Sacramento Preservation Commission Special Meeting on Historic Districts Plans - October 23, 2019

The Preservation Commission held a special meeting on October 23, 2019, from 5:36 p.m. to 6:46 p.m. in the Historic City Hall Council Chamber. The sole agenda item was to review and comment on the Final Draft Historic Districts Plans, an update to the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources, and a proposed ordinance amending Section 17.808.140 of the City Code relating to director-level site plan and design review. The commission took no formal action but provided feedback to staff for final revisions ahead of a public hearing in November.

Public Comments & Testimony

• William Burg, speaking on behalf of Preservation Sacramento, expressed general support for the final draft, highlighting specific positive changes such as the inclusion of three houses on 21st Street in the Wind Park Historic District, the Morgan Jones Mortuary building as an individual landmark, and Herb Kane's childhood home in the Bungalow Row Historic District. He noted that the document provides a template for future historic district guidelines and mentioned potential future districts (Richmond Grove, New Era Park, Eastern R Streets, Oak Park, mid-century Chinatown). He concluded by wishing the commission good luck moving forward.
• Steven Cvitanov, a property owner, criticized the document for lacking clarity and credibility. He stated that he, his broker, and other real estate professionals could not determine what is buildable on his lot based on the diagrams. He argued that the alley infill setback graphics do not match historical Sanborn maps and that the language across districts is not unique (e.g., similar wording for Boulevard Park and South Side Park regarding alley uses). He said the plan will diminish his property value and that city staff cannot provide definitive answers.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Carson Anderson (Preservation Director) and Sean de Courcy (Associate Preservation Planner) presented the final draft. Key points included:
  • The plan is required by Planning and Development Code Section 17.604.300 and was developed in response to the 2017 Interim Principles for Infill and the 2035 General Plan.
  • A $250,000 contract with Page & Turnbull was used to prepare the document. Public outreach began in spring 2018 and included engagement with neighborhood associations, business organizations, professional groups, and a technical advisory group.
  • The plan contains historic contexts, periods of significance, significance justifications, character-defining features, and design standards/criteria for each district.
  • The design standards are based on Secretary of the Interior Standards and include mandatory principles, rationale, photographs, and graphics.
  • A proposed code amendment would allow staff-level review for new development on vacant parcels or involving non-contributing resources (currently all new development requires a director hearing). Landmark and contributing resource projects would still require director or commission hearing.
  • The draft includes an update to the Sacramento Register, focusing on the oldest and most out-of-date districts (shown in blue on a map). Boundaries would be modified in four districts, and two districts (Memorial Auditorium and 12th Street Commercial) recommended for deletion. Property owner notifications were already sent (about 2,400 notices, each 7 pages, totaling ~16,000 pages).
  • A schedule was outlined: Preservation Director hearing on Oct. 30 (focused on Register update), Nov. 1 final screen check comments to consultant, Nov. 14 Planning and Design Commission review, Nov. 20 Preservation Commission public hearing for recommendation to City Council, and Dec. 3 City Council approval via emergency ordinance to meet SB 330 deadlines (which restricts new discretionary design review standards after Jan. 1, 2020).
• Commissioner Questions & Feedback:
  • Commissioner Alice Valania suggested adding cross-references (e.g., referencing map page numbers within district descriptions) and clarifying what is not included in character-defining features (e.g., fences in Boulevard Park). She also asked about adding a note for the state tax credit resource.
  • Commissioner Christine Miller-Cruiess offered to submit minor administrative edits via email.
  • Commissioner Ryan Miller inquired about the reasoning for different setback treatments in alley infill graphics. Sean de Courcy explained that the decision was based on historic development patterns observed in Sanborn maps: some districts show clear separation patterns (e.g., Capitol Mansions), others are more organic (e.g., Alkali Flat), and industrial/commercial districts have none. Different districts either require a minimum distance from adjacent parcels or not, to preserve the historic spatial relationship. Miller also noted errors in the draft ordinances: one referenced an April 17, 2019 meeting that did not occur (staff confirmed an error), and another used the slang term "peppered."
  • Commissioner Caru Browns praised the document's clarity and noted that the historic district context could be disseminated to neighborhoods as a separate tool to promote Mills Act awareness.
  • Commissioner William Carter stated that the plan was well done and provides needed parameters.
  • Chair Jacqueline Whitelam raised questions about the alley infill graphic: whether the term "existing building" should be revised to "contributing building" to avoid ambiguity (staff agreed and planned to revise). She also questioned the definition of "total floor height" in the height restriction graphic (150% of surrounding contributing buildings). Bruce Monighan (Urban Design Manager) clarified the intent: to allow two-story infill next to one-and-a-half story buildings while maintaining scale. Chair Whitelam also asked about measuring from floor height vs. plate height and whether roof pitch is considered. Staff acknowledged the graphic needs refinement. Whitelam also suggested implementing a regular reporting system to track approvals and staff decisions under the new guidelines, to keep the commission informed. Staff and Preservation Director Anderson agreed that providing data on project types, processing times, and outcomes would be valuable.

Key Outcomes

• No formal motion was made or vote taken. The purpose was review and comment only.
• Staff will collect all commissioner comments by November 1, 2019, to submit to consultant Page & Turnbull for final revisions.
• A public hearing on the final plan will occur at the Preservation Commission's November 20, 2019 meeting, leading to a recommendation to City Council.
• Staff will refine the alley infill and height graphics to clarify definitions and reference "contributing" structures.
• The commission and staff agreed to develop a regular report on staff-level project approvals to monitor implementation of the new guidelines.