be included (as promised during the Central City Specific Plan), and that affordable housing (especially workforce housing) be addressed. She also noted that mid-century modern resources and their spatial context need policies that reconcile car-oriented design with infill goals. She asked that consultants have expertise in land economics and housing.
  • Chair Marshak asked that energy retrofit of historic structures consistent with Secretary of Interior standards be considered; that greenhouse gas analysis compare rehabilitation vs. new construction; that public meeting formats encourage dialogue rather than break-out booths; and that red-line/strikeout versions of proposed changes be provided for transparency.
  • Public commenter William Burg urged that social equity in preservation be addressed (historic resources are concentrated in few neighborhoods) and that the promised FAR study be included in the scope.
  • Staff confirmed that FAR and community benefits will be examined with consultants, and that the preservation element may receive minor updates as part of the process. The housing element update is scheduled for 2020.
• Item 5 – Historic Plaque Program: Alternative Approaches for Commemorating Historic Landmarks and Districts: Staff opened discussion based on a request from Chair Marshak, who noted the existing bronze plaques ($350) are too expensive for many owners, resulting in low participation. San Luis Obispo’s lower-cost aluminum plaques were cited as a model. Public comments:
  • Vivian Gerlach (Wind Park Historic District) supported bronze for durability and prestige, but urged better marketing of the existing program. She suggested the city adopt official street-sign-style district markers (like Los Angeles HPOZs) and allow more than the current limit of 12 sign toppers per district.
  • William Burg noted that enamel signs could be a lower-cost alternative, and that Sacramento Heritage had a robust board discussion. He supported marketing the existing program first to gauge demand.
  • Commissioners discussed options: a “contributor” plaque for less text (Commissioner Valania), uniform bronze plaques for historic districts (Commissioner Whitelam), and a design competition for sign toppers (Commissioner Valania). No formal action was taken; the discussion will be relayed to Sacramento Heritage for further consideration.
• Item 6 – Director’s Report: Director Carson Anderson reported on staffing changes (Tom Buford promoted, Joy Patterson retired, Jim Donaldson retiring, recruitment underway for senior planner), filling Mark Abrams’ licensed contractor seat on the commission, and the resignation of Dan Herrick from Sacramento Heritage Board. He noted that the RFP for historic district context statements and design guidelines received three proposals; a consultant has been selected. Also, the city decided not to pursue private operation of the Convention Center/Memorial Auditorium; staff will continue operating those facilities. Upcoming events: California Preservation Foundation conference in Palo Alto (May 17–20) and an Art Deco walking tour at City College (May 5).

Key Outcomes

• Minutes of March 21, 2018 were approved (7–0) with an amendment clarifying continuation of an item.
• City Cemetery update was received and filed; the Technical Advisory Committee is moving forward with a consultant for cemetery assessment and operations.
• General Plan update scope comments were taken under advisement; staff will incorporate commissioner and public input into the consultant selection and work plan. No vote was taken.
• Historic plaque program discussion was noted for future consideration by Sacramento Heritage; no action was taken.
• Director’s report received and filed.