Historic Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Right, we'll start with roll call please.

Commissioner Eddings? Commissioner Johnston? Here. Commissioner Laval? Commissioner Federico? Here. Commissioner Hlajian?

Here.

Vice Chair Hatwick?

Here.

And Chair Sponsler?

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

Testimony from the supporters of the project will then be taken, followed by testimony from those in opposition. Staff can provide a summation, if necessary. The applicant will have the right to a final rebuttal presentation prior to closing of the public hearing, followed by consideration of the item and 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 of the project will be limited to three minutes per person. All public testimony must be presented to the Commission at the podium.

Any testimony that references race, religion, ethnicity, economic status, national origin, or any other class protected under state or federal law in a derogatory manner shall be deemed irrelevant and not considered by 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, the approval of the 04/28/2025, Historic Preservation Commission minutes. Are there any changes to the minutes? All right. I'll entertain a motion.

I motion to approve the minutes.

All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Meeting minutes are approved. Okay. We'll need to move and approve this agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda?

None at this time.

All right. I'll entertain a motion.

Move to approve.

All right. We have a motion to approve and a second. I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Agenda is approved. So seeing nothing for the consent calendar or continued matters, we'll move past those items and move on to item Section seven, that's commission items, starting with Item 7A, file ID 20Five-six30, consideration of designation of the following property to the local register of historic resources pursuant to FMC Twelve-sixteenO716O9 that is 1844 South Cherry Avenue.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development, here to present your action items for you this evening. I will note that we also have representatives of the property owner, in this

case, not the applicant, but is the applicant for item 7B.

We have both I apologize, Garrett, I always get your names mixed up because they are so similar. Garrett Wellman and Wells Stanwyck, I believe, is with us on Zoom to answer questions, and Garrett is here in the audience. So our first item and our second item are related to the same property, that is 1844 South Cherry. Our first item is consideration of designation of that property to the local register of historic resources and adoption of related findings pursuant to the Fresno Municipal Code. Our recommendation is that the commission does recommend to city council designation of this property to the local register.

The property was constructed in approximately 1918, so the style is of course early twentieth century commercial. It is commonly known as the Rosenberg Brothers packing warehouse. It was owned by the or it was constructed by the Rosenberg Brothers and Company in approximately '19, and was owned and operated by that company as one of the largest fruit packing warehouses in the city of Fresno for several decades through the 1930s. After that time, it continued to be in use primarily as a storage facility. It is currently in use as a storage facility today, and as far as our records and the evidence shows, it has been used as a storage facility of some type since the 1960s and appears to have been used as a self storage facility since the 1970s.

It has not had any substantial changes to the exterior defining features. You do have in the materials we have in front of you today a recent update to the DPR form that goes into those features in great detail. There has been coverings placed over the steel, or sorry, iron framed windows that appear to have been in place since at least the 1970s, and there is some paint and some doors that are not original to the building, but otherwise the character defining features of the exterior appear not to have been significantly altered. We are also proposing as part of the designation an additional building on the same property, so I'd like to point that out, a building that was constructed as a boiler room and machine shop that is smaller but also in a similar condition, not significantly altered, and by the assessment of the professional who prepared the DPR form, an even more pristine example of the commercial architecture of that time. As I think you all probably know, Fresno has a long history as a center of raisin production, and this building was considered to be one of the largest raisin packing facilities of its time in the 1920s, so it is certainly significant in terms of its contribution to the history of Fresno and the development of Fresno, in addition to the architectural significance that the building itself has.

It was assessed in 1978, or it was a form survey form was prepared for it in 1978 in the original City Of Fresno historic survey constructed by William Patnaud, I'm not sure if I'm saying his last name correctly. It was recommended to city council for designation in 1980. At that time, it was given a number, but it was not actually designated. City Council declined to designate it based on the opposition of the property owner at that time, and as you know, as we've discussed, when we encounter these designations that were considered nearly fifty years ago or in that time frame, we are bringing them back for reconsideration based on the current status of the building when significant changes or projects are proposed. So, we do have a project proposed at this time, which we will discuss in the next item.

Just to give a brief overview of that, what's proposed, it is to be continued use as self storage, some changes made in order to make the building temperature controlled and to upgrade the facade, but the building is proposed in the same use, no expansions or reductions in the kind of building envelope, and mostly renovations to the facade, which we'll discuss in more detail in the next item. The current survey was completed at the in the June, so it is very recent. It was performed by Karana Drayton, who I think you are all familiar with, but she did have an opportunity to visit the property with an escort from the property owner and to see again the boiler room and machine shop as well. She noted specifically that there was a survey also conducted in 2015, and the building has not had any substantial changes since that time as well, and retains a it was recommended in 2015, again, for designation to the register and retains integrity to the period of significance to be eligible for both the Fresno register and the California Register as well. So we now have a history of three points in time where this building has been surveyed and found to be eligible.

The difference, I think, in the most recent evaluation is the addition of that boiler room and machine shop building. So I think, again, there's a lot of additional information in the staff report and in those forms, but I would conclude, again, with our recommendation that the commission recommend to the city council designation to the local register and to make the associated findings, and happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Any questions from staff for staff?

Hi. I have a question. Thank you for the very thorough explanation and documentation. Thanks. I am wondering now, we are considering designation under criteria one and three for the local register and the California local register for the two buildings for the Rosenberg packing house, and for the boiler room and machine shop.

Correct.

And there was some mention of a possible district consideration for the five acre property in the documentation that I read, but we're not going to take that up at this time. We're just going to address the two buildings.

Correct. I think that the reference to the district was if we chose to nominate those two buildings as a district. There was also pointed out that it is part of a larger area featuring other warehouses of that type in the same general vicinity. But since those two buildings are on the same property, we're just recommending designation of both of those buildings and not as a district at this time.

Right. Right. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

My recollection is the warehouse district that was previously 2015, I think survey was based on some of that. That would be something that was on our districts want list, the top 10 and will be someday moving forward after we get through the first few districts. Yes.

All right. Any other questions for staff? All right. I'll go ahead and have the applicant come up if they would like to provide a presentation or information regarding the project.

Sure. And I would just note that we do have specifics on the proposed building permit that will come in the next item. So just note that they would make comments to

the specific I think

for the sake of this, if it's okay, we can kind of treat both of these kind of together, if that's okay? Just as the discussion itself. I know we'll have to take separate votes, but just because I know that there might be some overlap.

Chair, I would highly recommend that you keep them separate. Okay. Right? So the question on the floor is, should the commission recommend to the city council that this property be nominated or be placed on the local register? And that's the question at hand right now. Then we stick

with that question.

And depending on what you say here will affect the next item.

Okay.

And I will note that we did not we do not have a record of statement of support or opposition from the applicant, so welcome to give their input. Director Clark did have a long conversation last week about what being designated means for a property in the city of Fresno. So I think they are aware, but I'll invite Garrett up unless Wells would like to be the one to speak to that. Do we have Wells online, Janice?

Okay.

I am on line. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hi. Good evening, everyone. Well Stanwyck with PSC Fresno here, the owner. So am I coming in very loud?

You are, but that's actually okay. So go ahead.

Okay. I'll try and talk lightly. Well, first, I want to thank Director Clark Ashley and James for all your help through this process. It's been very beneficial. So thank you for your coordination.

And I did speak with Director Clark last week, and we are in agreement that we would support the historic designation of the building from the exterior standpoint, which is under review tonight. That being said, as Ashley had mentioned, the project really consists of us upgrading this storage facility to a class a facility. And what that means is we'll be providing temperature controlled units. We'll upgrade the actual units themselves to the steel cages that you would see in a class a building of of a class a operator. From the exterior standpoint, we're doing everything we can to keep the building as it is, really just upgrading it in certain points from paint and, you know, actually covering those window or covering those panels that are today not airtight and just actually making it an enclosed building.

We received comments from the subcommittee of some items they need to see, which we've included into our new elevations, adding in the historic looking mullions on the facade features.

Wells, can I interrupt for just a second? Because so that we will take up that conversation at the next item. Right now, the commission is simply looking at whether or not to recommend a new, designation to the city council. And then on the second item, we'll actually talk about any kind of changes or modifications you were looking at the property or upgrades. So, if we can just focus right now on the designation, and whether or not the property owner is moderately in support, fully in support, or or any kind of concerns you might have?

No. I'll we are in support. I know we talked about the tax incentives that could potentially come. So we want to we want to go with the subcommittee here as in we are in support for the designation of historic for the exterior component.

Awesome. Thank you.

Thank you, Wells. Any questions from the commission? All right. So at that point, we will go ahead and take any testimony from the audience, unless Garrett, want to speak as well? Understood.

Okay. At this point, we'll take testimony or any testimony from the public. So if anybody would like to speak on this item, please come forward. Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission. Do we have any final thoughts or questions for staff? No questions. All right. Then at this point, I'll entertain a motion.

I would move that we recommend to the city council that the Rosenberg property including the packing house and the machine shop boiler room be included in the local register with the consideration of criteria one and three.

Okay. I do have before I accept a second, I do have one question for you, Ashley. And that is, will these items will the two buildings be treated as two separate items? Or will they be one historic property?

You mean two separate designated

Two separate designated numbers. Because I know like this one, it was given a number, I think it was HP 100

Correct.

Even though it never went into fashion.

I might defer to Jennifer on that question. I do know that we have at least one other building that has two numbers, even though it's a conjoined two parts for the same building. So what would you

I mean, it's technically two separate buildings, but it's one parcel.

Right. So the commission can recommend to the city council that they act as one project or one registry or they can recommend that they operate as more than one, right? One per building. We do not have a consistent methodology here. It really depends on the significance and whether or not they have to work in tandem to still retain significance.

It's my understanding that they don't, that they could each stand alone, so you could recommend each one individually. Would it's still one action of the commission tonight and one action of the city council?

Right. Yeah.

I recommend that we think of it like a house, a a carriage house and maybe a water tower because those often are under one designation under one property. Okay.

Do know if one way or the other helps the owners with regard to the Mills Act? I think we'd want to do whatever is most Unless advantageous to the

I'm mistaken, it is one parcel and the assessor's parcel is what governs the Mills Act. So you wouldn't be able to have two separate Mills Act applications because there is one parcel.

Okay. So does that suggest one number?

Yes. Okay. All right. So we do have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right. I have a motion and a second. Signify all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. All right. So that ends Item 7A. Now we're going to move on to Item 7B, which is the hearing to consider the application B25-three423 for facade renovations regarding the Rosenberg Brothers packing house.

Just waiting for the presentation to come back up, but we are now on Item 7b, which I believe we are all familiar with the background, unless there is anyone who has just joined, discussing 1844 South Cherry Avenue, the Rosenberg Brothers packing warehouse, which now the commission has recommended that we forward a recommendation to city council for designation of that building and its boiler room and machine shop to the local historic register. We do have an application pending approval of this body for building permit number B2503423 for a number of renovations to this warehouse, but in front of you, have consideration of the renovations to the facade. Those were submitted to us on 03/21/2025 by Mr. Wellman on behalf of the owner, who is here with us today to present any detailed information about the application. Generally speaking, the application consists of interior upgrades for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning, access and circulation through the building, improvements to the storage units contained within the building, and then on the exterior, a small amount of new glazing on the front of the building, replacement of doors and window coverings, as well as metal canopies and paint throughout the building.

Staff does recommend approval of this building permit application with any additional feedback that the commission would like to offer. As you know, this building was constructed in 1918. It is a three story building of more than 200,000 square feet, so it is quite large. At this time, the application, I would like to note, the building permit application only pertains to the warehouse building. There is no related site work, no changes proposed to the other buildings on the property.

It is just limited to the warehouse itself. As you know, its original use was as a fruit packing facility, but it has been used as a storage facility since the 1960s and as self storage since the 1970s, and is proposed to continue with the use of self storage under the brand CubeSmart. And we do have some signage that was already approved under a previous building permit application, so if you visited the site, you'd probably noticed that the signage is new and that had been approved separately sometime within the last year. Just generally speaking to the construction of the building, it's reinforced concrete with a post and beam construction. There is not a lot of decorative features, but the original character defining features that still exist are the bricks mandrels that separate the windows, projecting molding at the cornice, and parapets at the four corners that are decorated with a circular and leaf pattern.

The north entrance to the building has vertical piers and an ornamental cornice. Additional original features are the concrete canopies between the first and second floors on the north elevation, and then there are additional metal canopies on the other elevations where storage units were filled in underneath those metal canopies. The building permit application proposes exterior changes that include removal and replacement of 1st Floor exterior storage units and the metal canopy in that same location removal of the large exterior panels that are generally corrugated metal sheets that are fixed over the window frames, and replacement of those with insulated metal stud walls, and then replaced again with metal paneling on the exterior. So that is one of the more significant changes, although it is replacing the metal panels that are already there. It is covering all of the existing window surfaces, so that does include quite a large area on the exterior of the building.

Again, at the front entrance, a small amount of new glazing has been proposed. The subcommittee did review this project, and one of the requests made by the subcommittee was that that new glazing, where it's installed, resembled the original glazing, and as Garrett has said, I think they've responded to that request, but I'll let him speak to that further. They will be proposing to repaint the entire exterior surface to white and gray with a red accent. It's currently a sort of putty color, I would say, with the paint in fairly bad condition. It is likely that the original warehouse was not painted, but probably has been painted for some time.

We don't have an exact record of that. Removal of the existing fireplace, fire escapes, and replacement of the exterior roll up doors. So, the most significant change is the removal of the existing wall panels and replacement with that insulated metal stud wall construction that will allow the building to be sealed and function as a closed building. The paneling has existed since at least the 1970s, according to the photos that we have. We did do a staff tour along with Commissioner Johnston of the interior of the building.

There are original window materials still existing under those panels, but as is to be expected, many of the glass panes are missing or damaged. The iron framing on the windows is is corroded in many cases, and sometimes missing, although we did not review each and every window. Generally speaking, that is the the condition of the windows that we observed. Again, the entire exterior proposed to be painted, that's primarily concrete, and we don't consider that that would impact the architectural integrity of the building. And so, our conclusion is that the proposed exterior work will not substantially alter the built environment or change the historic nature of the resource and is considered to be consistent with the standards and not detrimental to the special historical architectural or aesthetic value of the resource.

So, our conclusion is recommendation of the approval of the building permit application, but I will be happy to answer any questions and invite the applicant to provide any additional information as well.

All right. Any questions for staff?

I just have a quick question. Was there any recommendation aside from the DPR forms provided by the architectural historian? Were there any specific recommendations, interior, exterior, or?

We did not ask her to review this current proposal as part of her scope. We just asked her to assess the eligibility of the building for designation. Question.

On the elevations we're looking at, there's a note in a number of instances that says, see turnkey contractors drawings. I don't were those included? I didn't see them.

Those were not included in your packet. I don't know that those were included in the application materials that were submitted. And so I would maybe invite the applicant to answer that question.

Okay. I'd like to know about that.

All right. Any other questions for staff? All right. Then we'll go ahead and have the applicant come on up. Okay. Good evening, Garrett. Good evening. All right. So obviously, we have a few questions. Is there anything that you would like to add first before?

I think Ashley did a great job explaining the project. Not much to add. I can answer your question. With the general contractor, we will

be What's your company?

Arco Murray. We're a general contractor. Are you local? We are not we have offices in California, but I'm not local. I'm in Dallas.

Okay. So can you tell me about the turnkey contractors drawings?

Yes. So we normally, those are shop drawings, not with like in house. So we have a separate contractor doing those drawings besides our structural engineer of record. We were working towards figuring out the best way to approach that because we learned through, like, another site visit with our demo contractor that the roof that Ashley mentioned previously, around the 1st Floor, is concrete. So we've got to figure out how to demo that, and then we will build back with, a standing seam metal roof turnkey.

I'm sorry. You've taken off a a concrete roof over the 1st Floor?

Yeah. That canopy Ashley mentioned.

So the canopy is concrete. Is that right?

It's concrete. That's You're going

take off a concrete canopy and put back a metal canopy?

Yes. It's not monolithically poured, so it's not attached to the first It elevated

will look different though, right?

I don't think so, no. From an elevation, you wouldn't be able to.

Can we see an elevation of what it will look like?

Yes. I mean, I have there's in the shot or

the elevations The whole area is hatched. There's a dash line around it, and I Yes. Really don't know what it's going look

It will yes, we can provide

If you can,

would be great.

The other question I have is You're taking off corrugated metal panels and you're putting back an insulated metal panel. Is that right?

No. They won't be insulated metal panels, but we'll have stud walls with insulation

And what's the actual finish?

It will be metal panel, corrugated metal.

Corrugated. So it's going that will look the same? Yes. Are you matching the profile?

It will be very similar, yes.

Will you match the profile? Don't know the Make exact sure you match same the profile. I think that's critical.

Okay. And

then the other question I had was, there is a notation, I think, that you're replacing. There are some windows that are going back. They look like retail, strip mall, storefront, and that really doesn't look like a historic steel sash window. What can be done?

Yes. So when we first submitted this, we didn't have those recommendations. So that was the first submission. We have updated our elevations, and I can show them on my phone right now. We're matching the existing like moly ins and look of what it's currently shown at

the With storefront?

Not storefront. No.

What are you going back with?

I mean, it's new new glazing to match the existing, but we still have storefront look and at the office.

That's what I'm what I'm getting at is this a storefront does not look like a steel sash window. Are you using storefront? That's my question.

Yes. It would yeah. Class a is what we normally do. So it's

Okay. That's not in keeping with historic character of the building. And so there are existing steel sash windows in the building?

Yes. But they all have to be removed because there's asbestos mastic. And so they will all

be Can

they be removed, treated, and installed in lieu of storefront in locations where you're putting windows?

From the current condition, I don't think that's possible.

What are they that far all of them are that far gone?

Not all

of them, but it would the undertaking to, I guess, piecemeal together across the entire building would be difficult. I would have to look more into that. I don't know that's a tough one to answer.

If you

could look into that, I would appreciate it.

Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?

I have one real quick. I was thinking a lot about the windows as well. And you guys are proposing to completely remove them, right, and just put up the metal corrugated, not going over the windows? Correct. No. If they were hypothetically to go over the windows and many years down the line, somebody wants to put back the windows the way they were, is that possible?

Yeah, I mean you could demo the metal panels and the studs. It's the same thing we are doing. Okay. Yes, you could. Okay,

cool. I guess I have a question too. Now, we are talking about the big massing windows of the metal frames in them that are currently in there behind the corrugated metal. That's what we're talking about, right? And some of them might be in good enough condition to retain, not all of them, but some of them might be in good enough condition to retain, just because, you know, when you're redoing a historic building, sometimes you can retain the parts that are restorable, and that might be something you would want to consider, you want to match the other stuff, but possibly retain some of the original windows, if that you can work that into the design.

It's a We good can try, yeah. I think from a demo standpoint, it's going be very difficult just because of the asbestos around the window frames. It's going to be very difficult to control that demo and take them out as they are, if that makes sense.

Okay. I know asbestos is an issue.

So how do you plan to demo it then with the asbestos on it?

So you're supposed to we're just going to take the frames out. So we'll safe off the whole perimeter of every floor. And then we the abatement contractor is going to take care of that instead of our demo guy just because of licensing for that. But, they're just going to basically, you know, push it out and begin the abatement at the mastic in between the frame and the concrete walls.

But the window can be taken out if you want to take it out. You don't have to push it out, right?

And you're talking about the asbestos is at the mastic, correct? Correct. So it's not on the frame itself?

It's the putty, it's the glazing putty, right?

Correct.

That's what I was trying

to understand. It can be done.

Yeah. Especially in the main elevation, you know, front elevation or something. Just think it's important to retain that because it is specifically mentioned in the evaluations, that the design of materials, okay, massing ornamentation pattern window openings, Most of the materials are intact, and with the exception of industrial sash windows, all materials of the 1st Floor are intact. So, you know, I look at these forms, I look to these to tell me what's important about the building to retain, and so they do discuss that the windows are such an important characteristic of the building, so it just seems like it would be useful if there is some way it could be, you know, worked into one of the main elevations at least. And

I think the biggest thing, we get tripped up on windows quite often is it's supposed to it was built as a warehouse. It's essentially going to still look like a warehouse. You wouldn't find Best Buy windows or Target windows in the middle of a warehouse. So we're trying to look at not only in the sense of maintaining some of that integrity, but at the same time, making sure that it's something that still speaks to the building itself rather than be something that's kind of anachronistic.

Got you. Understood.

Just kind of to note for the record that all the openings in this building that have the corrugated metal over it are what was windows before. Obviously, over time, security for warehouse and heating, cooling, all that stuff was reason why corrugated metal was put on there.

Any other questions for

that? Can we recap the three things that I'd like to see is those turnkey drawings with regard to the Campi, what's it actually going to look like? I'd like to know if you can salvage some steel sash windows and use them in lieu of storefront. We're not asking for more openings, we're saying wherever you have an opening, a good steel sash window and use that instead. And yes, if you can match the profile of the existing corrugated on wherever you're going to use new corrugated. Those are my three requests.

How

would I share them? I can email them to you? Okay. Yeah. Let me email this to you.

Okay.

Okay.

Yep. Let's go ahead.

Yep. Sorry. That was me.

Wells?

Yes. Hi. Thank you for letting me speak. I just wanted to clarify a couple things. So the three items that were brought up of the canopy, so we'll we'll share the elevations that we can take a look at those together. The question on the windows. So you're asking for the salvage of the windows for the new proposed openings at the storefront? And maybe when we look at the elevations, it will be a little easier to discuss? Is that

That's what you're the request. If you could salvage enough steel sash windows and use them in lieu of storefront.

Right. For the new storefront, correct?

Yes. We're not saying add more openings. We're just saying wherever you have an opening, if you could replace the storefront that's shown on your elevations with an original steel sash window.

Right. Okay. Alright. And then we'll look at the corrugated metal on the elevation as well when you get those elevations. My fear about salvaging the windows would be when we do the abatement would be if we destroy it, but I hear you that, you know, can you get enough to to do it?

So I think we can make that work potentially. I do have one other question for deputy Clark or director Clark.

Yes, sir. I got a promotion. Thank you.

Sorry. So in the first agenda item, when we said that we support the historic designation, did that open us up to all these follow-up questions on the the items we're going through right now?

Yeah. So as we talked about on the phone, so the exterior, right, so the exterior would be subject to historic review once it's designated. Right? So this is somewhat I mean, we're we're hoping, and I think commissioner Halajian was asking and we're hoping that there are things that you can do to preserve the, exterior of the property as we're going, through this process until the city council actually designates the property. It is not technically designated.

It is eligible for listing, which would require, an a review like this anyway of the exterior. Essentially, the street facing facades are the ones that we are the most concerned about that's listed in the, in the register, but these are things that let's just say you chose to, or you were able to remove and preserve and reuse a, several windows, that can be part of your, improvements that you're making on your Mills Act application that would be eligible for the reduction in, property taxes. Is that helpful?

I think so.

Okay.

I

have kind of a question for commission here is, this had been something we've kind of reviewed a couple of times with the architectural review committee. And this might be something too where for sake of timing and everything as well if we decide we want to approve to a certain level, but still have to pursue answers on the three core items that we are talking about, which were more of material based, that can still be pushed to, I would assume, the Architectural Review Committee for approval because those happen every week per se versus a whole another month of waiting if we get those answers. But that's just something that is out there as a possibility because then at times of the essence and all that stuff too.

Yes. Is there a precedent for this kind of a partial approval, like if they wanted to get started on the interior, which

is not going to be effective? Correct.

Yes. So we do have two current building applications on file. One or two actions. One is for the interior renovations, and the other is for the exterior. The only thing that the commission has purview over is the exterior street facing facades.

And, I think there were some items that were requested at a prior, architectural review committee. It sounds like, you know, there there are still some things that need to be done, but I I would ask that you allow us to move allow the applications, the building applications to move forward so that they can mobilize and start working, knowing that there are some things that you'd like to see happen, with the types of materials and how they're placed on the property. And then if there are additional questions, it could go back to the architectural review committee if necessary, but not necessarily this body.

The elevations are up.

Yes, I saw the elevations. The two things that were noted is that on the newer elevations that you provided does show the windows that have the more Mullens in them, similar to what is essentially being asked to be preserved or salvaged from the building. I just wanted to note that it looks like counting the what was the openings of the building itself, you had about 116 of them that used to be window openings, and you're only proposing 13, and that's all we're really asking for is the 13 to be utilized. So hopefully, out of those 116 openings, 13 of them can be saved. I think the biggest thing that was the question still, too, was looking at what the turnkey contractor drawings are.

And if this body is okay with it, I think I understand what Vice Chair Hatwick is saying, is that we're good with possibly moving it forward as long as that, that comes back to the Architectural Review Committee to look at what that's going to look like.

Understood.

Is that what I understood, essentially what you're saying? Okay.

So this certainly looks better, but what is the actual window you're using?

It was going to be storefront glazing like we typically do on

So I think that's the problem is storefront is a big thick piece of metal, whereas this slim sash is very thin. So this is going in the right direction, but I think we'd all rather see a real steel sash. So going in the right direction, but if you can use the real thing, that's even better.

Understood. Are we going have to resubmit, like there's energy requirements related to a lot of that. I don't want would that hold up our permit as well because that is tied to the new revised submission that I'm submitting tonight?

That's a great question because once the property is designated, there are some allowances for energy, does it have to meet the same criteria? Right. So

once a property is designated, you can actually follow what's considered historic building code.

And

so you don't actually have to meet some of those types of energy requirements or mandates of state laws and building codes and things like that. You can follow the historic building code of the actual essentially agent building. So you're not having to create that, okay. That is one of the advantages also of being designated.

And I've seen other historic buildings where they'll do more of the keep the window as is, but they'll add a second glazing to create an additional barrier for energy.

Okay. So any other questions for the applicant? Okay. I will take it out to

the panel.

Yes. One more thing.

If the steel sash thing doesn't work out, there are historic windows that are brand new that perform meet the energy code. I can give you some brand names if you want. I'd rather not do it from the podium here. There are ones out there that if you can't make the steel sash work.

Okay. Yes. If we could talk after, I'm curious because it's not common for us. Yes.

Okay.

Anything else? Paul, I'm looking your direction. No, I'm good. At Thank this point, I'll take it out to the public. So if anybody would like to speak on this matter, please come forward.

Hearing none, I'll go ahead and close that. And I'm going to turn this back to Vice Chair Hatwick because you seem to have it eloquent as to how you want this motion to be. So you go ahead and craft this motion how you're looking for

it to be. Okay. Well, the basic overview of the motion would be to allow the applicants to continue on with their permit with the exception being the final material for those 13 windows, the glazing, that we get an opportunity to approve the windows before they're ordered and put in as the architectural review subcommittee. Did you want to add to that?

And then we want we don't want to know what the canopy is going look like.

Canopy, corrugated metal and windows. Those three elements. Beyond those three elements, the motion will be to approve and allow the permit to move through.

Okay. So let me see if I get this right. So the motion is to approve with the idea that the canopy drawings, the sash windows and the corrugated metal profile returned to the architectural review committee for review during the process, but their permit can move forward.

Yes. Can I ask where are we in the process? Has it been submitted for it has been submitted for building permit, correct?

We're ready to issue the building permit as far as I'm aware from the structural perspective. I defer to the assistant director on that as to the status of the building permit, but as far as I'm aware, this is the last step.

Well, we did get comments back from all departments, or delivered comments from all departments on around the very June. I don't know whether all of those have been addressed or not, but

So we're ready for back check, it sounds like. Okay. Yeah. So they're ready to submit for back check.

So then procedurally, if we get the information we're looking for, there's some back and forth, how does the information or the decisions that we've agreed to with the owner, how does that make its way into the set that may have already been permitted?

So what I'm what I'm hearing is all of the comments were received from the various disciplines. The applicant is ready to submit for back check tonight, And that takes about a week to review. So if if the information is readily available, we can get it out to the subcommittee this week, get your feedback on the specifics of those those three issues that you just provided and get that included in in the actual permit set.

So the set won't be permitted until this happens?

Well, everything except for those three items. Right. So they can move forward with everything else that they're doing.

My question is, can they actually pull the permit until this is resolved?

For all of the other items, yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

I don't know how you do that, but okay.

So well, I mean, they have a number of interior things that they're planning to do. Obviously, I don't know if the specific windows that were in this plan set were ordered yet. It's my understanding they were not. So there's there's still things that are are ready to be moved forward in terms of the specifics and wouldn't necessarily under a normal building permit be required. Right? So in this case, we're asking for more detail.

Right. And one of those things that we wouldn't even know works is it keeps kind of the item open is safely getting 13 of those windows out and making sure that they can be utilized. So it does promote an open case on the glazing side of

things. Okay.

So we have a motion ironed out. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All right. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. All right. Thank you. I'm glad we were able to land this plane. All right. We are now moving on to Item 7C. That's our monthly update on the Jose Garcia Brewer Adobe Building, HP 227, located at 5901 West Shaw Avenue.

Thank you. Chair and Commission, again, Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development. Just here to provide a brief update on a recurring topic. Okay, we did visit the site last week, and have shared a few photos here in front of you. As you can see, the tarp that was placed last fall has almost completely been destroyed so that it is no longer in much service of covering the building.

Just another couple of photos illustrating the current state beyond that, not any significant changes observed. As we shared last month or the month prior, we are still working with our city attorney's office on kind of building a kind of body of evidence, as it were, that might support the city taking over this work, although we're not at that point yet. In the meantime, we are working on scheduling a conversation with the property owner who did present some plans earlier this year that are insufficient to meet the request that the commission made of him originally when his project first came to you. So we do plan to have a conversation with him to discuss the plans that were submitted, were not adequate to fulfill what was asked of him. So otherwise, not too much more to report, but happy to entertain any questions.

Okay. Questions from the commission? Any comments? The one thing I'm going to say to that is I think this situation that we've had that we know has been going on for quite a while is an example of why we need to look at having a demo by neglect ordinance. Because the individual has shown minimal regard, if any, towards what has been asked.

I think we're at a time where I know that we're trying to go through what legal tools we have, but I think it's time that we have to look at what new tools we might need for a future situation. Because as we've talked about in previous meetings, this building, maybe that one side here that we see, it may have one more season in it, but the rest of the building doesn't. And so the property owner is going to essentially get what they want, which was to not have a building. But I think that this needs to be that reminder that we say that no more. We need to figure out how we do this better than what we've done in the past.

Okay. Any other thoughts? All right. Thank you. Now we'll move

on to

Item 7D, which is our updates on our HPC events that we had. I guess I'll go ahead and lead. So for those thank you to each and every one of you that helped out with creating and facilitating our events that we had during the month of May. I know that there were multiple locations, multiple different items that came forward. I know that one thing that I've been asked by from Janice here is that if we have photos of those events, please get them to her because we will need them for our CLG annual report.

The events that I can tell you that I participated with, I did do the Bike Through History with the Saroyan theme. And we had a little bit of a smaller crowd than last year when we did just Tower District, but still a significant amount of people. We toured multiple sites throughout downtown and Southeast Fresno that were related to Saroyan. Some of them were ones that were described in his books and in his writings. Others were like his school, his church, and the home that he lived in during his formidable years as a teenager and growing up, where he really got inspiration from his stories.

And everybody was very excited to learn those different pieces and see what we had to offer. The other one that I participated in, along with Vice Chair Hatwig, was our pub quiz. We did have, I believe, when we started, we had was it 14 teams?

Yeah. Record attendance.

Yeah. We had 14 teams signed up. By the time that the rounds ended, we still had 10. So some had left. But everybody had a very good time. The prizes went over very well. And that was a wonderful thought. I'm going to open it up to those that also helped lead other events to please kind of give a synopsis of your events and how they looked.

We took part in a tour of the Warner's Theatre. Nicole Owens, as usual, did a fantastic job of kind of giving the story of the building and placing it in history. It's just a magnificent piece of Fresno's architectural history. It's actually a great piece of America's architectural history. And so there's I think an effort foot to finally get around to putting some money into that to bring it into the twenty first century and make it a real active part of the cultural landscape in Fresno. So it wasn't that well attended, but everybody who was there just left with their jaw dropped. It was great.

Wonderful. And I know that we did have several items that were led by Commissioner Laval, who's not here tonight. But just kind of giving that note. And then anybody else with events that they attended? Okay.

I just attended the tour of the archive at Kern. Okay. And saw some I actually forwarded a couple of pictures. No people, but they had great pictures of the ancient press from the Fresno Republican, and they have some really fabulous, a digitized archive of the old catalogs and commercial magazines, what are they, I can't remember the word for them exactly, but the old catalogs with all the old hairstyles and clothing styles from early days in Fresno. So there were a lot of really interesting things I didn't know about at archive the on Kern, and that was a great tour.

Very good. All right. Other than that, that's what we had. Anything from the staff regarding those?

Just another great year. I'm appreciative of everybody that took the time to join and participate. Meant a lot. And yes, like I said, record attendance on the one that we were involved with and I got a lot of feedback from the public on that one. And it was all positive and they can't wait for next

year. Fantastic. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on to Item 7E. That is our update on regular monthly topics. So we're going to start with any staff updates.

You again. Ashley Atkinson, Assistant Director. I will just note that I went to the archives on Kern, which is a very cool place to visit, and see I had no idea what was there, but it was all really exciting to have that stuff preserved in such an interesting building, and trivia was also very well attended, and a lot of fun, although quite challenging for someone who is relatively new to Fresno. So just quickly updates on staffing. I'm pleased to share that we did complete interviews of 10 candidates for historic preservation specialist two Fridays ago.

I believe that was the thirteenth. Thank you to Commissioner Hlagian for spending the day with us doing those interviews and also to Commissioner Hatwig for offering to to help. We have three candidates that we are hoping to bring back for a second round of interviews in the week of July 21 and are excited about the possibilities and hope to have someone on board around Labor Day, if all goes according to our hopes. That's it for staff updates, unless you have questions or anything else you'd like to discuss. Oh, sorry.

Janice is pointing at my report that I omits updates on staffing issues. Another regular staff update that we would like to share is, of course, our report on activity over the last couple of months, specifically April and May. As you can see, more activity in terms of building permits than entitlements, as is typical completed a handful of 106 reviews, no new Mills Act applications. I think our window typically concludes in May for Mills Act applications, and I believe we did get one prior to that, so we'll be moving that one through, but no new applications this year, although we did send out a letter to all owners of all historic properties designated historic properties, reminding them of that opportunity and also sharing a historic preservation month with them. I believe that went out in April.

And a couple of one mitigation program application received in April, I think we have a couple more that we'll be cycling through in our next report. And with that, I will take any questions.

I can confirm that those letters come out.

Yes. You received one?

I received two. I received my property owner one and my occupant.

Okay. Great.

Okay. Any question on staff updates? Post historic districts, where are we with regards to getting that, item moved?

The Chinatown Historic District is going to be a priority for our next fiscal year, which begins in a week, and hope to have that be something that our historic preservation specialist, when they're hired, is closely involved with. But it is has not moved forward otherwise at this time.

I think we initially were talking about having it go out to a bid. Did that that did not occur?

Not yet, no.

Okay. Is it because we're just waiting for the historic preservation specialists?

Not waiting exactly. There's just a lot a lot going on. And at this moment, Janice and I are your historic preservation team with the support of some architects on staff in reviewing specific applications as they come in. So I'm just trying to stay on top of everything at

this point. Okay. All right. Any other questions regarding that? All right. And then architectural review subcommittee. I'm going to go to commissioner Johnston because she's the one that has the prolific notes.

And I missed a couple, so she's definitely got better Well, notes than

then you're in detention now, Jason.

Magic green button, yeah. All right, we had we reviewed the architectural review, subcommittee reviewed two projects in the last month. One was for a solar permit for a building at 395 North San Pablo Avenue. And we worked to, around the facade and the roof, to come up with a solar plan that would be less obvious from the street view. And then at 1725 Broadway Street, the old rainbow ballroom, a painting, requested to paint the facade, and we reviewed their colors and agreed with their plan.

And that was what we did. Additions?

Great.

All right. Okay. We'll move on to Item eight for the Chairperson's report. So I know that this last month, we had our historic preservation month and we had our multiple activities. One thing that I noted at the beginning of the month when we were here for our proclamation is that we are going to be hitting the one hundred and fortieth year for city here in October.

So that's something that maybe we need to start to look at as something of significance to celebrate that. I mean, it only comes around once for most cities. So it's something that's going to be significant that we should be promoting. So I'd like to maybe get some thoughts and input, not tonight, but as we get closer to that time. With that, I conclude my part, and then we'll move on to unscheduled items, starting with members of the commission.

None for me.

All right. Any unscheduled items from staff? All right. And then we'll now move on to the public. So if any members of the public have anything to say, please come forward and state your name for the record, and we will give you three minutes.

Sure. Hi. My name is Renee Paredes and I'm actually here on behalf of the Mukes Home Museum, which is your neighbor across the tracks. And it's interesting, you just mentioned the one hundred and fortieth anniversary of Fresno. The Mukes Home Museum has been standing for one hundred and thirty seven of those one hundred and forty years.

So, just wanted to introduce myself and a couple of members of the Board that are here, Quintin Hoskins, who is our Board President and also Maggie Booth, who is also a member of the Board with me. So I wanted to just let you know that we're here. And we are really looking forward to being a part of the Historical preservation month in 2026. We would love to be a lot more involved with that than perhaps we've had previously had the opportunity to. And we'd also, if you've never been to the house or you haven't been in a minute, come and see us. We're open Friday, Saturday and Sunday from twelve to three and we would love to host you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I will share my little thing is I do have your bride's mirror because my wife and I got married at the Mucs Home. So I have that at my house, and I cherish it every day. So thank you.

Wow. Linda Scambre, representing Heritage Fresno, our preservationist organization. And we have two events that I think you'd all like to attend. The first one will occur on July 29, the next night after your next meeting. And Bill Sekres will discuss the Hacienda hotels in California, the history in the building and whoever was behind them. And I've seen his presentation, it's excellent. He has a PowerPoint. That will be at Woodward Park Library, July 29, refreshments at six p. M, and the talk at 06:30. And you're all cordially invited to that.

I hope you can make it. And then, on August 13 that's a Wednesday Bill Secrest is a Tuesday August 13, Karana Hattersley Davis will speak on Chandler Field, the history of the architecture of Chandler Field. And I've also seen that presentation. It's a PowerPoint excellent. And that will be again six p. M. For refreshment, 06:30 for the program. And then, Heritage Resident has taken a great interest in the Warner's Theater. And anybody that's working on that that would like to discuss it with us, I believe that the one hundredth anniversary is 2028, if I'm not mistaken. And of course, the Kalya family is responsible for the fact that it's still standing.

It was going to be a parking lot had they not stepped in and purchased and preserved it. So, it's a very interesting history, and one that should be often mentioned and often, open to the public, if we could possibly do that to save it. It needs work as well as many times buildings of that age do. So, again, you're invited to these two presentations. Let us know if you're doing anything with Warner's. We'd love to know. Thank you.

Question is the Chandler Field presentation at Chandler or at Woodward Park Library?

It will be at the Woodward Park Library, both of these, because they have facilities for the PowerPoint. But if I think at some point, we'll try to do Chandler. We put it on historic month, one year, and nobody showed up. So, I think maybe if we could figure out how to get people there, it would be really a nice thing to do with a speaker who knew what the buildings, the age and the architectural history were. But this is a good one to get that information. Thank right.

Any other members from the public? All right. Seeing none, our next meeting is going to be July 28 at six It does look like it will be in this room here. And with that, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment.

Motion to approve? Adjournment. Motion to adjourn.

All right.

And a second?

Second.

All right. We stand adjourned at 07:17 p. M. Thank you.