Sacramento Preservation Commission Meeting - November 7, 2018
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Sacramento Preservation Commission Meeting - November 7, 2018
The Sacramento Preservation Commission held its regular meeting on Wednesday, November 7, 2018, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:19 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber (915 I Street, 1st Floor). The commission approved prior meeting minutes, conducted a public hearing to recommend two landmark designations, and reviewed several staff reports including the impact of SB-35 on historic preservation, automatic listing of state/federal register properties, and the draft Certified Local Government annual report. All commissioners were present; Chair Jon Marshack presided.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of October 17, 2018 Minutes: The commission approved the minutes as amended, correcting the word "mater" to "master" in Item 3 and adding the roll call result. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention; Commissioner Marshack abstained due to non-attendance. (Note: The minutes record the vote as 5:1:0 with Marshack abstaining, while the transcript indicates 5 ayes and 1 abstention.)
Public Comments & Testimony
- William Burg (Preservation Sacramento Board of Directors) expressed support for the landmark nominations at 2640 and 2672 Montgomery Way. He praised the property owners and encouraged neighbors in Curtis Park to nominate additional homes, potentially moving toward a historic district. He offered gratitude and urged the commission to forward the nominations to City Council.
Discussion Items
- Item 3 – Landmark Nomination M18-016 (2640 and 2672 Montgomery Way): Staff recommended listing both properties as individual landmarks on the Sacramento Register. The commission discussed adding Criterion IV (work of a master) for Dean and Dean architects, and whether secondary structures (garages) should be included. Commissioner motions resulted in a 6-0 vote to approve with amendments: add Criterion IV, describe 2640’s clipped gable roof, multi-light wood casement windows, and centrally-located chimney with pots, and direct staff to evaluate whether garages are character-defining features.
- Item 4 – Historic Preservation Implications of SB-35: Staff (Preservation Director Carson Anderson and Urban Design Manager Bruce Monighan) outlined the state law requiring objective design standards, no public hearings, and 90-day review for multifamily projects with 3+ units. A recent clarification exempts 3–10 unit projects from affordable housing and prevailing wage requirements. Commissioner Whitelam expressed concern and requested written confirmation from the state. The commission reviewed and commented; no formal action.
- Item 5 – Automatic Listing of CA/National Register Properties: Staff proposed a process to automatically nominate properties already listed on the California or National Register to the Sacramento Register, citing workload and data retrieval challenges. Commissioner Moffitt cautioned against including mere “consensus determinations” without verification. The commission reviewed and commented; no formal action.
- Item 6 – Draft Certified Local Government Annual Report FY 2017-2018: Staff presented highlights, including historic district planning, property additions, and the mid-century modern survey. Commissioners suggested adding SB-35 and the 2040 General Plan as upcoming preservation goals, and revisiting a historic sign survey. The report was reviewed and commented; no formal action.
- Item 7 – Director’s Report: Director Anderson provided updates on the historic district plan timeline (first public draft by Thanksgiving week, workshop December 6, commission review January 16, 2019), Mills Act program (one application received), historic places grants (deadline December 10, 2018), and the Governor’s Award for the mid-century modern survey. The report was received and filed.
Key Outcomes
- Approved the October 17, 2018 meeting minutes with corrections (vote 5-0-1, Marshack abstaining).
- Recommended to City Council the landmark designation of 2640 and 2672 Montgomery Way, including Criterion IV for Dean and Dean, specific architectural features, and further evaluation of garages (vote 6-0).
- Directed staff to explore whether secondary structures on nominated properties should be considered character-defining and report back to the commission.
- Reviewed and commented on SB-35 implementation, automatic listing processes, and the CLG annual report without formal action.
- Received the Director’s Report and member comments; the commission adjourned at 7:19 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, we're holding for one more commissioner who is on her way. Before we start, I'll review our procedures. Copies of the agenda for tonight's meeting are in the kiosk outside the door. The commission will refer to each item according to the order provided on the agenda, and there are no changes to the agenda. Followed by questions of staff by the commission, followed by presentation by the applicant if they choose, followed by questions of the applicant by the commission, and then an opportunity for public comments. Note the agenda item number on which you'd like to speak, and bring it up to the clerk at the left of the dais. Although with a short agenda, we might be a little more liberal tonight. Okay. Item number one, our agenda is the consent calendar, approval of minutes of the October 11th, 2018 meeting. And do we have any corrections, comments by commissioners on that agenda. Commissioner Whitelum. The A Street Annex Demolition. I mean to the meeting minutes. And when we concluded the meeting, because of the process that was followed on the project, there was kind of we didn't really come to a clear statement about our motion. And I think it's caught my main out most what's here is correct. But what isn't here is there were several commissioners who, and I was one of them, who expressed concern that the process that was followed was flawed. That was one of the words used, another word that it was wronged, and that somehow that needed to be communicated onward in the in the minutes. So I don't recall if it was placed in the final motion. I know that legal counsel said that she thought that she got the drift of what we said. And I basically deferred that that would, you know, that we'd go on and and agree with that. So I don't know if other commission members have you know different memory of that. I I kind of feel it's a point that should be in there, but I don't recall whether or would know whether it'd be correct to say it was part of the motion specifically. It was certainly expressed by myself and at least two other commissioners. So anyway, I don't know if anybody what the commission feels. Commissioner Whitelum, if I could respond, we also offer to convey your concerns in the staff report that goes to council. So that was one of the uh approaches in getting on the record all of the concerns that you voiced during your discussion in addition to reflecting them in the minutes. Well, if that's the you know, if the rest of the commission is members who are present at the meeting are fine with that, you know, and we go by that assurance that it'll be in the staff report. Not um, I I'm not going to make a point of it beyond that. So nobody else is particularly concerned about Commissioner Moffat. I I think I think it's an important uh point to bring up, and it certainly I think came through in the discussion at the meeting, but I'm not sure that it uh belongs in the meeting minutes because it's background information and into the motion and really the meeting minutes are meant to just capture whether we moved uh you know what the motion was, approval denial, um, and there's information, the word inappropriate, I think uh you know, hints at uh that it was inappropriate to delist the building from the Sacramento Register. So I'm comfortable, you know, given that this reflects the level of information that we typically find in our meeting minutes. Um I'm comfortable with it and I'm comfortable with the fact that the applicant was here and heard all of our discussions. Any other thoughts about the um meeting minutes? I was not here, but a couple of things just reviewing them. I noticed that uh the result of the roll call should be included. Then in item three um in the um the action third bullet, second to last line ends in the word matter. I think it is master. Okay. Captured that very good. Okay. Um Chair Marshall, can I clarify on item four? Excuse me. Your mic is not on. Um I do see a motion described at the beginning. Clarify what you mean by your recommended correction to the action item. It was so I see move seconded and carried. I see the vote. No, it wasn't four that I commented on. So it was item number three. Number three.
openpublica.com