Sacramento Preservation Commission Meeting - November 20, 2019: Historic District Plans and Design Review Amendments
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Sacramento Preservation Commission Meeting - November 20, 2019
The Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the Historic District Plans, an update to the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources, and an ordinance amending Section 17.808.140 of the City Code to reduce the level of review for some projects within historic districts. The meeting convened at 5:35 p.m. and adjourned at 6:32 p.m. Commissioners Bowns, Carter, Miller, Lemon, Valania, and Whitelam were present; Commissioner Miller-Cruiess was absent. The consent calendar was approved unanimously.
Consent Calendar
- Item 1: Approval of meeting minutes of October 16, 2019 and October 23, 2019 — Approved (6:0:1, Miller-Cruiess absent). Chair Whitelam recommended future minutes use the wording “Items reviewed and comments received from the Commissioners.”
- Item 2: Approval of meeting minutes of October 23, 2019 — Approved (moved as part of Item 1).
Public Comments & Testimony
- William Burg (representing Preservation Sacramento, also a resident of the Boulevard Park Historic District and owner of a contributing property) expressed full support for the Historic District Plans, stating they reduce risk, remove ambiguity, and provide clear infill guidelines. He urged approval of both elements.
- David Herbert (Board Chair, Boulevard Park Neighborhood Association) expressed support for adoption as an emergency measure but urged greater prescriptive and enforceable standards for site plan and design review. He noted that moving non-contributing parcel review from director to staff level results in no advance notice, no public hearing, and no appeal opportunity. He highlighted that SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019) would prevent adoption after January 1, 2020 for five years, and recommended adding objective design standards after adoption.
- Eric Knutson expressed general support but reservations about design standards. He noted that with the repeal of the listed structures plans, standards for landmarks outside historic districts will be only the Secretary of the Interior standards, which may be insufficient. He recommended the city adopt objective design standards under SB 330.
- Jon Marshack (20-year resident of Boulevard Park, former Preservation Commissioner, Preservation Committee Chair of Boulevard Park Neighborhood Association) applauded staff work but raised two concerns: (1) the height limit for additions and infill in Boulevard Park (allowing 150% of contributing structure height) would allow structures 50% taller that visually compete and are not subordinate; he urged amending to “within the range of the heights of nearby contributing resources.” (2) The character-defining features table incorrectly states “generally larger houses south of G Street—three stories … is common”; he requested correction to “generally larger homes south of G Street—two story houses with or without a basement is common.”
- David Mandel (resident of a 27-year-old development in Southside Park area) expressed confusion about why some homes in his development were listed as contributing and others as non-contributing. He asked for more explanation and requested a meeting with preservation staff to understand the implications.
Discussion Items
- Staff Presentation: Carson Anderson, Preservation Director, and Sean de Courcy, Associate Preservation Planner, presented the Historic District Plans. Key points: The plans clarify contributing vs. non-contributing resources, provide design standards for infill, and reduce uncertainty. Public outreach began in May 2018 with over 450 comments. The plans are a pro-housing approach supporting preservation and new infill. The recommendation includes adoption of emergency ordinances to comply with SB 330 (which requires adoption before January 1, 2020 to avoid a five-year ban on non-objective standards).
- Commission Questions: Chair Whitelam asked about corrections to the 1200 Q Street landmark ordinance (the nomination date error—staff confirmed it would be corrected before council). She also requested a reduction in the level of review for non-contributing properties from director to staff level, with a regular monthly report to the commission on projects reviewed. Staff agreed to produce such a report. Commissioner Valania noted that the plans are long overdue and provide clarity; she supported the recommendation.
- Commissioner Discussion on Height Limits: Staff responded to Jon Marshack’s concerns about Boulevard Park height limits, explaining that the district is eclectic and that applying a “within the range” standard could make infill problematic. They noted that discretion remains: if a project is inappropriately scaled, it can be elevated to director hearing. Staff also confirmed that the “three stories” description in Boulevard Park would be corrected to “two stories with or without a basement” before council.
Key Outcomes
- Motion: Commissioner Valania moved to approve staff’s recommendation to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Carter. The motion passed unanimously (7:0:1, Miller-Cruiess absent).
- Staff Recommendation Endorsed: The Commission recommended that the City Council:
- Adopt a resolution concluding the project is within the scope of the Master EIR and no new mitigation is required.
- Adopt an emergency ordinance enacting the Historic District Plans and repealing the Preservation Area Plan, Residential Listed Structures Plan, and Non-residential Listed Structures Plan (2/3 vote required).
- Adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance 85-076 for 20 listed historic districts.
- Adopt an ordinance listing 1200 Q Street as a Landmark.
- Adopt ordinances amending Ordinance 2004-009 (Bungalow Row and Capitol Mansions), Ordinance 2004-048 (Alkali Flat districts), and Ordinance 2007-094 (Oak Park Historic District).
- Adopt an ordinance amending Section 17.808.140 of the City Code (reducing director-level review for projects on non-contributing parcels in historic districts following design standards and requesting no deviations).
- Next Steps: The Commission’s recommendation will go to City Council in December 2019. Staff committed to providing a regular monthly report to the Commission on projects reviewed at staff level within historic districts. Minor corrections (1200 Q Street nomination date, Boulevard Park character-defining features language) will be made before council adoption.
Meeting Transcript
Okay. Um I'm going to call the um November twentieth, twenty nineteen preservation commission um meeting to order. Um thank you everybody for coming tonight. Um we uh have uh relatively short but uh deep uh agenda. So um there are speaker slips in the back, so anybody who wishes to speak on an item, they should pick up a slip and then bring them down to the clerk so that we know that um you wish to speak. Everybody who speaks will have three minutes to speak. And um with that, I think I'll go to roll call. So follow check. Yeah. My apologies. There we go. All right. Um Commissioner Bounds. Commissioner Carter. Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Miller Cruz absent. Commissioner Lemon. Commissioner Velonia and Sher White Lum. Here quorum attained. Okay. Um the first um we have two items on the consent calendar. And um there the first one is approval of the meeting minutes of October 16th. And the second one is approval of the meeting minutes of October twenty-third. Um so I would like to take a would any of the commission members like to take a motion uh to approve the minutes or comment on them. Uh the commission has received an item and commented on it, um, that it's say items received and com items review and commission and comments received from the commissioners. And just that's a uniform statement. Okay. Okay. Uh your additional comment to clarify the review and comment has been from the okay, Commissioner Bounds. Yes, Commissioner Carter, yes, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Lemon, Commissioner Velonia, and Chair Whitelum. Yes. Motion passes. Okay, our third item is um the public is a public hearing, and tonight um the commission will be having a hearing on the historic district plans, the update to the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources, and an ordinance amending section 17808.140 of the Sacramento City Code relating to the directory level site plan and design review. So we'll start with a staff presentation. And um do you want to commit? Um I'm going to jump in before Sean de Coursey uh gives you a PowerPoint overview of the project. I wanted to just highlight a few things, and a few of you have probably been at a number of prior meetings of the preservation commission. This also went to the Planning and Design Commission as a uh review and comment item. There have been lots and lots, dozens of community outreach meetings, meetings with neighborhood uh associations with the developer community. So all of that has transpired over the last uh year and a half or so. Um I want to just point out a few kind of big ticket items related to this. So what we've tried to do is uh clarify the list of contributing and non-contributing resources in historic districts. So those historic districts were created in the past, and what we've done to provide a level of greater level of certainty about how things will get reviewed in our site plan and design review process. It's come up with a list for each of the districts of things that we consider contributory to the character of the historic district, fit in with the design themes that are reflected there versus things that were built at a much later time, larger, more intrusive structures or things that don't fit in as well, which we've designate per common practice as non-contributing. Um trying to create predictability in this process and streamline it a bit so that people can uh get their projects approved with maybe a little less time spent by staff figuring out whether it's contributing or non-contributing and working out those details, um reducing some of the risk uh entailed and making investment in the historic districts by knowing what the status of those properties is and then um not insignificant uh providing the public with a set of design standards based on an analysis of the history of development in each of the historic districts and an effort by our consultant to identify um things that describe the design character and the history of those districts, and then come up with design standards uh for each of the districts to guide new development there. I want to also mention um that there is a requirement per policy to notify all the property owners, so we've made a diligent effort to do that over the course of the last year and a half. The first notices went out to all the property owners in the historic districts back in the summer of 2018, and every time we've moved forward and developing a major draft or this final draft version of the document, we've done that again, so I want to make that point clear. Owner consent is not required. We are required by law to notify all the property owners and give them an opportunity to share their thoughts about this um uh classification of their properties, but um agreement with it, consent is not a requirement uh per the city's policies on preservation. Um I think with that I will turn things over to my colleague Sean de Coursey to give you uh further details about this project.
openpublica.com