Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, and we'll call our meeting to order at 06:00. We will start with roll call, please.

Commissioner Eddings?

Present.

Commissioner Johnston? Present. Commissioner Laval? Present. Commissioner Federico? Commissioner Hilesian?

Present.

Vice Chair Hatwick?

Present.

Chair Sponsor?

Present. All right. We'll move on to Item two of 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 taken, followed by testimony from those in opposition. Staff may provide a summary, if necessary. The applicant will have the right to 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 II of the Historic Preservation Commission bylaws governing the length of public debate, All public testimony from those in support and in opposition to the project will be limited to three minutes per person. All public testimony will be presented to the commission at the podium either in person or electronically.

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 the 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, the approval of the 03/23/2026, Historic Preservation Commission minutes. Do we have any changes or that we'd like or additions to the minutes?

There are no changes to the minutes.

All right. I move to approve. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right. Motion by Vice Chair Hatwig, second by Commissioner Laval. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes are approved. Now we'll move on to approval of tonight's agenda. Are there any changes to the tonight's agenda?

There are no changes. Sorry, go ahead, Ashley. Are no changes to the agenda.

All right. That's been double confirmed that we have no changes to the agenda. So that's good. I'll entertain a motion.

I move that we approve the agenda.

Okay. We have a motion.

I'll second.

All right. Motion by Commissioner Laval, second by Vice Chair Hatwig. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Agenda is approved. Having no items on the consent calendar or on the continued matters item, we'll go ahead and move into commission items in Section seven. So we'll start with Item 7A, file ID 2060. That's consideration of the property owner's request to recommend City Council designation of the following property to the local register of historic resources, 207 East San Joaquin Street. Do we have a presentation?

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development. Just we'll briefly go over the presentation of this item for your consideration of the property owners request, again, to recommend to the city council that we designate this property as a historic resource on the local register. I'm not sure.

Thank you.

Okay, again, this application for designation as a historic resource was submitted by the property owner, which is the representatives of the Mount Pleasant Missionary Baptist Church. The church is celebrating its centennial this year as an institution. It was founded in 1926, so is a 100 years old, not the building itself as we'll discuss, but the church, is, turning a 100 and has a celebration planned for August 2026. The church originally met when it was founded in 1926 by Reverend W. A.

Watkins at the AME Zion Methodist Church at F. N. Stanislaus. It later constructed its own building, which was designed and built by church members in 1947. That building was condemned for the construction of State Route 99, and the current building, which is at the corner of San Joaquin And Modoc Streets, was built 1955.

It's a one story building, about 5,100 square feet. Both the design of the building and some oral history collected by the expert who prepared the historic resource assessment indicates that the building was designed and built by church members. It does have a somewhat idiosyncratic or eclectic design with a little bit of mix of mid century modernism and some art deco or chinoiserie details. It's mostly built out of concrete masonry units with the primary elevation facing south on San Joaquin Street being noteworthy for the two large towers on the corner and the decorative concrete panels. The church is largely unaltered from the original except for some vinyl replacement windows on the east and west elevations.

And we'd also note that it has played a strong cultural role in the neighborhood since its construction, specifically in the African American community and including the annual All Saints Day Carnival, which has become an important community event. So you can see here a view of the side elevation where you can see those replacement windows, but otherwise a largely unaltered facade. Based on that, it was evaluated in March and found to be eligible under two criteria. The first one is criteria one, association with significant events in history, namely the church's association with the African American religious community in Southwest Fresno, and also criteria three, that it embodies distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction, again, based on its unique design and construction with contributions from community members resulting in the building that we see today. So based on that evaluation, staff's recommendation is that the commission find the building eligible and recommend to city council designation of this property to the local register.

With that, I will conclude my presentation and can take any questions.

All right. Any clarifying questions for staff? Okay. I do have one. Reading the DPR form, it noted that it was founded by a W. A. Watkins. When looking through some of the database of newspapers, I had found a W. F. Watkins. Is that correct? Do we know which one is correct?

I do not know. But if we need to clarify and confirm, I think we probably have some experts here in the room with us and we can adjust that if we need to.

Okay. All right. At that point, we'll go ahead and have a presentation by the applicant, if there is one.

Carried, was the applicant planning to make any presentation today? Okay.

I was so when looking at historical newspapers, things like that from the foundation of the of the area, I noted that they noted as a reverend Doctor. W. F. Watkins rather than a W. A. Watkins. And I just want to make sure that for the record that if that we get it clarified precisely for you guys. We

can investigate and fix That's all.

I'll take that on.

We'll get to public comment here shortly. So if there's an applicant, was there an applicant going to be here? Okay. Perfect. All right. So then what we will do is we will then go ahead and move out to the public. So anybody who'd like to speak on this item, please come forward. And then for the record, just go ahead and state your name.

Hello. My name is Michelle Aldridge, and I did a lot of the paperwork.

Go ahead and come on up to the mic.

Can you speak into the microphone? Thank you.

Sorry. And you will have three minutes.

Hi. Good evening. My name is Michelle Aldridge, and I did all the most of the paperwork with some of the trustees of the church. Are members of Mount Pleasant, have been all our lives, and we're going by what we have found in our archives in terms of the history. So we can't give any clarification on the names.

We're hoping that maybe if we can research and we can find something, but out of the research that we have done, that's what we have come up with. Our fathers, our uncles, they were bricklayers and they were instrumental in building the construction where it stands now. The brickwork was done there. So a lot of the family members that are hanged are descendants from the original. They weren't the original original, but that we that's all we know is Mount Pleasant Missionary Baptist Church.

So I think the oldest member of the church that is here would be my cousin Oscar Hangs. He is one of the older members that was a member of the church. He may be able to answer some questions, but again, with the research that we have done to turn over to to the historical society, that's all the information that we have, what we what we were able to locate.

Okay.

Perfect. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Having that, we'll go ahead and close public comment. We'll bring it back to the commission. And any comments or questions from the commission?

Mostly comments, just this is exactly what historic preservation is all about when the community comes together and we have such a great cultural narrative here. And it just makes so much sense to approve this one and move it forward. All

right. So I had that. You want to go next or do you want Commissioner Hulajan? All right.

So, as one as an architect who loves architectural history, oftentimes you find there are buildings that are sort of designed by people who aren't architects. This is one of them. Oftentimes those are the best buildings. I think they're the best buildings because they're really not about prescribed dogma or formulas or established styles, they're about culture, they're about emotion, they're about what makes a population or a constituent who they are. And when I saw this building, I thought this is what's called vernacular architecture.

It's really an expression of who the people were who built it. You really get a sense. The other thing I noticed about the facade is there's a real sophistication to it. It's not just some bunch of guys who know how to build, who built something. There's a very strong sophisticated sense about the facade. And the first thought that occurred to me was, I don't know if you all know the architect, Michael Graves. Graves is the kind of the father of postmodernism and did amazing buildings all over the country. That building could have been designed by Michael Graves. It's just so well done. So I can't say enough about how great that building is. Thank you for preserving it.

Anyone else? All right. Commissioner LeBeau?

I would be honored to make the motion to accept this as on the historic register in the name of a dear friend who we all know would be here today, Doctor. James Aldrich. In his memory, I would like to make the motion.

All right. I have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

All right. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. All right. We will now move on to Item 7B, which is file ID 2040 seven. Review the request to name the future North Fresno North Fulton, excuse me, parking structure to the Carnegie Library garage for consistency with Resolution 20 twenty-two 72.

Okay. Good evening again. Chair and Commissioners, Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development. As the title of this item suggests, the city is proposing to develop a new parking garage downtown on the former site of the Fresno Carnegie Library. You can see in the map that is exhibit is it off again?

There we go. See in the the map that's in your exhibits and also here on the screen that it's generally at Toowoomi and Broadway, occupying a portion of what is also a parking lot today. The reason that this is before you for your review this evening is not necessarily because of the the sites of this particular garage, but because there is a city council resolution from 2020, resolution number twenty twenty two seventy two that requires all requests for naming any city facility to come before this commission for your review prior to council taking action. The intent of that resolution, which is also attached to the report, is that no city asset shall be named after a cultural historic figure known to be racist or bigoted, and that is the purview of the review in front of you is whether or not the name that's proposed is represents that type of figure. In this case, the proposal is not sorry, this thing is which way do I point it, there?

Just go just do it for me, Carrie. Thank you. In this case, the proposal is not intended to reference Carnegie, the historic figure, but rather the Carnegie library that stood on the site. The library itself has a significant history in the city of Fresno. Like many cities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Fresno benefited from the Carnegie Library movement, which funded architecturally prominent local libraries.

The Fresno Carnegie Library was designed in the classical revival style by architects from New York, opened in nineteen o four, and was constructed at a cost of $30,000, which does make it one of the most expensive of the Carnegie libraries in California. It was the first public library building in Fresno and functioned as a library until its dimin demolition in 1959. In in recognition of this history on the site, the proposed design for the parking garage does draw inspiration from the library with some architectural details like faux louvers, arches, vertical pillars, and a pronounced cornice, all of which are intended to reference the sort of spirit of the library and evoke the history of the site. Although, again, what's in front of you today is not the design of the project, but rather its name. Because the name of the library garage as the Carnegie Library Garage would preserve the story of the building and the site and reinforce the relationship between the facility and the history on that property.

And again, due to the architectural references made between the proposed design and the former library, staff does recommend that the commission recommend to city council the name Carnegie Library Garage as a reference to a civically important and architecturally important historic building that used to exist on the site. And with that, I will conclude my presentation and take any questions.

Okay. Any clarifying questions from the commission? All right. Given that the city is the applicant, I'm going to skip past that part. And we'll go out to the public. So is there anybody who'd like to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back up to the commission. Yes, go ahead.

I believe that this is not going to be necessarily it seems like a random one off, but it is part of a larger plan to meld history finally with our buildings, whether they are the original buildings or something that stood in that vicinity at one time. So I am very excited to see that someone actually remembered that there was a Carnegie Library there and that the administration currently is looking for other ways to name or talking about name today. So to name properties that do hearken back to a time with other properties that were there. So it's a very positive move by the city in my opinion.

All right. Anybody else on the commission? Commissioner Johnson?

I was just going to say, I agree with Commissioner Lavelle. I think it's a very innovative approach to integrating and including history. And this harkens back to the Gilded Age and the guilt of the guilty rich at the time who Andrew Carnegie spent millions and millions of his wealth to build libraries all over the country. Country. I think it's really important to kind of preserve an available approach.

Yes. Alright.

So, I know we're not commenting on design, but I do think this brings up a broader issue about kind of the use of historical reference in a contemporary building. So I think that's why the postmodern movement failed was because we were using architectural motifs from the past in a way that kind of made it like dress design, like fashion design where we just applied flourishes to make ourselves feel good that we were respecting history. And to me this building is an example of that. I think in the twenty first century, unless you're building out of stone, low bearing stone, the way the original Carnegie Library was built, to borrow those motifs and just apply them like fashion design, I think is not where architecture is going. But anyway, so I would I guess I would put in a pitch to the city that in the future if we're going to do that, that we are much more thoughtful about how we reference history.

I'll leave it at that.

All

right. Anyone else in the commission? All right. With that, I'll entertain a motion. Keep in mind that the motion is going to be with regards to recommending to the City Council the name of Carnegie Library garage. So that's just what the motion is going to be. I'll move. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Eddings. Do a second. Second by Commissioner Johnston. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay.

Motion passes. We now move on to Item 7C, which is to hearing to determine eligibility for listing on the local register of historic resource, the property located at 1626 E Street.

Good evening again, Chair and Commissioners, Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development. I will make a presentation regarding the hearing to determine eligibility for listing on the local register of historic resources, the property located at 1626 E Street, which is the former location of the Fresno B and the McClatchy company, currently owned by the city of Fresno and proposed for demolition. Staff is recommending that in this case, the commission determined that the property is not eligible as a historic resource on the local register for reasons that I will discuss. The facility was first constructed in 1968, again, for the McClatchy company, which owned the Fresno B as well as a radio and television station that were co located on the site. It is not the first location of the Fresno B.

Fresno B has an original building that is still standing at Van Ness And Calaveras, which was its headquarters and printing facility from 1922 until this building was completed in 1968. McClatchy Company moved their printing operations to Sacramento in 2017. And at that point, the building sat vacant for a few years before it was purchased by the City of Fresno in 2021. The city did have an intent to use this building as the home for its Department of Public Utilities. Unfortunately, the building has experienced a number of catastrophic systems failures, including its HVAC system and more recently multiple failures to the electrical system, which have essentially rendered the building unusable without major, obviously, repairs and reinvestments with no electricity and no HVAC.

And in the opinion of the city, infeasible to maintain and to reuse. The location is west of downtown in between the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and the 99 Freeway. It was the first project that was completed as part of the West Fresno Phase one plan, which was a federally funded urban renewal project. Prior to that time, the area was home to a lower income and minority community, a largely African American community specifically in this location, as I'll show in a moment. That area was redlined and considered risky for mortgage investment as early as the nineteen thirties, and then by the nineteen fifties, the homes were deemed uninhabitable or unfit for habitation and raised in order to make way for larger scale commercial and industrial developments like this facility and others.

Just go ahead, Carrie. Thank you. The building and this is the picture of the original Fresno B Building. The building the 1968 B Building, you have additional pictures of historic resource and technical report that was attached. It is considered an example of the new formalist style, again, a popular style for civic and commercial architecture between the 1950s and 1970s.

The building was enlarged a couple of times in 1973 and again in 1990. It it is, despite those additions, considered to maintain its integrity and that the original design is largely intact. Despite that, the consultant did not find the 1968 building eligible based on its architectural merits because it's not a particularly noteworthy example of the new formalist style. And there are other more compelling extant examples of that style still existing in Fresno. The historic resource report that was prepared by the consultant does conclude that the building is eligible based on criteria two, both for the California register and the Fresno local register under the theme of communications with the period of significance 1969 to 1981, again based on the operations of the McClatchy company from that facility, including the Fresno B and the radio and television station, KMJ.

However, it could be argued that the original 1922 building is more representative of the history of the Fresno Bee in Fresno because it was, again, where the newspaper was originally established by the two sons of James McClatchy who established the Sacramento Bee. There's also another example of Fresno's media history still extends with the headquarters of the historical society, the former Fresno Morning Republican, excuse me, on Kern Street. And both of those buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places. The report, also concludes that, this facility is eligible under criterion one for association with the theme of urban renewal, noting that it was the most successful project in that West Fresno urban renewal project and yielded the most tax increment income for that project or the most property tax increase in the years following its construction. However, you could also make the argument that RESFresno's experience of federally funded urban renewal and also the construction of State Highway 99 in the same area just years before is a period of history that resulted in the displacement of hundreds of families specifically from that area and replaced them with, again, those larger scale industrial and commercial developments.

You can see in this figure, which you can't see the citation underneath the captions, but it is from the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies and a report that came out last year just showing the ethnic makeup of that area West of the Southern Pacific tracks as of 1950. And the area in question is the the purple area on the upper left, which is noted as black West Fresno in this diagram. So essentially, this urban renewal project replaced all of those homes and those communities in favor of this larger scale industrial and commercial development, And we'd like to argue that the period of significance for this area is the period prior to the initiation of urban renewal in 1961, and therefore this facility does not represent the area of significance. In addition to that, given the condition of the building and the changes that it has undergone and the failures of the systems, that it's, at this point, infeasible to preserve the building in its current state. And, for those reasons, the staff, recommend that the evidence does not support determination that this facility is eligible as a local historic resource and that it's neither prudent nor feasible to preserve the building.

With that, I will conclude my report and take any questions that you have.

All right. Any clarifying questions from staff?

Do we know who the original architect was?

We do. I didn't mention that. It is in the staff reports Schoenwald, Thomas, Harris, Bode and Blaney.

Yes. Thank you.

And then the addition from 1990 was Schoenwald, Oba, Mogensen, Pohl, and Miller, which were local architects, I think, at different iterations of that Schoenwald led firm.

Well, that show that firm designed original parts of Manchester Center and the Fresno County Courthouse. So they've done some notable work in the area.

Or a question, clarifying the question. Okay, are at this point asking us to find it ineligible for either the California or the local register, is that right?

That's our recommendation, yes.

That's our recommendation and that varies with what the professional assessment was, is that it is eligible.

That's correct.

Yeah, and I think this has come up before, The question is, you know, all the evidence is that it is eligible to the California Register and that doesn't preclude or that may even lead to the mitigating measures recommended. It seems like we could propose it to be eligible to the California register and then the response would be to do the mitigating measures proposed. It wouldn't preclude it from

I think we're getting past clarifying question more into proposed like options.

Well, So mitigation mitigating measures are already So So

I want you to hold that thought. We're going to go to public and then we come back.

Alright.

Perfect. And then I'll start with

you. Alright.

Alright. So at this time, we'll go ahead and go out to the public. Anybody that would like to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing no items, now I'll come back to Commissioner Johnston. Go ahead and ask your questions.

Right. This has come up in other circumstances. And I understand that there is nothing I am concerned that the mitigating measures occur. And I guess my question is if we don't find it eligible despite it's been found eligible by the person who evaluated it. Does that mean the mitigation measures are off to the table?

So chair, I'd like to speak to that point. So this report goes beyond the scope of what the commission should be considering tonight. So the consideration tonight is simply, is it eligible or not eligible in your viewpoint based upon the evidence in the record? The report states essentially that, the rationale is its association with two things. One, urban renewal, and two, the history, a certain piece of the history of, print, media as well as the, stations that were associated with, the Fresno b at the time and the McClatchky Association.

So that is what you are being asked to consider tonight. You should not be considering any, one, future project or, two, any, potential mitigation. So the the really, the only thing that you're being asked to consider tonight, is the eligibility. And, unfortunately, this report went beyond that, and should not have made recommendations in terms of of any potential future use because that's unknown at this time.

Thank you. Commissioner Laval? I would like

to address both those points from the cultural point of view. I think that Ashley noted that there were two buildings that are on the National Register that more broadly represent the media influence, although that was one of the points made in the report. It is not really accurate. The 1922 Building on Venice and our 1919 building on Kern Street were more involved heavily with the cultural aspect. The original Fresno Morning Republican building was torn down.

It was on the corner of Tulare And Van Ness, and that was long before my time, so I don't really know why. But there are two protected, preserved examples that still have bearing on the cultural aspect of the media. So I would dispute that point in the report. I don't think that that building on E Street qualifies in that regard. The second part is that as was stated by Ashley earlier, the urban renewal part of that argument is also invalid in my opinion because it would have been the properties that were there prior to that building that were not preserved, that were on the red line, that were culturally important to the community, but unfortunately, there was not us there to make sure it didn't get torn down.

So despite the best intentions of that report, I don't don't believe culturally and historically, from my point of view, either of the two points that they found were valid.

Okay. I would just go so far as to say, I don't think it's particularly it's not a great example of a particular architectural style. So I don't see that it rises to the level of being significant.

Okay.

I have a comment just about the process.

Yes. This

is maybe the third or fourth meeting in a row where we've been presented with a building and then told that there are maybe better examples of the building or there's another there's other thing that we should look to other than the building itself. And I think that as a commission, we need to focus on the building that's in front of us and not what other buildings might be out there, what other preservation attempts we might be able to make. I don't think that that does the process any favor by ignoring what is actually in

front of

us. Okay. Very good. I think everyone has some very valid and good points with regards to this item. The one question that I have is because it seemed to be that the question at hand was the focus of is the building significant and not necessarily is it significant in the sense of an actual event.

Yes, it's significant term under the theme of communication. Yes, it's significant under the theme of urban redevelopment. Even though ironically, this same building is about a block away from Reverend Doctor. Watkins' original house that was torn down as a result of these types of urban renewal. But I want to know that I noted that in this report, it didn't note an actual significant event that did occur that was a result of being at this building, and that is the B4, which were the four reporters that went to jail for fifteen days in 1975 and 1976 as a result of not refusing to reveal sources that they had.

The result of that actually is has fabric within the state itself because it improved the state shield laws for reporters. What we've seen from it as well is a couple of other things. We have the George Gruner Awards that regularly occur annually about exceptionalism in journalism based on bringing information for the public interest. It was also noteworthy at the time that Time Magazine noted that this was the largest group of U. S.

Journalists ever jailed for a single story. And and so I do think that there is some significance. I don't know how we go about, marrying the two together, whether you have that significance of an actual event that occurred with regards to this building versus the actual building itself. So that's kind of where I'm in conflict with this as to how do we justify saying it's not significant because of it being a building, but really it has a significant in the idea of an actual event?

Sure, if I can help with that. So the commission can do a number of things. You can say, yes. All of it is eligible, the building, the history, everything. You could say, no.

None of it is eligible. Or you could say, there is history that occurred in this location that is important. Therefore, it is considered a historic resource under CEQA for the history, but not necessarily the building. And that is absolutely something that the commission could determine, In terms of the question of the why do we bring a specific location or project in front of the commission to determine initially, is it a resource? Because then that helps the project, whether that's a project at Fashion Fair Mall or a project here in Downtown Fresno that helps determine what path the CEQA takes.

So if you determine that the location, the history that occurred at this site is important, you can say you can determine that. You could determine that the building based on substantial evidence in the record is eligible. I think there's been a lot of information that was presented on the record today to state that there is a lot of history that occurred on this site regardless of this building. And so perhaps the building itself is not a resource or eligible for listing. It doesn't mean that you be you list something.

Just because it's eligible doesn't mean that it has to be listed. Right. But just creating that determination of what what is the history of our community, what is the history of Fresno that we believe is a resource to us and that we want to preserve as a resource. And that would then direct the CEQA, which is then when you come up with when you determine an impact, then you can determine mitigation. And that's why the report went beyond its scope because you don't know an impact until you actually have a project in front of you.

So right now, this is just a is it eligible or not eligible and what pieces of it are. Staff has presented into the record why we believe that the building and what it represents may not be, something that we believe is a resource, but it is up to the commission based on the evidence in the record tonight to make a determination of if there is eligibility, what would that be?

Okay. Yes, Vice Chair.

There might be one thing that we utilize once in a while in considering it as a heritage property. And that doesn't necessarily mean that it is got all the architecture features to qualify, but it does have some sort of significance. And so that's just kind of an extra thing I want to throw out there is there's there is potentially some qualifiers of being at least a contributor or heritage property.

Right. Now the but now my question to that would be is that, are we talking about is that step four and because we're on step one versus where that kind of lands in that space, right? Because I could see what you're saying. But at the same time, even the heritage properties have some sort of significance, whether it be that they are part of a tied district or they have something significant on their site, I. E. We have Legion Hall with the Mercy Boxcar. So we have things along those lines too.

You know, don't, this is an interesting idea that Jennifer's brought up, is the kind of implying that there's severability. I think that's the term severability between the events and the building.

Mhmm.

I think that there's, I have not heard of that situation before. I don't know how that's exactly done. Normally, you know, my understanding interpretation of the California register is there it's gotta be some kind of physical, it's a building or or an object, a building structure object is what we're making a decision on.

Well, would disagree with that just because we do have places up in the mountains and foothills that it sites, its locations of there was a battle here or there was some sort of conflict like and I'll point out on the West Side where we had Joaquin Murrieta. That is something where there's just a site, there was never a building there, there was never anything else to that. And really it's just a monument to it.

But I don't think those normally go in the California register. Think those are landmarks or have a different designation like I heard.

I believe those landmarks do hit the register though.

Is this not like the, remember the bicycle thing you brought up? Yeah. Yeah. It's like that, right? Where where something important happened. Something important. Nothing. There's no artifact left, but it's a marker of something, an event that took place or a Correct. Yeah.

And I think that's kind of where how do we go about saying, okay, at the end of it, if we're going to say it's eligible, it's not eligible, wrecking ball it away, like how do we go ahead and make sure that this is something that we that whatever the new not talking about the new development or whatever it may be, but how do we make sure that that's incorporated into it going forward? And that's kind of where we go back to, again, the Carnegie the library garage where we're trying to incorporate the fact that the library used to be here. How do we go about doing that? Because oftentimes what we've done is we say, yes, not that us as a commission, but us as a community have said, yes, let's knock that down. We got to we need to put a new bright shiny thing in there.

And then we don't actually take the time to go back and go, woah, wait a second, there was something that really happened here that was important. Just

a couple of quick points on that. I think that there can be something that we did in the past, not that long ago, was simply at it was already on the register that was the ship at Story Land. And we asked that in order to move forward with the demolition that we have some kind of monument put up, which is a good option. Also knowing that besides the building, the historical artifacts that made that building historical are all now elsewhere. And the story, for example, of the B4 is being carried forward in publications, but it can still be represented as where it was.

I have a hard time feeling that, that building contributed to that, and it was a very big thing. And I just wrote about it not long ago in the newsletter. There are more than we could count historical things that happened while that building was functioning. But to me, the vast majority of the artifacts and the content and just the essence of that building moved out when they did in 2021. And it's a building now. And the stories can be preserved in other ways that building really didn't do it. It was the people that were inside the building.

I get that.

So maybe a question for Director Clark. Could a condition of approval for any redevelopment of that property be that there is interpretive recognition of the important events that took place on that site? Similar to what was required for the brewer Adobe, that there's an interpretive sign something that marks what was here.

Certainly, absolutely. That is definitely something that the commission can recommend. So if you determine that it's not eligible, it is not a historic resource under CEQA, but you can recommend that any future project would retain certain or ask that a future project come back to discuss what kind of commemoration would go with any potential future project. I think that that's, definitely a a recommendation. So you could modify.

It's not a historic resource, but any future potential project should, you know, have some kind of commemoration of things that did occur there. And and then you would have the have a little bit of say over what that would look like, whether it's an interpretive panel or something like that.

Director Clark, can we include the development that was there before that building so that it's a comprehensive look at the site? Right? So that it's not just about this current building, but what it was there before and tell that story, if we can put that into words. Definitely.

I mean, I the the staff's concern when we read the report that the primary history that was referenced was urban renewal and understanding that that meant it was the elimination of a vibrant community that existed there before concerned us. And so that was why we wanted to raise that to your attention that this was a big concern for us, that this this urban renewal project, it was successful in eliminating a neighborhood. And I I you know, is that something that as a commission we want to make our local resource? So

So in the terms of it being urban renewal, I would say no. But if we're going to talk about it being the broader brush strokes like you're discussing, then we also need to discuss as part of that, at the least in my opinion, the calamity that was the central area plan that was going to essentially yes, they were successful in leveling that neighborhood. But if you looked at the central area plan of the '60s, it was going to level pretty much all of downtown. And the discussion of what that did and what that looked like. So I can see that being interpretive display of what occurred.

Okay? Are there any other comments?

Yes. I'm just I'm just going to, you know, reiterate that when we do when we assess or, you know, agree or disagree with a with a potential historical resource, we are looking at specifically a building structure or object, not a George Washington slept here two hundred years ago kind of specifically for a physical plant and what that represents to the community and to history, public history itself. So I do not believe that it is truly severable when we are talking about a historic resource. I've just, you know, I think we have a different class of situation which is a site or a location where something occurred, but it's not separable from the build, you know, the building. I mean right now, in terms of what we're considering, cannot be severable from the building structure object as it says CEQA.

And the other thing I wanted to say is this is another one of the situations that's kind of an alarm for me because this is a period of significance since 1969 to 1981, and once again this is getting to be a time period where we are in a unique situation to make decisions about preserving the history for future generations. And this is an underrepresented time period. We have, obviously, have earlier time periods represented for media and communications in the city of Fresno, thank heaven. But now we need to really consider, do we need to, you know, go ahead and acknowledge that history has occurred in the last fifty years, even though we can remember it. Some of us can remember it fifty years ago.

So I just, you know, and also wanna acknowledge and appreciate Commissioner Halogen's observation about the architectural value of the building itself doesn't really stand out. Although apparently it is from a known architect, So there's, it's sort of hard for me to separate importance of the media history and the Fresno B history from the structure of the building. But, and so I just wanted to asterisk that we need to be considering and valuing this recent fifty year history, which is identified in the National Historic Preservation Act and the California Burma Home Quality Act. So

No. And and I

I'm on the fence too.

And I agree, absolutely. And I think that's why we've as part of our I know we haven't discussed it in a while, but our priorities of which reports we want done, the mid century modern context one is up there because we want to make sure that we're capturing these because not only are we losing them fairly regularly just due to deterioration and redevelopment. But at the same time, we're missing the pieces that are something that we would normally we go, Oh, yes, I remember doing that. Well, yeah, that's because now it's actually part of history kind of thing. So I value that as well.

Do you mind if I read kind of the basic criteria that makes up qualifications of historic places that we normally kind of go through?

I mean, yeah, I think. There's just two, there's

a couple points that are here obviously events are one thing, you know, significant events that kind of contribute to a broader pattern of history. We have that persons associated lives of significant people there, right, in the past. And then of course, have the typical architecture and construction type. And then information is yielded or likely yield information important to pre history or history. And that generally applies to archaeological kind of things. But anyhow, just wanted to put that out there as we're kind of thinking this before we kinda make any sort of motion.

Okay. Anyone else?

Yeah. I'll I'll just add that the historic preservation ordinance says a historic resource can be a building, a structure, an object, or a site. We're kinda talking past each other here by focusing on the building wouldn't maybe there's more of the site.

In terms of archeological site, and that is a physical manifestation too. If that is what the intention, we need to clarify that in our ordinance.

There is a definition of sight.

Okay. Thank you. Because I think that's and I think that's kind of where Commissioner Eddings, I agree that we've been kind of talking past each other about this. And it kind of goes to that that's why I said, it's where I had had been still kind of torn with regards to it because is it really the building? No, not really.

But there was a significant event. When people ask me, well, what are the four criteria that we have? And I try to simplify it out because we read the words and we go, great. We can understand this. But like, if you ask somebody else out here or I ask students, they go, what does that all mean?

So event is I know you said George Washington slept here or anything like that, but like Battle of Exigeon Concord, that's an event. The free speech fight, that's an event that we have a plaque for. Significant individual, okay? So we have lots of properties that are part of that. Unique in its that it's a one of a kind or it's a master builder or a master architect, we have those as well.

And then the four being I give them the examples of La Brea Tar Pits because that's a pretty good example of what would So fall under criteria it does kind of fall into that situation looking at that. So do you have something else, Commissioner? Okay. So with that, if there's nothing else, I mean, I'll entertain a motion if somebody has one. That can be a motion, yes.

Well, I guess I would make a motion to not accept the report and to require that any future development acknowledge the historical context of urban renewal in all of in its totality on that site. That makes sense? Kind of.

Yes, it makes sense. So the motion that you're asking, I'm going to kind of restate it, it's So you're asking for a motion for us to essentially reject the findings in the report.

Yes.

However, in future due to the fact that there is some semblance of significance in the Not

just the urban renewal piece, but the B4.

But that actually having interpretive display of not just the journalism in the Valley, but also having of that urban renewal situation and what occurred from it. Yes.

Okay. That Is that what would be a condition of approval for any future development of the site.

All

right. Second that. I have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? Any abstaints? Okay. And I think I'll join you in that abstention. So it passes four zero two. Okay? All right. Thank you all. That was a wonderful, lively debate that we actually had on this. So we're going to move on to Item 7D, and that's our update on the historic preservation month. I guess I'll go ahead and lead that off.

So we do have our list of events that was put together for this item for it. Again, kind of staying a little bit lighter like we did last year with items and also working to kind of bring in and be a nexus for other events that are going on. So if you'll note that there's a things couple at the end of the month that are about saving the past. It's regarding the Caglias and the Warner's Theater as well as an event that involves the organ there at Warner's. We've worked with having Commissioner Johnson and Federico have put together a ten thousand years of history of Fresno.

So I hope it's not it doesn't take ten thousand years to learn, but that would be fantastic. We do have our Bike Through History. The theme that was picked by through working with the Fresno County Bike Coalition is going to be based around labor. So it's going be different events and actions that occurred with labor movements throughout the Valley. We have the different tea events at our historic properties of Kearny Mansion and the Mucs Home.

And then we do have our kickoff on the seventh, which will be at the archive on Kern as well as we'll have featured presentations and artists and then also a beer release from Vice Chair Hatwig. Any thoughts on this?

Just one more.

Yep. Their registration is still available for Thursday's historic tour at Fresno City College. The historical society will be leading that and you can sign up, it's free of charge.

All right. All right. And then also, we'll note at the top of the page, we did have some items that actually started occurring already that occurred in the April or mid April to late April here. So it's kind of already spreading beyond May, but I do hope everybody finds something that they're going to be interested in. And I enjoy to I will enjoy several of these events. And then of course, I'll be hosting the pub quiz again.

I just wanted to add that there will be photographs out here in the lobby of the 2nd Floor Of City Hall provided by Historic Preservation Commission for the month and probably left up through America two fifty and other celebrations. So those will be commissioner, no, director Clark sometime before the month begins or in a short time.

Our our goal is to have those ready for various events through the month. It kind of depends on the on the printer, but we hope to have those by the end of the week so that they would be able to be displayed at each of the various, activities. And we've especially on, the seventh when you'll all be invited here for the proclamation, from the mayor on historic, or excuse me, on preservation month, and we'll, have those displayed in the lobby.

All right. Since this was just kind of an update, it's not something goes to public. So we'll go ahead and move on to item 7E and that is our update on our

that item?

That will be part of unscheduled communications. Yes. We'll move on to Item 7E, and that's the update on the regular monthly topics, starting with staff updates.

Evening again, Chair and Commissioners. Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development. First, I will share an update on the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe. We do not have an update on the condition for you this time, but we do have some news. We met with the owner of the property and their architect earlier in April, and in the course of preparing for that meeting, we were researching whether the entitlements that they had previously obtained was still in effect or perhaps whether it had expired.

And in the course of conducting that research, we actually found out that that entitlement, which was the last conditional use permit that you had reviewed, was actually never effectuated. It was never finalized and never put into place. So the existing entitlements on the property and on the building is actually the one dating to 2018 that requires full preservation of the entire building. So that is what they have the authority to do at this time. We did advise the owner of that.

His sort of interest in the building has not changed, but they are aware that any path forward other than full preservation of the building would require them to come back to us with a new application, which would they have a couple of options, different things they could pursue, but either one of them would mean coming back before this commission. So we are expecting them to make decisions in the near future and to potentially see a new proposal come to you. In the meantime, there are still open code enforcement cases or a case on the property and we'll continue following up with the owner until we see some movement either for preservation or a new proposal.

So Ashley, you're saying that the item came to us back in I think 2022? Yes. Is it was it was never effectuated, meaning that it never went into effect at all?

They never completed and finalized that entitlement. They didn't pay the fees and it was not completed.

Where does that put it? I mean, so we know that they're at least that their interest has not been that they don't necessarily want to preserve this, correct? Or has it been?

They purchased the property with the original entitlement in place that required preservation of the building. And so I don't want to speculate too much on their motivations, but that was number of years ago at this point.

Right. Okay. All right. Any other can I guess continue on with updates?

That's it on the Adobe unless there are more questions. And then I think we have our regular updates just on entitlements processed and completed, building permits processed and completed, a lot of uptick in activity there. And section one zero six reviews are I may have reported this last time, but those are now being completed by myself. We had previously had our architect reviewing those. I am conducting those now.

And we did have one mitigation program application come in and be completed in March. Nothing no activity in the Mills Act, but we did send out letters advising all of the historic property owners of the opportunity to participate in the Mills Act, and we do have our applications due, I believe, at the May or June 1. Any questions?

All right.

I think that's it.

Thank you. I can confirm those letters did go out. Okay. We'll move on to our subcommittee updates. Any of our subcommittees meet? Okay.

Yes. Architecture met last week and we reviewed one, two, three, four, four buildings. Scotties Liquor, AE Electric, a one electric, Fresno Valley Foods and Gracebound Church. Okay. And I believe we've got all of our decisions and issues have been recorded by Carrie, so they're in the record.

Perfect. Okay.

Busy bees.

All right. You want to speak on the HPC subcommittee? Well, we did, but we did have a couple of meetings.

The HPC subcommittee has been meeting weekly and we feel we've gotten a broad range of activities for the month of May. They are meant to be incorporated with America250, which is very important. So the city's website, which was launched today by the mayor, will incorporate as many of those events as they can. And so it's kind of a joint effort for publicity and we'd like to just make sure we get as many projects involved as possible. And we will continue to meet at least for the next few weeks.

All right. Right. Any other significance? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move on to Chairperson's report. I want to start by thanking my fellow commissioners, Eddings and Laval for working with me on the historic preservation month subcommittee. I do agree that we went and made a broad representation. And I know that there's going to be other things that will happen throughout the month. And we're not going to shy away from those either. But we do have to kind of work with our constraints and what we have.

And then other than that, it's been I think this meeting has been a fantastic meeting with the amount of kind of discussion and lively discussion we had this time. With that, we will move on to unscheduled communications. So starting with members of the commission. Hearing none, you have something?

I just would like everybody to encourage everyone to come out to our kickoff on May 7 at the Archive On Kern. It will be important, it's a good opportunity to speak with the public about what we do. I think that one of the reasons why things get left behind is because a lot of people don't really know that there is a commission of the city that has this role, and staffers will be at the site throughout the evening, but please make it on your docket for the evening of May 7 because we need to show up for this as much as possible.

K. Yep. Any unscheduled item from staffs?

The only what is just a reminder, we will send out a note about the proclamation for May 7. So if you can be here, please let us know so that we can hand your names to the clerk to acknowledge that you're here and present in the chambers, and then we'll take a picture out in the lobby as we typically do. Thank you.

All right. And now members of the public, anybody who would like to speak on any items, please come forward.

My name is Edward Medrano. I reside on Huntington Boulevard in historic research with the Mills Act contract on my home. I moved here from LA to preserve and restore that house here in Fresno. I'm not speaking as a homeowner today. I'm I'm speaking as a representative of the historic district, which is Huntington Boulevard.

And I wonder why it's not so important in the scheme of historic preservation and historic preservation month. I picked up all the ashes, all the miscellaneous documents and archives of all the historic research done on all the houses. And this is really a vital historic district within the city of Fresno. In the words of Penny Raven, a woman who founded the Historic Neighborhood Association, which led to the historic district, designation fifty years ago, I am the only one in the city that stands to preserve, protect, and promote Huntington Boulevard, and I'm not getting any help out of you folks. I passed out this this flyer months ago to every commissioner that was here.

I spoke to commissioner Sponsler twice about this event. Open house at my home, a fabulous nineteen twenties mansion with an elevator built and owned by one of the most prominent founder found found families of Fresno. I was told it would go on the calendar event of events for historic preservation month, and I wonder why it's not there. Is this something against me? Something against Huntington Boulevard?

You gave your word that you have put it on the calendar. I changed the date of that event just so it would be in May. What the hell is going on here? No answer?

Thank you. Anybody else?

My name is Pat Hunter. I'm here on behalf of Heritage Fresno to announce that we are having a wonderful presentation regarding the historic preservation month. It's going to be on Thursday, May 28. It's called saving the past. It's a tribute to the Calia family, which has donated and saved so much of our Fresno history.

I have flyers to give to you here. I also would like to leave you some announcements for an opening we're having at gallery two. Janice Stevens, who was passed away three years ago, and I started the gallery forty six years ago. And we have maintained, we have created, we have recorded history from day one. And I would like to invite all of you to come and see our history wall and all the books, 11 books on California history that she and I have written.

Again, a lot of history that again is almost hidden on Shaw 1494 West Shaw. I will leave these flyers here for you. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Here are some other. Here are a few little ones here.

Anyone else? All right, with that, our next meeting will be I believe typically we don't necessarily have one in May unless we know that something's coming up that's going to be critical. Last couple of years, we haven't had one in May.

We have typically canceled in May. I am not aware of an item, but our agenda conference would be a week from Friday. So we'll know at that point. And if so, we'll notify the commission. Commission.

So it's tentatively for May 18? Correct. Okay. With that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Okay. I'll second. Second? All right. Thank you. We're adjourned at 07:20.