Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

So good evening, everyone. We're just gonna give us one additional minute as we wait for CMEK to join. Alright. Good evening. We're gonna go ahead and call this meeting order at 06:02, and we will start with roll call, please.

Commissioner Eddings?

Present.

Commissioner Johnston? Commissioner Laval?

Present.

Commissioner Federico? Commissioner Haligian?

Present.

Vice chair Hatwick?

Present.

Chair Sponsler?

Present. Alright. I'll go ahead and read our procedures in to the record. For each matter considered by the commission, there will first be a staff presentation followed by a presentation from the project applicant. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions of staff and applicant before opening it public.

Testimony from supporters of the project will be then taken, followed by testimony from those in opposition. Staff may provide a summation if necessary. The applicant will then have the right for a final rebuttal presentation prior to closing the public hearing followed by consideration of the item in action, if any, by the commission. In accordance with section 13 of Article two of the Historic Preservation Commission bylaws governing length of public debate, all public testimony from those in support and in opposition of the project will be limited to three minutes per person. All public testimony must be presented to the commission at the podium.

Any testimony that references race, religion, ethnicity, economic status, national origin, or any other classification protected under state or federal laws in a derogatory manner shall be deemed irrelevant and will not be considered by the commission in making these determinations. If you challenge these matters in court, you may be limited to only those issues you or someone else raised in oral or written testimony or before the close of the hearing. So with that, we'll move on to item three. We do have item three a, and that is a a review and approval of our 02/23/2026 regular meeting minutes. Do we have any changes to the minutes?

There are no changes.

Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Alright. I have a motion and a second. Second. K. A motion by commissioner Laval, second by commissioner Johnston. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes are approved. We'll now move on to item four, approving of tonight's agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda?

There are no changes to the agenda.

Thank you. Alright. I'll entertain a motion.

A motion to approve. Alright.

I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Alright. Motion by vice chair Hatwig, second by commissioner Johnston. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? K. Agenda's approved. Having no items on the consent calendar, we will move on to continued matters with being item six a continued from 02/23/2026. This is item file ID 26Dash315. The hearing to consider eligibility for listing on the local register of historic resources, the property located at 755 East Shaw Avenue.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. Ashley Atkinson, assistant director for planning and development. I will be going over the presentation that I made last time as this is a continued item as chair Sponsler noted. We do have a couple

Chair, just pause for a second. So first, before we start the item, we need to just just determine if there are any disclosures.

Okay. So given the potential of any ex parte communications that may have occurred, we do need commissioners if there was any type of communication presented to you by the applicant. Please go ahead and disclose that. I will start with commissioner Eddings, and we'll just head down the line.

Last week, I was called microphone. Late last week, I was contacted by a consultant at my firm. I didn't know what it was. I thought it was a client. When I recognized that it was for an item that was on our agenda, I ceased all communications. We haven't we didn't discuss anything subsequent to I believe it was. They did reach out.

Okay. Commissioner Johnson?

Yes. I received two or three emails, I believe, but I did not respond to any of them.

Okay. Vice chair Hatwick?

I received as well some emails, but I was not able to meet.

Okay. I did receive a invitation in my LinkedIn to connect with someone as well as a phone call at my place of work, which was declined. So there was no communication made.

I would disclose that several months ago, I did meet with some representatives from Fashion Fair in my role as the president of the Fresno City and County Historical Society. This project was mentioned as well as some ideas and plans for the property. At that time, I believed I was meeting in my role as the president of the historical society. I was also contacted and did not attend a meeting that was originally scheduled. And finally, although it's tangential, the fashion fair group has generously donated to our gala, which is this Friday at the Fresno City and County Historical Society.

But I, as a paid staff member of that society, will no will not gain any direct financial benefit nor will the society.

K. Yes. I was contacted by a consultant who I had happened to meet a few weeks prior to making him making contact with me. I met him at a social gathering. He's a friend of my son's. He called to make an appointment. I didn't know what it was about. He came in. We chatted. He informed me that he wanted to talk about the matter that's on the agenda today. I steered the conversation towards a discussion about Fresno's urban history, about architecture, about architectural history, about historic preservation in general. Nothing that he shared with me swayed my opinions or my views on this matter in any way.

Okay. Alright. Thank you, Adam. Thank you. We can move on, Ashley.

Okay. So once again, since this is a continued item, I will be briefly going over my presentation and staff report again for the benefit of the commissioners who were not in attendance last time and for the public. This is a hearing to consider eligibility for listing on the local register of historic resources, the property located at 755 East Shaw as part of the Fashion Fair Mall, the former Wine Stocks and Gottschalk's and Forever twenty one department stores. The recommendation, again, is that the commission review the available evidence, hold the hearing, and determine whether to initiate designation of this property as resource. We have received an application for demolition of this property.

It is a separate building, one of the anchor wings of Fashion Fare Mall, but it is its own building. So the demolition applies to this building alone. It is not currently a designated historic resource, of course, nor located in a historic district. But because it was constructed in 1970, it is eligible for consideration as a historic resource based upon its age and in light of the potential criteria for designation. The building was designed by Charles Luchman Associates, a commercial architecture firm of some note founded by renowned architect Charles Luchman in 1958.

We do have, as was presented to you at the previous meeting and now as detailed in the new report that has been shared, there is evidence that Charles Luchman himself was not involved in the design of this particular building. It was just a design of his firm. And, Carrie, is the clicker not working at all? Or

It didn't work at Pratt either.

Let's try again. Okay. Sorry. Here we go. So a couple of changes from what was previously reported at the last meeting.

I had noted last time that there were no major modifications to the exterior of the building. Just wanted to note that per the historic resource evaluation that was prepared, you know, there is a lot of detail in that report. It did describe how the, entrances to the building were remodeled in twenty ten, twenty eleven along with, the interior remodel that took place at that time. So the, entrance you see here in the black and white photo was, was sort of completely redone to a two story entrance for that forever twenty one, and, the secondary entrances were redone as well. There was also a a change to a plate glass window wall that was filled in with cement plaster at some unidentified point in the past.

And then, of course, updated signage over the years that that reflected the the change of tenants from Weinstocks to Gotschalks to Forever twenty one. We had also previously discussed this building in the context of the mid century modern move movement, and it was noted in the city's mid century modern historic context statement. Some further analysis and discussion puts it more appropriately in the late modern era of architecture, which does have a a range of styles that includes brutalism but is not squarely mid century modern. Also changing since last time, we do have the full historic resource evaluation that was not available at, the previous meeting that was prepared by Page and Turnbull, submitted to us on, March 17 last week and forwarded to you as part of your, agenda packet. You do also have a hard paper copy of it in front of you.

It concludes based on the evidence that the building does not appear to be eligible for local or state designation under any of the criteria. While, of course, it has been in existence for more than fifty years, the report concludes that because it is one of three anchor stores at the mall, it was not individually associated with with significant events in history such as the decline of downtown's retail opportunities. Also notes that the mall was not the first suburban shopping center constructed outside the city center, and also that this store and its design were not unique to this building. There were 19 stores constructed in the sixties and early seventies for Broadway Hale, and this particular design was used in two other stores in Southern or sorry, in California, one in Southern California and one elsewhere. The report also concludes that the design does not appear to be a particularly unique or noteworthy example of late modern architectural or building practices of that time nor, again, is it a distinguished work of Charles Luckman Associates.

Associates. The individual architect of record was identified as Richard McNew, who is not recognized as a master architect, and the report presents evidence that Charles Luckman was not himself himself involved in the design of this building. We did not look in in detail at the potential for the building to yield information important in prehistory or history because it is a a built structure. We are not looking at the, you know, archaeological value of this site. And, also, no persons significant to Fresno history were identified in association with the site.

So based on that evidence, the report does conclude that, again, the building at 755 East Shaw does not appear to be individually eligible for listing either on the California register or on the Fresno local register and as such does not appear to be a historic resource for purposes of CEQA. I know the applicant has more detail to present regarding that report, So I may have repeated some of what you they will share with you, but I'd like to invite them to to come up and present at this time.

Okay.

Unless there are any questions for me first.

Any clarifying questions for Ashley?

Not yet.

Alright. Alright. Thank you. Thank you. We'll wait.

Thank you, Ashley. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Andy Greenwood. I am the vice president of development at Macerich. We are the owners of Fresno Fashion Fair, and it's gonna be with you again tonight as we met a month ago. We appreciated at the time all of the thoughtful insight and questions that the commissioners raised at our last meeting. Since we met with you last month, we have taken the opportunity to work with Page and Turnbull to consider those questions, conduct additional research, and thoroughly research and finalize the report. Miss Christina Dicus Brobst of Page and Turnbull is here again with an updated presentation to talk you, through the final report, which we did not have, last time. I hope you had the opportunity to review the report that you had received last week. You you now have hard copies.

And as you will see, after diligent research and consideration, page in turn will convert confirmed its initial conclusion that the subject building is not individually eligible for designation as a historic resource. One of the questions that was raised at the last hearing was regarding reuse of the existing building and configuration. And while I agree with mister Brian Basics' testimony of Dick's Sporting Goods that was offered at that hearing, I thought I would offer a shopping center's opinion of that same question. As you know, Forever twenty one occupied a portion of the building and closed in April 2025. With the bankruptcy ongoing for several years, Macerich was aware that this building was was at significant risk of becoming vacant along with many others in our portfolio.

During that time, Mace Rich's leasing professionals explored opportunities for other tenants and uses within this building. While there are short term tenants that could use the existing building for things like Halloween costumes by way of example only, The reality is that the list of anchor tenants that would take a large amount of square footage in the configuration of this building in a long term commitment is extremely small or even virtually nonexistent. It is worth noting that even Forever twenty one only occupied the 1st Floor such that the 2nd, 3rd Floor had been vacant for many years. Over the past decade, Mace Rich has had dozens of anchor buildings on our portfolio become vacant and uncommitted to tenants such that many have remained vacant for many years and or had to be demolished. As you likely know, vacant anchor buildings is a significant issue in virtually every mall across The United States, and many remain empty and uncommitted today.

However, Mace Rich and Dick's have formed a strong partnership such that when Dick's desire to accelerate its house support concept across The United States, Dick's and Mace Rich solidified deals in many of Mace Rich's malls, including Fresno, to construct new house of sports stores on sites formerly occupied by tenants such as Sears, Nordstrom, Forever twenty one, and Lord and Taylor. Of that list, only Nordstrom's was the only tenant that's still operating. We believe Fresno Fashion Fair is quite fortunate to have a committed occupant within one year of Forever twenty one's closure. Mace Rich and Dick's have an executed agreement and are actively devoting capital and significant resources into Fresno's Dick's House of Sport redevelopment to achieve an opening by the 2027. To the extent that the project is delayed, it is uncertain when and if an opening could be achieved.

To to that end, we ask that the commission please determine this evening based up based upon the conclusions and research in the historic resources evaluation that the building is not eligible for designation as a historic resource. Myself and mister Basic from DICK'S Sporting Goods will be here to answer questions as able. And if, and with that, I'll turn the time to miss Dykes Probst to take you through the presentation and the report. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. Nice to see you again. I'm Christina Dykes Brokes. I'm a principal at Page and Turnbull based in San Francisco. Page and Turnbull has been in business for over fifty years and one of one of the first architecture and planning firms in California to focus on historic preservation, and I have been there for eighteen years.

For those of you who were here last month, you'll find a lot of familiar slides here in this presentation, but I've supplemented with additional research that we conducted in the meantime to finalize our historic resource evaluation, which was in process at the time. Just a couple of additional research items to note. We went to Stanford University to review Charles Luckman's autobiography and included that information, which supports some of our existing findings. We also asked city staff to provide a list of all of the buildings constructed in Fresno between 1965 and 1980, the kind of general period of late modernism, and as well as a focus on buildings constructed around the time that this building was, and we looked at comparative projects. We also looked a little bit more into other Charles Luckman Associates designed buildings for the Broadway Hale stores.

So I'll include some of that information in this presentation.

There we go.

Okay. So to start out, just a really brief property description. I'm sure you're familiar with this building, but it is a three story steel and reinforced concrete structure with a concrete foundation. Its irregularly stacked rectangular volumes are clad in split face concrete block veneer with minimal ornamentation, and the building has flat roofs. The top picture is the north facade.

The bottom picture is of the east facade. And, of course, the building is surrounded by parking lots on three sides and attached on the west side to the rest of the mall. So we did record some additional alterations. Of note, in the top picture here, there is a a smooth cement plaster wall, and that was actually a full window wall. In the historic resource evaluation, there's an appendix with some of the other images of other build the other couple of buildings that look like this one and historic photos of this one, and so you can see what it looked like before.

And in addition to the replacement of that space or that facade, there were also replacements of all of the other entrances and the removal of a kind of prominent canopy on the east facade, is shown in one of the historic newspaper articles. So just a very high level historic context and site development. This area was originally agricultural. And, eventually, in the post World War two era, the neighborhood developed as part of Fresno suburban growth transitioning farmland into residential and commercial uses. The mall started to be developed in 1965, marking major retail development on the site.

This building was built between 1969 and 1970 and opened as a Weinstocks for parent company Broadway Hale stores. And then there have been a couple of tenant changes over the years. Weinstocks was there until 1996. Gotchalks, which was in one of the other department store locations at the mall, moved in in 2011 and then Forever twenty one until last year. So we focused a little bit more on the mid century growth in in Fresno.

A lot of this is based on the mid century historic context statement for Fresno. But pre World War two, the population was 60,000 in 1940, and by 1950, it had grown to 91,000. Rapid growth led to the construction of multiple housing tracks to the north through the nineteen fifties, And along with that was amenities for the people who were moving into those neighborhoods, and that included neighborhood and regional shopping centers that emerged to service those neighborhoods. And so that includes Mayfair in 1950, Manchester 1955, Fig Garden Village in 1956, then came along Fashion Fair in 1969. And we did look to see if there were some additional shopping centers and malls.

River Park continued the the trend in 1996. And, of course, Fulton Mall downtown opened in 1964, so amidst the suburban expansion. And it had limited success in part due to a lack of complete implementation as a freeway loop to bring traffic downtown was not constructed. There were plenty of other highway expansions, though, and those all increased suburban access from the nineteen fifties through the nineteen seventies. Around the same time, Shaw Avenue, which, of course, Fashion Fair Mall was built along, was identified in the 1958 general plan and the community college plan in 1961, which was updated a couple times in the nineteen sixties to create an area around the college for residential and neighborhood scale uses.

The plans envision Shaw Avenue as a boulevard lined with medical offices, professional buildings, and neighborhood shopping centers. So moving on to some information about the architectural design. We did first look at the mid century historic context statement, which extends up through 1970. So this building was constructed right at the very end of that period. And while it does feature some kind of aspects of brutalism, which is included in the context statement, it's not a great example of brutalism.

And so we have identified that it is better characterized as late modernism, which is more of an umbrella term for an era that included a lot of sub some subtypes of architectural styles and some creative combinations of those architectural styles. Late modernism extended from the mid nineteen sixties through the nineteen eighties and overall was characterized by more exaggerated forms than mid century modernism. This building expresses several characteristics including heavy massing, modular composition, flat roofs, concrete veneer, strong linear elements, and an interplay of planes and geometric volumes. The photo on the bottom is another department store building that was designed by Charles Luckman's former partner, Joseph Pereira, in Southern California, and it is a particularly interesting example of late modernism that includes a lot of different features, cantilevered roofs, columns, and an architectural art piece that you can kind of see hanging that was done by an artist and appears to have a lot of integrity today. So we included that as one of a few different examples across the state.

You can see some of the variety of late modernism. And then we did look at Fresno as well specifically. So out of some of the research that we conducted on, you know, there were questions in the last hearing about, you know, how many buildings were are we talking about that were built around this time? What might they have looked at? With the with the month that we had to do additional research, we couldn't look into all of them by any means, but we did identify that there were about 750 existing commercial buildings specifically that were constructed in Fresno from 1965 to 1979, which kind of covers that late modern period.

And of those, about a 109 were constructed during the the period that this building was built. We also identified that there are several excellent examples of late modernism by local architects in Fresno, including Robert W. Stevens Associates and Walter Wagner Associates, and we included a few of their examples in the report. And that includes Robert W. Stevens Associates designed several commercial office buildings along Shaw Avenue between the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies, one of which is shown at the top right, 600 West Shaw Avenue 1968, so one year before this building was constructed.

So moving on to talk a little bit more about Charles Luckman Associates, the architect for this building. Charles Luckman Associates was a major mid cent mid twentieth century firm that designed many large scale commercial buildings. It was one of the five largest architecture engineering firms in The United States by 1968 and employed hundreds of people. The firm designed just a couple of examples, Madison Square Garden in New York City in 1968, the Los Angeles Convention Center in 1969 to '71, and the Chicago Marriott Hotel downtown in 1969. So we do consider, you know, other buildings within the portfolio of a firm and how those may compare.

Charles Luckman himself was more of a businessman, and he admitted that in his autobiography. He was involved in major projects, but he was not directly involved with the design of this building. And the project architect from the the drawings was a man named Richard McNew. We couldn't find too much information about McNew. He was with the firm for a number of years.

Some additional information since the last time I was here about Charles Luckman Associates. In 1968, so one year before this building was constructed, CLA merged with Ogden Corporation, a diversified operating company with five major areas of capability, including real estate development. As a result, in March 1968, Luckman stepped aside as president of CLA and became president of Ogden Development Corporation. His son became the president of Charles Luckman Associates at the time. We found some quotes from him.

He actually spoke about the Broadway Hail store client relationship, and and some of his comments in his autobiography support the finding that we already had just knowing what we already knew about Charles Luckman and his role at his firm from doing other evaluations of Charles Luckman Associates' design buildings elsewhere in California. So one quote that we found was he said of Broadway Hill stores in the nineteen sixties, don't worry how the outside of the building will look. Our designers can worry about that. Calling in our design director, I handed him the interior floor plan and said, I want you to design the exterior of a building that would house these three floors without a single change in the size of any sales department. So we see that as you know, he he was not directly involved in the design.

He was providing some very high level direction to his employees, and they designed it. And he really had the the client architect relationship. We also looked for to see if there were any architectural journals, trade journals, publications that mentioned or highlighted this building or design. We often look for those to see, you know, was it recognized as the time at the time for its aesthetic innovation or skill, was it publicized by the firm, And we didn't find any architectural journals that featured this this building or this design. A little bit more information about the Broadway Hale stores and their buildings.

The Broadway developed a signature look for its Broadway and Wine Stock suburban stores, which numbered in the thirties by 1979. Stores in the nineteen fifties were composed of a large mass of pattern block. By the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies, the stores were generally characterized by a brutalist or late modernist geometric design composed of overhangs and deep recesses. You can see at the top right a version that was slightly later than this one, and then in the bottom was a model of one of the other of the three buildings that are like the one here in Fresno. Charles Luckman Associates designed at least 18 other department stores on the West Coast for Broadway Hill stores with similar design elements.

And as we've mentioned, this is one of three. One is in Riverside, and the other is in Citrus Heights, Sacramento area. And just a few side by side examples. We have the wine stocks over in the on the left, that's the one in Citrus Heights, and then upper right is, again, Citrus Heights, present day compared to Fashion Fair. You can actually see that the Citrus Heights one still has that awning over the central entrance, and then Tyler Mall down in Riverside and a similar view of the same building in in Fresno.

Alright. So this is a summary of our evaluation. The California register and Fresno's local register really have the same criteria, which also mirror the National Register of Historic Places. So we use the, you know, best practices for historic evaluation for all of those those registers. So starting with criterion one events, this is really a summary of what I've already prepared or presented to you, but, you know, we try to have all of our supporting information in the historic resource evaluation and then kind of come together with what it's telling us for potential significance.

So, again, early centers such as Mayfair, Manchester Center, and Fig Garden Village had already contributed to shifting retail activity away from downtown. Although suburban malls contributed to Downtown Fresno's decline, other factors including incomplete urban planning, like the unfulfilled freeway loop tied to Fulton Mall also played a role. Meanwhile, expanding highway systems improved access to suburban centers like Fashion Fair Mall, which opened in 1969. The sub subject building functioned as one of three anchor department stores at the mall and was not individually responsible for broader retail trends in Fresno, And that's what, you know, we want to hit home that this building on its own is not individually connected or significant with those trends. The building is also not significant in association with Broadway Hale stores or Weinstein's, which had been in business for many decades independently and as a conglomerate.

13 former Broadway Hale stores remain standing in the state. Criterion two, persons. We didn't identify any any individuals in the course of our historic research in association with Broadway Hale stores, wine stocks, or other entities such that this building would be associated with the lives of important people to Fresno, California, our national history. Moving on to criterion three, architecture. We did reference some national register guidance from bulletin 15, which provides instruction on how to evaluate properties using each of these criteria.

And, again, the Fresno criteria mirror the national Register, so they're very relevant. And related to architecture, we found that these three quotes were particularly apt. One is that for a building to be eligible as a specimen of its type or period of construction, a property must be an important example within its context of building practices of a particular time in history. And you'll see in the historic resource evaluation how we respond to this, but I'll go over that a little bit in the next slide as well. In addition, a property is not eligible simply as a work of a master.

It just because it was designed by a prominent architect. So the fact that the subject building was designed by a notable national architecture firm does not automatically make it eligible. And a property is eligible for its high artistic values if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible, however, if it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type. So as I have described, the subject building is an example of late modern architecture.

It does have some characteristics, certainly if it's within the era of its construction. However, it does not qualify as an important or distinctive example in late modernism within its context here in Fresno or more broadly through the state of California. Its design was a standardized model used at multiple locations for the same department store chain and was not adapted to the Fresno site or local conditions. Compared to more expressive local examples by architects like Robert W. Stevens and Walter Wagner, the building lacks complexity, material variation, and sculptural qualities.

Although designed by Charles Luffman Associates, the building is not a notable work of the firm, which produced many similar stores and certainly many other notable buildings around the country. And the project architect, Richard McNew, is not recognized as a master architect, and Charles Luckman himself was not directly involved in the design. And then finally, criterion four, information potential. This typically relates to archaeological resources rather than built resources. When it does relate to built resources, it's relevant for cases where the building itself is the principal source of important construction related information, and this building does not meet the requirements for this criterion.

So that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Christina. Do we have any clarifying questions from for Christina? Okay. Keep in mind if it's any questions regarding, like, the whole on discussion of it, I will need to go out to public first.

Okay. This is specific to this. Okay. Yeah.

This is.

Okay. Christina, are there other similar buildings that you've pointed out? Have any of them been considered for inclusion in the historic resource registers?

Not any of these Charles Luckman Associates designed department stores for Broadway Hale stores that we could find and not the other two in Citrus Heights or Riverside.

Had they been proposed or you just not to your knowledge?

Not to my knowledge. Yeah. We looked, you know, to see if there were projects that could have triggered something just like this, a historic resource evaluation, and we didn't find any information. Thank you.

K. Sarah, you had something?

Yeah. I have a few. Yes.

Okay.

First of all, it says on page one here, it says this and this is I only have a copy of the March 17 document. And it says that the this historic resource evaluation does not evaluate the buildings located adjacent to this property. And I was wondering why you did not consider the mall as a whole and the potential for this building to be a contributor to a 50 year old mall?

It wasn't in the scope of our report. We were focused on the individual property.

Okay. Because my understanding for a for setting an appropriate area of potential effect It does not just include the proper I'm quoting from 816 d of the federal register. It does not simply it is not simply the property line of the project, but includes any surrounding area that could be affected by an undertaking. So we have to take into consideration, especially since we have a 50 year old complex here that has, if not architectural, but cultural significance to our community. We have to take into consideration if that capstone building might be a contributor.

Well, it seems obvious that it would be a contributor to mall as a whole, considered as a district. Now did you explore that at all, the concept of being a potential contributor to a historic district? We did not. Okay. Well, that yeah. That that's highly concerning. Okay.

Yes. Is if there's anything you know, just making sure that we don't not making any decisions at the moment.

No. I'm I'm just point pointing out

Okay.

That where I have questions about the question at hand.

Got it.

I'm just trying to, you know, enable myself to come up with a response to the question. The other the other concern the other thing was you you mentioned that mister Luckman did not consider he didn't care about the exterior. He didn't care about he's just a businessman, just throw together whatever. He didn't care about it, but I know at the time, I can remember back then, that Fresno considered that an important building, an important building to be proud of. So maybe the builder didn't, but what about the community?

And I didn't really see a community discussion in here. I mean, think you did a very thorough job on your architectural history evaluation, no doubt. A deep level analysis. And this kind of relates to C and D to a certain extent. Is, you know, what is aside from just the building itself, what is what's the meaning of the building to the community, and do they care about it?

I mean, I just was going into the history of the building and the events that have occurred there, and one of them came up was the oh, it was a 2002 legal case that involved the right of people to to protest inside of a of a mall, and that was a dispute at Fashion Fair. And it was the court case was found in favor of allowing people to use the malls as quasi public spaces. So in a way, not only the mall, but the building has a quasi public standing based on the legal case, and it was further consolidated in, I think it's called Fashion Valley Mall versus LLC versus NLRB. I hate to bring up the old fun stuff, but, you know, what I'm using these as an example of is that it's not just a building, it's what happened in the building, and what where it may not be unique architecturally. And and I wanted to ask you too, is uniqueness a criteria anywhere?

Because you mentioned we've got all these other buildings that have never been nominated as far as we know. But does a building have to be unique, and what is the legal opinion on uniqueness rather than representativeness? Which is and I have to say I'm an archaeologist. So we look at representativeness versus uniqueness in terms of the potential value of any kind of resource. So can you enlighten me about

uniqueness

as

a criteria? Yeah.

And I can I can respond to a couple of different points that you made? First, going back to your earlier comment, we focused on this this property as that standard practice for historic resource evaluations, particularly when considering local eligibility, you're looking at the individual building on its own and the the property and its parcel. And then in terms of uniqueness, yes, you there is an aspect of comparing to other buildings either by the architecture firm or contemporary to this building and identifying where this one particularly rises to a level of significance, you know, particularly excellent example compared to others. So I would say that it it's not just representative, and I think that was one of the National Register quotes that I included. It can't just be of a type.

You need to show that it also has significance, within that.

Right. And and, of course, we're still in a situation where we have a really thorough discussion of the architectural context. I mean, of the art architectural value of the individual building, but it's out of context. We do not have a we do not we we don't have an assessment of it as a potential contributor to buildings that aren't across the street but are attached to it. I I can't imagine I mean, it just seems like that was that's an oversight that we we cannot consider I cannot, you know, consider well, the National Register, the California Register, you know, specifies that we're supposed to consider the effects of the surrounding properties, you know, under I can quote it again, but so that's what I'm really concerned about is that we could say it's not a it's not historic on its own out of you know, without any cultural context.

But can we say it's not a contributor to a potential district?

Typically, with CEQA, we look at whether there are already identified historic resources within an area of potential effects, but it's gonna be on the the scope of evaluation to have to evaluate all of those other buildings or structures. So, again, this is why we focused on the one.

Right. And that that puts us in a situation of going, well, we're okay with this not being listed or anything, and we can authorize things to happen to it perhaps in the future without actually having considered it in a full context. I know it's nearly fifty years. It's only been 50 years old a certain amount of time, but the National Register and the California Register, the section one zero six of the National Historic Preservation Act put us firmly in a position where we're supposed to, as things turn 50 years old, consider them and not just throw throw them out or and consider them because they're they're something we're familiar with or whatever. It it gets it allows us to really assess the situation.

That's where the cultural value comes into. So thank you for your explanation. Mhmm. I appreciate it.

Alright. Any other questions regarding that?

Have a couple of questions. So I I agree with your point that Fashion Fair did not start the kind of northern suburbanization of Fresno. Other malls moved north. One thing that was unique about Fashion Fair is someone who grew up here. Fashion Fair, if I remember, was the first regional shopping mall to come to Fresno. We had a number of places to shop, but nothing like Fashion Fair. When Fashion Fair came, it changed retailing. It changed socialization. It changed everything. It even changed, I think, the perception of Fresno.

So it was a big deal when it when it arrived in 1970. And so I think we're talking about the building as an artifact, but if we think about the entire center as a piece of urban history, it's a little different. It's a little different analysis in my opinion. So I don't know if that's, in your opinion, if that if if that's the case, or are we simply talking about the building as opposed to the history of the place?

I I think we're talking about both here. You know, we did include broader historic context of the the trends towards development in this area of the city. And I hear you about it being the first regional shopping center. But in terms of at the last hearing, we were talking about, you know, what it meant to downtown and the success of Fulton Mall, and I don't think you can pin that on this particular building. So we're trying to focus on that argument.

K. So I'm just I guess I'm putting out there as a Fresno resident, as a architect, as someone who pays attention to the built environment. Fashion Fair was huge. I think it still is. So I think there's value in that. So I just wanted to make that that point. I think the second point I wanted to make was about back to Luckman. So I I guess I'm reticent to use names, but I'm gonna use names. Norman Foster is designing the high speed rail station, four of them in the valley. I've talked to folks who are working on that project.

Norman Foster doesn't know where Fresno is. I doubt if Norman Foster has even even knows about the project. It has his name on it. That has value. To tell somebody that our high speed rail station was designed by Norman Foster, that has cache. That means something. So even though I I I still don't think just because he didn't sign it doesn't mean he had no involvement with the project. I don't think that can be proven. But the fact that it has Luckman's name on it, I think, carries some weight. I can think of another example of I can think of two HOK buildings in our city.

HOK isn't doesn't have a master architect at the helm. HOK is h o n k. So at what point does the name of the firm versus the star architect carry the day? And I would argue that because Luckman's name is associated with that building, there's value in that, historic value. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. That's my opinion on the matter. So any thoughts on that?

I I think that's where it gets to how this was one of three buildings for Broadway Hale stores that were built in different places in the in the state. So this was you know, Charles Luckman Associates was building these. It was more about the department store coming here than Charles Luckman designing and building here in Fresno.

Okay. So to that point, I think I asked this last time. If there's three what's the significance that there's three? If you demolish two, is the last one standing now valuable? What is the fact that he designed it and it's in Fresno? I don't think the fact that there's two other little sisters matters. So am I wrong about that? How do how do we interpret the fact that there are three others just like it? Is that what's the meaning of that?

Right now, as we're doing this evaluation, they are all still standing. So, you know, we're not exploring the the hypotheticals, and we're also looking at what does it mean for Fresno to have a building and, you know, to to have a building that wasn't designed in any way for this particular site because there were other ones, because this was a a long standing relationship between the company. I did read a couple of the articles from when the building opened, and there was a ribbon cutting and so on. And the Broadway Hale folks were the ones, excuse me, who were here. So there was much more focus on the the department store, the business than the design coming here to Fresno.

I guess my last comment or question goes to the gentleman from Macerich. You started to talk about the reuse of of the facility, and I didn't quite get your point. You mentioned you talked about Fervent twenty one, potential bankruptcy, so on and so forth. So can you talk a little bit more about the possibility of an adaptive reuse of that building to meet the needs of a Dick's House of Sports?

Yeah. Commissioner Halogen, that's thank you for the question. I think that I would answer it in a couple of different ways. The first thing is is that it would be very difficult for someone like Dick's House of Sports specifically to roll out a national plan on the time frame that they need to to adapt that design into this concept or, excuse me, into this building, into this layout. And, consequently, in order to meet their schedule, they would probably would not take the time in order to do that.

They would focus on other opportunities. We have had other tenants who have looked at this and have had a challenge. For example, some of our leasing professionals have talked to theaters, bowling alleys, entertainment uses, and it's just very difficult to use that for a for a new concept. And so, being able to use that, being able to use the building in its current configuration, maybe there there might be somebody out there. But in our experience, we haven't found someone across The United States that would be in that position right now.

K. Thank you. K.

Yeah. I had I had one just little comment from from miss Christina from Page in Turnbull.

K. Before we get into comments, let's go to the public. Well Oh. If it's question clarifying question. Yes.

Clarifying. Thank you. I always depend on chairman's response. Keeps Keeps me honest. Okay. So we were talking about uniqueness, representativeness, and you said an outstanding example. Now I'm gonna I'm trying to put this right. I understand that our Fresno version, our Fresno building is not an outstanding example. And it's not unique because there's 30 other or five other examples, but is it unique to Fresno?

That's where we were looking at other buildings constructed at the same during those same years, including by local architects who were doing some interesting things. So, you know, compared to those, this building, it does not represent late modernism as well as those.

But, I mean, is it the is it the unique as a Luckman a Luck associated with the name architect Luckman? Is it unique that way in Fresno?

Yes. I think that it may be the only Charles Luckman associates design building in Fresno.

Thank you. Yeah.

I I I have one more going back to a previous question of yours or comment. When you mentioned section one zero six, I just wanted to clarify that when we're looking at potential historic buildings for section one zero six, which is a federal process for the National Historic Preservation Act, we do look at we're required to look at a broader area of potential effects and evaluate all buildings within that, but that's not standard practice for CEQA when we're

doing these historic evaluations. That's not standard practice. Okay.

I do have one final question. Yes. And and that's just note. So looking at in your appendix portions of the the resource evaluation, and and I appreciate the fact that you guys did the work to complete it and get it ready for us for this meeting here. It looks like appear it looks to me like the Citrus Heights Building is, like, the younger sister of the other two of the the Galleria versus Fashion Fair. Do we know between the Galleria and the Fashion Fair which one actually turns turned dirt first? Did one start, say, in March 1970 and another start in September 1970?

I don't know off the

top

of my head. Yeah.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Thanks. Alright. With that, we'll go out to the public. So

So sorry. I was just the last speaker on

behalf of Baytrich. I apologize.

Really quickly. It's okay. I will speak quickly. My name is Cecily Barclay. I was here last time, and I'm working with the team on the as a land use attorney, but also we do lots of historical resources and work with Paige and Turnbull many times.

I have dozens of examples of demolished and retrofitted and rebuilt malls throughout the state in my firm, and I have never seen a mall designated as a whole as a historic resource. We worked on the Stonestown Mall, and I know Page and Turnbull did, but that's a big part of our firm. Stonestown, I shopped there when I was a little wee one, and for all I know, my dad did before me in San Francisco, and that mall was not determined to be historic. And we don't just say, well, this building is maybe attached or you know, it was built in a separate time on a separate piece of property by a separate architect, and we just you know, we have to look to what our expert says is determinative and what her experience is. That's why we're all here.

So I just I really wanted to just say that one thing. And the three buildings, regardless of which one came in time or any any one left, any three left, what our expert is saying is these three buildings are not architecturally significant either here or individually, so it almost doesn't matter if there were already two gone or which came first. Page and Turnbull is saying these are just not late modern in the context of other architecture that was available in the state, but she's just saying it doesn't matter the order. She just doesn't think they're significant. And then finally, just I think part of what we're asking for, and I think you're gonna make a decision tonight, is that we we just we've been at this with this team for over a year now.

I mean, you've heard the history, and there's a lot of people ready to go. So right now, this is sort of the thing we needed to know if it's a go or a no go for us. So I really appreciate all of your attention, and we're we're available for any further questions.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. With that, we'll go out to the public. So those that are in support, please come forward to the podium.

Seeing none, any of those in opposition? K. Seeing none, we'll come back, and now we get to, debate on this as to to where we we see this going. I can start. So

this is really hard. I too worked in the mall. My first job in the seventies was in that mall. It does have significance for the community, but in reality, sadly, in the last decade plus, it's become a bit of a negative connotation. Mall shopping is difficult anywhere right now.

People have turned to online. There are very few types of entities that still command an in person shopping experience. However, I working downtown, being my hat with the historical society as much as I really like this building, I have to bring up in my own mind the concerns I have of vacancy, of what is it truly contributing to the mall as a whole by sitting empty or having turnkey tenants or, you know, lots of things are happening. We have in Fresno, as we all know, a dearth a huge number of vacant buildings. In this case, for me personally, I'd say the economic potential of progress will probably outweigh being that's why I wanted to wait till today until the final report was finished.

Being that the report does not recommend this particular building to be considered for historic listing at this time, I think that we as a commission should consider the long term effects to the mall both ways.

Chair, can I jump in for just a second? So there have been a lot of discussions about what it could be or what Yeah. Might happen, and I wanna make sure that we're very clear today. The question to before you today is, is it eligible? Is eligible?

Not what it could be, what it isn't, what it might be. If yes, why, and how does it meet the criteria? Because why are we doing this? Because I can't use a CEQA exemption if it is eligible for listing on the register. So that is your only discussion point, not what could be, what you might want to put there, whether or not it can be re is it eligible for listing and why so that we know what to do next. The the prospect because the other item is not before you.

Correct.

Got it. That's why I referred to the report.

Okay. So Thank

you for the clarification.

Yeah. Okay. So I I'm I guess I'm putting on my architect hat. I'm looking at this as a piece of architecture. I agree. I don't think it's a stellar example of brutalism or of late modern architecture, but it's it is an example of of a building that falls into that category. I do think Luckman is important, and I do think Fashion Fair, its role in Fresno's history is important. Is it a great building? No. It's not.

I wish I could argue it's a great building, but it's not. But I do think it was associated with a significant architect. I do think fashion fair as a whole and Weinstocks is a significant part of that. And I I I do believe these the building is eligible at least for recognition on the local register.

Okay. First of all, I just wanted to say I agree with Commissioner Laval that it's really important not to have buildings be empty and abandoned. We don't want that to happen. So I definitely support that idea of of keeping it occupied. But I'm also with commissioner Halogen in that to me, you know, what I've heard tonight, all the descriptions and so on, to me it without, you know, I guess we can't consider it as a contributor, but I would I would default then back to it being historically significant in terms of the local register because of the cultural context, the importance to Fresno, which really was not discussed in the report, but that we can capture that as a as an important local value.

And I I so I think that's what the local register was made for. And I don't think just because it's listed on the local register that it will inhibit, you know, changes and things like that.

So

that's what I I would say too. I agree that it goes on the local register.

I'm kind of in the other direction right now because, you know, the mall, I also my first college job, Prince Plus. It it's evolved consistently over time, and it doesn't look the same as it did when I was in college. And it's got new buildings in front. It doesn't it doesn't even have the same shape. So I don't look at the adjacency being necessarily a criteria because adjacent has continued to change like most malls have changed over the years.

They they get better. Some of them add new stores, get, you know, huge multistory parking garages, you know, how how popular and how famous. So I'm looking at this purely from the reporting and the individual listing side. Okay.

Mister O'Reilly, you

Yeah. I know. I I I appreciate coming back with the report. I think I was the one who asked for it last time. I think it's it's answered a lot of my questions. I feel pretty comfortable that that I don't think it should be listed. I'm uncomfortable with the process that got us here. I'm not sure how to do that.

K. Alright. Well, I guess it comes back to me. So I will just share a a small of my own history of that building, and that is the fact that my mother and I were actually spared from a drunk driver. He was stuck on the freeway at Sean in '41 in 1990.

And we my mother tried to, you know, get him to leave the car and things like that, and he refused to. And as a result, he actually slammed in the back of our car, ran us up the embankment, and then drove off. And his next stop was through the plate glass windows of Weinstocks and killed three people. So I found myself a little fortunate that I was not part of that list, but it is something that that I I can see that type of attachment to. I do appreciate the the report, and I looked through the I looked through everything that was provided with it.

And and I do see the merit of of what the report is saying. I see the merit of also what my commissioners are saying because of that that local connection to it. I I think at this point, it's it's critical to know that, you know, like vice chair Hatwick said, the mall has constantly changed. We even know that this was a building added in 1970 when the mall was built originally about 1968 where they at least started construction on that part. So we know that there was a little bit of of change already.

So I I can see where those arguments are. And I can also see where Commissioner Johnson and are that it is something that is significant in the fact that it is essentially the only example of a Luckman that is in in the area regardless of whether it was done by Luckman himself, and and he penned and and and drew every single square inch of the thing or if it was done by Mr. Panu. So I I think I I have my answers, and and I'm willing to entertain emotion.

Oh, I just had one last clarification, please. And I don't know exactly who can tell me this, but perhaps Jennifer. I is putting it on the local register, does it preclude it being modified, changed, or or adaptive reuse?

I can If you'd like to answer that. Yeah.

If it is on the register, would still have to go to city council next for Yep. Adopting it. And

Well, you're you're not considering a local registered designation at this point in time. All you're considering is eligibility. The next if if it was determined to be eligible, we would need to go through the process of preparing the documents for the eligibility, getting a property owner consent, then it would come back here, and then, ultimately, city council would make the determination. So there there is there's a significant, you know, process left if it is determined to be eligible.

Actually, my question was, would the if it would would the nomination and would the resulting listing, if it was listed, would that inhibit development of that property? In other words, that would that designation have any effect on future development?

If if I may. If it was to go all the way to that point, there could be modifications made, but it would have to remain the integrity of of what the building looked like. So there would be some inhibitions to how it would it would if it went all the way through that process and got to the end, it would inhibit the the the look and feel of it. But that's not like like director Clark said, that's not where we are. We're we're starting with is it eligible, and and that's that's where we're gonna start with our

wanna clarify that nomination and eligibility do not preclude modifications and development as long as it's consistent adaptive reuse.

Not quite. But

think you can say that.

Yeah. Can can we just be clear on eligibility? That's state and national, not local. That's a separate thing. Correct?

No. It in it includes local as well.

So the our chart our charge tonight is to determine whether the building is eligible for the state, local, or local, state, or national registry. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Yep. Okay.

And not to determine which of those. Correct.

Okay?

I would move that it is, that it is eligible.

So you're you you're gonna make a motion to say that that you that it's eligible.

If it's time to make a motion.

Well, at this point, yeah, we're entertaining motions. I I

propose that it is eligible at least at the local register level.

Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Okay. With that, I would say that the motion fails, so I will continue to entertain motions.

K. Then I guess I'll go the opposite direction and motion a motion that it is not eligible to the local state or history or national.

I'm gonna do that.

I'll agree with that.

What's that?

I can I agree with that?

I'm making the motion that it is at this time not eligible for the local register.

Okay. So I already made the motion. So you're making a second.

I'm making the second.

So I made the motion. You're making a second?

Yeah. I was making a second.

Okay. So, with that, we'll go ahead and do a roll call vote on this. Okay?

Commissioner Eddings.

Wanna make sure I understand the motion. The motion is that it is not eligible.

It is not eligible. So if you if you think it's not eligible, you say yes. If you think it's eligible, you say no.

Yeah. K.

Yes. Commissioner Johnston? No.

Commissioner Laval?

Yes.

Commissioner Halasian?

Yes.

Vice chair Hatwick?

Yes.

And chair Sponsler?

Yes. Okay. So we're five one. Okay? Alright. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your time. We will go ahead and move on to the commission matters. So that's item seven a, file ID 26Dash316. That's to review and adopt the city of Fresno CLG twenty twenty four twenty twenty five annual report pursuant to FMC 12 dash one six zero six b.

Ashley, you ready for this?

Before before Ashley starts, I just want to commend both Carrie and Ashley on this, in particular, Carrie, because, you know, the state knows that we have to do this report every year. And it's through September 30. And she's been bugging them since September 30. Can you give me the form? Can you give me the form?

They finally published the form a few weeks ago, and she hurry, hurry, hurried to get it submitted. And now it's an all all online fillable PDF, And you can't print it out in a way that is readable. So they went to a lot of trouble to do this combined attachments piece for you so that you can see what we wrote in the little fillable form. So before they get started, I just wanted to say thank you to this incredible team for all their work.

Thank you guys for being patient too.

Yes. Well, again, Ashley Atkinson, assistant director for planning and development. Jennifer preempted some of of the report I was going to make, which is just to share that the bulk of this of the content of this Carrie, how do I make it go again? The bulk of the content is in the combined attachments under exhibit b. So if you're interested in seeing the well, it's it's not doing anything, Carrie.

That's okay. If you're interested in reviewing the responses, that is where they are. Again, this is on a kind of offset calendar year from September to September. So you are seeing some things that happened about a year and a half ago, such as the designation of three new local landmarks and other things that reflect that timeline. Otherwise, we don't really have too much of note to share about what's in the report, but happy to take any questions.

Alright. Any questions on the item? K. We will because this is an action item, we will take this out to the public. Is there anybody that like to speak on behalf of on this item?

K. Seeing none, I'll bring it back. And, any thoughts on this? K. Do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve. K. So the motion is to to review and adopt Okay. The Motion is second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? K. Item passes. Alright. So now it's done, and now you just got had to start with well, now now we gotta start all over. So for those, just as a reminder, make sure you are collecting your information for 2526. Okay. So we'll move on to item seven b, and that's update on our regular monthly topics.

I do need the the slide for the numbers. Good evening again. Ashley Atkinson, assistant director for planning and development. We do have a just a brief update for you on the Brewer Adobe, which is that, as I reported last month, our request to the property owner was to have him bring in an architect and an engineer for a meeting where we would discuss preparation of a of a demolition plan that could be accepted and approved. We made the request to meet with the property owner a number of weeks ago, asked for its availability across this two week time span and have not received a response.

So at this time, in partnership with the code enforcement team at the city attorney's office, we are going to be meeting internally to discuss the actions that the the city can take on in order to, you know, move move that demolition on preservation of the portion that needs to be preserved per your previous direction. So that is it on the brewer Adobe unless you have any questions or comments for me.

Any questions or comments on the brewer? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. And, again, just looking at our activity early this year, again, continuing to review and approve planning entitlements on behalf of historic preservation as they are coming in. So you'll see a small number of those. Again, a large number of building permits, especially in January, a little bit of a drop there in February, but continuing to review all building permits for buildings forty five years and older or or, sorry, 50 years and older. We are catching a number of things that we probably didn't catch in the past, and so those are, you know, good things.

And as we've been doing this for about six months now, I think we are, you know, in in good shape with keeping things moving and completing those reviews both in sufficient detail but also in an expedient way. We also have recently taken over the process of concurrence with the section one zero six reviews that are prepared for our housing department programs. Those are done by currently a consultant, SWCA. The concurrence process bore you with the details, but it was taking a little more time than it needed to be. So Carrie and I have now taken over that process of of reviewing the review done by SWCA and SWCA and and concurring with it.

So you see a number of those having been completed in the last couple of months as well. No new activity in our Mills Act applications, but I will just note that we are going to be sending out a letter to all of the historic resources reminding them of the opportunity and the application window. That should go out within the next week. And, also, no activity in the mitigation program. We are waiting on a couple of projects to be completed and essentially use up all of the funds for that program that we that we have this fiscal year. With that, I will take any questions on those items.

I have a question. Sure. For the CLG annual report, do they do we have to report our staff whether we have

to Oh, that should have been on the item that we when we were on it.

Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

Well That's okay. I believe there is an there is a a table on where staff is reported in in the report close to the beginning of exhibit

b. Alright.

Okay. Any other things on the staff updates? Alright. We'll move on to subcommittee updates. Architectural review.

We met on the eleventh. We I think we looked at a couple of properties, roofing and windows, things like that. And then later in the day, we had a municipal code subcommittee meeting. Okay. Alright.

So I I guess then we'll segue directly onto municipal code.

What we're doing on the municipal code, review right now is just getting our, feet more familiar with the existing code, and and then, we start next month with a small portion of it where we can start giving some comments and some ideas. And but right now, it's just been kind of in review. Okay.

Yep. Sounds good. Alright. I think I know that I don't think we have income incentive met, and I know that signage didn't meet. So I believe it's gonna be up to historic preservation subcommittee.

Correct? The HPC month subcommittee? Okay. So we've met actually two times since the last meeting, and we have I would say the the concrete is almost set on on the calendar. I think there was just, like, some a couple of clarifying items that we needed, but we should have that calendar ready for ready for printing and distribution by the end of this week.

Just waiting on a com confirm a couple of time time dates and things like that, but we're we're ready to go on that. So it actually will kind of HPC month will kind of start a little bit early. We do have a couple of historic items that are gonna occur in April that tie in with what we're doing. So you'll you'll see those on on that calendar as well. K?

With

that, we'll move on to chairperson's report. So my report tonight is actually I do want to acknowledge troop sixty. They came out tonight. For those that are looking at the weird one in their uniform, that's my daughter. But they did come out.

They're doing citizenship in the community merit badge, and one of the requirements is that you have to attend a a public meeting. And so I invited them along for this meeting so that they could see us in action. So I that's all I have from my part of the report. So we're gonna move on to any unscheduled items from the members of the commission. Hearing crickets, we'll move on to from to staff. K? And then we'll start with general public.

Linda Scambury, Heritage Fresno, 6146 North Callisch. And you know it's almost over when I get up here, so you get to go home. And before these guys escape, I wanna give them an invitation. But first of all, I printed out the May historic preservation months calendar that was on the website for this group, and there are a couple corrections and a couple additions here. And I think it's probably not too late to do that, especially online. Right? Oh, so that's the last one.

That's last year's calendar. Oh, so

good. This year has not been

me me

give you this invitation is for the Warner Theatre, and it'll serve it'll soothe your architectural nerves after the brutal building you wish just discussed, I think, anyway. And it's wonderful epitome of what you've done in Fresno. Thanks to the Calia family, the Warner's Theatre is not a parking lot. It's still a wonderful theater. It's a work of art.

As you can see from this invitation, the ceiling in there is wonderful. There are wonderful statues. And the film that we're showing on May 28, and I'm hoping that'll get on this year's calendar then. The film that we're showing on that date is a tribute to the Calia family and shows what they saved and tells you what's in the lobby. And, also, that night, there'll be a concert with the organ that comes up out of the floor, and it's a really great experience, especially for young people.

So if you have children, grandchildren, students that you deal with, Boy Scouts, it would be really a great occasion for them to appreciate the saving of a building and what it means to us is having those treasures still visible and available to look at, really a work of art. And, also, we have going in that month as well some library events which are on that calendar that we just gave you. One of those is that Woodward Park, another set still coming up this Saturday is Betty Rodriguez Library. And just the film will be shown, But we do talk about the things that were saved and where they are. And I hope that on here you will get the lantern where they can see the lantern.

And also the arch, I understand, high speed rail is putting it at H in Mariposa, I was told. And so if that's going to be available for people to see, it would be great to be on this calendar for May as well. Something that people could easily just go drive under and look at. And it's a great location. People do go to Chukchansky, they will see it. So okay. That's it. You get to go home. I dismiss

you. Alright.

Okay. So with that

I motion to adjourn.

Alright. We have a motion and a second, and we are dismissed at 07:31. Thank you, everyone.