Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Monday, 03/24/2025, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order and start with roll call, please.

Commissioner Eddings? Commissioner Johnston?

Present.

Commissioner Laval? Here. Commissioner Federico? Commissioner Halajian?

Here.

Vice Chair Hatwig?

Here.

Chair Sponsler?

Here. Alright. So we'll move on to procedures. For each matter considered by the commission, there will first be a staff presentation followed by presentation from the project applicant. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions of staff and applicant before opening to the public.

Testimony from supporters of the project will be then taken, followed by testimony of 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 and 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 for those in support and in opposition to the project will be limited three minutes per person. All public testimony will be presented to the commission at the podium in person.

Any testimony that references race, religion, ethnicity, economic status, national origin, or any other classification protected under state or federal law in a derogatory manner shall be deemed irrelevant and will not be considered by the commission in making its determinations. If you challenge these matters in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in oral or written testimony or before the close of the hearing. With that, we'll move on to item three, approving the, 02/24/2025 meeting minutes. Were there any changes, that may be noted for the meeting for the minutes?

Motion to approve.

Okay. We have a motion to move approve and a second. All in favor consider saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion passes. We'll go ahead and approve tonight's agenda. Are there any updates or changes to the agenda?

None at this time.

All right. Entertain a motion.

I move to approve the agenda.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Agenda is approved. Having no items on the consent calendar or continued matters, we'll go ahead and move on to Section seven of commission items. Item 7a, review and discuss the removal of stained glass at 1115 U Street. This is file ID 20Five-one31. Do we have a presentation from staff?

Yeah. I'm working.

Waiting for the presentation to get queued up, and I will need the mic. Also, this one's not working. Okay. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director of Planning and Development standing in for our historic preservation specialist while that position is vacant.

First item for you tonight is a review and discussion item. So this is not an action item, but we are seeking some direction from the commission on the removal of the stained glass windows at 1115 U Street, which is a designated historic resource number one sorry, two two zero on the local historic register as Emmanuel Lutheran Church. It is now owned and operated by a new church organization. The representatives are here tonight. Thank you for being here.

And they'll share some more about the operations of the church today with you. But the reason that we are here now is because there was a code enforcement case opened because some of the stained glass windows, which had previously existed at the church, were removed in approximately 2018. The case was just opened in the 2024, so it was just recently noted by by someone who called in that complaint. So, therefore, it was brought brought to our attention in order to provide direction on that code enforcement case. You do have the DPR forms in your packet as exhibit a.

We did review this with the architectural review subcommittee a few weeks ago. Looking at the forms, unfortunately, there's only a very limited reference to the windows, really just limited to the sentence in the presentation that the chancel windows are contemporary stained glass in abstract geometric designs. So they were not called out in the forms as a significant feature or discussed at any length. Given that, you know, some of the things you may want to consider are whether we simply want to revise, the forms to reflect the current state. Something else we could consider is removal of the resource from the list, from the local register.

So, we are looking for direction on whether to initiate, either of those or or any other options you'd like to discuss. Just a couple of illustrations of the before situation. You see the left is a picture of what I believe to be the chancel window. Those are on the left and right side of the chapel as you're facing it. And then you can also note on the front, there were the rectangular windows, which are in a kind of amber color glass, although that's difficult to to see the color from this picture.

The ones on the left are multicolored and appear to potentially have a sort of abstract Christian fish design. Could be from the sixties or seventies, something in that era, but probably not original to the building itself. So the these pictures are the after condition today. You can see just no stained glass on those chancel windows. And on the front, the bottom portions of the windows have been replaced as well.

My understanding is that the building was vacant and in some state of lack of maintenance, disrepair, that some of the windows were damaged when the current owner took possession of the property, but I will let them tell you more about that before I turn it over to the applicants or rather not an applicant in this case, our guests. Are there any questions for me?

Any questions for staff?

I have a question.

What are you basing your sixties or seventies, estimated time for those, stained glass windows?

That's just my personal guess based on the design. It's not based on any type of of research, just suggested based on the Okay. The design. It doesn't, doesn't align with the period that the church was built is is all I'm suggesting.

Yeah. Yeah. It's really hard to say at this point. Yeah.

Yeah. Could be could be. You're right. Could be forties, fifties as well.

It's really hard to say with what little evidence we have.

Contemporary. And contemporary as of the nineties when that statement was made.

So Thank

you. I have a great question. Couple. The ones that were removed, do we know where they went?

I would have to leave that to the applicant to to tell us.

Okay. I know you mentioned some were damaged, but maybe some weren't.

I I don't have that information. So we can

Also, in the application for the historic preservation, what they noted is a feature of that application, and that was one of the reasons that we that the commission at that time approved that as a local

So all we have in the in the forms, and I believe that these forms are all that's available in terms of the documentation, is that one sentence on the windows Got that noted that they were in a contemporary abstract geometric design. Unfortunately, yeah, there it would be helpful if there was more information, but there's not.

So we we don't have any record of the I'm assuming given the the date of the the it looks like that it was sent to them in 1994 was when we when this was potentially put place on the registry?

Correct.

So we don't have anything of of any types of HPC agenda minutes or anything like that at were at the time?

I'm not sure I'm allowed to defer a question to Janice. But, Janice, do we have agendas or minutes from 1994?

I would have to look at into that one.

K. That'd be a good idea.

Okay.

I don't know if it was part of the

because it may have been part part of the discussion, you know, part of the minutes. I'm not asking for I I I know that it may be difficult, so I I recognize that. And I also know that, you know, asking for any type of audio or anything like that is definitely out of the question. But if we had any meeting minutes, that might be good.

Okay. We can follow-up on that.

Typically, with these but with churches in general, they would have built the structure first and maybe fundraised for stained glass later or would have done some design. This being, I agree, it's a contemporary. It's not common with the the the era it was built in. It might not have been part of the original glazing. It's hard to know, and and churches sometimes change, you know, their position on whether you have the saints in your window or or a fish or whatever emblems.

And but I agree this is, like, from the probably more contemporary thing, which is you look at the DPR form and there's not a lot of embellishment on that specific item being something as a major contributor to it being the thing that's holding it from being historic. Sorry. That was a comment more than a question. If

there are no more questions for me, I'll invite, our representatives from the, current church to present. Oh, sure.

Comment. Yes. Reading further, it says in 1965, Schoenwald, Thomas Harris, Bodie, and Blaney, a noted architectural firm, they did an addition to it in 1965.

Okay.

So it might be worth contacting the predecessor firm, which is Integrated Designs, to see if they have records of the the work that was done.

Okay. That could have been done contemporaneously with Yeah. Yeah, the addition.

Because, k. I mean, if we're thinking the windows are from the sixties, it's possible it was part of that that effort. So

Okay. We'll look into that. Okay.

Well, we can have the the applicant come up or the owner.

Sorry. This this microphone is not working, so you'll

have to

use this one.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Good evening. Sorry we are late. The train goddess.

For the record, go ahead and state your name and and address. Yes.

Yes. My name is Preetam Uchu. I'm acting minister at the Church of God in Fresno. The address is 1115 U Street, and that is the place we are. We purchased the building in February 2018.

And as we overgrew the office space we are renting at that time, which is around 3,000 square feet, we moved to this building. At the time of purchase, we did get the building inspection and everything with nothing was recorded that this is historical. We didn't know this is historical until we got the notice from the city. So nothing in our purchase, nothing in our deed, nothing. If we knew that it is historical, we would be a little bit cautious about even purchasing the building.

Going back, the previous owner is was based out of New York, and they never came to the building. They never saw the building. The building was used by homeless people, and there are many cats living in there. When we purchased the building, I think a couple of pictures you will see. If you go back to the pictures that you had, I think part of it you can see in the building if you if you have a oh, yeah. I have the yes. I have I have the clicker. Yeah. Come on. Do it.

Yes. This one. If you see the front, do you see there is a white patch at the bottom? And there is a broken glass in the middle. That is the stat status it was in. And this side, it is not even visible. Most of it is duct tape on the existing glass work, and that is how we got the building. The reason is when we got the building, the walls were broken into. There's many holes in the wall. The windows were broken already.

And even you can see at that time, those windows are broken. And just as a record, I don't know. You might have more access to people, but, technically, there is nobody doing stained glass windows in Fresno. The last person, Susan, I think they retired at the beginning of pandemic. And if we bring any artist in to do the stained glass, we have to go outside.

I think, of course, there is in LA, there is in Cerritos, there is in San Antonio, Texas. There are great artisans who can do it. But, anyway, I'll leave it to the next part. But the at that time, when you did see the building 2018, the building was really unusable as it is as a church. The windows are all broken. Status was really not good. So we did renovation, and you'll see the new pictures. This is what it looks like now. You will see the the broken part where exactly where it was broken, we put the regular windows. And the big parts where everything was broken, we put plain windows.

Those are double pane windows so that we can conserve some heat in the building. So that way, we can this is what and every window was changed in maybe July 2018, March or July. I cannot give the exact date. I couldn't get the purchase date. That's my mistake. And since we didn't know that it's it's a historical building, we didn't preserve any of those classes. I'm being truthful and honest and nothing secretive. I don't have I mean, inspection can be carried out on the building or wherever our members live. We don't even have part of it. And the sad part is we don't even have pictures of it.

I did ask the members if somebody took the pictures because it was not usable. We continue to use the office space until the renovation was done. And only picture we have is loopnet.com. There is a picture of the inside of the building, and I took that picture to the and they said it's hard to see what was in there to replicate it. And that is the extent of where we are right now.

And, totally, it being destroyed is completely unintentional. We didn't do it as a opposition or anything. It we didn't know. Until I received the notice, everybody was shocked. Even our head of the church, we asked them if they knew it was historical. They didn't know. And actually, it's our mistake. It's a pure oversight. We should have looked into it. And that that's where I will pass for today. And any questions, please feel free to ask

me. From the commission?

On the side on the the side the the windows into the chancel, there's something it appears to be white and solid. Can you see through

the glass now, or have

you blocked off the windows?

We can open the blinds.

Oh, those are blinds?

Yes. Inside, we put the blinds because the sunlight hits directly.

So that's not a solid okay. And then the can you go back to Yeah. Press over the the entrance? Mhmm. Was there a window be above the door previously, or that's always been solid above

the door? Window before. Yeah. That part

was that solid white above the doors, that's always been there.

No. Not really. If you let me move to the earlier one. Earlier, when I look at the come on. Yes. Yes. So it was all the way. It was a plain glass.

The the so is that above the doors? That that was solid originally, and it's still solid. Correct?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Thank you. So yes. Yeah.

Yes. Let me wrangle my mic here. On the large window above the door

Yes.

Is that is part is some of the are some of the panes painted out now? Yes. So there's some of the original panes

Yes. Remaining From inside. Because the sunlight was coming in, we couldn't keep worship.

Okay. So some we we do have a piece of stained glass window, original stained glass window surviving. It's just it's covered with paint.

Paint. Yes. Actually, it is. When I we did get a person from Cerritos, and they said that must be the original one, the one in the main, not this rectangular pieces. But, yeah, nobody.

Could the paint be removed and some other treatment be applied that would mitigate the problems you're having with the sun?

Yeah. I think we can cover with a cloth all the way through some kind of blind or something like that. Yeah.

Or there are times of the day when it would be nice to see the window? I mean, maybe that just I mean, there's a certain time of the day when that's you need that, but you don't need that all

the time. Correct? Yes. Yes.

We we thoroughly enjoy those windows there because we can get when we open those windows, all the hot air can I mean, it is a good circulation from the bottom air and the top? It's a good circulation for us, especially hot days.

Is that a big

cut down on some of our costs.

So there's a balcony. Is that you get to those windows? Yes. Yes. Okay.

There's a balcony. Right where the white bar is, there's a balcony top there to seat maybe four or five rows of people in there.

I just have a comment. Yeah. I think that this situation is a reminder to myself and whoever else is on my subcommittee to get back in touch with the realtors because this is not an uncommon occurrence, just for your benefit to know that we are working with the realtors in the region to make sure that that historic designation is disclosed prior to any purchase. Yes. And you are not the first to not be aware of a designation, and I'm quite certain that what you did was inadvertent because it is not uncommon.

And I will charge myself and the rest of my subcommittee, whoever they may be, Janice, to get back with the realtors and start working on that again. It's a good reminder. Thank you.

It's not in my place to say this, but in other cities, they put us emblem on the building saying that this is historic. And on that.

Yes. And and, actually, what it what it is, is typically it's been a volunteer basis. So the city does not enforce putting a emblem or a symbol on the historic buildings. It's up to the property owners to do that. We do have an actual marker that's available, but it's available for purchase from the property owner to note that.

So is there any intention to try to mitigate what's occurred, Maybe in in some form of of treating at least the the front windows to to make them look more like a that grid shape that they were. And the reason I say that is because the one thing although the windows weren't called out in the DPR form, it did call it out as a collegiate Garth Gothic, which is typically has that type of single individual panes as part of that height, at least on the very front of the building. And and so is there any type of, you know, plans or modifications that could be made to make them appear that way?

Anything. Anything you guys suggest, we'll definitely consider it and take it as action item. Okay. Just I think just be mindful of the cost. The it it there is no we need to bring some artisans from outside Mhmm. For sure to do any form of because yeah. Again again, there are many variation machine rolled or hand rolled and yeah. Just I think yeah. Any suggestion, we are ready to take it out.

Right. Yeah. Have you looked at as part of the consideration any types of exploration of grants or or the types of mitigation programs that are available?

Yes. I did get the document from the earlier person about the historical preservation mitigation program, and the the max cost I see is about seven k, 7.5, or 40% of the project cost, whichever is less. But I think if we look at the cost, this is 7.5 is I'm so sorry, but it we are looking at maybe 100 k.

100,000 for the windows?

For the stained glass windows. Yeah. Okay.

So So but as I mean, as a simple thing would be to remove the paint Mhmm. Off the front and put in some kind of a a roller shade or something similar to what you did on the side.

We can do that. Yeah. I think that would not be

a $100,000.

The other thing that could be done is, again, not necessarily taking them all out and putting in the stained glass again because we know that that does create a cost burden. But see if there's a way to treat those windows so that they appear to be this the the more grid shaped original ones that they were. So that could be a type of lattice work put on top of the window and some sort of maybe even some sort of film that gives you that color that was there before. That's not necessarily the perfect approach, but at the same time, it does restore at least the look of it and not necessarily be identical, you know, as as we've done be before that. Mhmm.

Can you go back to the current front

I think it's

on the screen here.

Let me move forward. Sorry. Yeah. You're controlling it. Okay.

So it's only the two slides. So this is the

This is the current.

That's the current. Yes.

From the inside on the front top. Yes.

It looks like it appears like the the the

you can kind of

No. That is that is blinds. That is blind. But at the top

there now. Even up higher?

If you open those blinds, you'll see through. Right?

Yes. Very clearly, we can see through.

So what where was the paint?

At the very top. Do you see even higher, like, where the arches are?

At the bottom. Right?

Oh, sorry. Is there a way I can point?

I think it's at the bottom.

Yeah. That is a cloth. That's a just a blind. Yeah. We can open it up. Yes.

Dippers. We have the very, very bottom pane.

Okay. So, yeah, I

see the uppers are still there. It's just the the center four that we're talking about there. Yeah. And then that bottom portion is painted. Correct?

Yes. The bottom portion is the part of the building. Yes.

They're asking right here, this part. Is this painted?

It's painted. Yes.

So that is the white painted ones on the bottom, then the new windows, and then the old windows on top.

Yes.

And is the the new window is an operable window. Is that right?

And is it operable? Out? Oh, no. It just slides up.

It slides up. Oh, look.

Yeah. Not out. Yeah. I didn't know going into this street. K.

So I think what we would like to look at is to come back with some options as to how do we at least mitigate the way it it looks, given the fact that, you know, at this point, what's done is done, unfortunately. But I also understand what you're talking about with the fact that it does help with the breeze and things like that. And and given the age of the church and things like that, it was definitely not built to that to that style or built with that in mind. So as the result is you're actually creating a better breeze that was probably not there before. But I'd like us to see some options as to how do we can how we can go back and and things like that, unless anybody else has any objections.

I think it's a unique situation where, you know, here we are seven seven years later, looking at something that, code enforcement, is now brought forth. And, unfortunately, we've lost a lot of time, and I know that's not, the fairest of scenarios, either for for the owners of the church. But, one thing I I think we need to consider is, you know, maybe updating the DPR form and noting kind of what happened versus delisting that. I I don't think Yeah. The stained glass itself is the historic feature of this particular building.

I think there's a whole lot more there that makes it qualify. But perhaps a note when we kind of explore the 1994 DPR form or at least action back then, see if there's any more content there. Just to note it in the form, but I don't think necessarily making making the existing owners put back stained glass, which would have been broken or whatever, you know, seven years ago plus is the right progress forward. But maybe film or or

something And and and I agree. I think we're we're at a point where it's so far past. And honestly, that speaks volumes about this body as a whole, not just necessarily a commission, but the city as well, that this was not caught earlier. And and that's something that we need to do better about preserving our our properties that we do have on the registry. So I I agree with you that we don't necessarily need to know, it's not something that we need to have somebody go back and and do it all back up.

You know, reading the DPR, like I said, the one thing I did notice, it did note it as a collegiate gothic. So that does kind of speak to that it should look at least in that style. That's why I think the film might be an option. But it also mentioned more about the actual events and the people that were there because it noted as as Emmanuel Lutheran and then Carter Memorial, AME later on. So I think those are are more of the the significance of that. So I would be open. I think the idea of having that amended and and looking at options of how do we, you know, at least mitigate what's happened is better, is the best option.

And I I think it's clear that it that the the building itself was the main emphasis. The the building and the structure and the massing and the construction were the main emphasis for significance within the HPR the DPR form. So I think it really still retains significant, you know, historic values with or without the windows. Whether, you know, whenever the the vintage the windows were originally, which is really impossible to say unless we find someone who remembers from that time period. I really so I really think that there's no way that this should be removed or taken down a notch from its value as a historic contributor to Fresno.

Also, though, I was wondering about the use of film. I mean, some some ways when you have a a dramatic change in the structure, it's okay to to just leave it as, you know, as the damage already is rather than try to return it to kind of an artificial, you know, look with the film or or, you know, modern lattice work or something. But I don't know what the real objective is when you're trying to restore this because I know it's already retained its historic qualities. But how, you know, what how do we wanna make it look? I mean, aside from the fact that we do have some extant original glass, apparently.

It's just been covered with and it's very reversible. It's been covered with paint that could be removed.

And I have to say that to your guys' testament, it was it I noticed the side windows, they were done very smartly. They were done to actually form the shape that was already there. You know, we've had ones come before, commissioned before, where all they did is they went down to Home Depot or Lowe's, they got the closest thing that they could get and just stuck it in the rest of it. So for you to to go out of your way and get windows that actually do match the shape and size of them, I do give you credit for that, absolutely. And I can understand what Commissioner Johnson, what you're saying as well.

So that's why I'm just saying let's explore options. Let's see what what is available. You know, we're we're trying to look at best way to kind of balance everything out. I do think an amendment of the DPR is needed to to note those things. So let's see.

Can I just Yeah? I I I think commissioner Johnson is right on, and I I do believe that investigating options, I don't know what that means. I don't think we want anything applied. I don't think we want more artificial decoration. I think that takes away from the character of the building. It's unfortunate that the windows were removed. I they had no way of knowing. I think doing anything more to it is gonna make that situation worse.

Okay.

So I really believe we we don't delist it. We make a note, but I don't think we ask them to do add anything more to it. I think it just makes a bad situation worse. Okay. I

agree. Yeah.

I I

don't I mean

Is the paint removal feasible?

Yes. What if you take the paint off, it is the original glass there. Is that right?

Yes. That's correct.

I don't understand how that window went in. That's what I'm confused by.

I don't know.

But

So the can you go back to

the Yes.

The the new version?

I'm still looking for paint. Pictures.

Okay. If I took new

pictures. Yes. Yeah. So are you so there's the the filigreed windows above. Yes. The new windows you put in there and and the one below. Right?

Yeah. The one below,

you cannot know the paint. That that's original glass.

Is that right? The the top one.

The top one.

Not the bottom one.

He's okay. What he's saying is all the stuff that's in the filigree

Yeah.

Is the original glass, and that's been painted over on the inside. Correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes. That's alright. We want the paint off of that. Yes. Right. Okay. But we don't want anything else added. Just please take the paint off.

Okay.

And if you need to add a a roller shade or curtains or something that will mitigate your your sun issues Yes. We we would like to see that in in lieu of the paint. Yeah. We understand the pragmatics of sun.

Yes.

But, I don't think we wanna add anything to the outside. Okay.

Oh, commissioner Halogen, I did find a picture of the inside showing the painted over panels if you'd like to see it.

I would.

Love to see it.

Well, I think at this point, what we're looking at is we'd like the paint removed and some sort of coverage that's provided that's a different option for the interior of the church. And then an amendment to the DPR to note the changes that have occurred. So this is a review and discuss, so I I don't see that being something that we have to come back for, but we do have to come back for it.

To do the DPR.

No. You you can direct us to make the modifications to the DPR form. We would not need to have a hearing on that. I would ask the commissioners if there is specific technique to remove the paint without damaging the glass. If not, is, that something you'd like for us to research and get back to you?

I think it depends on the kind of paint that was used.

Okay.

Without knowing that what type of paint they put on. It's hard to recommend Right. Way to move remove it.

Yeah. I also don't know what kind of paint was used. Sorry. Yeah. And I'm glad commissioner Sarah Johnson had the picture first time, and then Mhmm. It was really good. But, yeah, picture.

So that's that's, I think, what what we're looking at is we'd like to have the amendment done and and the the paint removed or or how that's gonna how that could potentially be removed.

Will anybody come to inspect how to remove the paint? Or

So, typically, that would be code enforcement. We'll we'll probably send someone with them to review. I would encourage you to start with just a gentle method and and work your way up in terms of their paint removal. So don't start with a harsh harsh abrasive or a harsh chemical. Just start, you know, start with soap and water and see if we can get it off that way and then work our way up.

Yeah. Raise razor blade would be Yeah. Eventually after Yeah. Soap and water.

Yeah. Vinegar potentially is gonna be okay. I don't know about any other harsher.

Lead in the middle of the glasses, so razor blade is okay.

Yeah. Okay. That's really good. Of course, it's gonna have to look. I don't know what kind of lead is out there.

But I

don't want a diamond.

Well, no. Yeah. As long as you, don't, create a situation where it's Airborne. Where it's airborne.

And And in all honesty, the paint's on the inside. Yeah. So as long as the the lead of the between the panes is coated, that they're it's still encapsulated. So, really, we're just talking about getting

The glass. I would not try and strip the as the commissioner said, the the lead between the panes. I would focus just on the glass.

Can I Okay? Would you you would do this with a a painter or your own parishioners would do that work?

Anything you guys

I I think if you if you call the reputable painter, they could advise you on how to remove the paint.

Okay. Yeah. I can we can do that. Yep. Yes. Anything. Yeah. Okay.

So that's where we are is we're talking about removing the paint from the glass and amendment to the DPR.

Yep. Okay?

Sounds good.

Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate your understanding, and I'm really sorry that this happened. We we are with you on this. So anything you guys suggest, we'll take it out.

And and and we we're happy to work with you.

Thank you.

All right. Now we will move on to Item 7B, which is file ID 20Five-three90, review and discuss items found during the demolition of the Baoan Association Building or the Baoan Tong Joss House at 934 F Street.

Is it on? Okay. So, just before we move on, I did want to note that, last spring we did mail a letter to all of the designated historic properties advising them of the opportunity to take part of the in the Mills Act program among other things. We will do a similar mailing this spring within the next couple months and intend to do that annually going forward. Of course, that's all dependent on someone getting the mail and opening it and reading it, but we are at least trying to remind folks with properties on the register that they are indeed on the register.

We did confirm that we had mailed that letter to to the church, whoever may have received it. Moving on to the next item. We are, again, a review and discuss item. No action here. We just wanted to follow-up on the, demolition of the Bowen Association building and, share what was removed, during the demolition or just prior to the demolition.

As I think everyone knows, this building was heavily damaged, nearly destroyed by fire some time ago. It has been open to the elements for several years. It has been purchased by the city for intent to develop it with a an affordable housing project, and so the demolition was completed. I believe it was in the week of March 17. Before the demolition began, commissioners Hatwig and Halajian and I visited the site, took a look around for anything that may be of interest or value.

We had been informed by a member of the Chinatown community that there may be some items of historical interest or cultural interest still left in the building. They noted two safes, some chairs, an altar, and potentially other items. So those were the kinds of things we were looking for. We also looked at, you know, what architectural features were remaining. It it was very, very heavily damaged.

Some areas were unsafe to to look at, but we noted what we could and asked the demolition contractor to to set aside anything that they found that looked like it may be of interest and showed them some of the examples of things that we were interested in. So I have some photos. I will say that we as of today, we don't have any additional information on whether these things might be valuable and to whom. We're just here to share them with you. We have reached out to commissioner Laval for a contact with some expertise in this area.

We haven't spoken to them yet, so we will come back to you with more. The items are now in secure storage at a city facility, and so we'll just be waiting to get a little more information to decide whether they're worth keeping considering both the item and the condition that they're in. So we did find two what appear to be chairs. They are both in pretty damaged condition, one worse than the other. You're looking at one on the left side facing the back of the other one, which is on the right side.

So one of them has, you know, most of its back and arms broken off. One has the back and arms somewhat intact with some of the decorative features sitting in the seat of the chair. And that is made of wood. These, there are, I believe, four of these in pretty bad condition. The one on the right is covered in bird stuff.

But we did look very lightly into what these may be, and they appear to be opera drums. The top would have been leather tied on with those nails that you see around the edges, and that kind of frill with the holes in it would be leather as well. They're made out of wood. Unsure given the condition that they're in, you know, what, you know, what someone might want to do with them. But there are four I believe three of them are pictured here.

We might have a picture of the fourth. Oh, yeah. That is, I think, the fourth one. Just two different views of it. There is also, a large sign that is covered in, Chinese characters written in kind of an orderly grid pattern.

You can see that sign reaches almost to the ceiling. So it's probably about, eight or 10 feet tall. We don't really have an indication of, what it was or what what it it says at this point, but it does seem to have been hung up recently because it has a modern bracket on it. This is, a wood frame of some sort. Unclear what it may have been.

It does have carving around the edges, and as you can see, some lettering potentially could have been part of what the person said was an altar. But, again, we don't know until we get a little bit more of an expert look at that. And it's really just a piece. I think we have a couple more pictures of it, but you're looking at the piece on the left is all there is on one side of the l, and then there's about six feet on the other side. The items on the left are steamers for dumplings.

Other than that, I don't know anything about how old they might be or any assessment of them. Otherwise, the item on the right is wood, maybe a part of a piece of furniture, an unclear. A couple of items that are also made of wood, some degree of kind of decorative, like, the degree work also made out of wood on both pieces. The one on the left looks like it may have been a small kind of table shrine or shelf shrine. No guesses on what the piece on the right is.

It's it's just it's screening, so it may have been part of something else. And as you can see, everything is in pretty heavily damaged, you know, weathered condition. These are the two safes. They are still I believe they are at the contractor's yard because they are extremely heavy and difficult to move. Nothing was inside them.

The one on the left, as you can see, is open. The one on the right had been meticulously broken into by someone with a lot of time on their hands and is also empty. That is everything that was salvaged in terms of cultural artifacts that may be of interest. And, again, once we have someone to make a little more professional assessment, we'll make some decisions about how we might handle them. But any thoughts or questions, I'm happy to entertain as best I can.

I apologize that we haven't gotten to you back to you sooner. We've been in this design of a Chinese exhibit featuring some of the artifacts from that exact building that are in our possession right now. And I will get a meeting tomorrow with our team to on some other things, then we will get this taken care of.

And we can send the link to these photos so anyone can see it?

I can I can send that from the agenda from the agenda items? Okay. So that'll be fine. But we were able to we did not restore. We just cleaned a lot of the items that had been in that burned down building, and it will be on permanent display in a large space at the archive on Kern shortly. So I'm thinking that the Chinese communities can be really excited to see these things even in the condition they're in.

Okay. Great. Just, out of curiosity on my part, so with the the things that you have in your possession already, were those from after the fire as well? Yes. Okay. Yes. So you're used to the condition then? Okay. Good.

I I have a couple of questions. When was the fire?

You know, I I don't have that date in mind, but I believe it was 2021. Is that does that sound right?

It was during COVID. Yeah.

Yeah.

Was there a was there a cause established?

I don't have that information.

And and I have to say as an archaeologist, those items were in remarkably good shape. And and they still contain a tremendous amount of information. They're in much better shape than most of the things I've dug up. So

Well, some of them were in the commissioner and Hatwick will remember there was a basement in the back that we couldn't even set foot in because the floor was rotted out, but you could see down into the hole that there was a deep basement. And and some of them came out of there, which may explain why they were better preserved than Right. Other things that we did see. Yeah.

And so I would I would definitely say I mean, I it would be good to to get an archaeological, you know, an an Asian or archaeological specialist in there to assess some of those things because they really look like they have some a unique value to them to me. Yeah. From from where I'm standing. They're

pretty there. They're once again in a basement, but hopefully a safe one.

I I we we worked on a excavation out of Chinatown and found hundreds of intact items that are still curated there in Chinatown. So I I don't know if I think I don't know if you've you've gotten those. We'll we'll talk about that later, but that's

Okay.

Yeah. Thank you.

We have a lot. We have a lot of trunks.

Yeah. So this is amazing. As as you were doing your presentation, I was noting through AI. It was telling so that it looks like that that one the long board is a list of names. Okay. So as the benevolent society that the Bao Wan Tong was, typically, those were people that, if I remember correctly, that was a a organization that helped try to get people back home as part of their burial rights.

Interesting. Had a really I think they really had a very wide range

of They had wide range of services, but one of the big ones that they did is that for those that had immigrated here that wished to be buried back in China, that was part of what the the society did is they would work to get somebody transported back their remains to return to China during that time. And that may be a list of names as to either who was membership and who was a member of it or may have been the list of the people that they they were able to successfully, send back home. And that

that would be a very personal rich contribution to the history of Chinatown and Fresno if we knew those names.

As it have have yet, we are serving as, again, fiscal receiver. It's our second year to the Chinese American Museum project, which is under the Chinese, Benevolent Association, and I can guarantee they'll be able to read the names. And it just happens that we are submitting a measure p grant to do restoration work for the exhibit. So this is very timely, and we will get on it quickly.

Great. K.

So the just for your information and review today, wanted to share the results. We'll certainly let you know next month what we've learned since then.

Fantastic. Thank you.

Very nice. Thanks.

All right. We'll move on to item 7c, our monthly update on the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe.

So as far as the presentation goes, we just have some updated site photos, which are from last Thursday. The tarp continues to deter deteriorate. I visited the site without code enforcement or building and safety this time, so I did not go inside the fence or, the building. I didn't note from the outside any, you know, major changes to the condition of the building, just that the tarp is, you know, practically useless at this point and continues to just, you know, degrade daily. Just as a reminder, it is not the type of tarp that we asked the owner to install.

And at this point, we are working with code enforcement moving forward on taking action on behalf of the owner. Just today, we received a quote through code enforcement for tarping the structure using a contractor that the city would employ. They have the proposal that we got is not exactly in line with with what was requested, so we're gonna work with them to to get the proper materials and everything, but would again be done through the city and to our specifications. So at least we would have that protection in place in the the method that we intended it to be in place. We're also working with code enforcement to get some more information, a quote from a contractor on the preservation of the two walls as we've discussed.

That is gonna require some more documentation from code enforcement. They are not they while they are prepared at this point based on what we've done to date to kind of do tarping and protection on the owner's behalf, they don't yet have the record and the documentation they need to do demo on the owner's behalf. So we will continue working with them on that, but we'll, undertake the the tarping if we can as an intermediate step.

So what is the level that code enforcement needs to get to that point that they say that they can actually remove the structure?

My understanding is that the orders they have given them so far are orders to protect it. And so the order that they give them would need to be a different order and would have to, you know, kind of start the clock over, to say and, you know, that would include submitting demolition plans to the city that are to the city's satisfaction, which I believe you discussed that plan they submitted last month, which was not sufficient. That it would just be another round of notices with the time to comply.

The the difficulty I have and and, you know, again, commissions, please disagree with me if you need to. This building doesn't have that time. You know, we we can already see that there's, you know, continued degradation. It now looks like there's pieces of it on

the

ground from these photos that you took. So it's it's literally falling apart as we speak. And and I fear that the property owner is gonna get exactly what he wanted, and that is a building that's gone, the longer that we take on this. So I don't know what needs to be done. I don't know if at this point we just throw our hands up in the air and go, he wins, because that's exactly where we kind of are at this point.

It's we need to do something about this or it's not gonna exist here in the

next, you know, year. Understood. If if you wanna point out what you see in the pictures that looks like pieces of the building, I

think will be same. Pallets. I don't know. It's something it's it's on the

There is a lot of junk on that property

Okay.

As well. So it it may or may not be pieces of the building itself. And that is that is something else I've spoken to code enforcement about that in addition to the the building and the protection of the building, the site is covered with with trash garbage, you know, not in not that it's it doesn't appear to be dumping. It just appears to be stuff they've never picked up.

So And it may be in all honesty, it may be these sheets of plywood and things like that that are there was part of the roof, and now it's blown off as a result of it, but I I don't know.

Can I can I ask, was has the city scanned this?

We did, and we reported on the we did the the drone scanning before the end of last year. I don't remember what month that was, but that, I believe, was reported to the commission after it was completed.

K.

I have a question. I know we've talked about this different ways of encasing potentially or, doing something with the Adobe Walls. If that were the case, are they movable? Can they be moved eventually? Somebody who knows more about that than I do.

I don't think I don't think that building could be relocated.

Just the two walls.

But if you have it scanned, I I kinda think there's another option where you literally deconstruct it and reconstruct it

Feel like they do.

Where you want to with more of the existing material. So as long as you have it scanned, that that's a good thing. And maybe there's a maybe it makes sense to have it deconstructed, retain as much of the Adobe as you can, and then then it becomes, you know, storing it. Where do you store it? But I think that that might be another viable option rather than just let it continue to One.

And I think that's what we we talked about last week.

Right. Yeah. Well, if that's

I'm understanding correctly is code enforcement can't act on it because the orders that have been given before is simply tarp it and preserve it in in situ and not the situation where it would be technically a demolition by pulling apart piece by piece to store it. Is that what I'm understanding?

That's correct. They're not prepared to enforce a a demolition order. And my understanding is that the the commission's direction was to preserve the two walls. So anything beyond preserving the two walls is not a requirement of the action that you took. I'm not sure how we would approach that. We could discuss it unless Jennifer wants to

weigh in.

Well, and I think what we talked about with some of the additional material was so that when they go to restore those walls, they have enough pieces to put those walls back up. Even if it wasn't restoring more of the property, it was more of they need to have the walls plus 20% so that they were able to actually build them fully as they were.

This is just a this is out of my expertise, but it's I know we talked about maybe the feasibility, and maybe we came to the decision that it wasn't feasible to encase those two walls and move them. No.

I think we're looking

We talked about it.

For a professional assessment of how best to preserve the walls.

I don't believe it has a legitimate foundation.

Okay.

No. So

Oh, the the home

I don't believe No.

There's no suggestion there's a foundation of any kind.

So without a foundation, I think it's not feasible to move it. Yeah.

Okay.

I'm thinking the easy way.

Yeah. It has a very shallow basement sort of in one room, not even a basement, more just like a under the floor crawl space, and that's, it doesn't appear to be on a foundation.

So Paul thinking like, commissioner where, know, I mean, just at the last building we were looking at, you remember touching the in between the bricks Yeah. The remaining mortar. And it was

You mean the sand?

The sand. It was sand. And I guarantee this is probably a similar scenario. I don't know what kind of mortar they used on that, of course. But even preserving at this point many years later from, I think, our initial discussion probably ten years ago, that mortar might not even hold even if they sandwich it between two boards and and try to

Any movement, any vibration Good. It it'll fall apart.

It might it might be lost. And so, unfortunately, we might have to look at the deconstruction and reconstruction scenario.

Right.

And and I think But

I'd ask for more if we're gonna reconstruct than what we were preserving in just two walls.

Right. And I think that's that was discussion last month. But what what I'm understanding is because we don't have a notice to preserve the walls, it's a notice to essentially protect the the the shell of the building, we are stuck at a point where they're gonna have to change the request and then go and restart everything. And then at some point, then they can finally say, nope. We're gonna come in and take the walls.

But is the the justification for changing the request was is could be that that requirement to preserve those two walls was made many years ago when this building had a fighting chance. But it's been so further degraded since then that I don't know that that save those two walls is still a viable option.

Yeah. I I think we're at a point that we're we're done.

I think if if we do run the suggestion of reconstruction with existing materials, it'd be around, like, maybe the pump house of the pool or something substantial enough to use the remaining material to build something plus, obviously, the notion of a monument of you know, this was reconstructed with the same materials of this narrative. And I I think, you know, at this point, yeah, preserving the two walls has really, gotten so far beyond what capabilities of that have have offered over years.

And and we don't have an indication that the development itself is moving forward anytime soon.

Right. And that's where we need that professional contractor's opinion on on it as well. K. I know we've looked at it structurally, and there's not a lot of solid answers on even plans to put to keep two walls in intact, but we have to look at it from a different lens, I think.

And, you know, chair sponsor, if I may, I don't think it's our intent that the clock restart on ten years. Certainly not

No. I don't think it's the the start

It's it's just there's a, you know, prescribed amount of time that they have to to give for the property owner to comply, and they'll have just have to work through that process. But at this point, you know, code enforcement is looking for direction from us. You know, there are risks to going down that path, you know, that we may struggle to get reimbursed in the same way that we struggle to get the property owner to do the work, but, you know, that's something we're evaluating.

But and I know and thank you. I I know it's not ten years or anything like that, but I know that in some cases, it can be up to a year for sure. You know? And and, unfortunately, this building probably does not have a year left as it sits. So I I think at this point, as a commission, we have to make a decision.

Well, today's item is review and discuss. We don't have an action item in front of you, but we can agenda is fine for

next one. Contractor out there to give a definitive perspective on what can what can and can't be done?

We yeah. So we are working again with code enforcement. We do have a contractor who is willing to go out there who was recommended, by members of the commission. So we are trying to identify, you know, what is the best course of action and how we move forward. Obviously, at at you know, current, our best course of action would be to get out there, have the contractor tell us what he can do, and get the property owner to pay for the contractor to do it. Right. However, you know, I really think it would need to be the city. Right? So we have to order the action. There is a time frame.

We are discussing with, code enforcement if there is an opportunity, to use an imminent life and safety section of the code. We're you know, have have to walk down that path. Right? So they have to make certain determinations, about the potential danger to the public, to be able to move forward in that manner and and then attempt to have the the property owner, you know, then reimburse the city for their action. But we will add to the list the the individual brick deconstruction rather than the preservation of the two walls, which is so, again, direct the the piece that gives us the legal right to direct any specific action is the entitlement where HPC said preserve those two walls.

Right? So we can't go back and change that action that the commission took. That was the the action that the commission took. So the how you preserve it could be that the commission has agreed that reconstruction through removal of individual bricks and then reconstructing those two walls could be the action. We can't ask for more, which I I think I heard a little bit earlier.

So we can't ask for more, but we could give additional clarification that the individual walls by themselves at this point under, you know, the recommendation of the commission if they cannot be removed in whole that, the commission would support removing each individual brick, taking all of the bricks so that they could be reassembled into the two individual walls even if they aren't the original exact bricks.

Correct. Does it You have a thought. Yeah. The thought is, I I guess, if I were doing this, what I would do is build a structurally sound wood frame building and use the Adobe as a veneer, not as load bearing material. That's the problem. It can't carry its own weight. Sure. So do we have to be that specific that the intent is not to use it as load bearing but as a veneer?

So the direction from the commission from the entitlement action is those are display walls that are not load bearing. One is interior, and one is, like, right behind a glass window. They're not load bearing. Their intended purpose was really a to to view and to observe for the public or for the people who are in that clubhouse. Right? Neither one were specifically for load bearing walls.

Correct. Yeah. I if I remember that correctly, one of them I if I remember correctly, was almost like encased in glass.

One was entirely encased in glass in the inside. The other was, at the, you wanted it. The commission directed it to be on an outer wall, not being the outer wall, but being on an outer wall so that someone from the outside could see it Yeah. Not just the people on the

inside of the building.

So open for any of the other thoughts?

K.

Then I guess at this point, we'll we'll move with the wrapping that we can do, but then we need to move towards we need to move as as aggressively as we can towards how do we preserve the pieces left for those two walls.

I turned the mic off, but, yeah, we will, do our best to make some good progress on that, before next month and report back.

Thank you. And that would be two of the contents of the two walls plus 20% or 10% ex

Whatever you

can Essentially, whatever is necessary to reconstruct those walls to their entirety.

Think what we want to see is that reflected in the demolition plan, and we can just ask for it there.

Okay. Thank you.

All right.

Okay. So we will move on now to Item 7D, that's update for the plans on the historic preservation month. So we've been working diligently. The committee the subcommittee that's been working on this, we've been working diligently through the month to finalize it down. We just have a few little pieces that are still kind of in play, and that's just really on dates rather than actual events.

So for for those that were with us for last month, what we did note is that we do have our our artifacts display and and the the China town China to Fresno available at the Kearney Mansion Museum, courtesy and all the AOK courtesy of the Historical Society. We do have our proclamation coming on May 1 as well as our Historic Preservation Month kickoff. That would be hosted at the AOK as well on that evening. May 3, there's walking tours. And as noted by Director Clark, they're not in the San Joaquin River, they're on the San Joaquin River.

So it's not wading through the water. It's it's along the banks of it. And we do have the time traveler's education. And then thanks with commissioner Halajin, we do have the AIA combo event with Warner's Theater. And I believe the eighth is the confirmed date or was it a different date? I think it's the eighth. I think so. Yeah. We do have the bike through history on May 10. The theme that has seemed to be welcomed by the the Fresno County Bike Coalition is we're gonna do Saroyans Fresno.

So it's actually gonna be a a stop a bike tour of different historical sites and properties that were you haven't either been alluded to or were part of growing up or his books, as well as the Mother's Day tea. And then we have our beer release on the fifteenth, and that will be at which location?

South Of Shaw.

South Of Shaw. Purely building. Yep. Oh, during the pub quiz? Yep. Excellent. Alright. So then we, we'll, of course, have our pub quiz. What I will ask, of of, staff if, there's any little, incentives or swag that could be provided potentially for that. And then on the twentieth, we do have a it's actually gonna be an event that's available.

I believe people are coming in to town for this, and that's the demystifying digitization workshop with California Revealed. We do have walking tours that'll occur on the twenty first of in Downtown Fresno. And then on either the tenth or the thirty first, that's what I gotta confirm, and that's actually will be confirmed on Wednesday. We'll be doing a a historic home tour of the Lowell neighborhood. And then our archaeological site event. What do we have Commissioner Johnston? Nothing yet? Hopefully by the end of the week? Okay.

And

so we do have those things that are coming up. And then the last one that are in the yellow is really kind of the waiting for the dates to be confirmed. We are meeting again this week at the end of the week, and should have those dates hard confirmed. What, commissioners will notice, a lot with this is that it's not as jam packed as it has been before, but it's at least more precise. We have a little more there's definitely throughout stuff throughout the month, but at the same time, it it's a little more geared and directed towards everybody.

I will note for for those that also the California Preservation Foundation's annual meeting is actually also the eighth through the tenth. So, obviously, we're gonna be busy. But so it'll be perfect. It'll be happening all at that time the same time.

Can I adjust a little bit? Yes, commissioner. You so much. I would like to encourage all the commissioners since I can speak to you here, to attend at least part, if not all, of the May 1, which is Art Hop Night for the kickoff. It will be really nice to have people there that can talk historic preservation.

People enjoyed it last year. The May 3 walking tour will be at the on the along the banks of the Saucony River, but it will not be botanical tour. It's gonna be more of history of the people who settled out there as opposed to to the plant life type of thing. We are gonna do early in the morning on the tenth, our second walking tour, even though it's a jam packed day in Huntington Boulevard. And then the third one is during Why Not Wednesday, which will be in the Mural District with a stop off at the brewery.

And we encourage everyone to make some time in your May schedule to help get ourselves out there. I think we see the more that people know about what we're doing, the more, pleased they are to participate in it. So it's kind of our time with the city and ourselves. We'll be publicizing it. And if anyone has need for images that the city can get printed for them, let me know as soon as possible. Thank you.

Where's the Mother's Day tea?

At Kearny Mansion And Museum. At 11:00 is seating one, and seating two is at 03:00. And we seat inside the mansion and on the veranda. It's a lovely day, and it sells out quickly. BERNANDEZ:

All right. Anything else from the commission regarding that? Okay. Then we'll move on to Item 7E, which is our regularly monthly topic. So starting with staff updates.

Good evening again, chair and commissioners. I think we need our presentation back up for the last couple of slides here to just give, our regular staff updates on a couple of items. We are still processing historic preservation, reviews with a combination of staff, including myself, support from Janice, all of the architects that we have on staff, in planning and building and safety, and also a resident historian or someone with a history degree. So it's a team effort still. In February, we received one entitlement, completed two, received nine building permit reviews, completed nine, completed, eleven one zero six reviews, received seven of those.

And I believe some of this reflects the February numbers reflect things that were received in January that were maybe a little backed up while we got organized after Alicia's departure. We received one Mills Act application. Have not completed that yet, and nothing for the mitigation program. We did also receive, I will note, last week or the week before, one designation application, so we're evaluating that. And we do intend, as I mentioned earlier, to send a notice to all properties within the next couple of months informing them about the Mills Act program.

So, hopefully, we'll get some more applications in this spring for that. One other update that is not agendized by name, but we did want to share with everyone just last we don't have an agendized item about the g sign, but I understand there was some discussion last month. We do have, Janice tells me the representative of the building is on Zoom in case we have any questions for them. My understanding is that there was some discussion of whether it's possible to have a neon sign made. My understanding is that the commission was comfortable with an LED sign, but we just wanted to let you know that we did do some research.

And it is both legal and feasible to have a neon sign manufactured. There are at least two companies in Fresno that manufacture them, and they are allowed by our code. So it is a possibility. We just wanted to share that with you. I don't know if you have any questions on that point or either of those items before we move on to historic districts.

I would just like to share on the g sign that the original g sign is been cited and is still existing out at the fairgrounds and that chancellor Goldsmith from State Center Community College District is planning a large public relations campaign about the new g going in. Okay. So we should just keep, our eyes open for that because I think the commission is welcome to participate in that. She's going to use it as a big thing. She's hired a PR person to work with her.

Okay. So Great. It's more to come.

Anything else on that one? Just as a reminder, as if there's things that the commission can assist with to to help with that while we are looking for Alicia's successor, I think we would be happy to assist if where where where we can.

Sure. Thank you. Okay. Yes. We have been drawing on your expertise.

There's been a few meetings of the architectural review subcommittee, which we have the road update. We are we do intend to fill Leisha's position pending the approval of next year's budget. There is funding for that position in the budget as proposed, but, of course, it has to be approved. You know, we are anticipating that it may take a while to find that person, so we've already started the process, and we'll let you know when recruitment is open. On the proposed historic districts, of course, we're a little more limited in our ability than we had anticipated at the beginning of the year, but we are moving forward with a scope of work for Chinatown.

The scope has been drafted. We do intend to take that out to a to a request for qualifications from consultants instead of doing it in house as we had planned with Leisha. There is some work that that staff may be able to do if if the quotes come back at a level that we can't fund, but we will be releasing that in the not too distant future, and we'll advise you as well. And no update on the other historic districts this month.

K. Thank you. Architectural review subcommittee.

Hi. We were very busy this, last month, relatively speaking. We we covered, I I think I figured out five actions, including the Emmanuel Lutheran Church, you know, in terms of the windows, the Aliyah House. There's two buildings there, proposed window and door replacement. And the brewer Adobe came up again, we looked at the demo and stabilization plans for that, which needed to go back to the drawing board.

And one thing I wasn't present for was the storyland pirate ship landscape, which sounded pretty exciting. But does anybody do either of the other commissioners want to, talk about that?

Sure. Looking at the, drawings that were proposed, it was really just removal of the existing sidewalk and extension, of a new one, that didn't impact anything historic from from our perspective.

Great. Thank you. And then we also looked at the Blackstone grade separation proposed project. And there were about 15 properties involved, and we decided that we needed to have more survey and analysis of potential historical resources that might be affected by that. So that was pretty much our exciting month of March. Any additions?

Did we talk about the winery, the Rossler Winery also? Or was that the previous month?

I believe we talked about that last Last month. Alright.

Yeah. It's a blur. Sorry.

Okay. But and I sent you an outline of

I

saw that. Okay. Good. Just in case I wanna start making sure we we track these things. So alright.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. With that, we'll move on to chairperson's report. You know, I I will I will admit because I I know I said I wouldn't do this, but I don't have a report. I've been trying to have a report so far for the last months that I've been serving, but I don't have one this month. I am slipping. I am I am slacking in my duties here. So we're gonna move on to unscheduled items. Members of the commission.

Actually, first of all, I would just like to say thank you to staff, city staff, for stepping in for Lisa so quickly and continuing to do a great job of keeping things moving along. That's not easy on top of your regular duties, and I appreciate that. The second just because it is one of our listed, resources and is on the national register as well, I encourage you all to enjoy at your leisure the 90 page document that goes along with this. If you scan the QR code, it will give you the architectural plans and funding for the archive on Kern. It's gonna be a building that's never been one in Fresno before, and we're really excited.

We've gotten we're working with, Vincent Company as an architect, and we have gotten our fundraising off and running. And so we are a little bit at the mercy of national funding cuts, potentially, but we also have been pounding in Sacramento pretty hard. So, this is just a one sheet, but the QR code on the back will take you to the 90 page document. And you might enjoy it because it's right up our alley. So that's all I wanna say.

Alright. Anybody else? All right. Any unscheduled items from staff? All right. And anybody from the public? Seeing none, we'll close it. Our next meeting will be, if I am reading that correctly, will be here on April 28 at 06:00. And with that, we can entertain a motion to adjourn.

A motion to approve.

Second.

Alright. We stand adjourned at 07:28.

Well done.